Columnist Bill Hanlon: Exam grades should reflect a standard, not a ‘norm’

Bill Hanlon

Saturday, Jan. 17, 1998 | 9:33 a.m.

BASED ON THE RESULTS of the math portion of the new Nevada Proficiency Exam, parent involvement in schools should increase. Typically, most people support raising educational standards, but that support is kin to supporting taxes: It's dependent upon who is paying the tab.

Three years ago, the state Board of Education directed the department to create a new, more rigorous and more appropriate high school exit exam. Most kids considered the old test a joke. The new test questions students in algebra, geometry, probability and statistics. The results are in from the October testing: The result is a statewide average of 57 percent.

The intent of many members of the state board was to implement the test over a two-year period. The Nevada Legislature pushed that timetable up to this year. While I don't have the complete breakdown of the information, I would think that the distribution of scores will be normal, and the median is also in the area of 57 percent. That means that 50 percent of the students scored below 57 percent.

In the past, a passing score was determined by norming this test. In other words, the board looked at how the students performed, then set a cut score for passing. That philosophy led to students not taking the exam -- and school -- seriously. The appetite of the state board and the direction of the Legislature is that, since this proficiency test is a criterion-referenced test, a test that measures what has been taught in school, a passing score should show proficiency. That means the passing score should be between 70 percent and 80 percent. The legislature also mandated the passing score be increased every year for three years.

Logistically, that's going to create some problems. Here's the rub: Somebody has to pay the piper. If the state board were to set a passing grade of 65 percent, a D, the first year, I would predict that 60 percent to 70 percent of the student population would fail the test, hence, not graduate high school. Is the Legislature going to set aside funds for remediation? While most parents might figure having higher accountability standards is good, how will they feel when they get the letter indicating their kids are not going to graduate or how will they feel when their kids' schedules are changed midway through their senior year to accommodate remedial efforts by the school so they can pass the exam? Now keep in mind, Nevada has the fifth highest credit requirement in the nation for graduation. There is little or no flexibility in the system. Will class changes in the middle of the year result in a loss of credits which would, in turn, result in students who finally pass the test not being able to graduate?

I hope this dismal showing finally puts to rest the argument that having a high number of credits required for high school graduation equates to having high educational standards.

As bad as the test results are in math, I don't believe the situation is as bad as some might perceive. I don't believe the test is unreasonable. I believe that the experts' arguments were flawed. They argued that all students were being taught the material that was being tested. I didn't have to be a genius to know that wasn't true. Heck, all I had to know was the board, under the influence of resolutions passed by the Legislature, was still approving substitutions in the core curriculum. I knew classes like woodworking substituting for math were not covering probability or statistics. The fact is, it is just not right to test kids on material they were not taught.

Now that administrators, teachers and students know what to expect on the test, changes in the curriculum will take place. The proficiency test itself will also be taken more seriously.

You might remember that the state board did not allow the use of calculators on the test. That was a decision almost forced on the board because of the stupidity of the Nevada Math Council. Hopefully, that group, along with its counterparts in the north and south, will smarten up. Those groups advocated the use of calculators on the test and resisted having students tested on basic skills. It was my opinion, and probably the opinion of most of the board, that the proficiency test in math should have two parts, one part a test a basic skills without a calculator and the second part made up of problem-solving with a calculator. I could never justify having a student graduate high school who could not add, subtract, multiply or divide.

As just one individual on the state board, I have absolutely no intention of setting a passing rate that approximates 57 percent. I might be persuaded to set the first year at 65 percent, the second year at 70 percent and the third at 75 percent, but I will never agree to setting the passing rate on a proficiency exam at what I consider a failing grade of 57 percent. I think 65 percent is too low.