There has been no progress and the damage has been catastrophic and prolific. Is an increase of 2,182 additional diplomas worth the irreparable damage done to 21,208 students? Hardly. The legislature has been overly patient with the commissioner and the Board of Regents. Legislative intervention is overdue.

William C. Cala
Superintendent, Fairport Central Schools

----------------------------

I'd like to respond to the 6/17 editorial "Educational Standards Under Assault":

Your editorial on 6/17/2005 reported that the state educational policy "is beginning to yield impressive results, especially in inner-city areas". Where is the data to support such claims? New York is ranked 40th nationally in high school graduation rates (The Manhattan Institute). Only 36% of Hispanics and 42% of African American graduate from high school(The Manhattan Institute). New York has the absolute lowest graduation rates for these groups in the entire country. The number of dropouts has actually increased over the past five years, so please show us where the "impressive results" are?

I agree that high standards and rigorous assessment are critical. I disagree that the Regents one-size-fits-all high stakes tests are the way to achieve this. We need to engage our students in meaningful ways so that they want to learn and stay in school. A portfolio assessment system including authentic assessment, demonstrations and testing is an appropriate, engaging and rigorous approach.

Portfolio assessments conform to standards, are rigorous and provide a more accurate assessment than a three-hour sit down Regents exam.

Sincerely,
Larry Federman
Mathematics teacher, Rochester, New York

----------------------------

Dear Editor:

As an educator who has spent much of the last decade examining New York's changing educational policies, the editorial of June 17th defending those policies seriously misrepresents the evidence. First, it is inaccurate to state that the panel of experts who evaluated the portfolio assessments at the Consortium Schools concluded that the schools were not measuring student progress in any meaningful way. In fact, the panel (appointed by the Commissioner) recommended that the waiver be extended so that the assessment process could be studied further. Mills ignored the recommendation of his own commission. Second, the Times should not confuse standards with standardized assessment. The standards are not under assault. What is being questioned are the standardized tests, which numerous stories in the Times have described as "flawed" and "beyond belief."

There are numerous studies showing that it is standardized tests that narrow and simplify the curriculum, in essence, lowering standards.

David Hursh, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Rochester

----------------------------

To the Editor:

In Educational Standards Under Assault (Editorial, June 17), you equate opposing high-stakes testing with destroying the progress that New York State has made in raising educational standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a teacher in alternative public schools in New York City, I have seen students forced to do sophisticated historical analysis, struggle to solve open-ended math problems, and design an experiment and defend their findings to a panel of outside experts.

Compare this with the state mandated tests that you describe as rigorous. On June’s math A exam a student need only get a raw score of 36 out of 84 to receive a passing grade of 65. That is less than 43%. The idea that high-stakes, standardized tests in New York have led to higher educational standards is a myth that explodes when you look at the tests themselves.

Robert Wieman
Math coach and staff developer, NYC Department of Education, Region 9, 2003 - present

----------------------------

To the editor:
Re: editorial by Brent Staples (NYTimes, June 16)

The public should be aware that the most prestigious private schools like Brearley, Horace Mann, Ramaz, Riverdale, and Dalton (to mention a few; there are over 90) do NOT take Regents exams. Why? Because these schools have determined that Regents tests would dumb-down curriculum and undermine instruction. These schools, like those in the NY Performance Standards Consortium,use outcome data: graduation rates, college going rates, and college performance to prove that their approach to accountability produces far better results. Why is it that only children of privilege are granted an exemption from harmful one-size-fits-all high stakes tests?

Jane Hirschmann
Co-chair
Time Out From Testing

----------------------------

Dear Editor:

The June 17, 2005 editorial on high stakes testing in New York schools ignores the inherent inequities in the current system and the real meaning of education. Whether or not the students are scoring higher, the underlying absurdity of these tests remains. What do they test? Certainly not a child's ability to think, reason, create, get along with others, contribute to society. Based on rote memorization, the tests squelch curiosity, create terror, stifle learning and creativity in teachers and students; geared in favor of children of certain economic and cultural backgrounds.

Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge." What do we really want for our young people; what do we hope for them? As the parent of a child just completing 8th grade, I can attest to the damaging, time-wasting exercise of the state mandated tests.

Sincerely,
Kathy Engel
Sagaponack NY