By Veronica Witkowski
Those of us who grew up in New York are likely familiar with the Regents exams. These standardized tests have been used to assess student learning and understanding since 1864. Currently, to graduate with a Regents Diploma, students must pass at least 5 Regents exams. Recently, however, the New York State Board of Regents has voted to replace the test requirement with the “portrait of a graduate,” which lists 6 traits students must have in order to graduate, including being a “global citizen” and a “creative innovator.” Students will be able to demonstrate these skills through assessments, projects, or experiences. Replacing the standardized test graduation requirement with these vague criteria is extremely harmful to New York students.
Standardized exams allow students to benefit from increased rigor. Studies show that in the absence of a standardized (and thus comparable and objective) testing system, long-term benefits of higher standards would not be visible and there would be little motivation for increased rigor. If requirements for graduation were adjudicated on a school-by-school basis, a school with more lenient requirements would have higher graduation rates, and thus deceptively appear to provide a better education. Rather than relying on individual, subjective teachers, a statewide standardized testing system allows prospective students to compare schools. It also protects students from being harmed by an overly strict or lenient teacher, thus making the education system more fair for everyone.
Standardized testing also allows students to be better prepared for future success. One study found that minimum competency exams increased the attendance rates and the post-graduate earnings of students. Other studies have also found that standardized exam scores are good indicators of college and career readiness and success. Eliminating these requirements does not help students who the exams determine to be poorly prepared. Rather, this change conceals the issue, thus preventing struggling students from receiving the help they need to improve and set themselves up for future success. Indeed, evidence suggests that standardized exit exams benefit disadvantaged students more than advantaged ones.
Some opponents of Regents exams, or standardized tests in general, argue that they place too much pressure on students who may not be good test takers. Though it is true that standardized exams may be a source of stress, this is not necessarily harmful. There is research to suggest that if students frame their exam-related stress as a positive motivator, it can actually improve their performance.
Additionally, opponents of standardized exams argue that they should not be required because White/Asian students tend to pass these exams at higher rates than Black/Hispanic students. Evidence suggests that these gaps are strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, and that performance differences are largely connected to economic means of students, schools, and states. Thus, eliminating Regents exam requirements would do little to actually improve the educations of students who are currently underperforming or failing on these tests. The Board of Regents and opponents of testing seem to believe that if more students are able to graduate under flexible requirements rather than tests, then these students must be getting a better education without the exams. This is ignoring the true problem. Eliminating these tests just conceals the inequalities and inadequate education that are presently causing disparate outcomes.
Eliminating Regents exam requirements for graduation does not address the reasons why students are failing. Rather than actually improve the education system, New York wants to change the way success is measured, lowering the bar to allow students to pass regardless of whether they are actually learning. Standardized testing provides an objective measure of learning that is not influenced by the subjective grading of individual teachers. It also rewards rigorous curricula. Standardized test scores are a predictor of future success and can be used to identify students who are struggling and get them the help they need to succeed. Instead, New York looks to conceal its educational issues under a veneer of reform and equity, while actually leaving students more ill-equipped than ever to enter the real world.
