MHS Physics Exam:
Unprecedented Failure Rate May Not Reflect What Students Know

State and local newspapers are reporting an extraordinary failure rate for this year's Physics Regents exam. Administrators, teachers and students are complaining that the test "was radically more difficult this year and caused a sudden drop in the percentage of students who passed." (See The New York Times, Education June 25, 2002)

The view from Mamaroneck High School is somewhat different.

Yes, pass rates plummeted at MHS: The normal pass rate is 99-100% says Dr. Fred Levine, Mamaroneck physics teacher and Science Department Chairperson. Exam papers are still being reviewed, but it looks like the pass rate is only 80% of the approximately 110 students sitting for the test.

Students are "flipping out" according to Junior Zachary Cedarbaum, who received a 62 mark on the test despite earning 80's or 90's during the rest of the year. "It's unfair that more people were caused to fail than normal."

Nevertheless, Levine believes "They've lowered the standard," with this year's test. In an attempt to spend more time on particular subject matter, they have reduced the number of topics covered." For this test, some topics were removed and others added.

Levine suggested three major problems with this year's science exams.

1. Some of the topics added to the test are less important than those that were taken out.

2. On the basis of field tests, SED developed statistical methods to adjust a student's raw score into a final score. For some of the tests, including the physics, the State applied a "reverse curve." A borderline student with a passing "raw score" might receive a failing score once his score is curved. Levine estimates that there were "Seven or 8 students who would have passed" without the reverse curve.

3. In Levine's opinion, however, the major flaw was with the test's design and scoring. The test included a large number of multi-part items in which a single error on one part would impact a student's answer on the remaining parts. Also, if the student made the same error on different questions, he would be penalized each time. Many items required step-by-step mathematical calculations. If a student made an error in the first step, all subsequent calculations would be erroneous and the student would lose a large number of points. He estimates that these types of questions comprised about 15% of past tests, but 45% of this year's.

Cedarbaum lost credit this way for a minor omission. "I did all the work but I didn't put the units in until the final answer. I lost credit that would have given me a passing grade."

Another flaw concerned the answer sheet that. Levine displayed one item where the sheet provided a small area for responses. Only 4 students received full-credit and Levine surmised that most of the students stopped writing when they ran out of room.

Despite all his complaints, Levine conceded, "The test was not terrible. The kids should have known it - and many did but did not get the credit." In a letter to the parents, he said, "The questions on the regents that your child just took were in keeping with the curriculum that we taught. For the most part, we consider the examintation to have been a fair one." He goes on to tell the parents that because "the scores don't seem to reflect what our students have learned" the department will not be using the exam grade to calculate the students' final grade.

Zachary was happy to hear that the test will not pull down his final grade, but even if the score had counted, his year-long performance was strong enough to earn him a place in the Advanced Placement Physics B course for next year. And Zachary isn't letting the exam crisis slow him down. He is already working at a pharmaceutical company and lining up summer gigs as a DJ.

Story updated on: June 27, 2002---test

Discuss this topic in our forums, or send a letter to the editors.

Send this page to a friend

Discuss this topic in our forums, or send a letter to the editors.