State raises standards, but who’s going to pay?

It’s now a bit harder to pass the New York state English Language Arts and math tests. In a move that has confounded local school officials and is bound to confuse and upset many parents, State Education Department leaders recently announced that they were raising the raw scores that determine proficiency levels on the standardized tests taken by students in third through eighth grades.

Although it was rumored for months that this change was coming, it was officially announced two months after students took the tests and school budgets for 2010-11 were adopted. The proficiency rate — the percentage of students who pass or excel on the tests by scoring at levels 3 and 4 — plays a big role in any district’s budget. That’s because students who do not meet the state standards — those who score at levels 1 and 2 — must receive extra academic support in the subject in which they are not proficient.

Simply put, if more students fail the tests, more students will need extra help. And that requires additional financial resources. In a time of decreasing state aid and overburdened property owners, we wonder where the money will come from. It’s possible that other programs could be cut, or taxes could go up, as a result of the change.

State education law mandates Academic Intervention Services for students who are not meeting state standards. These classes must be taught by certified staff members and must supplement the regular classroom instruction a child receives. Districts do have some flexibility in their offerings of AIS, including whether it takes place before, during or after school, the number of sessions per week and the time involved. Those decisions are usually based on each student’s needs.

Along with many educators, we applaud the state’s effort to increase academic rigor. It seems that state education leaders did their homework in determining that just because students passed the state tests, that didn’t necessarily mean they were prepared for higher-level work. We agree that students should be prepared for success in high school and beyond, without needing remedial help at those higher levels.

But what, exactly, did the change in scoring accomplish this year? Because budgets for the 2010-11 school year are already set, the state now says that the mandated extra help is required only for students who would have failed under the old, less-stringent standards. This undercuts the purpose of raising the bar, which is to identify and support the larger number of students who need help now.

Eventually, we believe, more students will get more help and be better prepared to continue their studies, but we have to question why the State Education Department undertook a standards readjustment this summer.

There is an obvious disconnect between state education leaders and the legislators who must create budgets that accommodate such changes, so school districts aren’t hit with yet another unfunded mandate.

The Education Department should have been more cognizant of the state’s dire financial situation as well as the challenges facing individual school districts and taxpayers. A longer-term plan to implement the higher standards would have made more sense, to allow legislators and school districts to properly budget for the higher numbers of students in remedial programs.

The Education Department needs to provide more guidance to school districts, well in advance of budget deadlines. It needs to make clear what it expects from students and how districts can meet those goals.

And we all must be mindful that the tests are only one measure of a student’s performance, providing only part of the picture of his or her success in school. There are many other indicators of a student’s achievements, on display at any school concert, art show, science fair or athletic competition. There’s much more to true proficiency than a number on a piece of paper.