Integrated Geometry Regents – the cut score pools
—
Update 6/25: The correct answers were 41 and 71. I was (happily) way off. Congratulations to all those students who did well, and good luck to those who need to give it another shot next year!
—
One pool for 65. One pool for 85.
Out of 86, how many points will you need for a 65? How many for an 85?
Last January, on Integrated Algebra, 31 and 68 (scales down to 67). On Math B 49 and 71 (scale down to 48 and 69).
Smart money says to roughly cut the difference, say 40 for a pass and 68 for the 85.
My money’s not smart… Algebra is a graduation requirement, Geometry’s not. So I think we can ignore the Algebra scale. Also, as this is the first (almost) content-based math exam in a decade, raw scores will be up. Not only do I think the scale will be more like Math B’s, I think the number of high scores will lead them to set a relatively high pass. My guess stays at 51 for the pass, 67 for the high pass.
Why would Geometry have a higher cut than Math B? Slightly more students take it, and do better than on B (B is an awful grabbag, Geometry looks like a fairly focused course). The big thinkers will see the high scores and assume that the test was easy (rather than understanding that the course is better organized), and set a higher cut score to compensate. That’s my guess: 51; 67.
What’s yours?
JD2718 
43 raw score to convert to a 65
70 raw score to convert to a 85
50 raw score for a 65.
71 raw score for an 85.
shut up Doug, you dont know nothing about Geometry Regents, so just shut up. 43 raw score for the 65. ight.
Isn’t anyone out there the least bit concerned that the so-called NEW geometry regents was poorly written? And that it might have a raw score of ONLY 45-50 to get a 65? Why not make these regents out of 100 points (the way they used to be) and then see what percentage of students pass them each year? Is the State so worried that there would be enormous failures???
The test was poorly constructed for many reasons —there were 3 questions on the equation of a circle in a course that was chockful of concepts, a short answer question on locus that was on the intersection of 2 loci as well as a Part II question on locus, and the VERY FIRST question was so convoluted and difficult (anyone out there hear of making the first question on any exam the easiest one to build confidence for the students?), etc. There were so many ill-advised and poorly worded concepts, none of which were contextualized (which is easy to do on a geometry regents); for example, the measure of an arc didn’t even have the arc symbol above the two letters. In addition, in all my years of very successful teaching of geometry, I never saw such a bad regents exam. There was also 2 short answers on writing the equation of a line which is perpendicular to a given line (same concept twice again!. Additionally, in question #34, how does a student determine that the angles at C and G are corresponding angles when there are NO markings of any type on the triangles (did anyone out there ever hear that “one should never reason from the diagram without the given facts”?) And there were 2 questions on the composition of two transformations on the regents?
Surely, the writers of these regents can do a better job — please let me know if you agree.
For question 34, you determine the corresponding angles from the similarity statement given in the question.
Of course, the triangles are given similar in #34, but that does NOT imply that angles C and G correspond to each other and are therefore congruent. What if angle C corresponds to either angle F or E? I grant you that the diagram LOOKS like those two angles are congruent, but the only way for the students to make the correct information without more given information (either other pairs of corresponding angles or corresponding sides)is to ASSUME that from the diagram; we always taught students NOT to assume/reason from a diagram alone without given information. The question was very poorly worded and ill-conceived. A better question would be to make the markings on a pair of CONGRUENT triangles (given information of congruent sides and angles to make for example SAS congruent to SAS), and then have them identify and make an additional pair of corresponding angles (or sides) congruent by setting up the correct equation which would have them solve for x.
I’m with you, “experienced”. The test was very poorly written – and the fact that anonymous said “they should know from the similarity statement” in the given means that others are NOT aware of your very important, mathematical point. What are we testing the students on in this question and others? Is this a guessing game in which they are supposed to look at diagrams and make angles congruent because they appear that way in a diagram or are we teaching them to think and reason out and make valid conclusions from facts???
Also, the fact that the exams are based on a “curve” is a sham – passing the regents by getting 50 out of 87 points or worse 30 out of 86 on IA is outrageous! Why bother to give students a state-wide exam at all if you are going to allow such a low passing grade?
do you all just wonder about what the passing raw scor e is the new york state sens everyone a reference sheet so unless you actually have knowledge of regent curses/scales, dont talk out of your ass
I’ll disagree on the similarity question. If ABC ~ DEF, there’s a clear implication that A maps to D, B to E, and C to F (ie, the correspondence occurs in the same order the points are listed),
But no, I don’t think we should be giving these exams. I don’t think NYSED is competent to write them.
Many, many math texts do not use that notation as strictly as you described -and more importantly, isn’t it more worthwhile to have students understand the concept of “corresponding angles” instead of blindly following a notation order? I suggest that many students (if not all of the students) just guessed the relationship using the diagram to conclude that the measures of angles C and G would have to be set equal to find the value of x; what else could they do with the expressions in terms of x? With so many more important concepts from major topics to test on the regents(trigonometry, area of quadrilaterals, properties of special quadrilaterals, more interesting angle measurement in circles, contextualized problems using geometry, etc.), why use a question such as this one?
And what about my comments about curving the exam and making such a low percentage be the minimum passing grade on IA and Geometry regents…what do we think out there? Is this not ridiculous?
the massive curve is insulting to the teachers and degrading to the student. It sets them up to fail moving forward as we pass them on without the requisite skills needed to succeed
Painful to say but: 35 is going to be passing
Do you know something definitive, g-unit? Or is the 35 a guess?
To g- unit: do you know something definite or is that a guess?
I am hoping for 43 to become 65… I think that you are being overly optimistic if you think the grades will be so good. I am in a struggling district and we only had about 15 % pass without the curve. If not enough pass geometry then the
Alg 2 becomes totally irrelevant… how many math regents needed for an advanced regents diploma ???
This year’s current sophomores (2011 cohort) who already passed the Math A only need to pass the Math B or Alg. 2/Trig. to earn the advanced Regents diploma. Current freshman (2012) need all 3. But yes, failing the Geometry makes the Alg. 2/Trig. irrelevant in the future.
Cut scores are in: 41 for a 65 and 71 for mastery!
http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/concht/june09/geometrycc-09.htm