The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Professional Associations » nyshsmath

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Geometry Proofs
Replies: 1   Last Post: Oct 22, 2008 10:22 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Evan Romer

Posts: 213
Registered: 12/3/04
RE: Geometry Proofs
Posted: Oct 22, 2008 10:22 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

There was a discussion here a few days ago* about how geometry proofs
would be graded on the Geometry Regents, and specifically,
"Traditionally, when we taught Course II or Math B, we were permitted
to grade proofs using whatever we had insisted on in our schools...
I?m assuming the same rules will apply for the new exams." (Roberta
Silver ) and "I wouldn't assume anything" (Sharon)

I think Sharon's right not to assume anything. So I asked John
Svendsen about it -- his reply is below. (That's the answer I was
hoping for.)

- -- Evan Romer
Susquehanna Valley HS

*Ed. note: see

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

Begin forwarded message:

> Hi Evan-
> You are correct. The policy remains the same. For further
> corroboration, the definition of proof in the Mathematics Core
> Curriculum (revised 2005) states "Students will present a valid
> argument, expressed in written form, justified by axioms,
> definitions, and theorems using properties of perpendicularity,
> parallelism, congruence, and similarity with polygons and circles."
> John Svendsen
> Associate of Mathematics
> Office of Curriculum, Instruction
> & Instructional Technology
> NYS Education Department
> EB 320
> Albany, N.Y. 12234
> (518) 474-5922
> (518) 486-1385 (fax)

>> "Evan Romer" <> 10/21/2008 6:08 PM >>>
>> John --
>> I have been assuming that the guidelines for scoring geometry
>> proofs will be the same as they have in the past. Specifically, in
>> the past we have scored them the way we taught the students to do
>> them. If we taught that they could use "Defn of angle bisector" as
>> a reason, we would accept that on the Regents exam. But if we
>> insisted that they actually state the definition, then we would
>> require that on the Regents. Similarly for accepting or not
>> accepting "CPCTC," or how many detailed steps are required for
>> segment addition etc., etc.
>> Will this continue to be the policy on the new assessment, or will
>> there be more specific requirements for what counts as a valid
>> proof? (Please say that the old policy remains in effect.)
>> It's not just our district wondering about this: I think a lot of
>> districts have the same question (or are assuming no change in
>> policy).
>> -- Evan Romer
>> Math Dept. Chair
>> Susquehanna Valley HS
>> Conklin, NY\

* To unsubscribe from this mailing list, email the message
* "unsubscribe nyshsmath" to
* Read prior posts and download attachments from the web archives at

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.