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: algebra regents 2011
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jun 20, 2011 3:05 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Evan Romer

Posts: 168
Registered: 1/8/09
Regents scoring
Posted: Jun 19, 2011 6:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Because we are not allowed to rescore the 60-64s and 50-54s, our
department changed our scoring procedure this year. Based on scoring
the IA exam so far, I'm very, very pleased with how our new procedure
is working out, so I thought I'd share what we've done in case others
would find it helpful. (We have 8 teachers in our department.)

Normally we count on the rescoring to catch any scoring errors, as
well as any judgement calls, that would make a difference between
passing and failing. But no rescoring means we have to be really sure
to (a) not make scoring or bubbling errors, and (b) resolve judgement
calls upfront. We made two changes.

(0) In the past, we divided up into groups of 2-3 teachers. Groups A
would score #31, 35 and 39 (for example), while group B would score
#32, 34 and 38, etc.

Within a group, each paper would be scored by 1 teacher. Whenever a
teacher had a question, he or she would discuss it with the rest of
the group, or occasionally with the rest of the room.

(Change #1) (Suggested Friday morning by someone is our dept.)

This year, all the groups score #31 at the same time, then we all
score #32, and so on. (We have 8 teachers in the department.) We start
each question with a brief room-wide discussion of the rubric,
anticipated errors, etc. Then we start scoring, and every so often
pause to discuss a scoring issue as a large group.

I think this has made for better scoring and more consistency. Now it
doesn't matter if a given question is scoring a by a "tough" group or
a "lenient" group: we're all (more-or-less) consistent. Plus, when
there is a scoring issue, we get to draw on the insight, expertise and
experience of everyone in the room, not just the 2 or 3 teachers in
one group.

(Change #2) (I think this was suggested by someone on this listserv. I
shared it with the dept. and they adopted it.)

Each group has 2 teachers. Each paper is scored simultaneously by
both: I pick up a paper, we both look at it silently, I say, I think
that's a 2, my partner gives her score, we discuss, discuss with the
room if necessary. When we agree, one of us bubbles in the score on
the answer sheet, and the other person WATCHES THE BUBBLING. (I'm the
watcher in my group, not the bubbler, and I have trouble remembering
to watch.)

This catches a lot of scoring errors. I don't notice that the student
failed to label her graph, but my partner does. Student takes an
unusual approach which one of us manages to figure out for partial (or
full) credit....

And this (along with change #1) resolves most judgement calls upfront.

And I'm confident that we're not making bubbling errors. (I think "1
point off" and bubble in a 1.)

The only downside I see is that it's taking us maybe 20% (??) longer
to score this year. But there's no rescoring afterward, so maybe that
will balance out somewhat.

Does anyone else have a procedure that's working well for them?

Evan Romer
Susquehanna Valley HS

* 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.