I remember the 'good ole days' of sequential math and math 1,2, and 3. Was it really such a bad thing to give students the choice of 30/35 and 4/7? Certainly, in an exam that is as weighted as the one that we just administered, the student who failed to master the topics that were so heavily represented was at a marked disadvantage.
I 'took a walk' through some of the old sequential math regents on the JMAP site. We may have complained about those back in the day, but let me tell you - those were far better in design than what we are stuck with now.
Some may argue that giving students a choice meant that they could avoid topics that they failed to master. Well.....a student who put tremendous effort into graphing (and let's face it - we all put a great deal of emphasis on that), or other topics that were completely ignored, in effect 'avoided' certain topic areas, but many of those areas are critical to future understanding and lay foundational blocks for topics that are yet to come.
As usual, there were ambiguous questions and naturally, some questions will have to be credited for more than one response. I don't remember seeing many of those on the old sequential exams. But maybe, in my dotage, I just can't remember much at all.
A few months ago, parents raised a hullaballo about the ELA and math tests that were aligned to the common core and were administered to grades 3-8. In protest, many parents kept their children home from school on the day they were to be given. Perhaps a similar protest is needed regarding math regents - and maybe regents in general. I've noticed a general decline in the quality of the tests over the last ten years or so.