The School Principal – Critiquing 2025-26 NYS ELA Spring Performance Testing

NYS ELA spring testing results for grades 3-8 will be in school district administrators’ hands sometime this month. As in the past, the results provide data and information to help improve student performance in the next school year. While there are a number of areas that are worthy of interpretation, none is more important than the performance portion of the test. Here is where students respond to short and extended test items in writing. Unlike objective test items, performance items require students to respond in their own voices to demonstrate an ability to reason and explain what they are asked to do. Also, students are given adequate time to complete the tasks.

Two-point, short-response items require students to read a passage and respond to a prompt based on the reading and understanding of the passage. Students are required to answer a question that should result in an inference and provide two details from the passage supporting the inference. Support may include a paraphrase from the passage. Typically, the tests contain five short-response items.

Except for grade 3, a four-point extended-response item is required in grades 4-8. Students read paired passages and answer a prompt relating to the passages. This item is often referred to as an essay, and student responses to the prompt are scored using a rubric designed for this task.

The Problem

Both short and extended test items require students to respond in writing using computer software. In the past this portion of the test was done on paper. In scoring these tests over the years, it has become clear that most students are not ready to respond adequately on a computer. Often with short-response items an inference is attempted with huge portions of the text copied and pasted into the response, making it difficult to discern whether the student’s response meets the intent of the task. A proper response would be to copy the sentence(s) to support an inference, rather than a paragraph or paragraphs.

The extended-response item presents an even bigger problem with students copying, covering most of the response. Therefore, little of a student’s voice is discerned to show an understanding of what the task requires. In addition, often the responses show little or no structure devoid of paragraphing to make clear and an introduction and conclusion. If the intent of these tests is to show what students know and can do, it is currently missing its mark in light of student readiness to use a computer to fulfill the tasks.

Possible Solution

The State could have students take the objective portion of the test on a computer and the performance portion of the test on paper. This would provide an authentic demonstration of student performance, as it did when the entire test was taken in writing. Initial results have shown instances where students with disabilities who take the tests on paper do better than their peers in the regular school program.

As a former principal and superintendent, my desire is to know what my students are able to demonstrate authentically on the performance dimension of these tests. I’ll deal with the computer issue over time. The State Education Department staff in charge of the testing program need to examine this issue if the program results are to be useful in improving student outcomes. An examination of actual student attempts to respond to both short and extended items will make the issue clear. I would encourage local school districts to have staff do the same. While the use of technology is understandable, it needs to be used when and where users are ready. This is not the time.

Those interested in learning more about EdVistas professional learning may do so by contacting Pete Cooper at 518-925-6021 or pcooper@edvistas.com.