<p>But they took it seriously enough to cheat on it. As somebody explained above, apparently performance on the test affects your grades, so it’s not enough to just pass the test. Doing well matters.</p>
<p>Here in Maryland, I can’t imagine any good student cheating on the HSAs, because all you have to do is pass. The results don’t affect your grades, and aren’t reported to colleges.</p>
<p>
The fact that they cheated so blatantly shows that the students did not take the test seriously. Also, it’s up to each individual teacher’s discretion whether the Regents grade counts toward the class grade at all. Overall, it probably skews to about 70% of teachers not counting it at all.</p>
<p>It may be surprising to you, but it’s not in the least surprising here because there is such a conflict about whether the tests should be given at all. They are changed constantly, as are the requirements, and every couple of years questions or actual tests are disqualified completely. The whole system is a mess.</p>
<p>I don’t understand why the students were allowed to have cell phones in the rooms during the exams. My D just graduated from Stuy and said that during AP exams, everyone has to leave their phones in their lockers, nothing at all can be brought into the testing rooms. Why don’t they have the same policy for Regent exams, finals, etc?</p>
<p>^I can’t imagine, in fact the city says you can’t have cellphones at all in the schools. At some schools (probably ones with metal detectors) local bodegas actually do business in keeping student’s cellphones while they are in school.</p>
<p>In the schools without metal detectors, there is a don’t ask, don’t show policy in practice. My daughter graduated from an IB program two years ago in a school without detectors. A couple of times a year, the city would bring portable metal detectors to the school and on those days, teachers and deans would stand outside the school and warn kids being dropped off to leave the phones with parents and personally hold the phones of kids arriving without a parent.</p>
<p>I would doubt that all of those students had cell phones in the test. I would doubt even more that the majority of those students checked their phone during the test. I would bet that the district decided there was absolutely no way to determine who did and did not check their phones, or who even had them with them in the room. So the only “fair” thing to do was to have everyone that the text was sent to re-take the test. </p>
<p>I believe that if they could prove that any one of the other students intentionally used the information that was text to them, or that there was a group that paid him to send answers to them, there would be a much stronger punishment for those kids. There is just no way to determine that information at this time. </p>
<p>At least this way they will still get their scores, and no infractions on their “record”. It is not a perfect solution, but it may be the only fair one.</p>
<p>The proctors were probably texting.</p>
<p>You can see in the NYT article the seeds of this crap. The article can’t avoid the usual whining about standardized tests. Many, if not most teachers are against any test that they don’t give, and can’t control. When they are measured by them, they’re happy to see higher scores, as opposed to honest scores.</p>
<p>If you were proctoring a room of 30-40 kids, you could stand up and walk around during the test, and no one would be able to get his fingers on his phone without you seeing it. I’ll bet the percentage of proctors who stood up in the center of the classroom for more than a minute or two was quite low. Too strenous, too potentially disruptive, and anyway, who really cares. After all, the students are so much more than their test scores.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why would they do business as usual, which is relying on tricks and cheating? The issue here is not if one student decided to text his friends during an exam, and share some “information” about an insignificant test; the real issue is that this does seem a rather mundane and routine affair. Students do not simply develop such methods overnight or find divine inspiration without prior arrangement. </p>
<p>In addition to the act itself, the schools should look at the intentions, and realize that they have been duped for a long time by students. The facts that this happens on a not-so-important test is telling. Students must be keenly aware of the risks versus rewards. </p>
<p>I would be floored to learn that the Stuy students do not have a huge library of past tests and other cheating tools, probably neatly divided along the racial distribution. People do not get born with an interest in cheating; it is acquired over time, and results from parental or peer pressure, but mostly from a culture that stresses obtaining the results at all cost and with or without honor.</p>
<p>Last but not least, it is extremely doubtful that there is no duplicity at the school itself. Higher scores and higher grades are as important to teachers and admins. The weakest links of all standardized test is easily found within the four corners of the school.</p>
<p>
Don’t be floored. You’re right.</p>
<p>Bronx Science Graduate here. For those not from NY, to get into either Stuyvesant or Bronx Science middle school students must take the same entrance exam. Based on their score and first choice, minumum test scores or established. When I was in high school none of my teachers would except the Regents as part of our grade. The thought process was it was easier than any final exam the teacher was going to administer. My senior year a cheating scandal also broke out. A bunch of private school kids stole some of the Regents exams and the answer key spread throughout high schools in the city. I remember arriving to take the test and hundreds of students congegated in front of the school all who had the answer key and were willing to share it with any one who wanted it. The city ended up throwing out the test results.</p>
<p>The point I want to make is these kids were not afraid of failing the Regents. Acing it would not help them in any college admissions or bypassing any class requirements unlike AP exams. It is ridiculous and archaic that the Board of Education still makes kids take these Regents exams when no other state in the country requires their students to do so.</p>
<p>To this day I can remember the feeling of immense relief when I found out that the Regents Physics exam would not be given due to the test being stolen. That was 1974.</p>
<p>Should we conclude that cheating is a form of rebellion against the Regents?</p>
<p>Interesting that the answer to pass a trivial test is to have to cheat on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that is true, why cheat? Is it a sport?</p>
<p>I actually think on the whole the Regent’s are a good idea because they put every teacher on notice what the curriculum is expected to cover and at least sets minimal standards.</p>
<p>To answer your question yes to them it probably is a sport. Or a challenge. If any of these kids were in danger of failing the Regents they would be failing the class associated with it regardless of their Regents score.</p>
<p>Perhaps only those whose teachers DID use the Regents as a course grade bothered to cheat on it.</p>
<p>I feel that putting together a cheating ring as large as 70 people is more consistent with cheating for sport or dare (still bad, but different) than cheating carefully and in dead earnest to improve one’s grades.</p>
<p>There’s also an element of “don’t you people know we have more important tests to study for?” entitlement.</p>
<p>Both those things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not see it as a sport or a dare; I see it as the reflection of a deeply ingrained culture of organized cheating. They have gotten away with the cheating for so long, that the danger of being caught is simply a distant thought.</p>
<p>But they don’t see it as “cheating.” It’s often viewed as a process of expediency which makes their lives easier and allows them to get on to the things they view as more important and which are more fitting to their roles in society.</p>