On the rubric, they completely ignored the substitution of 3(7 + 6) = 5(7) + 4.

The first line was 21 + 18 = 35 + 4. The graders at my site were almost universally not giving any points for putting 3(13) = 35 + 4. It would have been one thing (still frustrating but logistically understandable) if they gave credit for doing it both ways, but, for over two days, literally nobody i spoke to understood that using the distributive property (rather than the order of operations) to check this problem was flat out wrong. Finally I ended up FAXING an explanation as to why it was wrong, demonstrating that if you mess up the distribution by only multiplying the variable, you’ll get that the answer is 1 and not 7, and a subsequent check (making the same mistake) would confirm that one was the correct answer. In the afternoon of the 3rd (and final) day of grading, somebody at headquarters finally conceded that it was flat out wrong and that they were giving points to kids who got it wrong but not those who got it right, but told me that it was too late to do anything about it. I was a first year teacher so didn’t want to piss anybody off any more than I had already, but my one of my biggest regrets from now 10 years of teaching is that I didn’t fight even harder (or just gone to the News or Post). But the worst part wasn’t that the rubric was wrong to begin with, it was how few people, including fellow teachers, who even partially understood that there was even a problem in the first place…

I’m not familiar with that problem. Do you have a link?

But it reminds me of this Regents question from 2011, where the student’s score decreased for being less incorrect.

]]>You are welcome to inspect for yourself.

The G.SRT standards are here, and I’ve create a Google search of Engage NY materials for “parallel line theorem” here.

]]>Emily DeSantis, a spokeswoman for the NYSED, mentioned that the Geometry Regents Exam is written and graded according to the concepts included in geometry, specifically cluster G.SRT.B, ( in her recent email to ABC News). Yes, the Geometry Regents Exam made national news; albeit just the grading of one problem.

Does this cluster G.SRT.B not provide definitions?

Does this cluster G.SRT.B or EngageNY include:

Theorem. If Line A is parallel is to Line B, which in turn is parallel to Line C, then Line A is parallel to Line C (except when Lines A and C are the same).

or

Theorem. If Line A is parallel is to Line B, which in turn is parallel to Line C, then Line A is parallel to Line C.

There is no official list of definitions provided by the state. The closest approximation to that are the curricular materials provided by EngageNY (NY’s official unofficial curriculum), and those materials support the claim that a line is not parallel to itself.

]]>If the definition excludes a line being parallel to itself, then being parallel would not be a transitive property. Boo. This would then require the awkward statement:

Theorem. If Line A is parallel is to Line B, which in turn is parallel to Line C, then Line A is parallel to Line C (except when Lines A and C are the same). ]]>