'Do No Harm' school policy on Regents exams fails the test

The move by some Long Island school districts to count Regents test scores only if they help a student's average, and not those that could hurt a final grade, must be viewed within the context of a much larger conversation about how we should evaluate students' academic performances.

That's a necessary discussion, with complex questions that deserve more thoughtful solutions. The answer isn't as easy as doing away with standardized testing or allowing it to matter only when a student does well. Such approaches mask the very real difficulties our students continue to face and the more nuanced solutions we should be contemplating.

The effort to do away with or shift the importance of standardized tests isn't new. The so-called opt-out movement, mostly focused on elementary school state tests, began more than eight years ago. But the COVID-19 pandemic, and the academic, social and emotional toll it took on students of all ages, has led to a broader rethinking of much standardized testing — from primary grade-level measures to the Regents exams, college entrances tests and those for some professional schools.

Existing tests are far from perfect. There are legitimate concerns over the business of test prep, the private companies responsible for developing and administering the exams, and the potential misalignment between some tests and what's being taught.

But to somehow decide that the same score on a Regents exam should matter to one student's grade but not to another's, as local districts' so-called "Do No Harm" policies do, makes little sense. It sends us down a dangerous path, where it's far more difficult to measure student success and achievement, or to hold educators, administrators and public officials accountable.

It's more important than ever to establish appropriate standards, to have an array of assessment tools, and to understand what we have to do better. The only way for this nation to compete on an increasingly global playing field is by trying to meet the needs of students at all levels, from those at the top, whose Regents scores will only boost already high grades, to those who are struggling, whose standardized test results could perhaps help parents and teachers and counselors learn how to better reach them. 

In trying to "do no harm," school administrators are taking a risk — that they might end up doing more harm, that their efforts to reduce anxiety and make tests matter only for some could lead to unintended consequences. There are lessons students can learn from failure; sending a message that poor performance won't matter is mistaken because someday, it will.

Schools must take a broader approach that goes beyond chipping at the edges of testing protocol to address our students' broader challenges — those that stemmed from COVID and those that existed long before it. That's a far more difficult and nuanced effort, but it'll do far more good than the "Do No Harm" policy ever could.