City could cancel Pearson G&T contract after new error revealed
 |
THE UNITED STATES OF PEARSON? |
Department of Education officials say a fourth error by Pearson in grading city students’ gifted screening exams could be the final straw in their contract with the testing supergiant.
Last month, the department announced that Pearson had made three serious errors when grading the screening tests, leading to nearly 5,000 children getting scores that were lower than they deserved. The department issued new score reports and extended the deadline for applying to gifted programs by three weeks.
Today, on the new application deadline, the department revealed that Pearson had made yet another error. Like the first ones, the mistake was detected only after a parent asked for an explanation of how her child’s score had been calculated, officials said. About 300 additional students’ scores were artificially depressed because of the latest error, according to the department.
Chancellor Dennis Walcott said in a statement that he had lost confidence in Pearson after the company had convinced him that its second attempt to get the scoring right had been thorough and accurate.
“This failure to complete the basic quality assurance checks Pearson confirmed that they had completed is
Last month, the department announced that Pearson had made three serious errors when grading the screening tests, leading to nearly 5,000 children getting scores that were lower than they deserved. The department issued new score reports and extended the deadline for applying to gifted programs by three weeks.
Today, on the new application deadline, the department revealed that Pearson had made yet another error. Like the first ones, the mistake was detected only after a parent asked for an explanation of how her child’s score had been calculated, officials said. About 300 additional students’ scores were artificially depressed because of the latest error, according to the department.
Chancellor Dennis Walcott said in a statement that he had lost confidence in Pearson after the company had convinced him that its second attempt to get the scoring right had been thorough and accurate.
“This failure to complete the basic quality assurance checks Pearson confirmed that they had completed is