In its recent raising of standards on the Biology I end-of-instruction exam, the state Department of Education did it the wrong way.

The standards were raised too dramatically, too quickly, without adequate buy-in from those involved, and final results were not available in a timely fashion for school districts to respond.

In last year's biology test, the department included more challenging questions at the same time that it had raised the minimum score for passing. The pass score was announced in August, after the test had been administered.

The test has real consequences. To receive a high school diploma, students must pass tests in Algebra I, and English II and two other areas from among five other choices, including biology.

State education officials say the process was well-discussed and publicized and handled in the same fashion as new tests were in the past, but local educators complain that by simultaneously making the questions harder and increasing the number of questions that had to be answered correctly (after the exam had been given), the state essentially moved the goal post after the game had started.

That's a fair analogy. Teachers often use pre-tests to gauge student preparations for exams. Naturally, teachers will concentrate their efforts on students who are just below passing level in hopes of getting them over the goal line.

If teachers concentrate on getting students to a 50 percent pass mark, no one should be surprised on high failure rates if the state puts the pass mark at 70 percent.

And it looks like a lot of kids didn't pass.

Tulsa World reporter Andrea Eger polled officials at seven area school districts and found that nearly 1,600 students who would have passed under previous standards did not pass under the higher ones.

Meanwhile, a member of the state committee of science teachers that deliberated where to set the "cut score" on the exam, told Tulsa World reporter Kim Archer that the pass level was set "much higher" than the panel recommended.

"Many educators are asking what the reason for subjectively deciding to fail half of all students is, when a committee of teachers looked at the test items objectively and came to a different cut score recommendation," said committee member Brandi Williams, who works at the University of Oklahoma.

The state education department disputes that there was any dramatic difference between the committee's recommendations and the final standard set by the state Board of Education.

The new pass score deviated from the median suggestion of committee members by only two or three questions, the department says.

Aggravating the situation is the fact that the state didn't get final results on the exam back to districts until after the school year began, meaning addressing the needs of students to remediate before taking the exam again is made much more difficult.

We agree with state Superintendent Janet Barresi's assertion that raising standards will raise performance, but standards should be raised gradually.

Teachers, administrators, parents and others need to agree on the process, and results have to be complete in time for districts to deal with the information in an orderly fashion.

Do that, and you not only raise standards, but you have a chance at raising results.