The article states that the state of California has created a mandatory standardized exit exam for all students intending to graduate high school in a given year, no matter what who you are or where you live. The seniors of 2006 would be the first class required to pass the exam to graduate, and the knowledge that there is an exam at the end of high school has caused students to study harder, learn more, and to seek help when they need it. A public advocacy group feels that the tests are unfair and discriminating to students who don't have the opportunity to get a level of education equal to that at some other schools, and is suing the state to get the exam stopped. A court date is scheduled for next Tuesday. The same judge who will be judging the new case, has already judged in a previous case requeesting that special education students be allowed to take a different exam. That case won, and the special educatin students are exempt from the exam for a year, while an alternative is created.
Now, upon reading this I was slightly surprised. Surprised first, at the initial idea of an exit exam for high school - but more so surprised at the idea that people feel it is unfair. Aren't we always the people who are fighting for equal education, equal opportunites to our students - no matter where they live, how rich they are or how poor we are? Aren't we the ones who want the very best for our students? More so, isn't that our responisibility as a country - to educate the rising generations?
I feel that an exit exam would be a call to action among the school systems. It would be no longer a system of "Pass your classes with a D- and get out of our school systems" but instead a system of "Hey, we want you to succeed and graduate, and we are willing to help out all we can to do so." That second one, that is a system that I would be proud of. Some students don't get such good education? Find teachers who can do a better job, even educate the teachers better if that's what it takes. Do anything really - just please, help our students to excel!
I mean, is this what our country has come to? Don't we care about our students? Don't we care if some students are getting a poorer education, and shouldn't we be doing something about it? Does it not matter to us that this very same generation will be leading us someday? I think that majority of students in California's system would have no trouble passing that exam. And the ones who need to work a little harder to pass it? They'll have really earned that degree they have. I hope that the exam stays.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You are right, the exams are urging both students and teachers to excell. Maybe at first this initiative will be a little hard to accept, but in the end they will see the advantages it supposes.
I'm older than most posting here but let me be Socratic: Is education for providing education or simply for providing a diploma that may signify nothing?
Nearly 20 years ago when I was still a newspaper reporter, I took a teacher qualification test in Texas mandated by reforms pushed through by H. Ross Perot. I completed the 100 questions in a matter of minutes and scored 100. I'm no genius. (Far from it.) Quite honestly, I can't remember the last time I scored a 100 on any test. However, the politics of education and the influence of the teachers' unions made sure the test -- designed to ensure the teachers were competent -- was a joke.
I've heard this "exit exam", or California competency test, is equally moronic. In short, only someone lacking the most rudimentary education cannot pass this test which only requires a score of only 50 percent. (Non-English speaking students are obviously at risk. It could be argued quite handily that not knowing the language of the country you're in is a handicap on the road to success.)
An unintended dilemma facing Judge Freedman is this: If you grant everyone a diploma after a considerable number of students have failed to demonstrate basic academic proficiency (at a very, very modest level) then you have tarred ALL students, even those who do have the essential educational preparation.
Therefore, ruling against a minimum standards test not only allows educators and a badly flawed educational system to scurry back into the shadows after failing those it was supposed to teach, it also has the effect of stigmatizing all those from public schools who enter the world looking for an entry level job. (Those heading for college will take college board tests and produce transcripts, so their academic competency will be established. Those who must take exams to qualify for a job will find that a scrap of paper known as a diploma is worthless.)
Doing something that seems nice or makes us all feels good -- such as granting phony diplomas -- may, in fact, be nothing more than a means of hiding failure on the part of the school system, the students and the parents.
I've covered a number of school districts and school boards and was routinely appalled by how inefficient, politically-charged, corrupt and dysfunctional the business of running schools can be.
There are superb, highly-skilled, brilliant, dedicated teachers. However, there are far fewer than you realize. Often the best leave and the worst stay.
You can only imagine the result.
As a child of the 1950s I can tell you it was normal for moms and dads to make a great sacrifice to purchase a set of encyclopedias and children's literature before their kids even entered school. Many children came to Kindergarten already able to accomplish many tasks. There were NO EXCUSES in those tough, unyielding, unairconditioned days. The teachers were always right (parents didn't hire lawyers to dispute every grade and disciplinary decision) and the children were THEMSELVES responsible for listening and learning.
Now there is plenty of air-conditioning, teacher's salaries are far better and unfortunately, there are also plenty of excuses.
Thanks for your in depth answer! You made many good points. While good in some ways, and bad in others, the world we live in now is a completely different place than in the 50's, but I have an idea of how corrupt our school systems can be. And I also know how much some teachers lack in the way of well, teaching skills.
I believe a lot of the desire to learn from a student comes from the teachers and parents of the students - a lot of it is environmental. In a stable environment, with good parents, and dedicated and/or inspiring teacher (at least one really inspiring teacher is all it takes), then any student can be given the desire to learn and excel. At least in a perfect world. The problem is that we don't live in a perfect world. A lot of students only have horrible teachers, live in neighborhoods where just surviving until the next school day is a feat in itself and/or a slew of other problems.
The question is what do we do? Do we give out diplomas, just happy to have most students graduating, regardless of their grades? Then you give out phony diplomas. Do we give them tests to make sure they deserve those diplomas? Then some people are afraid that less will graduate...
Thanks for giving your feedback! :)
I don't know where you are from, but I'm from southern California. So, I was exposed to the public school system directly, and by word of mouth through news. See the problem is, California is one of the worst states in the nation for education. There is no funding, which means there are few teachers, few of which are worth while. On top of that, what good teacher that has potential wants to work at a place like Compton Centennial High School (home of the Crips). I'll tell you: None.
So your intentions are good. There should be a high standard for education. But if they implemented that test now, it would just mean less people with high school diplomas. (LA unified school district already had a 1/3 drop-out rate last year.) And less pepple with high school diplomas means less individuals qualified for a lot of things but street life.
I wish it was, but the problem really just isn't as simple as making a test that will provide incentive. If you have any solutions, I'd love to hear them.
Alex J.
==============================================
"Follow not me, but you!" -Friedrich Nietzsche
I didn't think about that aspect of it. Obviously I'm not from California - Minnesota, where our educations are overall pretty good I would guess.
I can definitely see your point. I wouldn't want to work where the Crips are. Maybe the tests are something they should put as a "practice" exit exam for a few years first, to see the results. Perhaps as something that wouldn't actually cause people to not graduate, but something to take anyways, to see how many people would or would not pass? Of course, the problem with that is if you tell these kids that it is just a practice test and has no bearing on whether you graduate or not, then most the people wouldn't care anyways and either wouldn't take it or would just fill in answers.
And the ones who do care, wouldn't have anything to worry about anyways.
So, I guess momtarily I'm stumped. My question back to you, and to everyone who feels like commenting is, do you think that implementing an exit exam would really make a huge difference in the amount of people with or without a diploma? If the standards are set at an attainable level, I would think that most students would be able to pass without any problem, and I feel that those who would have the desire, would do something to make sure they attain their goals no matter what. But I guess this debate isn't about those students who wouldn't have a problem - it's about those innercity schools who would have problems.
Hmmm.. tough subject. My reply here is me basically just thinking out loud. :)
A standardized exit exam sounds nice and fair, theoretically, but I would have to agree with AlexJ on this. I live in Tennessee, which currently scores 49th in the nation education. (last I heard) An exit exam like that would only serve to further stress TN's public school system; meanwhile, the private schools in TN would be able to afford to prepare its students for it. It would really just become another way to separate the rich from the poor.
Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best.
~Henry Van Dyke
I think its good college prep. A lot of colleges give graduating seniors comp. exams and its good practice on the high school level. Also, though people are against, Calif. should use the resorts to find out where they are lagging to improve the poor schools.
http://www.progressiveu.org/074439-does-justice-exist
The truth is, California high school standards--the ones I've seen, at least--are pretty low anyway. You can get all As in high school without really knowing anything. I would know.
The following response assumes that Exit Exams are SAT-like rather than Final Exam-like:
Exit Exams are something that needs to be looked into more. It would be a good idea to motivate students to do better and learn more. Yet as AlexJ said, "it would just mean less people with High school diplomas" It would be a great feedback report to the school system to see how well they educated the students. I don't think an exit exam that one has to pass in order to graduate is necessary. Some people are not good test takers. Also, what about the students who are incredibly gifted in art and are pursuing art in college? Would the Exit Exams prevent them from graduating and a career at something they are good at?
We have an exit exam in Arizona. This is the first year it is a graduation requirement. In the 5-plus years this exam has been in the beta-stages it has been "dumbed down" a lot.
Too bad we can't just rely on the school to actually educate.
Um, Sheep, since I come from a Southern California school that DOESN'T suck, I'm a little bit offended by your statement that you can do nothing and get straight As. If you know anything about Arcadia High School- you wouldn't have said that at all. I think it's ridiculous people can't pass a tet that only tests you up to an 8th grade level. Yeah, EIGHT GRADE. It doesn't even have anything to do with highschool curriculum, which in short, means it's HELLA easy. It is by far the easiest test I've ever taken. It is not so SAT like as it is STAR testing like. Even more ridiculous is the fact that they are suing because it's unfair. Where the hell do you get discrimination out of a scantron and number two pencil from? I honestly don't understand that. As for the diploma and street life thing- you can still go to a community college without getting a diploma in california (elacc I'm sure is where most of them end up [East Los Angeles Community College] which isn't terrible but is by no means a good school- I know because my asian boyfriend who lives in Alhambra goes there) so out the window with your stree life theory. Besides- if they got the diploma they'd probably go there anyways, and if they didn't who knows- they might have a "street life" regardless. The problem with "street life involvement" doesn't start after you graduate (or don't) it's generally something you get into A LOT ealier on ( like in middle school or during your first few years of highschool- to fit in and belong somewhere). I think we need to develop ways to prevent that as progressive leaders in our generation, rather than blame their inability to take a ludicris test on their gang involvement.
I think your right - developing a way to prevent the gang involovement in the first thing would be best. Not to mention it would be a think that ever large city with gangs could benefit from. But how? I think I'm going to look into this a bit more and see what's out there.
Mindy
I'm from Southren California, and part of the first class that actually needed to pass the test to graduate. I passed with no problem, but I'm also one of the "dumbed down AP students getting straight A's because you don't have to do anything in California schools to get straight A's" people. (That there, was a joke). BUT the test is not hard. I'm not saying that just because it was easy for me, but I know a kid who fell off a cliff a couple years back and has major brain damage. He's 16, but mentally, he's 4 or 5. He passed the test. His first time. And it's not like the schools don't give you a chance. They first said that the class of 2004 had to pass the test, and if you didn't, they automatically put you in special classes geared to being able to pass the test. AND you can retake it every semester starting in your Sophomore year. That's when they give it to you the first time- in 10th grade. Honestly, if they expect 10th graders to be able to pass it, then there's no reason that most seniors shouldn't be able to. My older brother took it several times before he passed (he was always a bit slower), and my younger brother, who everyone likens unto my older, got a perfect score on one portion, and on the second missed only a few questions. The essay I had to write was about what a horse in a story meant to the little boy in the story. It was all very easy.
Except, I must be missing something. I went to a school that a good population of my class were native speaker Spanish. When I was a freshman, we had the largest class ever (around 800, I believe), and by the time I was a senior, it had been whittled down to 600. 400 attended the ceremony. 200 of those actually graduated because they passed the exact exam. So, maybe the test is more difficult if English isn't your first language, I understand that. But should the standards be any different? What people are saying is that because people came over from Mexico and South America, that they can't pass the test because English isn't their first language. BUT, there are also people who come from the Phillipines and other places from around the world (at my school we had a lot from the Phillipines, but we also had some from Vietnam and other Asian countries) and didn't know English but are expected to take the test, pass, and get on with it. They're given the same opportunities, and when they fail, no one says it's because English wasn't their first language. Maybe instead of taking the test away, they should give students more of an opportunity to learn the material that will be on the test.
Equal opportunity! Everyone takes it, but extra help should be given if you really can't do it. There shouldn't be any exceptions.
Sorry for the long comment on an old blog!
I wrote a blog "testing testing and more testing" some of it is about the California exit exam. Read it. It explains some of what is going on. We also must have a C average to graduate so D- GPA will not get you a diploma. I passed the exit exam my sophmore year so should I have been able to get my diploma then? No there is much more to graduating than passing some exit exam. If our country would go to the way of the european school system is setup we might be more successful. First after, what would be our middle school, the student take some kind of aptitude test. It determines if the student should go on to high school. If not they figure out what they should be trained for. If they have the aptitude for high school then they complete high school. After that they find out if the student graduating high school should attend college or just trade school. It sounds as though they are finding out what is best for each individual and ways for them to achieve those goals.
I don't think exit exams will help most students excel. What it will do is have some teachers teach what's on the test and then the students can just regurgitate what they were taught. Taking an exit exam does not measure what a student has learned, that is the purpose of teachers? Just have everyone study independently and then take a pass or fail test. Basicallly that is what the exit exam entails. What are grades for if not to measure your accomplishments?
It may be that the "exit exam" in question is being examined too closely as if it were something that could be fixed, when in fact it may symptomatic of a much bigger crisis. My observation over the past few decades of teaching at the secondary and collegiate level is, and I am guessing, that 50% of all faculty and 90% of all administration are fundamentally ill-prepared to do their job. If my guess work is even close, we are in serious trouble, because the entire economy of America is dependent on a good infrastructure which includes health care and education for all who need it regardless of ability to pay. Capitalism in this country is turning into financial terrorism by sinking students and families into a debt they will never be able to pay to get an education that will never financially bail them out. The very idea that anyone thinks they can fix a broken health care and education system "is like trying to put a smile on the corpse".
How would you make a test that is fair for everyone? The students taking calculus their senior year would have an advantage over the students taking pre-calculus or advanced algebra their senior year. We have very few teachers that are worthwhile to even listen to at my school. It's sad. Most of them don't seem to have an idea about what they are talking about and then they get mad when their classes fail because of their bad teaching. Plus, a lot of them give a lot of leaway to the top students in their class and the top athletes. Also, to get more funding in the no child left behind act, we have to take all of these standardized tests. My school was a pretty safe school when I started attending there a few years ago, but because of the act, the district is making mandatory changes saying that these people have to go here and you can't go there for school, just to get more diversity at the other schools so we don't get cut in funds. All it is causing is more fights and giving our school a bad name. Our school system is corrupt and I'm sick of it. While I think the standardized test could be a good idea, what happens to the top students who fail it because they had horrible teachers and a corrupt school system to go to every day?
putting someones future on a single test might be the worst thing I have ever heard, just like standarized testing helpes people RIGHT, thats a big crock of bull!!