Jumping Hurdles for a Diploma

May 30, 2002 by Katayoon Majd, The Daily Journal

California has discovered a solution to its under-funded, mismanaged, and low-performing public school system: deny high school diplomas to those students who have suffered the most because of the system’s dysfunction.

Beginning with the Class of 2004, all public school tenth graders must take the new High School Exit Exam.  The stakes attached to this standardized test are high; students who do not pass the test will not be given diplomas, even if they have successfully completed all other graduation requirements.  Without a high school diploma, these students’ chances of obtaining competitive employment are dramatically diminished. 

The High School Exit Exam is a cornerstone of Governor Davis’ reforms as the self-proclaimed “education governor.”  The exam tests English-language arts and mathematics and is claimed to be the most rigorous in the nation.  Billed as an accountability reform, the test is designed “to improve student achievement in high school,” according to the California Department of Education.  

To be sure, California’s education system, serving over 6 million students, needs reform.  California ranks 48th out of the 50 states in terms of adequacy of education resources, spending only $5,603 per pupil, compared to the national average of $7079.  

Hinging high school graduation on a high-stakes test, however, is misguided and unfair to students of color and low-income students.  Almost half a century after the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, schools in California remain separate and unequal.  In California, students of color and low-income students are much more likely than their white, middle-class counterparts to attend schools with high concentrations of uncredentialed teachers, staggering teacher turnover rates, dilapidated and unsafe facilities, and inadequate supplies of instructional materials—factors which negatively impact student learning.  A recent Harris survey of California teachers found that low-income students and English Language Learners are 12 times more likely to attend schools with high concentrations of untrained teachers, 4 times more likely to attend schools with significant teacher turnover, and nearly twice as likely to lack adequate instructional materials.  By tying graduation to a test for which they have not been prepared, the state is merely punishing these students for the state’s own failure to educate them. 

It is thus no surprise that results from the first test administration in March 2001, was abysmal.  In fact, results were so low that the state reduced the standard for passing.  Still, only 42% of students passed the test.  The results for students of color and low-income students were even more troubling.  Only 23% of African American students, Latino students, and economically disadvantaged students passed. 

The results suggest that if the exam remains as a graduation requirement, large numbers of students of color and low-income students will not graduate.  The costs to these students—and to society as a whole—will be devastating.  Research indicates that without a high school diploma, students are far less likely to obtain gainful employment and much more likely to be tracked into the criminal justice system.

Why is the state willing to punish students on the basis of a standardized test?  The reality is that the High School Exit Exam is a political ploy.  Throughout the country, politicians, including President Bush, are jumping on the “high-stakes testing” bandwagon, arguing that the key to school reform lies in setting standards for students, assessing whether students have met those standards, and attaching consequences to schools and to students who fail to meet the standards.  Davis has championed such “standards-based reform” by building a school accountability system that rests exclusively on test scores, and the High School Exit Exam is one of the centerpieces of this system.  But these highly politicized reforms ultimately do nothing to improve quality and increase resources in the schools. 

The High School Exit Exam is supposed to align with content standards adopted by the State Board of Education in 1997.  Districts are not required to adopt these state standards, however, and there is reason to believe that many districts are failing to cover the material that is tested on the exam.  In fact, an independent research organization suggested in May 2000, that the state consider delaying implementation of the test because students had not received the appropriate instruction to pass it.  Another more recent independent evaluation commissioned by the California Department of Education expressed concern as to whether all students have an adequate opportunity to learn the material covered on the test.  Furthermore, the state admits the racial disparities on the test; Secretary of Education Kerry Mazzoni told the Sacramento Bee last October, “We certainly have to address the achievement gap.”  Exactly what, if any, steps the state will take to address the gap, though, is unclear.

In the meantime, the State Board has insisted on proceeding with the test, revealing a basic hypocrisy in California school reform:  the state will deny diplomas to individual students who have not been given a fair chance of passing the test, but it will not hold itself accountable for the failing public schools.

Proponents of the exam argue that the policy is fair because students have multiple chances to pass the test, but for students who have been denied a meaningful opportunity to learn, multiple chances will not necessarily help.  The High School Exit Exam legislation was passed in 1999, when the Class of 2004 was already in middle school.  By the time they entered high school, many of these students were already several grade-levels behind.  Even though the state has neglected their education for so many years, it expects these students to miraculously make up for lost time. 

What are the benefits of the High School Exit Exam?  There is no evidence that the exam will do what it is intended to or purported to do.  The exam does nothing to improve the quality of education students receive or to motivate students.  Lessons from other states, such as Texas, suggest that the exit exam will actually increase dropout rates.  The tests also put pressure on schools to narrow the curriculum.  Because the stakes are so high, teachers are likely to spend instructional time “teaching to the test,” instead of teaching students a range of important analytical and cognitive skills and substantive topics which are not tested on the exam.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the state lowered the standard for passing because last year’s results were so low reveals just how arbitrary—and ultimately, how political—the exam is.  

By focusing on student performance on a standardized test, the state is missing the key to reforming education in California—ensuring all students have a meaningful opportunity to learn.  Under legislation passed in 2001, the State Board of Education has until August 2003, to decide to delay implementation of the exam.  The State Board should delay implementation of the exit exam indefinitely until the state provides all students with qualified teachers, adequate instructional materials, safe and clean facilities, and access to rigorous coursework.  Otherwise, the current moral and social crisis in California’s education system will continue to fester, while generations of students of color and low-income students will continue to be denied the future opportunities they deserve.