At least 20 percent of members of the Class of 2004 in
California would have failed the mathematics portion of the
state
’s new high school exit exam, a study released recently by the
Human Resources Research Organization shows.
At least 20 percent of members of the Class of 2004 in California would have failed the mathematics portion of the state’s new high school exit exam, a study released recently by the Human Resources Research Organization shows.
But now they won’t have to worry, because the state superintendent and the state Board of Education have decreed that the Class of 2006 will actually be the ones who must pass the exam to receive a diploma.
Many of the class statewide targeted initially for the benchmark will no doubt be pleased, because many of them could not, even in eight attempts, pass both the math and English/language arts portions of the test, which are geared to 10th grade standards.
At Gilroy High School, at least half of the class of 2004 have yet to pass the exam. Live Oak High School is doing better: 81 percent have passed the English/language arts and 69 percent have passed the math portion.
But Live Oak staff has taken steps – including initiating a zero period for “intervention” and contracting with an outside education company – to get its students up to speed.
Most of those who are failing the exam are having trouble on the mathematics portion of the test. Statewide, only 5 percent of California juniors have failed to pass the exit exam’s English section.
The law was implemented by the state Legislature in 1999. The test requires students to display a 10th-grade level of competence in mathematics and English. The math section of the test covers sixth-grade math through algebra I. Students can take the test three times a year – starting as sophomores – until they earn a passing grade on both sections.
But now that the consequences of the test are becoming apparent – including the fact that up to half of English-language learners and up to two-thirds of special education students will likely flunk it – some education leaders and politicians have chickened out.
Many advocated postponing those consequences – having students continue to take the exam, but not requiring a passing grade for graduation – in light of the high failure rates.
Parents, students and teachers demonstrated in Sacramento before the board voted to delay, saying the proposed two years was not a long enough delay.
What kind of message is the state sending our students?
True, many districts in the state do not have the money to purchase outrageously expensive textbooks required to meet state standards. And many districts cannot afford to offer large enough paychecks to attract qualified, certificated teachers who are capable of assisting students to rise to a higher level.
Our legislators and our governor have let our students down with their misguided priorities when it comes to education funding.
But most districts have had ample time to get their house in order and prepare their students.
We think delaying the graduation requirement is a serious mistake.
First, the federal government is tying high school exit exam results to federal education money. If the consequence of failure – no diploma – is removed, a key motivation to do well on the test is removed and failure rates will likely increase.
California Gov. Gray Davis was right when he said, “All over California, students are studying harder and reaching a higher bar.”
But that’s not the most important reason for requiring a passing grade. What, exactly, is a high school diploma worth if you can get one without even being able to perform at a 10th-grade level in two subjects?
A diploma should mean more than a student sat behind a high school desk for four years. It should mean he mastered the subjects he studied – and this test doesn’t even require that. It requires that students master half of high school English and math.
Delaying the exit exam cheapens the accomplishments of students who study hard and master their lessons. But most disturbing, delaying the graduation requirement sends the wrong message to students about the importance of education, the value of hard work and the virtue of responsibility.
California can’t afford to let its students flunk those lessons.
