The Education Gadfly warns against "the siren's song" of believing that graduation standards and exit exams should be "refined" with more flexible standards. He notes that the real problem with those "heart-wrenching tales of 'B' students" who flunk graduation exams is that the schools have either inflated the grades or failed to teach the necessary content:
...these exit exams are pitched at a rather modest level and offer students multiple chances to pass, which leads to an entirely different explanation: perhaps a nontrivial number of students actually lack mastery of essential knowledge and skills. If "B" students are failing, either their school grades are too high or they have not learned basic content...
...Standards-based reform is alluring because it promises that all graduates will master critical knowledge and skills. Setting bona fide performance standards makes it inevitable that some students (and schools) will fail to meet them. This poses a daunting political challenge in a democratic society where those who fail have specific incentives to challenge the legitimacy of the system...
He also notes that the testing critics will soon find themselves in the "unenviable", and presumably untenable, position of attacking established standards that are good indicators of how well our schools are teaching and how well our students are learning. I believe he gives testing opponents too much credit, though, in this assumption that they will shy away from this approach. Too many test critics, such as the group in Florida, have bought into the "all tests are biased/racist/sexist" mindset, and they believe that certain kids should be exempt from the objective standards measured by such exams.
Joanne Jacobs has more on this.
Posted by kswygert at June 13, 2003 10:05 AM