Joanne Jacobs noticed a fine article in the Sacramento Bee about the postponed California exit exam. Columnist Daniel Weintraub correctly judges what the fuss about exit exams are all about - when bad teaching on part of a school leads to negative consequences for the students, it's hard for the school to defend its choices:
The alternatives [to postponing the exit exam] the board considered were worse than delay. One was to make the test easier. The other was to lower the passing score [These could be considered the same thing]. Instead, other than dropping one essay requirement to shorten from two days to one the time it takes to administer the language portion of the exam, the board stayed the course. This is good news.
But fans of reform should not rest easy. The test's opponents will see this decision not as a momentary pause but as a crack in the door. They will continue to push to weaken accountability because they do not believe in it....The high school exit exam has become their primary target because, of all the tests the state administers, this is the only one that truly counts...It means something, and that meaning makes it dangerous. When kids fail, people start asking questions. Did the child try hard enough? Did the parents push hard enough? Did the school provide the proper coursework and materials? Was the teaching sufficient?
All of those questions are uncomfortable for a segment of the education establishment that would rather fuzz things up, pat kids on the head for making a good try and send them on their way with no concrete sense of what they have taken with them after 13 years of seat time in the public schools...
Mr. Weintraub also correctly picks up on the recent eduational, political, and cultural philosophies which say that no child can ever fail. The exit exam, by definition, is going to identify those who fail, and unless it is dumbed down beyond recognition, some kids in even the best schools are going to fail. Unless we're willing to say to those kids, "We gave you the best opportunity, but for whatever reason, you didn't perform up to the standard" and refuse to issue a diploma, our support of accountability is empty talk.
Mr. Weintraub estimates that perhaps 80% of California's seniors would have eventually passed the exit exam. Are we truly comfortable with flunking the other 20%? And are we willing to defend the results even if the 20% group contains disproportionately large numbers of minority students? That's the first issue the anti-testing crowd will attack - indeed, it's often the crux of their claims that such tests aren't "fair" - and exit exam supporters should be ready for it.
Posted by kswygert at July 22, 2003 11:32 AM