The Heartland Institute wonders why exit exams are so unpopular in some circles, when the test scores seem to be of direct use to students:
The advent of high-stakes testing is revealing more than just information on what American high school students know and are capable of doing; it is also revealing a significant shortfall between that assessment of actual skills and what schools have been telling students about their achievement and ability.
For some students, the failure to pass a high school exit exam is the first warning signal they may be sorely unprepared for the demands of college.
A group named the Mass Insight Education and Research Institute, along with the UMass Donahue Institute, completed a study last October entitled, "Seizing the Day." It's a longitudinal study of kids on the "front line" of education reform, and some of the study's conclusions are very interesting; namely, that the high-stakes exit exam (in this case, the MCAS) is what forced many students to work harder and improve their academic performance:
The researchers found most of the 32 percent of students in Boston, Springfield, and Worcester who failed the state’s Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exam on their first try--in 10th grade--were more than a little surprised: Almost 90 percent of them had a C average or better at the time.
Fortunately...the early warning motivated most of those students to take advantage of available “targeted, often individualized, remedial academic assistance"...
By their senior year, 94 percent of these students from the class of 2003--the first required to pass the MCAS to graduate--received a diploma. The study found 82 percent of students who need extra help are now taking steps to get it; juniors are committing earlier to passing MCAS; and at-risk students are putting more effort into their school work because of MCAS.
Sounds great. Who could oppose this?
But the increased effort and success may occur almost in spite of the students’ teachers, who, in addition to inflating grades, are sending mixed signals to the students about the test. Seventy-one percent of the students surveyed perceived negative attitudes towards the MCAS on the part of their teachers...
It makes sense that any teacher who inflates grades will mistrust the test, either because they genuinely believe every kid deserves an "A," or because they believe their classroom grades capture something ineffable that the basic-skills exam misses. Other teachers might oppose the tests because they were taught standardized tests were uniformly bad, or biased; some teachers may resent the time taken away from classwork for testing.
But when grades alone are used to determine which students are ready for college, the results are decidedly mixed:
For example, in Georgia, 40 percent of high school graduates who receive that state’s Hope Scholarship are losing it after about a year because they can’t keep up their good GPAs in college.
In Nevada, students who graduate with at least a B average can access a $10,000 college scholarship, but nearly one-third of those who do find they have to take remedial courses once they arrive on campus...
A recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics found the number of students taking at least one remedial course upon reaching college has risen to 35 percent from 28 percent five years ago. At the same time, the percentage of college-bound students carrying an A average has grown from 28 percent 15 years ago to 42 percent now, according to the College Board.
The Nevada report is particularly blunt (not surprising considering Fred Phelps, an acquaintance of mine, is on the author list):
The problem of poorly prepared students entering college is growing, as far more students are now going to college. In recent years, approximately half of Nevada's high school graduates entered college. Last year nearly 10,000 of them were enrolled in remedial courses. In too many cases, they needed help with knowledge and skills that should have been learned in the third or fourth grade...
At the heart of Nevada's problem is the issue of teaching philosophy. Generally, teachers - especially elementary teachers - are taught to think of teaching and learning as a process that follows student interests and inclinations - whether or not it leads to the achievement of curricular objectives. These teachers are trained to design learning experiences that optimize student interest and enthusiasm, not particular learning results. The consequence is that many students simply acquire a patchwork of knowledge and skills - often with significant gaps and weaknesses. Similarly, many never learn that dabbling in schoolwork is not enough - that success requires meeting challenges and overcoming them.
Oh, and that cult of self-esteem so valued by some teachers? Nevada's college professors were fairly dismissive of the value of training in "cooperative study activities, self-esteem enhancement and work with diverse students" in a college classroom. What was considered to be important? "Ability to focus in class," "Effective study habits," "Ability to complete work on time," "Patience and persistence in completing course," and "Understanding "work ethic" related to education." The professors tended to be in favor of stronger standards (although unconvinced that testing could help reveal the effects of them).
The report concludes:
...our professors found their students to be weak in both the basics and higher-order skills, and currently they see no trend toward improvement. Thus, it seems fair to conclude that the critics' apprehensions are, at the least, misplaced. Apparently there is little danger that the imposition of standards and accountability will make matters worse.
In other words, things are so bad for college freshmen that it's hard to argue that adding new standards and accountability measures will make them even more ill-prepared for college.
Posted by kswygert at February 23, 2004 04:09 PM