In California, as in Arizona, there are those legislators who don't really want exit exams to be, you know, exit exams (registration required):
With the moment of truth fast approaching for California students, a high-powered drive has begun in the Legislature to delay or eliminate tying high school graduation to passing a controversial exit examination. Beginning with the class of 2006, state law requires high schools to deny diplomas to any student who doesn't pass a mathematics and English test, a consequence that was delayed two years ago to give schools more time to prepare.
Three guesses as to what political party the new procrastinators claim, and the first two don't count.
Two new bills, proposed by Democrats, take separate approaches to the issue. But both question the fairness of the high school exit examination and neither would allow imposition of high-stakes consequences next year. Perata and Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, argue that some campuses have been shortchanging children for years, providing inadequate instruction or textbooks. To deny diplomas to students at deficient schools would essentially victimize them twice, they contend.
This kind of thinking fascinates me. How is giving someone a worthless diploma doing them any good whatsoever? Why are these lawmakers convinced that if kids have been shortchanged for years, making sure they receive this piece of paper - without demonstrating the skills that lay behind it - will somehow rectify the situation?
It's a piece of paper, not a magic wand. The exit exam, though, certainly has some magic in it, because the exam allows California to see just how badly their schools are failing the students. If the lawmakers mentioned here care so much about drawing attention to how bad the schools are, you'd think they'd support this exam. Without it, how is anyone really supposed to know how bad things are?
Posted by kswygert at March 3, 2005 08:00 PM