A couple of weeks ago, this column reported the brouhaha under way over exit exams in Florida that are required before a student can graduate from high school. Despite numerous opportunities to take and retake the tests, 14,000 students there failed the exams and did not graduate this year. To compound matters, a similar test for third-graders revealed 43,000 who were not advanced to the fourth grade because of failing test scores.
Well it seems that others states, notably Massachusetts, are facing a similar plight. In that state, 4,800 seniors failed to make the minimum score and were withheld diplomas during graduation ceremonies. And as expected, there is a cry of foul going around the state because of the failing marks.
So here's where we find ourselves - for years society has demanded that public education turn out student with at least minimal educational skills to succeed in the workplace. We've bent over backward to allow students virtually unlimited opportunities to take the tests. Yet, as you would expect, some students can't master the basic skills. That being the case, now we're faced with the very same problem. These students will continue to under-perform and will not be able to pass the minimum standards tests. So do we provide them a high school diploma regardless of their obvious deficiencies? Or do we stick to our goal that every senior possess some minimal level of educational tools?
Overall, the tests are very revealing. When the final numbers are in, about 94 percent of all seniors are able to master the minimum skills tests. That's even higher than some education officials had predicted. So by and large, public education is doing an exceptional job. But there will always remain a small percentage of students who for a variety of reasons cannot and will not master these testing skills. Do we "dumb down" our teaching to accommodate these few students? And if so - which some advocate - what does that do to the average and above average student achievers? Get the drift?
Let's assume just for argument's sake, that an extremely small percentage of these students who failed are college-bound. I think I am safe in making that assumption. Since college is not on their agenda, maybe we need two separate levels of high school diplomas. Maybe we should accept the notion that some students will never reach lofty heights and for them, let's put major emphasis in life skills, i.e. reading, basic math, etc. Forget the advanced learning and drill the basic skills needed to function in this society. The last thing we need is to lower the bar and thereby, diminish greatly the importance and respect for a high school diploma. But look at the groups who are demanding just that.
These groups want assurance that all students will pass these minimal skills tests. To accomplish that, they want the testing easier. Oh, did I fail to mention that they also want billions more for public education? That's right, the solution is always more tax dollars to chase more failed expectations.
If we want quality graduates, then we must demand some level of accomplishment on the students' part. Basic assessment testing is an accurate and fair way to measure those results. Otherwise, let's accept that public schools will be institutional babysitters and we'll accept whatever is produced. That is a formula for failure. Period!