Exit exam news: school board defies state

AI Thread Summary
The Oakland school board voted to grant diplomas to seniors who haven't passed the state exit exam, defying state law, but the resolution lacks enforcement power due to the district being under state control. State-appointed Administrator Randolph Ward, who oversees the district, was not present during the vote, raising questions about the resolution's validity. The discussion highlights a divide over the exit exam's fairness and its role in assessing student readiness for graduation. Critics argue that a diploma should reflect a student's ability to perform essential tasks, while others believe the exam is an inadequate measure of student achievement. The debate continues over the implications of granting diplomas without passing the exam and the overall effectiveness of the education system.
  • #51
Pengwuino said:
Wow, smart enough to know that you're entire education has been inadaquit since kindergarten yet not smart enough to know basic algebra...

Might see them more akin to illiterates than mentally handicapped people. No need to read, all you have to do is look around to compare the conditions of a poor public school versus a rich one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #53
Those girls are probably suck ups and cheerleaders

in more way then one
 
  • #54
Math Is Hard said:
It happens, though. :frown:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14191213p-15018112c.html
:bugeye: They shouldn't be suing the state for the exit exam, they should be suing the school for giving them unrealistic expectations and inflated grades. There's no reason, whatsoever, that a 4.0 student shouldn't be able to pass an English exam after 3 tries if those questions you showed are representative. I'd be curious if those students took the SAT, and what their verbal scores were on that. If there was a huge discrepancy between the two standardized exams, then I might question the exit exam (i.e., if you can test well on the SAT, but not the exit exam, maybe there is a problem with it), but if they corroborate one another, then it would make it clearer that the school's grading is the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
0TheSwerve0 said:
Might see them more akin to illiterates than mentally handicapped people. No need to read, all you have to do is look around to compare the conditions of a poor public school versus a rich one.

If you realize you aren't getting a good education.... there's a thing called taking the initiative and self-studying.
 
  • #56
Moonbear said:
:bugeye: They shouldn't be suing the state for the exit exam, they should be suing the school for giving them unrealistic expectations and inflated grades. There's no reason, whatsoever, that a 4.0 student shouldn't be able to pass an English exam after 3 tries if those questions you showed are representative. I'd be curious if those students took the SAT, and what their verbal scores were on that. If there was a huge discrepancy between the two standardized exams, then I might question the exit exam (i.e., if you can test well on the SAT, but not the exit exam, maybe there is a problem with it), but if they corroborate one another, then it would make it clearer that the school's grading is the problem.

I've known 4.28 students to get 1200's and 1100's on their SAT's
 
  • #57
Math Is Hard said:
It happens, though. :frown:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14191213p-15018112c.html

Seems like it could be low local standards of education, not surprising if the ones in charge or teaching received a similar level of education. Or, they simply want more money for the school and need higher grades to receive it. The No Child Left Behind BS perpetuates a vicious cycle. Very American "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" logic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #58
Math Is Hard said:
I don't know why everyone is so upset. It's not like you need a high school diploma to go to college or anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/e...&en=c871f0b01330eca9&ei=5094&partner=homepage
:rolleyes: Well, we've already seen the shift of jobs that used to just require a high school diploma starting to require a college degree when the value of a high school diploma weakened and the push to just graduate students who weren't qualified really started up, so if that keeps up, the next generation is going to require a master's degree just to be a secretary. (And yes, some of those jobs didn't even used to require a high school diploma, just an 8th grade education).

Why do people think it's a good thing to just keep pushing students further and further through the educational system without them actually acquiring the knowledge and skills required at each step? If you think education is truly important, which I do, then the answer is to make them go back and learn the foundations correctly before letting them move ahead.
 
  • #59
Pengwuino said:
If you realize you aren't getting a good education.... there's a thing called taking the initiative and self-studying.

True, but part of doing well is having other people expect you to do well. Students perform much better in an environment where they think someone actually cares whether or not they do. Plus, how well you can learn depends on the supplies you have. Besides teachers, you also need textbooks and supplies such as lab kits/tools, computers, etc. I don't know the specifics of the circumstance, but these lacks could explain it. I don't think you should underestimate the impact of teachers either, or peers to learn with. Home conditions and the physical conditions (e.g. temperature) have an impact on your brain.
 
  • #60
0TheSwerve0 said:
Very American "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" logic.
Millions of destitute, impoverished kids do this in places where a textbook is a luxury, and America is next only to Paradise.
 
  • #61
Pengwuino said:
Those girls are probably suck ups and cheerleaders

in more way then one

wow so catty! I don't think the PF sisterhood has their resident harpy yet.
 
  • #62
Gokul43201 said:
Millions of destitute, impoverished kids do this in places where a textbook is a luxury, and America is next only to Paradise.

Yes, generally humans will do anything to survive. But look how many die, while others are barely staying alive. Guess we could hold that up as an example of Social Darwinism at work, though.

btw, have you read Savage Inequalities? He makes a pretty strong case for the children living in those cities. East St. Louis had one of the highest homicide rates, chemical spills, fumes and toxic waste polluting air and water, raw sewage flooding the area...in fact, people did comment in the book that it was just like a Third World country (coming from one guy who was from a Third World country). Can you reasonably expect children living in such horrendous conditions to actually perform well academically? I'm not contesting that some can still manage to live, but getting an education would be asking too much. The superintendent even says in the book that, "There is no natural way East St. Louis can bring itself out of this situation," referring to the educational problems. Is this a value we truly want to hold? Is it fair?
 
Last edited:
  • #63
0TheSwerve0 said:
True, but part of doing well is having other people expect you to do well. Students perform much better in an environment where they think someone actually cares whether or not they do. Plus, how well you can learn depends on the supplies you have. Besides teachers, you also need textbooks and supplies such as lab kits/tools, computers, etc. I don't know the specifics of the circumstance, but these lacks could explain it. I don't think you should underestimate the impact of teachers either, or peers to learn with. Home conditions and the physical conditions (e.g. temperature) have an impact on your brain.

Whoa... temperature? Is it only hot in poor schools? Besides, the only thing tested is math and english skills (which is strange in of itself...), you don't need lab kits and computers for that. Teachers are also pretty much luck of the draw when you go to less then great school. Our school got a great deal of funding and most of the teachers still sucked
 
  • #64
Pengwuino said:
Teachers are also pretty much luck of the draw when you go to less then great school. Our school got a great deal of funding and most of the teachers still sucked
And perhaps those who are able to teach themselves ARE the ones who are already passing the exam. Not every student is capable of self-study, many do need the assistance of a teacher to guide them through learning. It doesn't mean they aren't capable of learning, but that they do need a teacher to help them do it. If every kid was able to just teach themselves, why would we need schools or teachers at all?
 
  • #65
0TheSwerve0 said:
btw, have you read Savage Inequalities? He makes a pretty strong case for the children living in those cities. East St. Louis had one of the highest homicide rates, chemical spills, fumes and toxic waste polluting air and water, raw sewage flooding the area...in fact, people did comment in the book that it was just like a Third World country (coming from one guy who was from a Third World country).
No, I haven't read it. Maybe there is a case to be made for the rare exception. I still find it hard to believe.

Can you reasonably expect children living in such horrendous conditions to actually perform well academically?
We're not talking about performing well academically. We are talking about scoring a paltry 55-60% on a test that can, IMO be passed by someone who didn't attend a single day of school beyond the 8th grade. We're also talking about a document (the diploma) that is supposed to communicate something. What does a diploma from one of the above described schools actually say?
 
  • #66
I really do wonder how many kids are incapable of self study. My nephew and step-nephew go to a poorish school, party all the time, don't even bother studying!, and still both passed the first time on the dumbed down test.
 
  • #67
Gokul43201 said:
We're not talking about performing well academically. We are talking about scoring a paltry 55-60% on a test that can, IMO be passed by someone who didn't attend a single day of school beyond the 8th grade. We're also talking about a document (the diploma) that is supposed to communicate something. What does a diploma from one of the above described schools actually say?

Yah and i think a lot of people forget that! You can say all you want about the conditions of schools and all that... but the solution isn't to lie to the world and tell people that these people have skills that they don't actually have. It's not like we're denying these kids some constitutional right. Maybe they can create a new category... something like that "certificate of completion". People can know that this person doesn't actually have the skills to pass high school but was able to sit in a seat for 4 years adn the market can use them as they like.
 
  • #68
Pengwuino said:
Whoa... temperature? Is it only hot in poor schools? Besides, the only thing tested is math and english skills (which is strange in of itself...), you don't need lab kits and computers for that. Teachers are also pretty much luck of the draw when you go to less then great school. Our school got a great deal of funding and most of the teachers still sucked

Apparently, the heating and air conditioning was out of whack at some of the schools. It would either be sweltering or freezing...hardly conducive to learning. I still think you need teachers to learn math and english. I believe the children in the example I gave from the book did not have textbooks, so they couldn't teach themselves. The kids at the Oakland school probably could, but there are other things that hamper and discourage children's ability and will to learn. Other opportunities might seem more attractive if they're convinced they can't succeed because they think they're unintelligent (several ways that could happen beyond the fact that they are). We don't really know what's going on at the school, but I think it's more complicated than students just being lazy and stupid.
 
  • #69
0TheSwerve0 said:
Apparently, the heating and air conditioning was out of whack at some of the schools. It would either be sweltering or freezing...hardly conducive to learning. I still think you need teachers to learn math and english. I believe the children in the example I gave from the book did not have textbooks, so they couldn't teach themselves. The kids at the Oakland school probably could, but there are other things that hamper and discourage children's ability and will to learn. Other opportunities might seem more attractive if they're convinced they can't succeed because they think they're unintelligent (several ways that could happen beyond the fact that they are). We don't really know what's going on at the school, but I think it's more complicated than students just being lazy and stupid.


It doesn't matter why they couldn't pass the test as far as the actual reception of a diploma is concerned. If you aren't able to demonstrate a certain level of competency, then too bad, you don't get a diploma. You are not garaunteed one by right. Go back until you manage to demonstrate competency. Period.
 
  • #70
Gokul43201 said:
No, I haven't read it. Maybe there is a case to be made for the rare exception. I still find it hard to believe.

We're not talking about performing well academically. We are talking about scoring a paltry 55-60% on a test that can, IMO be passed by someone who didn't attend a single day of school beyond the 8th grade. We're also talking about a document (the diploma) that is supposed to communicate something. What does a diploma from one of the above described schools actually say?

I don't think that situation is as rare as you say. Like I said to Pengwuino about the Oakland school though, we aren't in their situation or even that familiar with it so we can't say for sure what is going on. The examples in the book are clearer

A 16-year old student in the South Bronx tells me that he went to English class for two months in the fall of 1989 before the school supplied him with a textbook. He spent the entire year wihou a science text...In May of 1990 he is facing final exams, but, because the school requires students to pass in their textbooks one week prior to the end of the semester, he is forced to study without math and English texts. He wants to go to college and he knows that math and English are important, but he's feeling overwhelmed, especially in math. He asked his teacher if he could come in for extra help, but she informed him that she didn't have the time...Sitting in his kitchen, I attempt to help him with his math and English. In math, according to a practice test he has been given, he is asked to solve the following equation: "2x - 2 = 14. What is x?" He finds this baffling. In English, he is told he'll have to know the parts of speech. In the sentence "Jack walkds to the store," he is unable to identify the verb...In the fall of the year, he phones me at home. "There are 42 students in my science class, 40 in my English class-45 in my home room. When all the kids show up, five of us have to stand in the back."


Overcrowding is probably more common elsewhere than the other physical conditions of the school, but it still presents a block to learning. As you point out, what does a diploma from such a school say? Not much, and a lot of children drop out because of it. Here's the reason female students that are either pregnant or have had babies give for skipping and having babies, "Well, there's no reason not to have a baby. There's no much for me in public school." The teacher comments, "The truth is, that's a pretty honest answer. A diploma from a ghetto high school doesn't count for much in the United States today...Very little education in the school would be considered academic in the suburbs. Maybe 10 to 15 percent of students are in truly academic programs. Of the 55 percent who graduate, 20 percent may go to four-year colleges..."

What's more important, that we maintain intense individualism, or that we have a majority of people well-educated? I don't think this is a false dichotomy in our current society and situation.
 
  • #71
franznietzsche said:
It doesn't matter why they couldn't pass the test as far as the actual reception of a diploma is concerned. If you aren't able to demonstrate a certain level of competency, then too bad, you don't get a diploma. You are not garaunteed one by right. Go back until you manage to demonstrate competency. Period.

Education isn't something one acquires on their own, they need to be given one. If they don't have the proper tools to learn, what good is sending a child back into the same inadequate system going to do? Why not give them better options instead of condemning them to a hopeless situation? btw, I never said anything about those children being entitled to a diploma, I'm addressing the reasons why they are not able to get one.
 
  • #72
0TheSwerve0 said:
Education isn't something one acquires on their own, they need to be given one. If they don't have the proper tools to learn, what good is sending a child back into the same inadequate system going to do? Why not give them better options instead of condemning them to a hopeless situation?

How does lying to them give them hope and better options? So they can go off and fail in college where they actually PAY for school? Why not just give them a bachelors too while we're at it? You lie once, why not lie some more.
 
  • #73
What do mean lying to them? I suggested fixing the system, which is what I think is the main problem. An even easier option might be to just offer vocational schools and separate tracks when students reach high school, then we won't waste their time. This is what Japan and Germany does, they seem to be doing ok.
 
  • #74
Giving them a diploma is a lie. You're saying to them and the rest of the world that they have the skills one learns after 4 years of high school education. They don't have that, thus, a lie.
 
  • #75
You should read my previous posts, I don't think you know what you're talking about (shocker :-p )
 
  • #76
0TheSwerve0 said:
You should read my previous posts, I don't think you know what you're talking about (shocker :-p )

Well I've been on topic... what have you been doing?
 
  • #77
You and Franz have misconstrued what I'm saying. I've been addressing what you've said - that these students are basically lazy idiots.

Pengwuino said:
I don't find it very incredible. Kids just don't care and if they want to be poor and be targets of politicians pandering to them in the future, i don't give a crap. They think they can make it big as a mechanic or a rap star or basketball player or punk music idiot?. Go ahead... god i hate having to pay for these moron's medical bills.
I find that a poorly thought out explanation, and I've posted as to why I think so.
 
  • #78
franznietzsche said:
I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of adults couldn't pass it in the state, given that 75%(ish) of students failed it the first year, IIRC. Doesn't mean its hard, or that they deserve a diploma anyway. It certainly doesn't speak well of california public schools.

Pretty much what I'm trying to say.
 
  • #79
0TheSwerve0 said:
I find that a poorly thought out explanation, and I've posted as to why I think so.

Let us see what is more correct. Widely seen "experimental" data from pretty much anyone whos ever been in a public school... or a theoretical, illogical, explanation that attempts to artificially remove as much responsibility from kids as possible without any regard as to how improbable and over-exagerated the situations may be? I find it hard that the state with one of the highest funding levels per student is not going to have the money to make it to the top 40 states school districts.
 
  • #80
0TheSwerve0 said:
You and Franz have misconstrued what I'm saying. I've been addressing what you've said - that these students are basically lazy idiots.

No, you're saying that the students are the victims of a bad education system.

What you haven't clarified (unless I msised it, which is possible I suppose) is whether you think the students failing to demonstrate competency (regardless of the reason) should be given diploma's anyway.
 
  • #81
Also, has there been any schools in California where more then 50% of the students can't pass the exit exam?
 
  • #82
Pengwuino said:
Also, has there been any schools in California where more then 50% of the students can't pass the exit exam?


I thought that the initial failure rate was something like 75%. But I may be completely wrong. I can't recall a source at the moment, maybe I can find something...
 
  • #83
franznietzsche said:
I thought that the initial failure rate was something like 75%. But I may be completely wrong. I can't recall a source at the moment, maybe I can find something...

got it

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003033876_webexitexam01.html

10% overall. I need to find particular stats
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Pengwuino said:
got it

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2003033876_webexitexam01.html

10%


Hmm, well I was way off. I'm trying to recall where I heard that, or if maybe it was in reference to one particular school.
 
  • #85
Pengwuino said:
Let us see what is more correct. Widely seen "experimental" data from pretty much anyone whos ever been in a public school... or a theoretical, illogical, explanation that attempts to artificially remove as much responsibility from kids as possible without any regard as to how improbable and over-exagerated the situations may be? I find it hard that the state with one of the highest funding levels per student is not going to have the money to make it to the top 40 states school districts.

So because you've attended public school, you know more than someone who has taught in public schools and visited several across the country? Like I said, we don't know for sure what is going on. You leave no room for any explanation but your own opinion. How is the author's or my explanation illogical? Does money not have an impact on quality of education? And I never said quality of education was everything, though I think it is the main element. As for your last statement, neither LYN nor I can decipher it.
 
  • #86
franznietzsche said:
No, you're saying that the students are the victims of a bad education system.

What you haven't clarified (unless I msised it, which is possible I suppose) is whether you think the students failing to demonstrate competency (regardless of the reason) should be given diploma's anyway.

Yes, I am offering an alternate explanation because I think that you offer an inadequate one. Again, I didn't say this was the only issue. I made no comment as to whether or not these students should get diplomas. I'm trying to show that that question ignores the reason why (the main issue I think) the students aren't qualified to get them. I thought you were being completely unfair, but I guess I did derail the thread. Seems logical comments should be saved for other forums...
 
Last edited:
  • #87
Whoa, i just saw an article showing the STAR testing results for 05. Asians are the best at the english language. ASIANS outscored white people in the english language testing. So foreigners are the top english scorers yet when it comes to this test, its an excusable problem when spanish speakers can't pass the english exam?
 
  • #89
Pengwuino said:
Whoa, i just saw an article showing the STAR testing results for 05. Asians are the best at the english language. ASIANS outscored white people in the english language testing. So foreigners are the top english scorers yet when it comes to this test, its an excusable problem when spanish speakers can't pass the english exam?


Asian doesn't mean foreigner. It means ethnically asian. Not the same.
 
  • #90
0TheSwerve0 said:
So because you've attended public school, you know more than someone who has taught in public schools and visited several across the country? Like I said, we don't know for sure what is going on. You leave no room for any explanation but your own opinion. How is the author's or my explanation illogical? Does money not have an impact on quality of education? And I never said quality of education was everything, though I think it is the main element. As for your last statement, neither LYN nor I can decipher it.

Maybe you didnt pass the reading comprehension test if 2 obvious words being left out threw you so far off track :biggrin:

A visit means nothing, teachers are normally oblivious to what really goes on in high schools as well. They are also quite naive to tell the truth. Kids can BS a teacher like you wouldn't believe! And of course money has an impact on education which raises hte point as to why does a state with soooooooooo much money being pumped into education come in near last place when they test students? And how do people in poor schools pass at all if they are all on fair ground?
 
  • #91
0TheSwerve0 said:
Yes, I am offering an alternate explanation because I think that you offer an inadequate one.

Probably because I didn't intend to offer any explanation. I don't pretend to be able to explain things I'm not qualified to comment on. I do want to be very clear though, that if you can't demonstrate competency, then you shouldn't get the diploma, period. Regardless of if it was fair. The fairness of the education system is a separate issue.

Again, I didn't say this was the only issue. I made no comment as to whether or not these students should get diplomas. I'm trying to show that that question ignores the reason why (the main issue I think) the students aren't qualified to get them. I thought you were being completely unfair, but I guess I did derail the thread. Seems logical comments should be saved for other forums...

The why is a separate issue. I recognize that, and I'm intentionally not directly addressing it, as it was not the issue of this thread. The issue was whether or not someone who cannot demonstrate the competency that the diploma is meant to recognize should be given one anyway. I claim they should not, otherwise the diploma is a meaningless piece of paper.
 
  • #92
franznietzsche said:
Asian doesn't mean foreigner. It means ethnically asian. Not the same.

:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: i guess i did phrase that a weeeee bit stupidly
 
  • #93
Pengwuino said:
:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: i guess i did phrase that a weeeee bit stupidly


Just a weee bit yes.
 
  • #94
Pengwuino said:
Please don't ruin my day :smile: :smile: :smile:

First people complain high school graduates can't read and then they complain when they try to stop them from getting diplomas when they can't read... you can't win.
Thank God someone else noticed this!

People complain that kids aren't given enough homework, then people complain that kids have too much homework.

The paradoxes go on and on.
 
  • #95
Regarding the preceding posts that are starting to smoke:
I've said this before, that as a teacher I fully endorse the concept of linking a teacher's salerey to their performance. But as noted above, such asessment is difficult and it would require highly paid full-time asessors who would in turn require asessors.

Linking a teachers pay to the performance of students would ensure that certain areas will only get the worst teachers. What if a dentist was paid according to the condition of the teeth of his/her patients?

The most severe problems are in isolated pockets. The quickest remedy within these troubled pockets would be to offer extra stipends to teachers with superior qualifications, and limit class sizes to 15 or less within these troubled pockets, and extend school days until 5:00 (or longer) to include excercise, dinner, and supervised study periods.

The problems lie mostly with the micro-societies, that's where we need to aim. This would cost a lot of money, obviously, but it's still cheaper than incarceration.
 
  • #96
Chi Meson said:
What if a dentist was paid according to the condition of the teeth of his/her patients?
Then the two dentists in all of England would leave.
 
  • #97
Jeff Reid said:
Then the two dentists in all of England would leave.

:smile: :smile: :smile:

Then the whole country would really be screwed.
 
  • #98
franznietzsche said:
Probably because I didn't intend to offer any explanation. I don't pretend to be able to explain things I'm not qualified to comment on. I do want to be very clear though, that if you can't demonstrate competency, then you shouldn't get the diploma, period. Regardless of if it was fair. The fairness of the education system is a separate issue.



The why is a separate issue. I recognize that, and I'm intentionally not directly addressing it, as it was not the issue of this thread. The issue was whether or not someone who cannot demonstrate the competency that the diploma is meant to recognize should be given one anyway. I claim they should not, otherwise the diploma is a meaningless piece of paper.

I do agree with you about the diploma, no reason to give one if they don't earn it. But the passing comments made were unfair and dismissive. Just shows our general attitude towards people who don't do as well - that it's their own fault and they are inferior. This isn't a trivial matter.
 
  • #99
Pengwuino said:
Maybe you didnt pass the reading comprehension test if 2 obvious words being left out threw you so far off track :biggrin:

A visit means nothing, teachers are normally oblivious to what really goes on in high schools as well. They are also quite naive to tell the truth. Kids can BS a teacher like you wouldn't believe! And of course money has an impact on education which raises hte point as to why does a state with soooooooooo much money being pumped into education come in near last place when they test students? And how do people in poor schools pass at all if they are all on fair ground?

When he visited the ESL school, there were classrooms full of students with no teachers. It was obvious that the school was inadequate. Are you saying those kids are lying or that teacher quality doesn't matter? Or are these just pearls of wisdom from your own experience?:-p As for the money matter, a lot of it doesn't even go to school use because it gets tied up in bureaucracy. When it finally does, the administration spends it on improving basic necessities and playing catch up: improving building quality for one. Plus, not all schools receive equal funding. I agree, it is a stupid system that doesn't make sense.

Students that attend poor schools can pass for several reasons: they are intelligent and can teach themselves (not everyone can), the school has low standards so they are good enough in that situation, teachers falsify grades so they won't get fired.
 
  • #100
use the GED test ,
if the students can't pass it after 12 years of school, NO DIPLOMA
same for higher learning can't pass the CLEP, NO CREDIT for the class
all states have tests for lawyers for example why should anyone get a
Dr of law if they can't pass the bar exam??

I would junk senority as a base for pay and use STUDENT surveys
to rate the better or worse teachers plus test results
the kids know who are the good or bad teachers
use tests and student surveys to get the poor teachers into another line of work
 

Similar threads

Is the California High School Exit Exam Discriminatory?
Replies
38
Views
6K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
News Leaving the Left: An Ex-Democrat's Story
2
Replies
63
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top