May 20, 2005
-
It does seem to me they should at the very least receive a certificate
of completion.. Anyone who manages to make it through a
dozen years of school, even if they can't pass the exit exam
(TAKS), ought to be able to put on the cap and gown and walk, that's
what I say. From the Dallas Morning News:
Kendra Rainey won't be wearing that graduation gown hanging in her
closet. And the announcements mailed to friends and family are now a
painful reminder.
Last week, Kendra was ushered into a counselor's office at Bryan Adams
High School in Dallas to get the bad news: She failed to pass the TAKS
in her final attempt and will not graduate with her class Sunday."It makes me feel like all I've done is a waste of time," said Kendra,
18, who didn't pass the math and science portions of the test. "I can't
be there with my class."But she is not without peers. Hundreds of area seniors – including up to
697 students in DISD, or about 10 percent of the senior class – will not
receive their diplomas after failing to pass the Texas Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills.This is the first school year that seniors who did not pass all portions
of the TAKS cannot graduate. They began taking the exit-level test in
the 11th grade and had up to five chances to pass.Those students are left to consider some options: They can continue to
retake the TAKS until they pass or pursue a GED. Others may choose to do
nothing – never receiving a diploma after finishing all of their
coursework.The news has hit students – and parents – hard.
Patricia Rainey said her daughter has cried more times than she can
count. She now has to postpone attending Texas Southern University in
Houston, where she was accepted."She's been crying every day, I feel so sorry for her. She has me
crying," she said. "This is holding her back."
According to the newspaper article, this is an option that Dallas doesn't offer: "School districts
have the option of allowing students to participate in commencement. Or
they can give them 'certificates of coursework completion,' which
indicates all necessary credits to graduate were completed.
Dallas and Mesquite allow neither." Let it be the student's call, whether they want to
graduate with an
asterick indicating they're receiving a certificate of completion
instead of an actual high school diploma. Were it me, I'd
grin and bear it, and by jingo go ahead and walk
that darn stage with my classmates. Twelve solid years of school
attendance ought to at least get you the cap and gown event, even if
you don't get the diploma (yet).
Comments (15)
I dunno Anne. Seems to me that to be at commencement and walk that stage, one must earn the privilege by passing all the requirements. Otherwise it cheapens the recognition of all thse other students who worked hard and made the grade. I'd be rather tiffed if some student who could not pass the requirements got the same general recognition that my hard-working but unstellar student did. But maybe I am not understanding all the circumstances here. Does the student intend to take the test yet another time? She's had five chances already. Is this a student who really isn't college material? Not everyone is, and that is not reason for shame. Should she be pursuing some other course of life instead? Aren't university acceptances hinged on completing coursework in high school satisfactorily?
If someone manages to garner enough credits to qualify for a diploma, yet bomb on the science TAKS test, I don't see why that isn't sufficient for them to get some sort of recognition.
Heck, they could do it in groups, with the actual diplomates going first and the completion certificate-holders being called afterward, so it's clear who accomplished the most.
What worries me is that this policy will increase the already high drop out rate. Why try so hard if you can pass your classes, be in school for twelve years, but unless you don't pass all elements of the exit test you effectively wasted your time?
Because it shouldn't be possible to pass all your classes and fail the exam. That's where the problem lies. The classes should prepare you for the same expectations that the exam is intended to measure. You shouldn't get a diploma just for passing classes that are too easy in the first place.
I can't agree with you on this one, Anne, and it's not just a quibble this time. I just plain disagree.
I didn't say they should get a diploma. I said they should get a certificate showing that while others dropped out of school entirely, those kids toughed it out and persevered.
The certificate would be proof that while their academic skills mayn't be all they should be, they by golly went the distance and finished high school. It's awful to think someone who tries that hard winds up with nothing more to show for their effort than someone who dropped out at 15.
Persevered at WHAT, though? Staying awake through classes that were too easy and not learning enough to pass a basic exam?
That's not meritorious or worthy of honor, though it might be in someone's self-interest.
"At least you didn't drop out" shouldn't be something that is honored. Acknowledged, perhaps, but not visibly honored in the same way as the kids who actually did their jobs in school. To the people watching, who don't know what's printed on those papers, the kids walking across the stage for "not dropping out" are getting the same honor as the ones who got themselves an education. That doesn't seem right.
Some kids, frankly, aren't too bright, y'know. They do far more than merely stay awake in their classes...they try. They make a sincere effort. And to do that year in and year out, doggedly persisting in getting their diploma when they very likely know others who finally gave it up and quit, and manage to pass their classes, but because they can't pass a particular test (the science test seems to be the primary bugbear), years of work go down the drain.
There are people who simply don't test well, especially when there's a lot riding on the test. They do fine in assignments, in essay and research papers, in laboratory work, and so on, but set 'em down in front of a test and they freeze.
And I don't think you're paying attention and reading my entire posts, as I suggested having those receiving a certificate of completion being honored in a separate group, so there would be no confusion, and anyone watching who is paying attention would be able to know exactly what the graduate/honoree is being honored for.
Well, I don't know what the tests are like in Texas, but the graduation exams in Indiana are pretty darned easy. Furthermore, if the student is learning-disabled or ADD-ADHD, then there are always options available to them that enable them to get special clearance to have it taken under special conditions. There are ways and means for such kids. Looks to me like this girl got railroaded through, and her school has been caught with its pants down. Those tests are meant to make sure everyone has a modicum of basic knowledge that will enable them to get along in the world. If the girl can't pass it, then there is something desperately wrong with the school-- and if there are thousands of others who can't either, then the problem is not the test, it's the education.
In Indiana, schools make about $8000 for every student enrolled, and the schools are absolutely desperate for this state money. Many schools do whatever it takes to get the money and move a kid through. It's a horrible racket everywhere. This is one of the uses of these standardised tests; to show which schools fall short. Of course, I'm very sorry for this girl, but I suspect there's more to this story than the writer is letting on...much more. I'm surprised at the university, and I'll bet you anything they'll think twice before accepting a student from this school. (Of course, universituies are desperate for money too, so maybe not.) Things like this hurt school districts, but worse, they deceive kids and their families. Shame on this school.
$8000 per student? Wow! I don't think Texas allocates anything close to that. Maybe $4000-odd?
There was an easier test given a few years ago...the TASP test. It was ditched in favor of this one, which is supposed to be much more difficult. And there's no quarter given for being ADD or anything; in fact, that's a bone of contention for the schools, from what I've read...very few exemptions are allowed; ESL students get maybe one year "pass" then are expected to take and pass it like everyone else.
10% of the seniors in the Dallas school district failed the TAKS test and won't be able to graduate. Most of those are in the southern area of the city, apparently, where the the lion's share of the minority students live.
I know plenty of reasonably intelligent people, who aren't learning disabled, but who just don't test well, like Anne said. I can't imagine why they're like that, because I'm one of those who tests well, even I'm only half-way familiar with the information, but there it is. They just get so nervous that they misunderstand what's being asked, make stupid choices, second-guess their right answers and change them...
If the problem is that the classes are too easy, then tacking a difficult test on to the end of high school isn't really any way to fix the problem.
"If the problem is that the classes are too easy, then tacking a difficult test on to the end of high school isn't really any way to fix the problem."
I agree and didn't mean to imply that it is. My point was that there's no honor in passing classes that are too easy, not that it is all good and just and fair that the test requires things they aren't taught.
I was thinking more along the lines with Eleanor, also -- I'm assuming that the tests require basic knowledge, that anyone who's "not too smart" but has put in 13 years of schoolwork should still be able to pass. I grant you the issue of "not testing well," but that's an argument against having tests as requirements, not for having tests and then not making any difference between those who pass them and those who don't.
Okay, Anne, I admit I missed your point about having a separate distinction, so I apologize for that. But then I still don't see why it's appropriate to give distinction to those who really didn't achieve what was expected in a high school education, just because they didn't drop out. If the test measures what's expected, then those who failed it should not be considered to have succeeded. If the test does not measure that, then the test shouldn't be there at all. But as of this moment, it is.
I remember years ago reading that the value of a liberal arts degree - which, let's face it, doesn't generally have much practical value (it's what I've got, BTW) - is that it shows a potential employer that by jingo, you managed to complete the coursework necessary for the degree. You persevered. You demonstrated tenacity.
It's representative of the character trait of determination, so to speak. After all, unless one is interested in teaching, which I wasn't, there isn't any real point to a history degree.
With the drop out rate as high as it is, I don't see what's wrong with a kid who stuck it out and garnered the necessary class credits receiving some sort of recognition for their perseverance. What I dislike is the thought of two kids, one who dropped out at 16, one who completed all four years but failed the science TAKS test five times, both having to check "no" to the question "Did you graduate from high school?" as if they're the same.
They are NOT the same. The latter demonstrated character traits of determination, persistence, and tenacity that the former did not. Is this what we want to teach our kids? That those traits aren't worth much?
'Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.' -- Calvin Coolidge
I think Anne has it right: the kids who toughed it out and got their credits at least deserve SOME recognition. It would be so easy to say "fooey on it" and quit. We all know, getting the credits takes effort. That's GOT to be worth something.
A kid who tests well, but never put forth the effort, never got any credits, failed classes? Nothing to do there but throw up one's hands and wonder what'll become of him. But doing the work and at least trying. Somehow, that's GOT to have some value.
another thing. Anne said the science portion seems to be the toughest. Well, does it say something about the students or the teachers? Should classes be tuned to the upcoming test, so everyone can pass, even kids who aren't good at abstract thought, or couldn't care less about science, but maybe have a passion for literature or dancing or mechanics or cooking? Does it say yet something MORE about this fetish "we" have, to get everyone achieving in every academic subject? If you put a duck in water, it's going to excel, but an eagle might not do too well in that arena.
You know, that's an intriguing possibility Heidi opened up...would it be possible to have HS degrees sort of similar to college, in that while most kids would get the 'liberal arts' variety, some could go for an AP-level degree (which is what Temple does, in fact...it has different HS degrees, depending upon the classes taken), some get a math/science-oriented degree, and some just slog along and manage a certificate of completion.
ISTM we keep dumping more and more stuff into the 'absolutely necessary to know' category that is NOT 'absolutely necessary to know.' The kids who simply can't manage to pass that tiresome science test, but have passed all their classes and the other TAKS tests, most likely have a reasonable grasp of enough academic stuff to get along just fine in society.
It's a pity to kick 'em down into the ranks of "FAILURE".
I'll agree with that. There needs to be more tech, and more opportunities for apprenticeship, etc. It's silly to educate everyone as though they're destined to pursue higher education and become doctors, accountants, and college professors.
I'm just not convinced that "determination, persistence, and tenacity" are demonstrated by sitting through classes and completing the minimum for not flunking out, but not learning enough to pass a test of competency designed around those classes.
And I don't think the liberal arts degree is exactly parallel. You actually had to achieve a certain level of competency in every subject in order to pass enough credits to get the degree -- you didn't just have to demonstrate that you showed up to class and finished your papers on time (which is, in my experience, what it takes to barely pass classes in high school.) You had, for example, to do well enough in the prerequisites to pass the next class. You had to demonstrate that you'd actually learned enough to earn a degree, though in a less direct fashion than by taking a test. Besides, in the years immediately after college when employers still consider your college grades, a 1.5 GPA on a resume is regarded FAR differently from a 3.0. The "determination, persistence, and tenacity" actually to learn something and do well in your classes counts for more than the mere DPT it takes not to flunk out.
Comments are closed.