America in the Balance

CALIFORNIA’S APPROACH TO EDUCATIONAL

TESTING GETS ITS DAY (OR TWO) IN COURT

by

Ken Eliasberg

Our educational system—at all levels—has been sinking like a stone into the waters of abysmal ignorance, spurred on by left-wing egalitarian efforts to confuse equal opportunity with equal results, another arrow in the quiver of multiculturism. This bleeding heart sentiment has led us to do the impossibly stupid; rather than raise levels of performance, we have systematically lowered standards. We are graduating some of the most incredibly uninformed—at least uninformed about anything remotely having to do with “education” —people in the history of this country. As I previously mentioned, a professor friend of mine sent me an exam given 8^th graders in 1895, and I guaranty you that better than 50% of our graduate students couldn’t come close to passing it.

And how have we responded to this “dumbing-down” mess? In the typical way that liberals always respond—MORE. More teachers, more schools, more classrooms, and, of course, MORE MONEY—YOUR MONEY. And, the interesting facet of this is that we keep spending more, and, you know what - the results keep getting worse. Moreover, in the areas that we spend the most money—the inner city—we get the worst results of all. Do you think that maybe something more than money might be involved? Ya think? Doesn’t this strike you as strange; we keep spending more money, and we keep getting worse results. Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing and expecting different results? Why would the “intellectual elite” keep doing this then? For 2 reasons: (1) it makes them feel good (and, after all, isn’t that what liberalism is all about?), and (2) it’s not their money; it’s yours. And it’s always easy to feel good when you can spend someone else’s money and, at the same, time delude yourself that you are doing good so that you can feel good.

Do you ever hear a lefty saying anything about better. No, never! If something’s wrong, don’t fix it, just throw more money at it. And, by the way, don’t think I’m being unkind to liberals here; this is one problem that they can’t blame on conservatives because liberals OWN education; through inner city City Councils, through the Department of Education, but, mostly, through the National Education Association, a group that could not do more to set back the cause of education if they set about to burn down our schools (with our children in them). We shall deal with the subject of education at considerable length in the future, but right now I would like to focus on one of the remedies that has become fashionable—high school exit exams. Specifically, I would like to bring you up to date on where we are with this year’s exit exam.

According to the “program overview” on the California High School Exit

Examination (CAHSEE), the “primary purpose of the California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) is to significantly improve pupil achievement in public high schools and to ensure that pupils who graduate from public high schools can demonstrate grade level competency in reading, writing, and mathematics” a seemingly laudable purpose. The overview continues with its explanation of CAHSEE , by informing us that the exam “helps identify students who are not developing skills that are essential for life after high school and encourages districts to give these students the attention and resources needed to help them achieve these skills during their high school years.” Further, it notes that “Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, no student will receive a public high school diploma without having passed the CAHSEE, as well as having met the district’s requirements for graduation.” There’s the rub!

So where are we? Well, to cut to the chase, some 47,000 students, or roughly a little over 10% of the graduating class of 2005/06 failed the exam, and, as a consequence, were not eligible for graduation. A San Francisco attorney (where else?) challenged the result by filing a request for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the test was unfair to certain groups—e.g. the poor and those with language problems—and his position was sustained in a lower court in Alameda County. Judge Robert Freedman, in holding for the plaintiffs, concluded that “[T]here is evidence in the record that shows that students in economically challenged communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested on the (California High School Exit Eamination).” Well, whose fault is that? If we can’t blame it on the students—and I don’t believe that we can, no matter what criteria you utilize to evaluate the situation—then who’s left? The teachers and the system! And the students will pay the price by being held back a year if the lower court’s ruling does not stand (and it hasn’t). But who will really pay the price? All of us, by sending out into the world students who are not qualified to make their way.

As I noted above, the lower court’s ruling was reversed on appeal to the California Supreme Court in a 4 to 3 decision. The case may now be appealed to a higher court—i.e. a Federal Court—and these 11,000 students will have to await the outcome of that process to see if they are going to get their diplomas.

What’s wrong here? The educational system is fundamentally dysfunctional, and rather than do anything about it, we do what the left customarily does about a problem, pour in more money, put some scotch tape and band aids on the wounded educational body, and kick this baby right down the road. A couple of thoughts. First, bi-lingual education has been an anathema to Hispanic children, who have the highest teenage pregnancy and high school drop out rates. The program has done wonders for teachers and administrators who are enriched by its use, but it has done incredible damage to the people it was intended to help—STUDENTS. You learn English like my grandparents learned English—by being immersed in it. Second, I have real reservations about putting so much stress on exit type exams. I fully understand their use where credentials are involved—e.g. law, medicine, etc.—where you are certifying competence in a professional field. Although, even here, I have some problems. I used to teach a Bar Review course, and I really believed that I could get a trained seal through the exam if it were willing to bear down and its ego didn’t get in the way. In addition, these tests don’t help you learn; rather they are a barometer of what you have learned. To me, these tests seem more like a morning after pill that merely confirms your pregnancy rather than terminate it. Learning should be a concentrated effort in school; the test should do no more than confirm the efficacy of your learning efforts. Otherwise you give rise to the argument which is frequently bandied about that teachers are teaching toward the test and not toward the purpose of learning.

But, setting that aside, I believe that we don’t need more testing, or more pre-school, or more remedial courses in college. We need a better system, top to bottom. Better teachers, merit rewards for teachers, greater demands on students with respect to home work, and much greater involvement on the part of parents. Teachers should not have to be something between a social worker and a jailer to compensate for a failure of involvement on the part of parents.

Another contemporary phenomena is to blame the teacher if the student isn’t performing. Many parents seem loathe to take responsibility for a deficient student. That’s not the way it used to be. If I brought home a lousy report card, I had to answer to my father, who, I assure you, did not blame the teacher. And that was the case with my sons; I didn’t want to hear any excuses for why they weren’t doing well—I wanted them to do well, and I was prepared to do whatever was necessary to see that they did. We need to get parents into the mix. If we are prepared to settle for something less than excellence, then that’s exactly what we’ll get (and have been getting for some time)—at best, mediocrity; at worst, and on average, something considerably less!