Graduation Testing for High School - When is Enough, Enough?

California drank the kool-aid back in 2006, after 20 other states in previous years. This particular kool-aid was the exit exams required of high school students to graduate. Enough people, in the wrong places, have decided that this nation will implode if all of our students don't get degrees. Education beyond high school is valuable, and I would not trade in any of my undergrad, or graduate work, for anything. Yet something is terribly wrong in a nation where people without degrees have been able to help build, in significant ways, the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world no longer has room for the 'uneducated'!.

If the steps to make classroom learning, and the teachers behind it, more effective – why are we requiring our teens to pass one more test? (Given the resources, time, and ambition students can pass a test – then promptly forget what they were tested on.) Another reason I ask this question is the increasing demand for remedial courses in colleges and universities. If high school education is supposed to prepare students for college; students pass their courses, and they pass an exit exam to graduate – why are growing numbers of students not ready for undergrad work?! Maybe the focus is in the wrong place. Maybe all of the pressure from the Federal and state governments, while well intentioned, are grossly out of touch with reality.

Personally, I took some time after high school before going to a two year college. Twice. The second time I had a better idea of what direction I wanted to take, and transferred to a state university. After graduating with my bachelor degree, I found work in a related field and had a good run in I.T. At some point, I decided to change directions; with the desire to 'give something back' to society. It doesn't matter that I graduated very low in my high school class. It doesn't matter that I waited to get a degree. What does matter, is that when I decided it was important, I was able to apply myself and do well. I may not have had the grades in elementary or high school, but thanks to my mother and a handful of dedicated teachers I learned critical thinking skills that have served me quite well. I remember a time when getting less than a "B" was not the end of the world. If I learned something, that was what mattered. Making mistakes was part of the process. Now students who get less than a 4.0 worry about getting into the university of their choice. (How does one do better than 100%?)

A little over a year ago, this story about states easing their standards came out. Why would states ease their graduation standards after implementing expensive tests meant to improve high schoolers' education?! Were the tests unreasonable in what they expected of students? Were they not phrased in a way that students would be able to understand? Did it matter that students who cram for tests (to pass their individual courses) forget most of what they learned? Maybe we should be looking for more realistic means of measuring students' application of knowledge; understanding. Students need the time wasted on exam prep, and remediation, actually learning - developing critical thinking skills (debate teams are great for that.) Teachers have an excellent idea of who is passing their classes and who is not (at least they should.) The money saved by states on the testing could be used more effectively in other ways (individual districts would be best suited to decide how, along with their teachers.)

If these tests are meant to be a tool for improving education an exit exam is, by definition, a day late and a dollar short. If the test is meant to show a baseline for for learning, or readiness for college, why not tighten up on requirements for passing classes? Then there will be no need for tests. We literally cannot afford to bureaucratize education. So why do we have these tests?