I think I'd like to delve a little deeper here...Sara, you mention that certain subsets of students have faced the "negative effect" of not graduating as a result of the standardized exit exams. But put that way, it sounds like the negative effect is that students don't receive a diploma, not that they don't learn a standard amount of knowledge. That's an important distinction to make. I think that it would be also troubling if California were graduating minorities in droves who were undereducated. That would probably be a bigger disservice, actually, than giving them a diploma they don't deserve.

I wonder about the lack of evidence for positive effects as a result of the exams, too. Surely California must have normed the tests for a few years before the graduation requirement went into place, like Maryland did with the HSA, so they must have collected data about how well students were doing before it was a requirement. Even if the graduation rate has dropped slightly, I wonder if the students who graduate - especially students on the borderline - have demonstrated that they've learned more than they would have had the test not been in place....

Simon: I should have been clearer in my post that I was expressing the researcher's opinion, not my own, that it's a bad thing certain kids didn't graduate. I actually was intrigued by a conversation I had with another researcher at the conference who thinks it's a mistake that we judge high schools based on their four-year graduation rates. Colleges get to report their rates for four, five and six years. Clearly, as these exit exams indicate, there are some kids who need more than four years in high school to get the basic skills.

Sara, that's actually an interesting point about 5 or 6 year graduation rates. I agree that not every student will be successful on the same timeline and having options for students who need more time for whatever reason is essential. However - and I know someone will correct me if I'm mistaken here - students in Baltimore City are only allowed 4 years of high school before they have to find alternative means of getting a diploma. I think it's completely valid to track 4-year graduation rates because it evaluates a school on how well it's moving students along at the standard pace. However, these figures always need to be taken in the context of student movement in/out of state, transfers, students who get G.E.D.s, etc.

Not to go totally off topic here, but another statistic that might not be as meaningful as schools would like is college acceptance rates. Many students graduate high school and go to college but are still ill-prepared by sub-par high school education and end up dropping out without a degree but still thousands of dollars in debt and soured on education. If possible, schools should track how many of their graduates not only go on to college but graduate from college, too.

Sorry to get so far away from the original entry, but hey, it's a blog...

Simon: Students have the legal right to a public education until age 21, and Dr. Alonso says he wants to keep them longer than four years if necessary. About 20 percent of seniors in the city typically are held back for a fifth year. But there's such a stigma for staying in high school longer than four years; many kids simply don't come back, and what's the incentive for the school when they're judged on a four-year rate?

Thanks for clearing that up, Sara. I'm actually blown away to learn that's true. Not that I've worked here for ages or anything, but I've never heard of a single student actually coming back for a 5th year at his/her regular school. It seems strange now, but somehow I had gotten the impression that the right to a public education up until you're 21 was only for special education students. In light of this, yes, absolutely we should make a bigger deal about overall grad rates rather than 4-year rates only.

I attended an Alliance for Excellent Education meeting on this issue with graduation rates about a year ago. Pedro Noguera and Deborah Lowenberg Ball were among the speakers on the panel. There were some extremely interesting experiences shared on 5 and 6 year graduation plans for high school students. A principal at the event talked at length about how the flexibility allowed him to differentiate the high school experience for his students, some of whom were working part time, raising younger siblings, or caring for ailing parents. He also discussed how he reconciled doing what was "right for his students" against the demands of district policies. His graduation rates looked shabby based on the 4 year calculations BUT his students were excelling and going on to a wide variety of tertiary opportunities. I thought, now that's leadership! Doing what is right for children regardless of static policies.

There are a couple of good reasons why colleges report at the fifth, sixth and (increasingly) the seven year:
part-time attendance and
developmental education.
The former is a positive trend in higher education. Students who would otherwise not pursue a college education for whatever reason have the opportunity to do so in a manner that fits their other responsibilities.The latter is rather disturbing. It is quite possible to graduate from a Maryland public school and be thoroughly unprepared for college. The college graduation rate for these students is deplorable. However, holding the high schools responsible for this is wrong-headed. If education does not start at home - before the child ever attends school - that child is at a higher risk of under-performing throughout their academic career. K through 8 is where this should be caught and corrected, not at the high school level.

In the end, the exit exam as safety net catches the student at the wrong time, effectively punishing the student for the failures of both the parent and the primary/middle school system.

As I web site possessor I believe the content matter here is rattling fantastic , appreciate it for your hard work. You should keep it up forever! Best of luck.