I don't know that the bar is being set too low... I just think it makes sense (that is, the premise the article laid out).

If you are passing the classes, you should be passing the end of year test.

If you are not passing the class, you should not be passing the end of year test.

I would be more shocked and upset if many students were passing classes but failing the tests. It would show us that teachers were dumbing down material and grading, and pushing students through when they shouldn't. But if the two numbers line up, good.

In reality, the HSA's and all of these requirements are about creating accountability for teachers - and they seem to be doing that to an extent. The point is we shouldn't pass students that don't know the material. And now we know that we aren't doing that. Good.

hasn't presented as big of an obstacle to those students who are actually taking the tests as originally feared

it's not that I object to this practice but rather to the subterfuge

The HSAs cover about 40% of the course content. I will reserve judgment on whether that bar is too low or not. I will say that it is a much higher bar than existed under the Functional Testing Program.

The distrust of the State Board's assertion regarding graduation statistics shows a misunderstanding of the question/fears that were present during this heated debate of the last few years.

People were fearful that the HSA requirement (passing each test, getting a combined passing score, completing Bridge Plan Projects as an alternative way to show content mastery) would keep students from graduating.

As the data show, while there were thousands of students who did not graduate (due to missing a credit or not meeting the service learning requirement, for example), there were only 11 students who did not graduate ONLY because they could not meet the HSA requirement in one of the three possible ways.

Why are we always so skeptical when schools, students and parents demonstrate what is possible with focused, collective efforts and hard work?

The Functional Tests were a complete joke back in the day. I am sure that few failed the test the first time around. I don't remember anyone questioning those tests.

I love how anytime something comes out that Baltimore City got all their kids through the HSA program, of course there is something wrong. Because kids from the city don't read or go to school they just deal heroin and rob tourists.

Please. The tests cover basics, the stuff that every curriculum SHOULD cover. They are harder than the Functionals that I had to take in High School in Bel Air, and the schools take them much more seriously and put much more pressure on the students to pass.

The English II HSA had it's writing portion removed and virtually covers no more than three to four analytical skills covered in a decent English classroom. In no particular order of importance students are asked to show an understanding of characterization, theme, and basic grammatical terms. When I first started in BCPSS the test was a lot more diverse and rigorous.

Making the test easier doesn't show any kind of improvement, no matter how hard AAA tries to spin it.

I forgot to add to my earlier post that looking at the way we've simplified passing the test has also skewed this data and has helped lower the bar.

The minimum combined passing score, the ridiculously easy Bridge projects, and the (as I said above) dumbing down of the tests... it's a borderline farce.

The HSA didn't set the bar low, though, we can't blame the test completely. Look at the English II curriculum! Students read 1 novel for an entire quarter, 1 full play and 1 abridged play for drama. Compare that to the materials covered in a citywide school and you'll see the bar was set low a long time ago.

Brandon, AAA didn't dumb down the test. The MSDE did. Baltimore City reps fought to keep the written portions IN but they were sacrificed at the altar of grading time and parent demand.

The functionals didn't have any writing components that I can remember. My argument will always be this: Why do we expect our kids to jump through many many more hoops than we ever had to get through?

In response to James From Hampden's comment "Why do we expect our kids to jump through many many more hoops than we ever had to get through?"

Because due to globalization and technology, the world and the economy are both fundamentally different now, and our students need a more rigorous education than was given to earlier generations in order to compete.

I also believe both assessment and instruction need to be more intense because education is competing now more than ever with entertainment and technology. It is literally possible for a student to be watching TV in class . Unfortuantely, the major way we currently fight this trend is to increase student accountability.

I personally think that the HSAs should cover a more diverse and accurate amount of the material. That would make them more challenging, and would force schools to increase the quality of their instruction.

In response to Nadine:

Kids are studying Algebra at earlier ages. History and Government classes go deeper than they ever did. Kids at many schools have the ability to take 3-4 AP classes a year. AP Tests, ACT, SAT (now with writing), Benchmarks, HSA, MSA.

Yes we are in a global community, but I fear we are putting too much emphasis on standardized testing as an accurate measure.

The testing itself is designed to be passed, so when people see great pass numbers they should not be surprised when the pass rates are high. As an economics teacher and Government teacher I know all too well the effects of globalization, but putting all the emphasis on exit tests is the wrong way.

The tests should not be anything more than basic exit-exams. The content taught in classes and the rigor of the curriculum should be far more advanced.

My problem with the tests in not the tests themselves, but the emphasis put on them which makes them far more than they actually are or should be. It creates an artificial cap on achievement. Some schools throughout the state are looking at these tests as the destination instead of a pit stop on the road.

Agreed - the big problem is to bridge the disconnect between what we want (rigorous and challenging instruction) with what we've got (a educational culture that is focused on testing).

"the big problem is to bridge the disconnect between what we want (rigorous and challenging instruction) with what we've got (a educational culture that is focused on testing)."

I do not understand why the people in charge of education policy see standardized testing as the only means of enforcing or raising instructional standards. Why can't they just send teams of experienced teachers around to drop in on classrooms and to sample student work?

Post @ 2009 High School Assessments

Eleven students not graduating is to many.

@I&EP-
Did you even read the article? 11vs. 2280. You want better graduation rate? Focus on getting kids to pass their classes. Time spent on whinning about HSA's is a distraction.

It need to improve. The things are not going properly. Graduation must be necessary for all.

I think they need to work on getting kids to do their school work and actually earn their grade to graduate I don't think this test will really aid in doing that. Just setting a test won't make them work harder on their work. They need to find a solution to getting kids to work not creating a test. They need to show responsibility and effort for the school work the teacher assigns. Get them to focus on their work don't make a test to see if they may of focused on their work.