Should these students be allowed to graduate?

Great Debates
41

wring, only meaningful standard? Presumably one couldn’t graduate by having a 9th grader pass the test. I don’t see how failing one of multiple requirements qualifies as “the one meaningful standard.” If I cannot parallel park I don’t get my license no matter how well I did on the driving and written exams. In no way is parallel parking a “one meaningful test.” Is is one of many meaningful tests.

Lamia: “You may argue that these kids don’t deserve a diploma unless they can answer the kinds of questions in Kimstu’s post, but I don’t see how there can be any doubt that they would be better off with a diploma than without whether they can answer the questions or not.” I am not suggesting they would be better off without a diploma, I am suggesting they would be better off if we got them at least enough of an education to pass this test.

pepper: “Well, with seniors who do not pass the tests (which the more I think about it, really doesn’t measure if these people can read or write) you have two options: refuse to give them a diploma and keep them for a year, or send them out in the world to fend for themselves. Neither option is exactly desirable. So which is the lesser of the two evils?” Actually, you left out the one option that I am against: letting them out with a diploma.

“Do you set up a special program for '13th year” students? What happens if they don’t pass again? Do you just kick them out of school without diploma eventually?" What? I am afraid I don’t understand the problem. Schools have never held students back a grade before? Admittedly the scale of this is a little larger than we are used to, but they are just taking the same classes again with the rest of the class behind them.

“Give them their diploma and send them out. I daresay that there are very intelligent people who do know how to read and count, and can easily learn skills in the job market whether they did well in HS or not.” I don’t doubt that they can function in society. I doubt whether they heave earned a high school diploma. Period. Why is this such a difficult proposition to swallow? What good is a high school diploma if we just hand them out to whomever showed up for class?

“By the time people graduate, many of them are adults. So, I think they should be released from the hell that is the Public Education system, because it’s certainly not doing them any favors.” Excuse me? The offer of a free basic education isn’t doing them any favors? And ignoring the plain fact that these kids don’t have the education we say they do when we hand them a diploma is somehow a good thing?

“Some of the smartest people I have ever met barely graduated high school.” But they did graduate.

Kimstu: Now I personally love overeducation and useless erudition—why else would I spend so much time on these boards? —and I do believe that education ought to be about not just practical job skills, but also the development of well-rounded individuals familiar with important ideas in literature and art and science. Even so, I’m not convinced that every 18-year-old in the nation needs to be able to enumerate the possible line segments connecting members of a set of noncollinear points or know the difference between a quatrain and a sestet." Hell, I am pretty sure most kids don’t. Does this mean we should just slack off standards? Is that going to help the problem here: that kids aren’t getting the education we think they are?

“Were the more than half the adult population that had no high school diplomas in 1950 “failing in the workforce”? Should we be demanding that level of education today as our absolute minimum for getting a reasonably decent job? If we do, I agree with those who have argued that we can’t send huge percentages of kids through school with passing grades and then refuse to award them the diploma on the basis of a qualifying exam.” This involves a reexamination of when a business may refuse to hire employees, not a slacking of educational standards. I really cannot see any justification for offering diplomas to people who don’t have the education they are meant to.

“I’m all for excellent academic education, but do we really want to make that our cutoff job qualification even for busboys, bouncers, and office temps?” No. But we want to offer everyone an education that can allow them to become a busboy, or to move somewhere else on the class ladder. Of all people, Kimstu, I am shocked that you don’t find education to be a huge factor of economic mobility. Really, what the heck? As a model for economic mobility, education seems to be a sure-fire way to improve one’s station in life. Whether they use this education or not is really not the whole justification behind offering an education in the first place. We don’t get to decide whether they will use Algebra II or not, they do.

Apart from that, I thought the whole motivation for only hiring high school graduates was to help promote raising education standards. I agree that a busboy doesn’t need to know how to prove the Pythagorean Theorem; then one shouldn’t need a high school diploma to be a busboy. This in no way means we should instead hand out diplomas to anyone just so they can become a busboy.

42

Because, by not giving them the diploma, we are punishing them for somehting that may very well not be their fault. The Public Education system has a great many problems, especially in the treatment of minority students. Some of the obvious problems are apathetic teachers, overcrowed classrooms, poor funding, and most importantly, a system that never gave a second thought to advancing the students whether they deserve it or not.
If a person can’t read by the time they are in 12th grade, is that their fault? Partially, but it also means that basically every teacher and adminstrator in grades k-9 (just pre-HS) failed these students by not failing them.
So we have Seniors who may have received a public education, but not a very good one. Seniors who were either overlooked or ignored their entire education. Seniors who were allowed to become Seniors despite of whatever academic problems they have, and then an education system saying “Ooops! We know it was our responsibility to educate you…and apparently we have some responsibility for the fact that you aren’t educated, but you’re the one who will be punished for the rest of your life.”

Not when the “free education” is basically an upscale prison. When I was in HS I took one class that was not AP or Honors. It was the absolute worse experience of my life, and I saw what these students went through with every class every year of their lives. It was not an education…it was a pointless waste of time. Instead of educating them, schools are just keeping teenagers out society’s hair for 8 hours a day. And the lucky white students go into the upper classes so they can eventually go to a good school that is still predominately white.

What mobility to you think these students have? “Upper-mobility” is pretty much an American Myth—an Urban Legend if you will. With education they might move up from upper-lower class to lower-middle class and maybe middle-middle class, but that would be pushing it. I think regardless if they walk away from HS with a diploma or not, they won’t have much in the way of “Upper mobility”.
And don’t launch into your “success stories” either. I’m willing to bet for every “success” there are 1000 people who never move up, whether they have a HS diploma or not.

How can they “earn” that diploma when the teachers themsevles may not even be teaching the material? Or are all the teachers 100% flawless, and it’s the fault of the lazy kids for not knowing all the right answers?

43

Bullshit. Having attended a super-predominately white school I can tell you that shitty classes are not limited to fucking race or the inner city. Those classes sucked big time, and everyone knew it. Sometimes it was the teachers, sometimes it was the students themselves, sometimes it was the parents.

Oh, we can go back and forth on this all day. How can teachers teach when kids are bringing guns and drugs into school? None of which changes the fact that these kids do not have the education that a high school diploma represents, and no amount of finger pointing will change that.

If you recognize that as one of the problems, why on earth would you promote a “solution” which does this?

That this is the dichotomy you think exists speaks volumes.

44

Becaues, by the time it’s time to pass these students on, it’s too late to fix it. If you are really serious about holding students back, waiting until their Senior year is not the time to do it. Grades K-6 is the time to do it. Maybe Jr. High years is the time to do it. But not your Senior year. Because the vast, vast, vast majority of the things seniors are tested on they learn pre-HS. The vast majority of the reading and math skills they need, they learn in elementary and Jr. high. If these problems are not addressed at that point of time, it won’t do any good the year they are meant to graduate. Holding them back an extra year that late in the game is far too little far too late.

You seem to be taking the position that these students shouldn’t be given their diplomas without taking into consideration the teachers and the school system itself.

Well, in the school I went to, there were white students and minority students in the lower classes. However, there were only white students with the exception of one black student in the honors courses. I absolutely refuse to believe it’s becaues the other 299 minority students were simply too stupid to be in those courses.
I think there is institutional racism evident, especially since over 50% of the minority students are failing in the OP’s cite. Since we know that they can’t all be “stupid”, there must be something wrong with the institution itself.

My point is, on an individual basis, if students are going to be held back it should be much, much earlier in the education process. However, the underlying problems will not be solved until the entire system has some sort of overhaul.

45

Well, we are in agreement, then, right up to the point where we hand these kids a diploma. A diploma means that a person has passed such-and-such requirements. These kids did not. Ergo, no diploma.

46

erislover, correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument goes something like this (flashback to that required philosophy course):

Premise A: Reading and math skills are needed to function as a productive member of society.

Premise B: High school seniors should have adequate reading and math skills.

Premise C: Standardized tests accurately and reliably assess these reading and math skills.

Premise D: A diploma should only be rewarded to a student who is ready to be released into and function as a productive part of society.

Conclusion: A diploma should only be rewarded to a student who passes the standardized test.

What’s wrong with this picture? Premise B is not really debatable. Neither is Premise D. The culprits that make the conclusion, well, wrong, are Premises A and C, both of which have been nearly beaten to death by other people in this thread. Now do you get it, erislover?

47

I feel the need to highlight the writing error quoted above which was posted by someone complaining about someone else’s lack of education. The word in bold is in the wrong case. The correct version is whoever.

Guadere: I certainly hope your law appears in the next edition of any prominent dictionary of the English language.

48

smilla, if Premise A is untrue, then what is the value of education at all? I submit that Premise A is true in that there is a minimum set of skills that people need to be in a position where they are not inherently limited in their life options. If you want to carry lumber at a construction site, you don’t need to read or do math. If you want to be the carpenter framing out a roofline, you WILL need to read and know geometry. Whether or not a regular high school education provides those skills is a whole 'nother debate entirely.

[aside] a whole 'nother? Why does that sound OK when I say it, and look so damn stupid when written down?[/aside]

As for Premise C, standardized tests are certainly not perfect, but what other options are there to certify that a person has learned skills? As lousy as a test is, they are currently the best option for determining the skills a person has. Many, many professions require the passing of tests in order to be certified as a professional. From real estate sales, to auto mechanics, to accounting, any profession that has a certification program uses some sort of standard test. Why shouldn’t High School?

If all a diploma means is that a student didn’t drop out or get expelled, it’s no wonder so many jobs require college degrees. College is becoming our new High School.

Oh, and Monty, it’s spelled Gaudere :wink:

49

Hijack?

Maybe there’s a way between or around a link between Acheivement tests and HS diplomas.

What about, on a national level, proficiency certifications in limited skill sets? Your certification demonstrates that you can perform certain tasks, or that you know certain information, within a specified field.

You as a citizen decide what you want to be certified at.

These don’t have to be limited to pen and paper tests. There is no reason why they can’t include physical demonstration, verbal interaction, whatever.

We would all, in a sense, have a series of self-chosen skill certification with which to pursue a career.

The role of public schools in all this? Schools should function as the gateways to learning, and not be held responsible if people fail to learn. I see them more like a common carrier, not reponsible for their cargo, except to the extent that it is carried under safe and agreed to enviornmental conditions. Schools should teach us HOW to learn, and team up with libraries and computer labs to provide resource centers. Classes attendance should be entirely voluntary, and I see nothing wrong with having a ten year old and a 50 year old in the same class.

50

Gosh, I don’t know. I cannot imagine how a school could decide whether or not to graduate a student without giving them a test. Oh, no, wait, I can, because I graduated from high school without a test, as did everyone who graduated in my class, my younger sister, my parents, my grandparents, and indeed practically everyone I know – except, of course, those people I know who did not graduate. Obviously schools do have other options, such as, say, looking to see if students passed their classes or not.

51

Nope. “Whomever” is used in the dative case, where it is the subject (as here) of a prepositional phrase. The usage is correct.

Regards,
Shodan

52

Nope. “Whomever” is the subject of the verb in the phrase “whomever showed up for class.” The entire phrase is the object of the sentence’s verb; however, that does not mean the subject of the verb in the phrase must be in the accusative. The phrase, not the word “whomever,” is the object. The correct usage in this case is “whoever.”

53

p.s. According to the American Heritage Book of English Usage (http://http://www.bartleby.com/64/10.html) defines case as:

I see no dative case listed. Let’s keep this discussion of English grammar limited to English grammar, okay? :wink:

More information can be found at http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/078.html.

54

Premise A: Massachusetts has determined that one the the requirements for getting a diploma is passing this test.
Premise B: These kids did not pass the test.
Conclusion: These kids did not get a diploma.

55

oops

56

And yes, Monty, you are absolutely correct. And still I passed the state requirement tests. :wink:

57

eris the reason I stated that the test was the ‘single’ item, was that w/o passing that test, they wouldn’t get the diploma. So, while there may have been other requirements before, the test is the final and utlimately most important hurdle. And, since it’s use seems flawed (to me at least) it seems idiotic to use that as the ultimate judge of ‘diploma worthiness’. anything and everything they’d done before wouldn’t mean anything should they fail the test.

58

Has the NAACP or any other testing group come up with a test that all racial/ethnic groups can score evenly on?

59

testing professionals have been trying to develope culture-free tests for years now. It’s pretty much impossible, but you can come close to reducing the level of culture/class dependent questions, and have many problems that rely solely on logic. For example, one of the subtests of the WAIS (IQ test) is Matrix Reasoning. You don’t need to know anything exect, presumably, how to reason. On the other hand, you get questions on the SAT that use words like “regatta”. It’s a fuckng yatch race. Tell me, what inner city or rural kid has had experience with yatch races?

Another arguable point is the vocabulary on those tests. I don’t know about state tests in particular, since when I graduated from high school, they weren’t used, but I can assure you that the words that appear on the SATs are NOT taught in most high school classes. I’m a nerdy bookworm, and it surely didn’t hurt that I attended all honors and AP classes.

But back to Premise A. I’ll admit, Cheesesteak, it helps for people to have reading and math skills to function in society. Maybe I should rephrase both A and B as:

“High schools provide the skills students need to function as productive members of society”. So now the argument looks like this:

A. High schools provide the skills students need to function as productive members of society.

B. Standardized tests accurately and reliably assess a significant portion of those skills, reading and math.

C. A diploma should only be rewarded to a student who is ready to be released into and function as a productive part of society.

Conclusion: A diploma should only be rewarded to a student who passes the standardized test.

A is a tricky one. Tons of people who graduate from high school go on to perform reasonably well in societ. We can’t all be Fortune 500 CEOs, but people get by. On the other hand, the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. BUT, do the peopel incarcerated not have the requisite skills, or are there other factors at play?

B. I still hold that standardized tests, while reasonably reliable and valid, don’t necessariy measire all pertinent skills. That’s why individual jobs have skills tests that have nothing to do with collinearity or sextets, or regattas. But now I have to go. More later…

60

I’ll agree for example, that reading skills are important. However, getting back to Kimstu’s point, at what point does it become silly? Is it really crucial that the busser at the restaurant can read Shakespeare (yes, we all want people to be able to read and appreciate literature, but frankly not everyone enjoys it. ) Should we withhold a certification that’s crucial to have in the work world 'cause some one doesn’t read 18th century European literature?

Again, I do reading assesments on many clients. Most test out to the 9th grade level. and, for the jobs that they desire, that’s sufficient.