Despite growing opposition, Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and the NJ Department of Education (NJDOE) are moving ahead with proposals for new graduation standards and tests that would dramatically increase the requirements to earn a high school diploma. The "High School Redesign" plans are now before the State Board of Education, which is expected to vote on them early next year.

The proposals have many elements, but the core of the plan would require all NJ students to take six mandated college prep courses and pass new end-of-course exams to get a high school diploma.

Critics from urban, suburban and county Vo-Tech schools have raised numerous concerns about the plan:

• It mandates new standards and tests without a credible plan to help all students reach them.
• It doesn’t address the resource, staff and capacity issues.
• It’s a one-size-fits-all approach in a K-12 system marked by tremendous variation and inequality and could actually reduce the choices students have now.
• Because it doesn’t address the real challenges many secondary schools face, it has the potential to have a dramatically negative effect on dropout and graduation rates, particularly in large comprehensive urban high schools in high poverty districts.

The Commissioner’s plan proposes a phase-in of six mandated courses for all students:

• Phase I mandates Algebra I, Lab Biology & college prep English for entering freshmen in Sept. 08
• Phase II adds Geometry and Chemistry for freshmen entering in Sept. 2010
• Phase III adds Algebra II for freshmen entering in Sept. 2012

New end-of-course exams or "competency assessments" would be developed for each course. The stakes attached to these exams, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the plan, still must be determined by the State Board. The NJ Stepsreport, released last April by the NJ High School Redesign Steering Committee, recommended that passing all the new exams be required for graduation. However, in the face of considerable concerns generated by those recommendations, the proposals the Commissioner put before the State Board in September left open the question of what stakes the exams will have for students. On several occasions, Davy has suggested that perhaps passing "only" 4 or 5 of the exams would be required to graduate. This is one of many issues the Board must address before finalizing the plan.

Instead of "make or break" tests for graduation, scores on the new exams could be counted as a percentage of a student’s course grades, reported separately on student transcripts, or publicly reported for student subgroups, schools, and districts without imposing "diploma penalties" on individual students. Another alternative would be to allow districts to determine the weight given to new assessments.

A large body of research and experience has shown that relying heavily on exit testing to determine who gets a diploma has a negative impact on graduation and dropout rates and disproportionately affects special needs students. According to the National Center for Fair and Open Testing "the full record in states like Massachusetts, Texas and California shows that high-stakes tests have failed to fulfill their promise of improved quality and equity for public school students."

The costs of providing the mandated courses to all students, particularly in math and science where teacher shortages already exist, and of developing and scoring six new exams have not been identified. In fact, the economic impact statement accompanying the Commissioner’s proposals asserts, "there is no reason to anticipate that such curricular modifications would involve increased expenditures for school districts."

There are some elements of the proposals that potentially could be positive if implemented well. These include creating small learning environments and personalized learning plans for all students and improving the quality of instruction. But critics contend that the negative impact of the uniform course mandates and high stakes tests would undermine these aspects. "It doesn’t make sense to say you’re going to ‘personalize’ education and then make all kids take the same courses," said an educator from one of NJ’s County Vocational-Technical high schools.

"It is especially important that any new assessments not be implemented as mandatory requirements for high school graduation before the NJDOE can certify that all students have access to the courses and programs needed to adequately prepare for them," said Stan Karp, Director of the Education Law Center’s Secondary Reform Project. ELC has also proposed that the NJDOE should be required to do a full, public evaluation of the Phase I mandates, which have been implemented this year, before proceeding with Phase II and Phase III.

"The biggest problem with the new plan," Karp adds, "is that there’s almost nothing in it that helps schools and students that aren’t meeting current standards to meet tougher ones. If you keep imposing higher standards and tougher tests without providing the programs and strategies needed to reach them, you’re not closing the achievement gap or raising expectations for all young people. You’re just setting up kids and schools to fail."

For more information, contact skarp@edlawcenter.org.

For updates on the secondary reform plan and responses to it, sign up for the HS Redesign listserv: http://mailman.listserve.com/listmanager/listinfo/highschoolredesigninfo

For details on upcoming State Board of Education meetings and public testimony sessions see: http://education.state.nj.us/sboe/

Prepared: November 20, 2008