If High School Seniors can’t pass the end-of-course exams, there shouldn’t be a back door to get a diploma. If it becomes policy, we fear the back door will become the front door.
This week, the BESE Board’s Academic Goals and Instructional Improvement Committee spent four hours debating the pros and cons of a new appeals process for students who fail the state’s End of Course (EOC) exam. The state superintendent opposes the idea because it threatens to dilute the value of this crucial credential.
First, it’s worth reflecting on past initiatives, such as the 2015 Jump Start TOPS Tech Career Diploma. This publication labeled it a “Diploma for Dummies.” That might have been harsh, but it underscored an uncomfortable truth: initiatives like these, while well-intentioned, risk creating perceptions (and perhaps realities) of a two-tier education system. We should be wary of any proposal that further “waters down” the standard.
We take offense because the proponents say blacks, Latinos, and other nonwhites don’t do well on tests. That might have been an argument during the school segregation era of the 1960s, but it should not be an argument in today’s integrated system.
Testing is, admittedly, not a flawless metric. There are indeed students who, for various reasons – from language barriers to learning disabilities – may find these tests especially challenging. Yet, the solution cannot be to create backdoors for graduation, as it does not genuinely help these students in the long run and weakens the overall standard.
The current proposal, while appearing comprehensive with its requirements for portfolios and evidence of employability, seems more like an extended workaround than a genuine solution. If a student fails the EOC his teacher can give him a project to complete, and the student walks across the stage with his watered-down diploma in hand.
It indirectly encourages schools to shift their priorities from elevating academic proficiency to simply meeting graduation rates. This is particularly concerning when we note that superintendents’ compensation may be tied to these rates, introducing a potential conflict of interest that could pressure administrators to approve more appeals than may be academically justified.
Our emphasis should be on ensuring that every student gets a high-quality education that equips them with the knowledge and skills they need, rather than on finding ways to bypass essential benchmarks.
There are genuine concerns about the impact of high-stakes testing on students’ futures. It’s true that the lack of a diploma can profoundly affect a young person’s life trajectory. But the answer should be to invest more in our schools, teachers, and students, ensuring that everyone gets a robust education that genuinely prepares them for the future.
Introducing an appeals process, particularly one that may be influenced by administrative priorities rather than educational needs, is not the right way forward.
Louisiana’s students deserve the best education we can provide, and our communities deserve the assurance that a high school diploma means something concrete and valuable. Let’s focus on improving the quality of education, rather than creating shortcuts that might feel good in the short term but will cost us all in the long run.
