Comment Of The Day: “…Oregon High School Grads No Longer Have To Know How To Read, Write, Or Do Math…”

Here’s the third of a run of three impressive Comments of the Day from two days ago: a dissenting take on the pandemic-linked Oregon law allowing students to receive a high school diploma despite not possessing documented proof of basic academic skills at the high school level. Since the author, the much esteemed Curmie, is a professional educator (and not in Oregon) his analysis carries due weight, and is worth pondering.

Below is his Comment of the Day on my post, It’s A “Ripley”! Oregon High School Grads No Longer Have To Know How To Read, Write, Or Do Math At High School Levels.” And I apologize for the inexcusably clichéd musical accompaniment. At least it isn’t the Art Garfunkle version…

***

I’ll stipulate that the argumentation is stupid. That said, the actual change in policy is at the very least far less laughable than you suggest; indeed, I’d argue it’s a net positive.

What has actually happened is that Oregon has decided not to put all its faith in a standardized test run by a for-profit corporation. I don’t think that’s a bad call. Even the most professionally run of these exams have histories of major problems. Numerous math questions aren’t age-appropriate. (The people who write the exams aren’t educators–they’re often education majors who couldn’t get a job as a teacher.) There was a case few years ago where a reading comprehension problem was leaked, and a poet got two out of five questions “wrong” about his own work!

But the writing sections are the worst. Even the testing companies aren’t brash enough to argue that computers can score writing (although some are experimenting with the idea). So they hire graders. These jobs generally pay less than $12 an hour and require only a college degree… in anything! For that kind of money, you’re not going to get someone who can tell the difference between a sonnet and a laundry list.

So the company makes it easy for them: there’s a formula. Five paragraphs. First one says what you’re going to say. Next three, you say it (actually saying anything is more or less optional). Last paragraph: say what you just said. Follow this, without any enormous grammatical errors, and you’ll be fine. But woe betide the student who writes a coherent and persuasive essay… but wraps it up in four paragraphs. (The sonnet/laundry list line is an exaggeration; the five paragraphs or you fail part is not.)

The serious decline in writing skills I see in today’s students relative to their peers of even two decades ago (in the same courses at the same university) has occurred not despite the Great God Accountability (worshiped by both political parties, albeit in different ways), but because of it. I’ve seldom had students question their grades on essays, but when they do, I almost always have to control my urge to scream at them, “you got a bad grade because you didn’t freaking say anything.” But… but… it was five paragraphs, and…

So many of today’s students are terrible writers in part because they’ve never learned to think. They’ve been taught to follow the formula. There’s a “correct” answer for everything; their job is to memorize it and spew it back on demand. But ask them whether Hally or Sam is the protagonist in ”Master Harold”… and the boys, and a goodly number will start looking like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

Students coming out of Oregon schools have demonstrated the necessary skills in the 3-R’s to the satisfaction of their teachers, who, at the very least, see them every day, and therefore know that although that particular essay wasn’t great, young Tiffany or Caleb can actually write. To be sure, I’ve seen enough functional illiterates in my college classes not to trust high school teachers’ opinions unhesitatingly. Life gets a lot easier when students pass: the school looks better, there’s less conflict, less chance of a lawsuit.

But the corporate hacks are equally incentivized to find some failures: after all, if they’re seen as simply endorsing the teachers’ opinions, even state legislators aren’t dumb enough to keep paying them pots of money to do so forever. And by “pots of money,” I’m talking tens of millions of dollars a year in a state the size of Oregon, precious little of which lucre will find its way into the hands anyone but upper management.

Do standardized test scores tell us anything? Sure, but not anything like the full picture. To use an example from one of your favorite topics, Jack: does a baseball player’s batting average mean anything? It does. But let’s compare centerfielders from when you and I were lads. Manny Mota’s lifetime BA was .304; Willie Mays’s was .301. Which one would you rather have on your team? And if .300 is the cut-off, then Mota passes and Duke Snider (.295) doesn’t. I beg to differ.

5 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “…Oregon High School Grads No Longer Have To Know How To Read, Write, Or Do Math…”

  1. Relevant baseball note: the batting average analogy would have been spot on around 1970. That’s when we were still evaluating players based on batting average above all, Bill James back then woke everybody up with similar comparisons, saying, in essence, “Oh, for heaven’s sake, LOOK at these players! You can’t believe Mota is better than Mays!” But as his argument progressed, there was a substantive statistics, easily identified and measurable, that showed the flaw in using BA. There was slugging percentage, which measured power (Mays Lifetime: 557; Mota: 389) and On base percentage, which measure how often a player avoided making an out (Mays: .384; Mota:: .355) Today we add those two numbers to get a more accurate picture, and Mays is way, way, ahead. We don’t have to rely on subjective judgment.

    What’s the equivalent missing data with high school students?

  2. I haven’t seen one, not even one, policy made by school boards or government that has actually improved the knowledge base of average graduating High School students. Overall they seem to be looking at graduation rates in numbers instead of actual knowledge, so more stupid students are graduating making their graduating rates increase but the level of overall knowledge has actually decreased.

    Although Curmie does raise some good points that warrant some discussion I feel like it’s a distraction from the elephant in the room and that is that there are way too many High School students that actually have High School diplomas that can’t communicate effectively in the real world, can’t read above a seventh or eighth grade level (some less, much less), can’t properly fill out a job applications, can’t add and subtract well enough to balance a check book or check if an auto repair bill or a grocery receipt has been added up correctly, don’t know a damn thing about United States civics, don’t have the reasoning skills above that of an average 6th grader from 1976, have little to no drive to get a job and engage in adulting and when they do get a job they find out that they have to actually work and sometimes that is hard so they job hop making it nearly impossible for them ever to advance, are programmed to be participation trophy earning snowflakes; the list goes on and On and ON!

    We are in fact dumbing down our schools to the lowest common denominator so students that are at or near the level of stupid or don’t give a damn enough to actually do the work can still feel good about themselves because they got a High School diploma. Well big fucking deal; that diploma in the 21st century basically means they survived living through the doldrums of High School. Schools are enabling a lack of basic life skills knowledge and and stupidity.

    I’ve had to deal with some of these ignorant 21st century “graduated” students, what a treat that is. They’ve been programmed into thinking that they’re the best thing since sliced bread but they’re just barely functioning idiots meandering through life with no real future to speak of.

    Will the new policy in Oregon be a net positive and actually improve anything but the “numbers” graduating, maybe when hell freezes over, why because the whole damn system is preprogrammed to shove the incompetent students forward regardless of what would be considered a failure in 1976, can’t take the chance and hurt their precious feelings.

  3. The article linked to in the original post contains the following paragraph:

    “Much of the criticism of the graduation requirements was targeted at standardized tests. Yet Oregon, unlike many other states, did not require students to pass a particular standardized test or any test at all. Students could demonstrate their ability to use English and do math via about five different tests or by completing an in-depth classroom project judged by their own teachers.”

    So, this appears to be a rejection of having any assessment of student’s abilities at all

  4. How long would it take to just FIX THE TESTS, why is that answer apparently “5 years, minimum,” what does that say about the competence of the public school system, and what excuse is there for eliminating testing and standards for math?

    “We had to stop measuring our results because we suck so bad that we don’t have a reliable way of doing that after 100 years” sounds like an argument for vouchers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.