Is CAHSEE really how we want to measure success?

This is in response to the Open Forum piece in today's Chronicle by Julian Betts and Andrew Zau ("Predicting success, preventing failure"). While I agree with the conclusion that helping students who are falling behind in elementary school would be a wise investment, I disagree with their characterization of the opponents of the high school exit exam. Certainly there are those who "feel it is unfair to English language learners and special ed students," but there are many other, and arguably more important, objections to the test.

I agree with the notion that a high school diploma should mean something, that it should represent a certain degree of knowledge and skills. It is reasonable that some facility with both the English language and basic math be part of that knowledge. One problem with CAHSEE as it now exists is that it does not measure the right things. It does not represent what we really want a high school education to be about.

The essay notwithstanding, the test does not demand real creativity or problem-solving, nor does it measure interpersonal communication skills, mental flexibility, empathy, the ability to understand current events in their historical context, knowledge of basic scientific principles, technological competence, or involvement in community issues. Supporters of the test might say that the test is designed to measure only the bare minimum skills, and that those other competencies are accounted for in the coursework requirements for graduation.

To those proponents, I would point out, first, that graduation requirements are set by individual school districts, and coursework assessment is generally determined by individual teachers. We trust teachers to determine whether students are achieving the really important skills that will mark them as either educated or uneducated people, yet we must turn to a state-wide mainly multiple-choice test to tell us whether the students have the basic skills which they should have acquired years before graduation. This makes no sense.

Another objection I have is to the content and structure of the test itself. Let us just consider the English Language Arts portion of the exam. Despite the traditional division of language skills into reading, writing, speaking and listening, only the first two are tested at all, and those not very well. The 'literary response and analysis' questions do not allow students to demonstrate their own insight or sensitivity to the literature, but merely to choose among interpretations (only one of which will be considered correct). 'Writing strategies' are measured by 27 multiple-choice questions, which do not ask students to write or revise anything, but only to choose among several imperfect and often odd options. A student's mastery of 'written and oral English language conventions' is measured with 15 multiple-choice questions which do not consider oral conventions at all. Students' writing skills (called 'applications') are measured by one essay, on a topic given to them at the time of the test, which may or may not be anything they've ever thought about before or even care about. Is this really the kind of writing we want to demand that high school graduates be able to do? It is neither an approximation of a real-world work task, nor of the type of writing called for in higher education, where writing is a means to expressing one's understanding and knowledge of a particular topic.

Many of us who oppose the CAHSEE cannot help but resent the financial boon it has provided to the testing industry while schools continue to struggle for funds. ETS, which creates and sells the CAHSEE (along with other tests: STAR, AP, SAT, GRE), is enormously profitable. Although it has tax-exempt non-profit status, the company had an operating surplus of $34 million in 2001, according to a 2002 NY Times article. In addition to ETS, other companies profit by providing testing preparation materials, classes and tutoring. The high school exit exam is another step toward the privatizing of (and profiteering from) public schools.

Yes, let's invest in elementary schools. Let's make sure that students become strong readers and skillful mathematicians long before 12th grade, but let's not short-change society or the students by equating passing CAHSEE with having become truly educated.