Saratoga News

Education

The reading is off the map from the state's exit exam

By Joseph DiSalvo

The educational Richter scale registered an 8.0 on May 12, 2006, causing major chaos in the office of the state superintendent of public instruction and in every public high school principal's office throughout the state. The epicenter of the educational trembling was Alameda.

Alameda Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman's decision to suspend California's exit exam as a graduation requirement for all 12th-grade students created shock waves throughout the state. Approximately 11 percent of California's seniors have yet to pass the exit exam test.

Freedman's decision was based on his findings that the educational system is a stacked deck and discriminatory in some of its practices. His decision stated: "There is evidence in the record that students in economically challenged communities have not had an equal opportunity to learn the materials tested."

The plaintiffs' attorneys argued English-language learners continue to attend schools with a scarcity of resources and fewer fully credentialed teachers. The judge's preliminary injunction has created a huge fissure in the accountability fault that runs from the public high schools in Siskiyou County to those in San Diego/Imperial counties.

Superintendent Jack O'Connell vehemently disagrees with Freedman's decision. "The preliminary injunction against California's exit exam denies the vast majority of students in the class of 2006 the opportunity to graduate with diplomas that certify mastery of essential skills in reading and math. It's bad news for California students who have worked hard to pass the exit exam, for employers who want meaning restored to high school diplomas, and for our public schools that have risen to the challenge of preparing students to pass the exam," read a statement issued by O'Connell immediately after the "big one" hit.

O'Connell's statement also included this challenge: "We will continue to fight the case of Valenzuela vs. O'Connell. I have directed our attorneys to immediately appeal this ruling and to seek a stay of the judge's order."

Who is right? Let me offer some data to help us analyze the two arguments and answer some relevant questions in the process.

Let's compare the expenditures per student, percent of fully credentialed teachers, the student-teacher ratio and the salary of a fully credentialed teacher with a bachelor's degree plus 60 units for representative California school districts. All data was gleaned from Ed-Data for Fiscal Year 2004-05:

Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District: Enrollment of 3,023 students. Spends $8,609 per student, has 94.4 percent fully credentialed teachers, has 22.9 students per teacher and pays $75,156 for a B.A. plus 60 teacher.

San Benito High School District in San Benito County: Enrollment of 3,120 students. Spends $7,417 per student, has 85.1 percent fully credentialed teachers, has 26.0 students per teacher, and pays $58,757 for a B.A. plus 60 teacher.

Palo Alto Unified School District: Enrollment of 10,533 students. Spends $11,170 per student, has 97 percent fully credentialed teachers, has 17.1 students per teacher and pays $72,044 for a B.A. plus 60 teacher.

Arcadia Unified School District in Los Angeles County: Enrollment of 10,135 students. Spends $5,994 per student, has 88.1 percent fully credentialed teachers, has 23.4 students per teacher and pays $66,090 for a B.A. plus 60 teacher.

San Jose Unified School District: Enrollment of 31,874 students. Spends $7,739 per student, has 87.8 percent fully credentialed teachers, has 19.2 students per teacher and pays $64,307 for a B.A. plus 60 teacher.

When you factor the differences in how much a district expends per year per student between Palo Alto Unified and Arcadia Unified, it is as much as $5,176 per student per year. That difference translates into $155,280 more per classroom of 30 students. Through this comparison one can conclude that public school funding is vastly unequal.

Of course, class size is another disparate variable in the equity puzzle and varies in the examples referred to here from a low of 17.1 students per teacher in Palo Alto to 26 students per teacher in San Benito, another glaring example of the inequality in the public school system.

So who is right in the argument on exit exams? Can we hold students accountable for passing a test when the adults have yet to figure out a way to equalize the playing field in education of our youth? Something seems inherently wrong when the wealthiest students receive the most funding, the best teachers and the lowest class size.

Public education needs to be held accountable, and the high school diploma must mean more than seat time for four years. No doubt about that. So perhaps the judge and the superintendent are both right.

The exit exam is a laudable goal; however, the adults who make the laws, who fund schools and who analyze the data must equalize the playing field prior to holding students accountable for not passing a single measure (fill in bubble paper/pencil test) of their competency.

The governor and state superintendent should review the work done in New Jersey, where a balanced state assessment system places equal emphasis on locally created and scored performance-based assessments and paper and pencil testing. This pioneering work in New Jersey merits study. It appears to be a fairer system to all students.

The aftershocks from the "big one" will be felt for many years to come.

Joseph DiSalvo has been a teacher and principal in Santa Clara County for 32 years; he is also an adjunct professor of education at Santa Clara University. He can be reached at josephsds1@aol.com.