Weigh in on New High School Graduation Requirements

You have about two weeks to weigh in at the State Board of Education on new graduation requirements. From the Seattle Times:

Washington students were among some of the last in the nation required to pass a set of federally mandated exams to finish high school. Students must still take these tests, called Smarter Balanced Assessments. But in the spring, legislators voted almost unanimously to cut the tie between the exams and a diploma. They also outlined a series of alternative paths to graduation, but left the fine print up to the state’s Board of Education. That board has spent the past several months drafting a set of new rules.

The board will hold a public hearing Oct. 24 in Olympia, where anyone interested can voice an  opinion. People who can’t make the meeting have until Oct. 28 to email comments to rulescoordinatorSBE@k12.wa.us.
SBE FAQs
Starting with the class of 2020, students would be required to meet a set of credit requirements and complete at least one of the following:
  • Pass the federal Smarter Balanced math and English tests.
  • Earn high-school math and English credits by enrolling in “dual-credit” courses.
  • Pass certain Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or Cambridge International exams, or pass certain “transition” courses that allow students to enroll in college-level coursework.
  • Reach minimum scores set by the state on the SAT or ACT.
  • Earn a minimum score on a military-aptitude test.
  • Take two career technical-education (CTE) courses.
Of course there's always pushback but I don't take much of what LEV or Stand for Children have to say very seriously:
Something as substantial as changing graduation requirements has riled criticism from some members of the state’s business and education advocacy communities. The pathways don’t parallel the rigor that came with the standardized tests, said officials from the League of Education Voters, which took a stance against decoupling the high-school diploma from test scores.

State schools chief Chris Reykdal says he will monitor which students wind up in each pathway. Reykdal, a member of the State Board of Education, said he generally supports the pathway options but the CTE pathway “comes up short” and could unintentionally breed inequity among students.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'd rather students take two CTE courses than the military ASVAB. I took it before enlisting and it's pretty sad as a graduation requirement. There are Military Occupational Specialties that require certain General Technical requirements such as Artillery, Non-Tradititional forces, pilot, or infantry. There are non-passing scores that preclude enlisting. I'd really like to know what that cut score would be. Qualify for Infantry and you graduate? Qualify Nuclear Sub Tech and you get Summa Cum Laude?

Mr. Theo Moriarty
10/15/19, 9:11 AM
Anonymous said…
This sounds like it could be a lowering of the bar for graduation requirements, depending on what sort of minimum scores are allowed, what "taking 2 CTE classes means (e.g., do you have to pass them, do they have to be rigorous, etc.). At times it feels like we're moving in the "everyone gets a medal for playing" direction. We're already at the point where a shocking percentage of high school graduates require remediation in order to participate in typical college level classes. At what point is a high school diploma essentially meaningless?

unclear
10/16/19, 10:34 AM
Stuart J said…
The whole situation is very odd. "The legislature says do this, then asks for comment about what people think of it." Some of these are a lot harder than others. The SAT requirement is not the college ready benchmark, it is just scores that are in the 11th percentile for example. I think many 8th grade students would get that score. And this takes effect for the class of 2020! The poor counselors, trying to deal with this in addition to Core 24.
10/16/19, 11:30 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more