Diane Stark Rentner, Director of National Programs for the Center on Education Policy announced that the center together with Learning Point Associates will be hosting a Web cast titled “The Hidden Costs of High School Exit Exams” on September 19th from 2-3 p.m. (EST). (They have not yet posted the address for this event.)
The announcement of the Web cast states, Most often the cost of an exit exam is imposed on districts with little or no special state support and districts must shuffle their budgets to cover these hidden and unexpected costs.
The Web cast has five purposes:
1. to provide information about costs of high school exit exam policies at the state and district levels;
2. to present a distribution of apparent and hidden costs associated with these exams;
3. to detail other cost considerations as suggested by those interviewed for the current policy brief on hidden costs;
4. to discuss a checklist of cost related issues to consider before states adopt exit exam policies; and
5. to discuss various policy developments aimed at addressing cost and sustainability concerns related to exit exam policies.
The announcement also asserts that hidden costs include those associated:
a. with exam rigor, remediation, prevention, teacher professional development, and exam development and administration, and
b. with who will pay for these costs to ensure all students are prepared to take and pass state mandated exit exams.
As announced, this could be an interesting Web cast, but perhaps not for reasons intended by the Center and Learning Point Associates.
Maybe I missed something, but I don’t get the point of this Web cast. The announcement reads as though public school educators say, “Exit exams are not my job!”
Surely, no employed educator would say that. Right?
Of course schools should pay for exit exams as part of an expected annual budget item. Apparently not all local school boards have approved budgets with such items. Superintendents can fix that without more money. Surely, superintendents and boards will, right?
Schools receive on average about $10,000 per student annually. That’s a lot of money per teacher, especially for a high school teacher responsible for five periods daily.
It seems like part of defining “good instruction” is to give priority to assisting each student to meet minimum academic performance standards with those funds. That should be board policy. Then, no one must remediate students, so there are no hidden costs for remediation.
As to teacher preparation costs, specifically what do teachers not know how to do about preparing students to pass exit exams or to administer any exam? They’re smart individually and as a cohort. They learned these things before they earned their certificates to teach. If not, then they know how to improve their instruction. Allow and expect them initiate their own improvements. If they don’t already know how to instruct effectively and they do not initiate learning more, then maybe board members should reconsider employment policies and practices from the superintendent down.
In this era of accoutability, why would any public school educator and local board of education member not expect to have state offices responsible for local schooling ask to see evidence that students get what legislatures authorize and appropriate funds for?
Exit exams appear as minimum expectations for school administrators and board members to examine as part of their routine duties.
It will be interesting to hear how paid public employees explain why they don’t meet this performance threshold.
I wonder if the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission would accept such explanations from corporate executives and boards that offer public stock?