In response to a series of reports in the 1980s that found America's schools substandard, five states now require students to pass standardized tests, known as exit exams, in order to graduate high school. That number is expected to grow to about 19 by 2010.
But do exit exams genuinely improve education?
While the answer to that question depends on who you ask, one trend is clear: the higher the stakes involved in testing -- such as earning a high school diploma -- the larger the controversy.
Proponents of exit exams assert that the tests constitute substantial and long-needed reform in failing school systems. To critics, however, such high stakes exams reward test-taking skills and are often poorly designed.
Massachusetts, with its Education Reform Law of 1993 and the standardized test that evolved from it -- the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, or MCAS --, has become a center for the debate about high stakes testing.
After several years of phasing-in, Massachusetts' high school graduating class of 2003 will have to pass the MCAS in order to receive diplomas, making the test the focus of great conflict that has often dominated the education debate in that state.
Heidi Perlman, director of media relations for the MCAS, said the MCAS addresses the need for accountability of public schools to the legislature.
"We've done a lot in the past 10 years to reform Massachusetts schools...We've poured money in with the caveat that schools would be held accountable," she said.
For Perlman, the test is merely one element of more far-reaching reform, a way of gauging whether or not new curriculum standards and other changes have been successful. She said the threat of not graduating helps motivate students to study for the test.
On the other side of the MCAS debate, critics say that while accountability for basic standards makes sense, the kind of state-wide, comprehensive testing is simply unfair.
One such opponent of the MCAS is Newton North High School senior Charlotte Sullivan. Sullivan organized a student boycott of MCAS in Newton and founded a local chapter of a statewide student protest organization called the Student Coalition for Alternatives to MCAS (SCAM).
SCAM has two main criticisms of the MCAS: the amount of knowledge required to pass it, and the sort of knowledge it values.
With regard to the first criticism, Sullivan said the MCAS covers so much information that teachers have almost no time to teach additional material, therefore stifling creativity in the classroom.
In "Do High-Stakes Assessments Improve Learning?" (McGraw-Hill, 2001), writers Nina and Sol Hurwitz agree that "the first thing to go in a school where these tests matter is a more vibrant, integrated, active and effective kind of instruction."
SCAM also criticizes the MCAS for being biased against bilingual, vocational and special needs students.
Many students agree. Sullivan feels the test is clearly written by "outsiders" who do not and cannot know their own cultural and intellectual biases. "Education is different for every student. The test should not be the same for each of them," she said.
Classmate Joanna Peterson concurred. "Yes, people who can't pass it do deserve a diploma, such as the students in our technical education program," she said.
However, MCAS spokesperson Perlman believes otherwise. "These tests are carefully field tested by top educators and testing people in the state from all communities," she said.
Most agree that education reform is necessary and desirable, and even that measures to ensure student and school accountability are essential. The controversy for high stakes tests tends to boil down to a difference of opinion on two levels -- what higher standards mean and who can best assess academic achievement.
Those who believe education should emphasize a core curriculum agree with high stakes testing. For them, the information is standard and knowledge of it constitutes achievement. Such information can easily be tested on a state-wide level.
On the other hand, critics believe education is not about what students know, but about whether or not they know how to process information. For them, higher standards mean requiring students to think critically. This is not meant to be to the exclusion of basic knowledge.
Such critics of the MCAS say standardized testing of a limited core curriculum is useful, but must leave room for analytical thinking. They argue assessment of such skills should take place locally.
Proponents of the MCAS feel they are making imperfect but important progress. Perlman said MCAS supporters have "not [been] impacted by student criticisms."
Yet SCAM member Sullivan said that although the organization has not directly changed state policy, it has been effective in other respects. "SCAM alerted a lot of parents. The whole movement started with students and other adult organizations, such as CARE [The Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education], have blossomed because of it," she said.
If nothing else, Sullivan said she used her boycotting time (the two weeks required to complete the MCAS) effectively: "I checked out a stack of books from the library and learned about the Salem witch trials and many other topics that a standard-curriculum-based school system has not allowed me to pursue," she said.
