Delay in School Exit Exam Urged

California should seriously consider postponing implementation of its new high school exit exam for a year or two, according to a report by an independent evaluator that was presented to the state Legislature on Wednesday.

Although much progress has been made in developing the high-stakes exam, “a great deal remains to be done” before the test can be successfully administered, the report said.

The graduation test, which will be given for real for the first time next spring, is intended to be the centerpiece of Gov. Gray Davis’ efforts to boost the state’s mediocre academic performance. He has insisted that it be ready by next spring.

“He’ll thoughtfully consider the recommendation,” Sue Burr, the interim state secretary of education, said of Davis. “[But] you have to keep in mind that the education establishment tends to move on a slower calendar than policymakers would like.”

Under state law, members of the Class of 2004 will be required to pass the new exam during their high school years to be eligible for diplomas. Freshmen in the future will be able to take it voluntarily. As sophomores, students who have not already passed the test will be required to take it. They will have many chances to pass it--at least three per year. Each time, they will face a substantially new version.

The independent evaluation was prepared by Human Resources Research Organization of Alexandria, Va.

In suggesting that a delay was in order, the company cited two main concerns: that schools need more time to prepare students to meet the standards assessed by the exit exam and that the state needs more time to develop a test that would meet professional standards and stand up to legal challenges.

In previous court cases in other states including Florida and Texas, the report noted, the key issue has been whether students have been adequately taught the material covered by the test.

“The real specific concern is whether students from low socioeconomic [circumstances] have been given adequate instruction to pass,” said Lauress L. Wise, president of Human Resources Research and a coauthor of the report.

The report said the state also needs time to determine how to accommodate special needs students who would have to take the exam.

Particularly problematic, the report said, was the timing for deciding on the minimum score needed to pass the test. “A hasty or ill-informed decision about minimum passing scores will be hard to correct once students take the exam in 2001,” the report said.

Based on the results of a May field test of the exam, “if we set the passing score at 50%, roughly 60% would pass the English portion and almost 50% would pass the math,” said Paul Warren, deputy superintendent over accountability with the California Department of Education.

However, he noted that as the state gets word out to schools and districts about the importance of the exit exam, they will be more focused on developing lessons that teach the content laid out in California’s rigorous new standards.

Burr said the report was “retrospective in nature” and did not take into account “the major investment in teacher development” that the state is making to ensure that California students will be taught the proper content. On a positive note, she said the report indicated that the high school exit exam is reasonably aligned with the state’s standards.

The California Department of Education awarded Human Resources Research a three-year, $250,000 contract for the independent evaluation.