High school exit exam requirements are affecting a growing number of U.S. students—particularly low-income students and students of color. This article examines the policy and legal landscape of exit testing policy to shed light on some of the key issues facing local school leaders charged with implementing these policies. The article first analyzes federal and state court cases related to exit testing and examines the conditions under which courts have permitted and bounded their use. It then discuses the broader legal and legislative environment that has affected leaders’ ability to respond to exit testing requirements. The article concludes with implications of high-stakes exit testing and policy considerations for local leaders as well as state policymakers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander v. Sandoval, 121 S. Ct. 1511 (2001).
2.
BakerB. D., & GreenP. C.III (2005). Tricks of the trade: State legislative actions in school finance that perpetuate racial disparities in the post-Brown era. American Journal of Education, 111(3), 372–413.
Board of Education of Oklahoma City vs. Dowell, 111 S. Ct. 630 (1991).
5.
BogerJ. C. (2003). Education's “perfect storm”? Racial resegregation, high stakes testing and school resource inequities: The case of North Carolina. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1375–1462.
6.
Center on Education Policy. (2008, August). State high school exit exams: A move toward end of course exams. Washington, DC: Author.
7.
Center on Education Policy. (2009, November). State high school exit exams: Trends in test programs, alternate pathways, and pass rates. Washington, DC: Author.
8.
Center on Education Policy. (2010). State high school tests: Exit exams and other assessments.Washington, DC: Author.
9.
ClotfelterC. T. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
ClotfelterC., LaddH. F., VigdorJ., & WheelerJ. (2006). High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals.Durham, NC: Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University.
Darling-HammondL., Rustique-ForresterE., & PecheoneR. L. (2005). Multiple measures approaches to high school graduation.Stanford, CA: Stanford University School Redesign Network. Retrieved from www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/multiple_measures.pdf
13.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 644 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1981).
14.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 564 F. Supp. 177 (1983).
15.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 730 F.2d 1405 (11th Cir. 1984).
16.
Espinoza v. Arizona State Board of Education, Superior Court of AZ, CV 2006-005616 (2008).
17.
Flores v. Arizona, 172 F.Supp.2d 1225 (D.Ariz. 2000).
18.
Freeman vs. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992).
19.
GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency et al., 87 F. Supp. 2d 667 (2000).
20.
HamiltonL. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25–68.
21.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., & RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354.
22.
HeiseM. R. (2009). Courting trouble: Litigation, high-stakes testing, and education policy (Cornell Law Faculty Publication No. 41). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law School.
23.
HeubertJ. P. (2005). High-stakes testing, nationally and in the south. In BogerJ. C., & OrfieldG. (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the South turn back? (pp. 212–235). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
24.
HeubertJ. P., & HauserR. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
HolmeJ. J. (2008). High stakes diplomas: Organizational responses of California's high schools to the state's exit examination requirement. Research in the Sociology of Education, 14, 157–188.
26.
HolmeJ. J., RichardsM. P., JimersonJ. B., & CohenR. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school exit exams. Review of Educational Research, 80, 476–526.
27.
Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579 (2009).
28.
JacksonC. K. (2009). Student demographics, teacher sorting, and teacher quality: Evidence from the end of school desegregation. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(2), 213–256.
Jimenez-CastellanosO., & RodriguezJ. (2009). Intradistrict resource reallocation for Latino English language learners: An exploratory multiple case study approach. Bilingual Research Journal, 32(3), 298–316.
31.
LankfordH., LoebS., & WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
32.
LinnR. L., MadausG. F., & PedullaJ. J. (1982). Minimum competency testing: Cautions on the state of the art. American Journal of Education, 91(1), 1–35.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2006, May 26). Settlement allows MCAS to stand as graduation requirement [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=2907
35.
McNeilL. M., CoppolaE., RadiganJ., & Vasquez HeiligJ. (2008). Avoidable losses: High-stakes accountability and the dropout crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n3/
36.
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974).
37.
Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995).
38.
Moore et al. vs. State of Alaska, Trial Court Case No. 3An-04-9756 (2007).
39.
National Education Access Network. (2012). State listing of court decisions. Retrieved from http://schoolfunding.info/
OrfieldG. (2005). The Southern dilemma: Losing Brown, fearing Plessy. In BogerJ. C., & OrfieldG. (Eds.), School resegregation: Must the South turn back? (pp 1–25). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
42.
OrfieldG., EatonS. E., & the Harvard Project on School Desegregation. (1997). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal ofBrown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.
43.
OrfieldG., & LeeC. (2007, August). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation and the need for new integration strategies. Los Angeles: Civil Rights Project.
44.
OuD. (2009). To leave or not to leave? A regression discontinuity analysis of the impact of failing the high school exit exam (CEP Discussion Paper No. 907). London: Center for Economic Performance.
45.
PapayJ., MurnaneR. J., & WillettJ. B. (2010). The consequences of high school exit examinations for low performing urban students: Evidence from Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 5–23.
46.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, 1276 S. Ct. 2738 (2007).
47.
PiphoC. (1978). Minimum competency testing in 1978: A look at state standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 59(9), 585–588.
48.
PiphoC. (1983, January 3). Student minimum competency testing.Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
49.
ReardonS. F., AtteberryA., ArshanN., & KurlaenderM. (2009, April 21). Effects of the California High School Exit Exam on student persistence, achievement, and graduation (Working Paper No. 2009-12). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice.
50.
RebellM. A., & WolffJ. R. (2006, March). Litigation and education reform: The history and the promise of the educational adequacy movement. New York: Campaign for Educational Equity.
51.
ResnickD. P. (1980). Minimum competency testing historically considered. Review of Research in Education, 8(1), 3–29.
52.
RyanJ. E., & SaundersT. (2004). Foreword to Symposium on School Finance Litigation: Emerging Trends or New Dead Ends?Yale Law & Policy Review, 22(2), 463–480.
53.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
54.
Student No. 9. v. Board of Education, 802 N.E.2d 105 (2004).
55.
SuttonJ. (2008). San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez and its aftermath. Virginia Law Review, 94, 1963–1986.
56.
TyackD. (1993). School governance in the United States: Historical puzzles and anomalies. In HannawayJ., & CarnoyM. (Eds.), Decentralization and school improvement (pp. 1–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57.
Valenzuela v. O'Connell, San Francisco County Ct., No. CPF-06-506050 (2006).
58.
Vasquez HeiligJ., & Darling-HammondL. (2008). Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75–110.
59.
Vasquez HeiligJ., WilliamsA., & JezS. (2010). Inputs and student achievement: An analysis of Latina/o-serving urban elementary schools. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 10(1), 48–58.
60.
WellsA. S., & FrankenbergE. (2007). The public schools and the challenge of the Supreme Court's integration decision. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 178–188.
WinfieldL. F. (1990). School competency testing reforms and student achievement: Exploring a national perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 157–173.
63.
ZehrM. (2006, April 19). Arizona English-learners must take exit exam. Education Week, 25(32), 24.
