Last week, the Ohio House passed legislation (HB 67) that addressed graduation requirements and a few other issues in K–12 education. The bill, which is currently being heard in the Senate, gives schools temporary authority to determine whether seniors may receive high school diplomas. This extends an emergency policy enacted last year for the class of 2020 that waived standard graduation requirements because of the pandemic.
While giving seniors a reprieve may be sensible, HB 67 goes a step further by allowing any high school student—this year’s freshman, sophomores, and juniors—to substitute course grades for their end-of-course (EOC) exam scores taken this year. If this sounds familiar, it is. Last June, legislators enacted a bill that allowed high school students whose EOC exams were cancelled to substitute course grades in that subject for the purposes of graduation. For instance, any grade of “C” or above was deemed equivalent to a “competency” score on the key EOCs that students need to achieve to graduate (algebra I and English II). This substitution policy would continue under HB 67.
All this was an acceptable Band-Aid last year when state tests were not given. But it’s nonsense to prolong this supposedly temporary policy. First off, schools will soon be administering state exams, including EOCs, so there’s no need to find a substitute for cancelled exams this year. Moreover, maintaining this workaround only reinforces a misguided notion that course grades are appropriate substitutes for exam scores.
On this blog, we’ve discussed at great length the problems of using course grades or GPAs to meet graduation requirements. Just a few days ago, my colleague Jessica Poiner rightly blasted inappropriate provisions in the budget bill that would permanently allow course grades to substitute for strong EOC scores as a demonstration of mastery in biology, U.S. history, and American government. Why are we so adamant about not allowing course grades to stand in the place of exams? In briefest form, the objections boil down to the fact that the policy undermines basic principles of educational equity and excellence, two of the pillars upon which sound policy rests.
Violating principles of equity. Many educational leaders today emphasize the need for “equity” in K–12 education policies. For good reason. Equity, properly defined, works to ensure that all students are equally challenged to meet rigorous standards. Under Ohio’s conventional graduation requirements, students must pass certain state EOC exams (or meet career-technical or military-enlistment criteria). This adheres to equity principles that, when applied to graduation, expect all students—no matter their background or the school they attend—to meet standard requirements that indicate baseline readiness to succeed after high school.
This important equity principle is undermined when policymakers allow course grades to substitute for exams. There is no assurance that students receiving a “C” in one school versus another are equally competent in a subject. Remember, statewide grading standards do not exist. Every teacher has his or her own criteria. One may have extremely stringent grading practices, while another’s are less challenging. Some educators might include classroom participation and attendance in course grades, and others might lean more heavily on quizzes and exams.
Teachers’ grading practices shouldn’t be micromanaged by the state, but relying on course grades results in double standards. Unfortunately, disadvantaged students are more prone to fall victim to lower expectations, one of the regrettable consequences of policymakers failing to uphold basic principles of educational equity.
Violating principles of excellence. Education policies should motivate educators and students to strive for excellence in all that they do. As a way of encouraging high school pupils to reach their academic potential, Ohio has long required young people to pass state exams before they graduate. The prior iteration of state high school tests, known as the OGTs, assessed roughly eighth-grade-level content. But rightly understanding that the OGTs were a modest bar, Ohio developed a set of more demanding EOC exams that now ask students to demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge and skill in core academic subjects.
In contrast, course grades don’t offer the same incentives for students to master rigorous academic content. For instance, a Fordham study found that more than half of North Carolina students who failed to demonstrate proficiency on state algebra I exams received a course grade of “C” or above—wrongly affirming their mastery of the subject. Unfortunately, there has been no comparable analysis in Ohio, as course grades aren’t even reported to the state. But it’s plausible that thousands of students receive satisfactory course grades but struggle to achieve competency on state exams. Rather than lowering the bar and pushing through students who haven’t demonstrated firm literacy and numeracy skills, policymakers would better serve these young people by slowing the promotional train and asking them to solidify their abilities in content areas that are essential to lifelong success.
* * *
Some may argue that Ohio’s high school students deserve a free pass because of the disruptions of the past year. We must, of course, recognize these challenges and work to overcome them in the months ahead. But the year’s events don’t give policymakers free reign to discard policies that advance educational equity and excellence. To the contrary, it’s now more important than ever to hold fast to principles that put young people’s long-term best interests at the heart of policymaking.
