Dishonesty in the School System: a Commentary on Chester Finn’s “The Fog of “College Readiness”” – part 5

studentAfter a hiatus of a few weeks, we are resuming this series that looks at the systemic dishonesty in the public school system concerning students’ readiness for college level work.

While most high-school graduates do, in fact, head for some sort of college, the colleges do not view millions of these matriculants as qualified for credit-bearing courses in core subjects such as English, math, and science. These students are admitted because the majority of U.S. two- and four-year colleges are open-admission institutions that, whether because it’s their statutory mandate, their sense of mission, or their financial imperative, accept pretty much all who apply. And thanks to widespread availability of financial aid — federal grants and especially loans being by far the largest source — and costs that are still relatively manageable on most campuses due to state subsidies, local taxpayers, and generous donors, few students are deterred by net-price considerations. (Price certainly affects which colleges they choose, however, and whether they enroll full or part time.)

Enrolling in an affordable college is not, however, the same as registering for college-level courses, the kind that actually accumulate credits toward those remunerative degrees. Instead, vast numbers of arriving students are routed into remedial classes — more often now called “developmental” — to gain the skills and knowledge (and perhaps the study habits) that they didn’t bring from high school. – Chester Finn, Jr.

Most high school graduates end up in some kind of college. Of the 1,762 graduates in the 2015 class (the year the graduation rate inexplicably skyrocketed) , 35% went to a public college in GA, 11% went to college out of state, 9% went to a technical college in GA, and 3% went to a private college in GA, the year after graduation. Interestingly enough, this college enrollment rate of 58% for Douglas County is lower than the state rate of 64%, in spite of a much higher graduation rate.

Since getting into college of some kind is relatively easy, the more important question is how do they do when they get there? A significant portion of the college enrollees from this class needed to take a remedial math course (24%) or a remedial reading course (10%). This means the students, or taxpayers, had to pay for courses that did not result in actual college credits, i.e. credits that counted toward an actual degree.

How can this be when students passed, and probably made As or Bs in,  literature and math courses in high school that cover the same content and skills as these remedial courses? I think the answer is obvious: the grades they received in high school had little to do with the knowledge and skills they actually attained. Their high school teachers did not require students to demonstrate mastery in order to pass the course, or even get good grades, and thus get credit. Such an outcome is all too frequent in our high schools, even though the GA DoE’s position is that students who earn credit can a course should be proficient in the curriculum.

Why isn’t this problem recognized and named to be the fraud that it is? Perhaps if local school districts were forced to pay for these remedial college courses, they would do a much better job ensuring that students had to acquire real knowledge and skills to earn credits for graduation.

This is part 5 of a running commentary on Chester Finn’s “The Fog of “College Readiness”” (National Affairs, Issue Number 30, Winter 2017). 

*Post graduation data from “High School Graduate Outcomes Report”,

How are our Students with Disabilities Really Doing Academically?


The astounding district graduation rate increase of 13% from 2014 (75%) to 2015 (88%) was attributed in part to gains in the graduation rate of students with disabilities (SWDs). The SWD graduation rate in Douglas County doubled from 35% in 2014 to 70% in 2015 (compared to an increase from 36 to 54% in Georgia over the same time period)*. How was this dramatic increase attained? Was it a result of significant increases in the academic achievement of these special needs students? Does Douglas County have a higher SWD graduation rate because its students are learning more?

A comparison on End of Course exam proficiency data between SWDs in Douglas County and the state of Georgia provides some clues^:

In 7 of 8 subject areas, Douglas County’s SWDs achieved less than their peers throughout the state, indicating lower standards and expectations for this population.

One might counter in the one exam seniors take, Economics,  DC students did better. This is true and it may account partly for why the SWD graduation rate was better than the state’s. However, in 2016 the graduation rate was still much higher (65 compared to 56%), yet DC students did worse on all 8 exams that year, including Economics. And the 2016 graduates would have taken the American Literature and US History exams as juniors in 2015. With a proficiency rate of 15%, the American Literature scores certainly raise questions about the quality of the education these students are receiving.

So how can the graduation rate of this population be so high while academic achievement is so low? The likely answer that very little learning is required of students to earn credits and thus progress through the system and graduate. I saw this firsthand last year when I taught high school classes that included students with disabilities. Quite frankly, these students had been conditioned by years of low expectations. For example, all of them were allowed “test corrections for points.” This means that after taking a multiple choice test, they were shown which ones they got wrong and allowed to change their answers and get their tests re-graded. It was not uncommon for test grades to rise from Fs to Bs or As as a result. I found this problematic because in most cases I knew that the students were not really learning at this level. Rather, this practice allowed them to increase their grade mostly by guessing. In addition, they commonly received and so expected “study guides” that gave them the test questions and answered ahead of time.

Having grown accustomed to such crutches, most did not know how to really prepare for tests because they didn’t have to. And since such practices were not allowed on their final, standardized exams (because that would invalidate the results!), most could not succeed on them.

Such low expectations indicate a low view of these students capabilities and even value as persons. An experience I had in a teacher planning meeting illustrates this vividly. We were trying to set academic achievement goals for our students for the year. The previous year, the SWD passing rate on a particular science exam was only 7%. We had to set a target for increasing it. The faculty decided on an increase to 8%. Yet, as I objected, since there were only about 40 SWDs enrolled in the course this year, an increase of one percentage point did not even represent one more whole student passing the course! (7% to 8% of 40 is an increase of 2.8 to 3.2, or 0.4 students). In other words, only 1 more student had passed the exam, the passing rate would have increased by more than 1 percentage point.

This raises an essential question about the primary goal of special education: should standards be lowered for them in order to make it easier for them to progress through the system? Or should they be expected to really learn and given effective supports to overcome their disability to do so?

*All data obtained from the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement –
^Proficiency rates here are weighted averages using different multipliers for different levels of performance on exams.


Thank you for visiting our site and taking time to explore. We hope that you found our goals and ideas compelling enough to stay in contact with our organization.

The primary purpose of the blog will be to provide news on the organization. This will include:

  1. New “Profiles of Excellence” features
  2. Progress updates on our goals
  3. New ways to volunteer and/or engage our local school system
  4. New financial or school performance data.
  5. Reflections on excellence in education.

The blog will also be linked to our facebook page and Twitter account. So please either follow the blog directly, by email (see sidebar) or by connecting with us via social media.