A Discussion Paper: Certificate of Mastery

Introduction

The general consensus of WSSDA leaders is that the Certificate of Mastery is a sound concept that will contribute to the success of the state's learning improvement law.  It is an outgrowth of the minimum competency testing effort in the '70s and '80s. Fundamentally, it is a response to the growing concern that a significant number of students are graduating from high school without sufficient knowledge and skills in the basic academic subjects.  This discussion paper is an effort to summarize the thinking of some of the state's elected school directors and to contribute that perspective to the Commission on Student Learning as it attempts to make the concept operational. The paper was written by a subcommittee of the WSSDA Board of Directors (Barbara Roder, Olympia; Paulette Gilliardi, Eatonville, Warren Smith, Bethel; and Lynn Fielding, Kennewick) and was approved by the Board at its April 19, 1997, meeting.

Larry Swift, former WSSDA Executive Director

These are the “dog days" of school reform. The work in the trenches is well under way. The beckoning vision of a school system in which all students achieve high levels of academic proficiency is being put to the test. It is a tough test, the test of reality.

It is imperative for the success of Washington's attempt at a performance- based learning system that policy makers couple hard-headed pragmatism with the vision of high levels of academic performance. We must be crystal clear that the goal is NOT that all students achieve the same level of performance — a seductive inference from the catch-phrase, “All students will learn at high levels.”

The reality is that by third grade students are reading on as many as eight different grade levels. As many as five different levels of math are commonly taught to high school freshmen. Those differences are not solely the fault of schools. The central goal of learning improvement is not to eliminate natural differences; it is to assure that all students have the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful at the next stage of their development. That distinction is at the heart of any policy analysis of the Certificate of Mastery.

1. What is the purpose of the Certificate of Mastery (CoM)?

The purpose of the CoM is to assure that students graduating from high school have the minimum academic knowledge and skill necessary for their next steps in life. The challenge will be in establishing the appropriate standards or measures of that academic proficiency. Since the post-high school opportunities for students are very diverse, no single employment or educational “next step” can be used to define the CoM standards. Some may unconsciously assume that the standards should be roughly equivalent to the knowledge and skills expected of those entering college. That would be too narrow to achieve the purposes of the law, since more than half of Washington's students choose other educational and employment pathways.

The temptation to set unrealistically high academic standards is enhanced when we hear that school reform is an effort to make our schools meet “world- class” standards. In reality students vary enormously in their intellectual capacity. Our most difficult challenge is to organize our schools to motivate and then enable all students to achieve their personal best, not to defy nature by having all students achieve the same unrealistically high levels of academic proficiency. Nonetheless, it is at least theoretically possible for us to identify standards of academic proficiency that are both:

1. higher than the current norm but realistically attainable by the general student population and

2. are threshold knowledge and skill requirements which are common to entry-level jobs and educational options available to high school graduates.

Therefore, despite some of the commentary that school reform is not about academic minimums, in fact, the CoM must be evidence that those to whom it has been awarded have mastered certain expected minimum levels of academic proficiency. It is an attempt to establish a statewide definition of the minimum knowledge and skill that is necessary for students to have a reasonable expectation of success as they seek post-high school employment or education. This idea of the CoM as a measure of academic minimums is buttressed by the fact that the state's reform law anticipates that students generally will demonstrate their proficiency at the sophomore level of high school and then, before completing high school, enter more specialized programs preparing for college, technical training or employment.

It is essential to be clear on these points. The consequence of ambiguity is that future legislatures may see the CoM as synonymous with “basic education” and consider its constitutional duty fulfilled at the 10th grade. Absent the transition learning in grades 11 and 12, the typical student will not have sufficient preparation to go on to college or job training programs. Probably the CoM should be renamed, because it should verify only that a student has demonstrated the “least common denominator” of knowledge and skills expected of everyone in our society. Even though that level is high and will continue to escalate in our technical and competitive world, it should not be a merit badge representing all that a student must know and be able to do as a high school graduate who is transitioning to the next phase of learning or to entry-level employment.

2. What is the measure of minimum academic proficiency?

This question of the level of academic proficiency is critical to the success of the CoM and impacts virtually every other policy question about it. But actually setting the CoM standards will be difficult. Humans are inclined to project their own experience onto others when attempting to set standards. The variety of human experience is simply too broad to allow a small committee to do that. We should take care that our rhetoric about high standards does not seduce us into setting unreasonable standards. In setting the standards it is essential that we:

1. Do NOT set the standards according to what we think will enable all or almost all students to pass them at current levels of proficiency; and

2. Do NOT set them according to what specialists in academic subject matter areas may think is desirable for their field. Such an approach would be virtually certain to establish standards that are too high for us reasonably to expect all students to meet.

Current norm-referenced assessments that are reported in terms of school grade equivalencies may help us, at least initially, as we first set the levels of expected performance for the 4th, 7th and 10th grade assessments. We commonly describe a student's performance level in reading in terms of a given grade equivalency; for example, at the third grade, fourth month or the sixth grade, second month. In terms of helping us to identify what minimum level of performance at which we expect all students to function, we might want to turn to those skills and knowledge levels that are revealed by students who are judged to be achieving at a given grade equivalency. A simple illustration might be that the minimum level of proficiency expected of all students in reading in the fourth grade assessment might be 80% or 90% of what the grade equivalency would be at the time the test was given. (Something less than 100% should be used, since students are arrayed along a full spectrum of proficiency, with the best students' performance affecting what is considered to be the median performance.) That initial level of competence (e.g. 90% of fourth grade reading equivalency) could then be evaluated by experienced educators in terms of whether or not such a level of proficiency is enough to enable learners to continue successfully with the next levels of learning; i.e. would they have sufficient reading skills to be successful in grades five and six?

In this fashion the levels or standards of minimum proficiency might be set for the several areas of Essential Academic Learning at the 4th, 7th and 10th grades. Success on the 7th and 10th grade assessments necessarily must imply that the student has also demonstrated proficiency at the previous level of assessment. As a result, meeting minimum proficiency levels on the 10th grade assessment should be the measure of having satisfied the requirements for the Certificate of Mastery.

However, the Commission should obtain an external check on this means of establishing the levels of performance that are considered minimally necessary to qualify for the CoM. Once again, the purpose of the CoM is to provide evidence that students have that minimum academic skill and knowledge which is expected of high school graduates and which is essential for them to be successful in their next stages of learning or employment. The Commission may want to use a combination of “inputs” in establishing the CoM standards. The advice of subject-matter specialists is certainly relevant, though not controlling. In addition the literature on tests and measurements, no doubt, has considerable to offer in terms of understanding the range of intellectual capacity in the general population and how reasonable standards can be set. Finally, the experience of those who hire employees as well as those who work with them may be useful in broadening the base of advice from which the standards are developed. Therefore, the Commission may want to try polling, or conducting focus groups with, employers and other citizen groups to establish what levels of knowledge and academic skill, in the mind of the general public, equate with high school proficiency.

3. Should the CoM continue to be a prerequisite for the high school diploma?

The basic reason for linking the CoM and the high school diploma is to create a stronger incentive for students to achieve minimum academic proficiency. The fact that courts have recognized students' property rights regarding the diploma indicates that it is of high value. Therefore, achieving it should be a strong motive for the effort it takes to demonstrate academic proficiency. Furthermore, it would be illogical to establish common performance standards that are intended to link student learning with what it takes to be successful after high school, and then continue the present system of attaching the diploma, the ultimate award for going to school, to attendance and effort regardless of a student's proficiency.

Of course, this assumes that the required levels of academic proficiency are within reach of the general student population with a reasonable amount of effort. Otherwise the CoM could become a disincentive and actually encourage dropping out of high school.

Some have said that the CoM is too costly and unnecessary. By adding nationally-normed achievement test scores to all students' high school transcripts, it is argued, employers would have the information they need to judge whether or not a person has the skills for which they are looking.

Aside from the fact that few employers currently ask to see school transcripts for the valuable attendance and GPA information that is already there, this approach does not create much of an incentive for students to improve their performance. It does not link the valuable high school diploma to the results of their effort.

On the other hand, if the CoM is to be uncoupled from the high school diploma, then it may prove far less costly and cumbersome to substitute existing achievement tests for the assessment system that the state will have to create for its CoM. Of course, norm-referenced achievement test scores are difficult to translate into what knowledge and skills a person has. But that trade-off may be acceptable if the objective of the reform effort is no longer to link high school graduation with the demonstration of a certain minimum level of academic knowledge and skill.

4. What academic content should be covered by the CoM?

The assumption has been that the CoM would deal with all eight academic areas which are addressed in the state's learning improvement law. However, there is some difference between the basic areas of reading, writing, communication and math and the additional areas of science, social studies, health and the arts. The first four have a heavy emphasis on intellectual skills with less emphasis on knowledge of information. The latter four also include particular intellectual skills, but in grades K-12 the instructional emphasis is more on the body of knowledge represented by those subject areas.

Obviously, such a distinction is one of degree rather than absolute. But it suggests that at least for the K-12 system the first four are heavily focused on gateway skills which are essential for success in the other four academic areas.

For these reasons it seems reasonable to attempt to implement the CoM initially with standards in reading, writing, communications and math. Rather than waiting for standards to be developed and validated for all eight areas, it is reasonable to begin with the first four.

Particularly with the long lead time required to give notice to students several years in advance of when they will be held accountable for meeting certain high school graduation standards, it makes sense not to wait until standards are established in all eight areas.

Ultimately, however, it seems that the general public would expect all high school graduates to know core information in science, social studies, health and the arts. Therefore, they should not be relegated to nonessential endorsements on the high school diploma.

Because of the large number of distinct subjects in the broad categories of science, social studies and the arts, it will be difficult to establish the minimum proficiency standards for them. For that reason, some suggest that high school graduation requirements should be established in those areas by local school districts rather than the state. However, the central idea of HB 1209 is to establish a common set of learning standards for the whole state, subject to being augmented at the local level. That concept of a common core of learning is as valid for science, social studies, health and the arts as it is for the other subject area.

5. What guidelines (not requirements), if any, should be developed regarding additional high school graduation requirements adopted at the local level?

As the state shifts to the performance- based learning system envisioned by HB 1209, the state must be prepared to assist school districts in several ways in addition to establishing the academic learning standards and state assessment system.

The state must provide guidance regarding any legal requirements that may affect local districts' operations. The case law that recognizes students' property rights in the high school diploma should be analyzed and districts alerted to any compliance requirements that may affect any additional performance standards that they may adopt as part of their local graduation requirements. For example, guidelines for how long students should have notice of new graduation requirements will help school boards avoid both legal problems and disputes with students and parents.

Courts traditionally have been reluctant to intercede in the evaluation judgments made by individual teachers regarding the quality of student work. Therefore, even though teachers' “pass” or “fail” decisions can affect a student's eligibility for a diploma, school districts have only rarely faced legal problems stemming from those decisions. However, the case law regarding state or system-wide competency tests seems to have been somewhat more responsive to claims by students that they have been treated unfairly when denied a diploma because of the tests. Issues of curricular validity and test reliability have been raised. Therefore, the state should provide advice to school districts on the issues that must be addressed, if they choose to adopt performance standards for high school graduation beyond those required by the state. In addition, it may be necessary for school districts to maintain some kinds of records which show that students have had the opportunity to learn the knowledge and skills which students must demonstrate in order to receive the diploma. The state should provide that guidance.

The Center for the Improvement of Student Learning should be a place to which school districts can turn for information and help as they decide whether or not to establish such things as senior projects, community service or comprehensive portfolios as requirements for graduation. It also should begin to address the many issues involved in organizing curricular offerings in the high school for students which have obtained the CoM. High schools will have little difficulty adjusting to fit the needs of post-CoM students who plan to go on to college. However, for those who may seek other goals after high school, the state must provide planning support to enable school districts to meet their needs. Otherwise, the vision of “multiple pathways” for students who have demonstrated the minimum academic proficiency will remain a hollow promise.

Finally, the state must provide guidance and support to school districts to organize and offer the remediation assistance that must be made available to students who are unable to meet the standards of the CoM. There are legal, financial and practical implications which school districts should not be left to discover by chance. Work should be getting under way on this effort, well before the CoM is ready to be implemented.

There is a huge reservoir of talent and imagination in school districts that can be relied on to implement the state's learning improvement plan. Regulations are not needed to direct and control that local decision making. But the state must not use “local control” as an excuse for not providing the leadership necessary to achieve a coherent, successful implementation of the plan.

6. What accommodations must be made for special populations of students?

This may prove to be the most thorny policy issue involved in the CoM. If it is to be a requirement for high school graduation, what is to be done for those students who, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet the CoM standards? For those students with a specific disability, test accommodations can probably be made to enable them to demonstrate their proficiency despite the disability. For blind students or those with limited English proficiency, for example, test conditions can be adjusted. The controlling factor should be that the accommodations in the conditions of testing should not excuse the student from demonstrating the expected level of proficiency.

Similarly, for students from historically disadvantaged groups, care must be taken that the tests are free from bias. However, the purpose of the CoM is to have students demonstrate minimum levels of academic knowledge and skill which are considered essential for success in the adult world. If the proficiency standards are properly established, they are as important for historically disadvantaged students as for any others. Therefore, the standards should not be compromised.

But the case law is clear that competency tests will be scrutinized to assure that they are reliable and valid assessments of a valid curriculum. Disproportionate success on the tests by different ethnic groups will prompt legal reviews of the validity of the CoM.

The most difficult group to accommodate will be developmentally disabled students. Compassion for the effort that multiple-handicapped students make to achieve limited results warrants special consideration for this group of students. At the same time, one of the purposes of the CoM is to address the growing concern that the high school diploma no longer consistently represents a minimum level of academic knowledge and skill.

If the CoM were not a requirement for graduation the issue could be resolved more easily. But, for the reasons set out above, the WSSDA believes that the CoM must continue to be linked to the high school diploma. Some have suggested that developmentally disabled students who are unable to meet the standards of the CoM and yet have demonstrated academic achievement to the best of their ability should be awarded a Certificate of High School Completion rather than the conventional diploma. Others believe that is wrong. They conclude that if developmentally disabled students have used their school years to learn to the maximum of their capacity, they should not be discriminated against by denial of a diploma — even if they have not met the minimum performance requirements of the CoM.

Developmentally disabled students have individual education plans (IEP) which establish the academic goals for each student. The WSSDA concludes that for developmentally disabled students the IEP should replace the general academic standards which are represented by the CoM. If such students achieve the academic goals in their IEP and meet other requirements for high school graduation they should receive the high school diploma. In the case of the general student the diploma should certify, in writing, that the student has met the academic standards required by the CoM as part of the school district's requirements for high school graduation. In the case of developmentally disabled students the diploma should certify, in writing, that the student has met the academic standards in his/her individual educational plan as part of the school district's requirements for high school graduation.

7. What related policy issues must be addressed, if the CoM is to be successful?

No doubt there are multiple issues that will emerge as the state's performance-based learning system develops. However, two issues must be kept at the forefront of policy makers' thinking throughout this long process: the costs of making the system operational and the accountability elements of the system. Everyone has recognized that continuous staff development will be needed for the foreseeable future in order to achieve the potential of the system. That need has not been quantified in any way. At this point there is little connection between what we are learning about necessary changes in staff instructional and assessment skills and proposed appropriations for that purpose. Efforts must be made to refine those estimates, so that a more compelling case can be made for the resources which will be needed.

A similar need for resources will soon emerge regarding remediation services. Even a mature performance-based learning system will have students unable to demonstrate academic proficiency the first time they are tested. The state's schools will have to modify the structure of their instructional system to accommodate the needs of students that are not performing at expected levels of proficiency. Work must begin now to develop models and estimate their costs. The system will be judged fundamentally unfair if it identifies students who are not proficient in the essential academic skills and simply pushes them along with no effort to address their deficiencies. That remediation system must be in place throughout the grades, but certainly must be available for those students who fail to meet the standards for the CoM in the 10th grade.

A second issue should be addressed or the CoM will not realize its potential. The CoM is an accountability measure for individual students. But if school districts consistently have large numbers of students failing to meet the CoM standards, the public and the legislature will seek to hold them accountable as well. In anticipation of that, work should begin now on accountability standards for school districts as well as the CoM accountability standard for students. They are inextricably entwined.

Summary

The concept of the Certificate of Mastery raises many questions. This has been an effort by the WSSDA to address a few of the threshold questions. Because of the Association's commitment to the goals and strategies of the state's learning improvement effort, it will continue to address questions about this significant component of the state law in order to contribute to achieving the vision of improved learning for all students.

In this initial paper the WSSDA concludes:

1. The purpose of the CoM is to assure that students graduating from high school are academically proficient and have the minimum knowledge and skills necessary for their next steps in life.

2. The academic standards represented by the CoM must be reasonably within reach of the general student population but not determined, necessarily, by current levels of academic performance. Academic grade-level equivalencies may be a starting point in setting the expected levels of academic proficiency for students in the 4th, 7th and 10th grade assessments. But an effort should be made to identify from a broad survey of entry-level jobs, technical-training programs and the general public the basic knowledge and skills expected of every high school graduate.

3. The CoM should be a prerequisite for, but not synonymous with, the high school diploma.

4. Initially, the CoM should verify minimum proficiency in reading, writing, communications and math. Ultimately, it should also represent minimum proficiency in science, social studies, health and the arts, unless the development of common state standards and assessments in these areas proves infeasible or too costly.

5. The state must do more than develop the Essential Academic Learning Requirements, the state assessment system and the CoM standards. It must provide leadership and support to school districts regarding the legal issues they will encounter in augmenting the state performance standards with their own local standards. In addition, the state should be a resource to support school districts in the development of remediation strategies as well as curricular options to assist students who have completed the CoM and are beginning the transition to college, technical training or employment.

6. Accommodations in assessment should be made for special student populations in order for them to demonstrate that they have met the requirements for the CoM. But in so doing the standards should not be lowered.

7. Developmentally disabled students should receive a high school diploma if they have met the academic requirements of their individual education plans. In place of the diploma's certification that the student has met the requirements for the Certificate of Mastery, the diploma should certify that the student has met the requirements of his/her IEP.

8. Work should begin now to develop a more accurate basis for estimating the funds necessary to provide staff training required for the performance-based learning system and to plan for the changes in instruction and their financial implications which will be required for remediation of those students who initially fail to meet the 4th, 7th and 10th grade standards. The CoM will be the ultimate measure of the success of the performance-based learning system. Adequate staff training and student remediation steps must be available or a sufficient number of students will not be able to achieve the CoM.  Work should begin now on designing the incentives, consequences and assistance that should be a part of the state's accountability system for school districts. The CoM is a form of individual student accountability; to be successful, however, it must be accompanied by system accountability.

(April 21, 1997)