The first post this morning was about Daniel McGraw’s astonishing discovery that the pass rates on the GED literally crashed after Pearson aligned the GED with the Common Core. He wrote:
The numbers are shocking: In the United States, according to the GED Testing Service, 401,388 people earned a GED in 2012, and about 540,000 in 2013. This year, according to the latest numbers obtained by Scene, only about 55,000 have passed nationally. That is a 90-percent drop off from last year.
Daniel McGraw posted a comment later.
He wrote:
One thing I left out of this story, but wish I had put in. Many of the high academic folks I interviewed about the process in changing the GED all said the changes were made because the old test “wasn’t fair” to HS graduates. They explained saying that if a HS senior had to know a certain amt. to graduate, it wasn’t fair to them if someone passing a slightly lower standard GED got into college as well. I then said for something not “to be fair” to a party, you must prove that that party had been harmed in some way. They couldn’t pinpoint any real harm, and were sort of disgusted by that line of questioning. But their thinking was very real in that every one of them had the same talking point: that somehow a 2013 HS grad college freshman and their parents would experience some harm if they went to college and their kid was sitting next to a GED grad. The problem here is that we do not make education/economic policy based on whether some group “thinks” that policy is fair or not. We look at the bigger picture. And in this case, the college presidents and administrators overseeing this change were thinking more along the lines of fairness to their perceived constituency rather than a policy for the greater good of the country. BTW, thanks for all the comments.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Policy of the supporters of “realignment” for kids working to succeed via the GED is “There is no greater good than Pearson profits.”
Reactions to this are predictable. Sometimes, I read comments and blogs and simply slap my head in disbelief.
What do people think is going to happen when a test is suddenly changed to meet a different set of criteria, graded with a different rubric, and given some kind of expected parity with what was going on ten years ago?
Whoever is in charge of the decision making, whether it be college presidents, legislators, test-makers, or others, common sense and logic need to come into play. It doesn’t happen that way.
These gurus of power seem to have a list that is used to determine the “shoulds” of their world, often skewed by an ivory tower with internal mirrors. They make decisions that anyone who actually THINKS would realize are going to bring about problems. Then, they are surprised by the results of their actions.
I am, frankly, appalled.
The GED has been used as a substitute for receiving a diploma in the k-12 manner that most choose. To change the requirements of the GED to mirror the current changes in “expectations” is a dishonest approach to the reality of the need. In my experience, no one ever claimed that a GED was tantamount to a diploma, but it was a test to show that a person had enough knowledge and ability to use basic reading and math skills to perform a job. Sometimes it is used to enter college. For some it was simply paperwork because they were never struggling to succeed in school, but they opted out for various reasons and decided a GED was less of a hassle or less of a social game than regular high school. Once a person achieved his/her GED, the future was open to further choices. It was a means to move forward.
By changing the GED to match the new PARCC and CC ideas of being “college ready”, knowing that the percentage of students who were ATTENDING school were going to have difficulty passing PARCC, they have created a situtation for those who dropped out 10 years ago to experience complete failure. It is easy to fail if you set up the situation as impossibly difficult to pass. Think of the changes in technology in the past 10 years. It is difficult to keep up with the changes if you are INSIDE the situation, the learning environment. Now, let’s go outside of that environment. What can we expect but this reduction in the numbers of those receiving their GED?
When my kids took the OGT (Ohio Graduation Test) in the early 2000s, they passed the 10th grade test when in the 8th grade. They were then left unburdened with having to take a test to prove that they were eligible to graduate in their respective years. They had no other hoops beyond the local GPA, honor society, AP classes, and taking the ACT. They did well. They also did well in college. They didn’t need more testing, testing, testing.
Put yourselves in the position of a person who dropped out in 2004. Ten years ago. Look at the yearly changes in curricula, testing, perspectives on educational delivery, use of technology. Look at their chances for having had the opportunity to be able to take a test, prepare for much more than the knowledge they would have been responsible for in 2004. How about looking at the opportunity for some of those who dropped out, did drugs, made poor choices, and have little income to keep up with the technology required to “play this game”.
I just wonder when the purpose of education changed from HELPING people achieve to demanding that people pass tests that may be irrelevant to their lives.
Happy New Year!
A wonderful commentary on the real value of the GED and the once-upon-a-time opportunity to attending schools with far more reasonable, and reasoned, testing programs than are present today under Federal and state policies. Persons who have not recently thought deeply about the multiple purposes of the GED, as you clearly have, should have no role in narrowing the purpose of the GED to college admission, especially if the new cut scores are designed to make someone else “feel good.” The proofs of equivalency will come soon enough– in the capacity to be successful in college and in any context where high school completion is a pre-requisite for post-secondary opportunities.
“I just wonder when the purpose of education changed from HELPING people achieve to demanding that people pass tests that may be irrelevant to their lives.”
If I’m not mistaken, Power (ruling class) is not in the habit of establishing or creating “systems”, that reduce or inhibit, the power
of the ruling class. More than not, the ruling class, seeks to control
those OUTSIDE of the ruling class, NOT help them.
Key, in the art of control, is projecting benevolence (help/concern).
Note the “unity of interests” theory, deeply embedded, in the systems
established by power. Without a doubt, the RESULTS, expose the
conventional wisdom, of the predominant mythologies, surrounding
the entities established by power, to CLEARLY work in the service
of power (ruling class).
“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” –Albert Einstein
Power thrives on the incomplete, as does the “market”. Note how
many try to become “whole” by their purchases.
Are the results related to the methods? Do the results define the
purpose?
It is not a valid objection even on its face.To graduate from high school a student only has to earn enough passing grades, i.e. D or better, to accumulate the number of required credits, and in some cases pass a state exam. Whose to say that all high school grads would pass the GRE, either the old one or the new one? I would bet money that a substantial portion would not pass the new one.
I’m a professor and I don’t know why senior college administration would claim that a more rigorous GED test was necessary, “to be fair.” How do they justify the fairness of home schooled kids with mommy-made diplomas sitting alongside students with traditional high school diplomas OR kids who have passed the GED test then?
Colleges implement a wide variety of gate-keeping strategies, including use of the ACT/SAT. Many schools require all students to pass their own competency exams, too, in order to determine whether they will be permitted to take credit bearing courses in Math and English or diverted to developmental classes. I don’t know what this is about, but I highly doubt it has anything to do with fairness.
I’d suggest following the money. Since over 800 colleges don’t require the ACT/SAT now, the College Board has to make up those revenues somewhere and the GED could be the place where they intend to do so. I don’t understand the profit motive for college administrators though, unless they get kickbacks, or if they are aiming to eliminate developmental courses –which I think is very unlikely for community colleges, where many kids with GEDs go.
“I’d suggest following the money.” My first reaction to the McGraw posts. Whenever something doesn’t make common sense (as in this case, ‘fairness’ as rationale for something patently unfair), look for a different agenda that fits the facts. What’s the agenda that usually sells itself as promoting public good with results that harm the public good? Financial self-interest.
That’s my impulse as well, but I initially hesitated to state it in this instance because I have no idea what personal financial gain there could be for college administrators from this. I still don’t know. Do you?
“They couldn’t pinpoint any real harm, and were sort of disgusted by that line of questioning.’
This is the fundamental problem with so much of the so-called “reform”.
It is not based on research and in many cases, has no grounding in reality.
This is not how a scientist acts and it is also not how any legitimate college President or administrator would act.
Any college administrator and especially President who can/will not provide hard evidence for their decisions has no business serving in the position they are in.
That they are disgusted” when someone actually asks them for such evidence speaks volumes about their elitist attitude.
I think someone should get the word out to judges and social service agencies, because “get a GED” is a really common directive they hand out.
Have an independent accounting firm have Jeb Bush take the test, and that is the cut score for passing. That’s fair.
Sweet.
If they gave “W” the test, they’d have to allow for a negative cut score.
So now we know what the reform crowd will to GED seekers. Do you think they will be performing a similar routine on regular diplomas in states like NY or KY?
These are states where CC proficient rates are well below 50%.
…will DO to GED seekers…
Fairness means individuals get what they need, not that everyone gets the same thing. GED students life circumstances and emotional development most dictates their NEED of a 1:1 individualized program & assessment. Because they take are taught in different environments and take a different test does not mean they are not ‘deserving’ of opportunities. Such childish logic impedes GED seeking students’ comprehensive educational development and a life-altering cycle of failures.
Spoken like a teacher, jcgrim!
As if all high school educations are equal in the first place.
I think they should give the new GED to the college presidents and administrators who oversaw the change in the GED.
If they don’t get at least 95% correct, they should lose their job — and all their university degrees.
I think that’s fair. After all, these folks are supposed to be the cream of the academic crop, right?
In fact, anyone with a masters or PhD should be able to ace a GED.
As I have said before, I took Latin I and II. That was in 9th and 10th grades. Now, give me a test on French IV. I will fail. That is just about as ridiculous as what is being expected now.
Thanks Daniel, for adding this comment. I like your argument about asking what harm is done. As a supervisor of Special Education I am constantly dealing with this same diploma issue for our Sped kids. Here in Louisiana we are trying to help these students have better access to a H.S. Diploma through their IEP. Without the diploma these young adults are sentenced to life of either living on assistance or living in poverty. The diploma opens doors of opportunity. What these kids do with that opportunity is up to them. It is the same argument as the GED. If a kid with a GED can make it in college, why would we want to deprive him of that opportunity? It takes nothing away from my kid who earned a regular diploma. Does it matter whether a diploma is earned with a 4.5 GPA or a 2.5 GPA? What matters is whether that student is willing to put in the hard work in the next stage. That stage might be a job or trade school or college. It only opens doors. The college or employer will determine what criteria they require of that person. It might be GPA and SAT/ACT, or it might be GED. The diploma or GED only designates that some criteria has been met by that student. Each prospective next step, be it college or job, is responsible for determining what skills they require. The alternative is to have lots of unemployed adults. I choose the option that opens doors, not closes them.
Students with high school diploma’s haven’t been through the Common Core/PARCC grinder. They’re still trying to impose it, remember? What they’re trying to do is to align all avenues with their monopoly. What this is about is shutting doors.
The corrupt functionaries who railroaded these changes aren’t thinking of being fair to their students. They really mean, if there is another way through to college that the Pearson axis doesn’t control, they can’t compel families to accept their dictates anywhere. All the students will escape their claws.
I do not understand the the thinking of the college administrators, why would they care about GED students. Once one is in college classes must be passed in order to stay in school. Let the GED student that wishes to go to college go, if they pass, great, if not, they had a chance.No one is harmed by this. I was not a great high school student. I was accepted to the University of Montana anyway. I had to maintain a minimum 2.0 grade point average or I would have been asked to leave. My attendance did not harm other students there. The view of the University was once you are in it is up to you to stay in school. This is just another way for business to siphon off public funds into private pockets.
I’m grateful for Daniel McGraw’s article. I taught GED for over three years and teach ESL now at a Community College. When I heard tell of the new GED test, I took the math portion and couldn’t pass it. I then examined the test. (My dad, son and grandma had earned their GED). I realized that it is an unfair test in that 60% of high school grads can’t pass it as very few are able to pass their common core tests on which this new GED is based. I started this website- http://restoregedfairness.org/ . We must get rid of the Pearson GED and go with the HiSET equivalency exam which is based on the abilities of high school grads. We just threw 500,000 people under the bus. How many more do we have to harm until we stop this foray into this new form of billionaire elitism?
One way the GED is not fair to students who earn a high school diploma – and this may only be true in our area – but if you earn a GED you get two years of college at the local community college free. We actually have students drop out at the semester break of their senior year because they see no other way to pay for college. This same community college also pays if you have a child while in high school so we also have girls planning pregnancies their senior year just to pay for college.
“This same community college also pays if you have a child while in high school so we also have girls planning pregnancies their senior year just to pay for college.”
I do not believe this. The reason young women in high school get pregnant is because they do NOT plan. Please cite your sources.
And where do the things you write about occur? What state, community college, etc. . . ????
Something is rotten in the GED as currently applied. Googling around tells me the test is the 1942 offspring— borne of the necessity to allow GI’s whose hs ed had been disrupted by WWII to establish their hs bona fides & get on w/ life– of the American Council on Education, an august body of higher-ed colleges & universities founded in 1918 in the interests of providing trained military personnel to the WWI effort. Its accomplishments include creating the ETS, supporting equal access to higher ed of women and blacks, two GI Bills, formation of the DOEd, general student aid for higher ed.
In 2011 ACE collaborated w/Pearson to form the GED Testing service, & spun off sole responsibility to Pearson as developer of the test. (How did THAT happen? Explains all with regard to the current postings.)
The ACE has maintained connections with the needs of vets through the DOD since 1945. (But don’t vets have to take this same, Common-Core-aligned test now– & how does that square w/their hs curriculum?)
What REALLY stymies me is what any of this has to do with adult hs dropouts looking to adult ed study, in hopes of passing the GED to enter the construction trades. The lead example in Me McGraw’s first post is ” 29-year-old Derwin Williams explains why getting his diploma is so important. He wants to get into the construction trade, maybe as a roofer… he knows he needs a diploma to get into vocational technical classes to get that done.”
My experience here is limited, so correct me if I’m off-base. My nearly-60 y.o. bro, a contractor, tells me there are a good 2 generations of Americans missing from the construction trades. Near as he & I can put it together, this started in the early ’70’s when auto-shop et al voc classes were purged from pinched-budget US hs, while kids were exhorted by American industry to do college & advanced tech. Tho they tried, many ended up doing a couple of yrs community college, ending up in dead-end retail jobs (now proliferating & the trend has continued to the present.) Meanwhile the gap was filled with legal & illegal immigrants.
Take plumbers: in the ’80’s, you could still find experienced journeymen (many no doubt sans hs diploma) whose numbers were dwindling & hourly wage escalating. In the ’90’s a new crop appeared: college engrg grads (displaced by foreign imports to engrg co’s) formed mini-co’s w/journeyman dads– boutique plumbers to the 2-career upper-middle class. In the housing-boom early-2000’s, single-fam house needs were a low priority to new housing & total renovations. Only now– & still mostly-un-replenished from younger apprentices– due to housing slump, one can find quick response to single-fam-house plumbing needs… Meanwhile, more highly-skilled needs requiring boilermakers [your new furnace & furnace repairs]– at least in my metro-NYC area– are met over-50% by trained Lat-Am folks who moved in while American labor force was scant in the ’80’s-’90’s.
But— roofers!? In my area for the last 20 yrs roofer crews have consisted entirely of Latin-American (mostly illegal)nail-pounders supervised by 1 American contractor. The only younger-generation born-American roofer I even know (who succumbed to drug addiction before hs grad & is now on straight & narrow) pounds nails for a good price because he’s a personal friend of the contractor’s son.
Hoping you’re still with me– what have college presidents (consulted by McGraw; the ACE) to do with roofers or drywall-hangers? Who are they to determine what roofers et al semi-skilled laborers need to know? The GED purportedly certifies that future laborers can at minimum use the language & basic math supposedly needed for entry-level construction jobs. But If illegal immigrants whose Eng does not pass the smell test can do it, why would our American kids be excluded??
i’m familiar with a number of people who work in the housing industry and the contractors I know typically hire their crews as independent contractors, so they don’t have to contribute any payroll taxes or even pay minimum wage. Some deal in cash only, too, and since they don’t leave a paper trail on employees, they can readily hire people without credentials and undocumented immigrants. Although some claim to be “licensed and bonded,” often it’s just the owner of the business who is really. They don’t typically pull permits for their work either.
The people I know have been doing this for decades. I think construction was the first major industry to get away with this on a large scale. However, I’m talking about a lot of small companies that mostly do work for landlords, homeowners, small businesses, churches, etc., such as maintenance, upkeep, repairs and new additions. I don’t know anything about the big companies which work on larger projects and new developments, like new high rises and sub-divisions, or government contracts, but since they have a higher profile, I would assume their practices differ.
“They explained saying that if a HS senior had to know a certain amt. to graduate, it wasn’t fair to them if someone passing a slightly lower standard GED got into college as well”
I think this is an interesting statement coming from leaders of a system that supposedly promote social justice. When thinking about higher education as a place to encourage and promote equity in opportunity and privilege, it feels backwards to identify the path of the GED diploma as unfair. I would assume that the population of students who entered college after obtaining a GED would increase the diversity of the campus; whether it be age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or simply life experience — something most colleges and universities are constantly striving for. Where is the harm in this?
I wonder what these administrators would say about transfer students. As the GED is socially identified as a “slightly lower standard” than a high school completion diploma, often community college education is also considered “less than”. Is it a disadvantage for a junior in college who has been attending for two years to be sitting next to a transfer student? Or would this student benefit from the diverse experience and point of view the transfer student has to offer?
The GED has provided opportunity to over half a million people annually to earn their high school diploma. Life isn’t fair, and it isn’t equal, but I think we should strive to make it as equitable as possible. I believe providing multiple and accessible paths to accomplish a goal or outcome as one way of helping promote equity. A student who didn’t have the privilege to finish high school should have the opportunity to attend and graduate college, or obtain the qualification of a high school diploma which is necessary for so many jobs in today’s world. This path of the GED should be structured to increase access to education and opportunity – not hinder it.
As others have suggested, I think it would be fascinating to have high school graduates, college graduates, and masters/PhD graduates take the GED and see what the passing rate would be.
Zoe,
More unfair than the GED is the payment of thousands of dollars for SAT tutors. That’s unfair.