Different Kids Need Different Credentials

Education Next Issue Cover

Forum: Rethinking the High School Diploma


6 Comments | Print | PDF |

WINTER 2015 / Vol. 15, No. 1

Though the occasional political firecracker still flares across the night sky, as of mid-2014 it seems likely that most of the 46 jurisdictions that originally embraced the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will stick with them.

That’s a seismic development for American public education, but whether it produces a 1 or an 8 on the Richter scale remains to be seen. It depends on 1) the thoroughness of implementation, 2) the selection (and scoring) of assessments, and 3) perhaps most of all, the ways in which results revealed by those assessments affect the lives of real people and their schools.

Today all three are up for grabs.

The most important thing to know about the Common Core standards is that learning what they say you should learn is supposed to make you ready for both college and career, i.e., for a seamless move from 12th grade into the freshman year at a standard-issue college, where you will be welcomed into credit-bearing courses that you will be ready to master.

That’s the concept. It’s a really important one and the main justification for the heavy lifting and disruption that these standards will occasion.

Today, far less than half of U.S. 12th graders are “college ready.” (Never mind those who have already dropped out of high school.) The National Assessment Governing Board estimates not quite 40 percent are college ready. The ACT folks estimate 26 percent are college ready across the four subjects that comprise their suite of questions.

Literally millions of others go on to college anyway, generally into remedial—the polite term is “developmental”—classes and, often, to fall by the wayside and never earn a degree.

The Common Core is supposed to solve that problem by producing generations of high school graduates who are truly college ready. How can that happen unless the K–12 system radically alters what high school diplomas signify?

Today, those prized documents are won every year by enormous numbers of young people who aren’t anywhere near college ready but have met their states’ and districts’ course requirements with passing grades. In about half the states, graduates have also made it through statewide graduation tests that are typically pegged to an 8th-, 9th-, or at most 10th-grade standard of actual performance. Not even Massachusetts, our highest-achieving state on myriad measures, was so bold as to make the passing score on its celebrated MCAS test equate to true college readiness. That would have meant denying diplomas to far too many teens, lots of them from poor and minority families.

As the Common Core and its new assessments kick in, how will states handle high school graduation? True college (and career) readiness would mean that hundreds of thousands of today’s—and tomorrow’s—12th graders won’t receive diplomas. Politically, that’s simply untenable. Yet lower those expectations and there’s no reason for colleges to accept these high school credentials—and the main point of the painful CCSS shift will be rendered moot. That outcome one might term educationally untenable.

What to do? In my view, states have no alternative, for the foreseeable future, to issuing (at least) two kinds of diplomas. The one with the gold star will signal college readiness, Common Core style. The other one will signal much the same as today’s conventional diploma, mainly that one has passed a set of mandatory courses to the satisfaction of those teaching them.

This is akin to the practice for many decades (until 2012) in New York State, where a Regents Diploma denoted a markedly higher level of academic attainment than a local diploma, and it’s somewhat similar to the practice in today’s England, where you can complete your schooling with a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), but if you’re bent on university, you stick around to earn a more-demanding A-level certificate.

New York scrapped the local diploma for a reason. They didn’t want a double standard or a two-level society. They didn’t want schools to split kids into separate tracks. They wanted everyone to get a proper—and equal—education.

That’s surely the right impulse. But is it a realistic education policy if the single standard that everyone must meet is really, really demanding?

I don’t think so, at least not for quite a while. It’s possible that, over time, as young Americans work their way from CCSS-aligned kindergarten classes up through the grades and end up with 13 years of CCSS-level education, provided that their year-to-year promotions are faithful to the expectations of the standards, a state may be able to do away with the lower-level diploma and give everyone the kind with a gold star.

It’s politically correct to say, “I hope it works out that way.” But I’m unpersuaded that college readiness is the proper goal of everybody’s high-school education, and it remains to be proven that the Common Core’s academic standards are truly needed for success in myriad careers. That doesn’t mean we should water down the standards. It doesn’t mean we must deny diplomas to countless thousands. It does mean that we should, more like England, think of different ways of completing—and being credentialed for completing—one’s primary and secondary education.

I expect howls of protest from those who cannot accept anything more than a “single standard for all.” But much as I admire the Common Core standards and hope that they gain enormous traction across the land, I have never seen, in any line of endeavor, a standard that was both truly high and universally attained.

Chester E. Finn, Jr. is distinguished senior fellow and president emeritus at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and author of Exam Schools: Inside America’s Most Selective Public High Schools

This is part of a forum on rethinking the high school diploma. For alternate takes, please see “Hold Students Accountable and Support Them” by Richard D. Kahlenberg, or “Diplomas Must Recognize College and Career Readiness” by Sandy Kress.

Comment on this article
  • Michael G says:

    The problem is in deciding who gets to take the gold-level classes. Historically, it has disproportionately excluded minorities – this is the problem.

    The current approach relies on differentiation by means of GPA, SAT/ACT, and AP scores. This achieves the same purpose but with less opportunity for bias. Adding another layer of differentiation of acheivement won’t really add to the current level.

  • Jason May says:

    I agree with Michael G’s point. Don’t we already have an equivalent of multiple levels of high school leaving credentials?

    State high school diploma: basically meaningless for admission to any post-secondary programs except for the least challenging (community colleges).

    GPA: Useful only when coupled with accurate information about the challenge of the school program.

    SAT/ACT scores: Useful as a filtering device for college admissions.

    AP scores: Even better for filtering on college admissions.

    Establishing a new “official” diploma level would involve a new layer of state bureaucracy and be vulnerable to influence by vested interests. There’s no reason to think that the establishment of such a credential would bring any benefit to offset the considerable cost of implementation.

  • LHWalker says:

    The worst case scenario, as far as I can see, would be that Common Core Standards (and their carefully mapped out progressions) would be thrown by the wayside and we would go back to standards that have given students a 50% success rate. In MO it is about 16% : http://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/thinning-crowd.pdf Even then, I believe there has been a wake-up call to teachers and those that hire them. As recent as 2-3 years ago it was not unusual for someone to say, “They don’t need to know how the light switch works: just flip it.” Or, “I never understood conceptual math so why should my students?” I’m not hearing that these days. Plug and chug math has been brought into the spotlight and I am very optimistic that it may be on its way out.

    As one who uses Common Core math progressions, I am also optimistic that students who begin Common Core by 4th grade will be college ready and that this can be accomplished without lowering graduation rates for two reasons. 1) Kids enjoy math more when it makes sense to them. 2) Fractions progressions leading to solid understanding of linear Algebra and focus on extensible skills will leave more time to emphasize important topics.

  • juggleandhope says:

    Agree though with Finn’s main point – a two-tiered hs diploma would much more effectively communicate the very real difference in education at the high school level. It would mean that gaps in readiness would be named and quantified, rather than hidden. It would make clear to students that just because they finished high school doesn’t mean they should take thousands of dollars of loans for a likely failure in college. It would also allow for an increase in the standard of the “college-ready” diploma to something serious.

    The other issue – as colleges have incentive to continue to keep the flood of unprepared students arriving, the college experience will likely continue to diminish in intellectual meaningfulness (especially with no serious efforts to track learning and strong professorial autonomy). Then we will need a two-tier college diploma too. (Mike G will say that’s what the college’s rep for exclusion already accomplishes – but there you’re forcing all students to pay for a more expensive college to get the required status).

  • Hilda Kapeles says:

    What this article does not address is the reality that students with, even mild to moderate, cognitive disabilities will:
    -need more time to complete their high school credits
    -give up before completing their credits
    -get out of high school feeling like failures because they will be neither college NOR career ready.
    Instead, states should offer real “career” training in the mode of apprenticeship. This would give students not only hands-on experience w/ a trade but also experience in “work” and what that entails. This would afford these students w/ the chance to have success and give them the ability to earn a living wage. Despite the advances in technology, there are still many types of industries and jobs that will need technically trained individuals.

  • Adam says:


    How do you account for the multiple definitions of college readiness? There’s community college readiness and then there’s readiness for a four-year school like UCLA. To go even further, within a community college, students who major in nursing and students who major in electronics or welding will follow completely different course sequences.

  • Comment on this Article

    Name ()


    Sponsored Results

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform