Advertisement

The Urban Review

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 463–483 | Cite as

Impact of Repeatedly Failing a High School Exit Exam: Voices of English Language Learners

  • Louis J. Kruger
  • Chieh Li
  • Edward Kimble
  • Rachel Ruah
  • Diana Stoianov
  • Kalyani Krishnan
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This qualitative study explored the perceived psychological impact of repeated failures on a high school exit examination (HSEE). We interviewed eight self-identified English language learners (ELLs), whose ages ranged from 20 to 29. All participants were attending tutoring HSEE programs at urban community colleges in New England. Using a modified grounded theory approach (Goldkuhl and Cronholm in Int J Qual Methods 9:187–205, 2010), interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed. The interviewees perceived many more negative effects than benefits of failing a HSEE. They reported adverse effects on academic motivation, emotions, goals, and self-perceptions. Despite these perceived adverse effects, they identified both individual (efforts, goals, self-reflection and positive mindset, positive self-perceptions) and environmental protective factors (encouragement, instructional support and emotional support) that helped them persist in attempting to pass the HSEE. The findings from study have implications for educational and psychological research, policy and practice.

Keywords

High school exit exams English language learners Resilience Psychological impact Protective factors 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Auld, F, Jr, & White, A. M. (1956). Rules for dividing interviews into sentences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 42, 273–281. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1956.9713040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Caprara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficacy pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 258–269. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, A. S., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of America’s schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf.
  5. Catterall, J. S. (1989). School dropouts: Here today, here tomorrow. CSE technical report 296. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.Google Scholar
  6. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (2004). The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all. NABE Journal of Research and practice, 2(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  7. Cornell, D. G., Krosnick, J. A., & Chang, L. (2006). The case of the Student reactions to being wrongly informed of failing a high-stakes test: Minnesota basic standards test. Educational Policy, 20, 718–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Paula, A., & Campbell, J. D. (2002). Self-esteem and persistence in the face of failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 711–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  10. Fuhrman, Susan. (2004). Introduction. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountabilty systems for education (pp. 3–14). New York: Teachers College, Columbia Unversity.Google Scholar
  11. Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2010). Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory: Toward multigrounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9, 187–205.Google Scholar
  12. Gorski, P. (2013). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  13. Harry, B., Sturges, K., & Klinger, J. (2005). Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher, 34(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heilig, J. V. (2011). Understanding the interaction between high-stakes graduation tests and English learners. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2633–2669.Google Scholar
  15. Heubert, J. (2004). High-stakes testing in a changing environment: Disparate impact, opportunity to learn, and current legal protections. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education (pp. 220–242). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hilsman, R., & Garber, J. (1995). A test of the cognitive diathesis-stress model of depression in children: Academic stressors, attributional style, perceived competences, and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holme, J. J., Richards, M. P., Jimerson, J. B., & Cohen, R. W. (2010). Assessing the effects of high school exit examinations. Review of Educational Research, 80(4), 476–526. doi: 10.3102/0034654310383147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyslop, A. (2014). The case against exit exams. New America Policy Brief. Retrieved from http://education.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/ExitExam_FINAL.pdf.
  19. Jurges, H., Schneider, K., Senkbeil, M., & Carstensen, C. (2012). Assessment drives learning: The effects of central exit exams on curricular knowledge and mathematical literacy. Economics of Education Review, 31, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kangas, S. E. (2014). When special education trumps ESL: An investigation of service delivery for ELLs with disabilities. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(4), 273–306. doi: 10.1080/15427587.2014.968070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12(4), 857–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2006). How language tests mislead us about children’s abilities: Implications for special education placements. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2304–2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/overview.html?faq=1.
  24. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2014). Spring 2014 MCAS tests: Summary of state results. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2014/results/summary.pdf.
  25. McIntosh, S. (2012). State high school exit exams: A policy in transition. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=408.
  26. Morales, E. (2010). Linking strengths: Identifying and exploring protective factor clusters in academically resilient low-socioeconomic urban students of color. Roeper Review, 32, 164–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nastasi, B. K., & Borja, A. P. (2015). Promoting psychological well-being globally: Project approach to data collection and analysis. In Bonnie K. Nastasi & Amanda P. Borja (Eds.), Handbook of psychological well-being in children and adolescents: International perspectives and youth voices. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015-144), English Language Learners. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp.
  29. National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in public education. Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education. In M. Hout & S. W. Elliott (Eds.), Board on testing and assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nisbett, R., & Masuda, T. (2003).  Culture and point of view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(19), 11163–11170. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1934527100.
  31. Noble, T., Rosebery, A., Suarez, C., Warren, B., & O’Connor, M. C. (2014). Science assessments and English language learners: Validity evidence based on response processes. Applied Measurement in Education, 27(4), 248–260. doi: 10.1080/08957347.2014.944309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. North, C. E. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 507–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ortiz, S. O. (2002). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In Alex Thomas & Jeff Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1321–1336). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  34. Ou, D. (2010). To leave or not to leave? A regression discontinuity analysis of the impact of failing the high school exit exam. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Papay, J. P., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2010). The consequences of high school exit examinations for low-performing urban students: Evidence from Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reardon, S. F., Arshan, N., Atteberry, A., & Kurlaender, M. (2010). Effects of failing a high school exit exam on course taking, achievement, persistence, and graduation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(4), 498–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhodes, R. L. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  39. Richman, C. L., Brown, K., & Clark, M. (1987). Personality changes as a function of minimum competency test success or failure. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roderick, M., & Engel, M. (2001). The Grasshopper and the Ant: Motivational responses of low-achieving students to high-stakes testing. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(3), 197–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Sanchez, M. T., Parker, C., Akbayin, B., & McTigue, A. (2010). Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York state districts. Institute for Educational Sciences National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 85.Google Scholar
  43. Solano-Flores, G., & Trumbull, E. (2003). Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2012). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (6th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  45. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (1995). Language minority student achievement and program effectiveness. California Association for Bilingual Education Newsletter, 17(5), 19.Google Scholar
  46. U. S. Census Bureau. (2010). Educational attainment by selected characteristics. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0232.pdf.
  47. Warren, J. R., Grodsky, E., & Kalogrides, D. (2009). State high school exit examinations and NAEP long-term trends in reading and mathematics, 1971–2004. Educational Policy, 23(4), 589–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warren, J. R., Jenkins, K. N., & Kulick, R. B. (2006). High school exit examinations and state-level completion and GED rates, 1975 through 2002. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wright, W., & Choi, D. (2006). The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13), 1–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis J. Kruger
    • 1
  • Chieh Li
    • 1
  • Edward Kimble
    • 1
  • Rachel Ruah
    • 1
  • Diana Stoianov
    • 1
  • Kalyani Krishnan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied PsychologyNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options