The low down on EOCs.

End-of-course exams. Last session, it was a heavily debated topic as legislators toyed with the idea of nixing the WASL for what some argued to be greener end-of-course (EOC) pastures. While vetoed last year, EOCs have resurfaced this session. But this time, a bit more thought out and definitely in full force.

So much so, that lawmakers voted last week to replace the 10th-grade math WASL by 2014 with two exams to be given at the end of classes often taken by freshmen and sophomores in high school: algebra I and geometry I or, in districts with integrated math, integrated mathematics I and integrated mathematics II (see this article for more information).

Add this to all the talk about a new third year of math, revised math standards, and graduation requirements in place for 2008 and beyond, and EOCs even make my head spin! So I've made an attempt to wrap my head around the issue instead.

Basically, EOCs are exams that students would take at the end of a course. How is this different from a regular class final you might ask? Well, it would be a statewide test, meaning whether you go to a school in Toppenish or Tacoma, your "Algebra I EOC exam" would be exactly the same.

So why all the hullabaloo about it? Well, because as this full report commissioned by the State Board of Education points out, there are some differences between EOCs and a "comprehensive" statewide test like the WASL. Now I'm no expert on the subject, but here's what I can gather:

Some Pros to EOCs:

• EOCs could help to assess whether the rigor of an "Algebra I" class in Toppenish is the same as it is in Tacoma.
• It could expose math weaknesses sooner since these test would be taken at the end of each course, making it easier to identify exactly what math concepts a student might struggle with and allow for earlier intervention.
• Since EOCs would be tied to specific courses (such as "Algebra II" -- the skill level required for students to enter 2-year colleges without remediation) the exam could be a strong indicator of readiness for education after high school.

Some Cons to EOCs:

• EOCs are more expensive to administer than a "comprehensive" statewide test like the WASL.
• Students would not be assessed against common standards unless the state required all students to take the same series of courses and/or required all students to take certain EOCs.
• EOCs could make it more complicated to hold students and schools accountable.

With the passage of HB3166 yesterday, starting in the 2009-10 school year, EOCs in algebra I and integrated mathematics I will be available as an option for students to meet the math WASL requirement.

So which is better? Well, it depends on what you want to get out of the assessment. Tests measure student achievement and can help diagnose student academic strengths and weaknesses. They can also guide schools and districts toward more faithful delivery of state standards.

Offering both tests gives students more options, which can be a good thing. But the reality is, if standards aren't aligned with curriculum taught by high quality teachers to motivated students, the kind of test given to students won't really make much of a difference.