4. THE SERVICE RENDERED BY THE REGENTS' EXAMINATIONS IN NEW YORK STATE
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the Regents' examination system in general for academic school subjects, these tests certainly perform a saving function for the failing pupils, by promptly rectifying so many of their school failures and thus rescuing them from the burden of expensive repetition. A pupil's success in the Regents' examination has the immediate effect of satisfying the school failure charged to him. At the same time, it is possible, as is sometimes asserted, that the anticipation of these tests inclines some teachers to a more gratuitous distribution of failing marks as a spur to their pupils to brace up and perform well in reference to the Regents' questions. However, there is no trace of that policy found so far as the schools included in this study are concerned. For the three New Jersey schools considered jointly have a higher percentage of failing pupils, and a slightly higher average in the number of failures for each failing pupil than have the three New York State schools.
But it is more probable that the attitude referred to operates to exclude the failing pupils from being freely permitted to enter the Regents' tests in the failing subjects, and thus to restrain them from what threatens to lower the school percentage of successful papers, except that in New York City such discrimination is prohibited.[46] On the percentages of success for these examination results teachers and even schools are wont to be popularly judged. Annual school reports may feature the passing percentage for the school in Regents' examinations, with a spirit of pride or rivalry, but with no word of what that percentage costs as real cost must be reckoned. It is interesting to note in this connection that the percentage of unsuccessful repetitions for the three New Jersey schools is 13.7 per cent lower than for the three New York schools. In addition to this, for the latter schools 22 per cent more of the subject failures are repeated than for the former ones mentioned. It is important also to bear in mind that the success percentage for the Regents' tests is computed on the number admitted to the examinations—not on the number instructed in the subject. The regulations are flexible and admit of considerable latitude in matters of classification and interpretation. Accordingly, if it happens anywhere in the state that those who are the less promising candidates, in the teacher's judgment, are debarred from attempting Regents' examinations by failing marks, by demotion and exclusion from their class, or by other means, the school's percentage of pupils passing may be kept high as a result, but the injustice worked upon the pupil in such manner is vicious and reprehensible. Yet the whole intolerableness of the practice will center in the rule for exclusion of pupils from these examinations because of school failure. No one can predict with any safe degree of certainty that the outcome of any individual's efforts will be a failure in the Regents' tests, even though he has failed in a school subject. If failure should happen to result, it is chiefly the school pride that suffers; if the pupil is denied a free trial, he may suffer an injustice to aid the pretension of the school. Our school sanctions are not characterized by such acumen or infallibility as to warrant our refusing to give a pupil the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled to his chance to win success in these examinations if he is able, and it appears that only results in the Regents' tests can be truly trusted to tell us that he is or is not able to pass them.
The facts depicted here may lead to the belief that the recorded success in Regents' examinations may sometimes be artificially high, due to the subtle influences at work to make it so. In New York City absence is the sole condition for debarring any pupil, since he must have pursued a subject the prescribed time. Such a ruling is highly commendable, and it should not in fairness to the pupil be otherwise anywhere in the state. The following distribution discloses that 72.8 per cent of the 3,085 failing pupils who were recorded as taking the Regents' examinations were successful, and that 78 per cent of those succeeding passed in the same semester in which the school failure occurred.
SUCCESS OF THE FAILING PUPILS IN THE REGENTS' EXAMINATIONS
| Pass the Same Semester | Pass a Later Semester | Fail First, then Pass | Only Fail | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1333 Boys | 809 | 143 | 38 | 343 |
| 1752 Girls | 946 | 193 | 117 | 496 |
| Per Cent of Total | 72.8 | 27.2 | ||
The divisions of the above distribution are distinct, with no overlapping or double counting. Of the pupils who pass these examinations in a later semester than that in which the failure occurs, a major part belong to the two schools which restrict their pupils mainly to a repetition of the subject after failing before they attempt the Regents' tests. Otherwise many of them would pass the Regents' examinations at once, as in the other schools, and would not need to repeat the subject. It was pointed out in the initial part of this chapter that 3.2 per cent of the instances of failure were followed by both repetition and examination. In one of the two schools referred to 90.8 per cent of the pupils failing and later taking Regents' examinations repeat the subject first. That most of such repetition is almost entirely needless is suggested by the fact that only 2.1 per cent more of their pupils pass, of the ones attempting, than of the total number reported above, and that too in spite of the loss of pupils' time and public money by such repetition. It may be, and doubtless is, true that an occasional omission occurs in recording the results after such tests have been taken, but, since it is the avowed policy of each school to have complete records for their own constant reference (excepting that the practice of the smallest of the five units was not to record the Regents' failures, and for this school they had to be estimated), the failing results would not be expected to be omitted more often than the successes, so that only the totals would be perceptibly affected by such errors.
One may rightly be permitted to speculate a bit here as to the most probable reaction of the pupil in regard to his respect for the school standards and for the judgment and opinion of his teacher, when he so readily and repeatedly passes the official state tests almost immediately after his school has classed his work as of failing quality. Perhaps it becomes easier for him to feel that failure is not a serious matter but an almost necessary incident that accompanies the expectations of the usual school course, just as gout is sometimes regarded as a mere contingency of ease and plenty. If such be true, and the evidence establishes a strong probability that it is, then it is not a helpful attitude to develop in the pupil nor one of benefit to the school and to society.