Should students be able to graduate without taking an exam reassuring that they know basic civics ideas? Not according to a new aspiring bill, that has recently passed in many states, Indiana being one of them. Indiana now requires a 100 question exam on U.S citizenship in order for students to graduate high school. This bill obviously has some positive standards that come out of it, but since the bill affects all students wanting to graduate it has some controversial issues.
Most of the state representative and authorities proposing this bill are using the reason that they want better education of civics for students. An argument against this is that high school material already covers most content in the exam. History and social study classes discuss most civics material. The difference is that the students are not tested simply on the civics material. Because these subjects are already taught, there is a lot of question as to why this exam is necessary.
There are some skeptical assumptions concerning the purpose of this exam. Since immigration has become a relatively recent problem in the United States, it does not seem too unreasonable to connect immigration to this new bill. Many different critics pointed out that the increase in immigration and this sudden new bill could easily be correlated. Obviously the exam would be much more difficult for immigrants to pass, so the concern is that this new bill may be another way to make disadvantages for immigrants.
Josh commented on the subject starting off saying that the bill was not unreasonable but was curious to know the purpose for the exam. While considering the topic, the purpose seems to be the big complication. If there was a more solid answer as to why the exam has now become required for graduation, this bill would not have so much controversy. Josh later stated a good point as to why the exam is not a bad idea: “The content of the test is not too hard and high schoolers should be able to pass it. Also if immigrants have to take the test (when they enter country) then those who were born here should be expected to meet the same bar.” This claim gives a sense of equality to U.S citizens and immigrants. On the other hand the test already gives natural born American citizens an advantage and possibly a disadvantage to immigrants.
Another possible unintentional consequence of the bill is punishment for poor schooling. Since there is not a set guideline for the material on the exam, some weaker schools will not cover all that is on the exam. In this case, students who are not provided with a stronger educational system would be harmed gratefully. Ultimately these students would not be able to graduate because of their lack in school strenght. Isaac Brenneman (‘15) stated his opinion concerning this specific situation saying, “the bill is unreasonable because not all students are taught the same and just because they can’t pass the exam does not mean they should not be able to pass high school.” The bill is very exaggerated in that students who do not know basic civics will be disadvantaged in their job success. By not passing this exam the student will not graduate and in an extended view, that person may affect their success in life economically at least. As Josh put it, “Do we really want a bar access to jobs for those who do not know civics?”