TOPIC: How much of what students are learning in school today applies to everyday life and are skills for future success?
ABSTRACT
Upon the river of knowledge, a student will drift upon their raft until they meet a teacher who can guide them towards the delta and then the sea. This sea of knowledge, a plethora of standardized tests and exams and curriculums that they must attain as their portfolio of known facts to continue on their journey is a worthwhile venture, but must be evoked in a proper manner. Urban education today in the Newark area is getting better every day, but is still far below state and national standards. The test scores and the strangling hold the curriculums have over teachers is more of a hindrance rather than help. These government instituted laws and programs made by mostly non-educators, could use some work. At the beginning and at the end of the day, there is a teacher and there is a student; and that student must learn, and that teacher must teach. That is what is most important. This paper investigated the value and importance of the current education system (mainly the curriculum and the role of standardized tests) to the most important players, namely, the administrators, the teachers and the students. We found that a greater majority of the participants / respondents believe that the curriculum and the standardized test is doing a disservice to the students and not adequately preparing them for the competitive world that they will face when they leave the doors of the school buildings.
INTRODUCTION
“When will I ever use this in my life?” and “Why do I have to learn this?” are two very common questions that school aged children ask everyday. These questions can easily be answered by telling them that they need to do well on their next test and if they do well in school that they will get into a good college. From a very early age students are encouraged to take their schooling seriously and obtain an education, for one’s future success is almost always inextricably linked to a sound formal education. History has taught us that the ideal situation for an individual involves obtaining a formal education, being successful at exams, graduating with honors and finding a stable job or building a prosperous career. However, some students, especially in urban areas like Newark, New Jersey are not getting the education needed to become competent and successful members of society. The matter of changing school and curriculum (educational reform) to compensate for the rapidly changing world in which these schools and it student’s exist has been an ongoing battle of both failure and success in particularly urban areas. For instance, most of the students in and around the Hawthorne Avenue area in Newark come from lower income, working class families that are just barely making ends meet. Many of the parent(s) in these families have low educational backgrounds and this lower education is correlated to the lower income status that they presently possess.
President George Bush, in an effort to raise failing schools (classified by students who are falling behind), in primarily urban areas, proposed No Child Left Behind (NCLB); a series of standardized tests and guidelines for meeting an Annual Yearly Percentage (AYP) for various subject areas or the school in concern receives less funding or ultimately is closed down. There are a number of perceived inherent problems of the NCLB act and its implementation which currently dictates and drives the focus of teaching at both public and private schools across the country. Numerous reports have emerged showing the achievement gaps which exist between different components of society, be it against racial, cultural, religious or social divides. However, the fundamental underlying common denominator remains what is taught in schools. What is the role of the curriculum in future success? The reality remains that the focus of those standardized tests as currently employed may very well serve as a contributing factor to performance gaps which exist.
Students are very different and each will take very different paths in their lives. Thus, each student will need very different tools for their lives. At a young age students learn all sorts of different tools that will be useful. They learn basic math skills, geography, reading and writing, how to paint and play music. These are most certainly skills that will be useful in their later schooling. They are building blocks that are necessary to their future learning. The problem seems to arise in later grades when the focus is much more on Math and English. In order to see what the students are learning we must take a look at the curriculum that is being taught. It does not take long to see that curriculum in our schools are driven by standardized tests. These standardized tests are what we use to measure the students, teachers, schools and school districts. The focus of school is now on finding ways to raise test scores rather than the practicality of what the students are learning. In fact, we believe this idea of standardizing curriculum and learning goes against nature; fundamentally, it defies our societal structure. There needs to be more than one solution to assessing schools and its students and this concept of more than one answer is a vital component educators should be instilling in students today. The current policies in place assume that teachers can be led to perform better if they are made much more accountable for test score gains. Standardized testing seems to be the “solve-all” solution and there is evidence to support its prosperity and its failure. Both prosperity and failure are limited to the view of test scores. Students are not being assessed in the many ways they learn limiting the validity in the assessment of the student’s learned knowledge. In addition, the curriculum and teaching styles of educators is changing due to high-stakes testing. Educators are now teaching to the test, which in turn invalidates their reliability and validity. A major issue that we want to take a look at is how the standardized tests in New Jersey change as students advance through school. In elementary school, students take the NJ Ask, where they are tested in seven different content areas. Later when students prepare for the HSPA, which they take junior year of high school in order to graduate, they are only tested on two content areas. Narrowing down our focus to two major areas, Math and English, has a great impact on their curriculum. As a result, students are being assessed on how much test content and information they can memorize in regard to passing the test instead of assessing the depth of understanding and reasoning, along with the critical thinking that goes into making the decisions.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
This research aims to investigate the curriculum being used in the Newark Public Schools system, particularly 4 schools in the Hawthorne Ave School area (SLT III) and assess the role of standardized test in preparing the nation’s youth for the 21st century. The researchers will suggest alternative ways by which assessment can be done without taking away from the ability to teach students life skills that will be important for future success.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The use of standardized tests by schools is commonly criticized. The tests do not necessarily test what students have learned. They do not reveal what the student has achieved. Critics have further suggested that alternatives to standardized tests should be developed and used for more effective student evaluation (Wildemuth, 1984). Herman and Golan (1991) investigated the effects of Standardized Testing on Teachers and Learning and found that all of the tests have not achieved the actual goals that the “standardizers” (designers/creators of the standardized tests) portrayed in their own outlooks of these tests. They felt as though these tests should have more bearing on what should happen in school systems and the budget plans, when in fact, these tests didn’t prove what they should have in the realms of student assessment.
Recent analysis of data has shown that in many states on every tangible measure, from qualified teachers to curriculum offering, that schools dominated by students of color had considerably less resources that schools dominated by white students (Darling-Hammond, 1998). Another study undertaken by Noulas and Ketkar (1998) measured the efficiency of public schools for the state of New Jersey using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) method; they examined the effect of certain socio-economic factors on efficiency and found that the average efficiency for all schools examined was 81%. Additionally, the wealthiest districts were found to have an efficiency score of 88% while for the neediest districts the efficiency was 63%. However, when socio-economic factors were taken into consideration, the difference between the two groups became smaller. Similarly, given the same educational resources studies have shown that students of color achieve at the same level of success as white students. As a result, some states have sought to equalize educational spending, enforce higher teaching standards, and reduced teacher shortages (Darling-Hammond, 1998) in an effort to decrease the gap in performance. The Strategic Support Team of the Council of the Newark City Schools’ instructional team was tasked with the responsibility of investigating possible ventures that could be undertaken in the view of raising student achievement in Newark Public Schools. Some of the recommendations they proposed to improve the academic achievement of students include: their basic general raising of the overall values of student goals and achievement in the Newark Public Schools (NPS) and the raising of the standardized tests as well. These scores can only be raised if the achievement gap can be reduced between the minorities and the Caucasians, proving to the government that these teacher shortages have a great overall affect on the achievement of students. These proposals were built around strategies that have proven to be effective in raising performance in other major urban school systems. According to the council, there is little else in the research or in practical experience to suggest that strategies beyond those described above are likely to have much, if any, effect on student achievement.
Americans students should leave high school with the know-how they need to make it in the real world; less than one half of our students have the knowledge or foundation required to find and hold a good job (Aguirre et. al., 2000). The curriculum being used and the overall act of curriculum development are partly to blame and needs to be adjusted to include learning-how-to-learn. Once students learn ultimately how they learn, then these skills can be applied to lifelong learning skills for success in the ever-advancing future (Cornfield, 2002). The most important thing in education is that every student deserves and opportunity at a good education. Until this happens we cannot blame the students for the gap in test scores (Darling-Hammond, 1998).
METHODOLOGY
Numerous strategies were employed in the collection of data for this inquiry project. We sought to speak to members of the Newark Public Schools (NPS) administration in person and via telephone. We made efforts to speak to current and former teachers and students of the NPS system. We also tried to get the general impression of the condition of the target schools by means of on site visits. Additionally, the research team also reviewed data collected by the testing department of the NPS as they pertained to our target area and reviewed journals which also investigated various aspects of our area of interest. A formal questionnaire was not utilized but the questions asked (which served more as a guide to discussion) and topics addressed in discussion with respondents are listed in Appendix A.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The following survey results show a great deal of information regarding the Newark Public School system, specifically two middle schools, the Hawthorne Ave School and Bragaw Ave School and two High Schools, the William H Brown Academy, and The Malcolm H Shabazz School. We did not attempt to compare against schools as this was not the objective of the exercise but rather to use their test scores and figures as performance indicators under current circumstances. These statistics show that the overall scoring of the students within these schools in regards to standardized testing in all areas was particularly low. These schools are not even close to comparable to the NJ state standard nor are they in the realm of meeting any district percentile averages benchmarks. These schools were chosen because of their close proximity to our target school the Hawthorne school and in this choice we discovered some majorly overlooked scores that are exceptionally and sensationally low in comparison to the state and country average. We utilized the test scores of the grade levels that were highest and appropriate for the NJ ASK (Grade 8 proficiency) or HSPA, two tests which had an actual effect on whether or not the students could make it to the next grade level passing or not.
The map above shows the target area (Yellow Circle) in Newark where the investigation was done (SLT III). Courtesy http://www.ntuaft.com/newark_map_lg.jpg
Table showing data for BRAGAW AVE (#13) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 32 | 50% | 50% | 0% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2974 | 43.6% | 54% | 2.5% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16370 | 42.8% | 54.8% | 2.4% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 103900 | 18.6% | 69.9% | 11.5% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 32 | 62.5% | 31.3% | 6.3% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2972 | 62.8% | 29% | 8.2% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16386 | 60.9% | 30.9% | 8.1% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 104049 | 32.4% | 42.8% | 24.9% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 32 | 43.8% | 53.1% | 3.1% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2972 | 35% | 53.2% | 11.8% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16317 | 38.9% | 52.2% | 8.9% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 103940 | 15.7% | 51.9% | 32.3% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
The above schools scores are way below the state’s average and their partial, proficient, and advanced levels are extremely LOW over all. If you look closely at the state proficient, you can sometimes see a small jump, but overall in all subjects they are usually low and way under average.
Table showing data for HAWTHORNE AVE (#40) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 43 | 51.2% | 48.8% | 0% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2974 | 43.6% | 54% | 2.5% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16370 | 42.8% | 54.8% | 2.4% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 103900 | 18.6% | 69.9% | 11.5% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 43 | 76.7% | 20.9% | 2.3% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2972 | 62.8% | 29% | 8.2% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16386 | 60.9% | 30.9% | 8.1% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 104049 | 32.4% | 42.8% | 24.9% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 43 | 55.8% | 37.2% | 7% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2972 | 35% | 53.2% | 11.8% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16317 | 38.9% | 52.2% | 8.9% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 103940 | 15.7% | 51.9% | 32.3% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
The same can be said for the Hawthorne Ave school in general. Their scores are low and not near or at state averages.
Table showing data for WILLIAM H. BROWN ACADEMY (#81) 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 86 | 55.8% | 43% | 1.2% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2974 | 43.6% | 54% | 2.5% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16370 | 42.8% | 54.8% | 2.4% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 103900 | 18.6% | 69.9% | 11.5% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 85 | 85.9% | 11.8% | 2.4% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2972 | 62.8% | 29% | 8.2% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16386 | 60.9% | 30.9% | 8.1% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 104049 | 32.4% | 42.8% | 24.9% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
| New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJASK8)** | Year | Number | Proficiency Percentages | |||
| Partial | Proficient | Advanced | ||||
| All Students | School | 2007-08 | 82 | 51.2% | 45.1% | 3.7% |
| District | 2007-08 | 2972 | 35% | 53.2% | 11.8% | |
| DFG | 2007-08 | 16317 | 38.9% | 52.2% | 8.9% | |
| State | 2007-08 | 103940 | 15.7% | 51.9% | 32.3% | |
| *To protect the privacy of students, the Department of Education suppresses sufficient information to eliminate the possibility that personally identifiable information will be disclosed. | ||||||
These schools scores are in the same realm as the rest of the secondary schools in the area. Of course some scores do fluctuate, but overall they are low.
Table showing data for MALCOLM X SHABAZZ 2007-08 SCHOOL REPORT CARD
| Student Performance Indicators | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ASSESSMENTS
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In regards to Malcolm X Shabazz, it is a High School and we do move on to the HSPA’s which is a very different test indeed. But as it is plainly shown, the scores are extremely low as well and these figures reveal a great divide between the state and the school’s average performance on the said test.
Discussions with past and current students yielded a variety of opinions as it pertains to the value of standardized tests. A majority of the students interviewed didn’t have a clear definition of what a standardized test was but was knowledgeable about the existence of such a test. Some students especially in the middle school, regarded school as something they had to do until they were 16 yrs old and had no control over that. As such, they did not have an opinion as to whether what they were learning in school was important to their future life or just a means to an end. While some students (about 25% of those interviewed) thought that the standardized tests were helpful in their efforts to get good grades and ultimately shape a career, the majority (about 75%) thought that standardized test only serve to limit the amount of knowledge they can acquire during their elementary and high school years. Most of the students contend that their teachers teach to the tests and find very little time to help students in developing social or life skills. This was in keeping with the notion put forward by Madus (1988) that tests are losing their legitimacy on evaluating students on their learned knowledge due to the “teaching of the test.” This corrupts the information that the students have learned and therefore know because instead of retrieving the information from long-term memory, they are memorizing test material and format. Additionally, some find that the lessons are usually scripted with very little room for impromptu modifications on the part of the teacher or students. School was also referred to as boring and useless by many of the students interviewed. The administrators spoken to were generally of the view that the standardized tests are not the quick fix to the numerous problems being encountered in the NPS system. One contends that the standardized test system is “what we have now and what we have to work with”. A discussion ensued about the need for alternatives to the much dreaded standardized test and some of those already being tried out in districts outside Newark. Some of those alternatives have included criterion-referenced tests, teacher-made tests, contract grading, interviews with students and their parents, and detailed documentation of a student's accomplishments (Wildemuth, 1984). Other administrators were a bit more blunt in their criticisms of the current situation and expressed that the current curriculum “focuses too much on subject content and leaves little time to engage in the overall development of the students”. The curriculum was seen as being “too tightly fit into the 180 teaching days which exists in the NPS System – resulting in some teachers being unable to complete the curriculum content”.
The teachers spoken to were equally as open as their students in condemning the current educational system and curriculum taught in schools. One recurring theme was the notion that the curriculum in use in schools in the Newark Public Schools does not include any aspect that deals with nurturing interpersonal skills or promoting other skills which should go hand in hand with education in the various subject areas. The curriculum was regarded as being one that does not teach or encourage students to think critically, be innovative or develop new ideas. Students who are able to think critically are able to solve problems effectively. Having knowledge is simply not enough in today’s world. To be effective in the work place and in personal lives, students must be able to solve problems and make effective decisions; they must be able to think critically (Synder and Snyder, 2008). There were suggestions to modify the current curriculum to address those deficiencies and aim to produce wholly developed individuals rather than book smart or content savvy individuals. The general impression from the respondents was that the current curriculum is failing the students and isn’t geared towards personal development. Students need to learn more about the world, think outside of the box, become smarter about new sources of information, develop good people skills and redefine how they learn. The curriculum needs to be adjusted to incorporate a balance between core knowledge and portable skills such as critical thinking, making connections between ideas and knowing how to learn (Wallis and Steptoe, 2006). Information technology was regarded as one of the areas that needed more attention and greater inclusion in the district’s curriculum.
CONCLUSION
This inquiry project gave us some insight into the Newark Public School system and the numerous challenges and difficulties faced by teachers, students and administrators. Some of the hurdles we encountered while undertaking this research included not getting access to “walk through” some of our target schools and as such had to observe the schools from the outside. Our efforts to meet with a few principals who have been in office for over 20 years proved futile and as such we were not able to get a cleared picture of the situation which existed prior to the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy and in what ways standardized tests may have changed over the years. We also found it difficult to have a detailed interview with some of the teachers since they were either in the process of completing the preparation of their students for the NJ ASK test or in the process of reviewing before the test - another testimony that the lives of the teachers and the students are “governed” by test taking and not necessarily learning life skills.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned difficulties, we were able to deduce that there is an overwhelming attitude and mentality of despair hovering above and surrounding participants of the NPS system. There is a strong desire for the “powers that be” to realize that the current curriculum does not adequately prepare the New Jersey child for future success. Many of the respondents believed that the state can achieve a great deal by simply tweaking the current curriculum and test system to include areas such as etiquette, critical thinking, and data analysis. Criticisms were also levied against the decision to “focus” on two subjects, math and literacy, in that, students and teachers tend to neglect other subject areas in favor of those being tested. There was also a call for a more comprehensive evaluation of students which takes into account the inability of some students to do well on structured tests.
We believe that there is hope for the Newark Public School system but it will take some bold initiatives on the part of the administration to deviate from the norm and implement new strategies that will make Newark students stand out from amidst the rest of the nation. There needs to be a direct reversal in the trends of test scores in the four target schools identified but there is also need for modifications to be made in order to improve those tests and make them more meaningful and representative of a complete evaluation.
REFERENCES
Aguirre, E., Brock, W. E., Biggins, J. V., Black, J. P., Brockett P. L., Burdick, W. E., Burge, J. D., Carswell, B., Chapman, T. W., Cole, P. F., Conn, G. J., Cortina, G., Doyle, F. P., Foreman, J. H., Foster, B. G., Gregory, W. H., Herrera, Y., Martin, L., Jennings, M. P., Palko, S., Patterson, J., Parnell, D., Resnick, L. B., Rivera, R.E., Semerad, R. D., Sticht, T. G., Watts, G. D., Wetjen, S. M., Whitburn, G., Zimmerman, J. H. (2000). U.S. Department of Labor: What Work Requires Of Schools: A Scans Report for America 2000. The Secretary’s Commission On Achieving Necessary Skills, June 1991, i-36.
Cornfield, I. R. (2002). Learning-To-Learn Strategies As A Basis For Effective Lifelong Learning. International Journal Of Education, 21(4), 357-368.
Glaser, R., Silver, E. (1994). Assessment, Testing, and Instruction: Retrospect and Prospect. Review of Research in Education, 20, 393-419.
Madus, G. F. (1988). The Distortion of Teaching and Testing: High Stakes Testing and Instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 65(3), 29-46.
Packer, A. (2007). Meeting Standards Will Not Guarantee Success. Fairtest, The High School Assessments Forum: Oakland Mills Interfaith Center, 2003, October 21
Synder, L. G., Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching Critical Thinking Skills and Problem Solving Skills. The Delta Epsilon Journal, L(2), 90-99.
Wallis, C., Steptoe, S., (2006, December 18). How To Bring Our Schools Out Of The 20th Century. Time Magazine, 51-56.
Wildemuth, Barbara M. (1984). Alternatives to Standardized Tests. ERIC Digest. Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests Measurement and Evaluation Princeton NJ.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED286938
APPENDIX A
Interview Questions: Note; Not all questions were asked to respondents.
Teachers (from)
1. Are you required to?
a. Show or submit lesson plans of your curriculum?
b. Prove by documentation the use of the NJCCS within your curriculum plans?
c. If yes, how is the proof documented; on the lesson plans themselves or written on the board during the lesson.
d. If no, why is there lack of connection between the teachers, state curriculum and the school? Do you think that this connection is beneficial to the students and the school?
2. Do you feel that through your curriculum you are teaching your students the necessary life skills they need for future success post schooling? i.e.- Critical thinking skills, collaborative skills, reasoning skills, lifelong learning skills?
3. Have the standardized tests changed anything specifically about your curriculum and/or teaching style? If so, what has changed?
4. How important are standardized testing to you? Do you think it is beneficial to the students learning?
5. Have content area class been cut as a result of standardized testing? If so, what classes? Do you feel that these classes are important to the student’s well-rounded development?
6. What skills besides literacy and mathematical competence do you feel your students will need after graduation?
Administration-Superintendent (from)
7. How has the budget been affected, if at all, by standardized testing?
8. Do you find yourself in Trenton trying to collect funding for your schools?
9. How important do you feel standardized testing is for the success of your schools and students?
10. Have you felt a true change in your schools, perhaps more pressure or stresses on yourself or the faculty due to standardized testing?
11. What steps are you taking to ensure that your schools meet their AYP?
Students (from)
12. What is a standardized test?
13. How important are the tests to you?
14. How do the tests make you feel? Do you like them? Do you think that they will help you for your future? If so, in what ways?
15. Have you had any other experiences with tests? If so, what type of tests? Do you like those tests better?
16. Do you think that standardized testing really tests your true abilities and strengths?
17. Do you feel any changes in your classes as you have moved up through the grades about what you are learning?
18. Do you think what you are learning is going to be useful in the real world after you graduate?
19. What skills do you think will be important for you after you graduate?
20. What do you want to be when you grow up?
21. Do you feel that after receiving your diploma, you will have all that you need for success in the future?
22. What are you plans after graduation? Will you pursue further education (where to) or join the work force (in what line of work)?
23. How would you change school if you could?
