Another relic, Chicago should discard the General Educational Development test
The modern debate over second chances in education began, fittingly, with a first chance interrupted. When millions of young men returned home after World War II, they brought with them unfinished educations and urgent adult responsibilities. They needed jobs, credentials, and a way forward. The solution, crafted by the American Council on Education in 1942, was the General Educational Development test. The GED began to demonstrate returning vets had an equivalent academic skill set of an average high school graduate. The time they could have spent finishing up work for their diploma was spent fighting on behalf of our country. It worked. WWII vets, who had left school early could qualify for college under the GI Bill of Rights or enter the workforce without returning to a classroom. The GED was never meant to replace high school. It was a pragmatic bridge for a specific generation in extraordinary circumstances. It should have ended there. Mission accomplished.
As Ronald Reagan said, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.” That has been proven with the continuation of the GED. The public-school monopoly (CPS), under pressure to produce graduation outcomes at scale, leaned into it. Certification replaced accomplishment. In Chicago, the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) authorizes and oversees GED testing, while official testing centers are operated at various City Colleges of Chicago (CCC). The ICCB oversees the High School Equivalency (HSE) process, with official records managed through the Cook County HSE Records. After WWII, the educrats quickly realized the GED could serve a broader population. By the 1950s and 1960s, it expanded to include civilians who had not completed high school. Never let a program die, regardless of its efficacy.
Several forces drove this expansion:
- The rise of an industrial and later service-based economy that demanded basic literacy and numeracy
- Increased emphasis on formal credentials for employment
- Growth of adult education programs across the United States
By the 1970s, the GED had become a mainstream alternative credential, particularly for working adults, immigrants, and those who had dropped out of high school for economic or personal reasons. From 1970 to 1980 there was a 250 percent increase in GED holders. The GED had evolved from a targeted tool into a mass-market credential. It was faster, cheaper, and easier to administer than shepherding students through four years of high school.
As the GED scaled into a mass credential, testing spread across thousands of local centers, and, as a result, testing became uneven. There was a high incidence of cheating rings, weak proctoring, compromised test materials, leaked test forms and lax oversight by administrators. In 2014, reforms were initiated that both raised the standard of the test and curbed fraud. The test is now computer-based which eliminates the effectiveness of stolen booklets prior to the test. Stronger ID tests made it more difficult for somebody to stand in for another person. Just as important, the test puts more emphasis on critical thinking and applied skills. It is no longer designed so that everyone can pass it. It has a sense of legitimacy now. It also has resulted in a sharp drop from 500,000 students annually getting their GED to 200,000 -- a drop of 60 percent. Well, the GED is no longer a cheap diploma mill so should it survive?
First, reforms can always be rolled back (think of Bill Clinton’s welfare reform). The GED only weakens the high school diploma system. A high school diploma requires time, structure, and repletion. Those are values that can’t be tested but will follow students throughout the rest of their lives.
Consider the small but revealing example of No Adults Left Behind. Their two campuses are located at 9204 S. Commercial Avenue 60617 and 1604 W. 63rd Street 60636 in Chicago. This private, nonprofit institution serves adults between 18 and 50 years of age who did not finish high school. Instead of directing them toward the GED, it does something far more ambitious: It offers them the opportunity to earn actual high school credits and graduate with a diploma. The model is deliberately old-fashioned. Students attend classes, complete coursework and accumulate credits. They are treated not as test-takers but as students. The outcome is not a certificate of equivalency but a diploma that reflects sustained effort. The scale is modest with something on the order of 150 graduates per year. The implications, however, are significant. Here is proof that even among adults, many of whom are balancing work and family obligations, there is demand for a more complete educational experience. Given the opportunity, some will choose the longer, harder path.
Why, then, is this model so rare? The answer is as much about finance as philosophy. The GED system is supported by federal and state funding streams. No Adult left Behind is no different than Leo Hugh, Cristo Rey Providence St. Mel and Our lady of Tepeyac. Philanthropy and fundraising are key. State and federal vouchers would also be welcome.
Illinois once experimented with a program called "Invest in Kids," which provided tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations serving K–12 students. The program demonstrated that private capital could be mobilized to expand educational opportunity, particularly for families who could not otherwise afford non-public schooling. Its expiration left a gap that has yet to be filled. The two happiest people were Mayor Brandon Johnson and Governor J.B. Pritzker. The saddest were the ambitious students who lacked financial wherewithal. What if that concept were renewed and extended? Invest in Adults could mobilize private capital to expand opportunity for school-age children, there is no reason it cannot do the same for adults.
An “Invest in Adults” initiative, modeled on the Invest in Kids Act, could channel donations into programs that do what the GED cannot: Guide adults back through real coursework to a real diploma. Institutions like No Adults Left Behind have already shown demand exists and the model can work, albeit on a small scale. The question is not whether second chances are possible. It is whether policymakers are willing to fund the kind that resembles a first chance.
