High School Guide: Admissions, reviews, and advice

It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.

I kind of like the idea, though my kids aren't exactly in the prime demographic—one's already in high school and the youngest just started elementary school. I suppose the whole point is to encourage consistent effort rather than having everyone suddenly decide to actually study once they hit middle school graduation. Retroactive changes don't feel particularly fair, though; maybe waiting a couple of years before implementing this would be more reasonable. It might even be fairer that way. Pressure is always going to exist, unfortunately. But I guess it might at least make it easier for a parent to tell their kid they didn't earn that A, so they should probably try harder next year.

wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.

But I have to wonder—why shouldn't these middle school teachers simply do their jobs properly and refuse to cave to that kind of pressure in the first place?

I think that’s a fantastic idea!
👍

Just search online for the requirements—you can look up how they handle all four grade levels and how those extra credit points are being phased out... 👍
Did they also scrap that whole silly rule about getting bonus points for perfect conduct?

Personally, I find this to be an excellent concept. It might finally put an end to these rampant irregularities surrounding high school admissions. I am genuinely curious to see how many principals have been ousted from their positions now that the state audit has finished its sweep.

wanderinggardener12 said:It seems nobody is talking about this latest proposal from the Secretary of Education and the rest of the administration, which makes me wonder if I should even bother starting a thread on it—especially since I don’t have a child directly impacted by these changes right now.
The proposal is headed for debate soon, yet amidst all the chaos currently facing our country, it seems to be slipping through the cracks, barely making a headline.
The Secretary wants to move enrollment entirely online, much like the system they implemented for college students three years ago. On paper, it’s supposed to make life easier for everyone—the kids, the parents, and the high schools themselves.
Under this plan, students can apply for ten different programs across a maximum of five schools. It sounds like a genuine improvement, provided the entire digital infrastructure doesn't collapse under the weight of 50,000 candidates hitting those servers at the exact same moment.
Then there’s the other side of the coin: the overhaul of the grading criteria. They aren't just looking at 7th and 8th-grade marks anymore; they’re pulling in data from 5th and 6th grade too. Previously, it was based on five subjects depending on the school and general GPA, but now they want five subjects plus GPAs calculated down to two decimal places. Furthermore, music and dance school credentials won't grant extra points anymore, and points earned from competitions will be scaled back.
In my view, these shifts could be excellent, provided they aren't applied retroactively. Families and students often develop specific strategies; they calculate their moves carefully. A parent might decide that those extra points from music school are more vital than an average grade in, say, shop class or art, or perhaps they aim for a specialized language academy where a mediocre science grade in 5th grade matters far less than maintaining straight As in history and social studies.
Ultimately, these new regulations will only ramp up the pressure on elementary school teachers. Everyone will be chasing perfect scores in every single subject, which will inevitably lead to even greater grade inflation and a sense of enrollment panic—if not outright hysteria—starting as early as 5th grade.
While the Secretary talks about reducing stress levels by eliminating mid-term grades, he seems to be charging headlong into disaster with an idea that is clearly unprepared or, at the very least, poorly thought out.

Reduced? Reduced from what? Is the national competition going to carry only 1 point instead of 2 now?🤣

This kind of policy has screwed over some truly talented students before. Take one guy, whom I won't name, who was an incredible mathematician and computer scientist. Despite being a top-tier competitor, he had a few Cs back in middle school, which ultimately kept him from getting into a specialized STEM academy. To give you an idea of his talent: during high school, he became a national champion in computer science, won awards every single year for four years straight, was the absolute winner of the USA Computing Olympiad, took home prizes in national math competitions, and even earned medals on the international stage. And yet, despite being an internationally recognized programmer, he couldn't get into the computer science track at a premier science high school.🤣

But honestly, isn't it true that for a science-focused high school, national—even county-level—achievements should carry far more weight than mere classroom grades? After all, competition results are objective, whereas middle school grades can be, to say the least, subjective.

rowdyviper42 said:I kind of like the idea, though my kids aren't exactly in the prime demographic—one's already in high school and the youngest just started elementary school. I suppose the whole point is to encourage consistent effort rather than having everyone suddenly decide to actually study once they hit middle school graduation. Retroactive changes don't feel particularly fair, though; maybe waiting a couple of years before implementing this would be more reasonable. It might even be fairer that way. Pressure is always going to exist, unfortunately. But I guess it might at least make it easier for a parent to tell their kid they didn't earn that A, so they should probably try harder next year.

I suppose there’s probably some other law out there somewhere that would rule such retroactive application entirely illegal in the first place.

BTW, I honestly think cutting those credits for music school isn't just a massive blunder—it's a glaringly obvious window into the dominant value system currently in power. Honestly, anyone who genuinely believes that the entire point of attending music school is merely the technical ability to play a specific instrument shouldn't even be allowed anywhere near a position where they decide which brand of Procter & Gamble products to buy for public schools, let alone a position where they make actual, consequential decisions.

Mind you, all these debates inevitably lead to one single conclusion, which could be summed up in three simple words: the government's "little graduation."

Nicholas King said:I suppose there’s probably some other law out there somewhere that would rule such retroactive application entirely illegal in the first place.

BTW, I honestly think cutting those credits for music school isn't just a massive blunder—it's a glaringly obvious window into the dominant value system currently in power. Honestly, anyone who genuinely believes that the entire point of attending music school is merely the technical ability to play a specific instrument shouldn't even be allowed anywhere near a position where they decide which brand of Procter & Gamble products to buy for public schools, let alone a position where they make actual, consequential decisions.

Mind you, all these debates inevitably lead to one single conclusion, which could be summed up in three simple words: the government's "little graduation."

What can you even say about a similar call at a university? Kids knowingly signed up for a specific number of credits because it didn't matter then, but now they're stuck paying for an entire extra year of school because of it.

BTW, I think scrapping those music school credits isn't just a huge mistake—it's a crystal clear sign of what our current value system looks like. Honestly, anyone who seriously believes that finishing music school is strictly about how well you play one instrument shouldn't be anywhere near the people deciding which brand of Kimberly-Clark to stock in schools, let alone making any real decisions.

Did your kids finish music school? 😁
I agree that playing an instrument is more than just that... though personally, I don't think it should count toward high school admissions (unless it's an arts academy or something related). So if they changed it, I'm all for it.
A lot of kids spend years practicing something, so it’s definitely not "just" that, but obviously we don't give points for playing football, building model planes, or hip-hop either...

Mind you, all these debates always lead to the exact same conclusion, which basically boils down to three words: the state's "standardized testing."

I couldn't agree more. That's the only way to actually get an objective look at how much kids really learned after middle school.

As far back as I can remember, getting into high school was actually straightforward—it was just based on a combination of middle school grades and entrance exams. I can't recall exactly when or why they scrapped that system. Does anyone know?

Michelle Ward3 said:As far back as I can remember, getting into high school was actually straightforward—it was just based on a combination of middle school grades and entrance exams. I can't recall exactly when or why they scrapped that system. Does anyone know?

Entrance exams for freshman year?
I have no clue when they stopped using them... honestly, I don't even remember when we actually had them.🤷

I’m actually all for the idea of giving extra credit points to those 4th graders in elementary school.

If we start cutting back or getting rid of bonus points for winning competitions, the message we're sending to kids is pretty bleak: it basically tells them that going the extra mile and mastering a subject won't actually pay off here in the States.

Think about music school—that isn't just some casual after-school club or an elective you pick up on a whim.
It’s a serious institution. It requires regular attendance, intense practice, and passing formal exams. They even issue official certificates. For a student who has the grit to stick through a six-year music program, getting an edge during high school admissions isn't just "extra"—it's a well-deserved reward for their dedication.

But lately, it feels like there's this growing assumption that being smart, working hard, and behaving well doesn't really need to be incentivized by the school system.

Regarding that point mentioned above about Milo not hosting any competitors...
From what I understand, state champions from elementary school usually get a direct pass into certain programs every single year.
Milo is essentially the equivalent of a top-tier US magnet school for science and math.

Susan James said:I think that’s a fantastic idea!
👍

Just search online for the requirements—you can look up how they handle all four grade levels and how those extra credit points are being phased out... 👍
Did they also scrap that whole silly rule about getting bonus points for perfect conduct?

Yes, they’re getting rid of the conduct points as well. It was an absurd system to begin with.

While everyone is probably thrilled about the convenience of online registration, using fifth-grade grades—and applying them retroactively—could create a massive headache. Since middle schoolers don't take physics or chemistry yet, how exactly are they going to weigh applicants for specialized STEM academies or technical high schools? Will they just rely on biology? Beyond that, lowering the age threshold isn't necessarily a win: if a kid makes a catastrophic mistake at eleven or twelve because they simply lack the maturity to handle it, could that decision potentially derail their entire academic future?
High schoolers who stumble on their SATs or state exams have options; they can retake tests, take a gap year, or try again later... But these younger kids won't have that luxury. Whatever mess they make in the fifth or sixth grade might follow them for the rest of their lives.

wanderinggardener12 said:Yes, they’re getting rid of the conduct points as well. It was an absurd system to begin with.

While everyone is probably thrilled about the convenience of online registration, using fifth-grade grades—and applying them retroactively—could create a massive headache. Since middle schoolers don't take physics or chemistry yet, how exactly are they going to weigh applicants for specialized STEM academies or technical high schools? Will they just rely on biology? Beyond that, lowering the age threshold isn't necessarily a win: if a kid makes a catastrophic mistake at eleven or twelve because they simply lack the maturity to handle it, could that decision potentially derail their entire academic future?
High schoolers who stumble on their SATs or state exams have options; they can retake tests, take a gap year, or try again later... But these younger kids won't have that luxury. Whatever mess they make in the fifth or sixth grade might follow them for the rest of their lives.

Some kids just need time to adjust to a new system in middle school. It’s not always about being lazy or slow; they're going from having one teacher and a few subjects to juggling a bunch of different teachers and new classes all at once.
I don't think grading fifth graders is the move.
And if sixth grade doesn't count either, then seventh and eighth are fine, but we really need to find a way to make grading more realistic so everyone isn't getting straight A's.
Along with grades, maybe a standardized test would help bring those "perfect" scores back down to earth?
Being able to apply online and pick multiple schools is definitely a plus.
Getting rid of those massive extra credit points is also a good call—it gives students who are "just" excellent a fair shot.
Giving points for competitions in subjects directly related to the school they're applying to seems fair... as does direct admission for kids showing truly exceptional talent.

Nicholas King said:But I have to wonder—why shouldn't these middle school teachers simply do their jobs properly and refuse to cave to that kind of pressure in the first place?

Because the entire system of external standardized testing seems to have collapsed, leaving the teachers who actually maintain high standards feeling adrift; they realize that in many schools, grades are handed out like candy, and fearing their own students will be unfairly disadvantaged, they succumb to this trend of grade inflation. If we had consistent standardized assessment throughout all middle school grades—a mechanism designed to audit the quality of instruction rather than just the performance of the pupils—then every educator would truly be held accountable for the marks they assign.
That would actually solve the admissions crisis: implementing objective grading throughout the entire educational journey, rather than relying on one high-stakes final exam where a child's entire future hangs in the balance. It is an impossible burden for a fourteen or fifteen-year-old to carry; the stress levels are astronomical, and at that age, there is no such thing as a "gap year," especially when a child might simply be under the weather or feeling unwell on the day of the test.

(What I’m describing is internal pressure—the teacher doesn't want their student to fall behind peers from other districts. Then there is the "top-down" pressure, whether that authority originates within the school administration or from the community at large. And let's not forget the darker side of parental interference: threats, slander, extortion, physical intimidation, property damage, or even threats against the family itself.)

The most nonsensical approach to admissions I have ever witnessed was the heavy weighting placed on just three core subjects—English, math, and a foreign language—applied both at the end of middle school and during high school graduation exams. Why on earth should these three specific areas be the ultimate gatekeepers for everyone? Especially for graduating seniors. Why should a future historian or someone specializing in linguistics be judged by a math score, or a prospective engineer be tested on literary analysis?
And why does the system treat biology, art, or music as secondary to English when looking at high school admissions?

They are attempting to fix this slightly by shifting toward using a GPA calculated to two decimal places instead of a general success metric, but the absurdity remains: those same three subjects still dominate the equation, while two other arbitrary subjects are left to the discretion of whatever individual school decides to prioritize them.

wanderinggardener12 said:Because the entire system of external standardized testing seems to have collapsed, leaving the teachers who actually maintain high standards feeling adrift; they realize that in many schools, grades are handed out like candy, and fearing their own students will be unfairly disadvantaged, they succumb to this trend of grade inflation. If we had consistent standardized assessment throughout all middle school grades—a mechanism designed to audit the quality of instruction rather than just the performance of the pupils—then every educator would truly be held accountable for the marks they assign.
That would actually solve the admissions crisis: implementing objective grading throughout the entire educational journey, rather than relying on one high-stakes final exam where a child's entire future hangs in the balance. It is an impossible burden for a fourteen or fifteen-year-old to carry; the stress levels are astronomical, and at that age, there is no such thing as a "gap year," especially when a child might simply be under the weather or feeling unwell on the day of the test.

(What I’m describing is internal pressure—the teacher doesn't want their student to fall behind peers from other districts. Then there is the "top-down" pressure, whether that authority originates within the school administration or from the community at large. And let's not forget the darker side of parental interference: threats, slander, extortion, physical intimidation, property damage, or even threats against the family itself.)

The most nonsensical approach to admissions I have ever witnessed was the heavy weighting placed on just three core subjects—English, math, and a foreign language—applied both at the end of middle school and during high school graduation exams. Why on earth should these three specific areas be the ultimate gatekeepers for everyone? Especially for graduating seniors. Why should a future historian or someone specializing in linguistics be judged by a math score, or a prospective engineer be tested on literary analysis?
And why does the system treat biology, art, or music as secondary to English when looking at high school admissions?

They are attempting to fix this slightly by shifting toward using a GPA calculated to two decimal places instead of a general success metric, but the absurdity remains: those same three subjects still dominate the equation, while two other arbitrary subjects are left to the discretion of whatever individual school decides to prioritize them.

Sure, that would be the dream, but you already said yourself it’s just not happening given all the variables involved. Right?

I was born in '75. Back then, we actually sat for entrance exams to get into High School, which honestly wasn't a bad way to do things. But living here in Germany, everything works a bit differently. We don't have school-aged kids yet, but I know how it goes: elementary school lasts four years, and then your grades dictate where you head next. They look at three specific subjects—German, math, and science—calculated down to two decimal places. Better grades mean a shot at a preparatory academy or a track leading to college; lower marks push you toward vocational schools or trade programs. There’s also this "trial period" thing. If the grades aren't quite there, a student might get a few days of trial classes in a more academic track. It’s basically an interrogation to see if the kid actually has what it takes for that level of schooling. I don't know which system is better. Is a ten-year-old really ready to make life-altering decisions about their future? Seems early. And yet, over here, it seems to work perfectly fine.
Looking at how things stand in America right now, there’s clearly plenty of room for improvement. I've been reading about this new reform... but is it actually going to happen? Is it just another big idea floating around in a boardroom, or are we actually going to see some real, concrete changes? Who knows.

Rachel Jones8 said:Some kids just need time to adjust to a new system in middle school. It’s not always about being lazy or slow; they're going from having one teacher and a few subjects to juggling a bunch of different teachers and new classes all at once.
I don't think grading fifth graders is the move.
And if sixth grade doesn't count either, then seventh and eighth are fine, but we really need to find a way to make grading more realistic so everyone isn't getting straight A's.
Along with grades, maybe a standardized test would help bring those "perfect" scores back down to earth?
Being able to apply online and pick multiple schools is definitely a plus.
Getting rid of those massive extra credit points is also a good call—it gives students who are "just" excellent a fair shot.
Giving points for competitions in subjects directly related to the school they're applying to seems fair... as does direct admission for kids showing truly exceptional talent.

I've already shared my thoughts on a mini-standardized test. I would actually agree with you and the others advocating for it, provided the child had the chance to take it four times—much like college students can—with special accommodations available for unique circumstances, where the highest score is the one that counts.
These exams should cover all core subjects through both oral and written formats, administered by a multi-member committee consisting of teachers from the student's current school, educators from other local elementary and high schools, and appointees designated by the U.S. Department of Education. They should encompass the entire middle school curriculum alongside tests designed to measure specific functional skills and competencies for each subject.

Furthermore, all teachers who prepared their students for these exams during their tenure with a graduating class could be placed into different pay scales (based on existing metrics like seniority, mentor status, or specialist designation) according to the success of their students. If a teacher only led a specific eighth-grade class for a single year, their pay scale would be determined by that year combined with the exam results from previous generations they taught.

A similar compensation structure could potentially be devised for elementary school teachers, though perhaps based on two generations of students, given that some classes simply may not be capable of achieving top-tier results regardless of instruction.
With a solid program and clear parameters, this could be resolved without any real issue.

If a mini-standardized test proves too costly, then external evaluations—state testing that includes both oral and written components, along with unannounced assessments of functional abilities and skills—could serve as an effective way to monitor teacher performance and grading objectivity from first grade all the way through eighth.

hiddenjackal17 said:I was born in '75. Back then, we actually sat for entrance exams to get into High School, which honestly wasn't a bad way to do things. But living here in Germany, everything works a bit differently. We don't have school-aged kids yet, but I know how it goes: elementary school lasts four years, and then your grades dictate where you head next. They look at three specific subjects—German, math, and science—calculated down to two decimal places. Better grades mean a shot at a preparatory academy or a track leading to college; lower marks push you toward vocational schools or trade programs. There’s also this "trial period" thing. If the grades aren't quite there, a student might get a few days of trial classes in a more academic track. It’s basically an interrogation to see if the kid actually has what it takes for that level of schooling. I don't know which system is better. Is a ten-year-old really ready to make life-altering decisions about their future? Seems early. And yet, over here, it seems to work perfectly fine.
Looking at how things stand in America right now, there’s clearly plenty of room for improvement. I've been reading about this new reform... but is it actually going to happen? Is it just another big idea floating around in a boardroom, or are we actually going to see some real, concrete changes? Who knows.

In many parts of Europe, a fluid educational system is simply a reality. A child matures, realizes they are capable of handling a more rigorous academic path (or perhaps a different vocational one), and can pivot their direction at any time. That would be the true solution.
In Sweden, for instance, you can retake high school subject exams at almost any point in your life if you weren't satisfied with the grades or the level of knowledge you demonstrated back when you were just a kid.
If our students could sit for a high-quality, objective exam in any grade of high school to transfer into a different type of institution, most of these problems would vanish. But that would also mean that students who realize they can't keep up with the curriculum of the school they originally enrolled in should be allowed to switch tracks without being held back a grade.

Rachel Jones8 said:Sure, that would be the dream, but you already said yourself it’s just not happening given all the variables involved. Right?

The real question is whether we can actually build the infrastructure necessary to make it happen.

hiddenjackal17 said:I was born in '75. Back then, we actually sat for entrance exams to get into High School, which honestly wasn't a bad way to do things. But living here in Germany, everything works a bit differently. We don't have school-aged kids yet, but I know how it goes: elementary school lasts four years, and then your grades dictate where you head next. They look at three specific subjects—German, math, and science—calculated down to two decimal places. Better grades mean a shot at a preparatory academy or a track leading to college; lower marks push you toward vocational schools or trade programs. There’s also this "trial period" thing. If the grades aren't quite there, a student might get a few days of trial classes in a more academic track. It’s basically an interrogation to see if the kid actually has what it takes for that level of schooling. I don't know which system is better. Is a ten-year-old really ready to make life-altering decisions about their future? Seems early. And yet, over here, it seems to work perfectly fine.
Looking at how things stand in America right now, there’s clearly plenty of room for improvement. I've been reading about this new reform... but is it actually going to happen? Is it just another big idea floating around in a boardroom, or are we actually going to see some real, concrete changes? Who knows.

Did you take those entrance exams in America? For freshman year?
What kind of stuff was on them?

wanderinggardener12 said:I've already shared my thoughts on a mini-standardized test. I would actually agree with you and the others advocating for it, provided the child had the chance to take it four times—much like college students can—with special accommodations available for unique circumstances, where the highest score is the one that counts.
These exams should cover all core subjects through both oral and written formats, administered by a multi-member committee consisting of teachers from the student's current school, educators from other local elementary and high schools, and appointees designated by the U.S. Department of Education. They should encompass the entire middle school curriculum alongside tests designed to measure specific functional skills and competencies for each subject.

Furthermore, all teachers who prepared their students for these exams during their tenure with a graduating class could be placed into different pay scales (based on existing metrics like seniority, mentor status, or specialist designation) according to the success of their students. If a teacher only led a specific eighth-grade class for a single year, their pay scale would be determined by that year combined with the exam results from previous generations they taught.

A similar compensation structure could potentially be devised for elementary school teachers, though perhaps based on two generations of students, given that some classes simply may not be capable of achieving top-tier results regardless of instruction.
With a solid program and clear parameters, this could be resolved without any real issue.

If a mini-standardized test proves too costly, then external evaluations—state testing that includes both oral and written components, along with unannounced assessments of functional abilities and skills—could serve as an effective way to monitor teacher performance and grading objectivity from first grade all the way through eighth.

Not sure I totally follow...
So teacher salaries would depend on how well the kids did on the exit exams?
What do you mean by the bolded part? Does that mean people who went above and beyond, or does it include everyone teaching that subject?

If the junior high exit exams are too expensive, then external evaluations (state testing, but both oral and written) that include checks on functional skills and abilities (anytime and unannounced) would be a great way to monitor teacher performance and grading objectivity from first grade all the way through eighth.

How would that actually look in real life? When would these tests happen, how much stuff would there be... and who handles the oral exams to make sure they stay completely objective?