How New York’s Bid to Reduce Graduation Requirements Could Backfire

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

In today’s job market, higher education is increasingly essential. By the 2030s, most good jobs will require a bachelor’s degree, making it vital that students graduate high school with the necessary skills and knowledge to be successful in college or a career. 

Yet, these post-secondary paths are riddled with inequities, especially for students of color and those from lower-income backgrounds. Recent statistics are troubling: only 41% of eighth graders statewide were proficient in math on the 2023-24 New York State assessment. The situation is worse for students of color, with only 31% of Black students and 32% of Latino students achieving math proficiency, and less than half of Black and Latino eighth graders proficient in reading. This gap not only hinders immediate academic success but also foreshadows future struggles in high school, college, and the workforce.  

The New York State Board of Regents is moving forward on significant changes to current graduation requirements that would be phased in by the start of the 2029 school year. That would eliminate the requirement for passing the vaunted Regents exams and allow alternative routes to receiving a diploma. We are deeply concerned that the proposed changes, which still must be approved by the Board, may create a system that perpetuates rather than dismantles inequities.

The state’s push for additional graduation pathways, while well-intentioned, fails to address the root causes of inadequate student preparation. During and after the pandemic, graduation rates rose from 83.4% in 2019 to 86.5% in 2023, a trend our New York Equity Coalition report attributes to exemptions and waivers for Regents exams, while proficiency rates in literacy and math declined during the same period. In many states, graduation rates fell after the pandemic.

As New York considers eliminating Regents exams as a graduation requirement by the fall of 2027, we must ask: What is the plan to address declining proficiency rates? What is the plan to ensure that our schools adequately prepare students for life after high school, given the incoming presidential administration’s plans to further reduce the federal role in education accountability? 

While additional flexibility is necessary, especially for multilingual learners and students with disabilities, these broad changes raise legitimate concerns that districts will continue to under-educate students, particularly Black, Latino and Native American students, while graduating and passing them on to other institutions.

A meaningful diploma should signify that a student has mastered essential content and skills. Our education system must provide access to college and career-ready coursework, so students do not need remedial classes upon entering college—classes that often lead to increased debt and lower completion rates.  

The state’s initiative for additional graduation pathways also raises equity concerns across districts. It’s true that exams are not the only way for students to demonstrate proficiency and often carry racial bias and discriminate against multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Increasing opportunities for performance-based assessments—where students can demonstrate knowledge and proficiency through cumulative projects and performance tasks —provides a research-backed alternative. 

However, implementing such alternatives requires significant investments in time and training for educators. Will already under-resourced districts have the funding and state support needed to move in this direction? Or will high-wealth districts and schools be the only beneficiaries of increased flexibility? The state’s proposal, which allows these alternatives while recognizing that not all districts will not be equipped to provide them, risks creating new inequities: Depending on the wealth of a district or school, students may access different methods to demonstrate proficiency. 

Additionally, New York’s proposal raises concerns about exacerbating inequities within schools. Who will determine which students graduate by passing Regents exams—making them eligible for a new policy of direct enrollment in selective State University of New York campuses if they graduate in the top 10% of their class—and which students will use alternative measures? When school staff make these decisions, we know that racial discrimination significantly influences which students are considered “college material.”   

These unanswered questions underscore the potential unintended consequences of proposed graduation reforms and the need for strong state policy guardrails that ensure students who have been undereducated are prepared for success. While creating alternative pathways to graduation is desirable, it is crucial to address these issues to prevent deepening inequities. Students from all backgrounds deserve a diploma that accurately reflects their readiness for the future—a diploma that opens doors rather than closes them.  

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter