Keystone Exams a done deal

UPDATE---

In my review of some of the posts on my blog, I realized that I have very little on what the actual Keystone Exams do to our graduation requirements. For that review I have found a great Pennsylvania School Board Association Document that can be found here.

Some highlights
-Keystone Exams will replace the 11th grade PSSA's. This was a development in July. Many people raised the concern of simply adding an additional standardized tests for our students. This was addressed by eliminating the 11th grade PSSA tests.

-Keystone Exams will be developed in literature, English composition, algebra I, geometry, algebra II, biology, American history, civics and government, chemistry, and world history

-Students will be offered remediation courses and alternative means of proving graduation readiness if they fail

- School districts will be given an opt-out provision that needs to be reviewed and approved by a 12 member board composed of people from the PDE, State Board of Education, PSBA, and other appointed board members as chosen by the PDE, State Board of Education, and PSBA

-Costs for validation will be split between the state and local government. If the state government is unwilling or unable to pay for their share, the local school district requirements will be deemed valid by default.

-Successful completion of an Advanced Placement course and test may be used in lieu of one of the courses required for graduation without the student having to take the Keystone Exam. International Baccalaureate classes will be treated the same way.

-Alternate measures of graduation readiness will be available for those students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP)

-In sum, the new graduation requirements for the class of 2014-2015 and beyond will include a combination of course completion and grades, graduation project, demonstration of proficiency as determined by the District, assessment requirements chosen by the school board in the form of Keystone Exams, validated local assessments, or AP/IB exams.

END UPDATE------

There was a big vote yesterday from the State Review Board regarding the Keystone Exams. In a 4-1 vote they approved the use of the exams in school districts across the states. Please see this article from the Philadelphia Enquirer.

I have talked about these exams from time to time on my blog. My issue, along with countless others, has always been that Pennsylvania has typically allowed local control of curriculum and graduation requirements. This exam, even while having an "opt-out" option will turn that control over to the State. The exams will be based on the graduation requirements by the State. Again, there is an opt-out provision but any school district that opts out has to have its requirements reviewed and approved by the state.

For the other side of the story, please see this op-ed from Joe Torsella, Chairman of the State Board of Education:

Strong Pennsylvania high school graduation requirements would pay off in long run
By Patriot-News Op-Ed
October 22, 2009, 1:59PM

by Joe Torsella

For almost two years, Pennsylvania has been engaged in spirited debate about the academic expectations we hold for our young people. In public hearings, the halls of the Capitol and newspaper editorial pages, there has been sharp disagreement about whether Pennsylvania should strengthen its high school graduation requirements.
grad hat.JPG
On the surface, this shouldn’t be a controversial question: Today’s high school graduates are entering the worst economy of our lifetimes, and our increasingly mobile society adds complexity and competition to their postsecondary plans. Nor is the state board’s proposal to strengthen graduation requirements a radical one.

Under the plan, students will have several options to meet graduation standards. The state will couple the reform with new resources, and no student will be denied a diploma based on test scores alone. The proposal will eliminate the 11th-grade state tests currently used to comply with No Child Left Behind and replace them with a series of standard course finals — a step that will make the state assessment more relevant to students and reduce testing time.

The proposal isn’t perfect — some business and postsecondary leaders advocated for higher standards. Others claim the regulation is too complicated and will present implementation challenges. But these qualms don’t explain away the fervor of the opposition — and that got me thinking.

In significant ways, I believe the debate around graduation requirements has become a proxy fight for broader policy questions buffeting public schools — and Pennsylvania.

For example, the emerging conversation about a voluntary national “common core” of academic standards might be seen by some as a threat to Pennsylvania’s tradition of local control of education decision-making and the power of school boards. Meanwhile, the weak economy might exacerbate worries among parents and educators that higher expectations will increase dropout rates, making the search for good jobs even more challenging for disadvantaged students.

On the issue of local control, let me be clear: School districts will decide how their students meet graduation requirements, and districts that want to set higher standards may do so. In addition, education stakeholders, and especially teachers, will have a significant role and voice in implementing the new policy.

Regarding dropout rates, there is no correlation between higher academic expectations and students leaving school. In fact, an absence of challenging curriculum is the more likely culprit along with systemic issues such as school safety.

While it’s worth remembering that assessments will be just one part of one pathway to meeting graduation requirements, results released last month by the Maryland Department of Education should help ease these concerns: only 11 of about 60,000 Maryland high school seniors did not graduate in 2009 solely because they failed the state’s exams.

Indeed, evidence from other high-performing states suggests that stronger graduation requirements are a powerful reform lever. Since instituting new graduation requirements, Virginia has seen significant achievement gains in every subject. Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt, a former Massachusetts legislator and co-author of that state’s Education Reform Act, calls strong graduation requirements the “single most significant act in catalyzing Massachusetts’s phenomenal growth in student achievement.”

For Pennsylvania, the question now is whether to go forward or stand still. State-level education reforms — sustained across multiple administrations — have produced significant achievements, including some of the nation’s most rigorous academic standards. And during the last seven years, Harrisburg has made a commitment to dramatic increases in state funding for public education. Even this year’s budget, with billions in cuts to worthy programs, provides a $300 million increase for K-12 education.
torsella
These efforts have led to achievement gains across Pennsylvania and among all groups of students. But we have more work to do — especially for our high schools when more than 40 percent of graduates cannot demonstrate grade-level mastery of reading and math.

We have today a proposal that reflects input from thousands of Pennsylvanians and diverse stakeholders.

The proposal has been strengthened thanks to study by legislative leaders — especially Sens. Jeffrey Piccola and Andrew Dinniman and Rep. James Roebuck.

The regulation borrows from strategies in the nation’s best-performing public education systems. And it finds balance between rigorous expectations for every student and flexibility that respects individual learning needs.

For all of these reasons, it’s time to move ahead.

Thanks for reading.

James

Message from Senator Orie on Keystone Exams

***
Edit-

I forgot to mention that our State Senator John Pippy is a co-sponsor of Senator Orie's legislation. Thanks to Senator Pippy for stepping up on this issue as well.

***

I received a message from State Senator Jane Orie yesterday regarding her attempts to curb the PDE's ability to unilaterally implement Keystone Exams. The message provides a great summary of how we got to where we are today and what is happening at the legislative level. Please see the full message below:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for your recent correspondence stating your opposition to the Rendell administration’s graduation competency assessment (“GCA”) scheme as well as conveying your support for Senate Bill 281, which would expressly prohibit any further movement on GCA’s without the express approval of the General Assembly.

In 2008, the State Board of Education included GCA’s as part of its proposed changed to their Academic Standards regulations. Under the proposal, all high school seniors would be required to pass a series of standardized exit exams in order to graduate. After receiving a tremendous flood of criticism against such a plan from citizens, school administrators, and educational experts statewide, the Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives passed a moratorium last July through Act 61 of 2008 that expressly forbid any further action on the GCA for one year.

Despite this clear directive to cease any and all activity related to GCA’s, the Department of Education began to solicit bid proposals for the development of these high school exits exams in the fall of 2008. Faced with the Department’s blatant disregard for the Act 61 ban, it became abundantly clear that this matter must be addressed with legislation conclusively banning any further movement on GCA’s. As such, I promptly introduced SB 281 in February.

SB 281 would bar any direct or indirect advancement of the GCA agenda by the Department. More importantly, the legislation would instruct the Pennsylvania Treasury not to expend funding related in any way to graduation standards unless specifically authorized to do so by the General Assembly. The crucial need for SB 281 was once more sharply reiterated when the Department recently executed a $202 million contract for the development of GCA’s. I would also note, that confronted with a projected deficit of over $3 billion, fiscal prudence demands that we not allow limited resources to be expended on new and unproven initiatives like the GCA’s when many other worthy current programs cannot be funded. Put simply, the Department’s actions in plain disregard to the Act 61 prohibition and our economic circumstances compel an immediate legislative response as embodied in SB 281.

Presented with this difficult situation, I am pleased to report that SB 281 overwhelmingly passed the Senate on June 10th with nearly unanimous bipartisan support (48-1). The bill now proceeds to the House and I urge my colleagues to act swiftly and curb any further action or spending towards the GCA initiative. To this end, you are encouraged to contact your own representative and convey your support for SB 281. Should you require any assistance in doing so, please do not hesitate to contact my offices at your convenience.

Once again, thank you for your contacting me and voicing your thoughts about such a significant issue. Your staunch advocacy is also most appreciated on behalf of all Pennsylvania students who could be considerably harmed by the hasty and irresponsible implementation of graduation tests. Please feel free to contact me whenever you have any other state-related concerns.

Sincerely,

JANE C. ORIE
Majority Whip
40th Senatorial District

Thanks to Senator Orie for taking a leadership role on this legislation.

Thanks for reading.

James

Senate Education Committee Votes to Stop Keystone Exam Funding

In a bi-partisan effort to stop the Governor from unilaterally implementing the Keystone Exam/GCAs, the Senate Education Committee voted unanimously to block the contract that was awarded to the company that was designing the tests.

From the Pittsburgh Trib:

Senate Education Committee votes to block contract with testing company

HARRISBURG — A high school graduation exam drew fierce opposition Tuesday from members of the Senate Education Committee, who voted unanimously to block a $201 million contract with a Minnesota testing company.

For almost two hours, senators from both parties skewered Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak for proceeding with a seven-year contract without legislative approval at a time when Pennsylvania faces a $3.2 billion deficit.

Even members of Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell's party, especially Sen. Anthony Williams of Philadelphia, criticized the contract.

"The reason why we're having the hearing today is because every time we ask a question, the response is sort of condescending," Williams told Zahorchak. "You sort of act like, 'What right do you have to ask a question?' I'm concerned about how we arrive at moments like this, which are embarrassing to all of us."

The committee approved a bill by Senate Majority Whip Jane Orie, R-McCandless, requiring that any graduation exam be approved by the General Assembly. Orie, calling the Rendell administration's action "unconscionable," predicted the bill would move through both chambers with a veto-proof majority.

Orie said the bill would negate the contract signed last month with Data Recognition Corp. for the tests. She said the contract is flexible enough that the state would not owe the company money for canceling.

Rendell fired back hours later: "If it becomes law, I will veto it." He said states surrounding Pennsylvania have such exams.

"Do you think all the states have it wrong and we have it right?" Rendell said business leaders across the state back the exams. The opposition was driven by a "special interest," the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, the governor said.

"The fact other states might be doing it doesn't mean Pennsylvania should do it," PSEA spokesman Wythe Keever said. He said 23 organizations across the state oppose the exams, ranging from the NAACP to the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania.

The opposition had less to do with the tests than a perception by senators that Rendell's office was dictating education policy without legislative input.

Deeming the situation a "corruption of the legislative process," Sen. Mary Jo White, R-Venango, said, "It is not the Department of Education's job to determine education policy for the entire state."

Zahorchak said the $8 million included in this budget and $20 million next year for the contract are a fraction of the $10 billion the state spends on education. He said it is important to measure students' competency before they go out in the work force.

Committee Chair Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, supports the idea behind graduation tests but said he is disappointed by the Education Department's "absolutely miserable job" of communicating with the Legislature.

"You're asking us to kill a mosquito with a sledgehammer," Piccola said.

"You can use the sledgehammer, but its not me who will be punished by it," Zahorchak said. "It's generations of kids."

Michael Hauser, principal at Moon Area Senior High School, supports the idea behind the so-called Keystone exams but believes Rendell rushed the issue.

"Ultimately, having some type of standardized assessment of what kids are learning across the commonwealth is not a bad thing, but we need to move forward at a reasonable pace," Hauser said.

Erin Vecchio, a Democratic committeewoman and school board member with two children at Penn Hills High School, does not support the standardized exams. She fears the tests would cause teachers to change the way they teach students.

"It doesn't mean that anyone is going to be educated unless you're going to teach them the test," Vecchio said. "You're teaching the kids how to do the test instead of teaching them how to learn. What good does that do?"

Thank you Senator Orie for stepping up and getting this done.

Thanks for reading.

James

GCA, Keystone Exam Update

***UPDATE***
Senator Orie's office contacted me yesterday (5/7) and said that there are certainly financial concerns related to the GCA/KE proposal but they want to make it clear that they are not ONLY going after the cost of the exams to stop them. They are also looking at local rights issues and what is best for our students. They said that there was definitely something lost in the translation in the message that was released which I posted below. Thank you to Senator Orie for clearing that up.
***

After my initial blog post this morning regarding the new Keystone Exams, I found out that I am not the only Director in PA that is questioning the wisdom of these exams and also the apparent re-direction on the part of the PSBA.

I also was made aware of a statement by State Senator Jane Orie. You can view her statement on her website here or read the statement below:

Joint Statement from Senator Orie and Rep. Saylor On Alternative Graduation Tests - aka Keystone Exams 2.0

HARRISBURG – State Senator Jane C. Orie (R-40) and Representative Stan Saylor (R-94) today issued the following joint statement regarding the Coalition for Effective & Responsible Testing’s alternative to the Department of Education’s high school graduation tests now dubbed the “Keystone Exams.” The Coalition, led by Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), school administrators and local PTAs, called for a new dialogue with the Rendell Administration.

“We appreciate that the coalition has kept the dialogue open concerning the need for these high-stakes exams. However, at a time when our state is facing a $2.6 billion and growing deficit, we believe there is no need for these additional, costly tests. The last thing that we need in this budget is new spending.

“Why are any additional tests necessary? Our goal should be to teach, not test. First, students do not need another test. The Commonwealth needs to strengthen its classroom teaching first – in a coordinated way. We should start with the early grades and then build on that knowledge and experience.

“Secondly, schools already are using Algebra I and II end of course exams as part of the multi-state coalition begun several years ago through Achieve. Before spending anymore, why not see how these exams work?

“Any assessment systems we consider should be used to measure performance of students as they move through the education system and identify solutions for improving student, teacher and school performance prior to graduation. In order to do that, we need to step back and take a look at what is happening and what we need to happen for our children.

“We look forward to working with all interested parties to improve the quality of our student’s education. It is important to note that that this Governor will soon be leaving office and the next administration should not have their hands tied should with new mandates and new costs.”

Contact:

Nate Silcox (Sen. Orie)
(717) 787-6538

Sean L. Yeakle ( Rep. Saylor)
(717) 787-3406

I like that Senator Orie is taking a stand, however, taking a stand because of the financial impact of this decision takes away from the the other reasons why it is wrong to have exit exams. If the economy starts humming along again, this argument is completely taken away.

In my mind, the entire principle of statewide mandated graduation tests infringes on the rights given to local school districts in the Pennsylvania Constitution. Any reining in of these rights ought to be seriously and deliberately debated in the legislature with deference given to those districts that have continuously performed well and graduated students exceptionally prepared for the future.

Thanks for reading.

James

Keystone Exams 2.0

We've moved from GCA's over to Keystone Exams and now onto Keystone Exams 2.0. It looks like the Keystone Exams 2.0 is gathering the momentum it needs from various groups to possibly be the solution that is adopted by the state.

Below is an article from the Post-Gazette that outlines some of the changes from the GCA and the Keystone Exam 1.0 proposals:

Graduation tests gaining momentum

Monday, April 27, 2009

By Eleanor Chute, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In less than three months, the moratorium on changing state graduation requirements will be over, leaving the state board of education open to take the next step toward state-required exams for graduation.

The idea of graduation competency exams once was so controversial that more than 20 statewide organizations opposed it, about 200 school boards passed resolutions against it and state legislators blocked the state Board of Education from acting on changing graduation requirements.

Now even groups that opposed a graduation competency exam are lining up in favor of variations on the theme of state-created, end-of-course tests for high school students.

A key difference is how much the exams -- expected to cost millions of dollars to develop -- will count.

The latest proposal -- called Keystone Exams 2.0 -- was announced last week by the Coalition of Effective and Responsible Testing, a group of statewide organizations including the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers in Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania PTA.

In this proposal, school districts voluntarily would have their students take end-of-course tests, but the tests could count for no more than 20 percent of the grade.

If the federal government were to permit the state to use the tests for meeting the standards of No Child Left Behind, then current 11th-grade state tests would be discontinued and the end-of-course tests would become mandatory.

Joseph Torsella, chairman of the state board of education, expects the board to take up the issue as soon as the moratorium is lifted at the end of June. Its next meeting will be July 15 and 16 at the University of Pittsburgh.

Mr. Torsella called the latest proposal "a good contribution to the conversation" and said he will be meeting with its proponents this week to get more details.

It's too early to tell what the board will do, but Mr. Torsella said, "In the end, the board will be guided by what we think is going to be best for Pennsylvania graduates."

In a push for stronger graduation requirements, the state board of education nearly a year ago made an initial publication of regulations calling for students to pass six of 10 "graduation competency assessments" in math, language arts, social studies and science; the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests; Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams; or a local assessment that independent evaluators certify is equivalent to the graduation competency assessments. It would start in the 2013-14 school year.

Last month, the state Department of Education and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association reached a compromise called Keystone Exams.

This plan would start a year later, aim to preserve local control and emphasize the exams would be voluntary. It also would split the cost of validating local assessments between the state and local districts, instead of putting the cost solely on the local districts.

With the addition of the Keystone Exams 2.0 proposal, Mr. Torsella said, "What's clear to me is that the conversation has really advanced and there's sort of a universal recognition that we are not doing right by our high school graduates, that there's a place for the new Keystones and that we ought to have meaningful accountability behind what we should be doing and what we should be expecting."

Last week, state Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak said he appreciated the participation of the coalition but said he was worried that counting the tests for only 20 percent of the grade would remove the assurance that students have appropriate skills.

While he was "gratified" the latest plan includes Keystone Exams, Tim Allwein, PSBA assistant director of governmental and member relations, also questioned whether counting the exams for just 20 percent would offer the necessary assurance.

Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, chair of the Senate Education Committee, issued a statement calling the proposal "a step in the right direction" although he didn't "find the substance necessarily rigorous enough within this alternative proposal."

One of the early supporters of graduation competency exams, Joan Benso, president and CEO of Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, said she, too, found it encouraging more groups are proposing final exams, but she worries their weight in the latest proposal "may not be high enough to have young people take them seriously."

PSEA treasurer Jerry Oleksiak said the latest proposal "provides for high-quality, end-of-course exams that will help children and will also help school districts that need to improve their local assessment systems. That's the best way to ensure a meaningful high school diploma."

Some local school board members wonder whether the Keystone Exams are necessary at all.

West Jefferson Hills school board member Shauna D'Alessandro views the latest proposal as a "step in the right direction" because it would replace tests, not add them.

However, she doesn't think the new tests are needed.

"We already know which students need help. We know that from the PSSA," she said, referring to the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment tests given in math, reading, writing and science in selected grades.

Nor does she think the state can afford the millions of dollars to pay for them. "The money could be used for initiatives to improve student achievement," she said.

Pine-Richland school board member Therese Dawson said the results of the current state tests could be used better.

"That's the launch point," she said. "We already have achievement benchmarks in place. We just need to use them."

Alan Lesgold, dean of the University of Pittsburgh School of Education, said the 20 percent figure might work as an "incremental approach" to measuring how well students do.

"The problem you've got is districts aren't doing as well as they might in getting kids educated well. If you suddenly implement high-stakes exams and kids can't graduate, you're penalizing the kids for the failures of the school system," Dr. Lesgold said.

Education writer Eleanor Chute can be reached at echute@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1955.

First published on April 27, 2009 at 12:00 am

I believe the 2.0 exams are a huge improvement from the original GCAs and the original Keystone Exams. These tests are voluntary and, if you do choose to employ them, would replace the 11th grade PSSA test. This means it would not be an additional achievement test, it would replace an existing one. Additionally, while counting for 20% of a final grade, it is not used as the only criteria to see if a student is ready to graduate.

I am not sure if the Pennsylvania Department of Education is going to let go of the idea of having a required high school exit exam. It is a way for them to better control the curriculum they think should be taught to our students. It will be up to our State legislature to determine what direction to take. I look forward to seeing what proposals are put up for our representatives.

Thanks for reading.

James

Taking Issue with the PSBA

Let me reiterate here that the opinions below are my own and may not reflect the opinions of other members of the Board.

From the PSBA website:

Tim Allwein, PSBA Governmental & Member Relations

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association today announced agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the State Board of Education over the issue of graduation requirements. The agreement on new language proposed by the parties is an attempt to reach consensus on what has been a divisive issue within the basic education community for almost two years. The plan replaces a controversial proposal for graduation competency assessments and preserves broad local testing authority.

Under the new proposal, the state tests, known now as Keystone Exams, would be strictly optional for all school districts. Districts would be required to use only one of the following as graduation requirements: the results of the 11th-grade Pennsylvania System of State Assessment test, the Keystone Exams, aligned local assessments or International Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement tests. Consequently, the only mandated assessments would be the PSSA, because it is the designated state assessment for No Child Left Behind Act purposes, and the graduation requirement the school district chooses.

After all the research and data questioning the use of high stakes exams to determine the graduation readiness of students, the PSBA seems to have switched course here and now believes it is OK to use the PSSA, IB, or AP exams to do just that- as long as the option for local assessments is maintained. The PSBA says the new agreement is optional to local school districts. However, read on from the same press release (emphasis below is mine):

The new language also ensures that a local assessment option is still available for school district use and makes major changes regarding the development and implementation of those tests.

For the first time, the Department of Education would have to provide technical guidance in the development of local assessments to any school district that requests it. Also, local assessments would have to be validated but, unlike the GCA proposal that places the entire cost on school boards, this agreement provides that validation costs will be shared equally by PDE and districts. Also, local assessments would be allowed to include various strategies, such as portfolios, student work, teacher-developed tests and other alternatives, as well as pencil-and-paper standardized tests.

The new proposal also creates a Local Assessment Validation Committee, with representation from the state and from PSBA for the purposes of determining the process and criteria for validation of local assessments and for determining the qualifications for approved validation entities.

Those paragraphs don't make keeping your local assessments as they are "optional". Instead it sounds like more intrusion into the rights of local governments. Even if you are proven to have satisfactory graduation assessments, your school district will still need to get validated at a cost that will be split between local taxpayers and the State. Your graduation requirements will be subject to approval by this Local Assessment Validation Committee- or more likely, they will have to conform to the standards set by this committee.

I have been keeping up to date on the PSBA on what they have been saying for the past year on the GCA's. Here are some quotes from them over the past year:

PSBA Comments on Regulations to 22 PA Chapter 4:

PSBA believes that proponents of the proposal assert that change is needed because the current graduation assessments being used by school districts lack rigor and do not adequately measure a student’s proficiency in the state’s academic standards. PSBA strongly refutes this assertion, because there is nothing to prove its validity and because results from a PSBA survey on such assessments show that school districts are indeed following the intent of the current regulations in a variety of ways.

Additionally, PSBA believes that the GCA proposal infringes on areas that traditionally have been areas of local control, will be harmful to students and will result in significant costs to school districts and the commonwealth.

Here is a second nugget:

Tim Allwein- Are graduation competency assessments necessary?

Both the proponents and opponents of the current GCA proposal are united in their desire for a system that ensures that students graduate from high school proficient in Pennsylvania’s academic standards. Proponents believe that the only way to ensure this is through state tests – either the PSSA or the GCAs. Opponents, including PSBA, believe that a system that allows local tests aligned to the state academic standards and the PSSA can meet this requirement. PSBA is not convinced that the discrepancies shown by the proponents that more students are graduating without scoring proficient on the PSSA point to a deficiency in local assessments.

In unity with he PSBA, school districts across this state passed resolutions opposing high school exit exams. Mt Lebanon passed its resolution in February 2008. You can see that document here.

Personally, I am opposed to the agreement based on the following:

1) Costs, while shared between the PDE and the District, are unknown. Additionally, if you are in a school district that by all accounts is graduating college ready students, then why incur the cost at all?

2) Pencil and paper tests should never be the determining factor in a student's readiness. While Mt Lebanon may "opt out" of the optional Keystone Exams, the fact remains that many school districts will take this route. The PSBA and others have cited numerous research articles that suggest high-stakes exams are not the way to go to determine college readiness.

3) The new agreement still infringes on local control of education even if a school district wants to opt of the Keystone Exams. This agreement makes it more likely that in the future the PDE will infringe further into graduation requirements and force local school districts to cede more control to the State.

Finally, I did send an email to the PSBA outlining my concerns. For some balance to my viewpoint, I present their response below:

Thank you for your comments. Your specific concern has been echoed by others. As you know, this whole debate began with GCA supporters saying that new tests were needed because too many students graduated based on reaching proficiency on local assessments rather than on the PSSA. This argument made the underlying assumption that local assessments were somehow substandard, an argument that PSBA refuted because there had been no studies or research proving this. It is also important to remember that PDE had never been required to give school districts any technical advice or guidance on the issue of developing local assessments.

The recent Penn State study found that while many school districts have local assessments that are aligned to the state's academic standards, which is what the regulations require, many do not use those assessments or the results of those assessments in a manner that is acceptable to PDE.

Under the language of the new proposal, districts can either use the new Keystone Exams or a validated local assessment as a graduation test. Since validation of local assessments would be required, subject to criteria developed in part by PDE and by representatives of PSBA, it would be difficult for the state to then go back in a few years and say that the local assessments can no longer be used and that only a state test (PSSA or keystone exams) can be used. I'm not sure what their argument would be.

The cost of validation is also a subject of much discussion, as it should be. There are several reasons that I believe will ensure that these costs are not burdensome on school districts. First, the new language requires the state to pay half the costs. Second, the criteria would be developed by a committee on which PSBA has four representatives and the state four. Third, the recent Penn State study recognized that there are 18 school districts that have valid local assessments. I believe that PDE will share best practices and any other useful information with school districts around the state in order to help them develop valid local assessments. Finally, PDE would be required to provide technical guidance to any school district that requests it in developing local assessments. If school districts can submit a test that they believe is valid based on using information shared by PDE, it likely will shorten the time needed for validation and thus, make it less expensive.

I appreciate your concerns about the nature of the agreement, but I believe the new language makes it more difficult for the state to turn around in the future and mandate the use of a state test for graduation purposes.

I welcome further comments.

Tim Allwein
Assistant Executive Director for Governmental and Member Relations Pennsylvania School Boards Association P.O. Box 2042 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 506-2450, Ext. 3325
Cell: (717) 574-3005
Fax: (717) 506-2476
e-mail: tim.allwein@psba.org

Thanks for reading.

James

Consolidation Update

I posted a few weeks back about Governor Rendell's message about school consolidation. Today there is an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette tackling both the consolidation plan and the graduate competency assessments.

From the Post-Gazette:

Pa. official grilled on graduation exam, school mergers

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

By Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG -- State Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak ran into a bipartisan buzzsaw today before the Senate Appropriations Committee, as he was assailed for trying to reduce the state's 501 school districts to just 100 and for pushing to develop a new high school graduation test.

Democratic Sens. Sean Logan of Monroeville and Andrew Dinniman of Chester questioned Gov. Ed Rendell's controversial idea of consolidating school districts.

Mr. Logan said it had been tough enough just to close Duquesne High School and transfer those 135 students to nearby high schools.

"How are we going to deal with transferring millions of students if the districts are reduced to 100?'' he said.

Mr. Dinniman asked where the number of 100 came from.

Mr. Zahorchak, who is Mr. Rendell's point man on several emotional education issues, said some people had talked about having just one school district per county, and there are 67 counties. Larger counties, such as Allegheny, would probably need several school districts, so the figure of 100 came up, he said.

Mr. Zahorchak said the upcoming merger of Monaca and Center districts in Beaver County could provide a blueprint for other combinations.

The school district consolidation idea did get some support from Sen. John Wozniak, D-Cambria, who said a study by a legislative committee a couple years ago supported the idea and said that about 2,500 students was a good number for each district

Mr. Rendell wants the Legislature to set up a committee to study the consolidation idea and settle on a different, lower number of districts if it chooses.

Mr. Zahorchak also took flak from Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, over his plan to create new "Graduation Competency Assessment'' exams that all high school students would have to pass in order to graduate. He said that too many students are now getting diplomas while still being unprepared academically for college or the work force.

He said that if a local school district wanted to develop its own assessment exam that was just as rigorous as the one the state is developing, it could use the local exam.

But Ms. Orie didn't like either idea, saying it could ultimately cost the state up to $45 million to develop the tests. She said it's an unnecessary expense when the state is facing a $2.3 billion budget deficit.

Perhaps the most poignant protest at the budget hearing -- even if it was silent -- was the appearance by 25 students from the Scranton School for the Deaf, who don't like the Rendell/Zahorchak plan to save $7 million by closing their school. It serves 100 deaf students and has 100 staff members.

Mr. Zahorchak said it's the only school in the state that is directly run by state government, and he thinks it's time for the state to stop such direct education. The students might be served by an intermediate unit in the Scranton area or even with programs from the Western Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, he said.

An interpreter, using sign language, told the students what was being said at the hearing. Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne, strongly protested the Rendell administration's plans to close the school.

It looks like there is bi-partisan opposition to the consolidation plan at this time. Even if the Governor gets a study going it will be a few years before we might know something more.

Kudos to State Senator Jane Orie for using the opportunity to talk about some budget ramifications of the GCAs.

Thanks for reading.

James

Graduate Competency Exam Update

I received an email from the Pennsylvania School Board Association that had an update regarding the GCAs. Please see below:

And the counts are climbing! At the latest count, 77 members of the House have officially agreed to cosponsor legislation to be introduced by Rep. Stan Saylor (R-York) that would prohibit the Department of Education from expending resources to make changes to any component of high school graduation requirements, pending approval from the General Assembly.

Please call your House member and ask him or her to cosponsor this legislation and to contact Saylor's office at (717) 783-6426, cwalker@pahousegop.com or jhenning@pahousegop.com. Last session, Saylor sponsored legislation under HB 2452 prohibiting the Department of Education from developing the GCAs without the express authority to do so by the General Assembly. That bill had 113 cosponsors, and we would like to see that number exceeded in this new session. 135 votes are needed to override a veto from the governor.

The 77 cosponsors include:

Rep. Saylor and Representatives Adoph, Argall, Baker, Bear, Briggs, Brooks, Buxton, Caltagirone, Causer, Civera, Clymer, Costa, Cutler, Dally, Denlinger, DiGirolamo, Drucker, Everett, Fleck, Geist, Gibbons, Gingrich, Goodman, Grell, Grove, Grucela, Harhart, Harris, Hess, Hickernell, Hornaman, Kauffman, M. Keller, Killion, Kortz, Kotik, Longietti, Mandarino, Marshall, McIllvaine Smith, Melio, Mensch, Metcalf, Micozzie, Miller, Milne, Moul, Murt, Oberlander, O'Brien, Pallone, Pashinski, Peifer, Petri, Pickett, Quinn, Rapp, Reichley, Roae, Rohrer, Ross, Sainato, Santoni, Schroder, Siptroth, M. Smith, S. Smith, Stern, Stevenson, Swanger, Tallman, J. Taylor, True, Turzai, Vitale, Vulakovich and Watson.

Please note that State Representative Matt Smith has co-sponsored this bill. On the State Senate side, Senator John Pippy has co-sponsored a similar bill along with Senator Jane Orie.

If the Governor is not getting how important this issue is to table, then at least we are seeing our locally elected officials step up. If you have a moment, please thank both Senator Pippy and Representative Smith for helping in this effort. Too often they hear complaints, here is a chance to give them some compliments.

Meanwhile, the State is continuing to hold hearings regarding this matter. This despite the fact that the organization that Governor Rendell cited as the one that recommended a GCA approach to college readiness has backed down on its support of such a solution. Please see this letter from PA State Representative Sam Smith. According to the letter, Achieve Inc. (of which Governor Rendell is a Board member) "has distanced itself from using graduation competency, end of course assessments as a means to determine whether students are proficient and ready for college and employment." You can see the entire Achieve report referenced by Representative Sam Smith here.

Thanks for reading.

James

Pennsylvania's Graduate Competency Assessements

Today I was doing some more research into the Pennsylvania Department of Education's attempt to implement the Graduate Competency Assessments throughout the state. You may remember a while back that Mt Lebanon School District passed a resolution opposing the GCAs. Today I came across the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit White Paper on Graduate Competency Assessment.

Here is a little demographic information on the county. Montgomery County borders Philadelphia County. It is a commuting suburb for Philly and parts of New Jersey. It ranks as the third most populous county in Pennsylvania behind Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties. According to Wikipedia, Montgomery County ranks as the 44th wealthiest county in all of the United States.

It was with great interest that I read the white paper. Please take a few minutes to review the document. It outlines very clearly the many problems GCAs will present. It also outlines very clearly that the problems the PDE is trying to solve do not get addressed properly with the GCAs.

You can find the online version of the white paper here. Below is an excerpt:

A substantial body of research makes clear that GCA’s are an inadequate prescription for concerns about curricular rigor, relevance or equity.

“The perception that our education tests are precise because they yield numerical scores is fundamentally mistaken.” (James Popham, Educational Leadership, December 2007). The research and literature is rife with evidence that high stake tests should never be the sole determinant when making important decisions about students.

It's good to see other organizations out there standing up for what is right. Please contact State Representative Matt Smith and State Senator John Pippy to voice concerns about the GCA's moving forward.

Thanks for reading.

James

Post Gazette GCA Link

The Post-Gazette had a story that I missed. Please check out the link for more information about the status of the Graduation Competency Assessments.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08294/921253-52.stm

The article and quotes from politicians form the argument against the GCAs as not being good for the already troubled state budget. There is one paragraph in there that gets to the root of the issue and that is local control. Here is that excerpt:

The cost isn't the only concern about the proposed GCAs. Some school districts fear the state may be intruding on local officials' curriculum authority and their power to decide if seniors have learned enough to graduate.

That is what it really boils down to.

Please click on the link here to watch a video about how the GCA might impact our students.


Thanks.

James

Two video links

First, here is a video from the Tredyffrin Easttown School District explaining how statewide Graduate Competency Assessments would effect some of their students. This video is about 12 minutes long. It is very detailed in what our administrators deal with everyday so drink a cup of a coffee, sit down, and then reward yourself with the following inspirational video.

At the PSBA conference last week, our introductory breakfast was kicked off with this video of 10 year old Dalton Sherman. He gave the keynote address to the audience for the kick-off of the Dallas school year. Wow!

James