PSSA

Unique to all other 501 Pennsylvania School District’s, the Board of Mars Area School Directors have independently and consistently monitored, studied, researched, and have actively participated in the progression and transformation of the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment process at the state and local levels since its debut in 1991.

The Mars School Board of Directors recognize its comprehensive modifications with each of the three governor’s administrations, the appointment of each of the four secretary’s of education, various and bi-partisan legislatures, various members of the Pennsylvania Department of Education and State Boards of Education since 1991.

With these changing political winds, this school board also recognizes the indisputable changes in the purpose and utilization of the assessment. It is duly noted the assessment which began as a tool to measure programs school building by building within any given district has shifted to an assessment which is used to measure individual student achievement. This school board recognizes the assessment process currently used was created prior to the creation and adoption of the Pennsylvania Academic Standards as contained as an appendix to the Chapter 4 education regulations.

This school board recognizes that the PSSA was then utilized to assess how school districts were aligned and assessing students of the academic standards. This school board recognizes the continuum of the PSSA process to then proceed to mandate students demonstration of proficiency of the academic standards and to provide the measurement
of Adequate Yearly Progress initiated by the No Child Left Behind Act for accountability purposes. Now, this same assessment is proposed to be mandated as a graduation requirement of all high school students as a state exit exam in coordination of the proposed graduation competency assessment process.

Whereas, the Board of School Directors of Mars Area School District, recognize the significance of accountability, the need for high academic standards, and assessment of such for providing Adequate Yearly Progress as per The No Child Left Behind Act. We wish to affirm our opposition to the newly proposed concept of mandating the PSSA/GCA’s as a high school graduation requirement for the following reasons:

The PSSA, throughout the years has been shown to contain significant irregularities and serious flaws in scoring and processing that invalidate the test to be utilized as a high stakes exam for the purposes of students demonstrating proficiency of the academic standards as well as for graduation purposes. Past experiences, as well as, the multiple use of PSSA scores and consequence established throughout the years have raised considerable concerns over the high stakes nature of the test.
This proposal calls for the PDE to develop model curriculum in each of the content areas assessed by the 10 GCA’s thus narrowing the curriculum of local school districts and shifting to a state wide uniform curriculum whereas all students will be required to learn the same information and in the same manner.

Contrary to the process, we take great pride in providing students at MASD a broad based curriculum menu of course offerings, some of which are not mandated but helpful in providing well rounded students and preparing them to meet the needs of the 21st century. Furthermore, we believe our own local standards and criteria for graduation are more rigorous and far exceed those of the state standards at this point in time.

We believe our vocational education students will be disproportionately harmed by this proposed plan as both regular education students and vocational/technical education students will be required to take the same test. For example, while subjects such as Algebra II are woven into some vocational courses, it is presented and taught in a different format than is provided in an academic Algebra II class. The student who learns the practical application woven into technical education will be required to take and meet the same testing requirements as the student in an academic classroom. This would be no different than requiring an academic classroom student to take apart and put back together an engine in an effort to pass a high stakes assessment in order to graduate.

We believe the affordability factor will create a large financial impact on state and local budgets and taxpayers. Despite no cost analysis completed at this point in time, estimates are beginning at $86 million+ as the initial cost for pursuing this statewide endeavor. The recent costing-out study did not take into account the costs for this new proposal. Costing-out study results indicate the state is already $4.4 billion short of where it should be in helping students meet the academic students. If that we’re to be true, and could be statistically proven, why would our own state now place all our students and schools at such a disadvantage and now mandate passage of a state exit exam based on student proficiency of the state’s academic standards? Why would we allow all students to be disproportionately harmed by instituting a plan in which they are at a distinct disadvantage, if the Commonwealth is not providing the appropriate financial support in helping schools and students achieve and succeed? It is commonly recognized by all, that state funding of school districts is not equitable in appropriation nor in distribution.

Furthermore, how will the state pay to develop, validate, and score 10 GCA’s of each student in Pennsylvania annually? How often will the GCA’s be revised and at what cost? Will there be various versions of each of the 10 GCA’s as there currently are of the PSSA formats? How much will that cost be for various versions of the same test and on an annual basis? How long will the state dedicate funding to this plan once implemented before being passed onto school districts and the local taxpayer?

We are opposed as a result of implementation of this specific plan to absorb the many new costs, including the cost and time of test preparation and remediation, time and costs for proxying and administration, time and costs associated with teacher professional development, potential costs for enlarging and staffing summer school, costs for communication and outreach strategies to students, parents, and communities. This school board recognizes given the state’s funding shortfall and the Act 1 limitations on tax increases, school districts have limited ability to fund these potential new costs.

This school board recognizes the adverse administrative and staffing implications
associated with implementing this proposed plan. GCA’s would be offered three times a year (end of fall, spring, and summer semesters) in addition to the regular PSSA schedule which consumes an inordinate amount of student-instructional time. Students who fail to achieve proficiency on the 11th grade PSSA or in one of the content areas can only retake the content module in which they were unsuccessful. Accurate record keeping, organization, and scheduling will be critical in ensuring all students are provided every opportunity to graduate with their appropriate class. Students who do not score proficient on the 11th grade PSSA or a GCA administered in any grade must be provided remediation and supplemental instructional support. The tracking, record keeping, scheduling, and administration of this testing process will require all schools to hire additional staff exclusively to manage the administrative operations of this testing process. Students will be staggered and there will be cases in which some schools will find the need for extra physical classroom space to accommodate students who do not pass and/or graduate and choose to remain in school subsequent years trying to test out and that is in the event they do not drop out first. Has the state considered physical space of classroom issues associated with student retention in the 11th grade?

Mars Area School Board recognizes that the State Board of Education has included language which allows schools to use a local assessment but does so in a manner which impedes those efforts by design thus creating obstacles and disincentives making the “local assessment option” too expensive, burdensome, and not likely to be selected, therefore, abolishing the local assessment option as contained currently in the Chapter 4 education regulations. Contrary to existing regulations which allow districts to utilize multiple measures of assessments (both local and state) to determine proficiency of the academic standards, the proposed concept is insisting the “local assessment” must be an exam that is simply another graduation competency assessment (GCA) and must be comparable as well as to the national and state criterion referenced tests at a level of difficulty equal or greater to the GCA’s. Schools will have to incur the costs associated with having the local test validated by a state-approved vendor and will be required to have their local assessment revalidated every five years. Districts must have a policy for annually updating assessment and curriculum items. It is our belief this design will force conformity amongst all school districts to not only a uniform state curriculum, but a uniform state assessment process.

Mars Area School Board opposes the adoption of a state driven curriculum, assessments, and graduation requirements which infringe upon the local control of public school districts vest locally elected school boards. Anything that comes in between that right and authority is clearly an erosion of local control. This is an “implied right” as vested in the General Assembly. The Pennsylvania School Code supports the statutorily defined autonomy of local school boards to determine curriculum and graduation requirements. PA School Code Section 1611 invests “the power to confer academic degrees, honorary, or otherwise….” to the board of school directors of the district and Section 1613 invests the power to issue high school certificates in the board of school directors. In Section 24 of the Pennsylvania Statutes (508) a majority vote of the school board is required to adopt courses of study. Therefore, it is our belief, that this “implied right to local control” will be stripped in lieu of schools focusing more attention on the tests which will drive the curriculum to a one size fits all, uniformed statewide curriculum. Schools which provide students broad opportunities for music, arts, forensics, and foreign language courses which are not required to be taken by students, but, only required to be offered by school districts, will eventually fall to the wayside. Important skills that cannot be tested with standardized tests, such as writing research papers, public speaking, or conducting laboratory experiments, drawing CAD, or dissecting robotic engines, and many other hands on learning will not be taught. This narrowing of curriculum is most severe for low-income students and reinforce the inequity which already exists amongst students in schools.

It is our belief that efforts to help students should begin in early childhood grades and should not focus on a high stakes test with serious life-changing consequences in secondary school when testing results are only required to be given to senior students ten days prior to graduation commencement. This is totally unacceptable when it may be already too late to help many students. Low performing students need to be identified as early as third grade when they have their first exposure and PSSA testing experience to demonstrate proficiency. We should identify students as early as that point in time and provide special help before elevating students onto the next grade level.

It is our belief that this testing proposal provides the State government a mechanism to allow the State to manage the state economy based on meeting specific needs, as a gatekeeper for students in determining who succeeds and goes onto college and who enters the labor workforce. This is no different of a time than in 1999 when the State Board of Education proposed the silver and gold colored sticker seals to act as a steering mechanism and encouraged the state-owned colleges and universities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to use the results of this one-time PSSA/GCA process as a basis of admission to these state-owned schools. Mars Area School District opposed this concept then and we are now reaffirming our opposition to this newest plan by the State Board of Education.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of School Directors of Mars Area School District directs the School Superintendent to send copies of this resolution to the State Board of Education, the Office of the Honorable Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Secretary of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, to the chairs of both the Pennsylvania House and Senate Education Committees, and to our local representatives in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate.

FINALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Mars Area School District hereby directs the Superintendent and our Board President to communicate this resolution to other school districts within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, setting forth the views of this Board, and encouraging other school boards to take similar action in support of this issue.

RESOLVED, this 5th day of February, 2008.

BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS OF MARS AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

Kimberly D. Geyer, President
Jill Swaney, Board Secretary

“Gatekeeper of the Future”
Compiled and written by: Kim Geyer of Mars Research & Retrieval Services
August 1, 2007

Reference: Draft for Discussion on PDE’s Website of High School Graduation Requirements by the State Board of Education. www.pde.state.pa.us Pittsburgh Roundtable participation on August 1st at PATTAN

The Pennsylvania State Board of Education has indicated verbally and written that there are too many of PA’s 501 school districts in Pennsylvania with a disparity between their local assessment and the PSSA and that too many high schools are graduating students who are not proficient in the academic standards and therefore giving them meaningless diplomas.

The SBOE and the Commission for College and Career Success share the fundamental belief that it is necessary to mandate the PSSA as a graduation requirement (meaning students have to score proficient in all areas of reading, writing, and math portions of the assessment) will lead to a more skilled Pennsylvania workforce which is necessary to be competitive for the 21st century global economy. It is their shared belief that eliminating the local assessment option in its entirety and shifting to a sole test indicator is the solution to their complex and purported problem. The local assessment option will be replaced in its entirety with a series of nine content area based assessments known as the GCA’s or Graduation Competency Assessments. These nine tests will be within each of four major content areas such as math, English/Language Arts, laboratory science, and American History, Economics, and Government.

What do the current Chapter 4 education regulations by the SBOE contain as per dealing with this specific charge?

The current Chapter 4 education regulations outline a process which allows the PDE to intervene in the event there are allegations or indications of deficiencies or disparity within any given district with the local assessment and the PSSA. The question needs to be asked “Has PDE done this?” “Has PDE intervened in districts where it believes discrepancies exist and tried to provide technical assistance to help school districts overcome their deficiencies as the procedural process outlined in Chapter 4?” “If not, then why not?” The commonwealth of Pennsylvania already has a system in place to address this specific situation which is not being utilized by either the SBOE or PDE. Now, these same entities, are proposing to add another layer to this system which is not in the best interest of the Commonwealth’s schools or students.

What is the political background of this initiative or where is the premise of this concept originating?

This specific initiative is a priority of Governor Rendell who sits on the board of the Washington based, national organization of ACHIEVE, Inc., created by the nation’s governors and business leaders to help states raise academic standards and achievement so that all students graduate ready for college, work, and citizenship. Achieve, Inc. is promoting the American Diploma Project, an initiative launched by Achieve in partnership with The Education Trust and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in Washington DC. The American Diploma Network (ADP) includes 29 states thus far who are dedicated to making sure that every high school student is prepared for college or work. Achieve is promoting the theory “That all states are doing this”, “That states want standardization”. Achieve’s goal is to help states close the expectations gap so that all students graduate ready for success. There are three Democratic and three Republican governors who sit on the board of the Achieve, Inc. organization and six national business CEO’s. Three of the governors have committed or pledged to initiate the American Diploma Initiative in their respective states.

On August 10 of 2005, by executive order, Governor Rendell issued a resolution and established the Commission on College and Career Success (herein referred to as “Commission” to “undertake a comprehensive review of the Commonwealth’s laws, regulations, and policies to ascertain whether they set clear and consistent expectations for high school success to ensure that all students graduate ready for college and careers.”

The recently appointed Commission on College and Career Success’s final December 22nd, 2006 report indicated bold action to establish uniform and comprehensive standards for high school graduation. The Commission has also indicated strong interest in helping the Governor implement the various recommendations within the report statewide.

How does the State Board of Education fit into this process being played out?

The SBOE is compiled of appointed individuals by the various elected governors over the course of various terms of office. The SBOE is a layer of state burecracy as per it is an as unelected body of people with power to make decisions which re not necessarily accountable to the general public as demonstrated through its long history of mandating statewide regulatory education provisions for all 501 of the commonwealth’s schools. Naturally as one would suspect, governors would support and appoint those individuals onto this board who would support and carry out their administration’s education initiatives and/or agendas. Over the years, the SBOE has held statewide public hearings and roundtables asking for public and written comment on a wide spectrum of education issues, but, ultimately has the power of decision making all to themselves before drafting and creating language for the regulatory review process.

As personally witnessed by myself at the August 1st Pittsburgh public roundtable and I quote a SBOE member “the status quo is no longer acceptable” referring to the SBOE’s commitment to implement this new initiative. My personal observation is, it is a fact the SBOE is moving forward to technically put into place a process despite lack of sense as per implementation without a broader discussion of sub issues and complex ramifications. There are a wide range of serious implications not being addressed, discussed, or responded to as per certain situations which will play out in the education system of our state involving a wide range of students representing all spectrums and there are no well thought out processes in place to address these situations according to the proposed draft. Again, I reiterate, that regardless of things making sense, the focus appears to be on the technicality portion of implementing the initiative by this entity. Situations involving Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable students inclusive of special needs students, minority students, ESL students are not being thoroughly addressed as per accommodations. Serious school-wide implications and ramifications of students, staff, and schools are not even addressed in the proposed draft language of this document.

What are the facts based on the draft document? What do we know?

The State Board of Education is proposing many changes for students and schools in a relatively short time frame as contained in their draft entitled “High School Graduation Requirements and the 21st Century Economy” which is available to the public at www.pde.state.pa.us (Pennsylvania Department of Education website). This draft contains a summary of the findings of the Commission on College and Career Success and collaboratively with the State Board of Education is planning to implement some of its recommendations of the 2006 final report.

The main recommendation is specifically listed on the bottom of page two and reads: “Require all Pennsylvania high school students to demonstrate proficiency on Pennsylvania’s academic standards to graduate. Students can demonstrate proficiency by scoring proficient or advanced on the 11th grade PSSA or by passing a series of state-developed Graduation Competency Assessments.” Without saying so, this process is mandating a state curriculum and state assessment process and regardless if we realize it or not, our commonwealth will be moving from a local high school diploma to a “state diploma”. A complete erosion of local control.

While students would be provided the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency on either the PSSA or GCA’s, the Commission’s report indicated they felt strongly that all students should be required to take the full complement of both types of exams. For example, if a student scored proficient on the PSSA’s math portion, but, not of the science and reading, then that student would be required to retake the science and reading portion on the GCA and score proficiently in order to graduate from high school. The decision of how to test out of school will be left entirely to each student’s discretion. Some students will take the PSSA and some will choose the GCA series and some will do both. Then at a later point in time, when scores are returned, schools will be mandated to provide at least three minimum administrations annually to students. It is expected that GCA’s will be administered in December, May, and August and in addition to the current PSSA schedule which is offered in October and March annually. The Commission has suggested that students may take each test up to five times through Grade 12. Interestingly, students will be allowed to request to take a GCA without taking its associated course and school districts will be required to grant course credit to students who pass one of the nine GCA’s in which the exams are administered.

Students who remain in school for their 12th grade year and complete grade 12 despite not receiving a diploma to graduate may take the test an unlimited amount of times. Which leads to the curious question, what incentive does a student have for remaining in school once they have failed the series of graduation tests in their 11th and 12th grade year? Or in the event, they’ve passed the GCA’s without taking the courses at all? What does this situation pose for the student’s morale when struggling with testing numerous times? What about special education, disabled, and minority students who need accommodations due to a manifestation of their own personal circumstances? What about all students whose reality will not be to reach proficiency despite all their genuine attempts?

The draft proposal indicates that full development and phase-in of the GCA’s may take up to five years. However, the removal of the local assessment would begin as soon as possible and become effective immediately. Initial GCA’s would be implemented as soon as possible, but, the phasing in of graduation requirements would be no later than 2014 to coincide with NCLB’s ultimate goal of each child reaching proficiency by 2014.

The first class of Pennsylvania high school students to be affected by these changes will be the freshmen class of 2009-2010. In order for this class of students to graduate from any given high school in Pennsylvania, they must demonstrate proficiency in reading, writing, mathematics, and science on the 11th grade PSSA, 12th grade PSSA retake or on all of the GCA’s in each subject in which the student did not score proficient on the PSSA.

What will the costs be to develop & administer 9 different tests?
Test preparation and remediation costs?
How do we really know that local assessments are not rigorous enough?
What measures does the PDE use to compare?
Why should college prep and career prep now suddenly have to be the same thing? Do vocational and technical schools concur with college prep schools on this concept?
Without accommodations for special education students how can we ensure these students do not fail when expected to take tests in subjects such as Algebra II & Chemistry?
What process did the SBOE utilize to determine consensus of the PA business/industry in regards to standards and benchmarks?
What plan of action does the state have in place to deter students from dropping out of high school as a result of this new mandate? How do you plan to address the economic implications of sustaining poverty?
What appeals process does the state have in place when a B+ student files litigation against the state for not receiving a high school diploma and being prevented from entering college?
Why are we removing the ability for teachers and staff to have academic freedom in providing a wide knowledge base of content and maximizing student’s learning potentials in lieu of a narrow and similar statewide curriculum? Do all students need the same information and knowledge to succeed?
How can we as a commonwealth have no concern to the fact that so many students will be denied diplomas even though they have met other graduation requirements set by school districts?
What are businesses and higher education looking from in high school graduates? Are they in consensus?
There are many levels of Algebra II, intermediate, basic, and honors…what is the content to be tested?
The PSSA currently does not measure all the standards, but, just a sampling, how do you plan to choose what will be assessed? By anchors?
Students with disabilities and English language learners need accommodations….PA could face litigation cases….how do you plan to address that?
How is this proposed process consistent with IEP’s which provide accommodations due to a manifestation of a student’s disability?
How will these new tests affect AYP determinations in schools?
How can this process help students be successful?
The GCA’s tests don’t match the current PSSA. The PSSA science focuses on environmental education and the science GCA’s focus on biology and chemistry….how can this be the best way to design tests to be fair to students?
Has the SBOE considered the consequences of these new standardized tests? A narrower curriculum, less time for courses to be offered, fewer electives for students to take in areas of their interest or future needs?
The SBOE has indicated that there is a big discrepancy between graduation rates and students who do not score proficient on the 11th grade PSSA and that schools are graduating kids that do not deserve to graduate. Are local assessments the problem? If so, then give districts technical assistance in aligning local tests with academic standards and the PSSA, PDE should help to strengthen local assessments by providing support and resources to districts.
Is this based on ideology or evidence? Show me the evidence. Is addressing the assessment solution fit the problem? If not, what is the right solution?
What is PDE’s research? How did PDE measure discrepancies? How did PDE really know that student was not proficient when he or she graduated? Perhaps they passed local assessments, had excellent grades, and just didn’t score proficient on the PSSA?
The content areas in this proposal are not the only state academic standards, these are the only ones tested. What about the other standards not tested? How do they fit in? Not all standards are tested on the PSSA, therefore, what about career and work standards? Are not these standards also about preparing students for success after high school?
How much will it cost taxpayers of PA in time and resources and schools via manpower to administer the tests multiple times?
Section 4.81 of Chapter 4 allows PDE to intervene if there are allegations or indications of deficiencies within a district. Has PDE done this? Has the PDE intervened in districts where it believes discrepancies exist and tried to provide technical assistance to help school districts overcome their deficiencies? We have a system already in place to address this specific situation which is not being utilized by the SBOE or the PDE. Now these entities want to add another layer to this system and that is not the right answer for the commonwealth’s schools.
Will there be enough certified teachers statewide if we’re going to make everyone take the same courses? How are these mandated courses for everyone going to fit in with the schedule for every student?
How does the state plan to fund these changes?
How can you guarantee what is tested is not only the information limited to be taught?
How does this process engage students and provide relevancy to their curriculum?
Will it be duly noted on the student transcript of how many times a student retakes the PSSA or GCA’s on their transcript?
Are we moving from a local school diploma to a state diploma?
Are we creating an education caste system?
Why are we emulating our commonwealth after the European model of education?
If this is really about having all students proficient, then why are we passing the students in the younger grade levels that are not proficient and waiting until high school to assess, remediate, and determine if they graduate? Why are we not failing these kids now in 3rd grade and holding them back?
Why would we utilize this process when our most vulnerable students such as special needs, black and minority students, and ESL will be discriminated upon even further than the process currently in place? What action plan other than giving these students multiple retakes on the GCA’s is in place? What will be the incentive for these students to remain in school after so many limited retakes and unlimited retakes after 12th grade? Do we really think we’ll be able to keep these students motivated to stay in school?
What are the implications of standardized tests? Narrower curriculum? More testing time? Less time to offer AP Courses and elective

Based on the draft proposal and discussions with the SBOE, it should be recognized by all involved and not involved that the PSSA will become the Gatekeeper of the future.
This process will hinder minority students, increase high school drop outs, and become a GATEKEEPER of all student’s futures by determining who goes to college and succeeds and who goes automatically and directly into the workplace. This process is nothing more than an educational caste system which will weed out students, even ones who have met all the graduation criteria of a district, but, are still unable to pass a state assessment. Is this what will build a better & more improved workforce? What happened to free choice?
The American Dream? Should these life changing issues be determined by our government? Or should it be at the choice of “the people”? Who knows what is best for our students and schools? Big business? The people closest to them that help support them in making decisions and providing guidance, such as teachers, principals, administrators, school boards, & communities? Or a commission of national and state government officials and unelected bureaucrats, and unelected special interest groups? Why is business dictating education to educators? These are just some of the “tip of the iceberg” questions that deal with the ideology and philosophy of the process.

This initiative is not about creating a better workforce. NAEP testing results indicate no increased test scores by those states who utilize implementing a state assessment as a mandate for high school graduation which reinforces the concept that perhaps the standards, curriculum, and/or in-classroom interventions need to be reexamined and refined in lieu of the assessment system, if employers are saying students do not possess the employable skills needed to have a competitive workforce. This initiative is not about disparity between the PSSA and the local assessment. If it was, they would utilize the process currently in place and referenced in Section 4.81 of the current Chapter 4 regulations. This is a total power grab by the state bureaucrats (meaning unelected bodies with power to make decisions). There is “no option” and these are “not tools” as purported by bureaucrats to school districts.

This initiative is not about having all students “proficient” in all academic standards. If it was, we would be and should be holding back every student in 3rd grade that scores below proficiency in any given academic content area of the PSSA. We should not be passing these students and waiting until they are in high school and then allow them to drop out of school due to frustration, lack of support, poor morale, and due to embarrassment because of multiple retakes of a single sole testing measure decided upon by the state.

Rather this is a federal and state systematic and managed approach in the government’s attempt to manage the state economy by separating the wheat from the chafe known as the Federal School To Work system. Relatively few people even know of this comprehensive government system that seeks to unilaterally restructure our educational, workforce, and health care systems. Whether you are a parent, a business person, an employer or an employee, a student or educator, this comprehensive system affects you!

Most of this system has been implemented in Pennsylvania since the mid-nineties and across the nation primarily by gubernatorial executive order. Having completely by-passed the elected General Assembly, this bureaucratically imposed system has and will continue to use millions of taxpayer dollars to quietly and discreetly market and advertise the benefits of the new system to carefully selected special-interest groups and businesses, as well, in an effort to woo their support for this government system.

Unbeknown to even many of these “stakeholders” is the true nature and ultimate impact of this system on literally every facet of our society. Therefore, it is my belief that it is critical and essential that every Pennsylvanian be presented with more information so they can determine for themselves whether or not they want this new government program thrust upon them.

I am advocating multiple measures of assessment as a way to best ensure that all students are proficient in reading, writing, math, and science. I am advocating that we can achieve without this plan to envision all our students in Pennsylvania to be equipped with the tools necessary for the 21st century based on their personal goals and abilities and to implement and refine differently than what is being proposed. I am advocating not to mandate remediation but to allow differentiated instruction of all students based on personal abilities and learning spectrums. I am advocating financial incentives for attracting high quality teachers for rural and urban school districts where no one wants to go or be. I am advocating that IEP’s be utilized as the process for determining individualized accommodations for special education and disabled students. I am advocating that we focus and reward struggling students on the continuation of good progress on a longitudinal scale in lieu of a one sole testing measure providing one test score. I am advocating appropriate state funding to support the initiatives being proposed in lieu of the local taxpayer. I am advocating professional development be renamed to professional learning, as learning opportunities for teachers and all are life long processes. I am advocating that we look to other states and successful models throughout the world which emulate successful education systems and tap into those resources. I am advocating that we allow each community to retain local control and oversight of their school system by being permitted to envision their vision and instill core community values within their respective school district which fly in the face of what is being proposed. I am advocating there should be a variety of assessment tools utilized by schools to demonstrate competency such as performance, portfolios, and local assessments in lieu of a single measure. I am advocating for the future of all students, what are “you” advocating? I believe there are alternative issues which can be addressed and refined in all school districts to address this problem leading to an improved and skilled workforce without compromising and dictating student’s futures based on a single sole test.

I sincerely encourage you in whatever capacity you work at, whether you are a parent, student, teacher, administrator, grandparent, legislator, or school board member to make some contact as soon as possible with the State Board of Education and share your thoughts and insights into this matter based on what you have read today in this article.

The State Board of Education is currently drafting regulatory language to impose these recommendations and processes and this matter will require your immediate attention.
Their address is:
The State Board of Education
333 Market Street, 1st Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333

I encourage you as well to contact your state representatives and senators as well, as they do not know of this information as of this date and are not aware of what is currently in progression in regards to this matter.

Thank you,
Kim Geyer
Mars Research & Retrieval Services Policy Analyst
Mars Area School Board Vice-President
451 Denny Road
Valencia, PA 16059
724-799-1195
www.marsrrservices.com
marsrrservices@zoominternet.net

August 1, 2007
I will place this article for reference on my website listed above. Click on the PSSA Page.

Meeting with Secretary Dr. Gerald Zahorchak, Secretary of Education
At Midwestern Intermediate Unit 4, Monday, November 26, 2007

Despite all states moving to exit exams doesn't equate to American Colleges seeing better prepared freshmen, because most high school state exit exams do not appear to be aligned with the knowledge and skills that are necessary for college readiness. Of the 65% of public high school students that must pass an exit exam in order to graduate, the 23 states with exit exams (many done with the help of ACHIEVE, Inc. the same group proposed by Governor Rendell and PPC) only six states indicated their test was designed to measure the knowledge and skills needed for college. Only nine of the 23 states said their tests were intended to measure readiness for the workplace.....this is according to the Center on Education Policy's national survey and white paper on "High School Exit Exams" released on September 6th, 2007.

A majority of states instead use the high school exit exams to measure mastery of state designed curriculum and standards, a pattern suggesting that the states lack a clear idea of the purpose of the exit exams or the need of tough standards. The Governor’s Commission on College and Career Success’s first recommendation is “Require all Pennsylvania high school school students to demonstrate proficient on Pennsylvania’s academic standards to graduate…..” defines the “purpose” in which Pennsylvania plans to utilize the exit exam test….for the purpose of measuring mastery of the standards. But, does this necessarily equate to college or career readiness?
There is an obvious disconnect in education between the high school and college level and the college level and workplace.....lack of communication as well as lack of consensus. Many state officials said their high schools and colleges have not discussed tying the exit exams to what students need to know in college. The states of Maryland and Washington were exceptions, and many states have moved toward more challenging tests.

What does the data say from Various State Officials? All 24 states with exit exams participated in this portion of the CEP, September 2007 survey and could provide more than one response to the following purposes listed below:

Conclusion of the above data provided by State officials of state education departments?

*The above state survey responses identified the purpose of the exit exam of preparing students for life after high school was among the “least identified purposes” for implementing high school exit exams. In fact, less than 38% of the participating states reported that determining prospective high school graduate’s knowledge and skill levels relative to those needed for entry-level employment was a purpose for implementing high school exams, while only 25% of the states reported the purpose was to prepare for college readiness.

So, in other words, we have graduates from states with state exit exams who have scored proficient or advanced in mastery of their respective state standards, which are inconsistent on a state by state basis, yet, our nation is still yielding increasing remedial results of students in colleges and there is no outstanding or noteworthy state with the distinction of proving themselves through this reform effort based on data, research, and evidence which reinforce either college readiness or career readiness of graduating students. There is no history of data to ensure to the rest of the nation, that this reform is effective and there is no history of a specific state with noteworthy results of specific students having success post high school as a result of the exit exam reform. In other words, schools and students are just going through the motions and jumping through the state hoops they need to jump through in order to graduate with no guarantee of readiness or success.

The data responses of state officials (listed above) are suggesting that there are a different skill set and a set of standards needed for each as pertaining to college readiness and entry-level employment and career success.

Proponents advocating this reform are suggesting these standards for college readiness and career readiness are one and the same. The Governor’s Commission has stated “Every Pennsylvania student must graduate from high school college and career ready if our commonwealth’s economy is to fulfill its promise”.

How can students be effectively prepared for either or both simultaneously for college readiness and career success when the assessment mechanism determining that outcome is being utilized for other purposes and furthermore not tied specifically to either college readiness and career readiness, regardless if they are synomounous with one and other, or not?

So, what happens as a result of not addressing this conflict? Real Policy Reform Producing Real Results? or More Conformity Producing More of the Same?

When the SBOE comes out in January 2008 with their new regulations addressing this matter, this aspect will not be mentioned, as its not been considered.....and the reason I know that, is this is being done for political purposes and not based on ideology. This is the piece not only missing, but, not being addressed, therefore, PA will invest millions of dollars through administrative and staff manpower and resources in making this happen only to become one of the 24 states with an exam that do not appear to be aligned with the knowledge and skills necessary for college readiness. The assumption that mastery of the standards guarantees the critical thinking skills necessary for college readiness is not one and the same. In other words, we will have done this all for nothing. Remediation efforts will increase and continue despite students meeting proficiency on standards and the energy and effort will result in much more the same.

Therefore, I will be requesting that this Commonwealth do what is necessary to ensure accountability that the “purpose” of this proposed process pertaining to making the PSSA and nine graduation competency assessments be clearly defined and understood by all parties involved, before advancing this agenda statewide.

In other words, if it’s to measure mastery of standards, then that’s what needs to be conveyed.
Pennsylvania schools and students already know from the PSSA which students have mastered the standards with proficiency and those who have not. The only difference now is that graduation is being with held to the bottom percentage of students not scoring proficient or advanced on the PSSA or passage of the required GCA portions.

Second, if it is tied to and to provide college readiness, then that’s what all colleges and universities, students, schools, and stakeholders need to be informed of. If the purpose is to serve employment readiness, then, employers need to be informed ahead of time so we can all be prepared to meet the expectations and glean the results accordingly. But the assumption that all three factors can be achieved through one assessment is complete absurdity.

Is it acceptable for all our students, schools, staffs, and stakeholders, inclusive of colleges and places of employment, not to know ahead of implementation what the purpose of the exit exam is? Is it acceptable to have these stakeholders misled in the state’s attempt to implement this reform without their full knowledge of the results expected to be gleaned as a result of the reform? Is it appropriate to be dubious in our attempts as a commonwealth to rush through a process without examining the full repercussions and implications of not defining the purpose to which the exam is to initially serve? Is it appropriate for colleges and places of employment to see results contrary to their expectations only to learn at a later point in time that the purpose of the test was to meet mastery of the standards and curriculum when both are expecting college readiness and career readiness? The stakeholders in this high stakes process deserve no less than to know the truth in lieu of an illusion of accountability.

Kimberly Geyer
Mars Area Vice-President
I.U #4 Board Member
Mars Research & Retrieval Services
451 Denny Road
Valencia, PA 16059
724-799-1195
marsrrservices@zoominternet.net

Thank you for the opportunity to be on your KDKA radio show this morning to discuss the PSSA/Graduation Competency Assessment proposal set forth by the State Board of Education. I appreciate the open and candid dialogue and the opportunity to shed light on the issues at hand.

There is so much more to this proposal than meets the eye and I mentioned that briefly at the onset preceding the interview other than the philosophical debate which is just one of many distractions being promoted by officials in Harrisburg promoting this agenda, but, also by the media sources reporting on the process itself.

The reality is, not all students will be 100% proficient in demonstrating the academic standards. The theory that 100 % of Pennsylvania students will master the state standards in 12 academic areas AND demonstration of proficiency on state reading and math tests by 2014 is unrealistic as per No Child Left Behind. Furthermore, this theory is still unproven. Statistically, there are simply too many variables affecting learning to suppose that tweaking expenditures and appropriations can bring about huge changes in achievement. Nor can all the necessary and needed supports within the local classrooms and simultaneously at home guarantee a uniformed result of proficiency of all students. There will always be a sub grouping of students not meeting proficiency.

As demonstrated on the radio show this morning, the philosophical discussion and debate on this issue is inevitably ongoing. There were wonderful points made by not only you, but, also your listeners! We all have experienced different life experiences in which we can contribute many points of view in regards to the issue of high school exit exams and whether or not they are good, bad, necessary, or unnecessary. But, this philosophical debate is exactly what Harrisburg wants you and others to focus on….there’s a much bigger picture here on what this proposal is about.

The reality is, not all students are cut out for college and universities, our nation recognizes this fact, as well as parents, schools, and students themselves. To add to that equation, we have concerns expressed by various entities about the lack of skills exhibited by incumbent workers and job applicants as well as the out migration of skilled workers and college graduates to other states. Our Commonwealth does not have enough young people pursuing the trades and technical jobs throughout our state economy for various reasons. Here are just a couple of the reasons:

Because of these and other factors involved, states are under intense scrutiny to come up with unique and statewide initiatives to address not only these inequities facing their respective commonwealths as well as prepare their students for the workforce. According to Dr. Mary Ann Nobers, Pennsylvania DOE Secretary in 1998, when noting a change in the state’s education plan while at a visit in Edgeworth, PA, “the State will determine the 20% earmarked to go to college and the 80% of students which will enter into Pennsylvania’s workforce someday.” As to how, the State was not saying, but clues are available throughout Pennsylvania’s School To Work Contract which was signed by Governor Ridge to enable Pennsylvania to sign on to the federal reform of the 1994 School To Work Opportunities Act of 1994, which mandated each state government to “reinvent itself”. Section 3 (b) 2. It’s important to note that School to Work is not voluntary and has invaded all fifty states. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was passed by Congress which works with School to Work and all of Goals 2000. School to Work is currently being marketed to school districts as the program that helps to design curriculum that fits commerce. This new tier of bureaucracy creating appointed workforce development boards may someday improve Pennsylvania’s workforce through the sacrifice of our educational system and more importantly, our children’s true potential. The focus of education will change from what you know, as in facts and dates (knowledge based & academics), to “what you can do” as related to skills.

In 1999, the State Board of Education, (who is an unelected bureaucratic body empowered to make rules and regulations statewide, is appointed by the Governor and is unaccountable to the general public) empowered themselves to revise the Chapter 4 education regulations by proposing (Section 4.24, (b) & (c) beginning in the 2002-2003 school year, students who attain a PSSA score at the advanced level of proficiency on any State assessment administered in grade 10,11, or 12 shall be granted a Pennsylvania Certificate of Distinction (Silver Seal attached onto the high school diploma) for that discipline and students who score at the proficient level will receive a Pennsylvania Certificate of Proficiency (Gold Seal attached onto the high school diploma) for that discipline accordingly.

The State Board of Education then actively engaged in a huge public relations effort and spent millions of dollars promoting colleges and universities would look at these colored stickers/seals and determine college entrance of students. However, the colleges and universities were telling others that they look into a broad range of criteria and pay close attention to the SAT’s and ACT’s in lieu of the PSSA since the state assessment at that time had a history of serious flaws pertaining to scoring results. Bureaucrats were convinced that these seals would be utilized as a steering mechanism to determine who went onto college and who entered the workforce. The state assessment clearly became the mechanism to facilitate the process of achieving the goals of managing the state economy’s needs and inequities. Similar to this point now, the State Board of Education adopted their proposal upon which it then entered into the Independent Regulatory Review Process and is forwarded to the House and Senate Education Committees for their further review and for public comment. A vast grassroots movement which originated in Butler County’s seven school districts opposing the State Board of Education’s plan spread across Pennsylvania with much work by parents and school boards and into Harrisburg’s regulatory battle. The plan for colored seals and stickers met so much opposition statewide with 150 school boards passing resolutions with a majority of votes that the plan was eventually scrapped and revised to just individual certificates which were instructed not to be utilized as a steering mechanism to this present time.

In 2001, the House of Representatives on February 13, 2001 by a vote of 197-0 adopted House Resolution 16 which eventually established a 27 member commission to establish ”The Keystone Commission on Education for Employment in the 21st Century” to again address the concern about the lack of skills exhibited by incumbent works, job workers, and the out migration of not only the “Pennsylvania Brain Drain” but out migration of skilled workers leaving the economy. Manufacturing plants at that time were leaving Pennsylvania or closing down, and skilled workers originally educated in Pennsylvania were leaving the state. School to Work initiatives were further explored in which the Commission proposed numerous recommendations to statewide policy changing the dynamics of schools, colleges, and universities all in an effort to enhance the state’s economy throughout Pennsylvania. Some of these recommendations were acted upon and others are “in the works” so to speak and fit into this recent planned proposal.

Which all leads us to the point in which we as Pennsylvanians find ourselves now….a proposal similar to that of one in 1999, in which there is a mechanism utilized and administered by the State to help manage the statewide economy based on meeting the State’s specific needs. Listings of occupations based on statewide needs is also a key component of the overall plan in which the State can dictate specific fields of study for those in colleges and universities as well as those learning a skilled trade by publishing and steering young people into areas in which the economy lacks. Top down control.

By now one must be sensing the similarities of this plan to those of the European model and are correct in their assumptions, as the school-to-work philosophy is the focal point of the new restructuring of American society. It is a top down reform movement known as Goals 2000/School To Work Investment Act which is designed as a “mandate for ALL publicly educated youth” and the concept was supported by three federal bills of legislation in 1994 which work together like interlocking puzzle pieces to reveal a picture of a restructured American society, focused, not surprisingly, on the best interests of the state, rather than the best interests of the child and the schools were to be the vehicle to achieving this goal.

The antiquated ways in which discussions between family members around the kitchen table to determine a youth’s pending future as to college or work opportunities cease to exist under this plan.

Free choice to pursue college or enter into the workforce ceases to exist, the State will decide for you.

The ability for a local school board elected by their community to represent their respective community, to determine curriculum choices taught, provided, and to determine graduation requirements as well as the power to confer degrees, honorary, or otherwise, cease to exist under this plan, as it is designed to. Furthermore, moving to a uniformed statewide curriculum and assessment process all controlled by the State.

Regulation statewide of the plan will eventually force all those school choice providers such as homeschoolers, private and parochial schools to be compliant with those of public educated school students so that the same criteria will apply to all students, after all, this is what’s in the best interest of state according to the plan.

In conclusion, there is so much more history I could elaborate on regarding this plan but I do not want to get into a dissertation. My point being, the philosophical debate and discussion, while good to have and share, is a nothing more than a political distraction to the real core elements of the State Board of Education’s proposal before us. Harrisburg laughs that the public is so engrossed with the back and forth debate of high school exit exams. But, there is a much bigger perspective to all of this that needs to be communicated and shared. The research based and supporting documents, along with my own personal accounts of following both the federal and state history of Pennsylvania’s process with this agenda since 1993 have enabled me to connect the dots to these and many reforms. The real issue and bottom line to this proposal that the public is ignorant to, is simply this: The schools are being utilized as the vehicle in helping the State to be provided a mechanism through the assessment process which allow the State to manage its respective economy and to help it meet its needs to be competitive in the 21st century. This situation is not unique to Pennsylvania, it is not voluntary, all fifty states are a part of this plan as all fifty states accepted Goals 2000 funding from the Federal Government years ago and surrendered their state’s local control as well as state academic standards to the Federal Government.

More information on this and similar policy briefs can be found on my free website at: www.marsrrservices.com Click on the link “The PSSA Page”.

Thank you again Marty for your efforts in getting the truth out to matters affecting all Pennsylvanians. Keep up the Great Work!! If there’s anything I can do to help you or others in your efforts, you know where to contact me. Thank you!!