The 2007 PSSA results have been released, and it's a mixed bag for QCSD. The elementary schools are, apparently, doing phenomenally. Parents and teachers should be thrilled. Middle schools are good. But our high-schoolers continue to struggle. Why? How valid are the scores? And why do we have PSSA's to begin with?
The No Child Left Behind Act requires that all students meet their state definition of "proficient" by 2014. But a report cited in the October 22 Washington Post revealed that state tests vary greatly in their difficulty. "Proficiency" ranged from the 6th percentile for Colorado's grade 3 math, to the 77th percentile for Massachusetts 4th grade math. In Pennsylvania, "proficient" means only a score of 50 percent. In virtually any other exam that would be an "F".
And Superintendent Dr. Lisa Andrejko issued this warning: "The purpose of the testing is to use the data to determine areas of strengths to enhance, and weakness to correct. Testing is not for ranking, rating, and sorting, although that is how it has been misused." Misused indeed, frequently by our own school board.
QCSD is one of only three Bucks County districts to achieve "adequate yearly progress" for the past five years. Our best showing is in the elementary grades - the kids who will be in QCHS by 2014 - and it speaks really well for our primary school teachers. In fact, QCSD won this year's statewide Exemplary Staff Development Award from the private Staff Development Council.
But high school is less encouraging. Although the number of students scoring "proficient" or above in PSSA reading has increased from 59 percent to 80 over the past five years, and from 50 to 67 percent in math, still, one-third of the students do not even meet the pathetically-low state minimum. Andrejko was frank: QCSD is struggling to overcome recent inadequacies. "I predict the trend will diminish over time. When the present HS kids were in elementary and middle school, we were not doing the strategies, did not have the appropriate curriculum aligned to state and national standards, and did not have the "No Child Left Behind" philosophy. Teaching practices were kind of basic. If you "got it", great. You moved on and continued to be successful. If you didn't "get it" completely, you still moved on. Today, there are multiple ways for re-teaching, remediation, extra help, technology, etc. Schools must insure that students demonstrate proficiency, not moving on with partial understanding."
Our SAT's also remain a cause for concern. Math scores over the past five years have seesawed by +10, -7, +8, and -17. Verbal has been worse: -4, +10, -7, -7. Our 2007 averages of 496 and 491 both rank last among the seven neighboring districts. Critics of SAT's claim that it discriminates against economically-disadvantaged kids, but Quakertown is only 13 percent "disadvantaged", compared to the statewide average of 31, and 41 percent nationally. The silver lining is that over 80 percent of our graduates now go on to college, and the number of our students taking the tests is up 25 percent this year. QCSD cites these "less-qualified" students, who now see college as an option, as the reason for the lower averages.
But if SAT's are flat (at best) and low, why are PSSA's up? The Washington Post story explained, "States are creating a false impression of academic success through, among other tactics, manipulation of passing scores on standardized tests. Improvements in passing rates can largely be explained by declines in the difficulty of those tests." Or, perhaps it is because the state is helping out with PSSA preparation. They publish the "anchor" standards well before the tests are given. These are basically announcements of what the PSSA will focus on, allowing districts to, essentially, teach to the test. But, when the same kids take the SAT or ACT, where the questions are unpredictable, or a measure of general knowledge, they falter. Logical conclusion - QCSD teaches to the PSSA tests. Good for No Child Left Behind statistics, bad for college admissions.
Also bad for college admissions is the fact that our students are being given improper information about the factors most important in their applications. Not by QCSD's guidance staff, but by someone much higher up.
Dr. Robert Leight, who has been a school director for more than two decades, was attempting to downplay the district's history of poor SAT's when he advised the community in November, 2006, "Many colleges no longer require the submission of scores in the (SAT) test". If students, and their families, believed Leight, they were poorly served. A recent study by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, a group of more than 10,000 professionals representing both high schools and colleges, shows just the opposite. Less than 12 percent considered SAT's to have "limited or no" importance.
Our board members may have political agendas, but college counselors do not. They ranked the importance of 15 different admissions criteria, and - surprise! - the formula for success never changes: get good grades, take meaningful courses, and do well on your SAT's. More than 75 percent care most about grades in college prep courses (math, English, foreign language, sciences etc). Virtually tied for second are SAT/ACT scores, and strength of curriculum. None of the other criteria got much notice. Don't count on earning many brownie points for your writing sample, interview, class rank, recommendations, extracurricular activities, or work experience. Or PSSA's .
Leight cited Ursinus and Muhlenberg as examples of schools that don't require standardized tests. This is just plain misleading. Ursinus allows you to waive the SAT's only if you graduate in the top 10 percent of your class, or have a 3.5 GPA out of 4. Muhlenberg allows the waiver only if you have an on-campus interview with the admissions staff, submit an 11th or 12th grade paper with teacher comments, and are not seeking a scholarship or an honors program.
Dr. Leight also warned those who criticize QCSD to "get their facts straight". Doctor, heal thyself.