Elementary and Secondary School Principals
Presented at a PASCD Special Meeting &
Press Conference
Hershey Lodge and ConventionCenter
In 2003, public education in Pennsylvania mirrors educational systems throughout the nation. The diversity and quality of the school systems in Pennsylvania is as varied as the population of the state on the whole. It is clear that the state contains many highly successful schools that demonstrate student success on a wide variety of measures. At the same time, numerous others struggle with student academic performance, poor student attendance, inadequate resources and minimal parent support. The dilemma of improving poor performing schools, in a manner that ensures equitable educational opportunities for all students, is an issue that clearly will shape the future of the Commonwealth.
Given the immense pool of resources devoted to the maintenance of Pennsylvania public education, it is understandable that serious debate and disagreement exists within the general public and the policy-making communities concerning the best means to ensure school success. The only common point of agreement among all constituencies is that a system of school accountability is essential to document success. How to create such a system in a manner that is both accurate and fair remains an on-going debate.
Pennsylvania’s public policy-makers have implemented a broad-based system of academic standards as a means of achieving public school reform. The statewide standards appear to be rigorous and to enjoy widespread educator and public support. Much disagreement exists, however, concerning the statewide high stakes testing system, which has been developed to ascertain student and school accomplishment of these standards.
The Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals (PAESSP) is seriously concerned about both the state assessment system itself and the on-going debate that surrounds its implementation and utilization. The association is seriously concerned about the appropriateness and fairness of the high stakes testing system. At the same time, the PAESSP fears that the absolute focus upon assessment has resulted in a failure to address the most pressing concerns related to public education including school funding inequity, declining state support for public education and adequate student postsecondary opportunities. The fact that public school accountability has remained the singular focus of public school improvement efforts has resulted in a corrosive debate and a punitive environment for public education. What is needed instead, is a clinical system of diagnosis and prescription that can result in the implementation of successful remedies for the ills of individual schools and school districts. The beliefs and views expressed through an informal survey of PAESSP members reflect the on-going concern for the lack of fairness in the current Pennsylvania system of assessment.
· High stakes testing is especially punitive for students with disabilities.
· Urban and poor districts have significant numbers of students with multiple disabilities that frequently include mental handicaps, emotional problems and attention deficit hyperactivity issues. These students will have a very difficult time passing any high stakes measure.
· High stakes tests do not consider any other indicators or markers of student progress.
· Eight- and nine-year-old children are not developmentally ready for the pressures of high stakes testing.
· The poor quality of Pennsylvania tests has created problems with pages inserted upside down and directions not appropriate for test booklets.
· Teachers are being forced to teach to the test.
· Teachers at the elementary level are providing minimal coverage of subjects other than reading, writing and mathematics because of the pressures of testing. The curriculum has been narrowed.
· The establishment of annual yearly progress by testing different kids each year does not measure the progress of the same group. The data provided does not result in usable diagnostic information.
· Testing should be criterion referenced for individual demonstration of performance skills.
· We know learning support kids are not working at grade level. Why test them at grade level and create the frustration of failure?
· Test preparations require the loss of instructional time.
· Parents complain about the stress levels created within their children.
· Including Intermediate Unit special education students in building scores makes districts less willing to house regional special needs classes.
· Much time is wasted teaching test-taking skills.
·
There is a lack of diagnostic
feedback provided by high stakes tests.
It is the position of the PAESSP that the current Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) creates significant concerns related to the improvement of public education. The end result may very well be the evolution of a less effective system of education.
Of serious concern, is the potential elimination of some curricular areas from the instructional program. Already, the association is receiving concerned comments from member principals related to the reductions in instructional time for science and social studies at the elementary and middle school levels. Of equally serious concern, is the reduction or elimination of fine arts programs at all levels. The narrowing of the taught curriculum to focus primarily upon reading, math and writing is already a reality in many Pennsylvania school districts.
It has become increasingly clear that many Pennsylvania school districts are mandating the implementation of extensive programs designed to improve student test-taking skills. Not only do such programs consume valuable instructional time and resources, but they tend to limit the focus of instructional programs to basic skill development and factual information rather than the active thinking, reasoning and skill applications that are essential for long-term student academic success.
Because of dramatically increased pressures to improve student test performance scores, schools are taking steps to push poor performing students out of school. In some instances, those students are leaving school prematurely. More likely, they are being assigned to alternative school settings that effectively remove a poor performance score from the local school data summary.
The current structure of the PSSA does not provide for planned staff training for teachers or school principals. It is essential that the assessment program be reconfigured to assist teachers in developing the essential instructional skills to organize activities that adequately address the Pennsylvania standards. Likewise, it is important that school principals be qualified to both assist teachers in the development of improved classroom skills and to evaluate teacher performance in ways that provide effective feedback and direction for improvement. Both groups must be assisted in developing the capabilities to complete test data analysis to ensure that they focus efforts upon appropriate program changes and improvements.
While there is a natural desire and tendency to utilize high stakes testing data to compare performance levels of schools and school districts with other educational entities, such efforts should be resisted. Rather, the reporting system should be concentrated upon providing usable feedback related to the effectiveness of the district and specific areas for improvement to school personnel, parents and community members. In place of comparisons with other school systems, it is of far greater value to provide parents and the general community data related to the percent of students achieving mastery of standards. Likewise, it is important that school personnel be provided data that identifies specific skill areas in which students are not scoring well. Such information can enable educators to adjust instructional programs to address critical need areas.
Educators are not opposed to the utilization of standard testing programs. However, it is desirable that testing programs be only a part of an evaluative system. Other means of gauging school performance might include reviews of school, teacher and student portfolios, submissions of student demonstration projects, active student demonstrations and on-site assessments by state sponsored evaluation teams. Creating a pool of data from a variety of sources will result in a more accurate picture of both school and student performance. Especially important is a system that provides individual students with personal performance feedback that is designed to enable personal improvement. The PAESSP strongly recommends that continuous observation data related to the individual growth of young children be used to demonstrate student skill development rather than high stakes testing programs.
The PAESSP is very concerned that the current demands for school accountability has resulted in high stakes tests becoming an end in themselves. The apparent intent of the current system is to place punitive pressures upon poor performing schools. However, use of sanctions is likely to be counterproductive and result in demoralized staff members, students and parents. The association highly recommends that a testing system be created that utilizes data from numerous sources, including formal testing, to create a diagnostic basis to target essential improvements. Critical to the success of school improvement programs is the availability of both resources and expertise to address identified critical needs. Failure to implement positive actions will only result in dramatic staff demoralization and turnover and school closures.