Graduation Requirements Executive Summary

I had the opportunity to attend the Superintendent’s Advisory Council this week at MIU 4. The following is a summary of findings from a study by the governor’s office. Common sense may rule the day. Unfortunately it has come after the state has spent tens of millions of dollars. Feeling frustrated yet!!! Some highlights follow.

Graduation Requirements Executive Summary

FINDINGS

1.       Among high school graduates from the class of 2015, barely 50% scored proficient on all three Keystone exams.

2.       Passing high school exit exams is not the sole valid measure of mastery of a standards-based core subject matter.

3.       Passing high school exit exams does not indicate postsecondary readiness.

4.       The Project Based Assessment, PBA, has been proven to be ineffective and inefficient strategy to demonstrate mastery.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1.       Adopt/Implement 4 options to demonstrate proficiency:

Option 1 = pass the three tests (algebra, biology, literature)

Option 2 = pass an alternate assessment approved by PDE for algebra, biology, or literature

Option 3 = demonstrate competency in standards-based subject matter content through course grades or assessments plus, for students who are identified as career and technical education (CTE) concentrators, demonstrate evidence of readiness for postsecondary success through NOCTI or NIMS assessments, competency certificates

Option 4 = demonstrate competency in standards-based subject matter content through course grades or assessments plus evidence related to postsecondary plans that demonstrate readiness to meaningfully engage those plans (graduation portfolio).

2.       Discontinue PBA (project based assessment)

3.       Allow LEA to determine whether or not to include Keystone exams scores on student transcripts 

Performance Audit Laurel School District August 2016

                The Laurel S.D. was recently audited by PA Department of the Auditor General for the period of July 1, 2012-June 30, 2015. The areas reviewed were: financial stability, hiring practices, bus driver requirements, and school safety.

Financial Information

                The Laurel S.D. had a $7.5 million fund balance as of June 30, 2012. The district has seen that fund balance shrink to $6.8 million as of June 30, 2015. The school district has also paid approximately $2.5 million in debt service over the same period of time. As of June 30, 2015 the district debt shrank from $17.0 million to $14.7 million.

                Traditionally, the Laurel S.D. has had revenues that have exceeded expenditures. However, FY 2012-2013 saw expenditures of $16.9 million exceed revenues of $16.8 million. FY 2013-2014, revenues of $17.1 million exceeded expenditures of $16.7 million. Those savings were lost in FY 2014-2015. Expenditures of $18.2 million exceeded revenues of $17.5 million.

                Charter tuition payments peeked at over $362, 000 in FY 2011-2012. As of FY 2014-2015, charter school tuition payments were $197,500.

                Laurel has seen revenues grow from $16.3 million in FY 2011-2012 TO $17.5 million in FY 2014-2015. About 1/3 of all revenue, $5.8 million are local effort. Over 61.7% of revenue, or $11.2 million, comes from the state. Approximately, $500,000, or 2.8% of the district revenues come from the federal government. The remaining, less than 1% of all revenue, comes from miscellaneous grants.

Academic Information

                For 2012-2013, the school district had an SPP of 75.2 with a corresponding SPP Grade of C which was lower than the statewide benchmark of 77.6. For 2013-2014, the school district improved to 80.1 with a corresponding SPP Grade of B which was higher than the state benchmark of 77.2. PSSA performance was competitive with statewide benchmarks.

                Laurel Elementary School had an SPP of 85.3 in 2012-2013 and an SPP of 83.3 in 2013-2014. Both scores exceeded the statewide benchmarks of 77.6 and 77.2 respectively. The elementary averaged over 81% advanced/proficient in math and over 75% in reading. Again, these scores were higher than statewide benchmark averages of 74% in math and 73% in reading.

                Laurel Junior-Senior High School had an SPP of 65.0 in 2012-2013 and an SPP of 76.8 in 2013-2014. Both scores were below the statewide benchmarks of 77.6 and 77.2 respectively. The junior-senior high school averaged over 64% proficient in math and over 72% in reading. Math was significantly below the math benchmark of 74%, but reading was competitive with the statewide benchmark of 73%. The junior-senior high school also had a higher 4 year cohort graduation rate of 99.1 when compared to the statewide average of 89.7%.

Findings

                For the audited period, the District resulted in no findings.

                The prior audit of the District resulted in no findings or observations.

                The district is in compliance with relevant requirements. The district has internal controls

Objectives/Methodology

                Based on an assessment of fiscal benchmarks, the district did comply with all statutes prohibiting deficit fund balances

Let us ask ourselves some guiding questions and reflect on our instruction

As you are teaching your classes, ask yourself the following:

·         Are the big ideas, essential questions, and assessment visible to the teacher and student?

• ·         Does the teacher incorporate the big idea and essential questions into the lesson?
• ·         Is there a clear formative or summative assessment that will provide feedback to the student and teacher? Did they get it?
• ·         Does the classroom environment support cooperative engagement?

Let us continue to work and “discover” v. “cover.” This may very well be a clumsy process at first. It is important to understand that over the course of time layered curricular initiatives are intended to change what we do, not add to what we do. Collectively, we need to build a language. Some language will merge. For example: how does the RACES format fit into the WATC (writing across the curriculum) initiative?

Our journey begins with building a k-12 language for literacy. Literacy is the basis for all learning in all content areas. The delivery of literacy instruction and the development of literacy skills does not end with the completion of 6^th grade. All scores, in all grade levels, and in all subject areas benefit when students can read and understand the content.

We begin to prepare for curriculum writing. We will train ourselves this year to look at things differently. Our lessons will on Big Ideas and Essential Questions. The information we receive from the students through pre-assessment, formative assessment, and summative assessment will drive future instruction. The goal (which will take 3-5 years) will be to have a dynamic k-12 curriculum that we revisit annually. We will have instruction centered around student readiness, interest, and ways of learning. We will have a culture that demands a cycle of continuous improvement.