Free Press – January 24, 2008

Quakertown Seniors Poor Test Results - ‘Empty’ Diplomas

Dear Friends,

Good morning. If Pennsylvania’s proposed standards for high school graduation had been in force last June, 40 percent of the Quakertown high school seniors would not have received their diplomas.

“Tens of thousands of Pennsylvania high school seniors who failed state math and reading tests got “empty diplomas” last year because they had not learned basic skills,” Pennsylvania Education Secretary Gerald Zahorchak says in the Philadelphia Inquirer (Jan. 17). “Statewide, 45 percent of the 127,000 seniors failed the tests, leading Zahorchak to lament that diplomas were awarded to many who “show up and shut up.”

If his proposal is enacted, the state regulations would create 10 tests, called Graduation Competency Assessments, in math, language arts, science and social studies. Those tests would likely become final exams for most students. To graduate, students would have to pass six of the 10 tests. If enacted, the new graduation rules begin in 2014.

“Those who fail would get remedial classes and take the test again,” the Inquirer continued. “Students with learning disabilities could still graduate if educators decided they had achieved their goals.”

To go into effect, the rules must undergo a lengthy review, including legislative scrutiny.

The Inquirer published the state test failure rates for seniors in the Philadelphia region. Forty-five percent of Pennsylvania’s high school seniors graduated in 2006 after failing state tests in math or reading as juniors. While Quakertown’s failure rate is alarming, six Bucks County schools did worse. Morrisville’s percentage for juniors who failed was a whopping 76 percent; Bristol Township, 73 percent; Bensalem, 64; Neshaminy, 51; Centennial, 44, and Bristol Borough, 42 percent.

Pennridge and Palisades did considerably better than Quakertown with failure rates of 27 percent. In the 13 Bucks school districts, New Hope-Solebury and Central Bucks were the best…24 and 14 percent, respectively. The failure rates for Souderton, North Penn, and Upper Perkiomen were 38 percent and 30 percent, respectively.

For years, spokesmen for the private sector and higher education have bitterly complained that public schools are not preparing their graduates for either the work place or college. Tracee Hunt of the Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Company had a common complaint. “You end up hiring individuals who have a high school diploma, and when you start to go through the training process, you find out that they will not be able to handle the job, based on their competency levels,” she told the Inquirer.

“At the 37,000 Community College of Philadelphia, 46.4 percent of new students in the fall of 2006 took some remedial-below college-level- courses, including 26.9 percent who took all remedial courses, said spokesman Anthony Twyman.”

Have you heard comments like that before?

“In the Chester Upland School district, where 96.4 percent of graduates failed reading or math, Superintendent Gregory Thornton said the requirement was necessary to show that graduates had basic skills,” the Inquirer reported. “I’m fearful of a high-stakes world that our youngsters will not be prepared for,” he said.

Friends, that last quote sums it up. Will your and my children or grandchildren be able to compete in the world economy? Why is it that Asian and European students have much higher scores in reading, math and science? It can’t be because of the lack of investment in our public schools. America leads the world in tax money spent for public education.

Is it that our national expectation level is too low? Do Asian and European families have higher expectations for their children than we Americans have?

Does family economic firepower have something to do with performance?

One way to measure how schools perform may be related to the percentage of its low-income students. Here are the statistics from the Inquirer school report card (Mar. 25). Of the six highest failure rate schools in Bucks County, the percentage of low-income students lay between 18 and 38 percent.

Quakertown’s percentage of low-income students is 11 percent. Palisades is three percent; Pennridge, four percent; New Hope-Solebury, zero; and Central Bucks, one percent.

Are you surprised that the failure rates for Palisades, Pennridge, New Hope-Solebury and Central Bucks schools are much lower than Quakertown’s? Does lower family income mean that parents can’t supervise their children as closely as wealthier parents can? Is it true that low-income parents scramble so hard to make ends meet, that their children suffer from lack of high parental expectations?

Or, do Asian and European schools separate students after the eighth grade? Do students who have high test scores continue in an academic track while students who don’t move to vocational training?

One thing is clear to me. The high failure rate in our public schools is not related to funding.

Part of the problem is perception and part of it is real. Like our perception of the U.S. Congress, there is a disconnect between what our attitudes are about America’s public education system and our particular local school. Not surprising, Americans view Congress with disdain but vote for their incumbent congressman anyway.

Friends, isn’t that exactly what we do with our local schools? We question the effectiveness of the public school system, generally. But as long as the sports program is winning and the band and chorus plays and sings well, we’re satisfied.

As one of my favorite banker friends often says, “It’s enough to make you weak!”

Sincerely,

Charles Meredith