ShareThis Page
Apollo-Ridge opposes tests |

Apollo-Ridge opposes tests

| Wednesday, March 26, 2008 12:00 a.m

High school seniors will have one less test to pass in order to graduate.

School board members voted 6-0 against adopting the proposed state exams that each senior would be required to pass in order to receive diplomas. Directors Dominick Duso, Lance Foster and Jim Ferguson were absent.

A state panel studying ways to improve high school students’ preparedness for college and the work force released a study in late 2007 recommending that students take subject-specific “graduation competency exams.”

That would be in addition to the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) tests that the state already mandates in reading, writing, math, and science. Seniors would have to pass one set of state tests to graduate.

Pennsylvania’s testing proposal is slated to begin with incoming freshman in the 2009-10 school year.

The exams would be the same for all students, whether they are taking college prep or vocational courses, are English language learners or participating in individualized programs, said board president Gregory Primm.

Primm said the new requirements and exams would place new costs on the district relating to curriculum revisions, professional development, test development and validation, test preparation and administration and remediation.

Primm said paper test scores should never be the determining factor in making major decisions about students. A diploma, Primm said, should be granted based on the course work, tests, presentations, projects and papers given throughout each student’s years in school.

Gretchen Blystone, who has three children, two still in the district, thanked the board for opposing the proposed testing.

“I have a nurse, (future) carpenter and possibly a future scientist, and I feel that the tests are not a fair representation of what my child can do at Apollo-Ridge,” she said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.