Grades for Pennsylvania public schools slightly lower in annual review |

Grades for Pennsylvania public schools slightly lower in annual review

Grades for Pennsylvania public schools dropped marginally in 2013-14, data from the state Department of Education show.

School performance results from 2012-13 show nearly 73 percent of schools received a 70 or higher on a 100-point scale, about half a percentage point higher than in 2013-14. Statewide, no county’s grade rose or fell more than five points from its average in 2012-13. Butler County schools led the pack regionally, with institutions in Indiana, Washington and Allegheny counties each scoring above the state 76-point average.

Schools in Pine-Richland, Mt. Lebanon, Moon Area and West Jefferson Hills recorded the highest overall scores — all nearing 100 — while schools in Pittsburgh, McKeesport Area and Propel showed the greatest improvement, about 20 points each.

At 77.27, Allegheny County’s average score is about half a point higher than last year.

Pittsburgh Superintendent Linda Lane celebrated success at schools such as South Brook, Sterrett, King, Morrow and Schiller, but acknowledged room for growth at the 27 schools where scores dropped between one and 17 points from last year.

“We know that in order to assess a school’s effectiveness, we must look at multiple data points,” she said, praising the profiles.

Available at, School Performance Profiles are weighted to reflect statewide student exams; overall academic growth; graduation, attendance and promotion rates; and performance factors for English-language learners and children from low-income homes.

They replace Adequate Yearly Progress goals mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law.

Organizations such as the Pennsylvania School Boards Association criticized charter and cyber charter schools. Spokesman Steve Robinson said Pennsylvania public schools scored an average of 76.9, brick-and-mortar charter schools scored 65.1 and cyber charters performed at 48.9.

In Pittsburgh, charter advocacy group PennCAN reported a weighted average score of 70 for local charters, excluding Academy Charter School, which serves formerly incarcerated youth.

Researchers accounted for race and socioeconomic status, said PennCAN liaison Rachel Amankulor.

“You have to take that into account to get the full picture of how Pittsburgh schools are doing,” she said.

The profiles were delayed by six weeks while state officials verified information with local schools. “I was a little frustrated, thinking, why wasn’t this coming out sooner?” said Keystone Oaks Superintendent Bill Stropkaj. “But this is the first year these numbers will be reflected in the evaluation of teachers. … I think the state wanted to make sure the numbers were perfect.”

Last year, Acting Education Secretary Carolyn Dumaresq twice delayed school scores because of a testing error that led to mistakes for 20 percent of the state’s 3,000 schools. Final results were posted two months after the website’s October launch.

Dumaresq said, “With nearly 120,000 teachers across the commonwealth being affected by the results of this year’s profile, it is imperative to ensure the information in the profile is complete and accurate.”

Staff writer Matthew Santoni contributed to this report. Megan Harris is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach her at 412-388-5815.

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.