It’s been a awhile since I’ve talked about the proposed Keystone exams; in fact, it’s been awhile since anyone’s talked much about them, which I think is unfortunate, since this issue has the potential to have a profound impact on what happens in Pennsylvania classrooms.

Most people are familiar with the standard objections to the standardized testing that would be embodied and institutionalized by the implementation of these exams (beginning with the requirement in the 2013-14 academic year that a student pass four Keystone exams in order to graduate, increasing to six exams in 2016-17; two in English, two Math, one Science and one Social Studies).

An 8-1 vote should be explained – especially if you’re the “1”. In the spirit of “a mathematician does not understand his work until he can explain it to the first man he meets in the street”, it’s clear that I need to take another run at this.

I was glad for the invitation to attend the teacher in-service on Service-learning that was held at Park Forest Elementary school on Martin Luther King Day.

Service-learning is still a relatively new idea, so some time was spent clarifying the differences between service-learning, community service and community-based learning.

Almost everyone understands “community service”, a certain amount (20 hours) of which is one element of the State High graduation requirement. What differentiates community service from service-learning is that it lacks an intentional curricular component - community service is not typically connected to what students are learning in the classroom.

"Community-based learning" is teacher-directed learning that happens outside the classroom (field trips, for example).

What makes service-learning worth the added effort is that it makes learning more meaningful and engaging for students. Several PFE teachers who have used this strategy in the past noted that these projects have such an impact that students will talk about them years later. 

When done well, service-learning is a teaching strategy that helps prepare students for civic and democratic life, in part by giving them the tools - and the confidence - to effect change in the community, however narrowly (the classroom) or broadly (the global environment) that is defined. One comment heard Monday - in reference to elementary school students: "put students in charge and leadership pours out of them."

The following standards address the key components of an effective service-learning project, which is one that:

When we met with Congressman Thompson at last year’s FRN conference, it was clear that he does not support "full-funding" of the "Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act" (IDEA). (This is perennially a key item in the NSBA legislative agenda.) However, when the issue was raised at our meeting earlier this month, GT gave a surprising - although very qualified - endorsement of the idea.

The Congressman’s general reticence is understandable. Historically, Republicans have been less inclined than Democrats when it comes to supporting federal funding of “social” programs. But the question isn't whether this is a worthwhile expenditure - that was decided when IDEA's predecessor was passed in 1975, mandating a "free appropriate public education for all children with disabilities" - along with the promise that the federal government would pick up 40% of the tab. (A 40% federal share would be considered "full-funding".)

The key word, of course, is mandating. So the question isn't whether the money should be spent, it's out of which pot the money should come. Does it matter?

The argument for a larger federal share is the equity issue: The greater the federal share of IDEA funding, the less of a burden it is on individual school districts, some of whom are in far better position than others to bear that burden. The current formula for the distribution of IDEA funds only marginally takes into account the relative wealth of school districts.

It can also be very expensive to provide for an individual child with severe disabilities. The relative impact of just one such child on a small district can be substantial. It should be noted that there are a lot of small, rural school districts in the PA 5th Congressional. 

Earlier this month, superintendants and school board representatives from several Centre County districts had an opportunity for an extended chat with our Congressman from the PA 5th district, Glenn (GT) Thompson, at his office in Bellefonte.

I knew from prior conversations that the Congressman - himself a former school board member from Bald Eagle Area - appreciates the fact that if we are going to prepare our students for the future, they need a different education than the one most of us received forty years ago. He understands the importance of integrating “21st century skills” such as critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration into every school’s curriculum.

This again became relevant as a federal issue with the recent release of a draft of the Common Core Standards, which are intended to standardize what it means to have a high school diploma from state-to-state across the country. Hearings on these standards were recently held by the House Education and Labor Committee, on which Rep. Thompson is the ranking minority member.

In his comments preceding the hearing, GT acknowledged the broad support that exists for the creation of common standards - but he expressed a concern about the “coercive” nature of the Education Department’s proposal. Because state adoption of these standards has been tied to the “Race to the Top” funds, they will, in effect, be federally mandated. Few states or districts can afford to turn down federal money.

On this point, I think the Congressman is exactly correct. At our meeting, he reiterated his support for the concept of “local control”, based on the premise that local education leaders have a clearer understanding of the educational needs of the children in their communities.

On practically every school visit I learn something interesting. The recent board visit to Easterly Parkway Elementary was not an exception.

The District's ongoing collaboration with Penn State's College of Education through the Professional Development School program continues to benefit both our students and theirs. Five PDS students currently have internships at Easterly; part of their assignment is to spend additional time with students who don't qualify for classroom support under the federally-funded IDEA program, but who would otherwise struggle to keep up. It's a great example of creatively matching resources to need.

Another example - at the other end of the spectrum - involves students that our teachers have identified as needing opportunities for more challenging work. This past semester, several students from Penn State’s Schreyer's Honors College volunteered to be trained in leading literature discussion groups for 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders. Although this was in order to fulfill a course requirement, the university students got so much out of it that they’re staying on for another semester.

"Learning by inquiry" is central to the PDS philosophy, and it’s having an increasingly direct influence on our veteran teachers. This method of studying a particular aspect of their teaching is becoming a key part of their professional development and teacher evaluations. (These "inquiries" are usually along the lines of how well a particular teaching strategy works with certain students or circumstances.)

Among educators, there's a growing appreciation for the value of "formative assessments".  (In fact, formative assessments are a key component of PDE's recently released and very ambitious Standards Aligned System. More on that later...)

To paraphrase our new superintendent, a formative assessment is like a "routine physical", while the more traditional "summative" (or, end-of-course) assessment is more akin to an "autopsy". The idea is that we find out how well students are learning while there's still time to do something about it.

While this may not seem like a radical idea to anyone who's experienced a pop quiz, what's different is that the results of these assessments are intentionally used to modify instruction, on either a whole-class or individual basis.

It's going to be essential that we understand this distinction as the standards movement gains momentum. If we accept the premise that some skills are critical for every student to have - no child left behind - than we can no longer watch some students "fail", shrug our shoulders, and tell ourselves that we've "done our job".

One of the insights I picked up on my recent visit to the Kettering Foundation (Kettering is the umbrella organization for Public Issues Forums) is that when average citizens and politicians talk about "accountability" in education, they mean different things. Citizens want teachers and students to be accountable - but not in the punitive sense. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, they just want results. But when politicians use the word, often they are looking for someone to blame. Hence, politicians see the value of "high-stakes" tests, while parents are horrified by them.

Although this year's budget did not include funds for a new course in Chinese language instruction, several of us were invited to witness a creative work-around for the benefit of a number of students who had expressed an interest.

The not-for-credit "course" is being co-taught by two State College High students (a junior and a sophomore), who are receiving well deserved credit towards their high school graduation project. The students receive occasional classroom assistance from a dedicated parent volunteer.

The dozen or so students who are taking the class are doing so under the umbrella of the Learning Enrichment program, in which students sign "contracts" with a faculty advisor that allows them to spend time pursuing an area of particular academic interest.

Most impressive was the confidence, competence - and obvious enthusiasm - that was demonstrated by the student teachers. Providing students with the opportunity for this level of leadership is, to me, one of the great benefits of this initiative.

Class time was roughly split between vocabulary and pronunciation; culture (is it polite to burp at the dinner table? to blow your nose in public?  Yes, and no); and practice in writing characters.

The candidates have been asked again to respond to a question regarding the State College elementary math curriculum.  My response to Dr. Greer follows.

My thinking has not changed a great deal since last spring, but here are a couple of points I think are worth making.

First, it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect curriculum. It takes time for teachers to learn how to adapt it to meet the needs of individual students. While there may be other good math programs out there, changing the entire curriculum is the surest way to impede the academic progress of our students.

The latest edition of Investigations Math specifically addresses the aspects of the program that needed to be strengthened. One area that has been improved through the efforts of our teachers has been the issue of parents struggling to help their children with homework. One bonus is that the parents who have availed themselves of these opportunities have discovered that they can learn a new way to learn math.

At the last board meeting, two potentially exciting research proposals were approved.

The first involves a collaboration between an assistant professor of Education at Penn State and the creative writing class in State College's (High School) Delta program. What makes the proposal interesting is that it will study a key component of "21st-century" skills: the ability to communicate in different styles to different audiences, depending on the purpose. As Dr. Whitney noted, there is a big difference between the writing skills required for a Biology class assignment, and what is involved in persuasive writing.

Traditionally, that difference has not been given enough attention, nor is it assessed by typical standardized tests.

"A key component of (writing) competence is the ability to write in different genres, discerning the particular demands of a rhetorical situation ... to produce texts appropriate to that situation and its audience.  However, pedagogy and assessment efforts at the secondary level currently focus almost exclusively on writing .. in the single genre of the expository essay."