web1_Columnshot-1-1-.jpg

Beyond the Byline: Would Fats find his thrill on Capitol Hill?

web1_Whitehead-mug.jpg

Local College Football: King’s College gets last laugh vs. FDU-Florham

<p>Pennsylvania&#8217;s &#8220;School Performance Profile&#8221; scores, designed to show how well public schools were doing academically, lasted only five years, from 2013 through this week. The scores released Friday were the final ones, as the state will transition to the new Future Ready PA Index next year. That means this is the last year SPP results can be compared to prior years.</p><p>So, how did area schools do under the system which had replaced the previous &#8220;Adequate Yearly Progress&#8221; (AYP) created under the 2002 &#8220;No Child Left Behind&#8221; federal law?</p><p>As far as overall improvement goes, not so well.</p><p>Comparing the 2012-13 SPP scores with 2016-17, only five Luzerne County public schools saw improvement, and only two of those saw double-digit increases.</p><p>Dallas Senior High School climbed from an SPP of 72 to 87, while Pittston Area High School went from 70.2 to 80.7. The other increases were Crestwood&#8217;s Fairview Elementary, from 84.5 to 89, Wyoming Valley West&#8217;s Chester Street Elementary from 81.6 to 83.7, and Hazleton Area&#8217;s McAdoo-Kelayres Elementary/Middle school from 54.1 to 55.1</p><p>Every other school saw their results drop during the state&#8217;s SPP era. Ten schools had drops of less than 10 points. Another 21 schools saw their scores drop by more than 10 points but less than 20. Seven more schools dropped by 20 or more but less than 30.</p><p>The biggest drop was at the Pittston Area Primary Center, where it fell from 81.7 to 53.8.</p><p>As has happened periodically since the state first began issuing school accountability reports mandated by NCLB, districts have closed, opened and/or reconfigured schools, meaning not all schools had scores in both of the years combined.</p><p>For this comparison, there were eight schools with an SPP score only one of the two years reviewed.</p><p>SPP replaced the AYP yardstick required under No Child Left Behind: Schools had to meet minimum goals in the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced in standardized reading or math tests each year.</p><p>SPP still relied heavily on standardized tests, but it used a wider array of tests, and included other data in compiling the score of up to 100, with seven &#8220;extra credit&#8221; points available beyond that.</p><p>While AYP had absolute test result goals &#8212; albeit with many ways to be deemed successful without meeting the specific percentages of proficiency &#8212; SPP only had relative goals.</p><p>Statewide, the top 5 percent of schools in either academic achievement or in progress made on boosting test scores were deemed &#8220;reward schools,&#8221; while those in the bottom 5 percent were &#8220;Priority&#8221; schools. Schools in the lowest 10 percent but not labeled &#8220;Priority&#8221; were &#8220;Focus&#8221; schools.</p><p>There are two other ways to compare the 2012-13 and 2016-17 results.</p><p>First, in the inaugural year of SPP, three local schools scored above 90: Wycallis Elementary (94.2) and Dallas Elementary (93.1) in Dallas School District, and Valley Elementary (91.7) in Hazleton Area School District. In the final year of SPP, no local schools topped 90.</p><p>Second, when the scores were first released, the then-acting Secretary of Education suggested a score of 70 as a yardstick for overall success. In 2012-13, 37 local schools exceeded that benchmark. In the final SPP scores released Friday, only 13 did.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/web1_SPPlogo.jpg">
<div class="neCaption"></div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/web1_SPPlogo.jpg</photo0><caption0></caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>By Mark Guydish</p><p>mguydish@www.timesleader.com</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Reach Mark Guydish at 570-991-6112 or on Twitter @TLMarkGuydish</p></shirttailMeta></div>

The state’s School Performance Profile era ends: How did we do?