Keystones, again

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).

First, these would be very high-stake tests. (A score of less than “proficient” would contribute a grade of 0 (zero!) to one-third of a student’s grade in a course that would be a state-wide graduation requirement. Essentially an academic death sentence.

While useful in the aggregate, standardized tests are a very uneven (and therefore - given the stakes - unfair) measure of any individual student’s mastery of course content. (Almost unmentioned is the ironic fact that the switch to the Keystone exams will mean that we will lose ten years of accumulated data from the PSSAs, which educators are just now beginning to figure out how to use in a meaningful way.)

Then there’s the “narrowing of the curriculum“ concern - under the premise that “what you test is what you get” - and how that might limit student exposure to the arts and every other “un-tested” subject.

Nor would these exams even pretend to measure many of the skills that will be essential to the future success of our students: the ability to think critically, to learn independently, to communicate, to work with others. (But they’ll get good at taking tests!)

Good points, all, which ought to be enough to give us pause before committing our limited resources to heading down this road. In addition, these exams were proposed in response to the requirements of No Child Left Behind, which is almost certain to undergo significant changes this year. Wouldn’t it make sense to wait and see what happens?

But I have another objection.

As I’ve said previously, “there has yet to be a meaningful, public conversation about what every high school graduate ought to know, and be able to do. It seems to me that this debate ought to happen before we try to standardize state-wide or nationwide graduation requirements. Honestly, how many people in the real world need to know how to factor an equation?”

For example, the "Biology-Chemistry-Physics" paradigm was designed more than 40 years ago. (I know this from personal experience.) The same can be said for "Algebra-Geometry-Trigonometry-and-maybe- Calculus". (By the way, one might assume this is universal, but the French begin with Geometry.) These traditional sequences were established at a time when a high school diploma wasn't even an expectation for many students, let alone a necessity.

Why then, are we building - in metaphorical stone - an accountability system based on a model that is generations old, and almost certainly obsolete? (Part of the answer is “to get into college.” But that’s an important conversation for another day.)

Primarily for the convenience of adults, we have constructed an educational system built and housed in academic silos. But increasingly, the real world doesn’t operate that way. Tomorrow’s citizens will need a deep understanding of the core principles – scientific, mathematical and otherwise - that govern the universe, and how these principles interact with one another. We need to design an accountability system that encourages that understanding.

Because the Keystone exams have moved forward entirely by gubernatorial edict, it will be interesting to see what happens under the next administration. Good questions to ask the candidates…