(PDF Copy Portals/0/MCIUDocuments/Legis/White Paper GCA.pdf)

Information prepared by the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit:

Dr. Jerry W. Shiveley, Chief Executive Officer/Executive Director
Dr. Sharon Nalbone Richardson, Director of Legislative Services and Grant Development

Carl Atkinson	Supervisor Secondary Education, Wissahickon High School
Dr. Robert Burt	Principal, Abington High School
Dr. Joseph Colaneri	Director, Eastern Center for Arts and Technology
Dr. Pete Grande	Director Curriculum, Instruction & Professional Dev., MCIU
Dr. Ann Hagan-Bacon	Director of Curriculum, Abington School District
Karen Holmes	Assistant Principal, North Penn School District
William Lessa	Superintendent, Hatboro-Horsham School District
Jeannette Maitin	Board Member, Abington School District
Dr. Robert Milrod	Superintendent, Upper Moreland School District
Dr. Sharon N. Richardson	Director of Legislative Services and Grant Development MCIU
Peggy Robertson	Board Member, Cheltenham School District
Stephen Rodriguez	Principal, Pottstown High School
Dennis Williams	Principal, Hatboro-Horsham School

  

Montgomery County School Superintendents

Abington School District	Dr. Amy F. Sichel
Cheltenham School District	Dr. William N. Kiefer
Colonial School District	Dr. Vincent Cotter
Hatboro-Horsham School District	Dr. William Lessa
Jenkintown School District	Dr. Timothy Wade
Lower Merion School District	Dr. Jamie P. Savedoff
Lower Moreland School District	Dr. Marykay Feeley
Methacton School District Methacton School District	Dr. Barbara E. Burke-Stevenson
Norristown School District	Dr. Janet C. Samuels
North Penn School Districtvvv	Dr. Robert Hassler
Perkiomen Valley School District	Dr. Edwin Coyle Dr. Edwin Coyle
Pottstown School District	Dr. Bradley Landis
Pottstown School District	Dr. David Krem
Souderton School District	Dr. Charles D. Amuso
Springfield School District	Dr. Roseann B. Nyiri
Spring-Ford School District	Dr. Marsha R. Hurda
Upper Dublin School District	Dr. Michael J. Pladus
Upper Merion School District	Dr. Melissa Jamula
Upper Moreland School District	Dr. Robert Milrod
Upper Perkiomen School District	Dr Timothy F. Kirby
Wissahickon School District	Dr. Stan Durtan

INTRODUCTION

The Governor’s Commission on College and Career Success, published in 2006, was written to ensure that all students in our Commonwealth graduate ready to take on the challenges of the 21st Century.  To this end, the Commission issued 12 recommendations which are attached to this report as Appendix A.

Many of these recommendations might help achieve the goal of helping to better prepare our students for the 21st Century.  For example, Recommendations 11 and 12 speak to establishing new programs designed to encourage economically and educationally disadvantaged to stay in school and build systematic approaches to re-engage and re-enroll former dropouts.

Recommendation 8 proposes that all necessary action be taken to expend adequate resources to redefine the role of guidance counselors and student service coordinators to ensure that all high school students are well advised concerning post-graduation expectations and how to transition successfully into both college and career.  Recommendation 10 furthers that goal by calling for an increase and enhancement of the number of educational options available to high school students to achieve high standards with particular attention to career and technical education.  Recommendation 9 speaks to establishing regional alliances and partnerships where local stake holders would work in concert with statewide efforts to achieve college and career readiness.

With so many programmatic and support goals identified, why did the State Board of Education ignore all those recommendations in favor of singling out the one onerous recommendation which imposes 10 new high-stake graduation competency assessments on our high school students?  It is inexcusable to propose implementing additional assessments before any of the other 12 recommendations have even been discussed.

The Commission Report cites the excessive number of students across the Commonwealth who are receiving diplomas without reaching proficiency on the PSSA’s and further makes the assertation that these nonproficiency students are neither ready to enter college or the workforce.  The basic assumption that proficiency on the PSSA’s is an indicator of our students’ ability to attend higher education or enter the workforce is fundamentally flawed.  According to data reported on PDE’s website, of the 7,482 graduates from Montgomery County in 2004-2005, 83% of those students were “College Bound,” and another 2.8% were seeking post secondary (non degree) education and another 9.6% were gainfully employed.  Only 4.4% were reported to be unemployed (40 students) or “unknown” (298 students).  Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s study examining the relationship between PSSA results and student performance in college finds that most college students who were not proficient on the PSSA still were able to enter non-remedial courses in college.

RESEARCH IDENTIFIES PROBLEMS WITH HIGH STAKE TESTS

A substantial body of research makes clear that GCA’s are an inadequate prescription for concerns about curricular rigor, relevance or equity.

“The perception that our education tests are precise because they yield numerical scores is fundamentally mistaken.”  (James Popham, Educational Leadership, December 2007).  The research and literature is rife with evidence that high stake tests should never be the sole determinant when making important decisions about students.

Consider the following research provided by the Children’s Defense Fund:1

Professional standards for educational testing test publishers and an overwhelming body of research suggest that a single test should not be the sole determinant when making important decisions about students.

• The Joint Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing explicitly state that “in educational settings a decision or characterization that will have a major impact on a student should not be made on the basis of a single test score.”2
• The Association of American Publishers, which represents the companies that publish standardized tests, asserts, “It is important both legally and technically not to put all the weight on a single test when making important decisions about students and schools.  Rather there must be multiple measures or indicators of performance to support important decisions.”3
• The National Research Council Board on Testing and Assessment concluded that “no single test score can be considered a definitive measure of a student’s knowledge,” and that “an educational decision that will have a major impact on a test taker should not be made solely or automatically on the basis of a single test score.”4

One of the key problems with high-stakes policies is that they are not fair for children who have been denied the opportunity to learn the material covered on the test.  Without significant and adequate investments in educational resources so that all children have the tools  they need to succeed in school, and without the opportunity to learn the material covered on assessments, standardized exit exams serve to punish students for public schools’ failure to educate them.  In this context, poor and minority students are particularly disadvantaged.

• Professional standards for educational testing advise that students must be provided “curriculum and instruction which affords them the opportunity to learn the content and skills that are tested.”5
• Schools with the highest percentages of minority, limited English proficient and low-income students are more likely to employ beginning teachers,6 teachers who have less education,7 and teachers who teach subjects in which they are not certified or in which they did not major in college.8  High minority schools are nearly twice as likely as low-minority schools to be overcrowded9 and to have larger class sizes.10
• A recent report by the Center on Education Policy found that exit exam scores were significantly lower among Blacks, Hispanics, low-income students, children with disabilities, and those with limited English proficiency.  Gaps in pass rates between these groups and white students climb as high as 40% , depending on the subject.11  The Children’s Defense Fund predicts that by 2009, eight out of 10 minority public school students will be denied high school diplomas if they do not pass a standardized exit exam.

Another significant problem is accuracy.  For a variety of reasons, a single test cannot always validly or reliably measure what students know and can do, resulting in students failing for reasons not related to their ability.  This is problematic given that in high stakes testing situations, students could be denied graduation based on insufficient or unreliable information.

• According to the National Research Council, “…a test score is not an exact measure of a student’s knowledge or skills.  A student’s test scores can be expected to vary across different versions of a test…as a function of the particular sample questions asked and/or transitory factors, such as the student’s health on the date of the test.  Thus, no single test score can be considered a definitive measure of a student’s knowledge.”12
• Scoring errors also have led to serious mistakes that have had significant impact on students.  For example, in 2000, 8,000 Minnesota students were told that they had failed the state’s graduation test when they had actually passed.  Several dozen missed their graduation ceremonies because of it.13 
• Minority students are more likely to perform poorly on these tests for reasons unrelated to their actual ability.  Research shows that when minority students are afraid their performance on a test will confirm a stereotype about their group (i.e. that blacks will perform less well than whites) they tend to perform more poorly than they would otherwise.14

There is growing evidence that the imposition of exit exams has marginalized at-risk youth, pushed students in to General Educational Diploma (GED) programs and led to increased dropout rates.

• A National Research Council report found that high stakes may help to motivate those students who are “just getting by, but know they can do better.”  However, they likely will harm the lowest-performing students who will “not exert effort when they do not expect their efforts to lead to success.”15
• Last year more than 2,000 Florida students as young as 16 were placed in the ‘GED Exit Option” track where they stay in school in alternate classes to earn a  GED and perhaps a regular diploma.16 
• In Massachusetts, for example, the dropout rate increased from 2.9% to 3.5% among seniors graduating in 2003, the first year that students were required to pass an exit exam to graduate.17
• An earlier study found that nine of the ten states with the highest dropout rates used high stakes exit exams, while none of the states with the lowest dropout rates used these tests.18

 

Research shows that while high-stakes testing systems in general can lead to a greater focus on state standards, they also can have a negative impact on curriculum, especially for poor and minority students.

• A 2002 study by the Rand Corporation reviewed research on test score inflation and found that “coaching” for tests – or non-substantive teaching -  is “widespread” in high-stakes testing situations.19
• An earlier Rand survey in 2000 found that teachers in Washington State shifted significant instructional time away from untested subjects including science, the arts, social studies, and health and fitness.20
• There are strong indications that a lack of resources plays a role in the degree to which schools feel compelled to “teach to the test.”  For example, a study in New Jersey found that teachers from high-poverty schools “reported substantially more time devoted explicitly to test preparation activities than those in wealthy districts.”21  Studies of schools in Arizona and Kentucky mirror these results.22

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing cites two additional problems.  It asserts that high-stakes testing drives out good teachers.  “It is absurd to believe that the ‘best and brightest’ will want to become teachers when teaching is reduced to test prep and when schools are continually attacked by many politicians, business leaders and the media.”23  The National Center further asserts that high-stakes testing misinforms the public because they don’t provide sufficient information.

Linda Darling Hammond, noted researcher from Stanford University, has written numerous articles decrying high-stakes testing.  She advocates the need to ensure there is a multiple measures approach to high school graduation.  She identifies four elements necessary to improving student learning: “Together these four elements – multiple measures of student performance; appropriate alternatives that allow all students to demonstrate their knowledge; local performance assessments developed with state support, and a process for review and improvement of local assessments – can stimulate more thoughtful teaching, ongoing improvement and professional development, and a commitment to standards that shape more powerful learning.”24  

The Center on Education Policy warns of the high costs to local school districts.  “While state policymakers may view exit exams as a low-cost way to raise student achievement, the extra costs – both apparent and hidden – are considerable.  The true costs of an exit exam policy often are invisible to state policymakers because the majority of expenses are absorbed by the local school district – an estimated 96% according to CEP research.25 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY EDUCATOR’S CONCERNS

The school districts in Montgomery County take great pride in the achievement of their students and the efforts being expended by districts to ensure that all students learn. 

In Montgomery County’s public schools, almost 83% of our students were college bound in 2004-2005.  Of the 1,281 students who were not college bound, over 94% of them were employed in occupations falling into seven (7) categories of employment.  We have identified the following concerns about the proposed GCAs:

• Local Control/Unfunded Mandate

The imposition of Graduation Competency Assessments is yet another unfunded mandate that further threatens local control.  The adoption of GCA’s reduces local control while simultaneously and dramatically increasing school district administrative burden.

• Narrowing the Curriculum

Accumulating knowledge doesn’t promote a successful career any more than overdosing on vitamins leads to good health.26  Furthermore, there is concern that the implementation of GCA’s will ultimately narrow the rich and broad curricular options currently available only to be substituted with statewide mandatory curriculum.  Instructional opportunities in subjects such as world language, visual arts and performing arts will be significantly curtailed or eliminated.

• Teaching to the Test

The imposition of high stakes testing usually results in teachers teaching to the test.  Important skills that can not be tested on standardized tests, such as writing research papers, preparing a public speaking presentation or conducting laboratory experiments, may not be taught.  Workforce development experts suggest a critical need for more advanced work skills such as the ability to be responsible, self-manage and self-assess, demonstrate a good work ethic, work on teams, influence people, do research, think critically, make decisions, know how to learn and problem solve.  Standardized tests generally do not measure these key skills for being successful in a work environment.  Furthermore, granting a diploma based on only standardized skills runs the risk of graduating students who do not possess this host of requisite life skills. 

• Student Achievement on PSSA’s

When PSSA tests were mandated, school districts struggled with how to encourage high school students to take the tests seriously.  There was plenty of incentive for school districts, but little incentive for students.  If GCA’s are instituted as the criteria for earning a high school diploma, students who pass their GCA’s in 9th and 10th grade will have even less incentive to perform well on the PSSA’s.

• Test Administration

It currently takes approximately 22 instructional days to administer all the PSSA’s.  It currently costs $40 million a year to administer the PSSA’s.  Imagine the costs in both time and money to administer 10 additional assessments, each of which may be taken multiple times.  If, as suggested, students are permitted to take GCAs 3 times a year, there could be an additional 30 test administration periods during the school year!

In the Governor’s proposed budget, $15 million is allocated to the development of three (3) GCAs; it is anticipated that the development of all the GCAs will cost over $50 million.  The Pittsburgh Post Gazette estimates that the cost of implementating GCAs could exceed $100 million.

• Detrimental Impact on Vocational Education Students

Students attending vocational schools are engaged in highly relevant instruction to prepare them to take multiple vocational competency assessments.  Many of our Commonwealth’s 90,000 vocational students would struggle to pass the newly proposed GCAs.  Remediation instruction would significantly reduce the amount of vocational instruction and the number of vocational competencies our students would have time to earn. 

The requirement for vocational students to take GCA’s will undermine their current success.  In Montgomery County, we are proud of the fact that 94% of these students either attended higher education (56.5%) or were gainfully employed (37.5%) in 2005-2006.  Similarly, in 2006-2007, 86% of our vocational students were attending higher education (57.4%) or were gainfully employed in their vocation (30%) upon graduation.  These students graduated having passed multiple competencies in their chosen field.  Surely these standardized vocational competency tests should be permitted to substitute for paper-pencil GCA’s.

• Drop Out Rates

GCA’s, when used as a high stakes assessment (i.e.:  single criteria for earning a diploma) have proven to reduce graduation rates.  GCA’s are often associated with grade retention; grade retention is a strong predictor of drop-outs.  The effect of this is particularly prevalent for African Americans, Latinos, English language learners, economically disadvantaged youth and students with disabilities.  When Florida and Texas implemented high stake GCA’s, both states experienced higher drop-out rates.  Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, and Rhode Island also experienced problems.  Ironically, states such as Nebraska, Minnesota, and Connecticut that use multiple assessments rather then high stake assessments, have higher graduation rates. One study found that nine of the ten states with the highest dropout rates used high stakes exit exams, while none of the states with the lowest drop-outs used the high stake tests.

One question we have not heard addressed is how an increased drop-out rate will affect the economy of our state.  The life earning capacity of a high school drop-out is severely compromised.  It would be a devastating blow to our state economy to increase the number of drop-outs.  Unfortunately, all too frequently, these same individuals will doubly hurt our economy by becoming incarcerated. 

Thus far, there has been no discussion on the impact of a lower graduation rate to our Commonwealth’s economy.

• Local Assessment Validation

The current proposal suggests that districts will be able to use their own final exams if these exams are independently validated by private vendors approved by PDE.  Our educators have repeatedly asked about the validation process, i.e.  How much time will it take and how much will it cost?  Over the past year, the response has been consistent: “We don’t know yet, we haven’t gotten that far.”  We are fearful that this is a disingenuous option because the costs may be prohibitive.  We question whether it isn’t premature to adopt GCA’s without knowing all the facts, implications and costs associated with them.

• Emotionally Nurturing Environment

Students, teachers, and administrators alike already feel tremendous pressure surrounding the annual publication of PSSA results.  Layering ten (10) more assessments will only increase stress, with no increase in academic competency.  One group of high school students titled their yearbook “We are more than a test score!”  In a CNN documentary entitled “High Stakes,” this issue was recently investigated by CNN’s documentary unit.  There is a poignant video clip where one third grade teacher reported that her students were sobbing because they were unhinged by the prospect of yet another standardized test.

• Utilization of resources

Instructional time is one of our most valuable resources in accomplishing the goal of preparing our students for the 21st century.  If GCA’s are implemented, students will receive fewer hours of direct instructional time.  Precious teacher time will be expended in organizing, securing and administering GCA’s multiple times per year.  Additional professional time will be needed for record keeping and teacher training.  Time is a finite resource; time spent in all the administrative organizational aspects of testing is instructional time lost forever for students.

The cost of test development administration must not be overlooked.  It is estimated that the administration of PSSA’s currently cost $40 million annually.  It is projected that the development of 10 GCA’s will cost $50 million.  No cost or time estimate has yet been provided by the State Board of Education for the annual administration of the GCA’s.

We ardently believe that time and money should be invested in additional learning opportunities, not additional testing requirements.  School districts already offer ample local and state assessments.  The students who need additional instruction, remediation and support have already been identified.  No district needs an additional layer of testing to tell it what it already knows. 

CONCLUSION

Montgomery County educators are committed to having our students ready to compete in the 21st Century.  We recognize that all students must be ready and our districts have taken aggressive strides to reach student subgroups that have traditionally suffered.  We have identified both staff development needs and student instructional needs.  We don’t need another set of tests, such as the GCA’s to help us identify the real work that must be done.

It is important for the State Board to recognize multiple pathways for school districts to initiate school district reforms that promise to prepare all students for college and career success.  For example, we are fortunate to have many districts working with the Delaware Valley Minority Student Achievement Consortium.  All the consortium districts are committed to attending to identified conditions that enhance the achievement of all students, and most specifically increase the achievement, engagement and further success of their minority populations.

Additional testing is not the answer.  Changing the culture and climate of the learning conversations for all students is the only approach that can lead to sustainable results.  Scholars from distinguished colleges of education such as Brown, Harvard, UCLA, and Vanderbilt have been working with our school districts on systemic change.  Consider the following staff development workshop titles:

“Bridging Individual and Instructional Gaps in Expectations and Aspirations”

“Building a College-Going Culture for Students of Color”

“Empowering African American Males’ School Success”

“Facilitating Culturally Responsive Classrooms”

“School Building Leadership and Policy Development for Closing the Gap”

We realize that systemic change is the only way to narrow the achievement gap and we are dedicating our time and resources to creating systemic change.  We recognize that the most effective efforts to improve student achievement are those that build instructional capacity.

We applaud the Commission’s goal, but its basic premise is flawed. Furthermore, the Commission’s solution of instituting high stake GCA’s is shortsighted and clearly premature.  We urge the legislature to recognize that our school districts need to spend their finite resources on direct instruction, not testing.  Our current system of relying on multiple measure of assessment ensures that the graduation decision is valid and that multiple assessments more closely mirror the kinds of challenging work that our students will be required to perform as members of the global community. We implore our legislators to take the money allocated to testing and reallocate it to real programs and direct services to our students.  Further testing is not a wise investment of resources.

As Achieve, a national organization of governors, business leaders and education leaders, has noted:  “States…need to move beyond large-scale assessments because, as critical as they are, they cannot measure everything that matters in a young person’ education.  The ability to make effective oral arguments and conduct significant research projects are considered essential skills by both employers and postsecondary educators, but these skills are very difficult to assess on a paper-and-pencil test.”27

 

END NOTES

1. “High School Exit Exams:  Quick Facts” released by Children’s Defense Fund, September 2004
2. American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education.  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.  1999.  Standard 13.7
3. The Association of American Publishers.  Standardized Assessment:  A primer.  Available on line at http://www.publishers.org/school/pdf/Testing Primer Revised.pdf
4. National Academies Press:  Washington, DC.  1999. p.3.
5. American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education.  Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.  1999.p.14.
6. U.S. Department of Education.  National Center on Education Statistics.  Condition of Education 2003.  Washington DC
7. U.S. Department of Education.  National Center on Education Statistics.  Condition of Education 2002.  Washington DC
8. U.S. Department of Education.  National Center on Education Statistics.  Condition of Education 2004.  Washington DC
9. U.S. Department of Education.  National Center on Education Statistics.  Condition of Education 2001.  Washington DC
10. U.S. Department of Education.  National Center on Education Statistics.  School and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999-2000.  As cited in Barton, Paul E. Parsing the Achievement Gap.  Baselines for Tracking Progress.  Education Testing Service.  Princeton, New Jersey , October 2003.
11. Center on Education Policy. (2004).  State High School Exit Exams.  A Maturing Reform.  Washington, DC. P.7.
12. National Research Council.  Heubert, J.P. and Hauser, R. Eds. High Stakes:  Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation, National Academies Press:  Washington, DC 1999. p.3.
13. Story found at http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/26/testing.settlement.ap/
14. Steel, C.M. (1997). “A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identifies and performance of women and African-Americans.”  American Psychologist, 52, 613-629
15. National Research Council.  Engaging Schools:  Fostering High School Students’ Motivation to Learn.  Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2004. p. 57.
16. Center on Education Policy.  State High School Exit Exams:  A Maturing Reform.  Washington, DC.  2004. p.49.
17. Center on Education Policy.  State High School Exit Exams: A Maturing Reform.  Washington, DC. 2004. p.47.
18. Kreitzer, A.E., Madaus, F. and Haney, W. “Competency Testing and Dropouts.”  Dropouts from School: Issues, Dilemmas and Solutions.  L. Weis, E. Farrar and H.G. Petrie, Eds. Albany: State University of New York Press:  1989.  As cited in National Research Council.  Heubert, J.P. and Hauser, R. Eds. High Stakes:  Testing for Tracking, Promotion and Graduation. National Academies Press:  Washington, DC 1999. (p. 174).
19. Hamilton, Laura. Stecher, Brian and Klein, Stephen.  Making Sense Out of Test-based Accountability in Education.  Rand Corporation.  2002. p. 95
20. Hamilton, Laura. Stecher, Brian and Klein, Stephen.  Making Sense Out of Test-based Accountability in Education.  Rand Corporation.  2002. p. 92
21. Herman, Joan. “Instructional Effects in Elementary Schools.”  Center for the Study of Evaluation.  National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.  University of California, Los Angeles.  September 2002. p.9.
22. Hamilton, Laura. Stecher, Brian and Klein, Stephen.  Making Sense Out of Test-based Accountability in Education.  Rand Corporation.  2002. p. 99
23. “The Dangerous Consequences of High-Stakes Standardized Testing.”  National Center for Fair and Open Testing.  http://www.fairtest.org.
24. Darling-Hammond, Linda. Rustique-Forrester, Elle and Pecheone, Raymond.  “Multiple Measures Approaches to High School Graduation,” School Redesign Network.  Stanford University.  April 2005.
25. Center on Education Policy.  High School Exit Exams:  Cost to Consider.  Washington, DC 2006.
26. Coplin, B. 2004, “For New Graduates, ‘soft skills’ are the secret weapon in job hunt,” USA Today, June. 9.
27. Achieve, Inc. 2004.  Do Graduation Tests Measure Up?  A Closer Look at High School Exit Exams.  Washington, D.C.:  Achieve, Inc.  http://www.achieve.org/files/TestGraduation-FinalReport.pdf

 

APPENDIX A

The Governor’s Commission on College and Career Success

RECOMMENDATION 1
Require all Pennsylvania high school students to demonstrate proficiency on Pennsylvania's academic standards to graduate. Students can demonstrate proficiency by scoring proficient or advanced on the 11th grade PSSA or by passing a series of state-developed Graduation Competency Assessments.

RECOMMENDATION 2 
Require all school districts to record PSSA scores and Graduation Competency Assessments on all student transcripts, and further recommends that postsecondary institutions and employers in the commonwealth be encouraged to use this information for admission, placement and employment.

RECOMMENDATION 3
Accept the definitions of college and career ready in mathematics, English and science developed by the Commission for use in the review of standards, development of assessments, and development of curriculum.

RECOMMENDATION 4
Expand the definition of college and career ready content areas to include social studies and develop model curricula and Graduation Competency Assessments in this area in addition to the standards, curriculum, and evaluations that support math, science and language arts.

RECOMMENDATION 5
Develop preK-12 model curricula, including inquiry-based pedagogy, through which students can achieve academic standards and proceed on track to demonstrate proficiency on PSSA and Graduation Competency Assessments.

RECOMMENDATION 6
Develop and implement a preK-16 student information system that is designed to collect information on student performance.

RECOMMENDATION 7
Identify early on those students in danger of falling behind in their achievement of academic standards. Provide additional instruction and support services to put those students back on track for success. This early warning system should begin no later than the sixth grade.

RECOMMENDATION 8
Take all necessary action and expend adequate resources to redefine the role of guidance counselors and student service coordinators as school-wide facilitators of student advising to ensure that all high school students are well advised in school concerning post-graduation expectations and how to transition successfully into both college and career.

RECOMMENDATION 9
Establish new regional alliances of business, high schools, and higher education institutions where necessary and more fully utilize existing alliances to address specific challenges in preparing students to be college and career ready. These challenges, perhaps unique to specific regions, will be overcome most effectively with local stakeholders working in concert with statewide efforts to achieve college and career readiness.

RECOMMENDATION 10
Increase and enhance the number of educational options available to high school students to achieve high standards with particular attention to career and technical education.

RECOMMENDATION 11
Facilitate the coordination of existing, and the development of new, programs designed to encourage economically and educationally disadvantaged students to attend, be retained and complete their postsecondary education programs.

RECOMMENDATION 12
Build systematic approaches to re-engage and re-enroll former dropouts in high-quality programming that yields a high school diploma and leads to college and career success. The Pennsylvania Department of Education should lead this statewide effort in cooperation with other relevant commonwealth agencies.

 (PDF Copy  Portals/0/MCIUDocuments/Legis/White Paper GCA.pdf)