Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Future Ready Index topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pennsylvania education officials defend Future Ready PA Index as multi‑indicator tool amid concerns over ELA declines
Summary
State Department of Education officials told the House Education Committee the Future Ready PA Index provides a multi‑indicator view of school performance — attendance, growth, graduation, English‑learner progress and career readiness — and said recent gains in attendance and career benchmarks contrast with declines in English language arts that officials attribute to student test behavior, test timing and alignment with instruction.
Pennsylvania Department of Education Deputy Secretary Amy Lena told the House Education Committee that the Future Ready PA Index was designed to ‘‘tell the full story of how schools are serving students, not reducing that story to a single score’’ and to support transparency and targeted improvement. The index displays multiple indicators side by side and uses a color/arrow system to show whether a school has met interim benchmarks and the direction of year‑to‑year change.
Lena said the index is not a punitive label but ‘‘a tool for continuous improvement’’ and highlighted recent gains in regular attendance, career readiness benchmarks and graduation rates. ‘‘We saw regular attendance going up, meaning students are coming to school and learning,’’ she said, and the index’s career readiness indicators place Pennsylvania near the top nationally in middle school benchmarks.
But lawmakers pressed PDE officials about falling English language arts (ELA) results. Brian Campbell, director of the Bureau of Curriculum, described three test‑taking patterns the department observed this year: a roughly 4 percent rise in items that students left blank, an 8 percent increase in ‘‘non‑scoreable responses’’ (answers that were not on task), and an average of about 15 fewer minutes spent on the ELA PSSA per student compared with last year. ‘‘If a student takes the time to write and is off task, it doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t write,’’ Campbell said, urging the committee to investigate whether instruction and the test remain aligned.
Committee members also sought clarity on the index’s targets. PDE explained the state set a long‑range target for 2033 and broke that into annual interim benchmarks so schools can track progress each year: meeting the green interim benchmark indicates a school is on track toward the 2033 goal. Members asked whether the index can be disaggregated by subgroup and geography; Lena and Campbell said users can filter by county and federal subgroup categories (race/ethnicity, students with IEPs, low socioeconomic status and English learners) and that the index includes additional voluntary indicators such as career and college signals beyond the six federal ESSA measures.
Lawmakers raised questions about cyber schools, transition years and how to interpret PVAS and proficiency measures. PDE staff said transition years (for example, fifth to sixth or sixth to seventh grade) often show enrollment and instructional changes that produce score ‘‘hiccups’’ and that PVAS is a projection of the growth a student would need to reach proficiency, while proficiency itself is a single‑day, test‑score calculation.
The session ended with departmental testimony that the index helps identify where supports are needed — for example, schools showing red indicators with downward arrows — and with an acknowledgement from PDE that ELA will be a priority area for further investigation and possible standards review.
The committee did not take formal action at the hearing; members signaled they will continue oversight work and data collection on the index and related assessment policy.
