Pennsylvania seeks flexibility on partial GED scores
General Educational Development test takers who missed the January deadline to finish the high school equivalency exam could get an 18-month extension, acting state Secretary of Education Carolyn Dumaresq announced on Wednesday.
In January, the national GED Testing Service replaced its five-part 2002 exam with the more expensive and more rigorous four-part 2014 GED, leaving more than 43,000 Pennsylvania test takers with incomplete and invalid scores.
State officials are finalizing the process for those who successfully completed one or more sections of the 2002 GED exam to apply those scores toward the new test. Department of Education spokesman Tim Eller said the new protocols should be in place by May 1.
The move occurs on the heels of legislation state Rep. Hal English, R-Hampton, proposed that would require the Department of Education to accept partial scores from the 2002 test. House Bill 1930 passed the education committee this week. A companion bill, House Bill 1931, which Rep. Joe Hackett, R-Delaware, sponsored, requires the state to restore a pen-and-paper test-taking option.
English said he anticipates a smooth transition.
“Pennsylvania (is) looking to provide adult learners with flexibility and alternatives because these adult learners should have, and deserve, choice,” he said.
Both bills head to the full House for consideration.
Megan Harris is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach her at 412-388-5815 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.