ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: Pa. students' reading, math 'outperformance' nothing to cheer about

| Saturday, April 14, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

With less than half of Pennsylvania fourth- and eighth-graders scoring as proficient on 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress math and reading exams, the fact that they outperformed national averages deserves only half a cheer — at the very most.

And with Pennsylvania scores changing little from the last time these biennial exams were given, in 2015, just maintaining the status quo — merely avoiding backsliding — is nothing to cheer about, either.

The Pennsylvania scores exceeded national averages by 4 or 5 percentage points. That's certainly preferable to lagging behind. But because that “outperformance” means that at best, 44 percent of Pennsylvania fourth- and eighth-graders scored as proficient — which means that at best, more than half of them fell short of proficiency — jeers are more fitting than cheers.

These scores are particularly disturbing given the billions of Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars spent on public education, showing that ever-growing funding for schools hasn't produced corresponding gains in academic performance. But count on teachers unions and the lawmakers beholden to them to perpetuate the insanity of doing the same thing — throwing still more money at public schools — and expecting better results.

And if they try to justify that approach by trumpeting Pennsylvania students' “outperformance,” they'll confirm their willingness to ignore just how far short of acceptable these exams' results really are.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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 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.

click me