Ardmore, PA, 19003
December 19, 2013
The official student newspaper of Lower Merion High School since 1929 www.themerionite.org
Volume 85, Issue 3
Superintendent says Keystones must go
Ma’ayan Doron
Class of 2014 On November 5, 2013, Superintendent McGinley, along with a coalition of other superintendents, sent a letter to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, the agency in charge of reviewing Pennsylvania State educational standards. The letter outlined problems with the Keystone exams, including the financial cost of the test, the detrimental effects of high-stakes testing, and a lack of communication between the state and schools. Their main request was to abolish the Keystones as a graduation requirement in Pennsylvania. On Tuesday, November 25 The Merionite sat down with Superintendent Dr. Christopher McGinley to discuss his views about the Keystones, their funding, and their effect on the LMSD curriculum. Merionite: Keystones have been debated for a while now. Where do you stand? I would just like us to think about what could come along down the line. Things like the Keystone exams are programs that are designed by politicians and not by a school board, and I want us to have a conversation with our political leaders about them. Our students generally do well on state standardized tests, so having another exam pushed upon us by the state is not new. I don’t think the Keystone exams are a bad assessment – I think they are a good assessment – I just don’t think they are necessary for as a school to impose as a graduation requirement. Now, we will do what we are required to do by the state, but that’s not a major influence on how we would plan for the future of the district. Merionite: Who is ‘we’? Is there any administrator within our district who is involved in this process besides you? Dr. Wagner Marseille is the most involved. Mr. Richard Marta, the head of counseling, also has a role in the testing administration. Merionite: Great. And so your main concern about Keystones is that you do not believe they are a necessary assessment because of LMSD teacher and student performance? Correct. But I also think that the state government has a limited amount of dollars, and that they have an obligation to help schools and school districts that are not doing well. I think that they should take those dollars that they are spending on an exam we don’t need, and spend that money where it is needed more. When you look at our SAT scores, our graduation rate, our ACT scores, you know we are doing fine. It is just an unnecessary interruption in student life to take these exams and
Photo courtesy of Julia Bell/Staff William Rosenbaum, a junior, takes his Literature Keystone exam. it takes away time from instruction. I think you would be much better off focusing on what the teacher is teaching rather than on taking Keystone exams. Merionite: You said we performed well on Keystones last year. Would it be safe to say you feel that, as a district, performance on the Keystones reflects our students’ abilities? We perform well when you look at the rest of the state. When we look at other assessments of the Keystone exam, scores weren’t as high in things like Algebra as I would have liked. So I do think there was some adjustment to the test itself, and I would think that as it is given over and over, things will be improved. Merionite: And so the final decision date for Keystone exams has already passed. Yes, just recently. But then again, it is a political decision. So, if there was a new governor, a new decision could be made. It is a political decision that is done, and it could be undone. Merionite: So, the way it currently stands, will Keystones again be conducted near the end of the year, which is the same time as ACT and SAT testing?
See KEYSTONES, page 2
Board reverses school zone decision after verdict Madelyn Schaeffer
Class of 2015 On November 18, the Lower Merion School Board approved a controversial districting plan that has been discussed and debated for over a year now. The newly enlarged schoolchoice zone hasn’t been in use since 2009 and was the subject of a very publicized and failed discrimination lawsuit. The old plan was reapproved after a three-hour meeting that ended with a majority vote of 5-4. The Board hopes that this new measure will adequately serve the needs of the two high schools throughout the upcoming spike in enrollment. The plan is expected to be able to do this by expanding the school-choice areas where LMSD students can choose to attend either high school. The newly expanded school-choice zone means that students living in sections of Ardmore, Narberth, and Penn Valley will have their choice of schools. Those opposing Board Members argued that more students would choose Lower Merion over Harriton. They feared that
an underpopulated Harriton would lead to program cuts at the school. According to November 20 article in the Main Line Times, Board members such as Diane DiBonaventuro who voted against the plan explained that students often thought of attending LM as a privilege and going to Harriton as a burden. The redistricting program approved in 2009 succeeded in creating equal student bodies at both schools. This plan brought $210 million dollars in upgrades to the campuses and what DiBonaventuro hopes to be a change in the perception of Harriton as an inferior school to LM. Freshman Sam Gamberg supports the plan and commented that “My house is located in the smaller choice zone and I used it to my advantage to chose LM over Harriton after attending Welsh Valley so I think that it’s a great idea to expand the choice-zone.” He stated that “It isn’t really fair how all of the kids who went to Bala Cynwyd have the option to go to
Harriton or LM but the majority of the kids who go to Welsh Valley are forced to go to Harriton.” This statement is the type of comment that DiBonaventuro fears will impact the sizes of the student bodies in both high schools. School Board President, Melissa Gilbert, discussed the predicted future enrollment and past redistricting plans in great detail with others on the board and decided not to postpone the choice zone expansion for two years. Instead the board decided to pass the plan and expand the school-choice zone immediately. Supporters of the plan brought up references to the 2009 lawsuit that was brought onto the school district by a coalition of families claiming the proposed redistricting plan was a form of discrimination. The School Board claimed that the new plan would heal wounds that the old plan had made.
See SCHOOL ZONE, page 3