School may be out for the summer but state lawmakers are busy at the Capitol working to change the rules governing standardized testing for high school students as well as evaluating and furloughing teachers.

House and Senate education committees on Monday approved bills that would:

Replace the Keystone Exams with the Scholastic Aptitude Test

As part of that legislation, it also would make revisions to the teacher evaluation system including allowing parents and students to offer input in rating their teachers.

Allow school boards to lay off teachers for economic reasons and allow those

Both bills can now advance through their respective chambers for consideration.

REPLACING KEYSTONES: This legislation, approved by the Senate Education Committee by a 8-4 vote, would kill the Keystone Exams and switch to the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) that 70 percent of Pennsylvania students already take for college admission purposes. The switch would take effect in 2018-19.

Sen. Andy Dinniman, D-Chester County, who sponsored the bill, said with the state picking up the cost of the SATs, it would likely allow more students from lower-income families the opportunity to take the SATs and possibly qualify for scholarships to continue their education. He said that's what happened in New York and Maine.

The tests the SATs would replace are a series of end-of-course exams in Algebra I, biology, and literature that has been administered to students for the past four years. The state has spent $1.3 billion over the past eight years to develop the three exams, model curriculum, and classroom diagnostic tools related to these state tests, Dinniman said. Others suggest the amount is much lower.

The Keystones are used to meet the accountability requirements tied to the federal Every Student Succeeds Act to evaluate students' mastery of those subjects as well as teacher and school performance.

They also were to be used to determine students' eligibility to graduate, starting with the Class of 2017, but lawmakers last year imposed a two-year moratorium on that requirement out of concern that some districts lacked resources to buy textbooks and align curriculum to prepare students for the exams.

Dinniman said his bill would rely on the PSAT given in the fall of the sophomore year, starting in the next fall, to measure student's academic growth by comparing it to what Dinniman said will likely be a student's best SAT score. Along with changing the high school test, the legislation would restrict the administration of the tests to no more than two days of class time and require it be scored and returned to the school within 30 days. It also would guarantee parents the right to have their children opt-out of the testing.

He estimates the swapping the Keystones for the SATs next year would result in a $8 million to $10 million savings.

If the legislation is enacted, Pennsylvania would join 12 other states that want to use the SAT or ACT, both college entrance exams, for federal accountability purposes, according to Education Week.

TEACHER EVALUATION REFORM: Because student performance on Keystone Exams accounts for half of a teacher's evaluation score with the other half relying on principal observation under a 2012 state law, eliminating the Keystones means the evaluation system has to change.

Dinniman is proposing reducing the principal observation to 40 percent and possibly in two years, allowing student and parent feedback each to account for 5 percent of the evaluation score.

The remainder of the score would be based on student test performance and academic growth on either the SAT for teachers who teach the core subjects tested in that aptitude test or some locally developed evaluation tool for teachers who teach other disciplines.

Dinniman said the proposed changes to the evaluation system was the result of two hearings and dozens of meetings with interest groups. He noted seven states already require parental and student input and that Pittsburgh schoolteachers have it in their contract and the student input starts with kindergartners. His bill would only call for giving parents and student input on high school teachers although he suggested a future conversation could look at extending that down to the lower grades.

"We felt that in fairness the parent pays taxes, loves their child, has no role in this process and neither does the student," said Dinniman, a part-time West Chester University professor. "I don't know how you could possibly teach without hearing from your students. I know it made a great deal of difference in my teaching."

Sen. Ryan Aument, R-Lancaster County, who authored the 2012 law creating the teacher evaluation system, was the most vocal opponent of the proposal. He told the committee that he is not alone in his dislike for the proposal. The Pennsylvania State Education Association, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry, the state Department of Education, and Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children share his concern.

He expressed dismay over using an aptitude test to arrive at a teacher-specific score in the evaluation system. He disliked reducing the percentage that principal observation counts in teacher evaluation suggesting it should be increased not lowered. And he made it clear he sees the switch to the Common Core-aligned SATs as a move toward adopting national Common Core standards and a national curriculum to prepare students for a national assessment, a move he campaigned against when he ran for Senate four years ago.

"This is most certainly a significant step towards a national assessment, the SATs, which will require a significant realignment of our standards to national standards and require our local school districts at significant cost to realign their curriculum which will certainly put us on the path to a national curriculum," he said.

Other senators, Republican and Democrats, also had other issues with the proposal and suggested they would support it only if Dinniman and Senate Education Committee Chairman John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, were open to some changes, which they indicated they were. Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon County, said he would support the bill to move it along the legislative process and offered as his reason: "the status quo just doesn't cut it."

ECONOMIC FURLOUGHS: After a similar bill was vetoed last year by Gov. Tom Wolf, Rep. Steve Bloom, R-Cumberland County, is trying again to give local school boards the flexibility to remove ineffective teachers in the event that economic conditions necessitate layoffs.

The House Education Committee, by a 15-10 party-line vote, approved a bill that would end seniority-only based teacher furloughs.

Pennsylvania is now one of only six states that use "blind seniority" as the sole factor in determining which teachers are laid off, Bloom said. It also adds economic conditions to the list of permitted reasons when layoffs can occur. The others are enrollment declines, program curtailment, and school or school district realignment.

"Because of the current law we often see wholesale closure of entire schools or programs instead of carefully protecting our best teachers," Bloom said. "This bill, the Protecting Excellent Teachers Act, would finally allow for a measured and rationale approach to those unfortunate situations when an economic furlough would be required."

Under the legislation, teachers with an "unsatisfactory" rating on the two most recent evaluations would be suspended first, followed by teachers who received one "unsatisfactory" rating in their two most recent evaluations, then teachers who received a "needs improvement" rating in two most recent evaluations. Teachers with a "proficient" or "distinguished" rating would be suspended last. Seniority would only be factored in when two employees have the same overall rating.

Teachers would be reinstated in inverse order of suspension.

Democrats argued that they felt the way the bill was written and it could be applied too broadly; is tied to a teacher evaluation system that is viewed by some as flawed and Senate is trying to change; and that it could serve as a disincentive to lure people into the teaching profession, which is already experiencing a shortage in some areas.

Bloom voiced hope this bill wouldn't face the same fate as the one that Wolf vetoed, saying he removed tenure reform language that some found objectionable.

Wolf vetoed the bill, among other reasons, because he felt it was an intrusion on the ability of local school boards and education associations to negotiate what works best for their communities.

*This post was updated.