By guest blogger Morgan Miller

It's never too early to learn the fundamentals of business—at least that's the philosophy of a new charter school outside of Salt Lake City, where those lessons begin in elementary grades.

Highmark Charter School's goal is to provide its 550 K-8 students with practical business lessons, integrated within the core curriculum, in an effort to encourage critical-thinking skills. Students at the school, which is located in the city of South Weber and is independent of any school district, offers the usual lineup of language arts, math, science, and history classes, but lessons on business practices and entrepreneurship are woven throughout those courses. Students are introduced to four specific areas of business: sales and marketing; management and leadership; finance and economy; and entrepreneurship.

The school also exposes students to the business world through non-academic means. They are expected to wear "business casual" dress to school. They participate in school fairs focused on entrepreneurship. Last week, students took part in a Lemonade Day where they not only made and sold their own beverages but were expected to follow health department guidelines while offering customers presentations of their business plans, describing their business goals, startup costs, and expected sales and profits.

Kent Fuller, Highmark's principal, said the school is trying to cultivate an understanding of business that goes beyond the basics of sales, marketing, and finance.

"We aren't just about making money," Fuller said. The purpose of Highmark, he said, is for kids to learn subjects that they can apply in many contexts, and show them "how to change the world."

At the earliest grade levels, students are introduced to business ideas in ways that are meant to be easy for them to grasp. For instance, some second-graders have been reading the fable "The Ant and the Grasshopper," which sets the stage for a discussion of hard work and planning, and the application of basic business principles.

Ted Tucker, vice president for program affairs and administration at the Foundation for Teaching Economics said that he believes schools like Highmark are grounding students in important skills.

"We believe people who have an understanding of economic reasoning are better at making decisions and life choices, such as public policy choices," Tucker said. "They can better analyze situations."

The organization offers a program for schools that share some aspects of Highmark's educational model. It promotes efforts to weave economic literacy into academic subjects such as history. Tucker believes economic concepts can be introduced to students at all grade levels, as long as they're offered in ways that are age-appropriate.

Malhaz Jibladze, a Foundation for Teaching Economics mentor and online instructor, has been teaching economics for nine years. He believes the topic deserves a strong place in the curriculum.

"When you look at economics, it's prevalent in decisionmaking" throughout government and society, he said. "When you look at politics and political debates, most of the issues are based on economics."

But Jibladze also questioned how much value studies of business and economics have for young students.

"The earliest I taught economics was middle school," he said. "When you look at business and personal economic concepts, you have to have practical knowledge of it" to understand those issues.

Highmark officials will soon learn whether parents approve of the school's academic philosophy. Earlier this week, the school sent out a survey to families asking for feedback on Highmark's first year in operation. Although faculty and staff are still waiting for the results, Highmark has already reached its capacity next year with a projected enrollment of 690 students, who will include the school's first class on 9th graders.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The same day Rhode Island became the first state to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, the document got what looks to be a warning shot across the bow from the chairman of the Kentucky Senate education committee. In particular, the Republican lawmaker, elected in 2010, raised concerns about the handling of evolution and climate change in the standards.

As we've noted before, those two issues have long been seen as potential political challenges for the science standards, which were developed by 26 "lead state partners" (including Kentucky) in collaboration with several national organizations. The standards, and the science behind them, were guided by a framework developed by a panel of experts in science and science education convened by the congressionally-chartered National Research Council.

In his Op-Ed, published yesterday in the Courier-Journal newspaper of Louisville, Sen. Mike Wilson questioned elements of how both evolution and climate change are handled.

"As chairman of the education committee, ... I would ask that these requirements be thoroughly and impartially reviewed and vetted," he writes. "Political correctness bears watching and should never be the arbiter of learning."

On climate change, Sen. Wilson singles out two statements from the Next Generation Science Standards (drawn directly from the NRC framework), including one that says: "Human activities, such as release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth's mean surface temperature."

He said this statement appears to be drawn from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "There are those in the scientific field who question the beliefs of [that panel]," he writes. Wilson, in fact, questions whether climate change is even occurring.

The most recent of the periodic assessment reports from the IPCC, published in 2007, said evidence of global warming, and resultant sea and ocean temperatures and rising sea levels, is "unequivocal." It also says "there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities" over the last few hundred years has been one of warming. The IPCC is an intergovernmental scientific body, with thousands of scientists and other experts writing and reviewing its reports.

Meanwhile, a 2011 NRC report (not connected to the science standards) sums up the evidence on climate change this way: "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities, and poses significant risks for a range of human and natural systems."

It is worth noting that the language in the science standards, again taken from the NRC standards framework, does not include the "very likely" caveat with regard to human activities.

Wilson also raises questions about the science behind evolution. The NRC framework, and the standards, make clear that "evolution and its underlying genetic mechanisms of inheritance and variability are key to understanding both the unity and the diversity of life on Earth." The framework document notes: "Biological evolution is supported by extensive scientific evidence ranging from the fossil record to genetic relationships among species."

Wilson writes: "Standards should encourage teachers to create and foster an environment that promotes critical-thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of multiple theories."

It remains to be seen what influence Sen. Wilson will have with the state board of education in Kentucky. The board is expected to vote on provisional adoption of the standards in June.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

UPDATED (May 24, 2013)

Rhode Island has become the first state to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, after its state board of education on Thursday voted unanimously to approve them.

It is one of the 26 "lead state partners" that helped to develop the standards in collaboration with several national organizations. At least two other states, Kentucky and Maine, have signaled that they would likely vote on adoption this spring, and many more may well follow suit later this year, including California and Kansas.

"Rhode Island is proud to be the first to forge a new path for science education as both a leading state in the development and the first state to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards," said the state's education commissioner, Deborah Gist, in a statement today. "The new standards will make sure our students are exposed to rigorous science content and that they learn critical and contextual thinking skills needed to be prepared for college, career and life in the 21st century global economy."

The K-12 standards, more than three years in the making, went through two rounds of public comment before they were issued in final form last month. Two of the central tenets of the standards are providing a greater emphasis on depth over breadth in science education and asking students to apply their learning through the practices of scientific inquiry and engineering design.

Peter McLaren, a science and technology specialist at the Rhode Island department of education, emphasized his state's deep involvement in crafting the standards from day one.

"First of all, we were part of it from the beginning," he told me. "We were part of the development. Being a lead state partner was not a passive role. We had a strong voice."

His state's 36-member review team provided detailed feedback on multiple versions of the standards. That team included many K-12 teachers and school administrators, as well as college professors in science and education, and even representatives from a zoo and the state chapter of the Audubon Society.

McLaren, who was himself a member of the 41-member writing team for the standards, said he sees great value in states having common standards in science, especially with the ability to team up and share resources.

"Right now, there are 50 sets of standards, each of them unique," he said. "There is real power in being able to talk the same talk across states. That is huge."

However, the standards are not being universally welcomed. Some critics, for instance, say the priority they place on science and engineering practices risks overshadowing the core content students should learn. Also, the standards' treatment of climate change has drawn criticism from some conservatives.

Last week, in fact, a state Senate Republican in Kansas inserted a provision into a budget bill that would have prevented the use of state dollars to implement the science standards (as well as the common core), but budget negotiators have since stripped out that language). Also, the chairman of the Senate education committee in Kentucky (another lead state) yesterday published an Op-Ed raising concerns about how the standards treat evolution and climate change.

How many states ultimately choose to adopt the standards remains to be seen, of course. Most, if not all, of the lead states in crafting them seem likely to do so. In addition, some other states tracked the development of the standards closely, and may eventually sign on as well.

Meanwhile, back in Rhode Island, the focus now turns to the daunting task of implementing the standards. In fact, Rhode Island and others have already begun laying the ground work, as I reported recently.

McLaren said his state will move slowly and deliberately.

"We are going to go with a four-year timeline," he said. "All of the systems are going to be affected by this: professional development, instruction, curriculum, assessment, preservice [education], materials and resources. ... Nobody wants to rush in."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Next Generation Science Standards are about to face their first real political test since completion, as the state board of education in Rhode Island is expected to vote on adoption later today. That said, it appears to be a pretty safe bet that the Ocean State's board will look favorably on them, as I blogged the other day.

Rhode Island is one of the 26 "lead state partners" that helped to develop the standards. Two other states that have signaled that they would likely vote on adoption this spring include Kentucky and Maine. (As I reported earlier this year, don't be surprised if some states beyond the lead partners also adopt.)

Even before a single state adopted the new K-12 standards, however, conversations and activity was getting underway to help support implementation. In a two-part special package from Education Week, I examined some of those issues. The first segment offered a big-picture look at key issues, including professional development and teacher education, assessment, and curriculum and instruction. Also in that first part, I explored the role that the "informal science education" sector (such as zoos, science museums, radio programs etc.) can play as an implementation ally.

In the second segment, I focus on some early examples of educators who already have been grappling with the standards, as well as the standards framework developed by the National Research Council. These teachers, scattered around the country, have been engaged in professional development to better understand the vision for science education espoused by the NRC framework and the standards, and have started to bring that understanding to their classrooms.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As I've covered the Common Core State Standards for the past three years, it's been impossible to escape a fundamental question: To what extent are school systems able to put the standards into practice? This week, we begin a series of stories that explores that question in detail, in one district, one school, and one classroom.

I have spent six months reporting on common-core English/language arts implementation in the District of Columbia public schools. Photographer Jared Soares and I spent many, many hours in 8th grade English/language arts teacher Dowan McNair-Lee's 4th period class at Stuart-Hobson Middle School on Capitol Hill. We watched as she worked to infuse the new standards into her teaching, struggling to fill the gaps in knowledge that her students bring to school every day. We hung around with her in professional-development sessions and school-based coaching sessions. We followed the school's instructional coach, Sarah Hawley, as she worked with teachers, and Stuart-Hobson's assistant principal, Katie Franklin, as she tried to bring teachers along in their pedagogy.

We also watched the district's vision for the common core take shape at the top levels of the district. We follow Brian Pick, who oversees all things curriculum-and-instruction for DCPS, as he moves some of DCPS' tectonic plates, shoring up support for budgetary and calendar shifts to accommodate the intense push of the common core. We follow him on school visits, where he searches for signs of what is working and what isn't.

Mostly, we watched how the vision of common core that originates at the district level makes its way downstream to the schools and teachers, mostly through a big group of instructional coaches. We see the strengths that DCPS brings to the work, as well as the limitations that encumber it.

I welcome you to read along with this story as it unfolds, and share your thoughts. Part 1 is running now. Parts 2 and 3 will appear in the first half of June. Then we'll follow up in late summer with a final installment that explores what the year has meant for the district, and for those at Stuart-Hobson.

You can explore our first story a little differently here: check it out!

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

House and Senate negotiators in Kansas have reportedly dropped from a state budget bill a controversial measure that would have blocked the spending of state dollars on the Common Core State Standards for math and literacy, as well as the Next Generation Science Standards finalized last month.

The Witchita Eagle newspaper makes a brief mention of the action in a story posted late yesterday. Further details and analysis are supplied by the Tallman Education Report, a blog authored by a representative from the Kansas Association of School Boards, which opposed the standards provision.

I first blogged about this matter yesterday. If approved, it likely would have proven a significant hurdle for the common-core and science standards.

The Tallman Report says that a stand-alone House bill blocking state spending on the common core was "narrowly defeated" by the House education committee earlier this year.

In a phone conversation, Tallman cautioned that the issue may not be settled yet for this year. "If that budget [bill] fails, they will send that back to conference committee," he said, where lawmakers might decide to reinsert the budget proviso on standards (though apparently there may be technical reasons it's not permitted). Alternatively, legislators could again try to pass a stand-alone bill. "We're nearing the end [of the legislative session], Tallman told me. "I guess I would say, I don't know if the issue is completely closed out."

What was especially curious about the language on the science standards was that Kansas has not even adopted them yet, though it was one of the 26 "lead state partners" that crafted them. The Kansas state board of education is expected to adopt them later this year.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you've been following the adventures of the two consortia of states that are designing tests for the common standards, then you've likely heard that ACT Inc. has jumped into the game by announcing a similar suite of assessments. One state, Alabama, has already decided to go that route instead of using the tests being crafted by PARCC and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.

Two of the people overseeing the Iowa testmaker's new set of tests, called Aspire, dropped by EdWeek's offices yesterday, so we asked them where things stood with the project.

Jon Erickson, president of ACT's education division, and Paul J. Weeks, who oversees Aspire's development as ACT's vice president for career and college readiness, weren't ready to offer any information on which states, if any, are seriously considering using Aspire as their year-end tests for accountability.

But they noted that several states—some that are participating in a consortium and some that aren't—have put out solicitations for such tests. The implication was that one or more PARCC or SBAC members could be in play as potential customers lured over to Aspire. We'll get back to you with more on this when there is more to report.

When I asked Erickson to talk about Aspire as a competitor to the two federally funded assessment consortia, he disputed that notion.

"It wasn't a move to take common core down," he said, "that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's a complementary effort."

I asked him what would be wrong with just coming right out and saying Aspire is an alternative to the PARCC and Smarter Balanced tests. After all, I said, some state education chiefs, like Tony Bennett in Florida, have expressed a need for a "Plan B" in case the consortium tests don't take shape as expected.

"We are a Plan B," he said. "States have asked for a Plan B alternative. We are here for the long haul. We're spending money out of our own pockets; We're not dependent on the political winds. It's still a free economy."

And right there you see some of ACT's marketing strategy. They're raising doubt about the consortia's long-term sustainability, which is a concern high on the consortia's own radars, as we've told you. Aspire's timeline, too, is clearly intended to help it get a competitive foothold; it promises its tests for spring 2014, a year ahead of what PARCC and Smarter Balanced are promising. (Look how prominently that timeline is displayed on Aspire's web page, too.)

As for the test itself, Weeks and Erickson said the current projected price is about $20 per student for tests in English/language arts, reading, writing, math, and science in grades 3-8 and 9-10. That's the neighborhood PARCC and SBAC are trying to hover in for their tests, too. Currently, Aspire is conducting small-scale trials on test forms, with 305,000 students involved so far, Weeks said. Studies are also being conducted to establish a cutoff score that would align to ACT's college readiness benchmarks, and to ensure test results are equally valid on the online and the paper-and-pencil versions of the test.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The political pushback on the common core has reached Kansas, it seems, where a Republican lawmaker has inserted language into a budget bill that would prevent the state from spending any money on implementation of the math and literacy standards. But that's not all. The provision by Sen. Ty Masterson, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, also says no state funds can be spent on the Next Generation Science Standards finalized last month. In effect, that's a preemptive strike on the science standards, since the state hasn't adopted them.

Certainly, my understanding is that the state board of education in Kansas is very likely to adopt them. (And Masterson, it would seem, shares this view.) Kansas is one of 26 "lead state partners" that helped to craft the standards. It assembled a statewide team of some 60 Kansans to review multiple drafts of the document. And the state board got monthly updates on the development of the standards for more than a year. Here's a press release from the state department of education at the time the standards were issued in final form.

In explaining his measure, Masterson said, "There is a general resistance to the federal government imposing on our schools," according to the Associated Press. The story quotes another Republican lawmaker, Rep. John Bradford, as saying, "Education is local, should be local, and controlled by the state. We have good education in Kansas. Why change it?"

(I'm not sure whether these comments are specific to the common core, or whether they also concern the science standards. Although the federal government did not develop either set of standards, it did provide financial and policy incentives for states to adopt the common core, which has sparked strong criticism from some quarters. To date, the federal government has provided no such incentives for adopting the science standards.)

It's not yet clear whether Masterson's provision in the budget bill will survive. What's also not clear to me is what's driving his opposition to the science standards. I contacted him to find out, but did not hear back.

It could be a case of "guilt by association," where the criticism of the common core begins to bleed over into the next set of common standards, even though they are entirely separate and were developed under different circumstances. A couple of news accounts in Kansas suggest Masterson's opposition may have to do with how the science standards treat the teaching of evolution, long a source of controversy in Kansas. (The standards identify evolution as a core principle for understanding the life sciences.) Another possibility indicated in those accounts was how the standards address the teaching of climate change.

An editorial in the Wichita Eagle sharply criticized Masterson's move.

"Never mind that school districts around the state have spent three years and a lot of money getting ready for the common-core standards, which were voluntarily adopted by 45 states and are not a case of 'the federal government imposing on our schools,' as Masterson put it, or that bills to block common core didn't even have enough support to make it out of either chamber's education committee," it says.

In the meantime, as I blogged the other day, Rhode Island may become the first state to adopt the science standards. The state board in the Ocean State is scheduled to vote on the matter later this week. Stay tuned.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:44 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Students who successfully complete an Advanced Placement computer science class in Washington state will get a math or science credit toward graduation, rather than having it count as an elective, under legislation Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee signed last week.

"If we can encourage more of our students to try their hand at computer science in high school, we can open their world to so many amazing careers," the governor, who took office in January, said in a press release.

The action makes Washington the 10th state to count computer science as a core math or science credit, according to a press release from Washington STEM, a broad-based advocacy group for improved science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Currently, the group says, only 35 out of Washington's 622 high schools offer the course.

"This is a step forward to making Washington state a national STEM leader," said Brad Smith, an executive vice president at Microsoft and a founding board member of Washington STEM. "Every young person in our state should have the chance to learn how to code; it's the new language of opportunity." You can hear more from Smith on the issue in this blog post.

Microsoft last September issued what it called a National Talent Strategy that features a push for expanding access to computer science education, as well as improving STEM education more broadly. (It also calls for a short-term strategy to allow more foreign workers with STEM skills into the United States.)

Participation in AP computer science has grown by more than 60 percent over the past five years. About 19,000 AP computer science tests were taken by the graduating class of 2012, up from roughly 12,000 in the class of 2007.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A group of state education chiefs has sent a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, urging him to resist a call for a moratorium on high-stakes uses of tests on the common standards.

In a letter released today, Chiefs for Change says that accountability measures tied to the Common Core State Standards should be preserved, not delayed.

"The members of Chiefs for Change reject any calls for a moratorium on accountability," the letter says. "This position overstates the challenge and undervalues our educators. ... We will not relax or delay our urgency for creating better teacher, principal, school, and district accountability systems as we implement more rigorous standards. That is a disservice to our students and would undermine the tremendous amount of preparation our states' education agencies, districts, schools, and educators have contributed to this multiyear effort."

Without mentioning her by name, the Chiefs were referring to AFT President Randi Weingarten, who recently called for a moratorium on high-stakes consequences of the common standards and their assessments. She was referring to policies like teacher evaluations that are based in part on how well students score on those tests.

Chiefs for Change, you might recall, is operated by the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the Tallahassee, Fla.-based group founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

In the letter to Duncan, Chiefs for Change called that position tantamount to "pulling back on accountability."

In her speech, Weingarten specifically refuted this claim, knowing it would be forthcoming. She argued that schools and teachers should be held accountable for the common core, but not until they were given enough time to get adequate materials and professional development for it.

Chiefs for Change said that states should—and could—ensure a "thoughtfully" managed transition to the common standards, with sufficient professional development for teachers, and careful attention given to how the new standards will affect teacher evaluations and other policies.

Hanna Skandera, one of the 11 chiefs who signed the letter, said it was driven by "hearing various conversations going on across the country right now and having such a strong conviction, as Chiefs for Change, about the importance of accountability first and foremost."

"We wanted to just say, 'Wait, we've worked so hard as a nation, and in our own states, to take a stand for what we believe is putting kids first, what allows us to get better information so we can get better at serving our kids,'" she said in a telephone interview.

"Now is not the time to step away from accountability, but to embrace it," said Skandera, New Mexico's acting chief. "As we transition to the common core, there is no reason to put a halt on accountability."

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 7:35 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend