Curriculum Matters

Last week I wrote about a study that drew some intriguing conclusions about the state of the "pipeline" of students entering math and science studies and fields. The analysis, by Hal Salzman of Rutgers University and Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University, found that the flow of students from K-12 schools to the workforce appears to be quite strong, contrary to the assertions of many policymakers today.

To the extent that students are leaving the pipeline, the authors found, they tend to be high-achieving students. In other words, young people don't seem to be fleeing those fields because of lack of ability, but because of other factors—such as that they don't find those jobs attractive for whatever reason.

Now, an organization that represents businesses, research universities, and foundations, who have a major interest in maintaining the "STEM" pipeline, is offering a critique of the study's methodology and conclusions. The Business-Higher Education Forum, in a paper made available to its members, says the loss of high-performing students in STEM was more likely explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000—not by college or businesses not doing enough to keep them.

"Students rationally voted with their feet as jobs vanished from an imploding sector of the economy," the BHEF says. Recent data, they say, shows an upswing of interest in engineering and computer science studies in recent years.

The BHEF, in examining the data in the Salzman/Lowell study, also asserts that it judges STEM in isolation, and people in other studies/careers tend to abandon those interests at similar rates. But a broader issue the study doesn't address, says BHEF Executive Director Brian Fitzgerald, is that STEM-related talents, particularly in technology, are increasingly demanded by businesses that, strictly speaking, have not been considered "STEM"-oriented in the past. He cites the growing need for STEM talent in the insurance industry, as one example. The business reps the BHEF works with talk often about the shift away from a manufacturing economy, and how important science- and math-related skills are becoming in their workplaces. The study doesn't account for that, he says.

"Across fields, more will be demanded," Fitzgerald told me. "Every major corporate sector is undergoing a shift, with technology at its core."

I contacted Salzman, who responded to BHEF's points. He acknowledges that the dot-com bust may have affected students' career choices, but says that ultimately proves the study's point: that STEM choices are market-driven. "I'm not sure [the pipeline is] 'broken,' if students choose to leave a field that is in decline," he wrote in an e-mail.

Salzman also says that, contrary to the BHEF's critique, the authors are not saying that top-achieving students avoiding STEM simply because companies aren't making those jobs attractive enough. The key point is that students are responding to what they know of job market conditions— and that it's not a matter of them not being academically gifted enough.

For instance, Salzman, who has studied labor markets extensively, says his research has shown that mid-level and senior engineering workers voice satisfaction with their careers, overall, but are concerned it won't be a good or stable a job in the future.

"The decline in retention from college to first job might also be due to loss of interest in STEM careers, but alternatively, top STEM majors may be responding to market forces and incentives," Salzman said by e-mail. "We tried to be very clear that there are number of possible explanations, and that the key point is that enrollments are sensitive to market conditions. This, then, would be entirely consistent with the [BHEF's point about dot-coms]. ... In fact, in terms of IT, we make that very case in a couple of earlier papers."

He also says when he and Lowell have written on this topic in the past on a similar theme, they've asked critics to provide data backing up the claim that demand for STEM jobs outstrips the supply of qualified talent. No such data has emerged, he said.

I'll invite readers to offer their own analysis of this debate, which—no matter what you come down—surely reflects one of the most important education-meets-labor market questions out there today.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, introduced a literacy bill into the U.S. Congress that would provide $2.35 billion in funding for literacy programs from kindergarten to 12th grade. The bill would replace federal reading programs such as Reading First and Striving Readers. A summary from Murray's office says that at least 10 percent of the bill's funding would go to early-childhood education, at least 40 percent would go to students in grades K-5, and at least 40 percent would be spent on students in grades 6-12. If the bill were passed and fully funded, it would give a substantial boost to adolescent literacy programs.

The federal government's only reading program that focuses on adolescents, Striving Readers, is financed with $35 million for the current fiscal year.

A spokesman for Murray said that a similar literacy bill (see a summary) is expected to be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives within the next two days.

I wrote about a draft of the literacy bill this summer. At that point, U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, who had co-sponsored the Striving Readers legislation with Murray, was expected to be a sponsor as well. But the press release I received today about the introduction of the bill in Congress doesn't list him as having endorsed the bill. It doesn't name any Republicans as sponsors.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0)

Those of you who've been wondering when the next round of common, multistate standards would appear may want to clear some time in mid-December. That's when the first draft of K-12 standards are likely to be unveiled, says one of the officials leading that process.

Dane Linn of the National Governors Association, one of two organizations guiding the Common Core State Standards Initiative, said at a forum on Wednesday that committees have been working on the K-12 document for a while now and a draft should be ready by the middle of next month. The K-12 document, as many readers know, is part two of the multistate standards project. Part one was the unveiling of draft college and career-readiness standards, back in September.

Officials from the NGA and Council of Chief State School Officers also expect to have members of a "validation" committee review the K-12 and end-of-high school documents at the same time, and have them approved by February, Linn added.

Linn was speaking on a panel on national standards hosted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, in Washington. Joining him at the event, which was moderated by Chester Finn, Fordham's president, were Sheila Byrd Carmichael, an education policy consultant; Stephen Wilson, a professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins University; and Sandy Kress, who was a senior adviser to George W. Bush and involved in the crafting of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Linn also said his team has surveyed the state officials they work with about how soon they might adopt common standards, once those documents are complete. Of 41 states that responded, 16 predicted that work could be done in one to six months, Linn said; 15 said it could take 6-12 months; 10 others indicated it would take 12 months or more.

What remains unclear is how the states' schedules for adopting common standards will mesh with the Race to the Top guidelines, which seem to set a more aggressive timeline for state action, as my colleague Michele McNeil noted in a recent story.

The Obama administration has proposed giving a competitive advantage to states applying for $4 billion in federal Race to the Top funding if they adopt common standards. It has also offered $350 million in competitive federal aid to states to craft common assessments based on common standards. Finn asked the NGA official if he expected that all states would adopt one common test, or if consortia or groups of states would band together to create their own assessments. Linn said Common Core officials had been talking with state leaders about the "pros and cons," of each approach and he expected a clearer picture to emerge in the next month or so.

Kress, during his opening remarks, argued that the standards won't mean much unless states agree to revamp teacher training and instructional materials to make the effort worthwhile. They'll also need good tests that measure what the standards call for and set high passing thresholds, he said. Without all that, standards amount to a "leaky bucket," Kress said, quoting from a recent paper by Russ Whitehurst, of the Brookings Institution. He also said the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, before rewarding states with federal funding for common standards, should make sure they're taking steps "to actually implement them, and effectively so."

"I say unless a state can can show it's doing all of these things," Kress said of standards, "what good are they?"

Want to hear more? Fordham's event was streamed live, and a recording should be available soon at the institute's site.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Many scientists have a lot to say. Unfortunately, a large swath of the public at large has trouble understanding what it is they're talking about.

This is a problem, many scientists agree, not just because important scientific facts and ideas are misunderstood, or because those topics end up getting ignored in the public sphere. The language barrier also makes it difficult for the public, including K-12 students, to grasp why science is important at all, and how it affects their lives.

In reporting a story recently, I was directed to an online resource that seeks to help scientists overcome these barriers. It's called "Communicating Science: Tools for Scientists and Engineers," and it's run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world.

The site, which is supported by the National Science Foundation, includes how-to tips for scientists to conduct interviews. It also houses online "webinars," ideas for coming up with public outreach opportunities, and a list of workshops to help scientists. For members of the working media, looking at these resources often has the added benefit of cluing us in to how the rest of humanity regards us (in some cases with fear and suspicion). But on the AAAS site, the authors try to anticipate scientists' struggles to explain their work to reporters and offer them practical tips. Here's a sample from the site:

"The phone rings, you answer. It's a reporter from the New York Times. She quickly explains that she's writing a story under deadline and another scientist she spoke to gave her your name. What should you do?

1. Hang up in fear.
2. Ask what the story is about and the deadline, and then arrange with the reporter a better time to talk, keeping in mind his or her deadline.
3. Say 'sure,' answer her first question, and then discuss in great detail your most recent published discovery for the next 30 minutes, interrupting the rest of the reporter's questions."

The correct answer, the site explains, is #2. This approach will give the scientist time to think through how he or she plans to explain a topic, the authors say. Other, more detailed advice for interviews is also included.

I often hear scientists talk about how difficult it is to explain the rules and language of science to lay audiences. Their frustration level was especially high during the spate of fights over evolution and intelligent design in schools a few years ago, when many scientific experts sought to describe the kinds of questions science can answer, and those that it can't. If you're a K-12 teacher or student, what tips could you give scientists on how they can explain their work in clear and lively terms?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The board that sets policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress has proposed new policies that would overhaul the rules for how English-language learners and students with disabilities are tested on that exam. The goal is to bring more uniformity and clarity to those policies, which have drawn a lot of complaints over the years. Some say NAEP scores are skewed by states and cities excluding and accommodating very different portions of their test-takers.

Next Monday, Nov. 9, at 9:30 a.m., interested parties will be able to give their opinions on the issue. The National Assessment Governing Board will hold a public hearing on the topic in Washington, D.C. (An earlier hearing was held in Los Angeles.) Public testimony will be allowed, as will the submission of written comments.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It might not be as opaque as a Kremlin shake-up, but knowing the exact reasons for the ouster of China's education minister is something of a guessing game, with national leaders saying little publicly about the reasons for his removal. Zhou Li was relieved of his post by the standing committee of the National People's Congress and replaced by his deputy, Yuan Guiren, according to news reports.

American leaders, of course, have looked with curiosity and more than a little bit of anxiety in recent years at China's rapid economic expansion and the improvements in its schools. But China Daily, a government-run publication, says that there was widespread dissatisfaction, at least in political circles, with the rate of progress. The article describes Zhou as "unpopular." It also notes that he was the former mayor of the city of Wuhan, where the university has been roiled by a bribery scandal. Zhou, however, has never been implicated in that matter, the story says.

The New York Times notes that Zhou served at a time when demand for education at all levels, including universities, was dramatically increasing in China, and that the nation has struggled to keep up. Low literacy and lack of access to education also remain major problems. At the very least, the removal of Zhou is a reminder of the enormous pressure China faces to meet the needs of its student population and create schools and universities capable of producing more qualified workers.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Literacy instruction "pops up on every corridor" at Buckhorn High School in New Market, Ala., writes my colleague Catherine Gewertz in an article published at edweek.org this week.

The article includes many examples of how teachers at that school are helping students to improve their literacy skills while also learning academic content.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 2:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the wake of a recent release of uninspiring test scores and a federal study showing that states lowered their "proficiency" standards, there's been a lot of tough and in some ways surprising analysis being put forward recently about math instruction in this country. Here's a sample:

—In The Baltimore Sun, a college physics professor and parent says schools are rushing students through overly difficult material, rather than ensuring that they are taught rigorous math through "age-appropriate concepts and techniques." Joseph Ganem describes his teenage daughter's struggles with high school trigonometry material that he says is at a level appropriate for upper-level college physics students. Many students, he says, are lost when they get to college-level math because they have been fed math processes but lack a solid understanding of math. "Learning techniques without understanding them," Ganem writes, "does no good in preparing students for college, where emphasis is on understanding, not memorization and computational prowess."

—The Des Moines Register looks beyond Iowa's overall state scores to examine how students are faring, by achievement level, when compared to those students' peers in other states. The paper's editorialists are troubled by the fact that Iowa has far fewer students scoring at the "advanced" level than top-performing states, particularly Massachusetts. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are also lagging behind those from more affluent backgrounds.

—A recent examination of states' tendency to set very divergent, and in many cases very low "proficiency" standards has a lot people asking hard questions of state officials. This story in the Chicago Sun-Times about that state's proficiency standards is one example.

—And on a different note, a new survey reveals just how lost many parents are when it comes to helping their children with math and science homework. Many mothers and fathers, it turns out, find it easier to talk about the perils of illegal drug use than about math and science content. The Orlando Sentinel sums up an Intel survey on parents' math and science knowledge, or lack of it.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Some of the individuals who have been selected to provide feedback on mathematics or English/language arts standards for college- and career-readiness are also part of the group of people charged with "validation" of the standards. My colleague Sean Cavanagh blogged about the fact that some people were members of more than one group in the common standards effort already this fall, but I heard more discussion about it when reporting on a story this week about the common standards push.

Four people—Arthur Applebee, Brian Gong, James Milgram, and Catherine Snow—are both in a feedback group and the validation group. Gong is actually in feedback groups for both math and English/language arts, as well as the validation group. All of these people are heavyweights in their field.

"There is some benefit to having a small number of individuals who serve on both groups," said Jodi Omear, a spokeswoman for the National Governors Association, one of the organizations overseeing the process. "This allows for some continuity in ensuring that we stay true to the goals of the initiative."

But Kyleen Beers, the president of the National Council of Teachers of English, said she believes it's a conflict of interest for individuals to provide both feedback and validation. "How can they turn around and offer accreditation on something they helped create?," she said.

Her group nominated two people for the validation group before the list of people in the feedback groups was released. She said she was surprised that one of the nominees ended up on both lists.

Gerald E. Sroufe, the director of government relations for the American Educational Research Association, said he believes it would better for the people in the feedback group and validation group to be different individuals representing different constituencies.

"Having as many different perspectives involved in the various stages of this is highly desirable," he said. "It's not that we only have a dozen people who can do this in the country."

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Academies has just released a handbook of sorts that seeks to give educators and others practical advice on how they can use museums, science centers, and other "informal" forms of education to improve student learning.

The guide, titled "Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments," is based on the research found in a study of informal science learning, released by the National Research Council earlier this year. Museums and science centers, as well as TV shows and other efforts, can be a major resource for science teachers and parents—if they know how to use them.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)