December 2008 Archives

"Sesame Street" has sought for years to help children from all backgrounds develop basic reading skills. Can "Planet 429" help them read and comprehend?

WTTW National Productions, a Chicago-based company, has begun production of a TV show to be titled "Mission to Planet 429," which, like Sesame Street and other educational-themed programs, will seek to help nurture students' reading skills as it entertains them.

"Planet 429" is expected to hit the air on PBS about a year from now, targeting 6- to 9-year-olds. The show seems likely to receive an added dose of publicity because of one of the creative minds behind it, in particular: film writer, director, and cinematographer Roman Coppola.

One of the main goals of the program is to use video and multimedia presentations to help students conquer a crucial reading barrier—learning how to comprehend what they read, a challenge students typically confront around 4th grade, said Reese Marcusson, the executive vice-president of WTTW. The show will also be linked with a Web site that seeks to build students' skills in reading informational text in a number of ways, he added.

The show is supported in part by a Ready to Learn grant from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Innovation and Improvement. "Planet 429" is one of four WTTW programs receiving funding through a 5-year grant worth $47.5 million, Marcusson said. About 30 percent of that funding is going toward research and evaluation of each of the programs' ability to boost students' reading ability, he added. One of those programs, which is already running on PBS stations, is "WordWorld," aims to help 3- to 5-year-olds with reading.

The grant's emphasis on research "gives us the opportunity to test some things and show that it works," Marcusson explained.

Roman Coppola, as many film buffs know, is the son of acclaimed Hollywood director Francis Ford Coppola ("The Godfather," "Apocolypse Now," and my personal favorite, "The Conversation") and the brother of director Sofia Coppola ("Lost in Translation"). Roman Coppola (I've attached a photo) has an extensive resume of his own, having worked in several areas of film making, from writing and directing to sound recording.

The plot of "Mission to Planet 429" is a fantasy that follows the adventures of two intergalactic explorers who get dropped off on earth, a planet about which they have no basic understanding, Marcusson explained. This leads to adventures and comic misunderstandings. The show will be connected to an interactive Web site and multimedia features.

As with other education-themed shows produced by WTTW, the creators of "Planet 429" will develop curriculum for the program, which will include storyboards and animation. The goal is for "Planet 429" to air on PBS and on other stations internationally, Marcusson said. The costs of putting the show together that are not covered by the grant will be supported through private fund-raising, he said.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Every week seems to bring new drama for besieged Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Will he resign, or be impeached? Can he successfully defend himself against federal corruption charges? Most recently, will the man he has nominated to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris, ever be allowed to serve?

But those of us who focus on education might be asking another question: What does Robert Schiller make of all of this?

Some readers will recall that Schiller served as the Illinois' schools superintendent for two years before being essentially pushed out of the job by Blagojevich. The Illinois governor made his intentions known in stunning fashion on Jan. 15, 2004, when he unloaded on Schiller's agency, the Illinois state board of education, during his annual State of the State address to the state legislature—with Schiller sitting in the audience.

Blagojevich used the speech to describe the board as a "Soviet-style bureaucracy," which served as "an albatross to our principals and teachers," and compared overhauling it to tearing down the Berlin Wall. He called for stripping the agency of its duties and replacing it with a new entity answerable to him and the legislature.

Shortly after the speech, I called Schiller to get his response. The then-schools chief said Blagojevich had given him no hint that the very public dressing-down was coming. "The focus has been placed on politics and power, and not on the equity and access issues in Illinois," Schiller told me at the time. Schiller also told other reporters he'd been blindsided by Blagojevich.

Lawmakers seemed also seemed taken aback by the speech. In my story on that rumpus, I quoted the chair of the state senate's education committee, who described Schiller as "one of the most responsive and courageous superintendents we've had." Before coming to Illinois, Schiller served as state schools superintendent in Michigan and was appointed by Maryland state officials to serve as interim chief executive of the Baltimore schools.

State lawmakers ended up blocking much of Blagojevich's proposed overhaul, arguing that his plans would infringe on the independence of the state board of education, as spelled out in the Illinois constitution. (They've fought a number of his education proposals since then, and relations, even before the impeachment furor, had grown toxic.) Lawmakers did, however, give Blagojevich more power to appoint members to the nine-member panel that oversees the agency, also called the board of education. Later during 2004, a newly appointed board bought out Schiller's contract and replaced him with Randy J. Dunn, a former university professor and schools superintendent.

Schiller later worked for the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence. In 2006, he was also finalist for schools chief in Anne Arundel County, Md., a major suburban system, though he wasn't selected.

Over time, some statehouse observers in Springfield came to regard surprise attacks as a sort of signature Blagojevich move during major legislative addresses. This story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch offers examples of the governor using big policy speeches to issue verbal jabs—singling out industries, like trucking or pharmaceuticals, or foes at the state or federal level, according to the article. "Who will be this year's target?" the 2008 story asks.

In 2004, the target was Schiller, though it appears others would follow.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Let's say you're entering your senior year of high school.

Your school district, or your state, is requiring you to take a fourth year of math. But the only options offered, in addition to the courses you've already taken, are pre-calculus, calculus, and a more basic course that wouldn't challenge you. You don't want to take a blow-off course, but you also don't like the calc and pre-calc options. It's not that you hate math. But you're not planning on majoring in math in college. You want math that challenges you in a different way.

Many schools are creating alternative math courses for 12th graders in the above-described predicament. One example of this approach is occurring at East Kenwood High School, in Michigan, as described in a recent story in the Grand Rapids Press. The school has added a number of alternative math classes, including Math and the FBI, Math and Sports, and Math in the Graphic Arts.

The story also describes a math course called "Geocaching," which I'm assuming has to do with hiding caches of material and then using GPS technology to find it. (And yes, I had to look it up.)

The classes are popular, and likely to become more so, as Michigan raises its graduation requirements in math, the story suggests. Many states are taking similar steps to increase those demands. The story also mentions that earlier this month, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, signed a bill into law that allows schools to award math credit for personal finance classes. A number of schools in the Michigan district are preparing to launch such classes, the article says.

I wrote last month about the growth of alternative math courses for high school seniors. A number of research and advocacy organizations and academic scholars have created curricula for these classes, saying the current lineup of courses is not serving many students. If designed and taught well, these classes can be just or nearly as challenging as traditional advanced math, their supporters say—but with a stronger emphasis on applied skills, or areas of math that are often neglected, such as statistics or reasoning.

If you know of a senior year math course that breaks from the norm, ship me a description of it. There are a lot of school officials looking for ideas.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:33 AM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Less than a year after a federal panel offered its blueprint for how to improve teaching and learning in math, a number of academic researchers have put some sharply worded critiques of that work in print.

Their reviews have been published in a special issue of the Educational Researcher, a journal of the American Educational Research Association. The AERA, a well-known, nonpartisan Washington organization, invited and published the essays, which examine the final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, titled “Foundations for Success.”

The math panel was appointed in 2006 by President Bush to study effective strategies for improving student learning in math, particularly in steeling them for algebra. In sum, the panel, comprised of academic scholars, cognitive psychologists, and others, called for a more streamlined pre-K through grade 8 math curriculum, with a strong emphasis on making sure that students master certain content at early grades—particularly whole numbers, fractions, and aspects of geometry and measurement. The panel’s 19 voting and 5 nonvoting members reviewed about 16,000 total documents over a 18-month period. The final, 90-page report, released in March, struck a conciliatory tone with regard to the so-called “math wars,” ideological disputes about how to teach math, calling for a mix of curricular approaches and teaching styles.

Many of the essays in the AERA journal, not surprisingly, take issue with one of the more controversial aspects of the panel’s work: the standards of evidence its members relied on to judge the effectiveness of math programs and curricula. The panel gave the strongest weight to scientific studies that “meet the highest methodological standards,” and which have been replicated in different kinds of settings. To critics, those standards resulted in too much weight being given to a research method known as a randomized control trial. The panelists’ reasoning (as explained in one of the AERA essays) is holding math programs to high standards was necessary, if the panel’s recommendations were to have relevance on a national scale in schools around the country.

One of the essays, written by Paul Cobb and Kara Jackson, criticizes the panel’s “unflagging adherence” to experimental studies, which they say “adversely affects the quality and usefulness of [it’s] recommendations.” Another essay, whose lead author is Jere Confrey, asserts that the panel applies its own standards inconsistently from math topic to topic, which results in “serious breaches” of the panel's ability to produce a high-quality, objective report. (A few years ago, Confrey led a panel of the National Research Council, which produced a 2004 report on how to judge the effectiveness of math curricula. The NRC is an independent research entity chartered by Congress.)

Confrey and her co-authors also allege that the panel’s work is already “contributing to a marginalization of mathematics educators and to the neglect of decades of research on children’s learning of mathematics.”

Another essayist, Finnbar C. Slone, of Arizona State University, has a different take. He takes issue with the panel’s reliance on randomized trials, but also suggests a new “working model” for studying math education.

The panel’s chair and vice-chair, Larry Faulkner and Camilla Persson Benbow, respond to these critiques with their own essay defending their standards of evidence. They also seek to explain the panels’ methods, and the constraints under which its members worked. They note that the panel needed to establish clear criteria for judging math research, even if definitions of what constitute scientific evidence amount to a “moving target.” Several panelists, during the group's open discussions, voiced surprise at the lack of research about what works in K-12 math education, despite the broad public worry about U.S. students’ mixed performance in that subject. Faulkner and Benbow write that they hope the panel’s work can direct academic research where it is most needed.

Readers of the report should see it not “as the end of an initiative” they write, but as “the first step of a more formalized process that moves from rhetorical handwringing to the framing of initiatives and the development of future research directions.”

After you’ve sampled the AERA essays, I hereby solicit your own commentaries in this forum.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:25 PM | Permalink | 10 Comments | Recommend

With the recent release of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (suggested headline: Mixed Results for the United States), it's worth noting that there are many good opinion pieces and commentaries being put forward by researchers offering their take on how to interpret these and other, nation v. nation exams.

The obvious question these commentators are trying to get at is: How good- or bad-off are we? In trying to interpret those results, I'm struck by how many respected, astute researchers have looked at the available data from international tests like TIMSS and PISA and come to very different conclusions.

One interesting opinion piece was published in the commentary section of my very own newspaper by Mark Schneider, who recently stepped down as chief of the National Center for Education Statistics. Schneider notes that, on the sunny side of things, the American students beat the averages scores on the TIMSS, and that we have many students performing at a very high level.

But he also presents a much darker view. Schneider examines the "effect sizes" of the performance gap between U.S. students and their peers in other nations, and between different populations within our country, on the TIMSS and other tests. He finds that the difference separating the performance of grade 4 students from rich and poor backgrounds in the United States is much larger than the score-distance between the United States and top-performing Hong Kong on the TIMSS. Similarly, the 4th grade gap between the United States and Hong Kong is even greater than the difference between the highest- and lowest-performing states on the 4th grade NAEP—an American exam—Massachusetts and Mississippi.

Researchers Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell have a different take on many of the international test results. On tests like TIMSS and PISA, far too much attention is paid to average test scores, they have argued. The United States has a relatively strong portion of high-performing students on international tests, and by virtue of the overall size of its population, produces far more students with the skills necessary to enter science and engineering related professions that everybody seems so worried about. They are troubled, however, by the United States producing large numbers of low-performing students, compared to foreign competitors.Some of these views are presented in a recent article in Nature, as well as in an earlier report.

The education researcher Gerald Bracey has also written extensively about his view that claims about U.S. students' educational inadequacies, as judged by average test scores, are grossly exaggerated. A sampling of his opinions of this topic is provided here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There’s a long, fractious debate over the performance of public schools v. private schools in this country, and that feud has grown more intense over the past few years, with the publication of a couple of intriguing studies on student performance that compare the two systems.

And if subject-specific fights are your thing, you’d find a similar level of rancor in play in the so-called “math wars,” the seemingly unceasing disagreement over the value of “reform”-oriented math, as opposed to a more “traditional” curriculum. (Though there has been noticeable evidence of a détente among the various factions in recent years.)

A recent study touches on both of these volatile topics, and produces some very provacative results, as my colleague Debbie Viadero noted in a recent column. It’s sure to provoke a lot more discussion, and possibly more research.

A study published by Sarah Theule Lubienski, of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, examines why public school students perform as well, and, in some cases, better than private school pupils on national math tests, as judged by NAEP scores. The study, co-authored by Christopher Lubienski (Sarah’s husband) and Corinna Crawford Crane, suggests two explanations for the relatively strong public school performance: public school students were more likely to be taught by teachers who were certified, and by those who used “reform”-focused approaches to teaching math.

The study was a follow up to an earlier one published by that same team of researchers a few years ago, which documented public schools faring well, compared to private schools. Not surprisingly, those findings were disputed by some researchers, though a federal study published shortly afterward by the National Center for Education Stastistics reached similar conclusions.

The most relevant aspect of the recent study to many in the the math community, of course, is how well “reform”-oriented math stacks up. “Reform” is a malleable, and overused term in K-12 education these days, and defining it is a perilous enterprise. But in the K-12 math universe, the term has generally been associated with the standards and methods promoted by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The study defines it generally as curriculum that “emphasizes student sense-making and…de-emphasizes (is this ok, since it’s in a quote?) rote learning and routine procedures.” The proper use of calculators and manipulatives is also encouraged. Additionally, the authors note that NCTM has modified its curricular goals to place greater emphasis on geometry and measurement, data analysis/probability, and other topics.

As the authors note, scores on the main NAEP have risen over the past 15 years, though there’s been much debate about whether those gains occurred “because of, or in spite of” NCTM standards.

The authors examined NAEP scores and linked the responses to surveys of students and teachers, given as part of the test, Ms. Lubienski explained in an e-mail. Fourth and 8th grade students were asked questions about the nature of math, such as whether they thought “learning mathematics is mostly memorizing facts,” and “there is only one correct way to solve a mathematics problem.” Teachers were asked about their classroom methods—use of calculators, emphasis on geometry and measurement, and so on.

The results showed that “reform” oriented instruction correlated positively with achievement, and that it was more common in public schools than private ones. The “strongest, most persistent predictor of achievement” at grade 4 was teachers’ emphasis on non-number math strands, the study found, such as geometry, measurement, data analysis/probability.

I suspect that the reaction to the study will focus on the authors’ assumptions about what constitutes “reform” math, and on the accuracy of the information gleaned from the NAEP student/teacher surveys. One study won’t settle anything, of course, but it will deepen the pool of research in this area, and advance the discussion (possibly on this blog).

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:48 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

A judge has now officially blocked a California policy requiring students to take algebra in 8th grade from going forward. Judge Shelleyanne Chang had originally issued a "tentative ruling" saying she was likely to halt the policy, as of a few days ago. But she's now made the decision final, in a decision dated today, Dec. 22.

If you opposed California's algebra mandate, don't celebrate just yet. Ted Mitchell, the chairman of the California Board of Education, which approved the policy, says the panel will appeal, according to the Associated Press. More to come.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A California judge has issued a “tentative ruling” saying she's likely to block a requirement that all California students take algebra in 8th grade.

California Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang, in a ruling dated today (Friday), sided with advocates who had argued that the state, in approving the controversial policy, did not allow for sufficient public input in that process. She also appeared to agree with their view that state officials had exceeded their authority in approving the mandate.

Tentative rulings are common in California courts, and, as the name tells us, they're not final until the judge makes them so at a later date. There’s no word on when a final decision from the judge, who is based in Sacramento, would come, Gerry Root, a communications officer with the court, told me.

The case originated with the California state board of education’s decision in July to mandate that all students be tested in algebra as 8th graders, a policy that school administrators say had the effect of requiring that all students take that challenging class at that grade level. The policy was backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and many in the state’s business lobby, who argued that California children needed to be challenged early in school to have a better chance of moving on to advanced math and gaining the skills for college and the job market.

But the policy angered many teachers and school administrators, who said it amounted to wishful thinking, given that high percentages of California students struggle with 8th grade algebra. They also said it would heap heavy costs on districts, in terms of remediation and intervention for struggling students.

Some of the members of the National Math Advisory Panel I spoke to also voiced concerns, saying the mandate mistakenly assumed that students could be held to a high standard without adequate preparation in elementary and middle school. The California School Boards Association and the Association of California School Administrators sued in September to halt the policy.

Judge Chang had issued a temporary restraining order in the case Oct. 28. In her tentative ruling, Chang explained that a public agenda before the state board’s meeting would not have alerted the public that the panel was considering the ultimate change to the algebra policy.

The board’s “contention that the public was ‘involved,’ ” in compliance with the law, Chang wrote, “is unconvincing.” She also said she was persuaded by the school officials' concern that the state policy would require "immediate" systemic changes in education at lower grade levels for students to have any chance being ready for algebra as 8th graders, as well as in teacher preparation. "Those actions, of course, would entail significant costs," the judge wrote.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:22 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Zoos, aquariums, and science centers have become major resources for science teachers over the years. Educators see those facilities as places where students can study the behavior of living things, or learn about them through visually appealing exhibits, rather than simply reading about them in a textbook or hearing about them in a lecture.

In reporting a story earlier this year, I learned that 90 percent of the nation’s zoos, aquariums, and museums said that they had at least one educational outreach program. That story was about Urban Advantage, a New York City program that offered middle school students access to the city’s big network of zoos and aquariums, and provided teachers with extensive professional development on how to shape lessons for their science classes around those exhibits.

I spent time with Mitch Goodkin, a science teacher at Russell Sage Middle School in Queens, who had all sorts of in-class activities for students that were connected to zoo and aquarium exhibits. Goodkin also trained other NYC teachers come up with their own zoo-to-classroom connections.

I’m sure that many teachers would like to make use of local museums and science centers in their classes, but aren’t sure how to do it, or whether their administrators will support it. I recently came across a resource that could help them. It’s a Web site run by the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education, which is supported by the National Science Foundation.

One of the resources on the site is a recent study that examined how the opinions of visitors to zoos and aquariums were influenced by those trips. The study, which was published in 2007 and supported by the NSF, found that visitors, perhaps not surprisingly, bring higher-than-expected knowledge about basic ecological concepts, and that more than half of them (54 percent) reconsidered their attitudes toward environmental problems and conservation action. The study focused on adults, not children, but teachers might still find it useful.

But the web site also includes a report on how to evaluate the effectiveness of informal education projects overall. That report examines issues such as how to design studies that tell whether these efforts are having the desired effect—and what that desired effect should be. Is an informal education project having a measurable impact on students knowledge of science? Or on their attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math topics (“STEM”) overall? The report is edited by Alan J. Freidman, former director of a major science center, the New York Hall of Science.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I came across this new release from the Ed Dept. on the "Progress by Our Schools and the U.S. Department of Education."

The paper outlines what the Ed. Dept. sees as accomplishments of the NCLB era, including higher test scores, a narrowing achievement gap, and progress on international comparison exams. It also recounts some of the changes the law required, including more data, disaggregated by student group, options for students in failing schools, and more support services for those schools. There are sections on teachers, higher education, and choice.

I'm sure some of the claims will be challenged by critics, particularly those that suggest that test scores gains resulted from the law. Indeed test scores for 4th and 8th graders on the NAEP math test, and for 4th graders on the reading test were higher in 2007 than ever before. But many observers say that they rose as part of a trend that started well before the NCLB law came to fruition.

Few would credit NCLB with improved scores in history, especially since many reports suggest that time spent on the subject has declined to make way for more reading and math instruction.

Other claims, however, are indisputable. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, for example, have accountability plans, test students annually, publish report cards on school performance, and participate in the NAEP.

What's your take?

Posted by at 10:21 AM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

The What Works Clearinghouse has issued a few new reports in its Beginning Reading series, including one for Houghton Mifflin's Invitations to Literacy and another on Reading Recovery.

The reviews are short. I'll let you decide if they're useful.

For the four studies on Reading Recovery, the review found "medium to large for alphabetics, small for fluency and comprehension, and medium to large for general reading achievement." An earlier review of the intensive one-on-one tutoring program was mostly positive.

The Houghton Mifflin program did not have any studies that met the review criteria.

The clearinghouse has drawn criticism for those kinds of findings, leading critics to nickname it the "Nothing Works Clearinghouse." My colleague Debra Viadero has this piece about the clearinghouse, in which she reports that officials are working to make the reviews more useful to policymakers and practitioners.

Russ Whitehurst, who helped spearhead the clearinghouse project as IES director, and who stepped down last month to head the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, spoke recently to reiterate his support for the center. According to the article he also described the challenges of conducting the reviews in an efficient and objective manner.

Posted by at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

One of the consequences of the financial shortfalls hitting states and school districts is that they are scaling back all sorts of programs, or cutting them altogether. In a variation on that dour theme, Oregon state officials said recently that they're planning to delay the implementation of a new math requirement, partly for budgetary reasons.

Earlier this year, Oregon's state board of education approved tougher requirements for graduation in math, as well as other subjects. But last week, board members said that while they don't plan on putting off higher graduation standards in reading, writing, and making oral presentations, the goal of having all students reach proficiency on a state math test by 2012 is simply too daunting without more financial assistance going to schools.

According to this story in the Oregonian, the failure of half the state's sophomores to pass Oregon's high school math test on the first attempt loomed large in the minds of board members. To help them, schools would need more money for interventions, such as after school and summer programs—money that isn't available.

"A quarter to a third of the students are going to have significant challenges in meeting the math standards. It could be done, but it would take a significant crusade," school board Chairman Duncan Wyse, president of the Oregon Business Council, said in the story.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski also favored delaying the more rigorous diploma requirements.

Wyse's position is interesting, given what is occurring just to the south of his state. Earlier this year, California officials, with the strong backing of business leaders, voted to phase in a requirement that 8th graders take and be tested in Algebra 1. That decision has been fought by California school administrators and others who say, among other things, that it's unrealistic without schools being given more money to help struggling students. (A California judge recently blocked the mandate from taking effect.) The Oregon board member and business leader seems sympathetic to the arguments coming from school districts.

Time will tell if other states, particularly those that have pushed tougher math and science requirements, scale back those plans, as their budgets shrink.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you're an English teacher and you don't know who Jim Burke is, I just have to wonder where you've been for the last decade. Burke, an English teacher at Burlingame High School, outside of San Francisco, has been sharing his professional insights with colleagues around the country through numerous books and a popular listserv he has moderated for years. His Web site is a treasure trove of resources for novice and veteran teachers alike.

Now Burke is trying to use social-networking tools to build an even more vibrant online community for English teachers. He just alerted me that he has started a Ning for middle and high school teachers. (Yes, I had to look up what that is, but now that I know, I can recommend you take a look.)

"I want it to serve all English teachers (6-12) but especially new and student-teachers who just do not seek out professional associations and support through the traditional organizations like NCTE," he wrote. He hopes "to offer additional avenues, via new media, to reach, support, and draw them into the profession."

He's also hoping that one of the benefits will be attracting more teachers to the organizations that support such efforts and provide untold resources for raising up the profession. Burke says such organizations are seeing lower turnouts at conventions, in some part because of the perception that information and materials on the Internet are enough.

Posted by at 4:09 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

In case you missed it, the TIMSS results were released this week, and U.S. students didn't fare too badly, unless you count the point difference between them and their 4th and 8th grade peers in Singapore, Korea, and Hong Kong.

The report is here, Ed Week's story here, and a critique of the U.S. performance by Mark Schneider, the former commissioner of education statistics at the Ed. Dept., here.

I've included the video briefing as well.

There are lots of interesting data points and tidbits in the hundreds of pages that make up the report, as well as in the vast encyclopedia that details each country's educational context. So if you're looking for some heavy-duty reading materials, or a piece of trivia to use at your next mixer with academics, I encourage you to start reading.

Here are a couple I've picked out:

— Homework did not play much of a role in student achievement among 4th graders. For 8th graders, though, more homework tended to equate with higher math scores. The kicker, however, is that teachers in many countries are assigning less homework now than in 2003.

— If you like math, or at least have a positive attitude toward it, you are likely to do better on the test than students who are not so keen on the subject.

—Fourth graders in Hong Kong have come a long way since 2003, making it to the top among the 59 countries on the math test. They increased their country's score at that grade level by 32 points in the four years between tests. But watch out. Armenia is coming on strong. Although the former Soviet republic is way down in the ranking, 4th graders there improved by 44 points over their peers who took the test in 2003. Minnesota, which was a benchmarking participant in the test, surged 38 points on the test since 1995.

— Several countries have seen a big slide in their scores over the years. Sweden, which tends to score above the TIMSS average of 500 points on the 1,000-point scale, lost 48 points on the 8th grade math test between 1999 and 2007. The news for the Czech Republic was worse on the 4th grade math test, with its students losing 54 points over the same period.

Posted by at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The International Reading Association is looking to shift more of the decision making back to teachers when it comes to reading and writing instruction. That would be a pendulum shift away from many current policies at the local, state, and federal levels that have instituted strict requirements for the materials and methods teachers use in their classrooms.

In a new policy paper, published in the Dec./Jan. issue of Reading Today, the Newark, Del.-based association outlines its recommendations for the incoming Obama administration. The association also wants more and better professional development, as well as a boost in the number of reading courses required of students in teacher-preparation programs.

The paper urges greater attention to new, technology-based literacies, "multiple, reliable measures" for assessing student progress, and adequate funding for ensuring high-quality teaching in reading.

"The International Reading Association recommends a major national investment in teacher preparation and professional development to ensure that every teacher is competent to teach reading to all students of various ability levels," the paper reads.

On a somewhat related note, the association is seeking comments on the draft of its Standards for Reading Professionals, 2010. The document is available online until the end of the month.

Posted by at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As the clock ticks down on the Bush administration and the tenure of many appointees at the U.S. Department of Education, I keep wondering what will happen to the Commission on Reading Research.

It has been a long, foggy road for this panel, and sometimes I wonder if it has just been a mirage on the horizon. Probably not to the prominent researchers who've agreed to serve on it, and who have patiently endured what may be the longest pending announcement about an education panel in history. Could they still be going through the vetting process? Troy Justesen, who heads the vocational and adult education office at the department, assured me back in February—10 months ago—that it would happen soon.

The panel is supposed to follow up on the work of the National Reading Panel, which issued its influential report in 2000. That report was extremely limited in the scope of its mission, and its findings were far from comprehensive. Many experts in the field agree that there needs to be another, if not an ongoing, effort to review research on reading to include newer studies and qualitative and quantitative ones that could lead to solutions to the nation's reading woes.

I started reporting on the promise of a new panel in early 2002, just as the Bush administration was rolling out its flagship reading initiative, Reading First, which was touted as promoting research-based instruction. More than two and a half years later, the National Institute for Literacy, which was charged with organizing the panel, put out a call for nominations and named Jack Fletcher as chairman.

A year ago, the institute was ready to name the panel, but the announcement was halted by the Education Department pending further review of the nominees' credentials and potential conflicts of interest.

So one has to wonder how high a priority the powers that be in the current administration place on research-based reading instruction? They demanded such an approach under Reading First, but did not get the big bang in student achievement that they hoped for, at least based on this program evaluation. Could that signal that we don't know enough about what makes for effective instruction, or how to implement what we know on a large scale? Would the field benefit from an updated look at the research?

Posted by at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Public and private organizations have tried all sorts of strategies to try to get girls and women more interested in science and math studies and careers—summer camps, the use of role models and mentors in the field, outreach to parents.

Now, a new, and I suppose far hipper variation on those efforts is being tried: a social- networking site, aimed at luring more females into the so-called STEM fields.

The site, www.underthemicroscope.com, was created by the Feminist Press, of the City University of New York, along with IBM and support from the National Science Foundation. It aims to encourage girls to pursue STEM careers by offering tips on careers, advice for parents, mentoring, and science and math scholarships and internships.

It allows visitors to guest blog, post personal stories and provide relevant news. Over time, the social-networking opportunities on the site will increase, its developers said in a description of its activities put out this fall.

The Web site is being developed as part of a larger project called "Women Writing Science," created by the Feminist Press with support from NSF. The site will feature serialized chapters of Women Writing Science publications that can be downloaded for free. "Under the Microscope" will feature free teacher guides describing lesson plans and strategies for using the books in science curricula, which visitors also will be able to download for free.

The Feminist Press, founded in 1970 at the City University of New York, publishes literary and educational works by and about women. IBM, like many technology companies, wants to encourage more youths to choose science- and math-related fields.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:36 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Late night funnyman Stephen Colbert, of all people, examined the issue of paying students for performing well in school this week. On Monday, Colbert hosted economist Roland Fryer, who has developed a program for paying students for achievement in school. Students are taking part in these sorts of programs in Chicago, New York, the District of Columbia, and other areas.

Remarked Colbert: "If it works, look forward to Secretary of Education Alex Trebek."

And later: "What is wrong with the older generation's way of doing things, where they paid kids to do well in school by not opening a can of unholy whoop-ass? That was the currency I was raised with."

Great stuff.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:27 PM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

A new survey shows that more high school students are lying, cheating, and stealing—a reflection, it says, of the "entrenched habits of dishonesty" among young people.

The 2008 Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, released by the Josephson Institute of Ethics in Los Angeles, is the result of a survey of 29,000 students at public and private high schools throughout the country.

Sixty-four percent of the students said they have cheated on a test over the past year, with nearly four in 10 doing so more than once. Some 40 percent lifted information off the Internet and used it in an assignment. (click on the charts to enlarge.)

This, even as the students report that their parents emphasize the importance of honesty and hard work, and that they themselves believe that truthfulness and trustworthiness are important in personal and business relationships.

So what gives? An overwhelming majority of the students say that honesty is important, and don't necessarily believe that cheating and stealing will help them get ahead. Yet most admit to such behaviors.

The report doesn't give much insight into why, but could increasing testing pressure have something to do with it? Or perhaps teens see dishonesty in school as something entirely different from lying or cheating at home or at work. When they want something—good grades, a cool new gadget, or a way out of an uncomfortable situation—is dishonesty just the easy way out? Given all the news about the causes of the current economic crisis, and with prominent lawmakers going to jail for unethical conduct, are kids just following adults' lead? Granted, some of the teens might not have even taken the survey seriously—more than one-fourth said they didn't even answer the survey questions honestly! But since the survey began, the data have shown a solid trend toward the dark side.

At the risk of sounding like an aging, out-of-touch adult: What's wrong with kids these days?

Posted by at 2:49 PM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend