March 2010 Archives

A group of mathematicians has come out with a critique of the proposed common standards, which are undergoing their final few days of public comment this week. (Friday is the last day of the public-comment period. You can post your feedback on their website by clicking the little yellow bar in the left column.)

As I have said before, it would be a valuable service to make public all the comments on the K-12 common standards draft. More than 5,000 have been submitted so far. But the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association, which are leading the common-standards initiative, are so far sticking to their plan to issue a summary of the comments, rather than posting them individually.

I've already told you about one critique of the math standards, by Ze'ev Wurman of California, who helped shape that state's math frameworks in the 1990s. And two experts who reviewed the math common-standards draft for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave them them an A-minus.

Now comes a new critique, by a group of mathematicians led by a principal investigator in mathematics at the math-and-science research and development group TERC and a research analyst at the American Institutes of Research. It was one of the many sets of comments submitted on the Common Core State Standards Initiative website. The critique finds the draft a "well-designed and comprehensive" set of standards that addresses many math educators' desire for more "clarity and focus" and more consistent connections among skills. But it also has rather detailed constructive criticism as well, in its "plea for revision." UPDATE: An alert reader let me know that I mischaracterized this critique. Thank you for that close reading, and allow me to clarify: The critique finds that the draft can be a "well designed and comprehensive" set of standards that brings more "clarity and focus" to what is taught, and that it has made "important strides" in choosing what math should be taught. But the writers conclude that they can't support "standards that require formal mastery of key mathematical skills before students have sufficient instruction and experience to develop the conceptual basis for those skills." They outline key areas that should be changed, and conclude that "without revision, these standards can result in large numbers of students learning mathematical skills at a superficial level and, as a consequence, requiring more remediation and experiencing more failure." I apologize for my original characterization, and appreciate the chance to clarify.

UPDATE: Here is feedback submitted by the Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education at the University of Chicago (the folks behind the "Everyday Mathematics" program). UPDATE: And here's what the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has to say.

UPDATE: A new analysis of both the math and English/language arts sections of the common standards was issued April 2 by the Pioneer Institute, and can be read here.

I'll do my best to post more analyses of both the math and English/language arts standards in this blog as I come across them.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As you've probably heard by now, Delaware and Tennessee were the only two states to win first-round grants in the federal Race to the Top Fund competition.

There's a lot of material to wade through in their applications outlining what they aim to do (235 pages for Delaware, 264 for Tennessee), but I'm going to focus here on STEM education, which is featured in both plans. Careful readers of this blog may recall that this was one of the criteria upon which applications would be judged. States could earn 15 of the 500 points for having an emphasis on education in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

At the risk of sounding snarky, you'll perhaps notice a heavy dose of buzzwords and phrases in the Race to the Top applications: "groundbreaking," "partnership," "college-readiness," "cross-disciplinary," "cutting-edge approaches," "sustainable innovations," "rigorous academic curriculum," "student-focused support," and, well, you get the idea.

In any case, here's a taste of what Delaware has in mind on the STEM front.

"Over the next four years, Delaware plans to increase rigor in STEM coursework, promote college-readiness in the core areas of science and mathematics, and to further integrate technology to engage students," that state's application says. "In addition, Delaware will continue its strategy of promoting collaboration and innovation to increase access to, and quality of, STEM courses."

Among its specific strategies are creating a statewide "STEM Coordinating Council" and working with six to eight districts to provide interventions to enhance STEM success for "traditionally underrepresented" groups of students, such as women and minorities. The state also is planning to implement a STEM "residency program" in 2010-11 in partnership with the University of Delaware to attract nontraditional candidates to teach STEM subjects in high-need schools.

For its part, the Tennessee application says the state is launching a "groundbreaking" new partnership between the state department of education, the Battelle Memorial Institute, and local school systems to "establish a statewide network of programs and schools designed to promote and expand the teaching and learning of ... the STEM disciplines." The effort is modeled after similar Battelle efforts in other states, including Ohio, the application says. (Battelle co-manages the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.)

The state says it's pursuing a strategy that "produces and supports talented STEM educators; develops engaging, cross-disciplinary, and project-based curriculum linked to Tennessee's growing STEM industries; creates new school models that employ cutting-edge approaches to learning and pathways to STEM careers; and harnesses the power of multisector regional partners working with communities and schools to realize increased student achievement in STEM."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

We've been writing it over and over: Forty-eight states have agreed to support the common-standards push. The two exceptions are Texas and Alaska. Is that about to change? It seems that educators in Alaska are discussing whether to adopt the standards.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As you know, the common standards are up for public comment through the end of this week (more than 5,000 comments so far, sources tell me). While lots of debate has focused on whether the standards cover the right stuff, whether their level of rigor is appropriate, and whether they were developed in a sufficiently transparent way, a bit less conversation has centered on the standards' potential as a business venture.

Not that no one's talked about it. The potential profits to be made from designing curriculum materials and assessments for the standards have been a trigger for skepticism from the beginning, especially when some of the companies who can gain from that venture, such as the College Board and ACT Inc., were included in the writing teams for the project. And in this story, we quote a publishing association exec being pretty blunt about the business opportunities inherent in the common standards venture.

Along those lines comes this story from the Wall Street Journal, quoting a top exec at Pearson in a similar vein. We should hasten to add here that state standards, as well, have always represented business for testing companies, textbook publishers, and the like. Nothing new there.

Thoughts?

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:25 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A survey of Florida teachers finds that about three in four say they are comfortable with the inclusion of evolution in the state's recently revised science standards. Almost as many say they have never been criticized by fellow teachers or administrators for how they teach evolution in their classrooms.

The results were described in an article published in the February issue of The American Biology Teacher. The data were based on a survey of 353 Florida educators, including elementary teachers and secondary science teachers. The study cautions that the data are based on voluntary participation, "which increases the possibility of bias in the results." Based on where the teachers were drawn from—one source was a National Science Teachers Association listserv—those surveyed "are more likely to accept evolution," the study says.

The article, "Florida Teachers' Attitudes About Teaching Evolution," was coauthored by Samantha R. Fowler, an assistant professor of biology at Clayton State University in Morrow, Ga., and Gerry G. Meisels, the director of the Coalition for Science Literacy, based at the University of South Florida.

It comes as Florida in 2008, for the first time, explicitly referred to "evolution," and more specifically the "scientific theory of evolution," in its science standards. Another development that helped inspire the new study was the introduction since then of legislation, titled the "Academic Freedom Act." No such measure has become law to date in Florida, but the study says the bills introduced aimed to open "the door to teaching creationist beliefs as an alternative to the theory of evolution in Florida's science classrooms." The study says proponents of the legislation claim that teachers are chastised and punished for their religious beliefs, but that there are very few data to support or deny such claims.

An analysis of open-ended comments recorded in the survey indicates that "disparaging comments" made by co-workers were "equally distributed among those with pro-evolution sentiments and those without such sentiments."

The study gives some examples:

• "I have been left videotapes anonymously in my school mailbox that promote creationism and denounce evolution," one teacher reported.

• "A colleague who was outspoken in his born-again beliefs harassed my AP bio students when we were studying evolution," another said. "He refused to talk to me."

• On the flip side, another teacher reported: "Statements commonly made by fellow teachers [include]: 'Any teacher who does not agree with evolution is just plain ignorant. ... We don't need ignorant religious freaks teaching in the public school system.' "

For further discussion, check out this blog item from Florida Citizens for Science.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:02 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

You may have heard a little something this week about President Obama winning changes to the U.S. health-care system. What you might have missed amid the hoopla and the hollering is a couple of provisions tucked into the legislation to fund abstinence-only education and comprehensive sex education at a cost of more than $600 million over five years.

The health-care overhaul essentially gives a new lease on life to the Abstinence Education Grant Program, which has been around since the 1990s but recently was zeroed out with backing from President Obama. It provides grants to states for initiatives that teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the norm for all school-age children. It's now assured $50 million annually over the next five years.

Critics of the program are dismayed.

"Who decided it was a good idea to forgo saving a quarter-of-a-billion dollars over the next five years and continue funding for a failed program that leaves young people at risk?" Joseph DiNorcia Jr., the president and CEO of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, said in a press release. "Why this program is being brought back from the dead is a mystery."

In an interview yesterday, James C. Wagoner, the president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based nonprofit focused on adolescent sexual health, had much the same reaction.

"Advocates for science-based, evidence-based sex education were stunned to learn that some Democrats had kept in the health-care reform measure a reauthorization of the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program," he told me. "Everybody assumed it would be removed."

Of course, surely not everyone is disappointed. Although I haven't come across any statements so far praising the inclusion of this measure in the health-care overhaul, my colleague Mary Ann Zehr quoted Valerie J. Huber from the National Abstinence Education Association as saying in December that the program needs to be continued so that educators can effectively teach a prevention message to youths.

"While contraceptives may reduce the risks for sexually transmitted diseases or getting pregnant, only abstinence prevents it," Huber said. (Incidentally, I did reach out to Huber and was expecting a call yesterday, but didn't hear from her.)

Wagoner points to a federally funded study from 2007 to make his case that the federal program isn't working. That report by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., a multiyear analysis of four programs that have received support from the federal initiative, found "few statistically significant differences in behavior between program and control-group youth."

At the same time, the health-care legislation also contains $75 million per year over five years for "personal responsibility education." An analysis by Advocates for Youth says activities supported by the program must educate young people on abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. They also must be "evidence-based, medically accurate and complete, age-appropriate, and culturally sensitive."

"The key here," Wagoner told me, "is that it has to be evidence-based and medically accurate."

As for the abstinence program, Wagoner says the mystery is which Democrat or Democrats pushed to keep it in the health package, given that it was a Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who had succeeded in getting it in the Senate bill. And as I'm sure you're aware, exactly zero Republicans supported the health-care overhaul.

"We're trying to figure out why it stayed in the bill," Wagoner said. "I used to work in the Senate, and I know a quarter of a billion dollars ... doesn't stay in a bill by accident."

"So far," he said, "this has been a virgin birth."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The reaction to yesterday's NAEP reading scores tilted more toward disappointment than outrage. I guess I was sorely mistaken when I thought that the scores would provide easy ammo for education-reform advocates of various stripes.

One thing I found pretty interesting in yesterday's release was something the National Assessment Governing Board didn't highlight in its report: the exclusion and accommodation rates for students with disabilities or limited English fluency.

If you flip to the back of the report, past the pretty multicolored pages of results to the pages of black-and-white columns of figures, you will see the proportions of children each state excludes from the NAEP or provides with testing accommodations (Tables A-7 for 4th grade rates and A-8 for 8th grade, pages 50 and 51 of the report). To say that these rates vary a bit from state to state would be, um, an understatement.

The interplay between exclusion and assessment is intriguing. Some states include more kids, but also provide more accommodations (Louisiana, for instance, excluded only 9 percent of its ELL or special-ed 4th graders, but 72 percent of the students in that group who took the test did so with accommodations.). Other states exclude whopping portions of kids from the test. Maryland did so with 57 percent of its 4th grade ELLs and spec-ed students.

The "assessed without accommodations" column provides a quick view of what states are doing. It essentially tells you what portion of the ELL and spec-ed kids took the NAEP the same way as their English-fluent, regular-ed peers. And the numbers vary wildly here. UPDATE: An Alert Reader cautions here that I should be clear on something: The column in this table, like the similar one in Table A-8, shows the portion of ELLs and spec-ed students kids assessed without accommodations, not the portion of all students identified, excluded or accommodated. If you want that, it's in tables A-4 and A-5. Thank you, alert reader!!)

In 8th grade, only 5 percent of New York's ELL and spec-ed students took the NAEP without accommodations. Seven percent did so in Florida, and 8 percent did so in Delaware. By contrast, 64 percent of those student groups in 8th grade took the test without accommodations in Alabama, and 70 percent did so in California. In 4th grade, New York (6 percent) again comes up on the low end of the spectrum with the portion of ELL and spec-ed students who took the test without accommodations. New Jersey (10 percent) and Ohio (11 percent) help carry the bottom end, compared with California, which administered the NAEP without accommodations to 77 percent of its spec-ed and ELL 4th graders, and Alabama, which did so with 61 percent.

Kentucky, which I point out in my story as the only state that saw gains on reading at both the 4th and 8th grade levels, tested only 30 percent of its 4th grade ELLs and spec-ed students and 13 percent of those students in 8th grade without accommodations. It outright excluded nearly half of that group in 4th grade and more than half at the 8th grade level.

National averages among states for assessing ELL and special-ed students without accommodations: 31 percent at the 8th grade level and 40 percent at the 4th grade.

So what effect does all this have on the NAEP scores? West Virginia education commissioner Steven Paine, a NAGB member who helped present the NAEP findings yesterday, said the varying exclusion rates were an ongoing concern for him. "Inevitably," he said, "they do not seem fair and they raise questions and concerns." I decided to venture into that a bit more, and asked if the NAGB had any definitive answers about the extent of the effect that exclusion rates have on the scores.

Stuart Kerachsky, the deputy commissioner for NCES, which oversees the NAEP, said the agency has been studying the issue and trying to "calibrate" the effect it has on the scores. He didn't provide numbers, but said he would "characterize the effect as small." The problem of NAEP exclusion gets complicated, too, he said, by states' own, varying standards for identifying and characterizing their spec-ed and ELL populations.

This tension has been going on for quite some time. Back in 1992, we were writing about the problem. And as recently as last week, my colleague Steve Sawchuk wrote about a new policy the NAGB adopted to try to reduce exclusion rates.

There has been much in between those times as well. For a few examples, see EdWeek's coverage of draft proposals of policies and a hearing about it last year, a move by NAGB in 2007 to be more transparent about it by featuring the exclusion rates more prominently in reports, and a report from 2005 in which the GAO revised its 5 percent estimate of exclusion rates to—oops!—40 percent. EdWeek did an overview of these simmering issues back in 2003, as well.

Kentucky found itself in a controversy about exclusion rates in 1999 (Kentucky-based researcher Richard Innes, who's spent a good deal of time looking into this stuff, blogs about it, too.)

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Illinois lawmakers may want to brace for some irate phone calls from working parents. The state House, in response to concerns about tight school budgets, approved a bill this week that would allow local school boards to set four-day weeks for students, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Students would still be required to attend school the same number of hours each year, but schools could employ longer days or curtail summer vacations to reach the target. Lawmakers said the move could save districts money on fuel for buses and utility costs for buildings, the story says.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 81-21, and now heads to the Senate for consideration.

It's facing opposition from some education groups, including the Chicago Teachers Union.

Illinois is not the first state where this issue has come up lately, in the face of squeezed state and local budgets. Among the other places where it's apparently being pursued are central Minnesota, northern Louisiana, and Kansas, based on recent stories.

And as this 2008 analysis from the Council on State Governments reminds us, the idea is nothing new, but has recently begun to attract more interest. The article highlights districts, mostly remote, rural ones, in states such as Colorado, New Mexico, and Kentucky, that already operate on four-day schedules.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The newest 4th grade and 8th grade reading scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, are out. Well, they're almost out. I've got the results, but I can't tell you about them until 10 a.m. Eastern time. Check EdWeek's website for my first story, and check back again later for an updated version that includes comments from the NAEP folks at this morning's press conference, and from other experts. UPDATE: check the website for the new version of my story.

No doubt politicians and advocates of all stripes have their fingers poised over the keyboard, ready to fire off press releases spinning the results. I'll do my best to keep you updated on that reaction as well in this space.

UPDATE: There isn't exactly a torrent of fired-up reaction to the NAEP scores. I was obviously wrong when I anticipated waves of outrage about the lack of progress.

Your U.S. Secretary of Ed, Arne Duncan, came the closest with this statement. Neil McCluskey at the Cato Institute gets a tad hot under the collar here.

The Southern Regional Education Board notes the progress of a number of Southern states, and EdWeek blogger Richard Whitmire, who has drawn national attention to the lagging performance of boys in school, notes the continued gender gaps on the most recent NAEP (though he doesn't mention, as Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless points out in my story, that boys are actually improving faster than girls on the 8th grade reading NAEP).

The Washington Post reports the scores as an epitaph on No Child Left Behind, and The New York Times weighs in with its take, as well.

In my book, the award for most amusing comment on NAEP goes to guest blogger Matthew Ladner on edu-writer Jay P. Greene's blog, talking about Florida's upward trajectory on the NAEP. I'm not going to spoil it; you just have to go to the blog and read it, complete with the photo of that famous scene from "When Harry Met Sally."

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Add single-gender classes to the list of casualties of the economic downturn.

South Carolina, a "national leader in offering single-gender programs in public schools," is seeing a significant decline in the number of schools offering boys-only and girls-only courses, reports the Associated Press.

The story says the practice had rapidly expanded to nearly 220 last spring, and more schools had hoped to add the option. But about 60 schools have had to drop the option after losing teachers to budget cuts, since there were no longer enough faculty members to teach co-ed and single-gender courses, the story explains.

For the bigger picture on state and school budgets, check out a recent story by my colleague Lesli Maxwell. She cites one state budget analyst as concluding that about half the states are poised to slash spending on K-12 education in fiscal 2011.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:22 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As comments pour in on the common standards, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute here in Washington is weighing in with an analysis of the draft. Its report, issued today, gives the math standards an A-minus and the English/language arts a B.

That's an improvement over the last time the organization checked into the drafts that have been produced and refined as part of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Last fall, Fordham had its experts pore over an earlier draft and gave B's to both math and the ELA. (See our story here, which links to that study.)

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I finished up a story this morning about two new reports looking at the barriers women and minorities face in entering the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

One, sponsored by the Bayer Corp., involved a survey of more than 1,200 female and minority chemists and chemical engineers. The professionals polled, on average, gave the nation's K-12 education system a grade of D for encouraging minorities to pursue STEM careers, and a grade of D-plus for girls. Not exactly a resounding endorsement.

The other study, from the American Association of University Women, didn't involve any original research, but pulled together findings from a variety of previous studies providing evidence that social and environmental factors contribute to the "underrepresentation" of women in science and engineering.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The common core standards drew more than 2,000 comments in the first nine days that they were posted online for public reaction. By last Friday morning, the draft standards had gotten more than twice as many comments as the "college-and-career-readiness" draft drew during the entire month it was up for comment last fall.

(As you recall, the "college-and-career-readiness" standards came out first, outlining what students must master to earn diplomas. The newest draft takes those goals and maps out what students need to learn in each grade to reach them. That complete set of standards is what's up for comment now, until April 2.)

Chris Minnich, who's leading the common-standards work for the Council of Chief State School Officers, told me that the comments are currently trending about 75 percent positive and 25 percent negative. Not that we can know that independently; the current plan is not to post any of the actual comments, so we can see for ourselves, but to summarize them at the end.

(The Council and the National Governors Association, which are co-leading this effort, did the same sort of thing for the college-and-career-readiness standards. They produced a six-page summary of the main themes expressed in the 988 online surveys submitted during the commenting process. You can see it by going to the CCSSI website and clicking on "Summary of Public Feedback for College- and Career-Readiness Standards" in the left margin.)

Not unreasonably, the Council is concerned about a policy of posting every raw comment, since any blog or online newspaper reader knows how crazy, profane or self-promoting some commenters can get. But one could imagine that comments could be made public—without promoting any unpleasantness—by using a restrained and clearly stated editing policy that's restricted to profanity and such.

A number of folks are already hot under the collar about what they see as a lack of transparency in the crafting of the common standards. What will they think about the summary-only policy?

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The sharpened national focus on career and college readiness has prompted many questions about what both of those terms mean. Despite some protestations to the contrary, there is still something less than, ahem, total agreement on what constitutes sound preparation for college or for good jobs (there are so many types of colleges, and so many careers!).

While those folks yak about overlapping sets of skills and such, you might be interested to peruse a document that tries to capture what America's "vision" of career technical education should be as we drag ourselves move boldly into the 21st century.

Issued yesterday by the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium, the vision statement describes the evolution of CTE from its vocational-education roots. It emphasizes that today's CTE is not just repackaged voc-ed, but a whole new beast that reflects the needs of a changed workplace.

Career technical education must be a challenging blend of job-related skills and academic skills that serves as an effective springboard for students, whether they choose to go straight from high school into careers, or obtain higher education before doing so, the paper says. It advocates that schools and districts develop sound career technical education programs around 16 "clusters" (areas of career study) aligned to a set of essential career knowledge and skills.

If education is going to prepare students properly for whatever lies ahead, the paper argues, the "dichotomous silos of academics versus CTE must be eliminated" and replaced with top-notch programs that blend the technical and academic work students need. It acknowledges that many CTE programs are not up to snuff in this way, and calls upon schools and districts to step up and improve them.

This wades into potentially touchy stuff, since it challenges the dynamics still commonly at play in schools, in which a blend of low expectations and inadequate capacity too often funnel some kids into cosmetology and others into AP Literature. That distinction would be less painful if career prep more closely resembled the rigorous course of study that the NASDCTEc envisions. But from what I've seen in my time roaming school hallways, we have an awful long way to go to reach that point.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The U.S. House of Representatives today approved legislation aimed at enhancing environmental education. The bill, approved 244-170, doesn't create any new programs, but would reauthorize and expand two existing ones run by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency.

One, the Environmental Literacy Grant Program, funds projects to educate the public about water resources, including professional development for classroom teachers and informal educators The other, the Bay-Watershed Education and Training Program, seeks to promote stewardship of coastal and marine resources.

In a press release, Kevin Coyle, a vice president at the National Wildlife Federation, praised the legislation, saying it "connects children with nature, advances science learning, and provides opportunities for young Americans to learn, serve, and work in the growing clean energy economy."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I'm sure you remember, because it set a lot of people's neck hairs on end, that President Obama recently proposed that Title I funding for disadvantaged students be tied to whether states have adopted the Common Core State Standards.

And I am also sure you know that in order to get the most bang for their buck in Race to the Top applications, states have to promise to adopt the common standards.

In the Title I proposal, states may choose the common core standards or work with their own university systems to build standards rigorous enough to be considered "college and career ready."

That led some folks, including one state ed commissioner I was chatting with today, to wonder whether states vying for RTT money could make a similar choice. In other words, could a state be deemed truly competitive in its applications—and compliant if it gets a share of the money—if it works with its university system to certify that its own standards, for instance, are college and career ready?

I decided to put that question directly to the people who can provide an answer. The Ed Department forwarded it to RTT chief Joanne Weiss, who responded quickly and clearly:

"The answer is no," she wrote in an e-mail. "The RTT requirements, because it's a discretionary program, are actually tighter than ESEA and are not changing."

To get full points in Race to the Top, she explained, a state has to adopt the common standards by August 2, 2010. To get partial points, it has to do so by December 31.

"The higher-ed certification option," she said, "Does not apply to RTT."

Guess that settles that question.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

"All students college and career ready" is getting to be a veritable mantra among educrats, with "all students proficient" joining cassette tapes as quaintly outdated. If you've somehow napped through the steady flow of rhetoric coming out of the Obama administration in the last year and you want proof of this college-and-career-readiness drumbeat, you need go only so far as the president's recent blueprint for reauthorization of the ESEA (currently known as No Child Left Behind). (See our story here.)

What does the career readiness part of all this mean, though, and how would it manifest itself in schools? Some experts aren't convinced that the common standards have what it takes to prepare kids for 21st-century employment. Others are skeptical of the whole argument that any one set of skills can cover the diversity of skills needed in the economy's wide range of jobs. (See my story on the first public draft of the common standards for folks who articulate some of these views. See also a blog posting here by our intrepid Capitol Hill reporter Alyson Klein that touches on the "readiness" question as it pertains to the ESEA blueprint.)

In that light, I was interested to see a recent package of stories in USA Today that explore the idea of career readiness. They bring the ideas to life in a way that could help offset the tendency to bury the "career" part under the "college" part of the readiness rhetoric.

Those of you interested in the evolving shape of career and technical education might also be interested in a new "vision" of CTE that is being unveiled today by the National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education Consortium. Details are still under embargo; we'll report more to you on this when that embargo lifts.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I have still more news to report on the social studies front (sorry fans of STEM, the arts, etc...), with developments in Florida. (I blogged earlier today on the fiery standards debate in Texas.)

Apparently, Florida lawmakers are engaging in what the Orlando Sentinel newspaper calls a "high-profile and bipartisan effort" to make civics a required course for 7th graders and the subject of a new high-stakes test students would have to eventually pass to be promoted out of middle school.

The "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Civics Education Act" also would use the civics test results to help inform school grades on the state's A to F rating system.

To see for yourself what Florida lawmakers have in mind, you can check out legislative analyses of both the Senate and House bills online.

As the legislation's name implies, retired Justice O'Connor has been promoting civics education lately.

In an interview last year with my colleague Mary Ann Zehr, Justice O'Connor said she became interested in the matter when she served on the high court, noting that some comments on the court by state and federal lawmakers showed a lack of understanding of the role of an independent judiciary. She told Mary Ann that she believes it's appropriate to focus on middle schoolers because students at that age have an eagerness to learn and are "not yet bored teenagers."

"They are soon going to be the adults running the nation, and we want our nation to function," Justice O'Connor added. "If people don't know the system of government we have, about the three branches of government and what citizens are expected to do, we won't succeed."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's taken a few days to sink in, it seems, but I'm starting to see some opinion pieces appear in various newspapers and in the blogosphere about the controversial actions last week by the Texas state board of education to revamp its social studies standards.

As I wrote the other day, the debate has been infused with political, racial, and religious tensions. The board gave preliminary approval to the revised standards on a party line vote of 10-5 last Friday, with all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed. The board may well make additional amendments before taking a final vote in May.

Without any further ado, here's a quick sampling of opinions.

From a New York Times editorial:
"It was a disturbing intervention by the board's Republican majority into educational decisions best left to the teachers and scholars who have toiled for almost a year to produce the new curriculum standards."

Also, here are some letters to the editor in the Times.

From a Dallas Morning News editorial:
"Like liberals who use panels at colleges to drive home their point of view, the Texas right-wingers are pushing hard to teach ideas about religion, history, and economics. Obviously, we're not opposed to students taking on those concepts. The problem is the right-wing faction [is] taking its views too far."

Columnist William McKenzie from the Dallas Morning News:
"Wow. Members of Texas' State Board of Education sure know how to attract headlines. Forget their brouhahas over evolution. Their long debate over social studies standards, which came to a head last week, has been its own doozy."

Columnist Mark Davis, also from the Dallas Morning News:
"Well, maybe some books needed rewriting to wrestle them from previous biases. Everything truly is relative: If the textbooks are shifting right, is that a departure from accuracy or a move toward it?"

Although not from a newspaper, the Dallas Morning News opinion page linked to this piece, by Tony Beam, from the Web site, Christian Faith in America:
"For far too long conservatives have allowed themselves to be intimidated into silence as liberals waged a very successful battle to remove all conservative and traditional references out of textbooks used in the public school system. Finally and thankfully a group of principled conservatives in Texas have said, "Enough is enough."

On the Daily Beast blog, education historian Diane Ravitch:
"Having a public agency decide which textbooks are right and what facts should be added or deleted is nonsensical. It is equivalent to having a public agency review movies and tell us which we will be allowed to see at taxpayer expense."

This opinion piece from Kelly Shackelford, the president and CEO of the Liberty Institute, ran on the Fox News Web site:
"[Liberals] don't like the concept of American exceptionalism, both by those who were born here and by the other great high-skilled men and women who are so attracted to the United States that they moved here from other countries. Thankfully, the conservatives on the [state board of education] once again held the line."

Who's right? You decide.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The first public draft of the common standards is out, as you know from reading edweek.org and this blog. But states don't have to put their feet to the fire on this thing yet, since it isn't the final version. (That won't happen until after the public- comment period closes on April 2 and revisions are made based on that feedback.)

So far, the fact that the draft has been a work in progress has allowed states to demur about whether they will adopt the common standards. A popular line has sounded something like this: "Check back with us when the thing is finalized, and then we'll be able to tell you what we think."

As that hour draws near, we're starting to hear a new line gain popularity: "We like the idea of common standards, but we'll adopt them only if they're better than the ones we already have."

Check out recent statements by top ed officials in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Virginia's new governor made no bones about it: His state's standards are better, he said, so adopting the common core would represent a step down that he will not endorse. And can we forget the recent 'ouch' statement by Minnesota's governor? Remember, too, that Kentucky already jumped out there and adopted the draft common standards, and that adoption—while important symbolically—is still conditional on its review of the final document.

To be fair, we need to note that less-conditional views are circulating out there as well. Folks in New Jersey, for instance, were quoted recently saying that the common standards will help streamline that state's, ahem, "higher and more numerous" approach to standards. (A slightly longer version of this story, which now seems to have disappeared from the internet, also quoted New Jersey state board of education President Josephine Hernandez saying the board would be "very receptive" to the common standards after they're finalized.)

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There's a lot to analyze in the "blueprint" President Obama has just put forward to revamp the main federal law for K-12 education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Certainly, front and center is a major rethinking of the key accountability mechanisms in the law, as well as the call for states to adopt college- and career-ready standards. See my colleague Alyson Klein's story for an overview.

In an introduction to the plan, Obama said his proposal "is not only a plan to renovate a flawed law, but also an outline for a re-envisioned federal role in education."

From the perspective of curriculum matters (pun intended!), the president's reauthorization plan for the ESEA—better known these days as the No Child Left Behind Act—could have some potentially significant implications, if Congress embraces its key tenets. Obviously, the push for college- and career-ready standards has ripple effects that presumably would reach into the classroom. The plan, which echoes Obama administration priorities in the Race to the Top program, also calls for supporting the "development and use of a new generation of assessments that are aligned with college- and career-ready standards, to better determine whether students have acquired the skills they need for success."

The proposed changes to the law's accountability framework—including handing states and districts more flexibility in intervening with many schools that are not meeting performance targets—may relieve some of the pressure that critics suggest has led to a near-obsessive emphasis on teaching to the test, and squeezing out time and attention for subjects other than reading and math, the areas in which assessment results drive accountability decisions.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has himself previously criticized the law for "narrowing the curriculum." In a speech last fall about the need to overhaul the ESEA, he said: "Let us build a law that discourages a narrowing of curriculum and promotes a well-rounded education that draws children into sciences and history, languages and the arts in order to build a society distinguished by both intellectual and economic prowess."

And the Obama plan, in what appears to be one nod toward this matter, says states "may include" statewide science assessments, "as well as statewide assessments in other subjects, such as history—in their accountability system."

In addition, the plan embraces the idea, first put forward in the president's budget request for the Department of Education in fiscal 2011, to promote a "complete education." It calls for "a new investment in improving teaching and learning in all content areas—from literacy to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to history, civics, foreign languages, the arts, financial literacy, environmental education, and other subjects—and in providing accelerated learning opportunities to more students to make postsecondary success more attainable."

As laid out in its budget request, this effort would involve consolidating more than a dozen existing federal programs into three larger, more flexible funds, focused on literacy, STEM education, and a third category called a "well-rounded education."

See my recent story for more details on what the administration has in mind.

In any case, there's plenty more to mine in the administration's request, but I wanted to quickly highlight a few things worthy of attention. As always with such matters, it's important to keep in mind that Congress will have a lot to say about the final shape of the reauthorized law. Indeed, in one example, the effort to consolidate programs is already running into significant opposition from key lawmakers. Also, as noted, the Obama plan at this point is a general "blueprint" for the direction the president hopes to take the law. The details of how such proposals are written into specific legislative language are critically important.

One final note: Here's the, yes, blueprint, for reauthorizing the ESEA put forward by the Bush administration in 2007.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Amid a debate infused with political, racial, and religious tensions, the Texas board of education by a vote of 11-4 gave its preliminary approval today to new social studies standards.

"In amendment after amendment, the board's ultraconservative faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system, religion, and hundreds of other topics," an Associated Press story says. The vote was largely along party lines, with just one Democrat voting in favor.

The Texas standards, once they're in final form, will have a long reach. They'll shape what appears in Texas textbooks, and because of the size of the Texas market, there will be ripple effects for the textbooks used in many other states.

Republican board member Terri Leo called the standards "world class" and "exceptional," the AP story says. But Democratic board member Mavis Knight, who voted no, said: "We have been about conservatism versus liberalism. ... We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."

The state board will convene again in May, at which time it may make further changes to the standards before holding a final vote.

As I noted in a blog item yesterday, the standards-rewrite effort has been attracting a lot of attention nationally. In fact, the Texas Education Agency has accused Fox News of providing inaccurate information about the standards.

For some other takes on the latest developments, here are stories from the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:56 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A recent commentary in EdWeek is urging that the popular STEM acronym expand to STEAM, with a dose of attention to the arts.

Education in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is gaining "alpha" status, writes Joseph Piro, an associate professor of curriculum and instruction at Long Island University. "Yet, in the midst of all the STEM frenzy, we may want to do something riskier, and more imaginative, to save the country: turn STEM funding into STEAM funding. Inserting the letter A, for the arts, into the acronym could afford us even greater global advantage."

He points to a 2008 study from the National Endowment for the Arts, which showed that individuals involved professionally in the arts represent a "sizable" branch of the labor force. Artists—such as musicians, architects, art directors, animators, and photographers—make up a larger occupational group than lawyers, medical doctors, or agricultural workers, with an aggregate annual income of $70 billion.

Piro says research also shows that involvement with the arts "leads to measurable cognitive gains." In fact, he's been conducting research on the role of music training in enhancing the development of literacy skills.

Piro closes with a nod to Albert Einstein, apparently a devotee of the music of Mozart and Bach and himself a musician, who once said: "The most joy in my life has come to me from my violin."

Incidentally, I should note that this commentary is not the first effort to amend the STEM acronym. Last month, I blogged about a study that added an extra "M" at the end for medicine.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 2:55 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A new business and industry coalition set to be announced tomorrow aims to "enhance and elevate" the U.S. commitment to STEM education, with participants representing diverse sectors, from the aerospace, manufacturing, and even entertainment industries to biotechnology, software engineers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"We're really trying to align the work we're doing, and the messaging and the resources," Lydia M. Logan, who heads up the Institute for a Competitive Workforce at the U.S. Chamber, told me in an interview today.

The effort comes amid strong and growing support for efforts to advance education in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, including from President Obama and many governors.

Richard Stevens, a senior vice president at the Boeing Co., said one key goal of the coalition is to "change Americans' perspectives about engineers and scientists."

The coalition will work to break the stereotype that "they're the guys who have pocket protectors, they're kind of geeky," he said in an interview. In truth, he added, "you find all kinds of people" in these professions.

Stevens said the groups involved in the new coalition together represent some 10,000 companies. A set of "advisory members" include U.S. government entities such as the departments of Defense, Education, Labor, and Homeland Security.

"We've got to pull ourselves together so we can then focus our resources," Stevens said, "whether it's outside schools or inside schools."

An organizing document for the Business and Industry STEM Education Coalition says the coalition will support aligning efforts around several priorities:

• Bring "proven, project-based, hands-on" STEM activities for students to a national scale and ensure they are sustained;

• Recruit, train, and retain effective teachers in the STEM fields;

• Encourage employers to identify and nurture students with aptitudes for STEM and attract them to career tracks in those fields, particularly students from "underrepresented" groups in the STEM workforce; and

• Adopt metrics and assessments to evaluate the impact of STEM programs and methods to track progress "across the pipeline."

It bears mentioning that this is not the first national coalition to promote STEM education. There already is a group called, you guessed it, the STEM Education Coalition, which features many representatives from business and industry, though it also includes groups such as the National Science Teachers Association and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, as well as universities, school districts, and even the Ohio education department. That coalition's work is more specifically focused on advancing support for STEM education at the federal level.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you don't live or work here in Washington, it could be hard to wrap your head around the intense inside-the-Beltway mentality that shapes dialogue around here. But since our office is inside that Beltway, for better or worse, it came as no surprise that I was inundated with official statements yesterday about the first public draft of the common standards.

Most were fairly predictable, of course, given their long-standing agendas or their roles supporting the project (or the politically sensitive prospect of saying anything nasty about the standards). See statements from Achieve, the Business Roundtable, the Alliance for Excellent Education, and the National Association of State Boards of Education.

So that's why a handful of these statements did actually get my attention. They were the more interesting, nuanced, against-the-grain (or at least just not unbearably bland) statements.

The folks at Common Core have been upset by the dearth of required content knowledge in many standards, so their awarding of an A-minus to the common- standards draft yesterday was interesting. Ditto for the folks at the Core Knowledge Foundation. Tom Vander Ark over at VA/R Partners offers interesting thoughts, especially focused on how the assessments designed for these standards could make or break their potential impact. Checker Finn at the Fordham Institute makes the point that states that demur on adopting the common standards, citing their own "higher" standards, might well just be, uhh, undercommitted to the work.

While some might assume that the big urban districts would view rigorous standards as an unmanageable challenge, the Council of the Great City Schools—which has been pushing high, shared standards for some time now—speaks for its 66 big-city districts in saying, "bring it on."

Intriguing among the bland, praising statements was one by the National School Boards Association, whose members—local boards of education—will likely have to put these standards into practice without voting thumbs-up or -down to do so (that power lies with state boards and/or legislatures). Note the headline in the NSBA release: It supports the process of common standards. The Cato Institute took a different angle, arguing that the common standards should spark worry about standardization.

In a sea of blandness, a statement by Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty stands out for its "ouch" effect. And this from the leader of one of the 48 states that signed on to support common standards! (His statement echoes a theme already stated in my story by one of his top department of education folks.)

Two authors of a recent study criticizing the common standards as a "race to the middle" penned detailed critiques (here for one by Sandra Stotsky, who helped craft Massachusetts' curriculum frameworks and is still on that state's board of education, and here for one by Ze'ev Wurman, who helped write California standards in the 1990s).

A group of early-childhood activists and educators banded together to raise "grave concerns" about the common standards, worries I'm betting we're going to hear more about (once again, touched on at the end of my story by Hartford's chief academic officer).

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Fox News likes to emphasize its commitment to providing "fair and balanced" coverage of the issues, but the Texas Education Agency isn't impressed.

In an unusual action, the state agency issued a press release yesterday accusing Fox of "inaccurately reporting" on the work under way by the state board of education to revise the state's social studies standards.

It offers up a series of quotes and assertions from Fox News followed by "The truth."

Here's one example: The Texas agency says Fox has indicated that "one of the proposed changes is to start history class in the year 1877."

"The Truth: Texas has and always will teach U.S. history from the beginning until the present day. U.S. history through Reconstruction is taught in the 8th grade. ..."

The press release also says Fox is reporting that Abraham Lincoln and George Washington have been removed from the textbooks.

"The truth: The standards, not the textbooks, are before the board this week. Lincoln is required to be included in the first and eighth grade history classes, as well as in the U.S. government class. Washington is required to be taught in kindergarten, first grade, fifth grade, and eighth grade."

To see for yourself how Fox News is reporting the effort, you can check out a news section it has dubbed "The Texas Textbook Wars."

You can also watch this week's deliberations by the state board online. The board has a long list of citizens, advocates, legislators, and others who are testifying to share their views. In fact, I saw a Texas mother testify (sorry, couldn't make out her name) who said she was inspired to come out after seeing reports on none other than Fox News.

In case you're curious how other news outlets are handling the developments in Texas, here are links to stories by the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Dallas Morning News.

Here's a recent blog item I wrote, plus a more detailed story my colleague Mary Ann Zehr wrote up last summer offering a preview.

Image provided by the Library of Congress.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A new study finds that scientists' initial interest in their subject is often sparked before they enter middle school, a conclusion the researchers suggest has implications for rethinking policy efforts aimed at getting more young people to become scientists.

The federally funded study examines the experiences reported by 116 scientists and graduate students that first engaged them in science. Sixty-five percent said their interest began before middle school. Women were more likely to report that their interest was ignited by school-related activities, while most men recounted self-initiated activities, such as conducting home experiments or reading science fiction.

The early interest in science "runs counter to many initiatives ... where the focus is on improving science education at the secondary level by simply improving student achievement or increasing enrollments in advanced science courses," write the co-authors, Robert H. Tai, an associate professor of science education at the University of Virginia, and Adam V. Maltese, an assistant professor of science education at Indiana University. "With a high percentage of both genders reporting interest in science prior to entering high school or even middle school, it may be important to instead center efforts on engaging young children in science."

It adds: "A common theme in science education is concerned with how to improve the training of science students; however, if one of the goals of science education is student persistence in STEM, it seems that teachers should focus on initiating interest and fostering engagement rather than on preparing for standardized examinations."

Titled "Eyeballs in the Fridge: Sources of Early Interest in Science," the study appears in the International Journal of Science Education.

The study's unusual title is a reference to the tale of how one Ph.D. student in chemistry recalls first getting excited by science. In her 3rd grade classroom, students were dissecting cow eyes, the study explains. She brought some "leftover" eyes home in a brown paper bag and put them in her refrigerator. The only problem was that she forget to tell her mother, who screamed when she discovered what she expected to be lunch leftovers.

"From that point," she recalls, "I started to really love science."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There is an interesting mix of reactions taking shape to the first public draft of the K-12 common standards. (Yes, these folks viewed advance, embargoed copies, or already had the draft because it's been circulated among state leaders.)

Check out our story on www.edweek.org, and check back again at 10 a.m EST., when we will link you directly to the drafts. UPDATE: The links to the drafts are now available on our story.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The public-comment period on the grade-by-grade common standards opens tomorrow, and the drafters are very interested in what teachers will have to say about them. Some teachers have been involved in creating the standards, but the folks at the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association tell me that they want many more to weigh in.

Chris Minnich of the CCSSO and Dane Linn of the NGA say they want to know whether teachers find the standards "teachable" and whether the grade-by-grade progressions of skills outlined in there make sense. They also want to hear teachers' ideas on curriculum materials and assessments that could be developed to reflect the standards.

Teachers—and anyone else wishing to comment on the common-standards draft—can see them at www.corestandards.org. The online comment form has no length limit, I'm told. Once the public-comment period closes on April 2, a summary of all the public comments will be posted, just as it was after the "college and career readiness standards" drew more than 1,000 comments last fall.

Why not just post every comment for all the world to see? Or at least summarize each unique comment? I don't know, and I wonder. I mean, the feds do it on regulatory stuff. Check this out as an example. It's the final regulations on the Education Department's "i3" competition (my colleague Michele McNeil explains that competition here). Don't be freaked out by the length of this thing; just check out the way they tell you what commenters said, and what their reasoning was in deciding to make changes (or not). Another example of this is here, in the regulations that changed the requirements for how states must calculate their high school graduation rates.

The common standards have certainly created some heated debate. I'm betting maximum transparency would find great appreciation, at least in some quarters.

NGA spokeswoman Jodi Omear tells me that the two groups chose the summary route to "encourage truthful and detailed answers" and to protect the commenters' confidentiality. Also, she says, many of the responses they get are essentially commentaries on education in general, or expressions of support for taking up the common-standards issue, so summarizing, in their view, is a better way to analyze the comments that are actually related to the development of the standards.

Thoughts? Reactions?

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If the upcoming common-standards webinars Catherine blogged about aren't tantalizing enough for you, there's sure to be some lively testimony tomorrow in the Lone Star State. The Texas state board of education is resuming discussion of the controversial effort to revamp the state's social studies standards. I'm told that at least 50 people will be testifying starting tomorrow. The event is scheduled for live-streaming online, beginning at 11 a.m. Central time. To watch it, go to the Texas Education Agency home page.

Don't be surprised to hear some provocative debate about what people and events are most important for Texas students to know about. Phyllis Schlafly or Cesar Chavez? You decide.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Since you pay such rapt attention to this blog, you already know that the first public draft of the grade-by-grade common standards is supposed to come out this week. And tomorrow's the scheduled release day. We will have a story on www.edweek.org, and we'll blog about it in this space, too. But starting early tomorrow morning, before that stuff happens, there are a few webinars you might want to catch if you are interested in common standards.

The National PTA is holding its annual legislative conference, and focusing a large chunk of its Wednesday morning on common standards. On this site, you will be able to see webinars at 8 a.m., 9:45 a.m., and 12:30 p.m. (all Eastern standard time) on topics related to the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

The 8 a.m. session is about motivating parents to support the initiative, and the 9:45 a.m. session focuses on state strategies. The 12:30 p.m. session actually starts with something on another topic—an appearance by first lady Michelle Obama talking about her campaign against childhood obesity. But it also includes a high-level panel on common standards, which runs from 1:15 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. Panelists include Thelma Melendez, the assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education; and two men who have been leading the common-core initiative, Gene Wilhoit of the Council of Chief State School Officers and Dane Linn of the National Governors Association.

By the time that afternoon panel convenes, the K-12 public draft of the common standards should already be posted for viewing and comment on the initiative's Web site (www.corestandards.org).

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Leading textbooks for home-schoolers offer a view of science influenced by the Bible, reports an Associated Press story, with some science educators saying two of the best-selling biology books "stack the deck against evolution."

The textbook publishers defend their books as "well-rounded lessons on evolution and its shortcomings," the story says.

The AP story finds that "Christian-based materials dominate a growing home-school education market" that includes more than 1.5 million U.S. students.

One biology textbook published by Bob Jones University Press doesn't mask its "disdain for Darwin and evolutionary science," the AP says.

"Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling," the AP quotes the introduction to Biology: Third Edition as saying. "This book was not written for them."

The size of the textbook business for home-schoolers isn't clear, the story says, but a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association estimated that sales of home-school materials reach about $1 billion each year.

"The majority of home-schoolers self-identify as evangelical Christians," the spokesman told the AP. "Most home-schools will definitely have a sort of creationist component to their home-school program."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Top o' the week to you. A couple of good tidbits floating around out there today in the "high school space."

New York is apparently thinking about cutting back on the number of regents exams it requires. And another state, Mississippi, is exploring expansion of career-track options for students who don't think college is their thing. I wonder if it will prove as controversial as it did when Louisiana did something similar recently.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Although most national attention on the Texas primary is focusing on incumbent Gov. Rick Perry's win, the results will spark some changes on the state board of education. But not soon enough to affect final action later this spring on revising the state's social studies standards, which have sparked a lot of controversy.

Don McLeroy, seen as a key leader of a Christian conservative bloc on the board, was defeated by Thomas Ratliff, a moderate Republican. With no Democrat and one Libertarian on the ballot this fall, Ratliff is virtually assured of the post, reports the Dallas Morning News.

"Ratliff's campaign was based in part on reducing the influence of the board's social conservative bloc," the Morning News says. "But McLeroy and his allies will hold seven votes on the 15-member board through the end of the year, with history and social studies standards on the agenda.

McLeroy has said he will offer several more amendments when the board gets back to work on the social studies standards next week. New members won't be seated until January.

Republican board member David Bradley, an ally of McLeroy, told the Dallas Morning News that the board already has approved revised English and science standards with considerable influence exerted by social conservative members. He said the current board has had an impact on schools that will last several years, an influence felt in many other states that use textbooks and learning materials developed for Texas based on its curriculum standards.

Meanwhile, a second member of the social conservative bloc at the state school board, Ken Mercer of San Antonio, successfully fended off a Republican challenger. And the departure of a third, Cynthia Dunbar, from that bloc has produced a runoff between "educator Marsha Farney and conservative Brian Russell," the Associated Press reports.

Finally, one of the board's more moderate Republicans, Geraldine Miller, lost her bid in the primary to keep a board seat she's held since 1994. But little is known about her challenger, Dallas English teacher George Clayton, the AP says.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Time to play catch-up after having been gone from the newsroom for a week. There are a number of good reads I want you to know about.

Check out this story from USA Today about how teenagers are changing their senior year of high school. This is something that interests me, and I hope it interests you as well. The move to revamp senior year is certainly a symptom of one of the illnesses of high school. But it also strikes me as something that could carry great risks as well as potentially great opportunities. All in all, worth watching.

A new study of what makes education at the middle-grades level work yields some interesting bits (See our story). A survey that explores teachers' attitudes about the roles that compensation and leadership play in their job satisfaction is interesting. (And it also touches on teachers' attitudes about the proposed new common standards.) Check out AP's story here and the Washington Post's here. The survey itself is here.

My colleague and co-blogger Erik Robelen has a piece on states' progress adopting the various pieces of the agenda that Achieve believes is necessary to prepare all students for college and career. And the Alliance for Excellent Education, which advocates better high school policy, released its position on what the feds should think about when they reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently known as the No Child Left Behind Act. (An alert observer notes, quite rightly, that the report was a joint release of the Alliance and the Aspen Institute's Commission on No Child Left Behind. My apologies.)

If your eyes aren't glazed over yet, please take a look at this, too: a new study that found high school guidance counselors' advice about college and career is very often not helpful to students. Inside Higher Ed's story is here, and the New York Times' story is here.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Seventeen states have committed to raise their college-completion rates, as well as establish common measures of progress and publicly report their annual results toward the goal.

Those states, from Connecticut and West Virginia to Illinois, Nevada, and Hawaii, are "charter members" of a state alliance established under the new nonprofit, Complete College America, according to a statement the group issued yesterday.

"Once first in the world, America now ranks 10th in the proportion of young people with a college degree," says Stan Jones, the president of Complete College America, in the statement. "Complete College America is dedicated to working with states to implement systemic reforms, accomplish innovative approaches at scale, and remove needless obstacles that too often block the path to graduation day."

The organization was launched in 2009 with philanthropic support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Lumina Foundation for Education, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

More detailed commitments that participating states are making include:
•Establishing annual state and campus-specific degree and credential-completion goals through 2020;
•Developing "action plans" at the state and campus level to meet the state's goals; and
•Using common metrics to measure and report progress, with the data disaggregated by level and type of degree, as well as age, race, and income level.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The long-awaited, much-anticipated draft of grade-by-grade common standards for K-12 education will be coming out for public comment next week, an education official at the National Governors Association said yesterday. The word came during a panel discussion hosted by the nonprofit group Achieve pegged to the release of a new report on state progress toward advancing the so-called "college- and career-ready" agenda.

"You'll see those standards released next week," said Dane Linn, the director of the education division of the NGA's Center for Best Practices. "We'll open them to public comment, much like we did with the college- and career-ready standards." He added: "If the career- and college-ready standards are any indication, we will probably have more than the 1,100 [public comments] that we received from the first set."

My colleague and co-blogger Catherine recently wrote an EdWeek story about some of the criticism the K-12 standards have encountered (plus this still more recent blog item).

They cover English/language arts and math at all grade levels, and literacy skills that students in middle and high school need to apply to the study of history and science. The standards are designed to build on the college- and career-readiness standards released for public comment last fall, which describe the knowledge and skills students need by the end of high school for good jobs or higher education. Those standards are still undergoing revision. Once that process is finished, they will apparently be released for another round of public comments.

The common-standards initiative, as many of you already know, is being led by the NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Forty-eight states have signed on to support the standards effort.

"We have really spent a significant amount of time vetting these standards with the states," Linn said yesterday in discussing the K-12 standards. The effort has tapped the expertise of many educators and various national organizations. In fact, he said the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers helped to convene meetings with teachers around the country to get their feedback. Among the others he identified yesterday that have been consulted are content-oriented groups such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the American Council on Education, a coordinating group for higher education institutions.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I wanted to quickly alert readers to two stories I recently wrote that may be of interest. First, a new report looks at how states are doing in implementing the so-called "college- and career-readiness agenda." It finds that the number of states adopting standards focused on better preparing students for college and the demands of today's employers has rapidly climbed to 31 over the past five years. Many of those states, however, still have plenty of work to do in following up with assessments, graduation requirements, and accountability systems to help make those standards matter, according to the report from Achieve, a nonprofit formed by governors and business leaders.

Second, following up on a couple of blog items I wrote, here and here, I've put together a closer and more detailed examination of President Obama's plans to consolidate a variety of federal programs at the U.S. Department of Education into three "Effective Teaching and Learning" funds. Even if you don't read the whole story, I would encourage you to also scroll down to the bottom to check out some of the plentiful feedback from readers in the comments section.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend