Common-standards addicts have had a little uptick of adoptions recently to keep them busy. And now comes news that South Dakota has adopted, as well. That makes 44 states (including the District of Columbia) that have adopted the new common core standards. (Check here and here for a couple of the more recent adoptions.)
Here is your updated map:
You might have heard that the 12th grade NAEP scores came out last week, and they weren't anything to jump up and down about. As that news rolled out, the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP policy, is still working to determine whether that exam can be used in a new way: to tell us something about how well prepared students are for work or college. (See my story about it here.)
A troubling thread, however, continues to weave itself through conversations about using the 12th graders' NAEP scores as a gauge of their academic mastery, let alone their college or career readiness. For years, the credibility of the exam at that grade level has been shadowed by the question of how hard high school seniors really try to do well on it.
So it boils down to this: Does the NAEP show how little they care, or how badly educated they are? And in light of that, should we even keep administering the test? And can we rely on it as a thermometer of preparedness for higher learning or good jobs?
If you're intrigued by this, take a listen to what Diane Ravitch has to say. An education historian and former NAGB member, Ravitch argues in her blog for edweek.org that the 12th grade NAEP results are meaningless. (While you're at it, read the comments section of her blog post, as well. She and her readers volley back and forth on the topic a bit.)
Most every week, something ends up in my inbox about a new tool or test recently developed to measure college or career readiness. Florida has figured out a way, apparently, to gauge high school students' readiness for the state college system. The Educational Policy Improvement Center in Oregon has developed a tool that school districts can use to assess their students' college readiness in ways that extend past strict subject mastery. (See a post on our College Bound blog for more on this.) (EPIC's approach to readiness includes habits of mind that NAGB's strictly-academic definition excludes.)
How well will any of these gauges tell us what we want to know about our students? Good question, and one that hangs over NAGB as it moves forward with figuring out how to use NAEP.
.
Advocates for two popular literacy organizations, Reading Is Fundamental and the National Writing Project, are worried that federal aid to support their work is threatened by a measure the Senate may consider next week that would ban congressional earmarks.
Funding for both entities is authorized under the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but the proposed moratorium is apparently crafted in a broad enough manner to prevent funding for them and some other national initiatives, according to a blog post on the International Reading Association's website. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is aiming to attach it to an unrelated bill.
Reading Is Fundamental is a nonprofit organization that distributes free books and literacy resources to low-income families. It received $25 million in fiscal 2010 from the U.S. Department of Education. The National Writing Project is a national network that provides professional development and other support for the teaching of writing in schools. It received about $26 million in fiscal 2010 from the department.
Two treats in one week for common-standards gazers: Idaho becomes the 43rd state to adopt the common standards. But it's provisional, folks; this one still has to go to the state legislature before becoming final.
The board of education adopted the standards on Nov. 17, according to Idaho Department of Education spokeswoman Melissa McGrath. The board first considered them in August, and took the final vote last week after a public comment period in October. Now the standards have to be considered and approved by the education committee of at least one chamber of the legislature, which doesn't reconvene until January, McGrath said.
Remember our map footnote, standards-addicts: the dates of adoption are by date of first action. Some are provisional, so that means that the pleasingly plump lady has not sung until the subsequent required steps are taken. And our total of 43 includes the District of Columbia, even though they're not a state (despite the earnest hopes of some activists).
With that mind, this is how your nation looks today with regard to the common standards:
Amid all the recent talk among STEM advocates about getting young people more excited about science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, here's a great example of the idea in action. Tomorrow, astronauts in orbit on the International Space Station will communicate directly with students at two middle schools about what it's like to live and work in space.
Students from the two District of Columbia public schools will gather at the U.S. Department of Education to speak with astronauts Scott Kelly, Shannon Walker, and Doug Wheelock, the space station's commander. On hand to join the students will be Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and NASA's associate administrator for education, Leland Melvin.
The event, which runs from 11:20 a.m. to 11:40 a.m. Eastern time, will be carried live on NASA Television and on NASA's website.
Students in Wyoming might soon lose a powerful incentive to study foreign languages.
A measure moving through the state legislature would remove a language requirement for students seeking a popular state college scholarship, reports the Casper Star-Tribune.
The Joint Education Committee this week backed a bill removing the foreign-language requirement for all levels of the Hathaway Scholarship program, which helps students pay tuition at the state's seven community colleges and the University of Wyoming, the story says.
Currently, the story explains, students working toward the two highest levels of the scholarship must take at least two years of the same foreign language, one year of that in high school. Students eligible for the third and fourth levels must demonstrate proficiency in a language according to state standards.
If the proposal becomes law, students could instead substitute two years of study or proficiency in the fine and performing arts or career and technical education courses.
The legislature created the four-tiered Hathaway Scholarship in 2006.
The question of whether 12th graders' performance on NAEP sags because they just don't care has hung on for quite a while now. (Those of you who missed our story on today's NAEP results, check here.) The National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, is grappling actively with what to do about it.
But what came out, intriguingly, during today's press calls about the latest results, is that schools, with NAGB's blessing, are actually offering stuff to seniors to "motivate" them to do better on the famed exam known as "the nation's report card."
Yup. That's what I said. They're giving them stuff. Think tickets to the prom. A coveted parking space in the school parking lot.
Peggy G. Carr, the associate commissioner for assessment at the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees NAEP, mentioned this in conference calls with reporters when she was asked about new "motivational materials" for the 2009 NAEP.
"We had a cadre of strategies we used to motivate" the seniors, she said. It was pretty much "anything that the school administration wanted to offer that was motivating." She mentioned prom tickets and parking spots.
I asked whether the federal agencies are considering attaching stakes to the 12th grade NAEP to see whether that encourages students to try harder. Carr said that NCES is interested in working with states to embed items in higher-stakes state tests.
I got to wondering about the effect that prom tickets and such might have on a senior's performance on NAEP, so I asked a 17-year-old senior I know. And if her response is any indication, the schools might well be wasting their goody bags.
Would she try hard on a national test that had no personal consequences for her or her school?
"To be honest," she said, "I would put zero effort into a test like that. I have way more important things, stuff that really matters to me, that I have to pay attention to."
What about if she could win a spot in the school parking lot if she did well on the test?
"Well," she said, "maybe I'd try a little harder, but really, I don't think it would make much of a difference."
Welcome back, common-standards addicts. The news today is that Alabama has become the 42nd state to adopt the new learning goals.
Department of Education spokeswoman Anne Graham tells me the vote was 7-2. It seems that this one was no picnic, either; lots of audience input, and the meeting went more than two hours over the appointed time frame. Gov. Bob Riley, who is also a board member, was in attendance, and the man who will soon replace him, fellow Republican Robert Bentley, dispatched a state senator to the meeting to request a delay in the vote. One of his concerns, apparently, is that the common standards mean less local control over education (a concern board chair Joseph Morton sought to allay in his written recommendation). Bentley joins the board next year.
With Alabama's move, this is where the country stands today on common standards:
In yet another nod to the rising prominence of improving education in the STEM fields among policymakers, the National Governors Association recently announced the creation of an advisory panel to help state chief executives develop comprehensive agendas to advance the issue, according to a press release.
"This Committee is intended to provide the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders to governors and states as they work to establish and grow STEM education programs that can contribute to economic competitiveness," said John Thomasian, the director of the NGA's Center for Best Practices, in the Nov. 12 release.
Panel members will serve two-year terms, and represent expertise across education, policy, business, and the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields.
Here's a quick sampling of the 19 members announced:
• Carlos Contreras, the U.S. education director at Intel Corporation;
• Karen Klinzing, the deputy commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Education;
• Uri Treisman, professor of mathematics and public affairs, and executive director of the Charles A. Dana Center The University of Texas at Austin;
• Richard D. Rosen, the vice president for education and philanthropic partnerships at the Battelle Memorial Institute; and
• Helen Quinn, a professor of physics at Stanford University and the chair of the Board on Science Education at the National Research Council.
The 12th grade NAEP results in math and reading are out today. Check our story on edweek.org for more. It has a link to the full report.
Lest you harbor any doubt that there is no clear consensus on what constitutes college readiness, allow me to share with you this story from the Chicago Tribune.
What happened here? The Tribune analyzed how ACT's "college readiness benchmarks" lined up with schools' own ideas of their students' preparedness. At some of Illinois' most well-regarded high schools, as it turns out, rather substantial portions of students are falling short of the ACT's benchmarks, which are supposed to indicate how ready they are to succeed in entry-level credit-bearing college coursework.
Predictably, this sort of thing can prompt some squirming and defensiveness in high schools that are used to elite distinctions. But it takes us back to that persistent question: Exactly how do you define college readiness?
The ACT's research led it to conclude that students who reach a certain score in given subjects stand a much better chance of succeeding in college coursework than those who don't produce those scores. High schools can point out, as some in the Tribune story did, that their kids go off to college in droves and are very successful. But how many schools really track their students into college well enough to make that claim with credibility?
We've told you about the two big state assessment consortia that won Race to the Top money to design tests for the new common standards. We've also told you about graphic depictions of those plans that were developed to help folks understand them better. Now there are Power Point explanations as well.
The Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management at ETS, the same group that developed the graphic versions, has put together Power Point presentations summarizing the consortia's approaches to testing on the new standards. As with the graphic versions, the accuracy of the Power Points has been approved by the consortia, according to the center.
New research suggests that children get a leg up in math if their parents talk to them routinely about numbers as toddlers, my colleague Sarah D. Sparks reports over at Inside School Research.
As Sarah explains, the longitudinal study indicates that there are big differences in the amounts of number-related words parents use in regular conversation with their children, and that this can have a big effect on a child's numeracy skills, even before formal number instruction in preschool.
Susan C. Levine, a psychologist at the University of Chicago, and a team of researchers found that children whose parents talked with them frequently about numbers as toddlers were better able to understand the cardinal number principle, the notion that a given number, say six, represents a set of six items, Sarah writes. According to researchers, children learn the abstract meaning of a given number separately from simply learning to count to that number.
The study, "What Counts in the Development of Young Children's Number Knowledge?," was published in the latest issue of the journal Developmental Psychology.
Our story about formative assessment seems to have struck a bit of a nerve. Readers are raising interesting questions about it. So let's go one more round on this today.
Margaret Heritage, the author of a recent report that sparked our story on formative assessment, has been responding to some of the points raised about the practice. Before we move on to today's exchange, let's take a second to do a quick catch-up with those of you who are just checking in.
Heritage wrote an interesting report that was the subject of an equally interesting panel discussion last week. She argued that formative assessment isn't a series of quizzes, it's an integral part of the reciprocal feedback loop of teacher and student in figuring out how learning—and thus teaching—is going. My story, which links to her report, is here, and a blog post with more about the discussion is here. Readers' comments on the story and blog are worth a look, too; one of them, from retired Washington state teacher Ken Mortland, prompted me to ask Heritage for a response, and I wrote about that exchange here yesterday.
Reading Heritage's response, Mortland wrote back again, and Heritage obliged with a response. Their exchange is below. I welcome you into this interesting dialogue about the important process of figuring out what students are learning.
From Mortland:
Upon reading your reply, I get the sense that, for you, "formative assessment" is a subjective process that goes on within the mind of the instructor, during the process of teaching the lesson. Using questioning techniques, the instructor can gauge the understanding of students by evaluating their responses. Such techniques are common and an integral part of teaching. There remains the issue of the "subjectiveness" of the process.
While this process may help evaluate the learning of those you question, it is not feasible to ask every student the necessary questions, so the evaluation involves only those students questioned. I perceive Mastery Learning's process of "formative assessments" as being more global in nature than the process you describe and providing hard-copy proof of learning or lack thereof. The language of Mastery Learning uses the term "formative assessments" specifically, in describing this process. Though it doesn't fit your definition, I've come to the conclusion that Mastery Learning's "formative assessments" are, indeed, formative. I choose, therefore, to disagree with your analysis. No disrespect intended.
Heritage responds:
Formative assessment certainly occurs during a lesson. It is a planned process. By this I mean teachers are clear about when and how they are going to collect evidence of how their students' learning is evolving in Dylan Wiliam's terms, minute-by-minute, day-by-day. I agree that questioning techniques are important ways to gather evidence. But there are many more that a teacher can use to gauge if there is a need for instructional adjustments during the lesson for the class as a whole or for specific students.
As for "subjectiveness," yes, teachers will make judgments based on evidence, but isn't this what they are supposed to do? Teachers develop conceptions of what it means to meet a learning goal for a lesson and specific criteria of what students will do or say to indicate they are (or are not) moving forward to meet the intended learning goal. Then they collect evidence in relation to those indicators and make judgments about their students' learning and decisions about what to do next so that students ultimately reach "mastery." By the way, in the process of formative assessment, students are involved too, and they use the criteria to monitor their own learning as well as to provide feedback to their peers.
Before you move on to ruminate more about formative assessment, I will leave a parting thought with you, prompted by a reminder from another reader. It's worth noting that some have raised questions about the interpretations of the research base on formative assessment. My colleague Steve Sawchuk blogged about that here.
Those of you who have been following our coverage of the common standards—and those of you who feel you've missed things and want to catch up—might be interested to know that key stories and commentary on that subject have been pulled together in one place. It's our "Spotlight on Common Standards."
A Texas district has apparently backed off plans to remove a humanities textbook from schools that had drawn complaints from a parent about (gasp!) photos of ancient nude sculptures, the Dallas Morning News reports.
The story explains that students and parents had accused the Plano Independent School District of censorship following the district's decision to pull Culture and Values: A Survey of the Humanities, Alternate Volume. The book was used by freshmen and sophomores in the district's gifted and talented classes. It contains photos of nude statues from ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as well as the Italian Renaissance.
A spokeswoman for the district told the Dallas Morning News that the book would be reissued to high schools and that any individual concern over content would follow the "challenge process as provided for under local board policy."
The district's original decision triggered an online campaign by current and former students accusing the district of censorship.
One former student wrote on a Facebook page set up to protest the district's action: "These works of art are not obscene, lewd, or pornographic. They are completely appropriate for the class and for the curriculum."
My story last week on formative assessment prompted a reader to pose a question about how it relates to the concept of "mastery learning" as he was practicing it in his classroom. Intrigued, I asked Margaret Heritage, the author of the report I wrote about, to share her thoughts in response. The question-and-answer offer an interesting glimpse into the field's attempts to clarify the idea—and practice—of formative assessment as the two big state assessment consortia move into designing tests for the new common standards.
Those of you who missed my story on formative assessment can catch up here (the story links directly to the study, which you should check out, too). And you might also want to read the blog item I posted about it as well, with more from the discussion about Heritage's report.
The reader (whose question you can see in the comments section here, along with other comments), asked about the practice of "mastery learning" and formative assessment:
I used that delivery system in my classroom and it involves formative and summative tests. The formative tests are given at the end of each major lesson, to measure the level of understanding of students. Those who pass the formative test move on to an enrichment lesson. Those who do not reach the "mastery" level (in my class 80% proficiency) move into additional work to qualify to retake the formative test on that lesson. No student may take a summative test on a unit without having "mastered" all of the formative tests/quizzes leading up to the summative test.
Furthermore, no student may have credit for the course work without having taken all summative tests. The formative tests/quizzes are constructed around the content of the lesson, making sure the feedback sought is actually presented in the lessons, the whole alignment thing. Work required in the remedial phase must cover the same material, but be of a different sort of learning task. Am I properly interpreting "formative" tests/quizzes?
Here is Heritage's response:
I have a different perspective on formative assessment from the mastery learning one you write about here. In the way you describe the tests, I regard them as summative classroom assessments. They are given to the students to see if they have mastered the learning objectives.
You indicate that students can pass them or retake them after a remediation phase. From my perspective, formative assessment is not about remediation. In a sense, formative assessment is the antidote to remediation. Formative assessment takes place while the learning is evolving, during the course of instruction. Using a variety of means teachers collect evidence of student learning so they are able to respond to student needs.The whole idea of formative assessment is that the teachers keep a close eye on student's learning as it is emerging so they can make necessary instructional adjustments to keep student learning moving forward to meet the learning goal of the lesson (or if no adjustments are necessary based on the evidence they have obtained, they keep going with the lesson as planned).
It's an idea that's drawn many grumbles over the years: restricting students' advancement to the amount of seat time they've put in. This well of discontent has deepened as the national dialogue about multiple pathways has taken shape. We need to customize schooling, the argument goes, to suit the widely varying needs and speeds of the young people who are partaking in it.
Many new approaches have sprouted from this thinking, including a proliferation of ideas about alternative education. A related mix of innovations shoots bullets through the idea that kids need to spend a specified number of hours in their seats in order to progress to the next grade, or to the next level of complexity in their work.
Into that mix, a new report arrives, arguing that the time has come to create next-generation modes of learning that allow students to move as, and when, they are ready. The study, by MetisNet and iNACOL, with support from the Quincy, Mass.-based Nellie Mae Education Foundation, explores the implications of moving toward "competency-based pathways," from the role technology can play to state policies that need tweaking to facilitate the flexibility required.
A state panel in Louisiana voted earlier today to recommend a new batch of life science textbooks, despite complaints by critics of the theory of evolution, the Associated Press reports.
The advisory council of educators and lawmakers voted 8-4 on the use of the textbooks for high school students. A final decision will come next month from the state board of elementary and secondary education.
As I wrote this morning, opponents had said the books gave undue deference to the theory of evolution and should include information about "intelligent design."
The AP story says that most of those who testified before the state advisory council supported the books and objected to any inclusion of disclaimers about the theory of evolution or of provisions about intelligent design or creationism.
A story in the Baton Rouge Advocate provides some more detail about the proceedings, which lasted more than three hours. For one, two of the "no" votes came from prominent state lawmakers on education: Senate education committee Chairman Ben Nevers, a Democrat, and House education committee Vice Chairman Frank Hoffmann, a Republican.
Lennie Ditoro of Mandeville, La., who has worked with an advocacy group called the Louisiana Family Forum in the past, said the science textbooks are flawed, according to the AP story.
"The books are really weak on the side of examining scientific evidence," Ditoro reportedly told the state's Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council. "Let's not teach the kids that there is no controversy in the scientific community."
But backers of the textbooks told the panel that Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution are widely accepted in the scientific community, and that the continuing debate in Louisiana is an embarrassment.
"We have been here before," Tammy Wood, a veteran educator in East Baton Rouge Parish, told the panel, the story says. "I don't know why we are here again."
As I noted in my earlier blog entry, supporters of the textbooks had worried that the critics were aiming to get disclaimers added to the books, change their content, or pave the way for adding supplemental materials that challenge Darwin.
A set of proposed new high school biology textbooks for Louisiana's public schools are under fire by critics who say they give too much credibility to the theory of evolution, the Advocate newspaper of Baton Rouge reported this week. (Hat tip to the National Center for Science Education for first bringing this development to my attention.)
The story explains that a state panel will review the issue today, after the state board of education last month delayed action on the textbooks because of the concerns raised.
"It is like Charles Darwin and his theory is a saint," the story quotes Winston White of Baton Rouge as saying. White was among those to file comments with state officials reviewing the textbooks.
Defenders of the textbooks say the criticism is being led by the Louisiana Family Forum. That group, according to its website, aims to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking."
Barbara Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and co-founder of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, said she believes the critics are aiming to get disclaimers added to the textbooks, change their content, or pave the way for adding supplemental materials that challenge Darwin, she told the Advocate.
In fact, Forrest writes about the matter on her organization's website: "We now have a Texas-style attack on the selection of biology textbooks, courtesy of the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), which brought us the creationist Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) of 2008."
The Louisiana Coalition for Science describes itself as "a group of concerned Louisiana residents working to protect the teaching of science in Louisiana."
Apparently, the critics of the proposed new textbooks may draw on the 2008 Louisiana law to strengthen their case. That measure says its aim is to foster an environment in public schools that "promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
For more on that law, check out my colleague Sean Cavanagh's blog post from 2008. In it, Sean notes that the measure was opposed by several scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Speaking of evolution, stay tuned for an EdWeek story from my colleague Sarah D. Sparks that looks at the recent growth in research initiatives by various science organizations focused on identifying essential concepts for teaching evolution. The story will be posted on our website next week.
Update (10:46am): The Advocate newspaper published an editorial in today's edition arguing against any changes to undermine the teaching of evolution.
Here's an excerpt:
"When the state boards of education in Texas and Kansas bent to political pressure and began to censor or amend textbooks through distortions of science and history, those states were embarrassed in the nation," it says. "We hope that experience is much on the minds of the committee that today will hear complaints about textbooks for high school biology in Louisiana."
The editorial continues: "The committee members have a duty to reject intrusion of pseudo-science, such as creationism or its offshoot 'intelligent design,' into science classrooms. ... [J]ust about every mainstream [religious] faith is accepting of the theory of evolution that is the basic building block for all scientific understanding of life on Earth."
Update (4:10 p.m.): A state panel has voted to recommend a new batch of life science textbooks, despite complaints by critics of the theory of evolution. Read the story here.
Nearly all American teenagers recognize the importance of math and science, and most are confident in their own abilities in the subjects, a new survey of U.S. youths suggests.
At the same time, teenagers are far less confident in the nation's ability to be competitive in math and science, according to findings in the survey of some 1,000 teens, which was commissioned by the Intel Corp.
Given all the recent attention to building up interest in the STEM fields, including from President Obama, it may be surprising to learn from this survey that students do seem to "get it" in terms of the importance of science and math. In fact, a clear majority of teenagers (68 percent) agreed that math and science know-how will be required of most jobs in the future. And 58 percent said they aspire to a math- or science-related career.
The survey used several questions to gauge and flesh out perceptions of the importance of math and science among young people.
On the global question, "How important do you think it is to be good at math and science?", 99 percent said it was either "very important" (68 percent) or "somewhat important" (31 percent).
Meanwhile, 59 percent agreed that math and science are "important for me to get into college." At the same time, only 44 percent view it as important to "solving society's big problems."
And to the issue you've all been waiting for, I'm afraid that math and science excellence still seems to have a geek stigma. Only 4 percent of respondents said that math and science is "an area cool people tend to be good at."
A press release from Intel suggests there may be a disconnect between students' confidence in their abilities in science and math and the reality, given the performance of U.S. students, including in international comparisons where they tend to lag behind many other developed nations.
"These findings raise a lot of questions," Shelly Esque, a vice president at Intel, said in the news release. "Are teens overconfident? Or is it that they are not being challenged enough?"
There are other findings worth checking out in the survey, too. One other area I'll highlight is an apparent gender gap when it comes to self-confidence, something I'm sure you've heard about before.
While most teenagers said they were confident in their abilities in science and math, a greater percentage of males (89 percent) had this belief about themselves than females (79 percent). In fact, the gap is a bit larger among those who said they were "very confident" as opposed to "somewhat" confident. Forty-nine percent of males were "very confident" compared with 36 percent of females.
The survey was conducted online in September by Penn Schoen Berland.
After being suspended last year, the AP Italian Language and Culture course and exam are returning next fall, the College Board announced yesterday. The program's reinstatement came as a result of an intensive fundraising campaign led by the Italian Embassy in Washington, according to a press release from the College Board.
The first exam will be administered in May 2012.
The suspension of the Italian Advanced Placement course and exam was instituted because student participation failed to meet projections and the costs to maintain the program became "unmanageable," the College Board said. But the Italian Embassy rallied to reverse the situation, raising money from the Italian government, Italian-American organizations, individual donors, and Italian companies,
"Promoting Italian language is a high priority for our foreign policy," Vincenzo Scotti, Italy's undersecretary of state for foreign affairs, said at a ceremony yesterday announcing the news, according to the release. "The Italian government has strongly supported the reinstatement of Italian in the AP program, and I am here tonight to show our great appreciation and gratitude to those whose contributions made it possible."
The College Board only began offering the AP Italian program in September 2005. I came across a Wall Street Journal blog that noted that one of the advocates working to restore Italian AP was the sister of Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo of New York. Margaret Cuomo heads up the Italian Language Foundation. That organization's primary mission since launching has been to reinstate the AP program in Italian.
Formative assessment is squishy. And squishy things don't easily yield to standardized measurement. And that creates an awkward situation in an era of numbers-driven accountability.
That squishiness was on display yesterday during a panel discussion about formative assessment. (See my story for highlights of the discussion and a summary of the paper that inspired it.)
The key messages being put forth were these: Don't let the push for new-age assessments mess with formative assessment, and don't forget what formative assessment really is.
And what is it, exactly? According to Margaret Heritage of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, it's a reciprocal feedback loop of students and teachers, figuring out together whether deep learning has taken place. Her very pointed point here was that you can't get there with a pop quiz.
The way to get there, according to Heritage and some of the folks on the panel, is not to design new "formative tests," but to devote resources to teaching teachers how to master this feedback loop called formative assessment. That means professional development. Lots of it. And what that starts to sound like, at least to some ears, is that formative assessment isn't so much assessment as it is instruction.
Achieve's Mike Cohen noted this during the discussion, suggesting that we call formative assessment "formative instruction" instead.
As the question-and-answer session began, testing veteran Jon S. Twing addressed that idea as well. Standing up in the audience, he said that 30 years ago, "formative assessment" would have just been called good teaching. "When," he wanted to know, with what sounded like mild exasperation, "did it become an assessment issue and not an instruction issue?"
Heritage said it is important to think of formative assessment as assessment, since many teachers need a "systematic, planned process" by which to figure out (assess) where their students are with their learning. "Yes, of course it's good teaching," she told Twing. "But it's driven by a process of planful evidence-gathering with a purpose, for a reason."
Can such a process be designed, formatted and distributed widely? If not, how can—or should—it be employed in the era of numbers-driven accountability?
As the assessment consortia lumber toward new test designs, there is lots of talk about what will be included in those new "systems" of assessment. How, for instance, will they respond to the call from the administration for testing systems to produce valuable information that teachers can use day by day, as they go, to guide instruction?
Early representations were that those families of assessments would include interim or benchmark tests, as well as the required summative tests for accountability. There were also more than a few murmurings about formative tests.
So in that light, a new paper out today will interest you. The assistant director of professional development for CRESST, the assessment outfit at UCLA, wrote a paper for the Council of Chief State School Officers arguing that the meaning of formative assessment has been distorted, and that the assessment consortia don't seem to get it right, either. It's not a set of tools, Margaret Heritage argues, but a practice deeply embedded in teaching and learning. She sees formative assessment as key to good instruction, and fears that the new testing systems will get it wrong, missing a crucial opportunity to improve the way we gauge what students know, and shape teaching accordingly.
Heritage appeared on a panel discussion today with other folks who reflected on what formative assessment is and what it isn't. They also had one of the assessment consortium leaders there to, er, defend the group's plans. We'll have a story on the paper and the discussion tomorrow at edweek.org, as well as another blog post here, so stay tuned.
Had enough talk about the election? Here are a few things to consider that have nothing to do with last week's events, all brought to you by teachers:
• Revisit the question of whether social studies gets squeezed out of the curriculum by math and English language arts, since No Child Left Behind pegs accountability to those subjects.
• Consider new approaches to assessing students' skills every day, in the classroom. Not the skills assessed by multiple-choice tests, but a broader set that is critical to their success.
• Ask yourselves what can be done to avoid the utterly disillusioning experience of this Massachusetts teacher, who watched her students graduate from high school, year after year, knowing that they were far from well-educated. And this in a state with one of the most-esteemed sets of standards and assessments in the country.
A collection of some 250 corporations, universities, and professional associations are urging Senate leaders to hurry up and complete work on legislation to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act, which includes a strong emphasis on improving STEM education.
They call on lawmakers to act in time that a bill could reach President Obama's desk before the 111th Congress comes to a close in early January (and presumably Congress would have to start over).
But this may be a tall order, given that last week's elections brought a political sea change to Capitol Hill, with Republicans seizing a majority in the House and making strong gains in the Senate. Most House Republicans voted "no" on the reauthorization bill approved by that chamber in May, arguing that the price tag—all told, some $86 billion over five years—was too high.
A companion version was passed by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation this summer, but has never reached that chamber's floor.
The letter to Senate leaders says: "Sustaining ... investments in research, and developing a highly educated, scientifically literate workforce are both essential to our country's continued success in making the scientific discoveries and developing the cutting-edge technologies that will propel our economy in the future."
The letter was signed by seven individuals, including Paul S. Otellini, the president and CEO of Intel Corp.; the president of Carnegie Mellon University; and former Michigan Gov. John Engler, the president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers. Beyond that, a long list of universities, companies, and other organizations are identified as endorsing the letter.
Further in the letter, there's a nod to concerns about cost:: "We recognize the dire fiscal challenge facing the nation and the difficult choices on federal spending that policymakers must make," the letter says. "Continued strong funding of basic research and STEM education programs will help ensure the economic growth needed to restore long-term fiscal strength and national prosperity."
By now, you've no doubt heard plenty about this week's elections, especially for Congress and governorships, and the major gains made by Republicans. These results will have big implications for the direction of education policy and funding.
But you've probably heard far less, if anything (except from Education Week), about the shift in leadership coming from state schools chiefs. In all, as my colleague Sean Cavanagh has reported, six states—Arizona, California, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming—elected new chiefs this week. In Idaho, incumbent Republican Tom Luna won a second term. Also, in a race decided this summer, Oregon's chief, Democrat Susan Castillo, won a third term.
The only Democrat among Tuesday's winners was California's Tom Torlakson, a state lawmaker and former high school teacher who had the backing of teachers' unions. (His race, to replace outgoing chief Jack O'Connell, was technically a nonpartisan one.)
State superintendents, of course, typically play an important role in shaping and implementing education policy, with fallout that can be felt at the classroom level, including from state standards and assessments. Only about a quarter of state chiefs, however, are elected by voters.
Here are Tuesday's winners, by state:
Arizona: John Huppenthal, a veteran Republican state senator who is the chairman of that chamber's education committee.
California: As mentioned, Tom Torlakson.
Georgia: John Barge, a Republican and public school administrator. He's also previously worked at the state department of education, where he was the state director for career-technical and agriculture education.
Idaho: As mentioned, Republican Tom Luna won a second term.
Oklahoma: Republican Janet Barresi, a former school speech pathologist who has helped found charter schools.
South Carolina: Mick Zais, a Republican and a former president of Newberry College.
Wyoming: Republican Cindy Hill, a former junior high school principal.
For EdWeek's overview and analysis of election results, click here.
It's in headlines everywhere, so you certainly don't need me to tell you that yesterday's elections shifted the political landscape to the right. Narrowing the lens to education, that shift could bring about some key policy changes nationally and in states. And those will trickle into classrooms, whether through the decisions that get made about funding or the decisions made about academic standards and assessments.
My colleague Sean Cavanagh reports, for instance, that a number of Republicans reclaimed governors' and state superintendents' offices with campaign platforms that included arguments for more local control over education, and a heaping dose of hairy-eyeball for what they consider federal intrusion into school policy.
This is a theme I've heard over and over while covering the development and adoption of the common standards, so it will be interesting to monitor whether the new powers in statehouses manage to roll back their states' embrace of the new standards that have now been adopted by 40 states and the District of Columbia.
In states that won Race to the Top money, how easy will it be to get out from under a common-standards-and-assessment promise that formed part of the basis for getting the money to begin with? And the 44 states participating in consortia to design new assessments are now holding some $360 million in federal money for that project. As participants, they have to adopt the common standards, too. Sure, they can drop out of the assessment consortia, but in lean budget days, are states going to be eager to turn their backs on a group investment and spend their own money on assessments?
Republicans' newly regained control of the U.S. House and stronger position in the U.S. Senate will likely mean a slimmed-down federal role in education policy, as our own Alyson Klein notes. And since the current Congress didn't get its act together in time to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that means the added influence of Republicans will be a new ingredient in that process when it finally happens. And that matters to common standards and assessments, since a number of its advocates have been hoping that the new ESEA could be shaped in ways that support their costly implementation.
We've got maps, blog posts, and a slide shows detailing the education-related election results here.
Last week, we published a story about President Obama's extensive use of the bully pulpit to champion STEM education. And now, just a few days later, I've learned that former Vice President Al Gore is taking up the cause.
Gore, long known for his interest in environmental issues, especially combating climate change, on Nov. 17 will host what's being billed as a "global online town hall" meeting aimed at drumming up greater interest among U.S. students in math and science, according to a press release.
The interactive event, being organized by Time Warner Cable, will also include inventor Dean Kamen and former astronaut Sally Ride.
"We want to put a human face on a very sobering statistics—the U.S. ranks 35th in math and 29th in science worldwide—to spark a new level of interest among our kids so they are prepared for what lies ahead," Glen Britt, the CEO of Time Warner Cable, said in a press release. "[W]e need to do all we can to encourage our youth to take an active, enthusiastic interest in STEM and connect them to opportunities that stoke this passion."
You'll be able to access the town hall meeting here.
If you have been following the wave of adoptions of the common standards, you might well wonder what the elections this week will hold for their future.
As my colleague Erik noted below, this election is really worth watching for its potential impact on education.
Even though 41 states have adopted the common standards, who knows what will happen to the commitment to put them into practice when new governors, state boards, state lawmakers, and state education chiefs arrive? The folks over at ASCD take a look at a few places where changes could affect the common standards. Our intrepid reporting staff will keep a watch on the issue as well.
If you've been wondering what the elections this week might mean for education, the short answer is—a lot.
Why? A host of reasons, as EdWeek has highlighted in recent stories. First, as almost everyone knows by now, Congress could be in for a sea change if Republicans reclaim a majority in one or both chambers. Most analysts believe the House is especially vulnerable.
Keep in mind that on Congress' upcoming legislative agenda is an overdue reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (better known these days as the No Child Left Behind Act, though there seems to be bipartisan support for ditching that name). It goes without saying that the federal law, especially under its most recent iteration, has had a profound effect on what goes on (and what doesn't) in classrooms around the country, mainly because of its testing and accountability demands. Congress will also have to decide whether to provide continued funding for two high-profile initiatives recently created under the federal stimulus law: the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (or i3) programs.
But beyond Congress, 37 governorships are up for grabs. In fact, nearly half the states are guaranteed to see a new state leader because of retirements and term limits. As we've noted, governors have continued to see growing prominence in shaping education policy and funding levels for a variety of reasons. And then, don't forget the mayoral races, state legislative contests, and elections for both local and state school boards (including Texas, where the election could drive an important shift in the body's political balance of power). Oh, and there are also some ballot initiatives worth noting, too.
It all adds up to an election worth paying close attention to. For easy access to all EdWeek has to say about the matter, including stories, an interactive map, and a podcast by my colleagues Sean Cavanagh and Alyson Klein, check out our Election 2010 page. (Be sure to scroll down below the map to see all the stories.)
Recent Comments