January 2011 Archives

The College Board tomorrow is expected to issue a "sweeping revision" to the Advanced Placement course and exam in biology, but has decided to delay similar changes in U.S. history by a year to address concerns expressed by some high school teachers, The New York Times reports.

The newspaper notes that the changes in both subjects are part of a broad revamping of AP courses and exams to reduce memorization and to foster more analytic thinking. For the big picture on that, you may want to check out this information from the College Board website, as well as this separate article in The Times from early January.

Today's story explains that "while the new biology curriculum is specific about what material needs to be covered, some teachers complained that parts of the history course seemed vague, and the board said it needed more time to clarify what should be studied."

The biology curriculum will take effect in 2012-13, while the history curriculum will begin the following academic year.

The changes in biology also come as a separate effort is under way to craft new national science standards. My latest intelligence on this initiative is the framework to guide those standards will be out sometime this spring.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Bill Gates' third annual letter is out today, and the education section reflects the foundation's current focus on improving teaching.

The bulk of the letter is devoted to the foundation's work to eradicate polio. But in the short education section, Gates reflects on what the foundation is learning from its ongoing study of teaching, including the role students can play in shaping instruction. (My colleague Stephen Sawchuk wrote about this ongoing work here.)

He also suggests that, especially in lean fiscal times, it's a good idea to rethink how money is spent to reward teaching, a shift that's growing increasingly popular in the states as the idea of performance pay gains converts. Gates notes that in a recent speech to the Council of Chief State School Officers, he said that they "might need to find money to reward excellent teaching by shifting some away from things like payment for seniority or advanced degrees that do not correlate with improved teaching."

Gates also mentions the foundation's commitment to investing in technological tools that will improve learning. But he doesn't mention the philanthropy's support of common academic standards, or of folks developing instructional materials for them. The foundation also is playing a role in soliciting expert input on the assessments being designed for the new standards by two big state consortia (but he doesn't mention that in the letter, either).

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The first-ever national evaluation of National History Day suggests that students who participate in the yearlong academic program and competition perform better on standardized tests, are better writers, and are more confident and capable researchers.

The program for elementary and secondary students focuses on historical research, interpretation, and creative expression.

"This research confirms what those of us who work with National History Day students have seen anecdotally for years," Cathy Gorn, the program's executive director, said in a press release. "Students who are slipping through the cracks of our education system find their way back and get on track to succeed in school while participating in NHD."

The independent evaluation, conducted by the San Francisco-based research firm Rockman et al, sought to compare groups of student participants in National History Day programs to similar sets of students who did not participate. In all, the study examined outcomes for 458 students in four districts, located in Colorado, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas; 274 of those students participated in National History Day programs.

With regard to test scores, the report found that participating students outperformed non-participating peers on state standardized tests, not only in social studies, but also in other subjects, including reading, mathematics, and science.

The report notes that each year, more than 600,000 middle and high school students participate in National History Day by creating presentations "that bring primary-source research to life through table-top exhibits, documentaries, live performances, websites, and research papers."

Teachers incorporate the NHD curriculum into their classrooms or offer the program as an extracurricular activity. Students work together with their teachers, as well as with local historical societies and museums, on yearlong history projects that culminate in local and state contests, and finally a national competition held each June, the report explains.

The evaluation was funded by philanthropist Kenneth E. Behring and the U.S. Department of Education.

The report argues that, given the large number of U.S. students who perform poorly in history, "the need to demonstrate the evidence-based, wide-ranging effectiveness of innovative, successful modes of teaching history is at a pivotal point."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you read this space regularly, you know that we talk a lot about the tricky process of defining what college readiness means. A new tool created by the Lumina Foundation can shed light on what high school students have to be ready for.

The foundation's "Degree Qualifications Profile"attempts to define what is required in order to earn an associate's degree, a bachelor's degree, or a master's degree. It's an attempt to create a shared understanding about what is required for each type of college degree, instead of basing those judgments on seat time and credit hours.

The profile certainly has much to say to a postsecondary audience, but it also has valuable insights for the K-12 crowd. We're painfully aware now that a high school diploma doesn't necessarily equal college readiness. So any articulation of what is expected in college can help inform the K-12 pipeline. And even the process of articulating the skills and knowledge required at successive levels of achievement can inform K-12 as it does the same.

The document was drafted by five college-readiness experts such as Clifford Adelman, whose "toolbox" work for the U.S. Department of Education in the late 1990s was influential in shaping educators' thinking about the issue. (details about the authors here) Nonetheless, the foundation considers the document a first try, to be shaped in the next few years by research testing out its initial conclusions.

This isn't a detailed guide that specifies what students must know about cell structure or Spanish literature; it's a set of "reference points" that students should be able to reach in five areas, including "applied learning" and "intellectual skills."

Check here for the Lumina Foundation's Q and A about the degree profile. The Washington Post's higher ed blogger Daniel de Vise explores some interesting aspects of the new profile, such as how the skills would be assessed at the higher ed level (and Adelman offers some interesting detail on his thoughts on assessment there, too). The Chronicle of Higher Education's take on it is here, and Inside Higher Education takes a look here.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Delaware announced yesterday that it will offer every 11th grader the chance to take the SAT, free of charge, during the school day. As my colleague Caralee Adams reports, it's part of the state's Race-to-the-Top-funded effort to boost college awareness and readiness among its students.

It's also notable as part of the story of rivalry between the College Board, which owns the SAT, and ACT Inc. The SAT has long been the most popular college-entrance test, but ACT has closed the gap steadily. And it's been doing that in part by nailing statewide contracts. (See my stories about the annual ACT and SAT score reports, and take a look at this blog post, too, for more on this rivalry, who's ahead, and how they're counting.)

The ACT has more statewide contracts than does the College Board. ACT spokesman Scott Gomer said that five states—Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee—require students to take the ACT. Two more, North Dakota and Wyoming, require students to take either the ACT or ACT's WorkKeys, a work-readiness assessment. Three more states—Arkansas, Texas, and Utah—offer students the chance to take the ACT free of charge, but don't require it.

The SAT, by contrast, does versions of this in three states. Delaware, as you just read, is offering the test to all juniors free of charge. Texas offers the test as well, but it's up to each school district to opt into that program, College Board spokesman Peter Kauffmann told me. Maine, by contrast, requires all 11th graders to take the SAT as part of its accountability system.

Sources of mine that are familiar with the College Board's work tell me that it is making a point of securing more statewide contracts. Kauffmann declined to discuss that, saying he would have to get back to me.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In his address last night, President Obama repeatedly talked about the importance of STEM education to the nation's economic well-being, raised concerns about the quality of math and science instruction here, and reiterated his call for recruiting 100,000 new STEM teachers over the next decade.

For the bigger picture on how President Obama discussed education in his State of the Union speech, including his call on Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, check out the joint blog post by my colleagues over at Politics K-12. Rather than overlap with that, I figured I would look specifically at STEM education, given how much attention he devoted to the matter in his remarks. In general, it's a topic Obama has talked about quite a bit during his presidency, especially over the past year or so.

Also, as I noted in a blog post yesterday, several students who have done exemplary work in the STEM fields were invited to sit with first lady Michelle Obama in her box at the U.S. Capitol last night.

Here are a few highlights from the speech that touch on STEM education.

China and India Emphasize Math and Science:
"Nations like China and India realized that with some changes of their own, they could compete in this new world. And so they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on math and science. They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became the home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer."

He continued: "We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business."

A Sputnik Moment:
"Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn't even there yet. NASA didn't exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment."

As you may know, this is not the first time the president has used the "Sputnik moment" rhetoric.

Math and Science Ed. 'Lags':
"Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The quality of our math and science education lags behind many other nations. America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us—as citizens, and as parents—are willing to do what's necessary to give every child a chance to succeed."

"That responsibility begins not in our classrooms, but in our homes and communities. ... We need to teach our kids that it's not just the winner of the Super Bowl who deserves to be celebrated, but the winner of the science fair."

This last comment picks up on a rhetorical thread the president has invoked before.

100,000 New STEM Teachers:
"We want to reward good teachers and stop making excuses for bad ones. And over the next 10 years, with so many baby boomers retiring from our classrooms, we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science and technology and engineering and math."

This reference to recruiting more STEM teachers is not a new theme from President Obama. He made the same call in September.

'What do you think of that idea?'
Finally, this comment by the president was not specific to STEM education, but it's one I thought many educators might appreciate:

"We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea—the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny. That's why centuries of pioneers and immigrants have risked everything to come here. It's why our students don't just memorize equations, but answer questions like 'What do you think of that idea? What would you change about the world? What do you want to be when you grow up?' "

Posted by Erik Robelen at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

President Barack Obama is expected to devote considerable time to K-12 education issues in his State of the Union Address tonight, my colleague Alyson Klein reports over at Politics K-12. She says he will call on Congress to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and link his education agenda to the nation's economic future.

Don't be surprised if he has a few things in particular to say about promoting STEM education. In another Politics K-12 blog post, colleague Michele McNeil highlights some of the guests who will be sitting in first lady Michelle Obama's box for the address. They include several students who appear to have a special interest in the STEM—science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—fields, as well as Xerox Corp. CEO Ursula Burns. She's on the board of Change the Equation, a coalition of more than 100 CEOs focused on improving STEM education first publicly announced by President Obama at a White House event.

Here's a blog post from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy about the guests tonight.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Our story on the latest NAEP results in science is available here. One quick note: The 2009 assessment was based on a revised framework, so the results are NOT comparable to previous years.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

It's been a while since we've had news on the common-standards adoption front, but here's an update for you: Idaho's adoption has moved from provisional to final.

Yesterday's unanimous approval by the state Senate's education committee completes the adoption process. Idaho is one of the few states in which academic standards adoption is not the sole province of the state board of education. In Idaho, the state board must act (which it did in November), but the education committee of one of the chambers of the state legislature must act as well.

In Maine, the state legislature must still take action for common standards to be final there. And Washington state's adoption isn't final yet either.

Even though Idaho's move doesn't change our adoption tally (43 states, plus the District of Columbia), I'm including our map here as a little reminder of where things stand, since the frontier has been quiet for a while.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 8:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

You might not be aware, but this is apparently the International Year of Chemistry.

To help celebrate, NBC Learn, the educational arm of NBC News, and the National Science Foundation have teamed up to launch a weekly online video series targeting teachers and students. The videos aim to uncover and explain the science of common physical objects and the changes they undergo each day, according to a press release on the initiative.

Topics in the "Chemistry Now" series will include the chemistry behind cheeseburgers and chocolate, soap and plastics. The series will also highlight the lives and work of scientists "on the frontiers of 21st century chemistry," the announcement says.

The videos, available online for free, will be matched with lesson plans from the National Science Teachers Association.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I've just come across a provocative article recently published in the American Scientist magazine that calls into question whether schools are really the most effective conduit for learning about science. It suggests that growing evidence points to the power of "free choice science learning"—often referred to as "informal science learning"—to advance the public's understanding of science. With this in mind, they call for a change in the ratio of money going toward informal versus formal learning.

"Most policy solutions ... involve improving classroom practices and escalating the investment in schooling, particularly during the precollege years," write researchers John Falk and Lynn Dierking from the College of Science at Oregon State University. "The assumption has been that children do most of their learning in school and that the best route to long-term public understanding of science is successful formal schooling."

But they note that Americans spend less than five percent of their lives in classrooms, and "an ever-growing body of evidence demonstrates that most science is learned outside of school."

The article, from the November-December issue of American Scientist, suggests that an increased investment in informal science learning might be a cost-effective way to significantly improve Americans' understanding of the subject.

The article offers a variety of examples of the types of informal resources and activities available to the American public, such as digital content, educational TV and radio, science museums, zoos, aquariums, national parks, and community activities such as 4-H and scouting.

"The sheer quantity and importance of this science learning landscape lies in plain sight but mostly out of mind," the researchers say.

For more on informal science learning, check out the 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences, "Learning Science in Informal Environments."

That report certainly makes the case for the power of informal science learning, but from what I can tell, does not go as far as Falk and Dierking in assessing the impact of informal science as opposed to what's learned in school.

Nonetheless, the National Academy of Sciences report certainly was intended to serve as a national clarion call to give more time and attention to informal science learning.

It says: "Efforts to enhance scientific capacity typically target schools and focus on such strategies as improving science curriculum and teacher training and strengthening the science pipeline. What is often overlooked is the potential for science learning in nonschool settings, where people actually spend the majority of their time."

To be clear, the article by Falk and Dierking does not suggest that schools don't matter for learning about science. They authors say their goal is not to diminish the importance and value of schooling. But they do suggest there's a big imbalance between investments in schools and those in other settings.

"Given that at present school-based science education efforts receive an order of magnitude more resources than free-choice learning options, even a modest change in this ratio could make a huge difference," they write. "The data suggest it would be a wise investment."

So, what say you, Dear Reader? Is it time for a change in this ratio?

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Milwaukee school district yesterday announced that it has won a five-year, $20 million grant from the GE Foundation to overhaul its math and science curriculum, according to a blog post over at District Dossier.

The 82,000-student district in Wisconsin is the seventh chosen by the GE Foundation, the philanthropic arm of General Electric Co., for its Developing Futures in Education Initiative. Other recent recipients include the school districts in Atlanta; Cincinnati; Erie, Pa.; Jefferson County, Ky.; New York City; and Stamford, Conn.

The Developing Futures program seeks to help districts align math and science curriculum, as well as teacher professional development, to the international science, technology, engineering, and math job market, my colleague Sarah D. Sparks explains in the blog post.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I've been thinking a lot lately about the big schism between what schools think students need to master to do well in college and what they actually need to master. It's been a blend of professional and personal thinking, as I work on a story about K-12 and college alignment in California, and support my youngest daughter, a high school senior, as she sorts through her thinking about college.

In my daughter's case, I'm confident she has been well prepared for college. She's lucky to have been able to choose tough classes at a good public school. I had the opposite experience; I attended a weak public school that told me, with my high grades, that I was fully prepared for the next step. But college was an ice-water bath; high school had not prepared me at all for the level of rigor demanded there, and I had to push hard to keep up.

I know from my years writing about education that I have a lot of company. Far too many schools offer students a watered-down education, setting the teenagers up for quite a shock when they get to college. Huge proportions—even those who got good grades in high school—end up in remedial classes, wasting good time and money and increasing the odds they will drop out without college degrees.

So I'm interested when edu-wonks talk about aligning the K-12 system to the expectations of college. That's part of what drew me to the story about California's Early Assessment Program, which has become something of a role model in the K-12/college-alignment crowd. (I also wrote about Texas' work to reshape its precollegiate education around college expectations.) Stay tuned for my story about California's EAP; I'll post a link here when it comes out. (UPDATE: here's a link.) But there is a lot in that program that provides grist for conversation as policymakers try to help more students get into the college pipeline and end up with degrees.

In a nutshell, this is the program: It tests 11th graders' readiness for college, using items designed jointly by K-12 and one of the state's public university systems. It offers catch-up options for seniors who haven't met the mark and professional development for teachers to help them teach to these college-level expectations. It's an understatement to say that the coherence of that approach is rare. Just creating a system with all these elements, infused with higher ed expectations, is a huge accomplishment. And some of the coursework created for seniors—especially an expository reading and writing course designed by K-12 and university faculty—gets glowing reviews from both students and teachers. Teachers rave about the professional development in literacy, too.

But (you knew there was a "but" coming, didn't you?) a system this big is bound to be hard to implement, especially in a huge state with huge financial challenges and tons of socioeconomic diversity. So despite its vision, and its accomplishments, the EAP comes in for its share of criticism, too: Students don't understand or act on their EAP results, so the early-warning aspect is weak, critics say. The courses designed to help them aren't available enough, or—in the case of math—good enough. The professional development hasn't reached enough teachers, they say. They note that after six years, the program hasn't made much of a dent in college remediation rates. Some even ask why we need a test to tell us something needs to be done for thousands of kids in high school; better to spend scarce resources bolstering high school teaching and supporting the students that need it the most, these folks say.

Whatever your take on the Early Assessment Program—or any attempt to align K-12 to college expectations—it certainly sparks valuable conversation that can bring about change. Even without a formal 11th grade test, you have to believe that schools, with the right kind of focus, can figure out which students aren't up to snuff, and can do it far earlier than 11th grade. Some might say we don't need a fancy, official constellation of programs to solve this problem; all we need to do is have good, skilled people working together through the K-12 system to help kids wherever they are.

Without that, there will continue to be a long line of kids that find their freshman year of college—if they make it that far—to be a potentially life-changing setback.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As part of Chinese President Hu Jintao's trip to the United States this week, he plans to stop by a Chicago public school—one known for having a strong Mandarin Chinese language and culture program. In fact, that program at Walter Payton College Prep, like a growing number of others around the country, is apparently supported in part with funds from the Chinese government.

I wrote a story last fall about the growing efforts, and financial support, from the Chinese government to promote Chinese language instruction here. While many state and local education officials have welcomed the support, the fact that China is helping to foot the bill has drawn some sharp criticism.

A story in the Chicago Tribune notes that "Chicago Public Schools boasts one of the most successful Chinese-language programs in the country, and Walter Payton Prep, home to the Confucius Institute, serves as its hub."

The Confucius Institute at the school is a project of Chicago Public Schools in partnership with Shanghai's East China Normal University and Hanban, an organization affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education, the story explains. That institute opened in 2006 following a visit to China by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

Walter Payton College Prep, located on Chicago's near North Side, is one of the city school district's nine selective enrollment high schools, according to Wikipedia. It was named after Chicago Bears football legend Walter Payton. The school describes itself as a "math, science, and world language academy."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Parents need access to information about college costs and manageable ways to apply for financial aid. That's the none-too-surprising finding of a recent study by the College Board.

The study, "Cracking the Student Aid Code," found by surveying parents and students that making the student-aid process simpler is key to helping families afford college. The Obama administration recognized this, and streamlined the FAFSA application. (Personal experience: three years ago, it took me days to finish the darn thing. When I did it last weekend, it took less than an hour.)

Improving the grassroots information lines will be tougher, since it's not something the federal government can accomplish in one fell swoop. The College Board's study found that not even half of the parents surveyed knew the cost of their state colleges. Latino parents have a particularly tough time with access to information: Only four in 10 were aware of the Pell grants that can help pay for college, compared with more than eight in 10 white and African-American parents.

My colleague Caralee Adams has more on this at our College Bound blog. Related to the need for college information was another recent study we told you about, that found parents could benefit from knowing colleges' graduation rates when they are considering their choices.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I've come across some recent developments that I'm going to wrap into a quick roundup for readers this morning. So grab your coffee and take a look!

• The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to take up a legal challenge to how Massachusetts handled a curriculum guide on genocide and human rights. For a detailed analysis, check out Mark Walsh's post at The School Law Blog.

• Educators in Georgia say that teaching students to write in cursive may soon disappear from most school lesson plans, according to an Associated Press story.

• This month, the federal Institute of Museum and Library Services is highlighting a project in a tribal community that's using a local library to help young people develop their literacy skills. The Pueblo of Pojoaque Public Library in New Mexico has received two grants under the institute's Native American Library Services program totaling some $250,000 for the effort.

• The White House is apparently gearing up to make a big push for the renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, my colleague Alyson Klein reports in a new EdWeek story. This could have plenty of implications for those who care about the curriculum, from potential changes to the law's accountability and testing demands to the fate of specific programs targeting a range of subjects, including reading, STEM education, U.S. history, arts education, and on and on. Also, here's a fresh blog post from Politics K-12 on a U.S. senator who will play a key role in the reauthorization effort (and apparently is keen on promoting math and science education).

• And finally, my colleague Stephen Sawchuk reports on a school that's moving toward a teacher-led approach. It's embracing a variety of other changes as part of the effort, including a pilot schedule for 7th and 8th graders that lets teachers regroup students in different English/language arts and math classes frequently, based on the students' performance and how quickly they are learning new material.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I'm not sure I'll be able to convince my editors to send me, but Beverly Hills is the site for an upcoming summit on using entertainment to promote science learning. The Feb. 4 event, hosted by the National Academy of Sciences, will bring together the masters of make-believe with scientists, engineers, and educators, according to a press release from the NAS. (Apparently, some actual students are invited, too!)

The idea is to explore how movies, television programs, and video and computer games can be used to help young people learn about science and technology.

The summit is being organized by the National Academy of Sciences' Science & Entertainment Exchange, a program launched in 2008 that seeks to connect professionals in the entertainment industry with top scientists to "create a synergy between realistic science and engaging entertainment," the press release says.

It will include writers, directors, and producers from the movie and television world. No word yet on whether any of the major bigwigs of Hollywood will make an appearance. Maybe Steven Spielberg? George Lucas? You never know.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:19 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Remember just the other day when we were mentioning those hovering questions about states' commitments to the common-core standards? I'm noticing reports from Utah and New Hampshire that tell us that state lawmakers there are rattling their swords about having their say. (Both states' boards have adopted the standards, and I'm not aware of any provision in either state for the legislature to have a role in those decisions. But of course lawmakers hold the purse strings, so one never knows what ripples they can create if they get a mind to do so.)

It's too soon to tell if these sentiments will get any traction. But it's something that's being watched by many sets of eyes. Note, for instance, this blog post from Missouri; some folks clearly have their eye on the Utah situation.

Some other common-core tidbits for you:

• The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation's Mike Petrilli and the University of Arkansas' Jay Greene go a few rounds on the common standards.

• Hayes Mizell discusses what states have to do to implement the common standards well. Mizell, an old hand at middle- and high-school reform, now blogs about professional development for us.

• Pearson, one of the education companies situating themselves to provide resources for common-core implementation, has pulled its offerings together on a new website. I noticed, also, that Pearson is offering a series of webinars with lead writers of the common-core standards. They're also calling attention to their "close association" with those writers as they prepare to offer themselves as key helpers to schools in implementing the common core.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Much attention has been focused on helping disadvantaged students get information about, apply to, and enroll in college. Now a new study tells us that knowing the respective graduation rates of colleges is a particularly powerful tool for low-income, less-informed parents.

If you've tracked college-access issues, you might be tempted to assume that wealthier, better-educated parents would be the ones to benefit most from having this information. After all, it's typically those parents who have the social capital (and sense of entitlement, I've always thought) to hunt down information and use it to advocate for their children. Lower-income, less-informed parents often lack the knowledge or experience to navigate the information and education systems, and can feel shut out.

That's why this study from the American Enterprise Institute, "Filling in The Blanks," is interesting. It found that when presented with graduation-rate information about two public colleges, lower-income, less-educated parents were even more likely than their more-advantaged peers to choose the one with the higher graduation rate. For obvious reasons, then, the study authors advocate federal rules requiring colleges to publicize their six-year graduation rates to help parents make better-informed choices. High school counselors should make sure they get and share graduation-rate information, too, they say.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In case you thought the United States' middling performance on PISA could be explained by a drag from the bottom, some further analysis I did for an EdWeek story just posted online suggests that our nation is not exactly a world leader in producing top-tier performers in math and science.

As the story explains, only about 10 percent of U.S. students scored in the two highest achievement categories in math on the Program for International Student Assessment. That's significantly below the figures for a lot of other nations, from South Korea and Japan to France, Germany, and New Zealand.

In science, the United States was about average among OECD nations, with 9.2 percent of American students meeting levels 5 or 6.

Here's my original story from December when the PISA results first came out.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Amid all the belt-tightening among federal, state, and local governments, arts education advocates may have some welcome news. A story published yesterday by The Art Newspaper identifies artist-endowed foundations as "the sleeping giant of philanthropy," pointing out that such foundations are rapidly growing both in number and financial strength.

Close to 300 artist-endowed foundations were identified at last count, the story says, and they jointly control combined assets of some $2.7 billion.

As the article explains: "That's a relatively modest sum next to the half a trillion dollars held in total by U.S. foundations. But artist-endowed foundations are especially important in the art world. Although some do fund noncultural causes, many stay tightly focused on the arts, bestowing their largesse on museums, research, publications, education, scholarships, and various means of support for living artists."

The story adds: "With an unprecedented cohort of well-to-do painters and sculptors among the older generations, the golden age of artist foundations may yet be ahead."

The story cites a massive 2010 report that may be of interest: "The Artist As Philanthropist: Strengthening the Next Generation of Artist-Endowed Foundations."

It's not clear to me the extent to which these foundations provide—or don't provide—grants for K-12 arts education initiatives, but even if it's uncommon, one never knows whether that could change.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Mixed into the optimistic visions of the folks working on new assessments for the common standards are some more-skeptical strains. One recent example I've come across: a prediction from George Wood, the executive director of the Forum for Education and Democracy, that the new tests won't prove, in the end, to be all that different from the tests we've got now. An interesting aspect of Wood's essay is his description of the performance-based testing at his small Ohio high school: Take a look at what students there are doing in order to demonstrate their knowledge. Both of the main assessment consortia envision including performance-based tasks in their their assessment systems. How those will play out, and how they will be used in states' accountability calculations, are worth watching.

Another skeptical strain worth taking a look at comes in an amusing—but telling—form: a blog post capturing a high school teacher's own internal battle about whether to get excited about the new common standards-and-assessment venture or keep a safe, cynical distance borne of life experience.

It's worth keeping in mind, too, that we don't have just two consortia working on tests for the common standards. The federal government has awarded grants to two groups of states to develop tests for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, and recently announced a grant competition for the design of tests of English language proficiency aligned to the new standards, as well.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The U.S. Department of Education's new guidance for states that won Race to the Top grants has a stern message for states that try to back away from their promises: Watering down your reforms could cost you.

The new RTT guidance addresses states' questions about how they can revise the plans they laid out in their applications for the money. The department's answers amount to a description of how far states can wander from their promises before they're seen as reneging.

The new guidance doesn't specifically mention or address the common standards. But as you might recall, all 12 of the RTT winners adopted them. They got points in their applications for doing so (as they did for embracing other reforms the department favors). So now that they've won money on those promises, the department wants to make sure that they're carried out.

The department told the RTT winners that they can amend their proposals, but amendments that constitute a "substantial change in activities" won't be looked upon kindly. Any change that isn't consistent with the Race to the Top "principles"—which include raising student achievement and graduation rates and boosting college and work readiness—won't be approved, the guidance says. Those that wander too far from their key goals will be subject to "enforcement actions."

For common-standards watchers, this stuff is pertinent because questions have hovered about the sincerity of states' commitments to the new learning goals. If they embraced them mainly to make their RTT applications look good, would they roll back if they didn't win? (A recent study actually found that the chance of winning RTT money wasn't among states' top three reasons for adopting the standards.) Especially after November's midterm elections swept lots of new faces into edu-offices everywhere, some wondered, would states change direction?

This new guidance sends a clear signal that the 12 RTT winners have tons to lose—right smack in their bank accounts—if they throw the common standards—or any of their other promised reforms—overboard. (There has been some saber-rattling here and there about changing direction on the common standards, but no action yet.)

But even for states that didn't win the cash, there are other factors that might militate against a major ship-jumping trend.

One is the political challenge of rolling back promises made in the name of improving education (unless, of course, you could become a folk hero in your state by undoing adoption of standards perceived to be sub-par, or a big fat federal intrusion, or any other Awful Force).

Another is those assessment consortia. Remember them? Only 12 states won Race to the Top money, but 45 states and the District of Columbia are participating in consortia to design new assessments for the common standards. Those consortia have $360 million in federal money to do that work. And a condition of being in the consortia is that you adopt the common standards. So un-adopting them would mean un-participating in the assessment consortia.

The interconnected effects here will make it all the more interesting to see what states do, especially in lean fiscal times, about the common standards and tests.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

[Correction: This blog post should have said that the NAEP math items examined in the Brookings Institution study were, on average, two to three years below the 8th grade math recommended by the common-core standards. The algebra items were at about the 6th grade level. The items from the "numbers" strand were at about the 5th grade level.]

A new analysis from the Brookings Institution raises questions anew about what the advent of common standards—and the development of common assessments to complement them—means for the future of NAEP, often called "America's report card." Overall, the report suggests that the coming common exams mean "a new era is dawning for NAEP," though what that future will look like remains murky.

The analysis by Brookings senior fellow Tom Loveless seeks to match up the common standards in mathematics with publicly released test items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In algebra, it found that the NAEP items were, on average, two to three years below the 8th grade math recommended by the common-core standards. The study examines NAEP math items from the 8th grade assessment, coding all publicly released items from the algebra and number strands based on the grade at which the common standards recommends teaching the math assessed by the item. In all, 171 items were available.

In an interview, Loveless told me: "You'll have a state like California participating in the common core, and it will have a state score and another based on NAEP. And because these tests are designed so differently and cover different material, they may or may not say the same thing."

He added: "There's the potential that we're going to confuse a lot of people."

(For an earlier Education Week look at what the common standards could mean for NAEP's future, check out this story by my colleague Sean Cavanagh.)

The report from the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings notes that the discrepancy between NAEP and the type of testing expected for the common standards has to do with the varying definitions of an 8th grade math test (or whichever exams for particular subjects and grade levels might be compared). NAEP assesses all of the math that young people have learned through 8th grade; that is, a lot of the content comes from material presumably learned in earlier grades. By contrast, the tests developed to match the common standards are expected to gauge the knowledge and skills learned specifically by the end of each grade level. (Of course, another difference is that NAEP tests only a sample of students, while the common assessments will test virtually all students.)

The report suggests that one way to help minimize the two tests sending contradictory signals about student performance would be to ratchet up the difficulty of NAEP items, bringing the test in closer harmony with the common standards. In the interview, Loveless acknowledged that some NAEP backers may not like this idea, fearing it would disrupt the longitudinal value of NAEP in assessing student achievement over time. However, he said it's not unprecedented, noting that the National Assessment Governing Board essentially did that with the 12th grade NAEP in math for 2005. "With the 12th grade test, they actually broke the trend [line]," he said.

Another option would be to use adaptive testing to help bridge the gap between the two tests, he said.

The report cautions that there are still a lot of questions as the common core evolves into a set of assessments. (Actually, presumably two sets of assessments, given that two separate consortia of states are currently working to develop new exams.)

"Much work remains to bring the common-core standards to life in a real assessment," the report says. "Once that happens, an education process will be needed that informs the public and political leaders on what the NAEP and the common core measure, what they have in common, and what differentiates their results."

In the end, all of this suggests NAEP to be at something of a turning point, the report says.

"A new era is dawning for NAEP. The program has supplied the nation with progress reports on student learning since 1969," it says. "Now, common-core assessments are on the way. Whether the new assessments push NAEP aside, succeed in augmenting the information provided by NAEP, or force a redefinition of NAEP's role in monitoring student learning will be at the top of the NAEP policy agenda in the years ahead."

In the interview, Loveless elaborated: "NAEP was a huge step forward in 1969, and has had to constantly change and modify and reinvent itself along the way to maintain relevance. ... It's going to have to do that again. The rise of the common-core stands is going to force NAEP into additional changes."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Will Fitzhugh has labored for decades to bring attention to the question of why high school students are so infrequently required to write lengthy research papers. He's been out there in woodsy Massachusetts shouting about this to anyone who'll listen (and the number who will has been disappointingly small, in Fitzhugh's estimation). Now he's gotten one of the biggest platforms around: The New York Times ran a big feature on Mr. Fitzhugh and his Concord Review, the only publication in the country to publish students' history research papers.

We've shared some of the debate about research papers in high school here on Curriculum Matters, and covered the journal's travails (here and here) in our news pages. Fitzhugh has aired his views in EdWeek's Commentary pages, and in The Washington Post's blogs, and elsewhere. Will his newest platform help build support for his ideas and for the Concord Review? The story was among the top five most-emailed stories on the Times' website at one point this weekend.

Already, Fitzhugh tells me that his website, which typically gets about 100 visits per day, got 16,000 this weekend. He's been spending every minute responding to calls, subscriptions, donations and comments, he says.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you teach math, you might find a new guide to the common standards useful. Released today by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the guide tries to build a bridge between its own math standards, which are widely used in schools across the country, and the math in the common standards. The new set, as you know from reading this space, has been adopted by 43 states and the District of Columbia, so lots of school folks are asking for guidance implementing them.

The NCTM's guide includes both a print version and an online interactive version.

Other resources compiled by the NCTM for the common-core standards have been gathered together on a special page on its website. They include a Power Point presentation on the standards, separate presentations divided up by grade span, and a report of a joint task force of mathematicians and math educators about what is needed to implement the new standards well.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A proposed measure in Kentucky would offer a different spin on the concept of teacher performance pay: A teacher would get money for each student who performs well on AP exams in math or science. An Associated Press story highlights the bill, which won approval yesterday by the state's Senate Education Committee.

Under the legislation, a teacher could be rewarded with $500 for each low-income student who scores a 5 on an Advanced Placement exam in math or science, the story says. The reward would drop to $400 for each student scoring a 4 and $300 for each score of 3. Five is the top score, and scores of 3 or 4 are considered good, Lisa Gross, a state Education Department spokeswoman, told the Associated Press.

The bill's lead sponsor, Republican Sen. Ken Winters, who chairs the education panel, said he borrowed the idea from an initiative called AdvanceKentucky that is funded mostly by private grants.

That program, developed in partnership with the National Math and Science Initiative, includes a range of supports and incentives to prod more students to take and succeed in AP courses, including financial bonuses to students and their teachers. This press release explains more about that program and the results in 2010.

Under the Kentucky bill, teachers could also earn money, but smaller amounts, for students who are not eligible for free or reduced-price lunch and meet the scoring targets, the Associated Press story says.

Individual teachers could receive up to $7,500 each year. In addition, the schools housing those teachers would also received reward money.

As noted above, the concept of paying teachers (and students) for high AP scores is not new. An EdWeek story from 2003 looked at some examples in Texas. Another story from 2008 highlighted one study on the impact of such activities.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Remember the big wave of common-standards adoptions last year? In the span of just nine months, 43 states and the District of Columbia substituted one shared set of academic standards for their own. Now they face a much tougher job: translating those ideas into instruction.

Unsurprisingly, states are saying it's going to take a while. In a survey out today, they told the Center on Education Policy that they plan to change curriculum, assessment, and teacher evaluation and certification, but that it will take at least two years to do so. Professional development was the only planned change with a shorter timeline; States said they would redesign those sessions to reflect the common core by next year.

A few other interesting points illustrated by the study:

• The disconnect between K-12 and higher education. Again, it's unsurprising that K-12 officials have little idea about how their college systems will connect with the common standards and assessments. About half had the sense that higher-ed. planned to revise teacher-prep programs in light of the new standards; the other half didn't know. Would colleges revise curriculum to reflect the standards? Would they embrace results of the assessments for admissions decisions? No clue. This could be because K-12 and higher ed. typically don't communicate or coordinate closely. It could be because higher ed. has a sense that this whole K-12 standards business is really, well, K-12's problem. But either way, it's an issue: Folks concerned with high remediation rates and such have long argued that if K-12 and higher ed. don't get together and work out the kinks, the pipeline won't work properly.

• The role of Race to the Top. Interesting results here. States said that the chance of winning Race to the Top money wasn't the main reason they adopted the standards. They ranked that fourth, saying the rigor of the standards, the possibility of using them as a framework for statewide education improvement, and beefing up their own standards were more important. Yet elsewhere in the survey, it was clear that Race to the Top money talks: Most of the states that gave shorter timelines for being able to align key parts of their system to the common standards were Race to the Top winners.

• Districts stay in control. Have you worried that states would throw their weight around and dictate how the new standards would be taught in districts? The survey suggests you can relax. In an interesting set of findings, 31 states answered yes to the question of whether they would "require" districts to implement the common standards. But their answers to a subsequent question showed that those "requirements" were closer to expectations; changes in professional development, curriculum, teacher evaluation, and such were "expected" of districts, but not required, the states said. In other words: We're not going to dictate how you guys do this, but you overlook it at your peril, since you'll be held accountable for the results of assessments on this stuff.

What does all this mean? As one think tanker told me, maybe not much, because it's far easier to say you're planning to do something than to do it. How sincere states are in their desires to become one with the common standards is still debated among the idealistic and cynical. But even the most sincere have a heavy lift ahead of them, given all the moving parts involved in full implementation, and the lack of money and capacity to make them all move in harmony.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

People are buzzing about the change in a new edition of a literary classic: Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn substitutes "slave" for the "n word."

News of the change came from Publisher's Weekly, which quoted the Twain scholar behind the change as saying it might help keep Huck on more reading lists. The publisher has apparently been deluged with negative e-mail and phone calls, but defends the change for its potential to provoke dialogue about language, learning, and censorship.

It didn't take long for the topic to start ricocheting around cyberspace, attaining the distinction of becoming a trending topic on Twitter. (You've got to check out some of the tweets on this. Trust me.)

In the edusphere, it resonated at Teacher Magazine and the Core Knowledge blog.

And the mainstream press couldn't resist it, either; it landed on the home page of The New York Times, and was picked up by other major papers, as well. CNN and National Public Radio weighed in. (Last I checked, more than 95 percent of those taking NPR's online poll were against the substitution.) They're talking about it in the United Kingdom and Canada, as well.

So come on: Is the change to Huck Finn a good thing, kind of like a market correction for literature? Is it a form of censorship to be resisted at all costs? A useful learning tool (in either case)? Something else I haven't listed?

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

With absolutely no fanfare, President Obama yesterday signed legislation to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act. It was just one in a laundry list of measures—35 in all—he signed Jan. 4, according to a White House press release.

As I wrote in a blog item yesterday, the president has been quiet about Congress' passage of the bill in December, which I find rather surprising. Sure, he's got a lot on his plate. But Obama loves to talk about STEM education, and the legislation contains a lot of provisions on the the issue. (The new law also supports basic scientific research and efforts to foster innovation.)

For more about the legislation's education components, its rocky road to passage, and potential challenges ahead in securing money for its many authorized programs, check out this blog post.

The Senate approved the bill last month by unanimous consent. In the House, the final plan was passed by a vote of 228-130, with most Republicans opposed.

White House science adviser John Holdren called passage of the America COMPETES Act reauthorization a "major milestone" in a December blog post.

Finally, if you're feeling ambitious, you can read the new law for yourself.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you haven't put kids through middle or high school recently, you might not know this: More and more kids are skipping that post-gym shower.

Read it and weep, my friends. This Orlando Sentinel story chalks the trend up to adolescents' reluctance to be naked around their peers and school districts' reluctance to force the issue. Parents, with their own yucky memories of group showers in high school, support their kids.

The trend has even sparked a new line of products: special wipes to substitute for a real shower.

What, might you ask, does all this have to do with curriculum? Maybe nothing, except for those of you unfortunate enough to have to impart a curriculum in a classroom packed with reeking teenagers. Or for the teenagers, clouding one another's concentration with their post-gym perfume. Or perhaps for the health teachers among you, who might yearn to send quite a different message than the one being conveyed by toleration of this trend.

Does it have anything to do with curriculum? As we pack in double blocks of math and reading, stacks of AP classes, are we just too much in a hurry to make time for post-gym showers? Have we actually become wiser, reasoning that adolescents shouldn't have their physical privacy violated, and can make their own hygiene choices?

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The reading program Success for All is getting some new attention, after getting a $50 million boost under the federal "i3" Investing in Innovation program.

The Washington Post ran a story this weekend about Success for All. Then Jay Mathews followed up with a lengthy post on his Class Struggle blog for the Post. (Hat tip to Sara Mead's Policy Notebook blog for flagging these items.)

"The cleverly organized and well-tested program, brainchild of legendary Johns Hopkins University research couple Robert E. Slavin and Nancy A. Madden, spent the Bush administration in a wilderness inhabited by other wrongly discarded educational ideas," Mathews writes. "It did not disappear, but it did not get much attention or growth. Now it is back in the forefront of school improvement, beneficiary of a $50 million grant from the Obama administration."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

At a press conference late last month, President Obama ticked off a series of legislative accomplishments during Congress' lame-duck session that he deemed noteworthy, from the tax compromise and the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to the passage of a food safety bill and the ratification of a new START treaty. But he made no mention of one piece of legislation that touches on a topic that by most accounts is near and dear to his heart: STEM education.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate managed to complete work on a bill to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act in December, after the legislation appeared to be stuck in political limbo for several months. For some analysis of the bill's education components and its political journey, see this post and this post from last month.

The president got pretty close to the topic in answering a reporter's question about the state of the economy. In fact, he even uttered the word "compete."

"My singular focus over the next two years is not rescuing the economy from potential disaster, but rather jumpstarting the economy so that we actually start making a dent in the unemployment rate and we are equipping ourselves so that we can compete in the 21st century," he said. "And that means we've got to focus on education, that means we have to focus on research and development, we have to focus on innovation."

He might have continued: "And that's why I'm so pleased that Congress just yesterday completed work on a bill to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act." But, nope, no mention of it.

It makes me wonder if President Obama isn't all that impressed with the bill as approved. After all, the final version was significantly scaled back from what the House passed earlier in the year.

In scanning the White House website, I did come across a blog post from a senior official suggesting the Obama administration does see merit in the package.

John P. Holdren, the president's adviser for science and technology, called passage of the bill a "major milestone on this nation's path to building an innovation economy for the 21st century."

He continued: "COMPETES keeps America on a path of leadership in an ever more competitive world. It authorizes the continued growth of the budgets of three key agencies that are incubating and generating the breakthroughs of tomorrow—the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Science Foundation. COMPETES also bolsters this administration's already groundbreaking activities to enhance STEM education—to raise American students from the middle to the top of the pack and to make sure we are training the next generation of innovative thinkers and doers."

But if President Obama shares Holdren's belief that the bill's passage represents a "major milestone," you'd think he might talk about it publicly. (And to my knowledge, he's made no recent mention of the America COMPETES legislation outside of the Dec. 22 press conference either.)

A blog post from the American Association for the Advancement of Science could help explain why the president hasn't seemed so interested in the legislation. It suggests that even the scaled back Senate bill may not amount to much in the end, given turnover of the House to Republican hands.

"Looming fights over the discretionary budget may make the legislative success a Pyrrhic victory," writes the AAAS's Jeffrey Mervis on ScienceInsider. "The sharply partisan nature of the debate on the House floor this afternoon—only 16 of 146 Republicans supported its passage, along with all 212 Democrats who voted—signaled that the new Republican House leadership won't take kindly to bills that promise large increases in federal spending, no matter how worthy the cause. That attitude bodes ill for the likely impact of COMPETES, which puts Congress on record in support of steady increases in the budgets of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the basic science programs at the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology."

In any case, I've gotten no word yet on when President Obama will sign the America COMPETES reauthorization into law. (He has 10 days, excluding Sundays, within which to sign or veto it. It was presented to him on Dec. 28.)

Maybe the White House is planning a big splash. We shall see.

Update (Jan. 5, 12:30pm): President Obama did, in fact, sign the America COMPETES legislation yesterday. He did so with no fanfare. It was one of 35 bills signed into law on Jan. 4. The announcement came in a press release with the list of the bills but no comments.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Education officials in Virginia are planning to tighten the textbook-review process following the recent discovery by content experts that some state-approved history books contain a raft of errors, according to an Associated Press story.

State Superintendent Patricia Wright will propose to the Board of Education this month that publishers be required to provide documentation that their books have been reviewed by "competent authorities who vouch for their accuracy," the story explains. In addition, Wright wants staff at the state department of education to more closely scrutinize textbooks that have been recommended by review panels for preliminary approval.

A recent review conducted by a set of historians at the state's request identified a variety of errors in elementary textbooks published by Five Ponds Press. (Careful readers may recall an item I posted in October about the controversy that erupted after it was discovered that one of that publisher's textbooks stated that thousands of African American soldiers fought for the South during the Civil War, a claim refuted by most historians.)

A separate story from The Washington Post delved more deeply into the recent state-ordered review. Among the errors identified were the number of states included in the Confederacy and the year that the United States entered World War I, the Post story said.

"I absolutely could not believe the number of mistakes—wrong dates and wrong facts everywhere. How in the world did these books get approved?" said Ronald Heinemann, a former history professor at Hampden-Sydney College, according to the Post story. He reviewed "Our Virginia: Past and Present."

And, the story notes, it wasn't just that publisher that had books with errors discovered in the review process.

Virginia's schools chief said last week that she was planning to alert school districts about the errors so that they aren't introduced into instruction, according to the AP story.

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

A new set of papers from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation offers us an early look at the lessons and assessments they're developing for the common core standards.

You might recall that the foundation, which has supported the development and adoption of the common standards themselves, awarded $19 million in grants early last year to "design collaboratives" to build an array of instructional tools for teachers striving to teach to the new standards. When those grants were announced, only one state—Kentucky—had adopted the common standards. Now 43 states and the District of Columbia have done so. (The Gates Foundation also supports Editorial Projects in Education, which publishes Education Week.)

In a new monograph, "Supporting Instruction: Investing in Teaching", the Gates Foundation's Carina Wong, who oversees this grant area, updates us on the work that's being piloted in 14 school districts in eight states. Two shorter papers offer examples of the tasks and tools from the math and literacy areas.

The first full versions of these tools should be ready this coming fall, the paper says, and eventually will be available for free on the Internet.

The math work highlighted in the paper focuses on "formative assessment lessons" being created for grades 7 to 10 by the Shell Centre in England and the University of California-Berkeley. Designed to be part of a teacher's curriculum, the assessments aim to engage students in a "productive struggle" with math, and draw them toward the knowledge needed to do the calculations correctly, as well as master concepts and apply them. Students complete an initial assessment task, then participate in small-group collaborative activities and whole-class discussion before returning to the initial assessment to improve their original responses.

The idea is to use this process "every couple of weeks," in varying ways, so teachers can get an evolving sense of how their students are doing, the paper says. The formative tools will be accompanied by professional-development modules and classroom-based summative assessments that mix shorter and longer answer formats. Another grantee, Math Solutions, is designing a web-based interview tool for middle school teachers to help them get a sense of their students' learning.

In literacy, the design collaborative of school districts, teachers, and other partners is working on a "set of connected components" that embody the common standards. These include the "centerpiece" of the approach: "template tasks," fill-in-the-blank tasks that require students in grades 6 to 12 to read, analyze and write about a variety of types of texts. There are also instructional modules to help teachers extend instruction on given tasks or skill sets for several weeks. The system can be scaled up or down by expanding upon the template tasks and instructional modules. Full courses are still being developed.

The foundation also notes that it is subjecting its work to "continuous review" to ensure its tools are aligned with the summative assessments being developed by two groups of states with federal Race to the Top funding as those are developed. The foundation also says that in addition to the literacy design collaborative, it is working on a literacy-based middle-school science curriculum, better ways to measure text complexity, and a tool to match students with the right reading and writing assignments.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend