December 2011 Archives

As predictable as overeating during the holiday season: the year-in-review stories. We can't seem to resist them at EdWeek, either. We've got a little collection of them posted on a special page on our website. One of them is a list of the 10 most memorable curriculum stories of 2011.

There aren't any surprises here, of course. My colleague and co-blogger Erik Robelen has been tracking the intense national interest in improving education in science, technology, engineering, and math. (It's so intense, in fact, that I call him Erik "The STEM" Robelen.) I've been keeping an eye on the process of turning common standards into curriculum and instruction, and the work to get better at assessing what students have learned. All of this stuff will, of course, continue to be huge in 2012.

One blogger is already predicting that the common core will come apart in at least a few states. Since I'm not a betting kind of gal, I'm not going to wade into the wager pond here. But how well the common core holds together certainly bears watching in the coming year. Likewise, how the common assessments take shape—and whether states and their higher-ed institutions stay on board with them—is something well worth monitoring, too.

In the nearer term, a few interesting tidbits rolled out in the last couple of weeks. If you were away from the office and email, as I was, you might want to check them out.

The final federal budget deal for fiscal 2012, awaiting President Obama's signature, protected key administration initiatives. We'll have a suite of stories up soon about how literacy and other curriculum issues fared in that spending plan. Erik gives you a preview in a blog post.

A little tidbit that I noticed this week exemplifies what we are going to be seeing more of in the states: scrambling to assemble resources to help teachers with the common core standards. California has a new handbook meant to do just that as the state works on instructional frameworks.

The American Legislative Exchange Council is getting some scrutiny. A story in today's Washington Post gives voice to critics who see it as exerting inappropriate influence in many state legislatures. You might recall that ALEC has been debating the common core standards; we told you about that in a recent blog post.

And in a year when we've heard a ton about common standards, not only in math and English/language arts but in science and social studies, a story in The Baltimore Sun tells us that there is discussion about national standards for musical achievement. It's funny; I guess the phrase "national standards"—so studiously avoided by common-standards proponents—doesn't have the fearful ring of political opposition in the music world.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 9:56 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By guest blogger Stephen Sawchuk

All seven states that qualified for the third round of the federal Race to the Top competition have won a share in the $200 million remaining, and all of them will be expected to address STEM fields.

The question on the table is just how far these changes are going to go where STEM is concerned. Remember, states primarily will use this money to implement part of their original Race to the Top plans—which means making progress in one of the core areas of the economic-stimulus legislation, such as raising standards, improving evaluation systems, or turning around low-performing schools. They don't actually have to spend it explicitly on STEM programming.

A summary document by the Education Department contains a few more details on what states plan to spend their cash on.

Some of the states, such as Arizona, plan to focus on STEM as they transition to the Common Core State Standards. Louisiana, the department says, has "embedded" STEM throughout its reform work. Illinois envisions a "public-private infrastructure" to support STEM integration across the curriculum, while Colorado and Kentucky will build on existing STEM efforts.

As you may be aware, the fiscal 2012 budget provided $500 million for an additional round of Race to the Top. So far, Secretary Arne Duncan hasn't indicated whether this competition will support early education or K-12 reforms. But, in a conference call with reporters, he did hint that STEM would probably remain a focus area. "We'll probably continue to have that since we have so far to go in the STEM areas," he said.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By guest blogger Stephen Sawchuk

The U.S. Department of Education has "conditionally approved" a decision by one of the two consortia developing assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards to reduce the number of testing components in its plan.

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, initially envisioned a series of four "through-course" assessments to be given over the course of the year, with the scoring rolled up into a year-end summative score. States, though, raised concerns about this plan costing too much, eating up too much class time, and exerting too much control over curriculum.

The change makes the first two components optional and will place the remaining assessments at the end of the year. One of them will be computer-based, and the other will consist of essays and performance tasks.

In its letter dated Dec. 15, the Education Department said that PARCC will still need to submit evidence used to inform the design of the summative tests and a work plan for finalizing them. As you'll recall, the department is underwriting the development of these tests.

One other interesting item in this notice: PARCC also indicated it will build two sequences of high school math assessments, one for "course based" math (think Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2) and another for those states that integrate the two subjects throughout students' high school careers. The ED made a note of saying that PARCC states must still ensure all states adopt achievement standards to ensure students are college- and career-ready. It looks like the agency wants to remind states that they can't make one math pathway less rigorous than the other.

The other testing consortium, SMARTER Balanced, still envisions using several performance tasks as part of the summative score. They would be administered during the final 12 weeks of school.

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The waiver plans some states have developed to gain relief from core provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act contain a dimension that may be of keen interest to those who worry that the federal law has narrowed the curriculum.

Seven of the 11 states propose to include tests in subjects beyond reading and mathematics as part of their reconfigured accountability systems, with the most popular being science assessments, but social studies and writing also are included in some cases.

These waiver plans are a very big deal, as they essentially rewrite the map for accountability in the No Child Left Behind era. Most readers are only too well aware that the federal law currently relies mainly on test scores in reading and mathematics to drive accountability.

For the big picture on the state waiver plans, check out this recent EdWeek story. In it, my colleague Michele McNeil explains that states seeking waivers from the U.S. Department of Education would "replace what is widely considered an outdated, but consistent, school accountability regime with a hodgepodge of complex school grading systems that are as diverse as the states themselves."

The very idea that states who win waivers will be permitted far greater leeway in how they approach school accountability could well have important implications for the curriculum. (In fact, they would have a lot of flexibility in both how they identify school as low performing and what consequences would kick in.) As we reported here just recently, most educators believe the strong emphasis on improving reading and math scores since the enactment of NCLB has meant less time and attention to science, social studies, the arts, and a variety of other subjects.

Seven of the 11 states who so far have applied for waivers (many more are expected to do so soon) say they would include assessments in one or more additional subjects as part of their revamped accountability systems. Of those, three states, Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma would include assessments in writing, science, and social studies. (It's important to say here that in certain cases, these states may well have parallel state accountability systems in which such tests already are factored into making judgments on schools. I haven't done that analysis, but it would be interesting to see.)

Here's a rundown for all 11 states highlighting which, if any, additional assessments they will include in their accountability systems, as described in their waiver proposals. (This is based on an EdWeek analysis of those plans.)

• Colorado: Writing, Science, English language proficiency
• Florida: Writing, Science
• Georgia: Writing, Science, Social Studies, high school end-of-course exams
• Indiana: No additional subjects
• Kentucky: Writing, Science Social Studies
• Massachusetts: Science
• Minnesota: No additional subjects
• New Jersey: No additional subjects
• New Mexico: No additional subjects
• Oklahoma: Writing, Science, Social Studies
• Tennessee: Science

Of course, some key questions remain. First, will these states win the waivers? Second, if they do, to what extent will the use of these tests reflect a change from current practice under the state accountability system? How will other changes in how schools are gauged, beyond test scores, factor into accountability decisions? And how are these same states proposing to change the consequences for poor academic performance by schools? Ultimately, the big question is how will school districts, schools, and individual teachers respond to all these changes? Will it free them up to pursue a more "well-rounded" curriculum (to use the term Secretary of Education Arne Duncan often invokes)? Will other, perhaps unforseen, factors intrude?

I'll close with one other important dimension of this discussion on the curriculum. My co-blogger here, Catherine, just finished up a story on the intersection of the waivers with the common standards and assessments for English/language arts and math. In it, she notes that the states seeking waivers also must show that they have rigorous academic standards, a solid plan to transform standards into good instruction, and tests that ensure students are ready for college or good jobs. And one way they can achieve two out of those three is by embracing both the common standards (already adopted by 47 states plus the District of Columbia) and the common assessments now being developed by two state consortia.

But, as we all know, it's that tricky third prong, transforming standards into good instruction, that lies at the heart of this whole conversation about curriculum.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

We've written recently about the growth of STEM-focused schools, but here's an interesting twist: An Arizona school district recently announced plans to offer two specialized STEM diplomas at a high school.

The Chandler Unified School District, starting next school year, will make available an advanced pathway in the STEM fields at Perry High School in Gilbert. Students can enroll in either the STEM Diploma program or the more rigorous STEM Scholar Diploma program.

The governing board for the Chandler district, south of Phoenix, recently approved the plans for Perry High, according to a story in the East Valley Tribune newspaper.

Both diploma programs would involve students taking additional, as well as more rigorous, STEM coursework than is generally required to graduate.

A district letter to families explains the new offerings, which are aimed at preparing students for "college readiness in science, medicine, engineering, and math majors."

The district is working with higher education institutions—including Arizona State University Polytechnic—to provide opportunities for students to take college courses, the Tribune says. Furthermore, students will be required to take STEM workshops, possibly at ASU, and complete a job-shadow experience before their senior year, the story adds.

A separate story from the Arizona Republic says the program was modeled after similar offerings at Benton High School in Louisiana and CREST, a small specialty school in Paradise Valley, Ariz.

Students in both STEM programs at Perry High will be required to complete five credits of math, including AP Statistics, and six credits of science (or a combination of science and engineering coursework). Among the classes required for the STEM Scholar diploma are AP Chemistry, Physics, and Calculus, as well as a course on differential equations. Electives include human biology, biotechnology, and computer science. Students, of course, also must take a full plate of courses outside the STEM fields, including AP English and American History.

Both programs also will emphasize project-based learning and providing students with what the district calls "real-world" experiences.

Although I'm not familiar with the idea of a STEM diploma, I do know that plenty of STEM-focused schools are cropping up around the country. An EdWeek story from last fall provided a closer look, as did a recent post on this blog. In some ways, the new diploma programs at Perry High School may well resemble the extra offerings students receive at some STEM schools.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A budget compromise just announced in Washington would breathe new life into a major federal literacy initiative, but abolish funding altogether for some other Department of Education programs targeting aspects of the curriculum, including teaching American history, foreign languages, and civic education. The Math and Science Partnerships program and Arts in Education, meanwhile, would see small cuts.

For the big picture, check out this Politics K-12 blog post.

The new budget deal for fiscal 2012, which technically began Oct. 1, apparently reflects a bipartisan effort in Congress, but it still must be approved by the full House and Senate. Votes are expected today.

The Committee for Education Funding helpfully developed a detailed rundown of the Education Department's numbers in the omnibus package, which I draw upon for all figures in this blog post.

All told, the Department of Education's budget would stay about the same, at $68 billion, compared with last year's levels. But there's plenty of changes within that total.

One big change is that lawmakers have decided to restore the moribund Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program, which seeks to promote literacy from birth to the end of high school. It received no money last year, but in a quirk of the budget process, money from the year before is fueling grants to six states announced in September. Those states will use the federal aid, $180 million in all, to pursue comprehensive efforts to improve literacy outcomes for all students.

However, not all literacy programs fared as well. The Literacy Through School Libraries program, zeroed out last year, was not restored this year. The same is true for the National Writing Project.

The Teaching American History program, long championed by the late-Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, did not survive this year, after last year managing to stay afloat (but with half its former budget). This is sure to be a disappointment to many history education advocates, as I've discovered that the program, which supports a lot of professional development among history teachers, appears to be well liked by many educators.

Meanwhile, the federal Arts in Education has survived with only a small cut, down from $27 million to $25 million. Also, it seems that P.E. is a priority of many lawmakers, as the Carol M. White Physical Education Program saw virtually no change in its budget of $79 million.

The budget compromise did not embrace President Barack Obama's proposal to restructure federal aid across the curriculum. He has proposed replacing a wide variety of programs, including many of those listed above, with three new initiatives for Effective Teaching and Learning in literacy, STEM, and a "well-rounded" education (sort of a catchall category).

At the same time, the budget package would continue federal funding for two prized Obama priorities: the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) programs. I've written repeatedly about how funds in those two initiatives have focused in part on efforts to improve literacy, STEM education, and even arts integration across the curriculum, among other priorities. Just recently, we noted how STEM education, for example, won big in the latest round of the federal i3 competition.

So here's a quick overview of some key programs and their fate in the budget package:

• Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy: $159 million (up from $0)

• Literacy Through School Libraries: $0 (no change)

• Math and Science Partnerships: $150 million (down from $175 million)

• Foreign Language Assistance: $0 (down from $27 million)

• National Writing Project: $0 (no change)

• Teaching American History: $0 (down from $46 million)

• Advanced Placement: $27 million (down from $43 million)

• Excellence in Economic Education: $0 (down from $1.4 million)

• Arts in Education: $25 million (down from $27 million)

• Carol M. White Physical Education: $79 million (no change)

• Civic Education: $0 (down from $1.2 million).

As mentioned, this budget package is not a done deal, as it still must be approved by the full House and Senate. Stay tuned.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you think about the federal role in improving STEM education, odds are the first agencies that come to mind are the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation. But while they are the two biggest players, plenty of other agencies also have some skin in the game, from NASA to the Department of Agriculture and even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

A new report from the White House National Science and Technology Council provides the full picture. In fact, it's billed as "the most detailed inventory of the federal STEM education portfolio ever compiled." (And I have no reason to doubt this, though as some readers may know, there have been previous efforts to tackle the subject.)

The bottom line? The feds spend about $3.4 billion on STEM education each year (based on 2010 data), spread across 13 federal agencies.

Some experts have previously argued that there's a lot of overlap and redundancy between federal STEM education programs, but this report from the National Science and Technology Council suggests the issue may be overstated.

"There is only modest overlap in investments and no duplication among the STEM education investments," the report says. "That does not mean that there are not opportunities for better alignment and deployment of STEM resources."

Here are a few highlights of the "who" and "how" of the spending:

• Of the $3.4 billion total, nearly $1 billion is spent on activities that target the specific workforce needs of particular agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Transportation.

• The remainder of the money is spent on broader STEM education matters, dominated by funding from the NSF and the Education Department.

• About $1.1 billion has as its primary goal targeting populations underrepresented in the STEM fields (such as African-Americans, Hispanics, and females).

• 24 investments totaling $312 million have the primary goal of improving teacher effectiveness.

• 80 percent of all the federal spending comes from three agencies: the NSF ($1.2 billion), the Department of Education ($1 billion), and the Department of Health and Human Services ($577 million).

• About 60 percent of all the federal spending targets K-12 education, with the rest directed at the postsecondary level.

To learn more about one agency's work you may not know about, the Department of the Interior, check out this recent EdWeek story. It features a program operating at several national parks. Also, here's a recent blog post about a new set of NSF grants aimed at "transforming" STEM education.

This new White House report was required under the America COMPETES Act. And the report is only the first step. The White House is also charged with developing a five-year strategic plan for advancing STEM education, which is expected out early next year.

UPDATE: (Dec. 16, 7:50a.m.)

In my haste to write this blog post yesterday, I neglected to probe one important question: What does the federal government have to show for its annual $3.4 billion investment in STEM education?

Unfortunately, while the White House report does address evaluations of the various programs examined, it never actually says what those studies reveal.

Of the 252 distinct "investments" that met the criteria to be included, 119 have been the subject of agency evaluations since 2005, with about half conducted in 2010 or 2011, the report says. And a wide range of evaluation tools have been used.

The report includes several charts on the types of evaluations conducted, whether a randomized control trial or a simple "pre-post gain" analysis. But it doesn't say what they measure other than to "assess whether a project, activity, or grantee is reaching stated goals in order to guide ongoing improvements."

Again, the White House report never gets to the bottom line of offering even a quick overview of what all the evaluations show. That's too bad. Maybe that will come later?

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently explored the tension between "real" accountability and a "well-rounded" education in a speech to social studies educators. Given that this seems to be an issue a lot of readers are concerned about, I figured I'd share a little of what he had to say.

Here's the question the secretary used to frame his speech: "How can we promote both a well-rounded education with rich offerings across all subjects—civics, geography, economics, and history, the arts, foreign languages, physical education, the sciences, etc—and simultaneously create a system of real and meaningful accountability that doesn't lead to narrowing of the curriculum?"

Just last week, we highlighted the results of a new survey suggesting that many teachers believe these very subjects are getting pushed out of the curriculum because of the strong pressure to produce improved state test scores in reading and mathematics under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

In his Dec. 2 speech, Duncan insisted that even as he sees plenty of flaws with No Child Left Behind, a "useful, fair, and rigorous system of accountability remains as urgent today as it ever was."

He then offered up some of the core ideas the Obama administration supports to improve testing and accountability, such as handing states more flexibility to differentiate between schools at the top, at the bottom, and in the middle academically; measuring student growth across multiple areas of performance; and encouraging states to decide on their own if they want to include other subjects, such as social studies, in their accountability systems.

He also suggested AP participation and passing rates in social studies (and presumably other subjects) could be factored into a state's accountability system. And he reiterated the administration's call for states to develop principal- and teacher-evaluation systems based on multiple measures, including student growth on test scores.

(Duncan mentioned these ideas, and a few others, in the context of the administration's recent plans for allowing states to seek waivers of core elements of the No Child Left Behind law. Here's an EdWeek overview of that announcement.)

"Over and over again, I hear people saying that a well-rounded education and a good system of accountability are mutually exclusive," Duncan told the social studies teachers in his Dec. 2 address. But he urged the educators to "resist [the] call to retreat from accountability."

So, what say you, Dear Reader? Are the two ideas mutually exclusive? Or is there a way to bring accountability and a well-rounded education into harmony?

Click the "post a comment" button below to share your views.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

State lawmakers are once again wading into the curriculum, this time in Ohio.

A bill approved yesterday by the Ohio House of Representatives would mandate changes to the state's social studies standards to ensure that schools teach the "original texts" of several historical documents, including the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance.

(The lead House sponsor of the bill, coincidentally, shares the name of a certain Founding Father: He's none other than Republican Rep. John Adams. No, I'm not making this up.)

The bill also requires that, by 2014, at least one-quarter of questions on new end-of-course exams for American history and government relate to the founding documents. It was approved by a vote of 62-31, according to a story in the Columbus Dispatch.

Earlier this year, I wrote a big-picture piece about state lawmakers delving into the curriculum. One prime example was a Utah measure recently signed into law that also mandates the study of key historical documents, in that case the U.S. Constitution, the Mayflower Compact, and some Supreme Court decisions. In addition, the Utah law requires public schools to teach that the United States is a "compound constitutional republic."

Although decisions on what gets taught are usually seen as the purview of school districts and state school boards, the legislatures in Utah and Ohio aren't the first, and won't be the last to try to influence the curriculum. Other recent examples span the country and content areas—civics and science, financial literacy, arts education, sex education, and anti-bullying measures that call on schools to work the issue into health classes.

The Ohio legislation was apparently sparked by a report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute that was critical of Ohio's history-education standards, according to the Dispatch story. (The Washington-based think tank has an office in Dayton, Ohio.)

Adams said Ohioans cannot be expected to defend the rights and freedoms the Founding Fathers intended without an understanding of certain key historical documents, according to the Dispatch story.

"Would not one better understand social problems, economics, foreign affairs ... if they first had a grounding in the foundation of this country's origins through the study of these founding documents?" he said.

The bill has encountered some criticism from Democrats, however.

"The bill seems to be overreaching," said Rep. Debbie Phillips. "To get into this type of specificity of saying what percentage of what test is going to cover what material doesn't seem, to me, to be our job."

Another strand of criticism is that the focus on teaching "original" documents might limit students' exposure to the full story of U.S. history.

"By teaching the Constitution without teaching the whole truth, this is where we come into problems," said Rep. Clayton Luckie, D-Dayton. "Three-fifths of a human being; women not able to vote," Democratic Rep. Clayton Luckie said, according to the Dispatch story. "You teach it all. When you leave parts out, you let individuals put their own thoughts into that and twist why things happened in our history."

However, defenders of the bill said a change approved during the House debate would ensure the teaching of amendments to the Constitution as well.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

By guest blogger Stephen Sawchuk

There's always a lot of interest among Education Week readers in the topic of "formative assessment." And despite some confusion over the research, there is at least general recognition that this aspect of teaching and learning has a lot of promise. So how on earth do we get teachers embodying the practice of formative assessment?

It's a tough question that a few testing experts tried to tackle in a research forum held this afternoon in Washington by ETS, the nonprofit research and test-publishing organization. The forum focused on the obstacles standing in the door to preparing teachers to embody formative-assessment techniques, especially with the Common Core State Standards train approaching.

Let's back up a minute here to make sure we're all on the same page regarding formative assessment, a term about which there's a lot of debate. Formative assessment is probably better described as a cycle of instruction, immediate data-gathering to collect feedback that helps the teacher readjust instruction, and the sharing of that feedback so students themselves are engaged in the learning process.

It was clear from today's forum that, according to the experts, you can't do formative assessment on the fly: The technique has to be planned and executed purposefully as part of a lesson using a variety of strategies (i.e., "entry tickets," questioning). Nor are they "interim" or "benchmark" assessments, which some districts give every few weeks.

But what are today's teachers actually learning about the process? That was a question that Caroline Wylie, a research scientist in the R&D division of ETS, had on her mind. To find out, she and colleagues looked at online materials, such as course descriptions and syllabi, from 22 teacher education programs in New Jersey.

"We saw that it was a fairly uneven landscape," Ms. Wylie said at the forum.

Classes ranged from Assessment and Measurement for Teachers to Curriculum, Evaluation, and the Learner to the seemingly overstuffed Integrating Elementary Curriculum & Assessment for Equity & Diversity.

Ms. Wylie said she found only three instances in which formative assessment was even specifically mentioned. And she added that what was taught in these classes seemed to vary based on whether a student was taking an undergraduate or graduate education course. Some of the graduate courses, for instance, were much more about the technical nature of the assessments than their place in teaching and learning.

It is particularly interesting to cross-reference this observation in light of the shift in teacher-training demographics. The production of education bachelor's degrees in this country has fallen since the 1970s, but the number of master's degrees has rapidly increased since then. And one of the criticisms of graduate programs, especially the Ed.D., has been a vague sense of purpose about whether they are supposed to produce researchers, practitioners, or administrators.

Second, Ms. Wylie described the challenges on the professional-development front, for practicing teachers. The best professional-development research shows that teachers need sustained contact hours (between 30 and 100) of training before altering their practices. So she did a back-of-the envelope calculation about how much time it would take to implement 50 hours of formative-assessment training over the course of a school year.

Again, the results were not encouraging: Teachers would need about six hours a month, for eight months, which amounts to one early-close afternoon a month plus two additional hours. (Good luck with that in this economy.)

And finally, Ms. Wylie summarized, the assessment culture in the United States is not necessarily conducive to this process. In this day and age of high-stakes testing, teachers can feel stressed about the end-of-year tests, and a process that by its definition requires reteaching and altering plans may not work with tightly written pacing guidelines and so forth, she surmised.

From there, Margaret Heritage, assistant director for professional development at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, at UCLA, outlined the content support teachers will need to embody formative-assessment practice.

They'll need to have much deeper content- and pedagogical-content knowledge so as to understand how students think and develop their skills in each discipline and across disciplines; to understand common errors and misperceptions; and to be able to integrate formative assessment in the "rhythm" of teaching and learning, Ms. Heritage said.

And this kind of support is not something you can package up and give to a school district, she said.

"I think we spend too much time having teachers implement programs, and not enough time studying practices, about how teachers make and use judgments about learning," she said.

For those involved in the common-core effort, the implications of these scholars' cautions are, obviously, many. Many of them are summed up in a paper Ms. Heritage wrote not long ago warning about the possibility of the assessment consortia misunderstanding the concept and missing an opportunity to put this practice on the policy radar screen.

Of the two assessment consortia, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, is not developing formative-assessment resources as part of its federal grant. The other consortium, known as SMARTER Balanced, is.

The speakers' bottom line: If teachers are to seize the potential of formative assessment, it's time to think about the core knowledge preservice teachers need, the format and structure of professional development that will help support interpretation and action, and how the CCSS plays into those discussions.

I'll admit this is one heck of a lot to think about. Comments section is open for your ideas!

Posted by Stephen Sawchuk at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Most teenagers have never considered a career in engineering. That's the bad news for those who believe the nation needs more professionals in this field. The good news? It may not be hard to spark youth interest in engineering, especially once teens learn how much money they could make and what the jobs might actually entail. (The other good news: Although most teens don't view engineers as cool, they don't seem to consider them geeks either.)

Those are among the findings issued this month from a survey commissioned by Intel Corp. The high-tech company argues that nurturing an interest in engineering in high school or earlier is key to building a robust pool of students who will graduate with engineering degrees and become part of the American workforce.

Here are a few statistics from the survey of 1,004 teenagers:

• 63 percent have never considered a career in engineering;

• 61 percent say they are more likely to consider an engineering career after learning that those who major in engineering earn $75,000 a year on average; and

• 53 percent are more likely to consider the career after learning about the breadth of what engineers actually do.

"The results of this survey show the importance of providing teens with opportunities to gain knowledge about engineering," Intel CEO Diane Bryant said in a press release. "We need to offer teens real-world, hands-on engineering experience and interaction with engineers, like that found in robotics programs and science competitions."

Intel has long sponsored two precollegiate science and engineering competitions: The Intel Science Talent Search and the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

The survey provided teenagers a variety of information about engineering and then asked if this changed their inclination to consider a career in the field. Among the factors that made a difference were learning that:

• About half the top 20 best-paying college degrees are in an engineering field;

• The music teens hear in movies, on CDs, and in videogames is made possible by sound engineers;

• Engineers are responsible for delivering clean water to communities in Africa;

• Every single roller coaster was designed by an engineer;

• Engineers prevent disasters by constructing dams and levees to keep cities safe.

The survey, conducted in October, also sought to probe the "geek factor" associated with engineering.

Of those teenagers who have never considered an engineering career, only 3 percent described engineers as "cool." But few also consider them "awkward" (4 percent) or "boring" (8 percent).

The most popular descriptions? "Smart" (40 percent) and "inventive" (39 percent).

Posted by Erik Robelen at 7:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Fewer students are being required to pass exit exams to graduate from high school, but high school testing is increasing because more states are requiring college- and career-readiness tests, according to a study released today.

Those are a couple of the key takeaways from a study released by the Center on Education Policy. It is the 10th in a series of annual reports that examine trends in high school testing. Its findings are echoed in states' applications for waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act, as well.

My colleague Caralee Adams gives us the lowdown on the CEP study in her blog, College Bound. Among the findings: In 2010-11, 25 states—down from 28 the previous year—require students to pass a comprehensive exam or end-of-course tests to earn a diploma.

Some of that shift came from places like Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, which used to require exit exams, but now incorporate the scores from those tests into students' grades in a course they must take to graduate.

The downward trend in required exit exams, though, is being offset by a rise in other kinds of tests. The CEP study shows that states are responding to the national pressure to prepare students for college and work and to figure out a way to gauge how well they've done that.

So what are states using as gauges? The CEP report is heavy on names you already know: the SAT or PSAT, ACT's college-admissions exam and its PLAN, EXPLORE, or WorkKeys tests. (While students are required to take these tests in some places, they're not required to "pass" or reach a certain score to graduate.) The newness of this trend shows in the numbers: Of the 11 states that currently require, or plan to require, college-entrance exams, five started doing so as recently as 2009-10.

Of course, this isn't too surprising, given the high profile of the national debate on college readiness. It's been a drumbeat of the Obama administration from the get-go. And so it's no surprise that you can see the college- and career-readiness testing trend woven through states' applications for waivers from NCLB, too. I saw this recently when I curled up with the applications to take a look at states' plans to implement "college- and career-ready" standards and assessments, as desired by the U.S. Department of Education.

My colleagues Michele McNeil and Alyson Klein provide an overview of the waiver program in this story, and in this one, Michele details the 11 state applicants' plans to revamp their accountability systems under the program, including new college- and career-readiness indicators some of them are building into those systems. We'll have more stories on other aspects of states' plans on our website soon, including one from me on states' standards-and-assessment plans.

To give you an advance flavor of how states are gearing up to assess teenagers' readiness for work and college, here are a few highlights from the applications:

• Georgia has gone particularly heavy into career-readiness indicators in its accountability system, including things like the percentage of students earning industry certificates or the ACT's Work Ready Certificate.

• Kentucky's higher education system has agreed to allow students who meet the ACT's college-readiness benchmark to skip remedial courses.

• With its higher ed. system, Florida has designed a new test (the cheerfully named PERT) that allows students to go straight into credit-bearing courses in public colleges and universities if they reach the agreed-upon cutoff score. It will also use this test, as well as SAT and ACT scores, as a "readiness" gauge in its accountability system.

• Minnesota's state colleges and universities have deemed its math standards and test cutoff scores sufficient to allow students to skip remedial work upon entry.

• Indiana will try using the ACT and SAT suites as a gauge of college readiness until the common assessments are ready in 2014.

How valid are these tests for measuring what states want them to measure? There are varied views on that, and many eager to see what this increasingly large-scale experiment produces.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

You've heard it before, and now a new set of survey results drives the point home: Most teachers believe that in the era of high-stakes testing in math and English/language arts, other important subjects are getting pushed out of the classroom.

At the same time, nearly half of those polled believe the extra focus on math and English is helping to boost students' "skills and knowledge" in one or both subjects.

The results released today show that about two-thirds of the 1,001 public school teachers surveyed said disciplines such as art, science, and social studies are getting crowded out of the school day. The national survey of a random sample of educators was commissioned by Common Core, a Washington-based research and advocacy group that has long raised concerns about the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on the curriculum.

Nearly all of the teachers who see time for English and math pushing other subjects aside say the main reason is state tests. In fact, 60 percent say their school is devoting more time in recent years to test-taking skills. And, the extra time for English and math is not simply for struggling students, but affects all students, conclude 77 percent of respondents.

"During the past decade, our public schools have focused—almost exclusively—on reading and math instruction" in an effort to make "adequate yearly progress" under No Child Left Behind, said Lynn Munson, the president and executive director of Common Core, in a press release. She notes that the federal law "clearly identifies our 'core curriculum' as reading, math, science, social studies, and even the arts," but says many of these subjects have been "abandoned."

"As a result, we are denying our students the complete education they deserve and the law demands," she said.

That said, a lot of the teachers surveyed do seem to perceive some benefit from the additional time for English and math. Nearly half (46 percent) said students' "skills and knowledge" have improved in one or both subjects as a result, while 32 percent disagreed and 22 percent were not sure.

The survey sought to probe more deeply exactly which subjects were taking a hit in the curriculum. To keep things simple, I'll just identify the percent of teachers who said a particular subject is getting LESS time than it used to. Most readers won't be surprised to learn that art and music have been hit the hardest.

• Art: 51 percent say it gets less time.
• Music: 48 percent
• Foreign languages: 40 percent
• Social studies: 36 percent
• Physical education: 33 percent
• Science: 27 percent

I will say that it's a little curious that at least some teachers, though a small minority, say reading and math are actually getting less attention. Of those surveyed, 12 percent said English/language arts was taking a hit, and 10 percent said math.

By the way, science educators may be heartened to know that 24 percent of educators say this subject is getting MORE time, far more than any other subject besides English and math.

You can dive into the complete list of survey questions and responses here.

I'll close with a few other random tidbits:

• 90 percent of high school teachers say the typical student will have read a play by Shakespeare by the time they graduate;

• 71 percent say they will have read the Constitution;

• 92 percent will have learned who fought whom in World War II; and

• 82 percent will have studied the structure of DNA.

Finally, for all you fans of the award-winning children's novel Charlotte's Web, rest easy. Almost two-thirds of elementary teachers say a typical student reads it in school.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 9:08 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A student in New Hampshire or Rhode Island is likely to have a much tougher time achieving academic "proficiency" in science than another in Virginia or Tennessee, a new analysis suggests. But don't blame it on the schools. The reason is that states around the nation set the bar for science proficiency at widely varying levels, concludes the report issued today by the business coalition Change the Equation, in collaboration with the American Institutes for Research.

Billed as the first-ever national analysis of how states define proficiency on science assessments, the report finds that states have established "radically different targets" for what their 8th graders should know and be able to do in science. And in many instances, what a state has deemed a "proficient" score is equivalent to below "basic" on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in science.

"At a time when the demand for robust skills and knowledge in science has gone global, 'proficiency' may have more to do with where you live than what you have learned," the report says. "This hodgepodge undercuts a major reason why we have tests in the first place: to provide reliable information on how well we're preparing students for the challenges of the global economy."

As some readers may know, such analyses in reading and math have been going on for some time now, and generally have reached the same conclusion, including a study issued this summer by the National Center for Education Statistics.

The new study, looking at 37 states in which relevant data were available, compared the passing scores states set on their 2009 8th-grade science tests by measuring them against the 2009 NAEP in science. The researchers took each state's passing score and mapped it onto the 300-point NAEP scale, allowing them to equate states' standards for "basic," "proficient," and "advanced" with scores on the NAEP scale.

In 15 of the 37 states examined—from Virginia and North Carolina to Connecticut, Texas, and California—the state bar for proficiency was actually below the NAEP threshold for basic. New Hampshire and Rhode Island were the only states that had a higher proficiency threshold than NAEP, while in Massachusetts it was about the same.

I should caution that some experts have long suggested that NAEP's definition of proficiency is overly stringent. I've also been told that NAEP is quite different from many state assessments, complicating such comparisons.

Leaving those matters aside, it seems clear from the new study that states do not agree on what level of science learning is needed. And it suggests that parents in many states may be getting a distorted view of student achievement.

The new report—"All Over the Map: Comparing States' Expectations for Student Performance in Science"—is part of an ongoing effort by the group Change the Equation, a coalition of more than 110 corporate CEOs, to report on the condition of STEM learning in the United States. Earlier this year, the group released a set of state-by-state STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) "Vital Signs" reports. At that time, the group also sent letters to all the nation's governors calling for higher proficiency standards in science and mathematics so that American students will be better prepared to compete globally.

It's worth reminding readers here that a major effort is currently under way to develop a set of common standards in science, which could be an important first step toward creating more aligned, and more rigorous, expectations for students around the nation.

The new study also sought to put state proficiency standards in context by comparing them with the findings of a 2009 study by ACT. It notes that while two-thirds of the states examined reported that most of their 8th graders were proficient in science, the ACT report found that only 8 percent of U.S. 8th graders were on track to do well in introductory college science courses.

"Setting a low bar in science breeds complacency and takes our eye off the ball," the report says. "If we lull parents, teachers, schools, and communities into believing their children are doing just fine in science, thank you very much, we deprive them of information and the sense of urgency they need to improve the quality of teaching and learning."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Although a majority of states are planning to nominate so-called Green-Ribbon Schools under a new federal awards program, South Carolina is not among them.

In fact, the state superintendent contends that the program is really about "placating environmental lobbyists," he wrote in a letter last month to the U.S. Department of Education.

State Superintendent Mick Zais complained in the Nov. 22 letter that the initiative has too many "burdensome" requirements.

"A dollar spent 'greening' a school is a dollar not spent in the classroom improving educational outcomes for students," he wrote.

The federal Education Department today announced that 33 states plus the District of Columbia had notified the feds of their intention to nominate schools for the new awards program, which honors schools that come closest to achieving a "net zero" environmental impact from their facilities, a "net positive impact" on the health of students and staff, and "100 percent environmentally literate graduates," the department said in a press release.

We reported here in late September that the department had released details of the new program. It was developed by the Education Department with support and advice from the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Up to 50 awards will be made in April, with plans over five years to expand that figure to 200 annual awards.

(Speaking of environmental literacy, on Friday we reported here about a new framework to guide assessments in this area.)

In the press release today, Secretary Duncan hailed the program's potential to encourage schools to improve their energy efficiency, create healthy environments, and "enhance their work to effectively prepare graduates for 21st-century careers."

But the state superintendent in South Carolina apparently was not impressed with this idea.

"The proposed requirements have a financial cost that will be borne by state and local taxpayers, not the federal government," he wrote. "Rather than creating a new ribbon-recognition program, the federal government should work to enhance the National Blue Ribbon Schools program."

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A package of model legislation opposing the common standards gained ground yesterday at the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The organization's education task force approved the package, we learned from a couple of folks who attended those sessions of ALEC's meeting this week in Scottsdale, Ariz.

But it's not final, or official ALEC policy, unless it is approved by the organization's board of directors. No word yet on when there might be a decision on that. If the board approves it, the package is the sort of thing that would would join other types of model legislation ALEC has crafted for states' use.

The debate about common standards at ALEC cropped up this past summer. We reported to you that the resolution was sponsored by a conservative think tank, the Arizona-based Goldwater Institute. Discussion and a vote on it was tabled, though, until this December meeting.

The resolution includes model legislation states could use to draft bills opposing adoption or implementation of common standards. You can get the flavor of it by looking at the version that has been floating around the Internet ever since it was put up for discussion last summer.

ALEC describes itself as dedicated to principles such as individual liberty, limited government and a free market. It is made up of private-sector members, such as representatives of businesses and think tanks, and public-sector members, who are state lawmakers.

I chatted with a few people who attended the task force meetings. The Hoover Institution's Williamson Evers told me that the vote came after an "extensive, well-thrashed-out" discussion of common-core issues in several sessions over the course of the three-day meeting. He noted that both supporters of the standards, such as Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett, and opponents, such as Texas Commissioner Robert Scott, were there to present their points of view.

Evers, a vigorous opponent of the common standards, spoke on behalf of the Goldwater Institute's resolution.

If you've been tracking the common-standards debate, you already know that the federal government's role in the common core is a sore point among its opponents and skeptics. They are uneasy with the Race to the Top program's incentive to adopt the standards, and its investments in designing tests for the standards. Evers reiterated these arguments at the ALEC task-force meeting.

"I told them that this was part of a federal overreach, that the standards are inadequate, but that even if they were perfect, it's part of an intrusion and a shift in federal-state relations that is unwise," Evers told me.

Indiana's Bennett defended the common standards during a couple of sessions at the ALEC convening, including one at the education task force. He told me after the meeting that while he is uneasy with the federal role in the standards, their overall value outweighed those misgivings.

"I told them that for us, this was a state-driven process," Bennett told me. "We believe it is better for Indiana students. We built the common core into our comprehensive education reform agenda. We utilized it to rewrite our teacher preparation standards."

A self-described "strong states' rights guy," Bennett reminded me that Indiana declined to participate in the Race to the Top competition, but the state board—which Bennett chairs—voted unanimously to adopt the common standards.

The Goldwater resolution rubs him the wrong way, he said, because he believes it overreaches in its own way: it restricts state legislatures by insisting that they refuse to go along with any common-core-related action.

"States should have the right to choose the common core if they so desire, and we so desired," he told me. "Just as I don't believe the federal government should overreach, I don't like the idea of think tanks telling me I should or shouldn't engage in the common core."

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

What exactly is environmental literacy, a phrase that gets bandied about a lot? And how should it be assessed?

A small group of experts in the subject—backed by a National Science Foundation grant—has been working on a project over the past year to address these matters, and yesterday released an executive summary of their forthcoming framework for assessing environmental literacy. The assessment equation, as articulated in that document, is not simply knowledge plus skills. It also involves dispositions and even "environmentally responsible behavior," the framework suggests.

The effort comes as a global assessment on environmental literacy is coming in 2015. That's when the high-profile Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, will for the first time include an optional exam on the topic. And in fact, in August, the folks who developed the new environmental literacy framework also submitted a plan to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to help guide that exam.

In addition, a report on the results of a recent National Environmental Literacy Assessment was released earlier this year. This voluntary exam, focused on the middle-school grades, was first administered several years ago. It is NOT affiliated, by the way, with NAEP. Work on it has been supported both by the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, the second round of testing was given only to a set of schools with an environmental focus.

Anyway, back to the assessment framework unveiled yesterday. Crafted by a six-person team of experts in environmental literacy, in consultation with 17 outside experts across disciplines, the document is likely to spark some debate, especially on the matter of assessing "environmentally responsible behavior." First off, that's no easy task, even the authors acknowledge. Also, I imagine some people might question whether it's even appropriate to try, at least in a school context. (I can see the critique already, that the framework is looking to inculcate an army of eco-warriors.)

I'll come back to those issues in a moment, but another thing that is striking about the framework is that it's short on detail. It appears to leave a lot to the imagination of test-designers, or those would engage them. Perhaps most notably, the executive summary (and I'm told the same is largely true of the forthcoming full framework) provides very little guidance on what exactly students should be expected to know about environmental issues, or even which general issue areas are the most important to understand today.

This is by design, but while some educators might be pleased by that, others may find it frustrating.

When the full document comes out next year, it will include some suggested "contexts" for environmental literacy, such as biodiversity, land use, and population growth, said Karen Hollweg, a member of the core writing team and the former president of the North American Association for Environmental Education. But she said the idea was to allow those who reference the framework, whether in states, at the national or global level, to decide which particular environmental concepts and core ideas are most pressing and relevant.

"We've suggested contexts that could be used for designing [test] items, but we're only suggesting contexts, because, as I said, it will depend tremendously on the locale and age range and so forth of the population to be assessed."

Stepping back, she explained: "The way I think of this framework, it's a rough plan for building a house, a rough plan for building an assessment." As such, it requires a lot of work to "fill in the blanks," she added.

She also cautioned that this enterprise was operating with limited time and resources, basically a year with a $108,000 grant from the NSF.

So, what exactly does the framework say? The executive summary, a short document only about five pages long, identifies four "interrelated components" of environmental literacy: knowledge, dispositions, competencies, and environmentally responsible behavior.

Under the knowledge strand, it highlights:
• physical and ecological systems;
• social, cultural, and political systems;
• environmental issues;
• multiple solutions to environmental issues; and
• citizen participation and action strategies.

The competencies include such skills and abilities as identifying, analyzing, and investigating environmental issues, as well as using evidence and knowledge to defend positions and resolve issues. The dispositions identified include sensitivity, attitudes, personal responsibility, and motivation, among others.

As for environmentally responsible behavior, there's no quick list offered. Instead, it outlines several ways of conceptualizing such behavior for purposes of large-scale assessments, including an approach that contains political and legal action as well as ecomanagement and persuasion.

In fact, the document concludes that environmentally responsible behavior is the "ultimate expression of environmental literacy."

"If there is a place that people are going to have some trouble and disagreement, it's probably on the behavior part [of the framework]," acknowledged William McBeth, a professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville who helped craft the document (and also has played a leading role in the National Environmental Literacy Assessment). "It's hard to measure, and some may think we should not be prescribing behavior."

But McBeth was quick to add that the framework does NOT prescribe any specific behaviors, even as it does make reference to some examples of how to conceptualize it, such as political and legal action.

Scott Marion, a testing expert who participated in the event yesterday, offered praise for the framework in an interview the other day, saying he appreciated the way it represents a "multifaceted domain," and its approach of moving beyond simply knowledge and skills.

At the same time, he suggested that far more flesh is needed on the bones before this kind of guidance could be handed over to test-makers.

"There's not enough detail to build an assessment without allowing the assessment developer more leeway than we usually like to give them," said Marion, the associate director of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. "This is sort of a first step in trying to identify what are the broad topics to study."

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

Three experts in math education have just put forward some recommendations to help ensure that teachers get the right training and assistance to bring the common standards to life in the classroom.

The new report, supported by a National Science Foundation grant, serves up a set of nine suggestions for states and districts on effective teacher professional development, including:

• Engaging teachers with both the math content and practices of the common standards in a "focused and integrated way";

• Providing "vivid images of teaching and learning" consistent with the standards; and

• Offering a "continuous and coherent set of experiences" over an extended period of time.

"The Common Core State Standards present a historic opportunity for mathematics education," said Mike Shaughnessy, the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, in a press release. "For the standards to succeed and attain their full potential to help to educate all our students, high-quality professional development must be provided to all teachers."

The report was written by professors Paola Sztajn from North Carolina State University, Karen Marrongelle from the Oregon University System, and Peg Smith from the University of Pittsburgh.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend