Rhode Island today became the first state to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards, when its state board of education voted unanimously to approve them.

It is one of the 26 "lead state partners" that helped to develop the standards in collaboration with several national organizations. At least two other states, Kentucky and Maine, have signaled that they would likely vote on adoption this spring, and many more may well follow suit later this year, including California and Kansas.

The K-12 standards, more than three years in the making, went through two rounds of public comment before they were issued in final form last month. Two of the central tenets of the standards are providing a greater emphasis on depth over breadth in science education and asking students to apply their learning through the practices of scientific inquiry and engineering design.

However, the standards are not being universally welcomed. Some critics, for instance, say the priority they place on science and engineering practices risks overshadowing the core content students should learn. Also, the standards' treatment of climate change has drawn criticism from some conservatives.

Last week, in fact, a state Senate Republican in Kansas inserted a provision into a budget bill that would have prevented the use of state dollars to implement the science standards (as well as the common core), but budget negotiators have since stripped out that language).

How many states ultimately choose to adopt the standards remains to be seen, of course. Most, if not all, of the lead states in crafting them seem likely to do so. In addition, some other states tracked the development of the standards closely, and may eventually sign on as well.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The Next Generation Science Standards are about to face their first real political test since completion, as the state board of education in Rhode Island is expected to vote on adoption later today. That said, it appears to be a pretty safe bet that the Ocean State's board will look favorably on them, as I blogged the other day.

Rhode Island is one of the 26 "lead state partners" that helped to develop the standards. Two other states that have signaled that they would likely vote on adoption this spring include Kentucky and Maine. (As I reported earlier this year, don't be surprised if some states beyond the lead partners also adopt.)

Even before a single state adopted the new K-12 standards, however, conversations and activity was getting underway to help support implementation. In a two-part special package from Education Week, I examined some of those issues. The first segment offered a big-picture look at key issues, including professional development and teacher education, assessment, and curriculum and instruction. Also in that first part, I explored the role that the "informal science education" sector (such as zoos, science museums, radio programs etc.) can play as an implementation ally.

In the second segment, I focus on some early examples of educators who already have been grappling with the standards, as well as the standards framework developed by the National Research Council. These teachers, scattered around the country, have been engaged in professional development to better understand the vision for science education espoused by the NRC framework and the standards, and have started to bring that understanding to their classrooms.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

As I've covered the Common Core State Standards for the past three years, it's been impossible to escape a fundamental question: To what extent are school systems able to put the standards into practice? This week, we begin a series of stories that explores that question in detail, in one district, one school, and one classroom.

I have spent six months reporting on common-core English/language arts implementation in the District of Columbia public schools. Photographer Jared Soares and I spent many, many hours in 8th grade English/language arts teacher Dowan McNair-Lee's 4th period class at Stuart-Hobson Middle School on Capitol Hill. We watched as she worked to infuse the new standards into her teaching, struggling to fill the gaps in knowledge that her students bring to school every day. We hung around with her in professional-development sessions and school-based coaching sessions. We followed the school's instructional coach, Sarah Hawley, as she worked with teachers, and Stuart-Hobson's assistant principal, Katie Franklin, as she tried to bring teachers along in their pedagogy.

We also watched the district's vision for the common core take shape at the top levels of the district. We follow Brian Pick, who oversees all things curriculum-and-instruction for DCPS, as he moves some of DCPS' tectonic plates, shoring up support for budgetary and calendar shifts to accommodate the intense push of the common core. We follow him on school visits, where he searches for signs of what is working and what isn't.

Mostly, we watched how the vision of common core that originates at the district level makes its way downstream to the schools and teachers, mostly through a big group of instructional coaches. We see the strengths that DCPS brings to the work, as well as the limitations that encumber it.

I welcome you to read along with this story as it unfolds, and share your thoughts. Part 1 is running now. Parts 2 and 3 will appear in the first half of June. Then we'll follow up in late summer with a final installment that explores what the year has meant for the district, and for those at Stuart-Hobson.

You can explore our first story a little differently here: check it out!

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

House and Senate negotiators in Kansas have reportedly dropped from a state budget bill a controversial measure that would have blocked the spending of state dollars on the Common Core State Standards for math and literacy, as well as the Next Generation Science Standards finalized last month.

The Witchita Eagle newspaper makes a brief mention of the action in a story posted late yesterday. Further details and analysis are supplied by the Tallman Education Report, a blog authored by a representative from the Kansas Association of School Boards, which opposed the standards provision.

I first blogged about this matter yesterday. If approved, it likely would have proven a significant hurdle for the common-core and science standards.

The Tallman Report says that a stand-alone House bill blocking state spending on the common core was "narrowly defeated" by the House education committee earlier this year.

In a phone conversation, Tallman cautioned that the issue may not be settled yet for this year. "If that budget [bill] fails, they will send that back to conference committee," he said, where lawmakers might decide to reinsert the budget proviso on standards (though apparently there may be technical reasons it's not permitted). Alternatively, legislators could again try to pass a stand-alone bill. "We're nearing the end [of the legislative session], Tallman told me. "I guess I would say, I don't know if the issue is completely closed out."

What was especially curious about the language on the science standards was that Kansas has not even adopted them yet, though it was one of the 26 "lead state partners" that crafted them. The Kansas state board of education is expected to adopt them later this year.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you've been following the adventures of the two consortia of states that are designing tests for the common standards, then you've likely heard that ACT Inc. has jumped into the game by announcing a similar suite of assessments. One state, Alabama, has already decided to go that route instead of using the tests being crafted by PARCC and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.

Two of the people overseeing the Iowa testmaker's new set of tests, called Aspire, dropped by EdWeek's offices yesterday, so we asked them where things stood with the project.

Jon Erickson, president of ACT's education division, and Paul J. Weeks, who oversees Aspire's development as ACT's vice president for career and college readiness, weren't ready to offer any information on which states, if any, are seriously considering using Aspire as their year-end tests for accountability.

But they noted that several states—some that are participating in a consortium and some that aren't—have put out solicitations for such tests. The implication was that one or more PARCC or SBAC members could be in play as potential customers lured over to Aspire. We'll get back to you with more on this when there is more to report.

When I asked Erickson to talk about Aspire as a competitor to the two federally funded assessment consortia, he disputed that notion.

"It wasn't a move to take common core down," he said, "that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's a complementary effort."

I asked him what would be wrong with just coming right out and saying Aspire is an alternative to the PARCC and Smarter Balanced tests. After all, I said, some state education chiefs, like Tony Bennett in Florida, have expressed a need for a "Plan B" in case the consortium tests don't take shape as expected.

"We are a Plan B," he said. "States have asked for a Plan B alternative. We are here for the long haul. We're spending money out of our own pockets; We're not dependent on the political winds. It's still a free economy."

And right there you see some of ACT's marketing strategy. They're raising doubt about the consortia's long-term sustainability, which is a concern high on the consortia's own radars, as we've told you. Aspire's timeline, too, is clearly intended to help it get a competitive foothold; it promises its tests for spring 2014, a year ahead of what PARCC and Smarter Balanced are promising. (Look how prominently that timeline is displayed on Aspire's web page, too.)

As for the test itself, Weeks and Erickson said the current projected price is about $20 per student for tests in English/language arts, reading, writing, math, and science in grades 3-8 and 9-10. That's the neighborhood PARCC and SBAC are trying to hover in for their tests, too. Currently, Aspire is conducting small-scale trials on test forms, with 305,000 students involved so far, Weeks said. Studies are also being conducted to establish a cutoff score that would align to ACT's college readiness benchmarks, and to ensure test results are equally valid on the online and the paper-and-pencil versions of the test.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The political pushback on the common core has reached Kansas, it seems, where a Republican lawmaker has inserted language into a budget bill that would prevent the state from spending any money on implementation of the math and literacy standards. But that's not all. The provision by Sen. Ty Masterson, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, also says no state funds can be spent on the Next Generation Science Standards finalized last month. In effect, that's a preemptive strike on the science standards, since the state hasn't adopted them.

Certainly, my understanding is that the state board of education in Kansas is very likely to adopt them. (And Masterson, it would seem, shares this view.) Kansas is one of 26 "lead state partners" that helped to craft the standards. It assembled a statewide team of some 60 Kansans to review multiple drafts of the document. And the state board got monthly updates on the development of the standards for more than a year. Here's a press release from the state department of education at the time the standards were issued in final form.

In explaining his measure, Masterson said, "There is a general resistance to the federal government imposing on our schools," according to the Associated Press. The story quotes another Republican lawmaker, Rep. John Bradford, as saying, "Education is local, should be local, and controlled by the state. We have good education in Kansas. Why change it?"

(I'm not sure whether these comments are specific to the common core, or whether they also concern the science standards. Although the federal government did not develop either set of standards, it did provide financial and policy incentives for states to adopt the common core, which has sparked strong criticism from some quarters. To date, the federal government has provided no such incentives for adopting the science standards.)

It's not yet clear whether Masterson's provision in the budget bill will survive. What's also not clear to me is what's driving his opposition to the science standards. I contacted him to find out, but did not hear back.

It could be a case of "guilt by association," where the criticism of the common core begins to bleed over into the next set of common standards, even though they are entirely separate and were developed under different circumstances. A couple of news accounts in Kansas suggest Masterson's opposition may have to do with how the science standards treat the teaching of evolution, long a source of controversy in Kansas. (The standards identify evolution as a core principle for understanding the life sciences.) Another possibility indicated in those accounts was how the standards address the teaching of climate change.

An editorial in the Wichita Eagle sharply criticized Masterson's move.

"Never mind that school districts around the state have spent three years and a lot of money getting ready for the common-core standards, which were voluntarily adopted by 45 states and are not a case of 'the federal government imposing on our schools,' as Masterson put it, or that bills to block common core didn't even have enough support to make it out of either chamber's education committee," it says.

In the meantime, as I blogged the other day, Rhode Island may become the first state to adopt the science standards. The state board in the Ocean State is scheduled to vote on the matter later this week. Stay tuned.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 5:44 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Students who successfully complete an Advanced Placement computer science class in Washington state will get a math or science credit toward graduation, rather than having it count as an elective, under legislation Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee signed last week.

"If we can encourage more of our students to try their hand at computer science in high school, we can open their world to so many amazing careers," the governor, who took office in January, said in a press release.

The action makes Washington the 10th state to count computer science as a core math or science credit, according to a press release from Washington STEM, a broad-based advocacy group for improved science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Currently, the group says, only 35 out of Washington's 622 high schools offer the course.

"This is a step forward to making Washington state a national STEM leader," said Brad Smith, an executive vice president at Microsoft and a founding board member of Washington STEM. "Every young person in our state should have the chance to learn how to code; it's the new language of opportunity." You can hear more from Smith on the issue in this blog post.

Microsoft last September issued what it called a National Talent Strategy that features a push for expanding access to computer science education, as well as improving STEM education more broadly. (It also calls for a short-term strategy to allow more foreign workers with STEM skills into the United States.)

Participation in AP computer science has grown by more than 60 percent over the past five years. About 19,000 AP computer science tests were taken by the graduating class of 2012, up from roughly 12,000 in the class of 2007.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A group of state education chiefs has sent a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, urging him to resist a call for a moratorium on high-stakes uses of tests on the common standards.

In a letter released today, Chiefs for Change says that accountability measures tied to the Common Core State Standards should be preserved, not delayed.

"The members of Chiefs for Change reject any calls for a moratorium on accountability," the letter says. "This position overstates the challenge and undervalues our educators. ... We will not relax or delay our urgency for creating better teacher, principal, school, and district accountability systems as we implement more rigorous standards. That is a disservice to our students and would undermine the tremendous amount of preparation our states' education agencies, districts, schools, and educators have contributed to this multiyear effort."

Without mentioning her by name, the Chiefs were referring to AFT President Randi Weingarten, who recently called for a moratorium on high-stakes consequences of the common standards and their assessments. She was referring to policies like teacher evaluations that are based in part on how well students score on those tests.

Chiefs for Change, you might recall, is operated by the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the Tallahassee, Fla.-based group founded by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

In the letter to Duncan, Chiefs for Change called that position tantamount to "pulling back on accountability."

In her speech, Weingarten specifically refuted this claim, knowing it would be forthcoming. She argued that schools and teachers should be held accountable for the common core, but not until they were given enough time to get adequate materials and professional development for it.

Chiefs for Change said that states should—and could—ensure a "thoughtfully" managed transition to the common standards, with sufficient professional development for teachers, and careful attention given to how the new standards will affect teacher evaluations and other policies.

Hanna Skandera, one of the 11 chiefs who signed the letter, said it was driven by "hearing various conversations going on across the country right now and having such a strong conviction, as Chiefs for Change, about the importance of accountability first and foremost."

"We wanted to just say, 'Wait, we've worked so hard as a nation, and in our own states, to take a stand for what we believe is putting kids first, what allows us to get better information so we can get better at serving our kids,'" she said in a telephone interview.

"Now is not the time to step away from accountability, but to embrace it," said Skandera, New Mexico's acting chief. "As we transition to the common core, there is no reason to put a halt on accountability."

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 7:35 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Fueled by a $2.2 million grant, Khan Academy will develop online content and tools over the next two years to help teachers and students meet the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.

The popular producer of free online content already has a large volume of practice materials and videos that are "mapped" to the common-core math standards, a press release says, but with the grant from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, it will build new diagnostic tools to help better identify gaps in student learning. In addition, the grant will enable Khan Academy—best known for its math instructional videos—to more "deeply cover" the standards.

Khan Academy has drawn some criticism over the pedagogy in its math instructional videos. An Education Week Storify—"Anatomy of a Khan-troversy"—produced last year examines the emergence of the nonprofit organization and the growing debate over its approach. The Storify also includes an interview with founder Salman Khan, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Business School. Khan's organization grew out of his efforts to help his young relatives with their homework.

Khan Academy's instructional materials cover a variety of subjects, from math to biology and even art history. Last summer, it announced plans, in fact, to turn some attention to computer science.

Posted by Erik Robelen at 3:38 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that most states have looked into allegations of cheating by school officials on state tests in the past two years.

The study, released this week, found that 33 states confirmed at least one such case of cheating, and 32 reported invalidating test scores as a result of cheating.

The report was prompted by several high-profile cases of cheating on tests, such as the recent one in Atlanta. The federal government has an interest in the security and validity of state tests results because it helps fund the development of tests used for federal accountability. The GAO report says the U.S. Department of Education has funneled $2 billion toward such projects since 2002.

With that in mind, and also a 2009 report of its own that found lax security procedures in some places on state tests, the GAO sought to find out what states are doing about test security. Using the best practices outlined in a 2010 report by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Association of Test Publishers (which EdWeek wrote about here), the GAO designed a Web-based survey asking states which of those practices they use in their state assessment programs. All 50 states and the District of Columbia responded. The GAO also conducted interviews and site visits with education officials in two states and interviewed officials from test publishers and a test-security company.

Most of the report focuses on how widely the "best practices" in assessment are being used in the states. But the extent of cheating allegations that it found is noteworthy in light of cheating scandals in Atlanta and elsewhere.

The study also notes the incentives to cheat that could flow from linking tests to honors or recognition (or, as the study did not point out, punitive responses). In 24 states, test results are linked to teacher evaluations and/or special rewards or recognitions for schools that improve test scores, the study says. In nine states, results are linked to educators' promotions, it says.

And it reports widespread jitters about cheating. All 50 states reported feeling vulnerable to cheating during their tests, and 47 reported feeling vulnerable after the test is given. Forty-three percent reported similar fears somewhere along the chain of custody of testing materials, and 40 said they feared cheating in the period leading up to the test. Forty-five states said they were concerned about cheating when using accommodations for students with special needs.

The study includes no recommendations. It notes that test security can be improved if states put strong policies and procedures in place and that the move to computer-based testing could "address some vulnerabilities of paper-based assessments." But it could also create new vulnerabilities, the GAO study says.

"Additional guidance and oversight will be key to ensuring that appropriate policies and procedures are adopted by schools to address these new vulnerabilities," the report says.

Here are the six areas of "best practice" in test security and a summary of what the GAO survey found:

•Test-security plans: 40 states reported having all seven or more of the nine leading practices in this area, including procedures for keeping materials secure.

•Security training: 32 states had 10 or more of the 11 leading practices in training personnel for tests.

•Security breaches: 42 states had five or more of the six leading practices to prevent or deal with breaches in test security.

•Test administration: 21 states had 29 to 31 of the 32 leading practices in this area, and another 24 had 24 to 28 of them. The numbers are far lower after that: Two had 18 to 20 of those practices, and four had only six to 10.

•Protecting secure materials: Seven states reported having all 16 of the best practices in this area, which includes practices such as accounting for test materials at all stages of distribution. Twenty-three states reported having 13 to 15 of those practices. Twenty-one states reported 12 or fewer.

•Leading practices in computer-based tests: The GAO reported on this separately, since only 28 states administer computer-based tests. The CCSSO/ATP—identified 14 best practices for computer-based testing, including clearly documenting and explaining the use of software and supporting devices. The GAO found that eight of the 28 states that give their tests this way use all 14 best practices. Another seven reported using 13 of the 14.

Posted by Catherine Gewertz at 1:47 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend