Recently in Curriculum Category

Those of you who've been wondering when the next round of common, multistate standards would appear may want to clear some time in mid-December. That's when the first draft of K-12 standards are likely to be unveiled, says one of the officials leading that process.

Dane Linn of the National Governors Association, one of two organizations guiding the Common Core State Standards Initiative, said at a forum on Wednesday that committees have been working on the K-12 document for a while now and a draft should be ready by the middle of next month. The K-12 document, as many readers know, is part two of the multistate standards project. Part one was the unveiling of draft college and career-readiness standards, back in September.

Officials from the NGA and Council of Chief State School Officers also expect to have members of a "validation" committee review the K-12 and end-of-high school documents at the same time, and have them approved by February, Linn added.

Linn was speaking on a panel on national standards hosted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, in Washington. Joining him at the event, which was moderated by Chester Finn, Fordham's president, were Sheila Byrd Carmichael, an education policy consultant; Stephen Wilson, a professor of mathematics at Johns Hopkins University; and Sandy Kress, who was a senior adviser to George W. Bush and involved in the crafting of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Linn also said his team has surveyed the state officials they work with about how soon they might adopt common standards, once those documents are complete. Of 41 states that responded, 16 predicted that work could be done in one to six months, Linn said; 15 said it could take 6-12 months; 10 others indicated it would take 12 months or more.

What remains unclear is how the states' schedules for adopting common standards will mesh with the Race to the Top guidelines, which seem to set a more aggressive timeline for state action, as my colleague Michele McNeil noted in a recent story.

The Obama administration has proposed giving a competitive advantage to states applying for $4 billion in federal Race to the Top funding if they adopt common standards. It has also offered $350 million in competitive federal aid to states to craft common assessments based on common standards. Finn asked the NGA official if he expected that all states would adopt one common test, or if consortia or groups of states would band together to create their own assessments. Linn said Common Core officials had been talking with state leaders about the "pros and cons," of each approach and he expected a clearer picture to emerge in the next month or so.

Kress, during his opening remarks, argued that the standards won't mean much unless states agree to revamp teacher training and instructional materials to make the effort worthwhile. They'll also need good tests that measure what the standards call for and set high passing thresholds, he said. Without all that, standards amount to a "leaky bucket," Kress said, quoting from a recent paper by Russ Whitehurst, of the Brookings Institution. He also said the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, before rewarding states with federal funding for common standards, should make sure they're taking steps "to actually implement them, and effectively so."

"I say unless a state can can show it's doing all of these things," Kress said of standards, "what good are they?"

Want to hear more? Fordham's event was streamed live, and a recording should be available soon at the institute's site.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:30 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | TrackBacks (0)

Many scientists have a lot to say. Unfortunately, a large swath of the public at large has trouble understanding what it is they're talking about.

This is a problem, many scientists agree, not just because important scientific facts and ideas are misunderstood, or because those topics end up getting ignored in the public sphere. The language barrier also makes it difficult for the public, including K-12 students, to grasp why science is important at all, and how it affects their lives.

In reporting a story recently, I was directed to an online resource that seeks to help scientists overcome these barriers. It's called "Communicating Science: Tools for Scientists and Engineers," and it's run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world.

The site, which is supported by the National Science Foundation, includes how-to tips for scientists to conduct interviews. It also houses online "webinars," ideas for coming up with public outreach opportunities, and a list of workshops to help scientists. For members of the working media, looking at these resources often has the added benefit of cluing us in to how the rest of humanity regards us (in some cases with fear and suspicion). But on the AAAS site, the authors try to anticipate scientists' struggles to explain their work to reporters and offer them practical tips. Here's a sample from the site:

"The phone rings, you answer. It's a reporter from the New York Times. She quickly explains that she's writing a story under deadline and another scientist she spoke to gave her your name. What should you do?

1. Hang up in fear.
2. Ask what the story is about and the deadline, and then arrange with the reporter a better time to talk, keeping in mind his or her deadline.
3. Say 'sure,' answer her first question, and then discuss in great detail your most recent published discovery for the next 30 minutes, interrupting the rest of the reporter's questions."

The correct answer, the site explains, is #2. This approach will give the scientist time to think through how he or she plans to explain a topic, the authors say. Other, more detailed advice for interviews is also included.

I often hear scientists talk about how difficult it is to explain the rules and language of science to lay audiences. Their frustration level was especially high during the spate of fights over evolution and intelligent design in schools a few years ago, when many scientific experts sought to describe the kinds of questions science can answer, and those that it can't. If you're a K-12 teacher or student, what tips could you give scientists on how they can explain their work in clear and lively terms?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:11 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

It might not be as opaque as a Kremlin shake-up, but knowing the exact reasons for the ouster of China's education minister is something of a guessing game, with national leaders saying little publicly about the reasons for his removal. Zhou Li was relieved of his post by the standing committee of the National People's Congress and replaced by his deputy, Yuan Guiren, according to news reports.

American leaders, of course, have looked with curiosity and more than a little bit of anxiety in recent years at China's rapid economic expansion and the improvements in its schools. But China Daily, a government-run publication, says that there was widespread dissatisfaction, at least in political circles, with the rate of progress. The article describes Zhou as "unpopular." It also notes that he was the former mayor of the city of Wuhan, where the university has been roiled by a bribery scandal. Zhou, however, has never been implicated in that matter, the story says.

The New York Times notes that Zhou served at a time when demand for education at all levels, including universities, was dramatically increasing in China, and that the nation has struggled to keep up. Low literacy and lack of access to education also remain major problems. At the very least, the removal of Zhou is a reminder of the enormous pressure China faces to meet the needs of its student population and create schools and universities capable of producing more qualified workers.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:16 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

In the wake of a recent release of uninspiring test scores and a federal study showing that states lowered their "proficiency" standards, there's been a lot of tough and in some ways surprising analysis being put forward recently about math instruction in this country. Here's a sample:

—In The Baltimore Sun, a college physics professor and parent says schools are rushing students through overly difficult material, rather than ensuring that they are taught rigorous math through "age-appropriate concepts and techniques." Joseph Ganem describes his teenage daughter's struggles with high school trigonometry material that he says is at a level appropriate for upper-level college physics students. Many students, he says, are lost when they get to college-level math because they have been fed math processes but lack a solid understanding of math. "Learning techniques without understanding them," Ganem writes, "does no good in preparing students for college, where emphasis is on understanding, not memorization and computational prowess."

—The Des Moines Register looks beyond Iowa's overall state scores to examine how students are faring, by achievement level, when compared to those students' peers in other states. The paper's editorialists are troubled by the fact that Iowa has far fewer students scoring at the "advanced" level than top-performing states, particularly Massachusetts. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are also lagging behind those from more affluent backgrounds.

—A recent examination of states' tendency to set very divergent, and in many cases very low "proficiency" standards has a lot people asking hard questions of state officials. This story in the Chicago Sun-Times about that state's proficiency standards is one example.

—And on a different note, a new survey reveals just how lost many parents are when it comes to helping their children with math and science homework. Many mothers and fathers, it turns out, find it easier to talk about the perils of illegal drug use than about math and science content. The Orlando Sentinel sums up an Intel survey on parents' math and science knowledge, or lack of it.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:47 AM | Permalink | 3 Comments | TrackBacks (0)

The National Academies has just released a handbook of sorts that seeks to give educators and others practical advice on how they can use museums, science centers, and other "informal" forms of education to improve student learning.

The guide, titled "Surrounded by Science: Learning Science in Informal Environments," is based on the research found in a study of informal science learning, released by the National Research Council earlier this year. Museums and science centers, as well as TV shows and other efforts, can be a major resource for science teachers and parents—if they know how to use them.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:46 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Some of the country's top researchers on science education have been meeting at the National Academies in the hope of laying the groundwork for new and improved standards in that subject.

The goal is to create a conceptual framework built around "core ideas," in science. That framework could in turn inform the future development of standards as part of the multistate Common Core State Standards Initiative, an ongoing project we've been writing about a lot.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the researchers at the Academies, a congressionally-chartered entity that provides advice to the federal government, are using language that will sound very familiar to followers of the Common Core. They want to establish a framework that promotes the study of "fewer, deeper, clearer, and higher" ideas in science, which echoes the fewer-clearer-higher theme of the Common Core. The Academies organizers also believe that recent research on student cognition in science can help shape better standards, said Martin Storksdieck, the director of the the board on science education at the National Academies. For instance, researchers today take a strong interest in a concept known as "learning progressions," basically, ordering lessons in a way that reflects how students learn and builds on what they already know.

Research is showing that students "are capable of learning much more in science than we thought them capable of before," Storksdieck told me. He described a prime goal of science standards this way: "We need to teach science in a way that gives students a stronger sense of just how exciting science is."

I've written a bit about the potential for the Common Core to move on to science, after finishing language arts and reading standards. As part of its work on a science framework, the Academies staff have been working with the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Storksdieck noted. The science researchers have also stayed in touch with Achieve, which is a partner in the Common Core, he added.

Here's a useful page that offers papers and presentations from an Academies conference held this month on the creation of standards. Stay tuned.

Photo of Albert Einstein courtesy of Library of Congress.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:43 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

In this week's issue, I have a story about the continued growth of forensic science courses in schools, a trend that can almost certainly be attributed partly to the "CSI effect" or the public's fixation on cops-and-crime TV shows.

When reporting on teachers taking on a relatively new topic in science, one question I'm always curious about is where educators get their classroom materials, and ideas for lessons? The teachers I interviewed for this story tapped some interesting sources, including local police departments and forensics experts, as well as research on forensic science and the TV shows themselves—sometimes to test the veracity of an idea or concept presented on the show.

One teacher whose account I was not able to include in my story was Brian Pressley, who teaches science at Brunswick High School in Maine. Pressley is also a textbook author, and he recently wrote a new book on forensics, published by Walch Education. In addition doing a lot of research and reading about forensics, Pressley gathered ideas from his school's security staff, who have law-enforcement training. The teacher said he knew that forensics would be a popular topic for a book after witnessing the reaction at several professional development conferences of science teachers.

"Teachers were standing in the doorway, trying to get information," he said of one crowded session. He thought he'd have better luck at another one later in the day, but "people were out the door at that one, too," he recalled.

About three-quarters of the members of the National Science Teachers Association who responded to a survey a few years ago said some kind of forensic science was being taught in their schools. If you're teaching forensics, how did you develop a curriculum for your class?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:53 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | TrackBacks (0)

At least five Northwest states have academic standards that address Native American culture and history, and the subject is included in the school curriculum, according to a study released yesterday by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory of the Institute of Education Sciences.

The study is the most comprehensive so far to analyze Indian education policies in states, according to its authors.

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington all have six policies in common related to Indian education, the study says. In addition to the two I noted at the beginning of this post, all five states involve Native Americans on advisory boards, permit them to learn their native language as part of a school program, promote teacher certification in Native American languages, and provide college scholarship and tuition assistance for Native Americans.

The researchers didn't try to evaluate the merits of the Indian education policies or how well they were implemented. In a story I wrote last year for Education Week, I delved into some of the challenges of carrying out such policies. For example, a lack of funding to support some that were on the books was a problem in some states.

Posted by Mary Ann Zehr at 9:08 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Many school districts around the country have seen an influx of Hispanic students, who also occupy a growing portion of the workforce in their communities. How can educators and policymakers encourage those students to pursue a college education, and a career in science, technology, engineering, and math (the so-called 'STEM' occupations), specifically? This week, a forum hosted by the Hispanic College Fund on Capitol Hill will explore that topic.

I've written a bit in the past about schools' efforts to build non-native English speakers' skills in math and science at an early age. This event looks the experience of Latinos later in the K-12 pipeline. A number of Hispanic students and business leaders will offer ideas on strategies to help students. The event is set for Thursday, Oct. 29, at 9:30 a.m., in the south congressional meeting room, in the Capitol Visitor's Center.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:31 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | TrackBacks (0)

A coalition of parents interested in promoting high-quality math instruction says the draft of common, multistate standards gets some things right, but is off the mark in a couple key areas.

The U.S. Coalition for World Class Math, by its description, supports giving students a strong grounding in procedural math skills, which it believes will also lead to their acquisition of "conceptual skill," or higher-order thinking. It says its members include state coalitions of mathematicians, engineers, and others with strong math backgrounds, a collection of voices, the group says, is often neglected in developing math standards and curricula.

While "needing some work," the draft math standards "are substantially well written," it says. "If these standards are to serve as the forerunner of future K-12 grade-by-grade objectives and standards, however, we believe more clarity is needed and [we] made suggestions for improving the discussions and the standards themselves."

Update: Barry Garelick, of the math coalition, says my initial post did not adequately describe his group's concerns about the draft standards. And after re-reading their position, I see his point. The coalition worries that the standards do not do enough to address the math standards that students who are interested in pursuing math and science careers, or advanced studies, will have to meet. "[A]ppropriate standards must be developed for them," they write, "so that teachers, school administrators, and textbook publishers can develop appropriate courses of instruction for STEM-intending students." The coalition also argues that the draft places too much emphasis on statistics, probability, and math modeling, which it says aren't as essential for college readiness as other topics. I've changed the headline and first line to reflect this point. See Garelick's comment below, or the link, above, for more detail.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:23 AM | Permalink | 4 Comments | TrackBacks (0)