Recently in Curriculum Category

Paul Barton, the former director of the policy-information center at the Educational Testing Service, takes issue with the draft common standards in written comments on the document.

Barton says the draft standards for college and career readiness seem "to be an extension of the current conventional wisdom seen in a number of arenas that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to public education, particularly at the high school level, and that all students need to acquire the same kind and level of knowledge for life after high school." Barton, who now works as an education consultant, argues that this approach is "deaf to the differentiation of student interests, motivations, learning styles, and the greatly differentiated labor market they will enter, as well as the differentiated structure of postsecondary education, and the need to make a start on cutting the dropout rate."

His observations in some ways echo the concerns of Stanford University scholar Mike Kirst, whose work Barton cites in his paper. Overall, Barton questions the wisdom of starting the standards effort with a focus on the end of the K-12 pipeline—as opposed to elementary grades—an approach that he describes as an effort to "bring uniformity to a wildly differentiated secondary school system."

I'm offering just a brief synopsis. Once you've read the essay, let me know if you agree with Barton's analysis.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:48 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

A new book seeks to offer a "nuanced, balanced" examination of why women lag behind men in their representation in certain math and science fields. Yet by its very nature, the volume, The Science on Women and Science, is bound to ignite some impassioned chatter.

The book is a collection of essays by scholars who come at the topic in different ways and reach starkly different conclusions. Some argue that research suggests that gender biases are the overriding factor in males outnumbering females in physical science, engineering, and math. Others dispute that idea, quite strongly.

The volume is edited by Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who's written for years about claims of gender bias in math/science. Noted social scientist Charles Murray contributes an essay, as do Harvard University scholars Elizabeth Spelke and Katherine Ellison, and many others. In her introduction, Sommers presents the book as a fairer look at the issue than what was presented in a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences, which found that bias, as opposed to intrinsic ability, was a strong factor in discouraging women to enter math and science fields. "There are sensible and fair-minded scientists on all sides," she writes. "They should be free to argue without being intimidated, silenced, or compared to racists."

Some of the essayists, like Spelke and Ellison, argue that research shows that men and women have the same intrinsic cognitive abilities and motivation for math and science careers. They say there's also no evidence that market forces are going to correct those imbalances, as some suggest, so higher education institutions would have to act for change to occur. The evidence shows that gender stereotypes are having an impact on leading women away from math and science fields, the authors explain.

But others, like authors Jerre Levy and Doreen Kimura, have a different take. They argue that the "fundamental claim" of the Academies report that men outnumber women in certain math and science fields because of social barriers against females has "no scientific foundation." They say research has shown a connection between genetic and hormonal differences between males and females, which affect behavior and choice of occupation. They write:

"Although the magnitude of average sex differences in certain cognitive abilities has declined in the last forty years, none of these differences has disappeared or is likely to disappear. However, even if there were no cognitive sex differences in average mathematical or spatial ability, there would still be more males than females at the upper end of intellectual talent due to greater male variance. In consequence, there would still be more males than females who meet even minimum standards to be academic engineers, physical scientists, or mathematicians, and many more men than women with exceptionally high levels of talent."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:13 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

These are tough times to be looking for work as a teacher.

Unless, it seems, you're hoping to become a math teacher.

That's the conclusion of a recent report, which finds that nationwide demand for teachers has fallen in all 60 fields examined over the past year. Only one subject area—math teaching—was found to be in "considerable demand," according to the latest version of an annual report released by the American Association for Employment in Education (subscription required). In recent years, more than a dozen subjects have had serious shortages, but not this year. Interesting that the demand for math teachers outpaces even that of other, traditionally high-need subjects like special education.

Districts are struggling to avoid layoffs and cuts in the dismal economy. And teachers who have jobs, even those who are on the cusp of retirement, are staying put, the report suggests. The job losses have come despite the huge infusion of federal funds around the country. This story in the Associated Press gives the picture on the ground in school systems in Kansas and Texas, where one school district had 5,000 applicants for 300 teaching jobs. Many teachers who were thinking of getting certified in one subject may be going back for more training in others, hoping to bolster their credentials, the story notes.

The report sums up the hiring scene this way:

"In 2009, job opportunities for educators dwindled dramatically, reflecting the steepest one-year decline in the past 29 years. This .28 point decline in opportunities coincided with the sharp decline in the U.S. economy. It appears that even with the promise of government stimulus funds and what seems to be an ending of the current economic downturn, education employers have reduced staff and are hesitant to hire in this uncertain market. It also appears that educators nearing retirement are hesitant to retire because of the tenuous nature of future health-care benefits coupled with a significant decline in the value of their retirement nest eggs.

The job prospects for newly graduated and unemployed educators is more challenging and likely will remain in this status until well after an economic recovery. This being said, there are still educator positions available, but perhaps not in the geographic area or desired position type. The high-need areas in special education, math, and some science reflect a lessening demand, but jobs are still available. Significant regional variations are reflected in the data."

All this is not to say that the job market for math and science teachers is going gangbusters. As my colleague Stephen Sawchuk reported recently, there are a lot more applicants, some of them entering the field through alternative certification, and a limited number of positions. One thing that employment reports cannot tell us (at least I haven't seen it) is what happens to the quality of instruction in a tough economy? If districts can afford to be choosy, and the best candidates are in demand, do test scores and student learning improve? Or would there always too many other factors in play to make a conclusion about that?

What's the hiring situation like in your state or district, and how are schools of education, and job candidates, responding?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:41 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Can vocational education be revamped to boost literacy among struggling readers? The Association for Career and Technical Education believes that it can, and the organization highlights state efforts in Florida, Kentucky, and Maine as examples.

The programs serve students of different ages, but all of them attempt to build literacy skills within the context of hands-on classroom activities and job-related skills. One example cited in the association's issue brief is Florida's effort to combine remedial reading lessons with different types of academic content and workforce training. In the case of one high school, that means blending reading lessons within digital design.

Have a look. Could these approaches help struggling readers in your district?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:20 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

If ever you needed a reminder of why state and national officials are wary of attempting to dictate the curriculum in local schools, consider the experience of a single South Dakota district. Creating a uniform curriculum is not as easy as it seems.

Officials in the Rapid City school system settled on an approach to math teaching in 2002 that was built on an "inquiry"-based approach to the subject. (In general, this refers to teachers encouraging students to develop their own problem-solving approaches and reasoning skills, even as educators provide them with direction and help.) The South Dakota district had received a PRIME grant—Promoting Reflective Inquiry in Mathematics Education—from the National Science Foundation. It was designed to increase student achievement in math, boost the performance of Native Americans, and improve classroom instruction. Test scores rose, and the approach won the support of many teachers, administrators, and parents, according to this detailed story in the Rapid City Journal.

Yet as the article explains, individual school administrators have considerable leeway in choosing which instructional approaches are used in their schools, and some aren't fans of the PRIME approach. Some teachers and parents also have fought it. The resulting inconsistency in teaching approaches from school to school has created frustration in the community, the story says.

The story touches on many of the tangled issues that emerge as a district attempts to implement a new curriculum, particularly in math. First there's the divide between those who like the approach and those who don't—perhaps because the methods are a departure from the way they were taught. The district has to consider what textbooks to purchase, and where its approach meets state standards, which in South Dakota are about to be revised, according to the story. And when local school officials look for definitive research on which curricular approaches are most effective, they find that not a lot of research exists.

Inevitably, many readers will see this story as evidence for or against a particular math curriculum. I'll attempt to put that issue aside for the moment and focus on the point of the article itself. If a district settles on a math curriculum, how long does it take to implement it, and what factors will ensure that it takes hold? I've had school administrators tell me that having a consistent curriculum across schools is crucial, in that it helps ensure that students cover the necessary content, particularly in districts and states where students bounce from school to school. Do you agree?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:24 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Calculus is a major stumbling block for incoming college freshmen. When students flunk or flail in that math class, it costs them time and money, in addition to the expense it brings to universities, which have to devote resources to remediation.

Now a new program at the Texas A&M University, "Retention Through Remediation," seeks to help incoming freshman clear the calculus hurdle—while allowing them to work from home, online.

It works this way: Exiting high school seniors will take a test to assess their math skills, and then be assigned individualized courses of study, which they will do from home using online tools. Participating students get access to online videos, homework, and quizzes. They will also receive help from "highly skilled tutors," math teachers from around Texas, who will communicate with them through various means, according to the university.

A post-test will determine if students are ready to move on to a college calculus course. If they're not, they can enroll in calculus and attend a "Just in Time" program, working once a week during the regular semester with a live tutor.

There will be a fee for the Retention Through Remediation program, but university officials predict the cost will be much lower than on-campus summer programs, which typically serve only 20 or 30 students and require on-site housing and other expenses.

The program, which is funded through a $1.1 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is scheduled to begin next year. There are plans to expand it to other schools around the country, A&M officials say.

G. Donald Allen, a math professor who helped create the program, assigns some hard cost estimates for students who don't make it in calculus. A student who can't pass calculus and delays his overall education by a semester costs his family $10,000. The price-tag for a two-semester delay can be $20,000, he estimates.

Not to mention the loss for the university, and for society, which might see a student discouraged from pursuing a job that requires math or science.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:28 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

When the proposed Race to the Top Fund regulations were released early this year, they gave a competitive advantage to states that agreed to band together to create common standards. The problem was that the guidelines set more aggressive deadlines than many states were planning to meet, through the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

The final regs offer new language that attempts to give states a bit more leeway on standards. A preamble to the regs states:

"In response to comments indicating that some states would have difficulty meeting a June 2010 deadline for adopting a new set of common, kindergarten-to-grade-12 (K-12) standards, this notice extends the deadline for adopting standards as far as possible, while still allowing the department to comply with the statutory requirement to obligate all Race to the Top funds by September 30, 2010. As set forth in criterion (B)(1)(ii), the new deadline for adopting a set of common K-12 standards is August 2, 2010. States that cannot adopt a common set of K-12 standards by this date will be evaluated based on the extent to which they demonstrate commitment and progress toward adoption of such standards by a later date in 2010 (see criterion (B)(1) and Appendix B). Evidence supporting the state's adoption claims will include a description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards, and the state's plan, current progress against that plan, and timeframe for adoption.

[R]egarding the development and adoption of common, high-quality standards and assessments, the term 'significant number of states' has been further explained in the scoring rubric that will be used by reviewers to judge the Race to the Top applications (see Appendix B). The rubric clarifies that, on this aspect of the criterion, a state will earn "high" points if its consortium includes a majority of the states in the country; it will earn "medium" or "low" points if its consortium includes one-half or fewer of the states in the country."

So the document also appears to encourage more states to join a large coalition, rather than banding together in smaller groups of states to form shared standards and tests.

In a statement, Raymond C. Sheppach, the executive director of the National Governors Association, said the department "took seriously the comments submitted by states. We appreciate their willingness to provide flexibility as states move toward the adoption of common core state standards."

States' schedules for adopting agreed-upon standards under the "Common Core" process are likely to vary a great deal, an NGA official explained recently. Will the new regulations do anything to smooth the path toward common standards and assessments?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:08 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Academic scholars, teachers, state officials, school administrators, and at least one librarian fill the ranks of the newly announced "work groups," for developing K-12 standards in English-language arts and math, the organizers of the project announced today.

The two teams will have the duty of completing the second phase of common state standards. The first phase was the drafting of college- and career-readiness standards, a draft of which was released a few months ago. The standards project, as many EdWeek readers know, is being guided by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association, as part of an effort dubbed the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The goal is to bring more uniformity and consistency—and higher expectations—to the nation's classrooms, though many obstacles remain before the standards would actually take effect.

A complete list of the members is provided in the link at the top, but in English-language arts, the names include Michael Kamil of Stanford University; Tracy Robertson, an English coordinator with the Virginia Department of Education; Timothy Shanahan of the University of Illinois at Chicago; and Laura McGiffert Slover of Achieve, among many others. For all the librarians out there, one of your own made the list: Steve Delvecchio, of Seattle.

In math, we find Deborah Loewenberg Ball of the University of Michigan; Francis "Skip" Fennell, former president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, who is a professor at McDaniel College in Maryland; Roger Howe of Yale University; Susan Wygant, a math specialist with the Minnesota Department of Education; James Madden of Louisiana State University; Vern Williams of Longfellow Middle School in Fairfax County, Va.; and Hung-Hsi Wu, of the University of California, Berkeley. Ball, Fennell, Williams, and Wu all served on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, which dealt extensively with elementary and middle grades math and preparing students for algebra. Fennell was also a player in putting together NCTM's "Curriculum Focal Points," which a couple years ago called for a more orderly approach to teaching math at those grade levels.

Some members of the work groups, observant readers will notice, also served on the college-and career-readiness document. As CCSSO/NGA have described this process, the work groups, behind closed doors, are producing the draft standards documents. (Last week, Dane Linn of NGA indicated that the K-12 group has been going about its business for a while now.) Their work is reviewed by "feedback" groups, who have been named previously and will remain the same. And finally, "validation" teams provide a final look before they are sent to state officials for approval. As my colleague Mary Ann Zehr has noted, a few validators are also members of the feedback groups, leading some to say that more separation of powers is needed.

In their announcement, NGA/CCSSO officials also said that another advisory group has been formed to provide guidance on the project. Members of this group include experts from Achieve, the ACT, the College Board, the National Association of State Boards of Education (whose members would eventually be presented with the finished product) and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.

Once you've had a look at work teams, give me your thoughts. Is there one field that is over-represented, or ignored, or did they get the right mix?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:12 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

No, not those standards...while all the attention these days seems to be focused on the development of common standards in language arts and math for 48 states, a pair of subject-matter groups released its own set of academic benchmarks today.

The National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association unveiled Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing. A sequel to a 1994 document, it defines assessment more broadly than some might think—as "a set of practices, which might or might not involve tests," said Peter Johnston, chair of a task force that worked on the standards, in a statement on the release. "Our intent is to provide guidance for those who are making decisions about assessment practices in the language arts—from classroom teachers to superintendents and secretaries of education."

Have a look and tell me if you think the document provides the sort of guidance that schools need.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:13 PM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)

Math and science teachers in Michigan will be eligible for stipends to pay for their master's degree training if they commit to working in high-need schools, thanks to a new project backed with millions of dollars in philanthropic support.

That undertaking, organized through the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, will devote $16.7 million over a five-year period to teacher training. It is supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Teachers will receive stipends of $30,000 to complete a master's degree in education and commit to teaching for three to five years in disadvantaged schools. As many as 240 teachers are expected to receive stipends during that time period. College seniors, recent graduates, and career-changers are eligible.

The goal of the program is not only to improve K-12 teaching, but also to revamp teacher education at the university level. Michigan universities that take part in the program are each expected to chip in $500,000 of their own funding and redesign their programs by establishing a "collaborative relationship" between their schools of arts and sciences (typically home to math and science majors) and their schools of education. Many university officials and researchers have shown an increased interest in narrowing the traditionally standoffish point of view between those two academic programs. As it now stands, many math and science majors leave campus without ever having considered teaching. And those that do teach are uncertain how to apply the math and science skills they've learned in a classroom setting. The Woodrow Wilson program is not the only one to take an interest in closing this divide. The UTeach program also seeks to build better relations between different academic programs. A major initiative is under way to replicate the UTeach approach on campuses nationwide.

Even before its Michigan effort gets started, the Woodrow Wilson fellowship program had already been operating a math- and science-stipend program in Indiana. Four universities in that state are taking part. That project is being independently evaluated by the Urban Institute, a research institution in Washington, according to the Wilson program.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:19 AM | Permalink | No Comments | TrackBacks (0)