Curriculum Matters

Last week I wrote about a study that drew some intriguing conclusions about the state of the "pipeline" of students entering math and science studies and fields. The analysis, by Hal Salzman of Rutgers University and Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown University, found that the flow of students from K-12 schools to the workforce appears to be quite strong, contrary to the assertions of many policymakers today.

To the extent that students are leaving the pipeline, the authors found, they tend to be high-achieving students. In other words, young people don't seem to be fleeing those fields because of lack of ability, but because of other factors—such as that they don't find those jobs attractive for whatever reason.

Now, an organization that represents businesses, research universities, and foundations, who have a major interest in maintaining the "STEM" pipeline, is offering a critique of the study's methodology and conclusions. The Business-Higher Education Forum, in a paper made available to its members, says the loss of high-performing students in STEM was more likely explained by the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000—not by college or businesses not doing enough to keep them.

"Students rationally voted with their feet as jobs vanished from an imploding sector of the economy," the BHEF says. Recent data, they say, shows an upswing of interest in engineering and computer science studies in recent years.

The BHEF, in examining the data in the Salzman/Lowell study, also asserts that it judges STEM in isolation, and people in other studies/careers tend to abandon those interests at similar rates. But a broader issue the study doesn't address, says BHEF Executive Director Brian Fitzgerald, is that STEM-related talents, particularly in technology, are increasingly demanded by businesses that, strictly speaking, have not been considered "STEM"-oriented in the past. He cites the growing need for STEM talent in the insurance industry, as one example. The business reps the BHEF works with talk often about the shift away from a manufacturing economy, and how important science- and math-related skills are becoming in their workplaces. The study doesn't account for that, he says.

"Across fields, more will be demanded," Fitzgerald told me. "Every major corporate sector is undergoing a shift, with technology at its core."

I contacted Salzman, who responded to BHEF's points. He acknowledges that the dot-com bust may have affected students' career choices, but says that ultimately proves the study's point: that STEM choices are market-driven. "I'm not sure [the pipeline is] 'broken,' if students choose to leave a field that is in decline," he wrote in an e-mail.

Salzman also says that, contrary to the BHEF's critique, the authors are not saying that top-achieving students avoiding STEM simply because companies aren't making those jobs attractive enough. The key point is that students are responding to what they know of job market conditions— and that it's not a matter of them not being academically gifted enough.

For instance, Salzman, who has studied labor markets extensively, says his research has shown that mid-level and senior engineering workers voice satisfaction with their careers, overall, but are concerned it won't be a good or stable a job in the future.

"The decline in retention from college to first job might also be due to loss of interest in STEM careers, but alternatively, top STEM majors may be responding to market forces and incentives," Salzman said by e-mail. "We tried to be very clear that there are number of possible explanations, and that the key point is that enrollments are sensitive to market conditions. This, then, would be entirely consistent with the [BHEF's point about dot-coms]. ... In fact, in terms of IT, we make that very case in a couple of earlier papers."

He also says when he and Lowell have written on this topic in the past on a similar theme, they've asked critics to provide data backing up the claim that demand for STEM jobs outstrips the supply of qualified talent. No such data has emerged, he said.

I'll invite readers to offer their own analysis of this debate, which—no matter what you come down—surely reflects one of the most important education-meets-labor market questions out there today.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (3) | 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 | Comments (0) | 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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Dear editors," the letter reads, "Please do not continue to encourage the improper use of the word 'forensics.' The courses referred to in the article ... are courses in forensic science. Forensics is to argue in a court of law. It is also used, and has been for the past 100+ years, to refer to debate."

A reader from Colorado takes exception to my use of the word "forensics" as shorthand for the study of "forensic science" in schools. I wrote about the proliferation of classes on that topic this week.

Ask teachers and students today what's meant by forensics, and I'll bet that most of them will associate it with the study of crime scenes, criminal evidence, "CSI," and so on.

Yet this was not always so, and it should not be the case today, the reader contends. He explains that his school offers "forensics" classes that focus on the study of debate—in addition to forensic-science classes, which look at "finding evidence for argument in criminal cases." (A colleague in my office recently said a similar thing, observing that she could remember when forensics meant "debate.")

But it appears that the definition of "forensics" has evolved over time.

An edition of the 1985 American Heritage Dictionary defines "forensics" as simply "the study or practice of formal debate; argumentation." It defines "forensic," as an adjective, as 1) "pertaining to or employed in legal proceedings or argumentation: forensic medicine; 2) Of, pertaining to, or employed in the debate or argument; rhetorical." No mention of crime scenes, blood spatter, fingerprint analysis, etc.

Yet when I consult my own 2001 edition of Webster's New World College Dictionary, it defines "forensic" (from the Latin term forensis, for public) as 1) "of, characteristic of, or suitable for a law court, public debate, or formal argumentation; 2) specializing in or having to do with the application of scientific, esp. medical, knowledge to legal matters, as in the investigation of a crime." Used as a noun, it refers to "debate or formal argumentation."

So it seems the definition has shifted a bit toward the CSI-side-of-things in recent years. Even so, to the reader from Colorado, I say point taken! You may be waging a lonely, and ultimately futile battle against the weight of popular culture and journalistic imprecision, but it's a distinction worth noting. Of course, if you really want your argument carried to a larger audience, you'd lobby the creators of "CSI" to slip some relevant dialogue on this subject onto the show.

I'll pose this question to teachers and school administrators: Do you refer to the debate classes and activities in your schools as "forensics"? Or simply "debate"?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | 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 | Comments (1) | 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 | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Arne Duncan spoke before a top White House advisory panel on science today, hammering home a couple points. The nation will need many more, and more talented math and science teachers in the years ahead, the secretary said. He also echoed worries that too many schools have pushed science out of the curriculum in the No Child Left Behind era, and said the administration wants to find ways to end that erosion, as part of efforts to reauthorize the law.

On these and other points, Duncan was speaking to a receptive audience: the President's Council of Advisors on Science in Technology, a part of the White House executive office. The panel heard the secretary's thoughts on the state of 'STEM' education, and threw some questions his way afterward.

One of Duncan's points was that, given an anticipated wave of teacher retirements in the years ahead, policymakers will have to work harder to lure aspiring math and science educators into the profession—through pay incentives, by loosening certification requirements to allow career-changers, and so on.

"Our ability to attract and retain great talent over the next four, five, six years is going to shape education over the next 30," Duncan told the council.

The secretary has plugged differential pay for teachers of math, science, and other high-need subjects before. He told the science council he wasn't sure of what dollar amounts are necessary, but argued that there needs to be more of a market in which schools can bid more for outside talent and recruit it. "It's not the solution," he said of math-science teacher shortages, "but it's a piece of the solution."

Council members also voiced worries about what they saw as the poor quality of many state science tests, which in their view, place far too much emphasis on multiple-choice and rote memorization, and have the effect of killing many students' love of the subject. Duncan predicted that the $350 million pool of federal funding the administration is putting toward supporting common standards and tests would have an impact, and said he, too, wants to support "less fill-in-the-bubble, more critical thinking," on science exams.

The secretary also voiced concerns about science getting ignored, as districts scramble to raise math and reading scores. He recounted a recent meeting with a school superintendent who told Duncan that he'd recently visited 100 schools and didn't see science being taught in any of them. Duncan said he and his staff are looking at ways to encourage schools to cover a broad range of subjects, as the administration considers ways to revamp No Child Left Behind.

"I worry tremendously about the loss of science and engineering," Duncan said at one point. The main question, he added is: "How do we create the incentives so that students have a well-rounded curriculum?...We're thinking these things though."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | 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 | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple of my colleagues have written about Grover "Russ" Whitehurst's recent paper on the importance of curriculum in improving schools. To sum it up, Whitehurst, the former director of the federal Institute of Education Sciences, says the research suggests there's a greater payoff for students in addressing curriculum than on the issues that seem to be receiving the most attention from the Obama administration, at least publicly—charter schools, early childhood ed, common standards, merit pay for teachers. Whitehurst makes that analysis based on his examination of the "effect sizes" of various education policies—basically, the relationship between an ed policy and an outcome, as judged on statistical-numerical terms.

I'd like to touch on one of Whitehurst's observations that some EdWeek readers may have overlooked. In his introduction, the former IES chief says he sees a very different focus in ed-policymaking from the Bush and Obama administrations. He argues that the Bush team, in which he served, was very keen on improving curriculum. This occasionally caused problems: the administration was accused of overstepping its legal grounds on curriculum through the federal Reading First program, as Whitehurst notes in his paper. But the administration also delved into the topic in other ways: creating the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct rigorous evaluations of curriculum, and launching a number of other studies of curricula across subjects. (He also could have mentioned Bush's creation of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, which probed curriculum, as well as other issues, in its study of how to prep the nation's students for algebra.)

Whitehurst then looks at the Obama administration and sees different interests:

"In light of the legislative prohibitions on endorsing curricula and the political taint surrounding Reading First, one can imagine high-level meeting in the Obama administration in which curriculum and third rail were mentioned in the same sentence. But one can also imagine an administration that is staffed with policy makers who cut their teeth on policy reforms in the areas of school governance and management rather than classroom practice, people who may be oblivious to curriculum for the same reason that Bedouin don't think much about water skiing.....

"People who are trying to create more charter schools, or pressure unions to allow more flexibility in hiring and firing teachers, or transform schools into one-stop shops for community needs, do not sort with people who are trying to improve the teaching of fractions or children's reading comprehension. The disciplinary training, job experience, professional networks, and intuitions about what is important hardly overlap between governance and curriculum reformers. For the governance types, teaching resolves to the question of how to get more qualified teachers into the classroom, e.g., 'How can we remove the artificial barriers to entry into the profession so that smart people who want to teach don't have to jump through the hoops of traditional teacher training and certification?' For the curriculum reformer, teaching is about specific interactions between students and their curriculum materials as shaped by teachers. For a curriculum reformer, teachers with higher IQs and better liberal arts educations are desirable, to be sure. But just as people with musical talent have to work hard to develop musical skills and have available to them exceptional compositions if they are to be successful musical performers, so too bright aspiring teachers have to learn a lot about how to teach and have good curriculum materials if they are to be effective with students. Thus being smart is the starting point of becoming a good teacher for a curriculum reformer whereas it is often the end point of governance reforms.

"Let's assume the Obama administration has ignored curriculum inadvertently because it is staffed with governance people who are simply valuing what they know. If so, then the administration would do well to heed Obama's assertion that, 'you do what works for the kids.' The administration should be open to all the categories of reform and innovation that could have an appreciable impact on student learning."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

It's not unusual for teachers of science and other subjects to use popular films, or clips from movies, to introduce or reinforce a topic or present it in an engaging way. But judging the academic merits of Hollywood creations is not easy.

One of the better resources I've seen that tries to help teachers answer those questions is "Blick on Flicks," a Web site run by the National Science Teachers Association that offers movie reviews for science teachers. The critic is Jacob Clark Blickenstaff, an assistant professor of physics and the assistant director of the Center for Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Southern Mississippi.

Blickenstaff judges movies not only on their scientific accuracy, but also on whether they present science in an engaging way and how they depict the work that scientists do. Many films obviously present a lot of misconceptions about science, but they can still present phenomena that are useful, which teachers couldn't possibly demonstrate in the classroom, Blickenstaff explained in an e-mail. His reviews include suggestions on how teachers can integrate what's occurring on screen into their lessons.

The professor's work for NSTA began when he heard the organization was looking for a reviewer. He contacted the teachers' group, submitted a sample column, which was favorably received, and a film critic was born.

His recent reviews of films (which are also podcast) include the latest Batman installment The Dark Knight, M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening, and the animated film Up. The recent, critically acclaimed District 9 is also written up.The headlines offer a taste of his opinions: "Jumping to Conclusions" (about the sci-fi fantasy Jumper) and "Physics and Batman: A Troubled Relationship."

In his review of The Happening, Blickenstaff is pleased to see that the protagonist in the film, played by Mark Wahlberg, is a science teacher. He takes issue, however, with the character telling students in his class that many of the concepts that end up in science texts amount to "just a theory." Writes Blickenstaff: "This dreadful sentence works to reinforce one of the most problematic misunderstandings between scientists and the general public: a theory in science is not an unsubstantiated guess, it is an explanation of a process or phenomenon that has a great deal of evidence backing it up." The teacher later redeems himself, Blickenstaff says, by reviewing the process for answering scientific questions.

Some of the movies on his site, at first glance, would seem of little use to science teachers. He reviews The Devil Wears Prada, for instance, a popular film starring Meryl Streep about the pretensions of the fashion industry. Yet Blickenstaff sees science on-screen. A physics teacher could use the film to discuss the pressure, or force per unit area, created by high-heeled shoes. Biology and life-science teachers, he says, can draw from its depiction of the pressure women face to stay slender to discuss body image and nutrition.

"In contrast to some of the other people who write about movies and science, I try to balance the negative and positive," Blickenstaff told me. "I try to have a balance of life and physical sciences, and also to go beyond the sci-fi and action genres to show that science is truly ubiquitous."

Note: Blickenstaff is the assistant director of the math and science center at his university, not the director, as I originally wrote.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A coalition of business and technology organizations is launching a major effort to get Massachusetts students interested in STEM careers—by reaching out to them at an early age.

The organizers of the project, known as "DIGITS," will arrange to have workers from various science, technology, engineering, and math fields visit 6th grade classrooms and present information on what they do in their careers. The plan is to set up presentations in 568 schools across Massachusetts.

The project is being overseen by the STEMTech Alliance, a coalition of six statewide science and industry associations. "Ambassadors" working in various STEM fields will visit classrooms to talk about their work; they will also be given written resources and materials for video presentations to students, including interactive graphics (presumably on computers). You can find more information on the DIGITS Web site, linked above. The program was piloted over the summer and showed good results, alliance officials say.

How common is it for supporters of STEM fields to tout their work to students as early as middle school? What advantages and drawbacks do you see to this approach?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The science and math community places a high value on student competitions, which reward students with cash, college scholarships, or simply recognition for innovation. We at EdWeek are flooded with information about these contests. But this week I received a notice about one in particular that earns points for its creativity and eccentricity.

A new contest called "Dash+" challenges high school students to put their creativity, design, and math and science skills toward a mission of interest to millions of auto-dependent Americans everywhere: building the car dashboard of the future.

The contest, supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, opens for registration today. The goal is to have student teams design dashboards with gauges, instruments, and interfaces that will prod drivers to maximize fuel efficiency and have less of a deleterious effect on the environment. Student competitors will be required to submit a written technical plan and video presentation that would help convince both automakers and the general public to adopt whatever tools they come up with.

The high school competition is a part of a larger automotive "X Prize," sponsored by Progressive Insurance, a contest that invites adult teams of scientists to develop and submit ideas for more fuel-efficient vehicles. The rules for the high school Dash+ contest say that teams must include between two and five students in grades 9-12, ages 14 and older, and they must have an adult mentor.

I've seen some very innovative, and potentially patentable ideas come out of high school science clubs over the years. Maybe the next great dashboard won't come out of Detroit, but rather from the school down the street.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're looking for additional analysis of last week's lackluster NAEP math results, the New York Times offers a useful forum with online commentaries. The opining authors include college faculty and parents. Some call for less-punitive testing systems that encourage teachers to instead use test results to improve instruction. Others say the results call for rethinking of curriculum at the elementary level.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's a ton of interest these days in the possibility of creating common academic standards across states, as a multistate effort led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association rolls forward. So far, that project has focused on two subjects: math and English-language arts. Over the past couple months, I've also heard from educators and interested parties in other subjects, particularly science, asking "what about us?"

The answer: Your time could be coming soon.

Leaders of major science education organizations have already had preliminary discussions with folks from the NGA/CCSSO effort, known as Common Core State Standards Initiative, about cooperating on science standards. NGA and CCSSO officials have talked in fairly broad terms about eventually trying to forge common standards in other academic subjects. But after getting additional details from some of the people involved, I thought I'd put some of what is playing out behind the scenes on the record.

For about three years now, the National Science Teachers Association has been working on creating a new set of science standards. That project is known as "Anchors," and is being undertaken in cooperation with officials from Achieve, as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Research Council, two prestigious scientific organizations, the NSTA's executive director, Francis Eberle, explained in a recent interview. The NSTA, which has 58,000 members, has had tentative talks with Common Core folks about eventually merging "Anchors" with the Common Core, as opposed to producing two different documents, Eberle told me. "The hope is it's not a separate effort," he said. The goal is to bring more consistency to science lessons nationwide, he added, arguing that this would help "re-energize the field."

The AAAS and National Research Council, as many science teachers know, produced their own standards documents in the 1990s, which are widely cited in individual states' standards documents today. NSTA officials say they hope "Anchors" could draw from those documents but also present science in a more focused and streamlined way, placing an emphasis on major concepts in science. (I described the goals of "Anchors" in a story a few years ago.)

Dane Linn, who directs the education division at NGA's Center for Best Practices, confirmed that Common Core officials have had some tentative talks with folks involved in "Anchors." He also said that discussions have been held with various social studies organizations about future standards work in that area.

"We've heard from several states about their interest in moving into other subjects— particularly science—next," Linn said. Discussions with advocates from the social studies community, he added, are ongoing.

While the NGA and CCSSO officials don't want to put off the move into science and social studies for too long, Linn also emphasized that the organizations are determined to make sure that math and language arts are on solid ground before moving on. "We need to demonstrate success in the first two subjects we're focused on," he said.

If you've been following the standards push to this point, how easy or difficult do you think it would be to create multistate standards in science and social studies, compared to those in language arts and math?

Photo of student in science class by Dave Martin for Education Week.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

We've written, as have others, about high school graduates who lack the academic skills necessary to make it in college and the workforce, and efforts to rectify that problem. But a new report examines a different, and perhaps equally vexing issue: What if students simply aren't interested in going into the fields where the jobs are?

A new report by the ACT looks at that mismatch and unearths some interesting results. The report lists the five highest-growth occupations, based on U.S. Department of Labor projections, requiring at least a two-year college degree. In this order, they are: education, including secondary school teachers and administrators; computer/information specialists, who would include computer programmers, database administrators; community service professionals, such as social workers and school counselors; management, such as hotel and restaurant managers; and marketing and sales employees. In all five fields, the percentage of high school graduates who said they were interested in those careers—ACT takers were the ones surveyed—falls short of projections. See the accompanying chart from the ACT, below.

Some academic researchers have questioned state and local efforts to raise academic requirements in subjects such as math and science, saying the new, tougher mandates aren't always aligned with what the job market is actually demanding. The ACT report, on the one hand, notes that too many high school graduates aren't meeting academic standards for college readiness. Yet it also seems to beg the question: Even if students have the academic talent and academic preparation needed to make it in the job market, are they going to end up in the jobs where they're needed the most?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is the the second blog post I've written this week about Mark Schneider, the former commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. Must be because he's been saying some interesting things lately.

Schneider, in a blog item for the American Enterprise Institute, examines the recent NAEP 4th and 8th grade results and concludes that the No Child Left Behind Act "has not worked the way it was intended and the nation is worse off because of it."

The former chief of the NCES, the U.S. Department of Education's statistical office, bases his argument on a breakdown of 4th and 8th grade test scores in seven years pre-NCLB compared with scores after the federal law took effect, from 2003 on. The gains for the overall student population, and for black and Hispanic students, in the pre-NCLB period were greater. He also says that the law has created an incentive for states to water down performance standards and assessments, in their rush to get to meet proficiency thresholds (an issue he examined as NCES commissioner). The new NAEP scores are bound to heighten the debate over the reauthorization of NCLB, he says.

Schneider's argument is likely to surprise some folks, because he was nominated to the NCES post in 2005 by President George W. Bush and served as statistics chief during his administration's second term. (Bush, of course, signed No Child Left Behind into law and actively promoted it.) But Schneider, a longtime academic scholar, also won a reputation for objectivity during his time at the NCES. Some of his research, such as a book he co-authored that described mixed results for charter schools, had little in common with the administration's political philosophies. So in that sense, people who know Schneider and his work aren't likely to be surprised that he's calling it like he sees it now.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The main research arm of the U.S. Department of Education is funding the creation of three new centers, two of them focused on math curriculum and instruction, the third of which will examine how to "scale up" effective schools and revamp low-performing ones.

It's probably no accident that those topics are getting a lot of attention from policymakers today, as part of the effort to craft common standards and revamp struggling schools. The federal Institute of Education Sciences invited applicants to apply through a competition to be selected to run the centers, and bids were due earlier this month.

One center would seek to examine what kinds of standards and assessments produce the best academic results for children. Currently, standards and test frameworks are usually developed by expert consensus, IES notes in its request for applications. Yet there's "little empirical basis" to make those decisions, it says.

"[W]hich early skills are most predictive of those mathematics skills that are currently assessed in upper elementary grades, middle school, or high school? " the IES says. "What do skills that are currently assessed in elementary, middle, and high school predict in terms of later mathematics achievement? Although there is an emerging consensus among experts as to the content and skills that should be taught and assessed to prepare children for algebra, the empirical evidence to support the predictive validity of these skills is quite limited."

The IES currently funds 13 research and development centers, which probe aspects of education policy ranging from college access to pay incentives for teachers and other school employees to the use of technology. Two additional centers focus on special education.

The second newly proposed math center would examine strategies to improve student achievement through cognition—basically the study of how people think and learn—and redesign math curriculum based on that research. The agency says it is not interested in supporting a project that results in a redesigned math curriculum that is "entirely teacher-centered" or "entirely teacher-directed," a reference to a common ideological feud in the so-called math wars. (And an issue that some experts, like those who served on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, say is overblown.)

The third center would seek to identify "policies, programs and practices" in schools that have strong records of improving performance in "underachieving populations," and examiend ways to scale up those strategies. As it now stands, many practices that are touted as effective have not been rigorously studied, says IES, echoing a common refrain among ed policymakers. As a result, districts and schools are forced to make decisions "on the basis of little empirical evidence," the agency says.

How likely are these centers to contribute to the ongoing debates and discussions about national standards and overhauling poor-performing schools?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Mark Schneider, the former chief of the U.S. Department of Education's statistical office, lays bare the discrepancy between American high schoolers' enrollment in tougher math classes, their alleged success in those courses, and their continuing mediocre academic performance in that subject.

Policymakers have long been flummoxed by U.S. students' failure to make gains in high school math, during the same period when math scores among younger students have risen. Schneider, writing for the American Enterprise Institute, suggests that American states and schools are fixated on putting students in the kinds of math courses that are supposed to be "rigorous," but in truth are anything but.

On the one hand, more students than ever are taking tougher math high school math classes—Algebra 1, Algebra 2, and calculus—and taking them earlier in school, he explains. On paper, Schneider explains, it seems like a "remarkable change." They're also getting better grades in those classes: The average math GPA has risen from 2.2 to 2.6 since 1990.

But here comes the rub. Schneider, the former commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, notes that students who take various high school math classes are actually doing worse than they did 30 years ago, as judged by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. (Check out Figure 5.) He also looks at data from international tests.

"Students who stopped at Algebra I, geometry, and Algebra II all scored lower on NAEP in 2008 than the students enrolled in the same courses in 1978," Schneider writes. "The only bright spot is that students completing calculus now do about as well as their peers from thirty years ago."

Schneider also knocks down a couple possible explanations for these unsettling trends. One of them is that the flat scores are primarily due to a decline in the U.S. population of higher-scoring white students at the high school level. That trend is indeed occurring, he says, but so what? It hasn't prevented an increase in the math scores among 9- and 13-year-olds.

Many of the math courses with impressive-sounding titles, Schneider concludes, are simply not what they seem. The responsibility to ensure that math courses are top-notch rests largely on states, which have not shown an inclination to make sure that curricula and tests are holding students to high standards. (Some say that under No Child Left Behind, states haven't had much incentive to do so.)

"If policymakers decide that a mark of a successful high school career is completion of Algebra II, then schools enroll more students into a course called Algebra II," he says. "But not all math courses are equal—and it is easier to rebrand courses and still teach low-level math than it is to increase the rigor of math instruction."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I neglected to note the confirmation last week of Brenda Dann-Messier as the new assistant secretary for vocational and adult education at the U.S. Department of Education. Dann-Messier, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, most recently served as the president of Dorcas Place, an adult and family learning center in Rhode Island. Dann-Messier was given the Senate's blessing at the same time that lawmakers confirmed Alexa Posny, former Kansas commissioner of education, as assistant secretary for special education and rehabilatative services.

As I've noted previously, Dann-Messier brings a somewhat different background to the job than those who served in the role under former President George W. Bush. Some people I've spoken with have suggested that her selection, along with that of other officials in the department, could reflect the Obama administration's desire to pay more attention to community colleges and adult education, particularly in light of the need to improve the skills of workers and help those who have lost their jobs. Obama has pledged to create a greater role for community colleges in the nation's education pipeline, though there are a lot of unresolved questions about how that will play out. One voc-ed group notes that Dann-Messier, in her pre-departmental career, authored a number of papers about strategies for increasing college access to students from different backgrounds.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"School newcomer centers," which educate English language learners who have recently arrived in this country, are increasingly offering academic content to go with basic training in English, my colleague Mary Ann Zehr reports on her Learning the Language blog. Those results were included in the findings of a survey conducted by the Center for Applied Linguistics. Among the academic subjects of interest? Pre-algebra, according to the center.

Lack of English skill is a major hurdle for many students in math classes, as well as in science, as I've discussed in previous stories.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

President Obama hosted a group of students at the White House last night for an event aimed at stirring their interest in science, and more specifically, astronomy. Telescopes were set up on the White House lawn (I'm assuming they were sufficiently high powered to cut through Washington's light pollution) and real-life astronauts (Buzz Aldrin, Sally Ride) were on hand. In remarks at the event, the president plugged some of his administration's math and science initiatives—specifically talking up the Race to the Top's potential impact on curriculum and instruction. But mostly, Obama seemed intent on describing science as both important and cool:

"Galileo changed the world when he pointed his telescope to the sky, and now it's your turn," Obama told the students. "We need you to study, do well in school, explore everything from the infinite reaches of space to the microscopic smallness of the atom. We need you to think bigger and to dig deeper and to reach higher. And we need your restless curiosity and your boundless hope and imagination. Our future depends on it.

"So, don't let anybody tell you that there isn't more to discover. Don't let anybody tell you that there's knowledge that's beyond your reach. There's something out there for each and every one of you to discover."

Photo by Tim Sloan/AFP/Getty Images.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Many readers are no doubt familiar with the work of 4-H, a 6 million-member-strong youth organization that promotes citizenship and life skills, often with an emphasis on agricultural training. Now that organization is throwing its weight behind a venture of major interest to educators and policymakers: getting more students interested in science, technology, engineering, and math—the so-called "STEM" education fields.

The nonprofit is organizing a a nationwide science experiment today called "Biofuel Blast," which seeks to show middle school students how cellulose and sugars in plants (like switchgrass and algae) can be made into fuel. The event is part of 4-H National Youth Science Day, an effort the organization began last year to bring more American young people into science careers. The youths taking part around the country will create biofuel, and following the experiment, the 4-H will host discussions about alternative energy in different locations around the country. The development of biofuels is a major economic and political issue in many of the communities where 4-H is popular.

STEM-ed advocates would seem to have reason to be enthusiastic about 4-H's promotion of those subjects. The 4-H organizes a lot of year-round out-of-school programming, which is developed by the nation's 106 land-grant colleges and universities and implemented through 3,100 local cooperative extension offices, according to background provided by the organization. 4-H officials estimate that more than 5 million youths currently take part in the organization's science, engineering, and technology programming in topics such as robotics, rocketry, wind power, GPS mapping, agricultural science, film making, and water quality and conservation. The organization has also set a goal of luring another million youths into science, engineering, and technology programming by 2013, through its "One Million New Scientists, One Million New Ideas" campaign.

As they roll out the new program, 4-H officials are also touting research that they say shows their program's positive impact on students' in- and out-of-school development. A longitudinal study found that young people who take part in 4-H are two times more likely to get better grades than youths who do not; two times more likely to go to college; 40 percent less likely to engage in risky behavior; and more likely to contribute to their families and communities. The study was conducted by researchers at the Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development at Tufts University.

What impact do you think an organization with the grassroots reach of 4-H—which says it can be found in every county in every state—is likely to have on STEM?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

California's superintendent of schools, Jack O'Connell, is urging state officials to reconsider their unusual decision to issue a five-year suspension on adopting curriculum "frameworks," saying the delay will hurt teachers and students.

Academic standards, in California and other states, are expectations for what students should know in various subjects. California's curriculum frameworks are documents that explain and translate the state's academic standards for teachers, essentially helping them craft lessons out of them. They also serve as the basis for textbooks and other instructional materials.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials have been forced to take a budget ax to many aspects of state government, schools included. A law passed recently cut support for curriculum development and supplementary materials, blocks the state board of ed from adopting any materials, and prohibits any framework development. My colleague Kathleen Kennedy Manzo provided some of the background in a story from a few weeks ago.

In a teleconference and a statement this week, O'Connell argued that cutting framework development will result in nearly completed documents in history/social science and science getting left on the curb. At the very least, the situation in California is a reminder of what is often the glacial pace for drafting and approving standards and curriculum in states. Restarting the process in California, once the suspension on frameworks is lifted, O'Connell said, will take years—meaning that students today will not receive instructional materials until at least 2017. In the meantime, teacher credentialing and professional-development programs for teachers will drop the frameworks, the superintendent contends, "and the connection between content standards and teaching will be lost."

Do you agree with O'Connell's view of the severity of these cuts?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the voices to weigh in recently on where U.S. schools stand internationally is that of Yong Zhao, a professor at Michigan State University who was born and raised in China. Zhao, in a new book published by the ASCD, draws upon his own experiences in the Chinese education system and argues that much of the U.S. angst over whether we're losing "competitiveness" on the global stage is misplaced. American policymakers, he says, are drawing the wrong lessons from the growing economic might of nations like China—and becoming overly enamored with high-stakes testing, to our peril.

Zhao observes, as others have, that Chinese officials are refashioning their education system to adopt some American-style features, namely less emphasis on high-stakes admissions tests and more promotion of critical-thinking skills and independent projects. One of the more interesting changes he cites is the government's decision in 2008 to give 68 Chinese colleges the freedom to admit or reject students on their own criteria, placing less emphasis on the gaokao, or national college entrance exam.

The author disapproves of what he sees as the United States' growing fixation on testing and the "accountability" measures of the No Child Left Behind era. One of his chapters is titled "Myth, Fear, and the Evolution of Accountability," which should give you a taste of his point of view. Here's an excerpt:

"Clearly, American education has been moving toward authoritarianism," he writes, "letting the government dictate what and how students should learn and what schools should teach. This movement has been fueled mostly through fear—fear of threats from the Soviets, the Germans, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, and the Indians. The public, as any animal under threat would, has sought and accepted the action of a protector—the government."

Pretty strong language. Zhao goes on to praise what he sees as the strengths of the U.S. education system, such as its diversity, which he says breeds innovation and allows it to bring about and respond to changes in the American economy. He also describes American education as a system of "second chances," in which students who struggle initially have many chances to correct their course, seize upon a talent and prosper. (Presumably unlike other nations, where students are directed onto an academic track on the basis of test scores and kept there.) The United States needs to find ways to replicate these strengths, he says.

Zhao is by no means the first scholar to caution that fears of the United States falling behind educationally are overblown. If you've had a chance to read Zhao's work (the ASCD has published some excerpts online), are you persuaded by his reasoning?

Photo of students at Beijing's Fourth Secondary School, April 2007, by sevans for EdWeek.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

A computer software math program is being credited with helping a number of California districts made big jumps in their state test scores. Developed by the MIND Research Institute, the program places a heavy emphasis on using visual clues and strategies to help students, particularly those who have floundered with traditional approaches.

The MIND institute says its approach is grounded in neuroscience research and what reveals says about how spatial, temporal, and language skills affect students' ability to learn math. I wrote a bit about MIND's approach to helping struggling middle and high school students in algebra a few years ago. The program that's being credited with raising test scores in Orange County and Silicon Valley-area schools is an elementary computer software program called "ST Math." Elementary math scores in Orange County rose by bigger much more than state averages, according to this story in The Los Angeles Times. The San Jose Mercury News describes an elementary school in that city that saw its percentage of students reaching proficiency jump from a meager 9 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2008 and 70 percent in 2009. Students proceed through problems and exercises that use animated figures. Teachers receive daily input on students' progress, and focus on building students' grasp of key concepts and vocabulary.

One of the chief architects of the MIND Research Institute's strategy is its co-founder, Matthew Peterson, who knows something about young students' academic struggles. As I described in my 2008 story, Peterson is dyslexic, and didn't learn to read until 5th grade. He found that visual clues helped him remember and comprehend things, and he still uses those visual aids today. (During my interview with him, I remember seeing some of the figures and pictures he'd drawn on a whiteboard in his office.) He helped launch the institute when he was working on his Ph.D. in neuroscience at UC-Berkeley.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Stanford University professor Mike Kirst lays out his concerns about the proposed common academic standards, in a new online essay. Kirst's basic argument is that the draft document wrongly suggests that the skills that students need for colleges (two- and four-year) and very different jobs in the workplace are the same. The Stanford scholar made some of these points in our recent EdWeek story on the draft, but he goes into more detail here.

Kirst discusses his recent work on an expert panel that examined the feasibility of judging college and workforce preparation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, scale. That panel, he notes, found that many occupations don't have consistent training requirements; some require a lot geometry, for instance, while other demand more algebra, or number computation. It examined job training programs for certain "exemplar" occupations, he says. This seems like a more precise way of judging the skills need for workforce success than what the standards-writers are using.

Do you agree with Kirst's point of view?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm neither a mathematician nor math teacher. Plenty of the readers of this blog do fall into those categories, however, and today I'm seeking them out.

A new report by Achieve, released today, shows students in 13 states struggling, big-time, with algebra, both at the introductory and advanced level. More than 80 percent of students in each of the states (which took part voluntarily in the exam) were not prepared for college-level math in Algebra 2, by the standards of the test. Those results won't strike a lot of people as surprising, given the fact that students are flummoxed by algebra, and that this exam was designed to be an especially tough one.

Yet the Achieve report also includes breakdowns of where students struggled the most, by algebra topic. In Algebra 1, it was in data, statistics and probability. They did better, on the other hand, in non-linear relationships. In Algebra 2, students had difficulties with polynomials (a math expression with three or more terms) and rational functions. They fared a bit better on exponential functions.

Here's a snapshot of the percent of students reaching "mastery," as defined by the test, by category:

Algebra 1
—Non-linear relationships, 26.5 percent reached mastery
—Linear relationships, 24.6 percent
—Operations on Numbers and Expressions, 22.5 percent
—Data, Statistics, and Probability, 18.9 percent

Algebra 2
—Exponential Functions, 24.3 percent
—Function, Operations, and Inverses, 22.7 percent
—Equations and Inequalities, 21.8 percent
—Operations on Numbers and Expressions, 20.2 percent
—Polynominals and Rational Functions, 18.8 percent

A couple questions for readers who are tasked with explaining these math concepts to students every day—either at the K-12 or college level: Are these results what you would have expected? Do you find that your students tend to flail in data, statistics, and probability, and polynominals, more than other math topics? Or could these results simply be a function of this test's content?

UPDATE: Here are some thoughts on the question I posed from William McCallum, who directs the mathematics department at the University of Arizona. I wasn't able to get his comments about students' specific algebra shortcomings in my original story. While he notes that his interpretation would depend on knowing more about the test items, he also says:

"[P]olynomials and rational functions are a topic that many students struggle with because they require a real proficiency in algebraic manipulation that goes beyond just being able to perform the steps." That type of problem-solving "really requires an ability to step back from a calculation," he added, "and foresee which way it's going to go, and maintain some supervision of the calculations to detect error...This is a higher level of proficiency in symbol manipulation than many students acquire."

The Achieve test also found that students struggled most on constructed-response math questions, as opposed to multiple choice. Said McCallum:

"[Of] course [these] are always going to be more difficult, because they require an independent ability to plan a solution and marshal techniques, rather than just perform the techniques. But I have to believe that the large number of students who got zero on those is partly (perhaps largely) the result of the test not having any consequences, so that students would have just blown those off."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

I write in this week's issue about how schools and organizations are using technology to put students in direct contact with scientists in the field (on a remote research vessel in the Pacific, for example). The idea is that students get a much deeper understanding of science—maybe even a love for it—when they interact with somebody who's actually doing it.

The takeaway point here, I would argue, is not the technology. Many of the tools described in the story—blogs, Webcasts, videos—are not new, and probably won't strike the techies out there as especially impressive. You'll find fancier and costlier tools elsewhere. What will probably interest most scientists and science teachers is the application of it, and the promise of presenting their favorite subject the way they see it: as a fun, dynamic way to explore and understand the natural world. The comments of Alan Friedman, a longtime museum director who I interviewed for the story, are instructive. Students don't want to just read about scientists, he said. They want to see and hear and communicate with scientists, as those researchers struggle and push forward.

In this respect, scientists in the field and students in the laboratory, who taste success one day and cope with setbacks the next, have a lot in common.

Photo from the New England Aquarium.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Creation," a movie that focuses on Charles Darwin's groundbreaking scientific work and his questions about religious faith, has found a U.S. distributor, after something of a wait.

The British-made film, which stars Paul Bettany as Darwin and Jennifer Connelly as his wife, Emma, will be distributed on this side of the pond by a company specializing in independent films, Newmarket. A story in the Hollywood Reporter has details. Landing a U.S. distributor potentially increases the biopic's reach into many more theaters. Newmarket has been involved in several notable films, the Reporter says, including "Memento" and "The Passion of the Christ." The film's inability to find a U.S. distributor was lamented by scientists, and by the film's own producer, Jeremy Thomas, who, according to the U.K.'s Telegraph, said he believed the delays were due to anticipated opposition from religious conservatives.

"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America," Thomas is quoted as saying. "There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules."

It looks as if filmmakers have cleared that hurdle now. In a statement, Newmarket officials said they were aware that the film might raise hackles about those who don't accept evolutionary theory, but they felt that "Creation" was too good to pass up:

"We at Newmarket pride ourselves in getting behind important films that help open the door for discussion and conversation, as is the case with 'Creation,' said Newmarket's Chris Ball. " While Darwin's name has come to symbolize one side of a debate between the scientific and the theological, 'Creation' depicts the man as the debate in total, with both sides contending, sometimes violently, within him. In that sense, we believe that the film will appeal to people of faith and people of science."

Photo of Bettany, as Darwin, for the film "Creation."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been backlogged with a couple assignments recently, so I didn't have time to give my impressions of "Two Million Minutes: A 21st Century Solution," a film that debuted in Washington late last week. I attended the premiere. The crowd included a lot of business representatives and education-policy types, though the big-ticket draws were probably the Rev. Al Sharpton and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The unlikely duo have moving through the talk-show and public-appearance circuit, talking about the need to improve American schools, among other things. They came in support of the documentary, which is a sequel to a similarly themed 2007 film.

Both men addressed the audience after the showing, and they directed some good-natured jabs at the other. Said Sharpton, while musing about politics making strange bedfellows: "When you roll over on the bed one morning and Newt's on the other side of you, it can be a little traumatic."

In the spirit of journalistic objectivity (I reported on the film's release last week), I'll refrain from writing a review. I'll just make some general observations, and invite the comments of others who've seen the film, or its predecessor.

Like the first "Two Million Minutes," the film makes the argument that U.S. students are performing at a mediocre level, at best, in math and science, and that this cannot stand, given the growing economic and educational might of nations like China and India. Unlike the earlier film, this one makes that case through a profile of a single school—BASIS Tucson, a charter school in Arizona—and scaffolds out from there. BASIS is depicted as a high-performing, pioneering school that has succeeded despite initial community opposition and relatively meager state financial support, which caused all sorts of problems for the founders in the beginning and creates continued budgetary woes to this day. The kids at BASIS are not math-and-science drones. They're presented as smart and engaged—with interests ranging from dance and roller derby to art and fire-juggling (I kid you not). One key difference in the school's approach appears to be that very advanced concepts in math and science and other subjects are integrated as far back as middle school. (The school serves grades 5-12.) The curriculum is demanding; the filmmakers interview students who struggled to keep up after arriving from lesser schools, but who eventually made it.

The film features interviews with the recently retired chairman of Intel, Craig Barrett, and former Arizona schools superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, both of whom argue that the current educational system is not cutting it. It also includes some direct and indirect jabs and teachers' unions and teachers' colleges; at one point a narrator refers to the education "bureaucrats" who "keep our children locked in the 20th Century."

In one segment, Barrett, who has a Ph.D. in materials science, and who and taught at Stanford University for 10 years, remarks that he wouldn't be allowed to teach in a California public school without going back and picking up certification. Keegan, who was also an adviser to Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, praises Teach for America. One of the BASIS school's founders talks about how she rewards teachers not only with financial incentives for student performance on AP tests, but also with the promise that they'll be given autonomy in the classroom. She praises the College Board for creating a "community of Advanced Placement teachers," held to similarly high standards.

I suspect that reaction to "Two Million Minutes" will depend on viewers' willingness to buy a premise. Actually, two of them: 1) That the United States' education system is falling behind those of high-performing nations (not everyone buys that argument); and 2) that the story of what ails the United States' schools, and the answer to how they can be improved, can be told through the story of a single school. The filmmakers obviously believe it can. Here's a school, as they present it, that through determination and a willingness to fight through the constraints of the public school establishment, produces some of the world's best K-12 students.

Other viewers could be more skeptical. For instance, I wonder about the reaction from principals and teachers at other top-notch public schools, whose curricular approach, teacher corp, and governance is much different than the Arizona charter's. They might read the message in the film's trailer—"The world has outpaced us, and the solution is right here in America"—and respond: "The solution is in America. And not only at BASIS Charter."

There are probably plenty of EdWeek readers who will be sitting through showings of "Two Million Minutes" at schools, colleges, and other settings in the weeks and months ahead. Here's an invitation for them to play film critic, on this blog.

Photo courtesy of NASA.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (0)

A new version of the Common Core multistate standards has been released for public consumption. Many of the biggest changes were made in the language arts section, as opposed to the math, as I reported in my story today.

The new draft greatly expands the number of "illustrative texts," meant to show reading materials at the level of complexity that students need to be ready for on-campus studies and life in the labor market. The Declaration of Independence is in there, as was the case with the earlier draft, but so are documents like the Rev. Martin Luther King's 1963 "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," written to ministers and others who had been critical of him. Check out the Common Core documents to see more of those texts. The authors are quick to point out that this is not meant to be a prescriptive "reading list" for states.

The Council of Great City Schools is out the gate with a positive response to the latest draft. The organization says it offered comments on the early draft, and it even suggests that some of the big cities it represents might serve as "initial test sites" for implementing the standards.

UPDATE: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who has offered states a financial carrot to adopt common standards through Race to the Top funding, speaks favorably of the revised document:

"I applaud the leadership of this coalition of states in joining together to develop a common core of academic standards. The draft college- and career-ready standards that were released today as part of those efforts are an important step forward, and it is now in the hands of the public to provide critical feedback to state leadership. There is no work more important than preparing our students to compete and succeed in a global economy, and it is to the credit of these states that this work is getting done."

The American Federation of Teachers also likes what it sees. The union's president, Randi Weingarten, who has spoken favorably of creating national standards in the past, said AFT representatives had looked over an earlier draft, and the views of teachers are being taken seriously.

"We expect to see even more teacher input during the comment period and in future efforts to develop standards to guide the work of K-12 teachers," Weingarten said in a statement. "We encourage math and language arts teachers from across the country to make suggestions throughout this process...The question is: Do these standards reflect what we expect our children to know and what they should be able to do upon graduation, whether they enter the workforce or go onto college? We realize the answer is far from simple, but these standards are a solid first step."

Lynne Munson, of the group Common Core (not to be confused with the group drafting the standards) advocates for students receiving a content-rich curriculum. She likes the changes from the earlier draft, particularly the inclusion of more illustrative texts. But she questions why business memos, newspaper pages , and the like appear alongside passages of literature and historical documents. "It would be hard to imagine that someone who could master Austen, Whitman, and King would struggle to grasp the contents of a homepage, front page, or a memo on medical benefits," she writes in a blog post. "Sure, these resemble the kind of reading people must navigate daily, but school is a time when you encounter uncommon works of enduring value. The standards make that point, but more obliquely than they should."

Photo of MLK, courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Steve Robinson, a math and science adviser at the U.S. Department of Education, will be working out of the White House. Robinson will still be officially a part of the department of ed, but he will going about his business from the White House's Domestic Policy Council. My colleague Michele McNeil explains it all on Politics K-12.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When Louisiana officials recently passed a new law governing the classroom materials that can be used to cover evolution lessons, some predicted that controversy—and possibly lawsuits—would follow. Now a committee of the state board of education has signed off on new rules that seek to clarify how complaints and challenges stemming from the law will be handled in school districts.

Whether those rules clarify things, or merely roil the waters on the bayou, remains to be seen.

Here's the background:

Last year, Louisiana's legislature and Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal enacted a law that allows teachers to use supplemental classroom materials that will help students "analyze, critique, and review" scientific theories, including evolution. (The law also says teachers can use those materials for discussions of the "origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.") The measure specifies that teachers can use materials "as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board," but it also left it to Louisiana's Elementary and Secondary Board of Education to create rules and regulations for carrying out the law.

That's what a committee of the board recently set out to do. According to the Baton Rouge Advocate, which has been doggedly following the issue, if a parent or member of the public complains about a supplementary material, a five-member panel will be set up to review that objection. The panel will consist of two reviewers named by the department and one reviewer each named by the challenger, the school, and the publisher, according to the story. The panel is supposed to judge the materials on whether they "promote any religious doctrine," are "scientifically sound," and are grade-appropriate.

How do you foresee the new law playing out in Louisiana's science classrooms? Will the state's review process resemble what went on in Texas this year, with the state board debating the merits of the language in standards and textbooks? Given that seemingly any Louisiana district could propose a supplementary material—and anybody could challenge its scientific basis—will state hearings on these issues become a regular thing?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The organization Common Core, which calls for giving students strong grounding across academic disciplines, has organized an open letter critiquing the program put forward by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and calling for the group to revise its goals.

That letter is signed by some big names in education policy, including Randi Weingarten, of the American Federation of Teachers; education historian Diane Ravitch; Core Knowledge founder E.D. Hirsch Jr.; Chester Finn, of the Fordham Foundation; and John Silber, the retired president of Boston University. Some of those people have been on record previously as opposing the 21st-century-skills push.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, as we've discussed in the pages of EdWeek, promotes the cultivation of a broad range of critical-thinking, creative, and analytical skills among students, including technological know-how, as well as "soft skills," in areas such as communication. Those skills are vital to succeeding on the job and in life, the organization argues, and schools should nurture them. Supporters of that approach say they are not overlooking the importance of hard-and-fast academic content, but critics of the skills movement have not been assuaged.

In its open letter, titled "A Challenge to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills," the letter-writers say the approach of the Partnership, or P21, "marginalizes knowledge and therefore will deny students the liberal education they need." They add that "skills can neither be taught nor applied effectively without prior knowledge of a wide array of subjects."

The letter accuses P21 of attempting to "teach skills apart from knowledge," and calls for the program to be "fundamentally revised." As it now stands, it is "undermining the quality of education in America."

While the AFT's Weingarten's name is on the letter, her objections are definitely not shared by the 3.2 million-member National Education Association. The NEA is a founding member of P21, the union's executive director, John Wilson, noted in an e-mail, when I asked him for comment. Wilson took a dim view of the letter, which he said mischaracterizes P21's agenda.

"This group continues to amaze me," he said of the letter-writers, "that they would pit core knowledge against 21st-century skills, when our students need both. ... I have witnessed first- hand teachers using 21st-century skills and new technology to enhance the teaching of core subjects. To relegate today’s students to rows of desks, a teacher at the front of the classroom espousing content, and a textbook with paper and pencil is to guarantee that our students will be left with the lowest skills and the lowest-paying jobs."

Ken Kay, the president of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, had this response in an e-mail: "We have never advocated, in any context, the teaching of 21st century skills separate from content. It is clear that you can’t just teach students to think, you have to teach them to critically think, problem solve and innovate about something – knowledge is the base of learning."

Added Kay: "Why don’t we all agree on an agenda of improving curriculum, assessment and professional development to ensure students acquire deep content knowledge and at the same time develop the skills vital to success in today’s world?"

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

Can’t get enough of all this talk of national or common or multistate standards? The College Board has plenty of new reading material for you.

The New York City-based nonprofit, probably best known for its work sponsoring the SAT, has released its first-ever science standards for college readiness, known as Science Standards for College Success. The 242-page document seeks to outline crucial science knowledge, and how it can be used and broken down into the 6-8 and 9-12 grade spans. College Board officials, who have a major role in the ongoing “Common Core” effort to create college-readiness standards in language arts and math, hope that the science document will serve as a resource for teachers, districts, and states around the country.

The College Board has created similar documents for language arts, math, and statistics. The science document is not meant to serve solely as a suggested academic path toward Advanced Placement courses, which are designed by the College Board, but rather to help students meet the “overarching goal of college readiness," as the organization puts it. In their introduction to the document, the authors explain that the new standards are “more purposefully targeted than many standards documents because they are deliberately aligned with expectations for entrance into college-level science courses and because they include performance expectations (PEs) that specify how content knowledge is to be used and developed through reasoning and in problem-solving.” Performance expectations describe how students should "use and build their science knowledge to accomplish a goal or task," the document states.

The standards, which have been in the works since 2006, were constructed with the advice of a committee made up of middle and high school teachers, college subject-matter experts, testing gurus, teacher education faculty, and others with knowledge of science learning and standards-building.

When I recently interviewed Francis Eberle, the executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, I asked him for his thoughts on the College Board document. While he had not studied it closely, Eberle said that the basic structure of the document looked similar to some of the more prominent science standards out there—by which he meant that it seemed primarily organized around particular disciplines, such as earth science, physical science, chemistry, and so on. Another way to organize science standards, which has received some attention in recent years, is around core ideas, like the nature of matter, or evolution. (The College Board document does have a specific section called "Unifying Concepts," which include evolution, matter and energy, scientific models, and other topics.) To the extent that the College Board document encourages students' girding themselves for college-level science early in K-12, Eberle said that's a good thing.

“We really need to think about standards in terms of a pre-K through 16 system,” Eberle told me. Yet he also suggested that as K-12 systems look to retool their science standards, higher education institutions, if they really want to retain more students in science studies, need to re-examine their teaching methods and curricula, too.

“The assumption is that what’s done in college is correct," Eberle said. "I think that’s an open question.”

Photo of Huntsville, Ala., student by Dave Martin for EdWeek

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Readers of EdWeek will recall the hubbub over a 2007 film that warned of U.S. schools losing their competitive edge to those in China and India. Now a sequel to that documentary, which takes a different approach to the topic, is coming to the big screen.

It's called "Two Million Minutes: A 21st Century Solution." Unlike the first film, which profiled individual students in the United States, China, and India, this documentary singles out a top-notch charter school serving students of modest means, which nonetheless challenges them in math and science. In my story for EdWeek, I interview the film's executive producer, entrepreneur Robert Compton, who describes his motivation for making the film, and its message.

The first film drew criticism from some viewers who said it overhyped China's and India's educational gains, while not giving U.S. schools enough credit. Compton doesn't sound like he's backing away from that premise in his new film, but rather taking it in a new direction.

The film's trailer will give you a taste of what it's about.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A new magazine is geared toward getting students charged up about engineering studies by going to where young people live and breathe: the Internet.

The American Society for Engineering Education has launched eGFI —Engineering: Go For It, a digital magazine with a bevy of online features, which includes articles on engineering's role in the workplace and the world, videos, search engines, and links to Twitter and Facebook.

The digital magazine grew out of an online version of a print product offered by the ASEE, which is based in Washington. That magazine circulates to about 400,000 readers, said Bob Black, ASEE's deputy executive director. On the new site, students can search for a topic—say, alternative energy or biomedical engineering—and they'll be provided with articles, videos, and other relevant links. The goal is to create a resource for both students and teachers to use in class, and for young students to look at in their spare time, Black told me.

The ASEE plans to rework the site continually to draw more young people in. One idea the organization is kicking around is to arrange engineering contests online. Another is to stage regular quizzes, with prizes for students.

Going online, and building upon existing features, gives the magazine "wider appeal," Black said. "The great thing about the Internet is it's dynamic."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Math and science teachers shaping federal education policy? It's happening through the Einstein fellowship program, which I wrote about this week.

The program allows K-12 educators in math- and science related fields to come to Washington, D.C., for one-year stints, where they work in Capitol Hill offices or in federal agencies. Most of them go back to the classroom. Some of them stay, like Steve Robinson, who worked as a fellow for former Sen. Barack Obama and now serves as a math and science adviser in his administration.

Photo of Einstein fellow Ed Potosnak, who works in Rep. Mike Honda's office, by Christopher Powers of EdWeek.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

An organization of state officials has sharply criticized recently proposed standards to test students across the country in technological literacy, saying that without changes to the current draft, the document will "cause confusion across the nation" and ultimately "not have a positive impact on students and education."

The State Educational Technology Directors Association, or SETDA, warns that the proposed tech-lit framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress defines skills in that area in a much different way than what is currently being used in the states. States are required to report on their definitions of tech literacy, SETDA officials say, as part of the No Child Left Behind Act, Title II, Part D, and in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The mismatch could lead to "detrimental effects for policy, funding, and educational outcomes," according to SETDA's board of directors, in a letter to the governing board.

The National Assessment Governing Board, for those who don't know, is an independent panel that sets policy for the NAEP test. It released a draft of the tech-lit framework (basically, a blueprint for writing the exam) earlier this summer. It's not unusual for the board to receive feedback—sometimes strongly worded feedback—on draft frameworks, a testament to NAEP's influence over testing and curriculum around the country.

All states have already created their own definitions of tech-literacy, the letter says. Their primary sources have been definitions established by SETDA and the International Society for Technology in Education, according to the letter. The proposed NAEP framework breaks tech literacy into three, interconnected areas: design and systems; information and communication technology; and technology and society. That three-part definition, SETDA says, does not mesh what the states have established, which have been in place for at least seven years.

If the three proposed areas of NAEP tech literacy are reported to the public as one test score, those results "will not have any relevance to the states' adopted definitions of technological literacy or reported results," which will "cause confusion across states and by federal policy-makers," the authors of the letter assert.

SETDA asks the governing board to consider two-part solution: Divide the NAEP tech-literacy assessment into the three sections being proposed and report them separately, rather than as a composite score. That way, they won't "conflict with federal laws or state and national efforts." The letter-writers also want the test to be given a name that clearly spells out what the NAEP is testing in tech-lit, like "technology and engineering" or "technology and innovation."

Defining tech literacy is tough to do. My former colleague Andrew Trotter laid out many of the longstanding debates over tech terminology, and turf, in a story earlier this year. What do you make of SETDA's concerns, and of the proposed NAEP framework overall?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When the title of the article is “Dehumanized: When Math and Science Rule the School,” it’s safe to assume that the author is not buying the prevailing line about the United States’ shortcomings in those subjects, and their alleged consequences for society. Mark Slouka, in a piece in published in this month’s issue of Harper’s Magazine, derides the continuous “ritual” of pointing out new crises in math and science, a campaign that he says is being pushed along by corporate America with uncritical assistance from politicians, colleges and universities, and the news media.

Slouka is not arguing that math and science are not important. His point is that business and political leaders have become so intent at revamping those subjects in the name of job creation, economic prosperity, national security and so on, that they ignore that vital role that the humanities play in encouraging students to think critically and function as active, intelligent members of a civic society. “The humanities, in short, are a superb delivery mechanism for what me might call democratic values,” Slouka said. “There is no better that I am aware of.”

About the current wave of interest in improving students’ math and science skills, he writes:

"Typically, the call to arms comes from the business community. We’re losing our competitive edge, sounds the cry. Singapore is pulling ahead. The president swings into action. He orders up a blue-chip commission of high-ranking business executives (the 2006 Commission on the Future of Higher Education, led by business executive Charles Miller, for example) to study the problem and come up with “real world” solutions.

Thus empowered, the commission crunches the numbers, notes the depths to which we’ve sunk, and emerges into the light to underscore the need for more accountability. To whom? Well, to business, naturally. To whom else would you account? And that’s it, more or less. Cue the curtain. The commission’s president answers all reasonable questions. Eventually, everyone goes home and gets with the program.”

But it’s a shortsighted point of view, Slouka argues:

“The case for the humanities is not hard to make, though it can be difficult—to such an extent have we been marginalized, so long have we acceded to that marginalization—not to sound either defensive or naive. The humanities, done right, are the crucible within which our evolving notions of what it means to be fully human are put to the test; they teach us, incrementally, endlessly, not what to do but how to be."

The humanities “complicate our vision, pull our most cherished notions out by the roots, flay our pieties,” he says. Grounding students in the humanities moreover, is “value—and cheap at the price,” Slouka adds. “This is utility of a higher order. Considering where the rising arcs of our ignorance and our deference lead, what could represent a better investment?”

Slouka is, of course, hardly the only observer to warn of the downside for U.S. schools focusing on core academic subjects without giving sufficient time to history, literature, social studies, and the arts. I recently reported on the work of some scholars who believe that the roots of innovation and creativity in math and science rise are made stronger by the cultivation of arts and music skill.

Slouka’s point is different: not that the humanities are important because they build a math and science workforce, but because they build the individual, and build a better democratic society. What do you make of his arguments?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Would students take a stronger interest in math if they knew that an ancient African bone (from 20,000 B.C.) might be one of the world's oldest known counting tools? Or that the work of Muslim mathematicians was essential to the advancement of algebra? How about if they knew that Descartes was captivated by math's connections to science and philosophy? Or that he may have gained insight into applied math while serving in the army, as one historian I stumbled across suggests.

These questions came to mind when I saw a notice of a new scholarship that seeks to help math teachers who want to study the history of math at the college level and bring that knowledge back to their classrooms. Offered by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the scholarship will provide $3,000 to an interested educator. See this link for more details.

Over the years, I've seen a number of courses at schools of education that probe the history of math. What I'm less clear on is the extent to which these classes offer teachers practical guidance for blending these studies into their day-to-day lessons. A lot of people today argue that K-12 schools should be trying to find ways to make math seem more relevant to students by linking it to practical problem-solving situations in the workplace or in engineering. Could blending relevant examples of math's uses throughout history, even on a very limited scale—such as when a teacher is introducing a new concept—inspire a student? A student who might say, "You're telling me the Greeks used geometric shapes to solve algebraic problems?"

If you've seen examples of math history being used to make math content more interesting or clearer to students, let me know.

(Image of Descartes, courtesy of the Library of Congress)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The "UTeach" model for training aspiring math and science teachers will be launched at a state university outside of Dallas, as part of a growing effort to replicate the program on college campuses around the country.

UTeach, developed at the University of Texas at Austin, places an unusually strong emphasis on the recruitment of math and science majors to the teaching profession. It heavily involves faculty from the math and science departments at the Austin campus in teaching future educators in both core content and pedagogy—as opposed to leaving those duties to faculty from the education school—and it also gives enrollees a lot of exposure to the rigors of teaching through classroom observation. Backers of UTeach say its record of producing teachers who stick with the profession is especially strong; about 80 percent are still in their teaching jobs after 5 years, according to program officials.

A few years ago, a nonprofit in Dallas, the National Math and Science Initiative, set out to replicate that model around the country by offering to give grant support to teacher colleges to refashion their systems in the UTeach approach. This week, the NMSI awarded a $1.4 million grant to establish a UTeach-style program at the University of Texas at Arlington. Much of the funding will come from the Texas Instruments Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. The CEO of NMSI is Tom Luce, who served as a top education official in the administration of President George W. Bush.

In addition, existing UTeach-style programs at the University of North Texas and UT-Dallas will be expanded, with the backing of the TI Foundation.

Since 2007, the UTeach model has been replicated at 13 institutions around the country with NMSI support. By the initiative's count, that means 1,500 math and science majors have joined the profession.

If you're at a campus that has implemented the UTeach model, what have been the results so far? What are the drawbacks and benefits to overhauling a teacher education system? Is it worth the investment?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Council on Teacher Quality has argued that the courses offered by teacher colleges to prepare elementary math teachers are impractical, vague, and both short on math content and the specific training necessary to get math concepts across to students.

Now NCTQ is offering a new Web site meant as a resource for college faculty and others involved in shaping college elementary math courses. It includes recommendations about specific topics math-aspiring teachers should be taught, as well as specific math textbooks and syllabi the Washington-based organization deems to be of high quality.

One model set of syllabi cited is that of Louisiana State University; another that receives a plug is from the University of Georgia. There are others. NCTQ is inviting college faculty to submit other course materials it believes make the grade. In some cases, the organization says it's looking for syllabi that support particular textbooks it rates highly. The NCTQ is also trying to collect what it calls "hybrid" course materials that "combine content and methods instruction."

To get a better sense of NCTQ's standards for judging the quality of a teacher program in elementary math, see the organization's report titled "No Common Denominator: The Preparation of Elementary Teachers in Mathematics by America's Education Schools."

The audience for the Web resource are instructors at the nation's teacher colleges, who train thousands of elementary teachers annually, an NCTQ official told me. One question I had was how much discretion these instructors would have to change the coursework or syllabi they follow from year to year; NCTQ officials evidently believe faculty have enough sway that it's worth reaching out to them.

If you're immersed in an elementary teacher education program, I'll pose a question to you: How satisfied are you with the curriculum you're following, and where does it fall short? (Maybe you'll tell me you won't know until you are actually a teacher in your own classroom.) After looking at NCTQ's model coursework, how much of a departure would this approach represent for you in terms of the training you're receiving now in math?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I know that you’ve read a lot of accounts, in EdWeek’s pages and elsewhere, of Singapore’s prowess in math and science, not to mention vocational education. But this profile of Singapore's education system in the Miami Herald is definitely worth the time. It's written by Andres Oppenheimer, best known for his coverage of Latin America. His story is a reminder (for journalists as well as education policy types) of the power of a salient detail.

Singapore’s obsession with education “even shows up on its dollar bills,” the author notes. “While U.S. and Latin American currencies portray images of national independence heroes, Singapore's 2-dollar bill—the most widely circulated since there is no smaller denomination —shows students in a classroom listening to a professor, with a university in the background. Underneath, there is just one word, 'Education.'''

Later, the author makes this observation about the heavy pressure in Singapore for students to succeed in education (though whether this feature is something countries should emulate is a matter of opinion): “U.S. expatriates here like to say that while America is a guilt-driven society, Singapore is a shame-driven society: Parents here dread others seeing their children doing poorly in school.”

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

As schools swing back into session, the Environmental Protection Agency, through its "Energy Star" program, is encouraging district leaders to consider energy-efficiency measures—touting them as steps that could be used to save teacher jobs and cover other costs. They're also inviting schools to incorporate more lessons about energy usage into school curriculum.

Under the "Teach Kids," link on this site, the Energy Star program has created resources for students, parents, and teachers, which include links for energy-related vocabulary terms (everything from "carbon footprint" to "photovoltaic cells" ), facts, lesson plans, and games that can be played at home and school. Energy Star is a joint effort run by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy.

The EPA is also making a broader case for energy efficiency in schools. Among the agency's arguments: Districts spend $8 billion annually on heating, cooling, lighting, and energy-related costs, more than the amount spent on textbooks and computers combined. The agency also cites the specific savings raked in by school systems around the country, including Oregon's Gresham-Barlow district. That district cut energy savings by 48 percent, paring $1.3 million in costs—an amount equal to 24 full-time teachers' salaries, the EPA says. Over three years, the Council Rock school district in Pennsylvania cut $4.7 million in energy costs, the agency says.

The EPA would like to see more districts join its Energy Star Challenge, a pledge to reduce energy costs. About 2,000 schools have earned the agency's "Energy Star" label for superior energy efficiency so far.

If you're in a school district that has staggered under the weight of high energy bills, what options are you considering to reduce them? What are the barriers to making changes to your energy usage?

Photo of solar panels being installed on Walden III Middle and High School in Racine, Wis., by Mark Hertzberg/Journal Times/AP.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently received an e-mail about the upcoming release of a new film about the life of Charles Darwin, and the personal turmoil he coped with on the path to his groundbreaking research on the theory of evolution. A major focus on the film, titled "Creation," is the British naturalist's difficulty reconciling his scientific discoveries with religion, and particularly the beliefs of his devoutly religious wife, Emma.

The film, which stars Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly (*bonus points* if you can name another film featuring both of them) as Charles and Emma Darwin, is based on on the book Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution. It was written by Randal Keynes, a conservationist and the great-great grandson of Charles Darwin. The title is a reference to Darwin's first daughter, Annie, who died at the age of 10, eight years before the publication of his landmark work on evolution: On the Origin of Species. The movie, by BBC Films, is scheduled for a Sept. 25 release, according to a Web site promoting it. It's coming out on the 150th anniversary of the year of the publication of Species, and the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.

Many biographies and accounts of Darwin's life and work have been released over the years, though it seems as though there's been much less interest in telling his story on screen. Ironically, one of the most publicized films to discuss evolution in recent years was Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which made the case for intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. That film was widely panned by scientists as misleading in its depiction of evolutionary theory and its promotion of design.

I'll be very curious to see scientists' response to "Creation," and the film's exploration of how personal tragedy and inter-family relationships influenced Darwin's views of faith and reason, and his groundbreaking work. Of course, biologists, teachers, and others are likely to judge the film by another standard: Does it get the science right?

The filmmakers are also offering a series of educational resources for teachers, and students ages 14-18, aimed at helping with science lessons, as well as general studies and "critical thinking," according to a link on the promotional web site. Those materials include excerpts from historical documents, student worksheets, and other background materials.

* Bettany and Connelly worked together in "A Beautiful Mind," Hollywood's portrayal of the Princeton mathematician John Nash, and his struggles with schizophrenia.

UPDATE: One potentially important note about “Creation”: Despite its impressive cast, at this point, it doesn’t have a U.S. distributor, a representative for the film confirmed to me today. This could affect American audiences’ ability to find it. Judging from the e-mails I’ve received, there’s strong interest among some scientists in trying to ensure that the film makes it into as many theaters as possible, stateside.

In the above photo, courtesy of BBC Films, Darwin arrives in Tierra del Fuego during his exploratory scientific voyage aboard the Beagle.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

An interesting attempt to bring more specialization, and presumably more expertise, to science teaching is occurring in suburban Washington. The schools in Montgomery County, Md., with support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, are seeking to put a "highly trained" science teacher in each of the system's 130 elementary schools. The idea is to place a "go-to" person in each elementary school as an "ambassador" to other teachers on science. In most elementary schools today, teachers are generalists, covering all subjects, and they may have scant knowledge of science.

I'm not sure if all students in a school would be routed through these ambassadors for their science lessons, or if these specialists would simply help their elementary school peers teach science on their own. I've written about schools' interest in creating elementary math specialists, or content experts in that subject, who can give students a solid foundation in math. The Montgomery County program, called the Elementary Science Leadership Program, seems to have a similar intent.

This effort is an outgrowth of a Hughes-supported effort in the 1980s to strengthen the science curriculum in Montgomery County's elementary schools, which placed a greater emphasis on hands-on experiments and the scientific process. Participating teachers in the new effort are given training and money to pay for class equipment, according to the institute.

One barrier to using subject-matter specialists in elementary schools, at least as it's been explained to me, is cost. If a school is forced to keep its current stable of generalists, and then add a specialist, that's an extra financial burden for the district, especially when you're talking about paying for those specialists across an entire system. If you're in a school district that has experimented with specialists in math or science, perhaps you're a part of an alternative approach that keeps costs low. If so, I'd love to hear about it.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier this week, I attended meetings at the National Science Board on what schools can do to nurture students' innovative skills. As America's foreign competitors spawn new businesses with the help of a growing class of entrepreneurs—and cheap labor—some argue that U.S. growth will increasingly depend on innovation, the kind that can drive business and produce breakthroughs across society.

But how do you measure a nation's collective innovative and creative power and its connection to economic growth?

One such measure, albeit an imperfect one, was mentioned during a presentation at the science-board meeting by R. Keith Sawyer, of Washington University in St. Louis. It's data from the World Intellectual Property Organization, and it seeks to measure the link between "creative industries" and countries' gross domestic product and employment.

As you can see from the chart to the right, the United States ranks higher than any country in the link between creative industries and GDP. Sawyer, in his presentation, pointed to the United States' relative strength in this area, but argued that in the future, it's likely that the American education system will have to do more just for the U.S. to keep up.

I'm sure you're asking, well, what is this chart really showing? As Sawyer readily acknowledges, the definition is fuzzy. It appears to focus on "copyright-based" industries, though he also believes this could include manufacturing of tools for distribution, such as CD players and VCRs. Presumably, it would also include video-game production and the music business.

During Sawyer's presentation at the science-board event, one attendee speculated that the United States' apparent creative economic power might be driven primarily by Hollywood. Sawyer said that link was certainly one explanation. You'll also notice a couple countries with economies far less advanced than the United States, like the Philippines, faring pretty well in terms of creative employment. Sawyer speculates that this could be explained by the aforementioned manufacturing of entertainment equipment.

After you're had a look at the chart, and the accompanying WIPO report, give me your thoughts. You can also read more of Sawyer's views on innovation and the economy here. (Click on the table above, from the WIPO, for an enhanced image.)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Just a reminder to the math-happy among us that we're staging a live chat today on your favorite subject. The topic is high school math: Why does U.S. students' performance appear to stagnate at the high school level, despite the relative progress made at earlier grades? Our guests are Hank Kepner, the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and Susan Eddins, a math consultant and a retired, longtime teacher at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.

You can watch, and submit questions, at this site.

UPDATE: Here's the transcript from the chat.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

An informal survey of the nation's science teachers shows that a majority like the idea of a national curriculum—and crave more professional development. Alas, at the elementary school level, the help they seek appears to be in short supply.

Conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, the survey of 3,500 science professionals found that 53 percent of those polled favored a national curriculum in science, compared with about 41 percent opposed. Interestingly, backing for the idea was stronger among elementary (58 percent) and middle school teachers (59 percent) than among high school science teachers (46 percent) and university/college faculty (40 percent), according to an unpublished breakdown of the results. The vast majority of those surveyed were science teachers, rather than administrators and other school employees, NSTA officials say. (Some more detailed results from the poll can be found here.)

Fifty-eight percent of science teachers said they didn't have enough professional-development opportunities in the subject. A breakdown of the findings shows that many elementary teachers, 74 percent, say they are being given more PD opportunities in subjects other than science, compared with 60 percent of middle school teachers and 55 percent of high school educators who feel that way.

A few other tidbits:

—74 percent of those polled said that comparisons of science performance between countries are important, roughly the same portion who see value in school-to-school comparisons.

—When asked if science was more important as a subject in the country 50 years ago than it is today, a strong majority of those polled, 69 percent, disagreed.

—Just 18 percent of those surveyed said they are satisfied with the direction of education in this country, as opposed to 68 percent who are not.

—When asked which skills are most important for science teaching, 60 percent cited the ability to translate content into learning, followed by 16 percent who said a passion for working with students, and 14 percent who said a passion for science. Only 4 percent cited content knowledge, on its own.

What are the most important messages that you see coming through in the survey?

Photo of elementary science classroom by Michael Dwyer for Education Week.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This morning I attended the second day of a National Science Board panel discussion, which focused on how U.S. schools can do more to cultivate the students who can morph into innovators or super-innovators—basically, the Albert Einsteins, Robert Noyces, and Frank Lloyd Wrights of tomorrow. (Maybe you've got your own innovators list.) Board members were joined by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who plugged some of the administration's efforts in math and science and hinted at another one coming down the road.

The secretary, who provided opening remarks and fielded questions, didn't break a lot of new ground, again making his case for how $4 billion in federal "Race to the Top" funds will help struggling schools and improve how schools use data.

He also stressed the potential for the money to help states and schools recruit new teachers in math and science. Today, too many students are taught by educators who don't know the content in those subjects, the secretary noted. He made another pitch for differential pay for math and science teachers, as well as for teachers in other high-need subjects, possibly spec-ed and foreign languages. He also mentioned the importance of increasing access to AP programs, and singled out a teacher-training program, the University of Texas' "UTeach," for helping produce the "next generation of great leadership" in schools. Interestingly, those remarks came on the same day that the Dallas-based organization that's seeking to replicate the UTeach model and expand AP access said that its participating schools have seen a major increase in AP passing scores.

Duncan also previewed what he said will be a "national campaign" this fall to sell the teaching profession to young people. That effort will be a "call to service," the secretary said, which will target 18-19 year olds, and possibly career-changers. As my colleague Steve Sawchuk noted recently, the dismal job market has made it difficult for some of the most determined future teachers in math and science to find work.

Overall, American schools need to churn out students with better math and science skills, said Duncan, who, as he has previously, cited mediocre U.S. scores on international tests as a source of worry.

"We've become complacent," he told the audience. "We've sort of lost our way. This is huge challenge for us."

UPDATE: On a related note, Duncan’s agency today announced the awarding of $6.3 million in grants to 32 colleges and universities to support efforts to encourage more students to stick with STEM. Some of the grants will be made under the department’s Ronald E. McNair Post-baccalaureate Achievement Program, which provides support to undergraduates from disadvantaged backgrounds to pursue advanced degrees. Other money will flow through the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program, which supports a range of K-12 and college activity, including student tutoring, curriculum development, and renovations of labs.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The board that sets policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress is considering a bunch of changes aimed at bringing more consistency and uniformity to how to test students with disabilities and English-language learners. As it stands now, one state might exclude, or give special testing accommodations to a much larger chunk of its special education population than another does. As a result, when the NAEP scores are released, some people wonder if a state's propensity for excluding students is skewing its scores.

I attended a meeting to discuss that topic in Washington yesterday, and we'll have a more detailed story on some of the proposals being considered by the National Assessment Governing Board later, on EdWeek's homepage. Two task forces are studying the issue: one is focused on special education students, the other on ELLs.

A couple items that didn't make it into that story:

—The task force on students with disabilities is recommending an intriguing change in how the NAEP reports scores for those students. The panel says the NAEP should report the scores of students with individualized education programs, or IEPs, and those with Section 504 plans separately. Those two programs refer to federally-designated academic plans, crafted at the local level, to provide services for individual students with different levels of disabilities. Students with IEPs must qualify in one of 13 federal classifications of disability; the definition of who qualifies under a 504 is broader.

Currently, the NAEP combines the scores of all of those students. In order to maintain the current "trend line" from past tests, the task force recommends keeping that reporting mechanism, while breaking out the separate IEP and 504 scores.

—A while ago I wrote that the governing board was exploring the idea of "targeted testing" or "adaptive testing." That kind of testing involves tailoring tests to gain a more precise understanding of the performance of students at the highest and lowest ends of the scale. This kind of testing could potentially reduce the portion of students excluded on the tests.

It appears that those earlier discussions have planted a seed. Both the special education and ELL task forces see potential in targeted testing, and they recommend that federal officials look at its feasibility. With targeted testing, "standard errors would be reduced at the low end of the continuum," a report of the ELL task force says, "and better information would be available about student performance and improvements over time."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I often hear math teachers and others talk about the importance of the study of statistics in high school, and how they believe it's unfairly shunned, in favor of other math studies, particularly calculus. There are others who say statistics, in fact, is getting its due. The College Board, for instance, offers an AP test in that subject and sometimes you'll hear of a high school offering some other kind of statistics-focused course.

The New York Times has a story this week about the growing need for statisticians in the job market, which they suggest is a result of the rise of digital data. The story draws from such varied examples as Netflix, IBM, and the White House Office of Management of Budget to make its case. What should be the role of statistics in the K-12 system, and how does it mesh with other areas of math?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When education officials from foreign countries talk about the qualities of the U.S. school system they most admire, one thing they mention is the wealth of independent research projects encouraged by American teachers. In math and science, these projects, whether organized in school or out of school, are usually designed to nurture students' problem-solving skills and their ability to examine a topic in depth, sometimes across disciplines. When I visited China a few years ago for a series of stories on math and science, school and government officials there told me that they believed independent projects helped promote creativity among students, and so they were keen on emulating that aspect of American study.

But do students from disadvantaged backgrounds get the support they need to undertake these efforts? One U.S. program that seeks to address that challenge is the Society for Science & the Public. That effort provides grants of $8,500 to U.S. math and science teachers, known as fellows, who work with disadvantaged students to help them foster independent research projects. The effort also seeks to establish lasting networks of scientific mentors for students.

Ten teachers were selected as the society's first-ever group of fellows this year, through a competitive process; applications came in from teachers in 36 states.The fellowships are supported by the Intel Corp.

Last week, each of those teachers, known as fellows, attended an institute in Washington, D.C., where they received training and shared ideas for how they will go about their work. Presentations were made by researchers, university scientists, experienced K-12 teachers and others. Participating teachers can keep their fellowships for up to four years, with the idea that they'll help guide students' research interests over an extended period. The teachers will also receive continuous training throughout their fellowships.

I'll pose a few questions for readers, which the society's fellows are almost certainly addressing on their own. What is the key to a successful independent research project in math or science? Why do some student projects fall flat, while others succeed? And how can these projects be encouraged in schools where students do not have a lot of resources?

The photo of the fellows, outside the White House, was provided by Society for Science & the Public.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The study of biology will increasingly require skill in math, or “a toolbox of diverse mathematical approaches,” according to a new article published in the journal Science. I don't know if biologists tend to fear and avoid math to the extent that much of the general population does, but the changing nature of their scientific field makes math knowledge more essential than ever, the authors argue.

The need for math training is becoming more crucial in areas such as systems biology, where math models have been successful in helping scientists understand molecular structure, they say. Moreover, algebraic models have become increasingly useful in the study of evolutionary biology, such as in examinations of RNA.

The paper, "Mathematical Biology Education: Beyond Calculus," published by Raina Robeva of Sweet Briar College, in Virginia, and Reinhard Laubenbacher of the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech, requires a subscription, but here’s a summary of it. If this topic interests you, so might a second paper: “Computing Has Changed Biology—Biology Education Must Catch Up,” which is published in the same issue.

“Algebraic models should be considered critical for the professional development of biologists,” Robeva and Laubenbacher say. “Mathematics and biology educators must work together to determine the best way of including these in undergraduate curricula.”

What implications does the idea of mathematizing biology have for high school science, and the way that biology courses and math courses are taught?

Photo by Michael P. Farrell for Education Week

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There’s been a lot of focus over the years on high school students’ inability to make a successful transition from high school to college math and science work. The Chicago school district is attempting to tackle that problem, by focusing on teaching at the 12th grade level.

The 407,000-student school system is creating a new program that will offer graduate-level college workshops and coursework to 160 high school math and science teachers, classes that will focus on helping those educators prepare students for the leap into postsecondary work. The hope is that participating teachers will not only improve their math and science skills, but, as is common in such programs, return to their schools and become “team leaders,” who can help fellow educators and administrators from their own schools improve.

The effort, known as the Chicago Transformation Teacher Institutes, is being supported through a $5 million grant from National Science Foundation.

Those directing the effort have set a number of tangible goals: They want to see at least 10 percent annual improvement in standardized test and Advanced Placement scores; the development of new AP or “capstone courses” for Chicago students, and an increase in the number of freshman college students who score grades of “B” or better in college math and science courses. Five Chicago-area universities are partnering with the district on the project: DePaul University, the Illinois Institute of Technology, Loyola University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago. University faculty will collaborate to develop and teach courses to help high school teachers.

The program will “help ensure that 12th grade courses in our schools make a strong bridge between high school and college,” said Michael Lach, officer of teaching and learning for Chicago’s school system, and a co-principal investigator on the NSF grant. The partnership between the universities and the school district, he added, is a “testament to the power of the whole city working together to advance mathematics and science education.”

So here’s your chance: If you were asked to help design a course for high school teachers seeking to help students bridge the divide between K-12 and college math and science, where would you start?

Photo of Chicago skyline, above, right

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Students who commit to studying science, technology, engineering and math—the so called "STEM" topics—tend to be a fairly persistent lot.

Those who focus on STEM fields have a higher rate of completing a bachelor's degree program, 35 percent, compared to the overall student population, at 29 percent, according to a new report released by the National Center for Education Statistics. The science-and-math crowd also was less likely to leave college without completing any degree, the report says. And among students who were focused on STEM fields entering college between the 1995-1996 school year and 2001, 53 percent of them either completed a degree or were still enrolled in studies in those areas.

Those numbers might not strike people who worry about the science and math skills of U.S. students as especially encouraging. Yet they also seem to suggest a certain academic-stick-to-it-ness among students who are keen on those subjects. At least, compared to their peers.

The study is based on longitudinal data, collected from 12,000 first-time college students, who were interviewed at various points between 1995 and 2001. A few other tidbits from the study:

—The percentage of men, 33 percent, entering STEM studies was much higher than it was for women, 14 percent, particularly in engineering and computer and information sciences;

—Asian-Americans were by far the most likely to choose STEM studies, at 47 percent, followed by Hispanics, 23 percent, whites, 21.5 percent, and blacks, at 21 percent;

—A higher percentage of students identified as foreign, or resident aliens, at 34 percent, entered STEM studies, compared with U.S. natives, at 22 percent. Similarly, among those STEM-focused college entrants, 34 percent reported speaking a language other than English as a child, compared with 21.5 who spoke English.

There are many other figures and facts, which explain the connection between college persistence and high school course-taking, family income, parents' education, and other factors. Have a look and let me know what strikes you the most.

Photo of students in the University of Texas at Austin's "UTeach" program by Alicia Wagner Calzada for Education Week

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

The United States isn't the only place to host contentious debates over what belongs in science standards.

A proposed rewrite of Britain's academic guidelines for primary school teaching in that subject, the first such revision in England in more than 20 years, has drawn objections from some of the country's leading scientists, including renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins and other scientists, in a letter to Britain's children's secretary, voice concerns that the draft does not address the theory of evolution, the scientific method, or give students an overall sense of why science is important in society, the Guardian reports. The standards are being revised in an effort to give British primary schools more freedom to choose curriculum, by creating a "slimmed down" version of the document, according to the article. (Sort of a British spin on the "fewer, clearer, and higher" standards talk being kicked around over here.)

The desire to improve not only students' grasp of scientific facts, but also their overall "scientific literacy," is a theme that has gained strength in recent years in this country. It sounds like the scientific voices in England share this concern, and an interest in seeing crucial concepts, like evolution, taught well in early grades.

Andrew Copson, another British scientist quoted in the story who objects to the new standards, says: "The wealth of colorful and engaging resources that explain evolution and natural selection to under 11-year-olds demonstrates how easily children of this age can be introduced to these important scientific concepts...the curriculum currently being drafted will apply for years to come so it is vital that this long-standing omission of evolution is corrected now."

The goal of British officials is to have new standards completed by this fall.

(Photo of Richard Dawkins by Akira Suemori/AP)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tom Luce, a former top education official in the Bush administration, argues in an online essay that the recent “cyber attacks” on Web sites in the United States and South Korea provide another reason for this country to recommit to math and science education.

Luce, who is now the CEO of the National Math and Science Initiative, cited several examples of cyber-hacking that, if they don’t keep you up at night, will probably make you a bit uneasy. Cyber-spies, possibly working out of China and Russia, recently penetrated the U.S. utility grid and left behind computer programs that would allow them to disrupt service; a member of the U.S. Senate’s intelligence committee said his office computers have been hacked three times recently; and Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently said that hackers had stolen electronic specifications for the Pentagon’s new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project and infiltrated the Air Force's air-traffic-control system.

Gates has said plans are under way for the United States to increase the number of cyber-experts it can train. But Luce worries that finding people with those skills won’t be easy. He points to the middling U.S. results on international tests of math and science, but perhaps more to the point, he cites the results of the recent Top Coder Open, an international competition supported by the U.S.'s own super-secret National Security Agency, as a way of identifying top programming talent. The most skilled competitors were from China and Russia, says Luce, pictured at right. “They dominated in every category from writing algorithms to designing software components,” he writes in the essay, published in the Huffington Post, an online site. “How many of the 70 finalists were from the U.S.? Only two.”

“Out of 4,200 contestants, China entered 894, India 704, and Russia 380. The U.S. trailed with 234 contestants, just above Poland, which had 214 entrants. Egypt had 145 contestants and the Ukraine 128. The winner was an 18-year-old from China.”

It might seem hard to fathom that U.S. teenagers and young adults can’t keep up with the technological wizardry of their peers in other countries. I mean, if you’re over the age of 30, the tech skills of students moving through the pipeline can seem pretty dazzling. But Luce seems to be describing a very elite set of computer and math and science abilities, and a concern that the United States is falling short. What do you make of his argument?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Not all the students could claim to be above average, as they are in Lake Wobegon, but many of Minnesota's schools saw their test scores rise on the state's science tests, across districts of all sizes, and across ages and ethnic groups.

What’s worth noting is that the results on the state’s science exams could actually be seen as fairly modest, compared to the Minnesota's recent showing on an international test, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS. Defying recent American tradition, Minnesota’s 4th graders outperformed almost all foreign nations on that international test in science, and the state’s 8th graders also fared very well, too. As one math-and-science advocate quoted in the above-linked story in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune says, while the test scores show improvement, only a minority of students are reaching “proficiency” in many categories. Overall, the results reveal the state’s commitment to setting high standards on its exams, he suggests.

One characteristic of Minnesota’s science-testing program also caught my eye: the state’s exams in that subject are being given entirely online, rather than by paper and pencil, according to the story, and they ask students to simulate experiments. It’s a feature that many science advocates say is important, in order to encourage more in-depth teaching in of science in classrooms, rather than simple memorization. But I’ve heard of few states actually taking this step. I also notice that despite the broad progress in science on the test, you don’t hear a lot of crowing from Minnesota officials about improved scores, at least not in the story. For the most part, you hear them talking about how far they have to go.

Maybe that's the way it's done in high-performing states.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I heard a radio interview yesterday with Craig Nelson, the author of Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon, who was talking about the anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. Nelson had a lot of thoughts about the United States’ history of space exploration, and where the country might go from here, and some of his points have obvious relevance to education.

To paraphrase him, Nelson was asked about the wisdom and feasibility of putting together future American missions to the moon, or even more ambitious destinations, like Mars, and why space exploration isn’t regarded as being as urgent a national need as in the past. One clear reason is that the nation has a long list of domestic (or terrestrial?) priorities, which make discussions of flight through the heavens seem a lot less urgent. More specifically, he noted that the nation’s perspective in the Apollo 11 era was shaped very directly by the Cold War, and our determination to outperform, out-engineer, out-spend, out-everything the former Soviet Union. (Look at the galvanizing effect that Sputnik had on American education and technology, for instance.) The United States’ policy priorities tend to be guided by competition, Nelson suggested, and any resurgence in interest in space flight is likely to be sparked in part by the prospect of a foreign nation doing something daring in space, or even by a private-sector effort to rocket into orbit or sub-orbit for commercial reasons.

Similar motivations appear to be driving policy changes in math and science. Talk about foreign economic competition, from China, India, and high-performing foreign nations, has driven discussions about everything from the need to improve math and science teaching in the America COMPETES Act to the desire to improve and bring more consistency to the nation’s academic standards through the "Common Core" effort. Many science and technology companies, who face foreign competition for workers, presumably have a particular interest in and knowledge of the math and science skills that students need to fill jobs in that field. Skeptics, on the other hand, will tell you we don’t actually know that much about how well India’s and China’s students perform, compared to American students, since their results haven’t been reported on international tests. They caution against reading too much into the results of nation-by-nation exams like the PISA and TIMSS. And they'll also note that many of the programs in the COMPETES Act have yet to be funded. Even so, global competition seems, at the very least, to be a powerful rhetorical tool in math and science education discussions.

The question of course, is whether U.S. policymakers are thinking about these issues in the right way. Many people quoted in EdWeek and elsewhere say these discussions need to become a lot more refined—that we should become much more knowledgeable about the features of high-performing foreign education models, but then bore in on what policies can be adapted to the U.S. systems, while regarding others much more cautiously. How can and should foreign competition guide the thinking of U.S. policymakers about improvements to math and science education?

Photo: Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., lunar module pilot, walks near the lunar module during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity on July 20, 1969. NASA/AP

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has created a new blog aimed at giving teens science-based information about narcotics and their effects on the body. The site houses health facts and detailed science information, which could prove valuable in health and biology classrooms and other settings.

Called the Sara Bellum Blog (and yes, the institute folks confirm, it's a play on cerebellum, the coordinating center for muscle movement in the brain) entries are put together by a team of NIDA scientists, science writers, and public-health analysts of all ages. It delves into the science of drug abuse and addiction, explaining the latest scientific research and news, with the goal of helping teenagers make “healthy, smart decisions.” The site also includes a glossary, facts about drugs, and real stories from teens who became abusers substances such as anabolic steroids and ecstasy. There are numerous videos with scientists talking about the impact of drugs on the body, and information available to download. “Sometimes it can be hard to know where to go for the truth about drugs,” the site explains. “Here at NIDA, we learn from science—not from rumors or gossip.”

One recent entry on the blog is called “Steroids: More than Meets the Eye,” and it gives a synopsis of muscle-building drugs’ impact on the body: They can cause acne, make your hair fall out, “damage your heart and change your hormone levels so that girls might grow facial hair, and boys could develop breasts,” the site says, adding, “seriously.” There’s also a link to a video in which NIDA scientists make detailed presentations on steroids. Another blog post discusses speculation about what impact, if any, Michael Jackson’s prescription-drug use may have had on his death.

The NIDA, a part of the National Institutes of Health, calls itself the "federal focal point" for research on drug abuse and addiction. The institute puts out a lot of resources for students, which can be accessed through the blog link above. Once you've had a look, tell me how the blog compares with other health and health-science educational resources you’ve seen. How much use would this have for teachers—and for teens?

Photo image from the Sara Bellum Blog

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In our latest issue, I explore Singapore's efforts—successful, by many accounts—to transform its career-and-technical education programs.

When American educators think of Singapore, they usually focus on the tiny nation's domination of international tests in math and science. Government officials in the Asian country had to overcome many parents' stereotypes of voc-ed. programs as repositories for low-performing students who were heading into dead-end jobs. When the education officials revamped the programs, forged stronger ties between schools and industries, and took other steps, the parents came around.

What can voc-ed. programs in the United States learn from Singapore's approach, if anything?

Photo by Kris LeBoutillier for Education Week

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The writer Chris Mooney has come out with a new book on a topic that will probably be of interest to many readers of this blog: scientific illiteracy.

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, examines “how religious ideologues, a weak education system, science-phobic politicians, and the corporate media” are contributing to Americans' misunderstandings about science, and looks at how “hyperspecialized scientists have thus far failed to counter" that trend.

A few years ago Mooney authored The Republican War on Science, so his ideological views may be a couple clicks removed from your own. But a perusal of his latest book, co-authored with Sheril Kirshenbaum, a marine scientist, shows him touching on some provocative issues, and girding his arguments with some startling (and for scientists) disheartening facts, such as 46 percent of Americans believing the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (as opposed to roughly 4 billion). Mooney and Kirshenbaum address, among other issues, the decline of journalism and science journalism as contributing to American illiteracy on these topics. And no, he says, blogging just can’t make up the slack: Given its emphasis on speed and volume, they write, science blogging “can rarely serve as a real substitute for in-depth, considered, professional science journalism of the sort that is now in demonstrable decline—the kind of time-consuming writing that canvasses researchers, peruses the literature, and truly penetrates into where science is headed and why it matters.”

And moreover:

“The single biggest blogging negative, however, is the grouping together of people who already agree about everything, and who then proceed to square and cube their agreements, becoming increasingly self-assured and intolerant of other viewpoints. Thus, blogging about science has brought out, in some cases, the loud, angry, nasty, and profanity-strewing minority of the science world that denounces the rest of America for its ignorance and superstition.”

Scientists need to be far more active in the public sphere and in the political arena, Mooney and Kirshenbaum argue, because after all, they know their subjects best and why it matters. (I've touched on this topic a bit in the past.) They discuss what they see as a disconnect between business and education advocates' interest in improving math and science, as evidenced in reports such as Rising Above the Gathering Storm, and the relative apathy shown toward bridging the "science-society" gap. Too much science teaching, particularly in physics and chemistry, is uninspired, they say, at one point quoting from the National Academies’ study, America’s Lab Report.

Teachers at all grades have been struggling to improve the quality of labs and science lessons for years, of course. Whether Unscientific America will lead policymakers and educators to think about that challenge in different ways remains to be seen.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press offers a glimpse into how the public regards the work of scientists, and how scientists themselves see their work.

The survey finds that a strong majority of Americans believe science has had a positive effect on society and makes life easier for most people. Yet when asked to rank scientific advances among the United States’ great achievements, the public appears to be less impressed than it was a decade ago. Just 27 percent of Americans rank scientific breakthroughs in that category, compared to 47 percent in 1999, according to the survey, which was conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The survey sheds light on some of the well-documented gaps in the public’s thinking about scientific topics, compared with the views of scientists. Eighty-four percent of scientists think the earth is getting warmer because of human activity (and there's considerable evidence to back up that claim), but only 49 percent of the public shares that view. Eighty-seven percent of scientists say humans and other things have evolved, whereas just 32 percent of the public believes that. These divides help explain the controversies that break out over the teaching of evolution and climate change in many public school classrooms, despite scientists’ views of those issues' importance.

The survey also suggests, that many scientists are pained by these public misconceptions. Asked about the United States’ greatest scientific failure over the last 20 years, 37 percent of scientists polled cited lack of progress on specific issues (alternative energy, stem cells, the Super Collider and so on) while the second-largest total, 21 percent, cited the failure to communicate with and educate the American public about science.

I should note that many scientists say we ink-stained wretches aren’t helping as much as we might: 76 percent of scientists polled say news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-supported by evidence and consensus and those that aren’t. How can scientists better convey information about what they do every day to teachers, parents, and students, and the press? And could their efforts really have an impact on improved science education?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For readers in the Washington area, biotechnology and science advocates are staging an event on Tuesday on the future of science education. It will look at how to strengthen science instruction in the nation's classrooms and at what role bioscience education can and should play. I've written a bit about efforts to integrate biotechnology into classrooms, as well as nanotechnology, which appears to be a growing area of interest among science educators.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

State and federal policymakers, academic researchers and others have spent a lot of time thinking about how to increase the pool of U.S. students with interest and talent in math and science who study those subjects in college, and choose careers in related fields.

Today, a coalition of business and education advocates have unveiled a computerized "simulation and modeling" tool aimed at providing insight on that topic. The modeling device will allow policymakers, researchers, and pretty much anybody with sufficient time and computer know-how to crunch data on students, teachers, and workforce trends in STEM to evaluate various education policies. The "U.S. STEM Education Model" uses complex algorithms and allows users to adjust for more than 200 individual variables—everything from class size to teacher pay. You can try out the site at http://www.stemnetwork.org. IT requires simulation software, which the Raytheon officials have told me you can download for free.

UPDATE: This afternoon I attended an event where the STEM simulation model was unveiled and put through a series of test-runs. Two of Raytheon’s top engineers who designed it, Brian Wells and Alex Sanchez, talked about a few of the questions they’ve sought to answer about K-12 and college STEM efforts, through early experiments with the system. Some of their simulations produced intriguing results:

—The first year of college, rather than any stop along the way in K-12, is the “greatest leverage point” for determining whether students with math and science talent graduate with STEM degrees. A relatively small percentage of students who show an interest in STEM majors end up persevering and completing a degree in those majors, Raytheon officials said.

This finding, if borne out by other research, would seem to have big implications for education policy. What is it about the first year of college STEM classes that is scaring talented students away? Could it be that high schools are actually producing more and more capable STEM talent than many believe? Or is the K-12 system not preparing students for the rigors of a freshman-year math or science course?

In an interesting twist, one audience member asked the Raytheon speakers if, given all the attention that’s paid to the supposedly weak teacher corps in K-12, the model had any way of evaluating the skills of college STEM faculty. One of the presenters responded that the computer-modeling program had not yet established a definition of a STEM-capable college teacher.

—Keeping the best teachers in STEM classrooms is important, the model suggested, and “increasing the attrition” of less capable ones is also big.

—Efforts to reduce class size, such as what’s been attempted in California, are likely to be hindered by shortages of qualified teachers, the model showed. “We could have run that [model] and shown it in a matter of minutes,” one of the Raytheon officials said of California’s struggles to find enough teachers.

Also in attendance at the event: Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology. Gordon has called for more coordination and evidence of effectiveness among the myriad STEM-related federal programs, and he’s proposed legislation designed to bring it about. Gordon suggested that the simulation model could help give lawmakers information about whether various math and science education programs in different federal agencies are “making a difference.”

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Two organizations that have taken an interest in improving teacher education—the National Council on Teacher Quality and the National Math & Science Initiative—have released a series of recommendations on that topic. It’s called “Tackling the STEM Crisis: Five Steps Your State Can Take to Improve the Quality and Quantity of Its K-12 Math and Science Teachers.” It’s not really limited to five categories, though.

While many of the ideas aren’t new, the authors aptly lay out several of the (often peculiar and counterintuitive) facts about how the United States trains its teachers and assigns them to classrooms, and suggest alternatives. Some of the strategies are already being tested by individual states, and the document, in a series of footnotes, cites those efforts.

A few of the document’s recommendations for states:

—Require aspiring teachers to pass basic-skills tests to get into education schools, or, if the state already does this, consider raising the passing requirements. In some states, applicants can be accepted after getting only 40 percent of the questions right, the authors say.

—Adopt a “3/1” set of course requirements for elementary math teachers. The three math courses shouldn’t be in any math course, but rather in areas specific to teaching, in topics such as algebra, geometry, and foundational math. The “1” in the 3/1 is a methods course for teaching math. Candidates should also be allowed to test out of math-content classes, if they have a strong background in the material, according to the authors.

—Create model science-course requirements for elementary science teachers. Most states have “scattershot” requirements for these teachers now, the document says, leaving it up to future teachers to choose a focus in their coursework. The NMSI/NCTQ document says elementary teachers should be forced to take relevant coursework across all primary science fields, meaning biology, chemistry, and physics.

—Put some “teeth” into elementary licensing tests, requiring content-specific knowledge, rather than generalist knowledge. See Massachusetts as an example of a state already moving in this direction.

—At the middle school level, states should close loopholes that allow math and science teacher-candidates to begin work with a K-8 generalist license. All future middle school teachers, the document says, whether teaching in grades K-8, 6-8, or 7-9, need to earn a middle school license or subject-area license for grades 7-12, it states.

—In hiring/recruitment, many states and school districts offer good pensions and health retirement plans for teachers who enter at the age of 50 and are willing to work 10 years. States need to aggressively tout these benefits in recruiting teachers, the authors argue.

—State superintendents in many states have the authority to issue "licensing waivers" for people wishing to enter the profession. They should do this, particularly to lure skilled part-timers into the classroom to teach courses in calculus, chemistry, and other subjects.

NMSI has trying to help states forge new strategies for bringing more, and better-qualified STEM teachers into the system, by promoting the national replication of the “UTeach” model at the University of Texas. I’ve offered just a few of this document's recommendations. After you’ve had a look, give me your thoughts. How feasible are these suggestions, and how far are states and districts from implementing them on a large scale?

Photo by Michael P. Farrell for Digital Directions

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sixty-five percent of Americans cannot, according to a recent survey.

I don't see a comparable estimate of U.S. knowledge of famous male scientists, so hard to know if American ignorance in this area is gender-specific.The good news, if you're someone who wants to see more girls entering scientific fields, is that strong majorities of Americans believe females are underrepresented in such professions and would like to see the government invest more to lure them into those occupations. The survey, titled "Women, Science, and Success: The New Face of Innovation," was conducted by L'Oreal USA, the American subsidiary of the international cosmetics, perfume, and beauty corporation.

The first female scientist who came to mind for me, for whatever reason, was primatologist Jane Goodall (to the right). Who's yours?

Photo by Jean-Marc Bouju/AP-File

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Kichoon Yang begins work this week as the new executive director of the 100,000-member National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which holds significant sway over the math strategies used in American classrooms. He replaces Jim Rubillo, who last year announced his intention to retire from the post.

Yang comes to NCTM having most recently served as provost and professor at Northwest Missouri State University, positions he has held since 2005. Before that, he was dean of the College of Natural Sciences and professor of mathematics at the University of Northern Iowa from 2001 through 2004. He was also a program director in the Division of Mathematical Sciences at the National Science Foundation for three years. Earlier, he served for 12 years on the mathematics faculty at Arkansas State University.

The new exec director, in a statement, said he was both thrilled and "humbled by the opportunity, knowing how important mathematics education is to the future of our nation."

NCTM, based in Reston, Va., publishes voluntary national standards that have shaped instruction and curriculum around the country. In 2006, the organization released "Curriculum Focal Points," a document that spells out priorities for teaching math in elementary and middle school. The organization is planning to release a similar document for upper grades later this year. NCTM had voiced concerns about not being included in ongoing discussions about creating common standards in reading and math, but the group's president, Hank Kepner, is one of several people who will serve on an advisory panel for the group, as this EdWeek story explains.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Count a parents' coalition as one of the interest groups asking for a say in the ongoing, multi-state effort to draft common standards, which is being led by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

The organization, which calls itself the United States Coalition for World Class Math, is a group of parents, mathematicians, and other interested parties from across the country. You can read more about their principles on their Web site. Generally speaking, they believe mathematicians should have a strong role in shaping math standards; that the math standards of states like Massachusetts should serve as a model for the new, multi-state effort; and that the principles of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel should guide the Common Core.

The National Math Panel, which released its final report last year, won praise from many quarters, but also criticism from those who said it advocated too narrow an approach to teaching that subject. In general, many of the coalition's guiding principles present what some might consider a "back to basics" position, as staked out in the various math wars: the limited use of calculators in elementary school, an emphasis on standard algorithms, and so on. Yet many of the coalition's views, if you read through their positions, are not so easy to pigeonhole. The coalition's press release comes a few weeks after the influential National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, among other organizations, asked for a greater role in Common Core.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)

The 21st- century skills movement is making a push into the world of science and geography, with two organizations that support teaching in those subjects unveiling curriculum "maps" aimed at blending academic content knowledge in those subjects with practical skills.

The maps seek to give teachers examples of how 21st Century skills—which emphasize problem-solving and communication skills—can be meshed with specific lessons. The maps provide a desired "outcome" for students by topic and grade level, then an example of how teachers could work toward that outcome in the classroom.

For example, at the 12th grade level, the science curriculum map says that students, as an outcome, should be able to "explain why mathematical equations and formulae are used as representations of scientific phenomena and as a means of communicating scientific ideas." As an example, it says a teacher should ask students to design an observational or experimental investigation to "explore mathematical relationships commonly applied in science" at an appropriate difficulty level by collecting and analyzing data to support an evidence-based description of a mathematical relationship. In an algebra lesson, students might explore change over time by measuring the initial circumferences of several balloons filled with helium and several filled by air exhaled from their lungs, make additional measurements at intervals, plot the changes in size versus time, discuss the different rates of change for the two types of balloons, and determine the mathematical equations describing the results.

The maps are the product of a collaboration between the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, the National Science Teachers Association, and the National Council for Geographic Education. Maps for social studies and English were released last year.

Once you've had a chance to explore the outcomes and skills described, give me your opinion. Should teachers be nurturing these skills in science and geography lessons? And are these documents going about it in the right way?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Few areas of education have proved as politically popular at the state level in recent years as efforts to improve math and science through teacher education and professional development, outreach activities to students, and other means. Governors, state legislators, and state boards of education in both Republican- and Democratic-dominated states, often at the urging of the business lobby, have taken up the cause.

Yet a story in the Lansing (Mich.) State Journal is a reminder that as budget pressures mount, legislators are facing increasing pressure to cut math and science programs, too.

State lawmakers in Michigan are considering chopping $2.5 million out of a program that has created 33 math and science centers to help students and teachers around the state, in communities from Detroit to the Upper Peninsula. As other states scour their budgets for cuts, will math and science programs be relatively insulated, or vulnerable?

Perhaps not suprisingly, amid states' woes, several philanthropies, as well as the federal government, seem to be holding firm with their commitments. Grants from Exxon Mobil, which has taken a major interest in math and science teacher training in recent years, and the U.S. Department of Education continue to flow to "STEM"-related programs in communities across the country.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The idea of teaching in a rural school might seem appealing for many educators. In a profession where salaries are relatively modest, depending on the state and district, why not work someplace where the cost of living is low? It's also worth noting that, as educators often wish that parents were more involved in students' academic lives, small-town life has its advantages. There’s a good chance that teachers will get to know parents—running into them at the supermarket, at the movie theater, at the local football game. Whether they like it or not.

Unfortunately, many rural districts struggle to attract and keep teachers, particularly in areas like math and science. In some cases, teachers who come to small or remote districts find themselves pining for the attractions of a bigger city or professional opportunities they believe a larger district can provide. I’ve written about efforts by universities and federal officials to provide additional training to rural teachers in math and science, in the hope of persuading them to stick around.

An Indiana program, run by Purdue University and other institutions in Indiana, appears to have a similar mission. Fifty-eight teachers, out of 300 applicants, were chosen to take part in the rural educators’ program, which will provide them with $30,000 stipends and additional tuition assistance. They’ll also receive training, through efforts such as “STEM Goes Rural,” run by Purdue, according to a story in the Associated Press.

For college students and career-changers considering math or science teaching, how much a factor are geographic considerations? We’ve written about the long-standing struggle to staff urban schools with qualified teachers. Are the needs of rural districts being underplayed?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Let’s say you’re a middle school science teacher tasked with improving the achievement of 8th graders through textbook lessons, lab experiments, tests, in-class demonstrations, or some combo of all of them. What lessons and techniques work best? A new study seeks to provide answers.

The study, produced by a Boston College scholar and researchers from the Educational Testing Service, identifies a number of strategies that the authors say are connected with higher test scores. They include having students read science textbooks, in which test scores were shown to increase with the frequency of reading texts. Other positive strategies included having students perform hands-on activities, write extended answers to science test questions, discuss measurements and results from lab activities, and work with other students on science activities or projects. Many of those activities are as standard as can be in classrooms, of course; others, maybe not.

Several other approaches were also found to be effective in science, when used in moderation, the study found. These included having students watch teacher-led demonstrations, take science tests, prepare written science reports, and (journalists, rejoice!) discuss science in the news. Perhaps not surprisingly, students reported that reading science textbooks, doing hands-on experiments, and participating in teacher-led activities were common in their classes.

But what strategies are associated with lower average scores? Having students give oral reports on science did not produce results, the study found. Intriguingly, neither did having them use library resources in science. Are students given too little direction with these library assignments? Are they pushed to understand scientific facts, and think like scientists?

The authors were Henry Braun, of BC, and Richard Coley, Yue Jia, and Catherine Trapani of ETS. They used statistical analyses such as hierarchical linear modeling to probe students’ scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. They drew from federal data collected from students and teachers, including information about educators’ classroom techniques, in coming up with conclusions. While the authors acknowledge that information collected from student responses can be unreliable, the overall findings “cannot blithely be interpreted casually.” They also say that “the consistency across the different analyses…suggests these finding should be taken seriously” and serve as a foundation for more research.

The authors further note that their findings are consistent with some of those made in previous reports, such as the National Research Council’s “Taking Science to School.” That study called for students to master a relatively small number of science topics, but also become adept at the processes and approaches used by actual scientists—generating and judging scientific evidence, for instance.

What kinds of teachers were most effective in raising test scores? Those with standard teaching certificates did better, but only by a slight margin, the authors found. In addition, teachers whose total experience exceeds their science-teaching experience did slightly worse. I would assume that those educators would be middle school teachers who were generalists, perhaps brought into science teaching after they’d been in the profession a while.

The report is certain to prompt debate about the balance between teacher- and student-led classroom activities, hands-on experiments and textbook learning, and so on. If you’re a science teacher, do you find these conclusions surprising? Has it reinforced or contradicted your notions of what works?

Photo by Michael Dwyer for Education Week

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new Web site that performs very complex math calculations at breakneck speed is causing controversy among some math experts, who wonder if it will discourage students from being forced to work out problems the old-fashioned way.

As this nice story in the Chronicle of Higher Education rightly notes, it's a variation on the unceasing debate over the role of calculators in math classes, rewritten for the age of the math super-engine.

The online tool, called WolframAlpha, was created by Stephen Wolfram, the entrepreneur who invented Mathematica, one of the first computer math engines. It basically provides answers to questions that viewers type into a box. The site then uses a math engine, known as a “computer algebra system," to pump out an answer, the article explains. (There are other easy-to-use features unrelated to math, which I tested, such as a search tool which can spit out information for any given date—such as a birthday, or a location, or a publicly traded stock.)

These online math engines are not new, the story says, but they typically charge users a hefty fee, unlike WolframAlpha, which is free. "The goal of WolframAlpha is to bring high-level mathematics to the masses, by letting users type in problems in plain English and delivering instant results," the story says.

The story focuses mostly on the implications for higher education, rather than K-12, presumably because a lot more pretty advanced math goes on there. College faculty seem divided on whether to embrace the technology or ban it. For everybody who's coped with questions over calculators' place in classrooms, this will sound very familiar. For the math teachers and mathematicians out there: Do you think WolframAlpha has the potential to affect math teaching on any significant scale in high schools, or even earlier grades?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Like the gold miners of yesteryear, the nation's publishers appear to be setting out for California, hoping to stake their claims in a new online textbook market.

Well, maybe the interest was not quite that intense. But Since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced plans to give districts access to free, online math and science textbooks, beginning at the high school level, the state has received interest from nine publishers, large and small. I've heard of some of them. Others were unfamiliar. The list includes Connexions, the Wellesley-Cambridge Press, Curriki, and what appear to be offers from individuals with experience in the biz. Schwarzenegger seems to have been particularly enthused about the interest of one major publisher, Pearson Education, going so far as to single out their participation in a statement. The governor and other state officials argue the digital movement will save the cash-bereft state money, and reinforce students' tech skills. Others have their doubts. Should we be surprised that even more publishers haven't expressed interest in California's plans for online high school texts?

The governor had established a June 15 deadline for publishers to put forward their proposals. He's also set an ambitious target for having the state review their materials and create an approved list, saying he wants it done by this fall. Other states (and publishers) are bound to be watching developments in the Golden State very closely.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:21 PM | Permalink

States have a message for career-changers thinking of math and science teaching careers: We want you!

A number of states have launched or are planning initiatives aimed at loosening state certification requirements and drawing people who haven’t gone through the traditional teacher-college route into the profession. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell says he will ask state lawmakers to establish a “residency teaching certificate” in subject areas where the state’s education secretary determines there’s a state or regional shortage.

To get that certification, candidates must have either a bachelor’s degree with five years of relevant work experience, a master's with two years’ relevant experience, or a doctoral degree in a subject field. They would also have to complete a four-month training program that covers areas ranging from instructional strategies to using tests to child development.

The residency certificate would be good for three years under Rendell’s plan. The governor argues that the proposal would not only put more math and science teachers in schools; it would also potentially make Pennsylvania eligible for more federal “Race to the Top” funding, the pool of money the feds have set aside for school innovation.

At the risk of stoking border-state antipathy, I have to wonder if the Pennsylvanians were motivated at least in part by what's going on in neighboring New Jersey. Last month, state lawmakers in Trenton approved an 18-month pilot program to allow individuals with bachelor’s degrees in math and science to become certified as teachers. In an economy where a lot of qualified people are out of work, what state leader would want to see math and science talent migrate to classrooms out of state? New Jersey's program would require candidates to pass a state subject-matter test, among other steps, for eligibility, according to the Philadelphia Business Journal.

But these kinds of fast-track programs for teachers sometimes draw objections from teacher colleges, and that’s what appears to be happening in Michigan. A proposal from the Michigan Department of Education aims to give out-of-work professionals the opportunity to get into the classroom within 15 months, according to this story in the Detroit Free Press.

In a state with lots of out-of-work engineers and others with tech skills, guiding them into the classroom would seem to make sense. The Michigan plan comes not long after the state's adoption of tougher math and science graduation requirements, which many predicted would create the need for new teachers. Yet the story quotes a number of teacher college officials who worry about a dilution of quality in math and science classrooms. One of the skeptics even questions whether the state has a math and science teacher shortage, given the numbers of educators being churned out in the state. One ed college dean says a more targeted program, focused on cultivating teachers for high-need districts, would be a better way to go.

Even so, the momentum for these fast-track efforts clearly has grown. State and business leaders are fixated on math and science education, believing it will drive the future economy (and improve test scores).

What I’m less clear about is this: Will the dour economy lead more math-and-science- oriented career-changers into the classroom? Will the flow of federal stimulus money create a more stable job market for them? And perhaps most importantly: Will these people sink or swim in the classroom, and will students benefit?

Image of Uncle Sam courtesy of Library of Congress.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The American Institutes for Research have released a study that allows for the comparison of U.S. states and cities with foreign nations, using a standard, and very familiar measure: letter grades. We've published a story about the study, authored by Gary Phillips, on our web site and in this week's print issue. Phillips uses statistical methodology to link state and city scores on a prominent domestic test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, with an international exam, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS. The report will be discussed at a forum in Washington today.

One particularly-easy-to-use Web tool is worth an additional mention, however. On its Web site, the AIR has a feature that allows readers to get a quick comparison of where their states stack up in 4th and 8th grade math. You're curious how well Iowa does? Its 4th graders score a C+ grade, statistically at the same level as England, Latvia, and Lithuania, but well below high-flying Singapore (B+) and not as well as Japan (B). What about New Mexico in 8th grade? A straight C, according to the scale, statistically on par with Scotland, Serbia, and Italy, among others.

(Photo courtesy of NASA)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple items worth catching up on today:

The medical-technology corporation Medtronic Inc., will provide a $1.4 million grant to support Teach For America’s efforts to find, keep, and train math and science teachers. The award follows an earlier amount of money given by Medtronic in 2007. The latest amount will support additional training for TFA educators through online resources and other means, according to a statement from Medtronic. The money will also pay for the possible expansion of TFA’s program in Minnesota this year and to enhance ongoing efforts in Memphis, Tenn., and Jacksonville, Fla., where Medtronic, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, also has facilities. Teach For America, for those not familiar with the program, prepares top graduates of colleges to work in disadvantaged schools for at least two years. The program has seen a surge in the number of applicants recently.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives, by a wide margin, approved a bill designed to improve coordination among federal agencies that support work on science, technology, engineering, and math, or “STEM” education. The “STEM Education Coordination Act of 2009,” was approved by a vote of 353-39. Several federal lawmakers, and President Obama, have said the government should do more to figure out what STEM programs are doing what, by agency, to avoid duplication and increase their effectiveness.

A federal report released a couple years ago said that the federal governments spends about $3 billion annually on STEM education programs, with roughly $570 million devoted specifically to K-12 STEM. Yet little is known about the impact of those programs, the report said.

And finally, Rice University mathematician Richard Tapia argues in an essay that computer-technology programs are not only failing to close achievement gaps, they may be widening them. Tapia's essay, published in Computerworld, is excerpted from an afterword he's written for a book by Jane Margolis, Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Tapia describes his sometimes difficult journey from the Los Angeles Unified School District through undergraduate and graduate studies in math, and, as I interpret it, says that students need the math and science grounding to use technology effectively. Here's a taste from Tapia's essay:

"Highly touted technology and computer education programs, billed as closing the minority-majority education gap, are not only failing, they are actually widening the gap in a dangerous manner. ...

"A clear message of [Margolis'] book is that better computer science, indeed science, will not come from being stuck in the shallow end, no matter how good the technology is at that end of the pool, because the tools are not being used properly. Minority students in high school are in danger of being made technologically rich but cognitively poor. In the shallow end they are not encouraged to be innovative or to pursue paths leading to high-end technology jobs. Yet this is what the nation so desperately needs. Better technology comes from better science and better science comes from the proper use of better technology. It is a cycle, to be sure, but it need not be a vicious one. Students simply need clearer pathways into it and support once they arrive."

A few sample chapters from Margolis' book are also available online. After you've given both Margolis' and Tapia's arguments a look, let me know what you make of their arguments.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:13 AM | Permalink

The organization that runs the PISA test released a report recently that compares the performance of the highest-scoring students in science, by country. As with many of these international studies, the conclusions you'll draw will depend on your beliefs and expectations—what standard should we expect from U.S. students, compared with, say, their peers in Finland or Japan? And what can these tests really tell us?

The report, titled “Top of the Class,” shows American schools meeting the average for developed nations in the percentage of 15-year-olds reaching the top two levels of performance (levels 5 and 6) in science—about 9 percent. (See Figure 1.1, and Table A1.1). Many nations top us in that category, however, particularly traditional high-performers Finland (21 percent) and Japan (15 percent), as well as New Zealand (17.6 percent), Canada (14 percent) and Germany (12 percent), among others.

The report also points out that countries' ability to churn out top-tier science students is only “weakly related” to those nations' average performance. In other words, some nations show large proportions of 15-year-olds reaching the highest levels on PISA and relatively few poor-performers, while other nations produce a lot of the cream of the cream, with large numbers of students lagging far behind. In addition, the authors say, the makeup of high-performers in different countries are all over the map. Some nations produce large numbers of high-performers regardless of gender, ethnic origin, language barriers or socioeconomic status. Others do not.

“It is particularly encouraging that in some education systems significant proportions of students with disadvantaged backgrounds achieve high levels of excellence, which suggests that there is no inevitable trade-off between excellence and equity in education,” the authors say.

A lot of people will no doubt be troubled by the United States’ relatively small proportion of top-performers. Others, like Gerald Bracey, have another take. In an e-mail, the education researcher notes that when you look at the raw numbers of top-performing students produced by countries, the United States dominates, producing 25 percent of the pie, mostly because of its large population. Japan is our closet competitor, at 13 percent. The Finns, by contrast, produce only about 1 percent. (See Figure 1.2) I've heard other researchers make the same point.

A couple other findings: Top-performers tend to spend more time on in-school lessons than out-of-school science activities. The authors note, however, that this info is difficult to interpret, because the quality and purpose of out-of-school lessons vary a lot by country, such as between South Korea and the United States.

The report also includes a lot of interesting data looking at the connection of science performance to other things—such as student motivation. It found a “strong and direct relationship between science performance and frequency of participation in student-initiated science activities.” (Pages 58-59). The report also concludes that top-performers reported a much stronger degree of enjoyment in science than those at lower levels. More than 80 percent of the top performers "reported that they enjoy acquiring new knowledge in science, are interested in learning about science, and generally have fun when learning science. However, this was the case for less than 50% of the lowest performers.”

A lot of reputable researchers urge caution in over-interpreting the PISA results, as I reported from a gathering of top U.S. ed statistics folks last week. There’s also disagreement about the connection between students’ enthusiasm for subjects like science and math, and their performance in it. And some American officials are less than thrilled with the OECD issuing what sounds like policy recommendations based on its research. Here's a statement from the OECD's "Top of the Class" report:

“In sum, educational excellence goes hand in hand with promoting student engagement and enjoyment of science learning both inside and outside school,” the executive summary states. “The payoff is quite significant: a large and diverse talent pool ready to take up the challenge of a career in science. In today’s global economy, it is the opportunity
to compete on innovation and technology.”

What do you make of the OECD findings about elite performers in science? And does the report provide clues on how U.S. schools better nurture this talent?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A commission, formed by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Institute for Advanced Study, released a report today that calls for government, philanthropic, college, and K-12 officials to work together to raise both public awareness and student performance in math and science.

Those two goals, the report says, are firmly connected. To get there, the report's authors call for action from major players in the public and private sectors. They also endorse the recent multistate "Common Core" standards venture launched by governors and schools chiefs, and say the federal government and all states should do the same thing. It so happens that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was expected to attend an event today in Washington to coincide with the report's unveiling.

While the "Common Core" effort is now focused on math and language arts, the report urges that the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers take on science as the next subject. In an interview this week, Gene Wilhoit of CCSSO told me there is strong interest among state officials in that subject. "I'm pretty sure there will be an initiative around science," he said.

If the Common Core undertaking moves ahead in science, the report recommends organizing the document around a report issued a few years ago by the National Research Council, titled "Taking Science to School," which identified "strands" for student proficiency in science.

The report calls for significant changes in how colleges train aspiring math and science teachers, asking them to redesign courses to align with the curricular priorities outlined in the report. It also asks those institutions to revamp their programs to encourage more of their students to enter math and science teaching, and to do much more to track their experiences, and their success, after graduation.

Philanthropies are asked to fund research "that strengthens the evidence base" in math and science, and the federal government is asked to back research on the effects of new standards and assessments on student performance and classroom instruction. Many people and organizations, including the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, have called for higher-quality research on what strategies in curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluating teacher quality work best. Many panelists were surprised by the lack of such research, given the strong national interest in improving math teaching.

One more intriguing item about math. The report is one of the first I've seen that calls for government officials, colleges, and K-12 leaders to create a pathway to college that doesn't necessarily involve going through calculus. This path should be "equally rigorous" to the calculus path, and it could feature a deep study of statistics, data analysis, and applied math, the report says.

There's been growing interest among organizations like Achieve in creating these alternative-to-calculus high school courses. It's a tricky issue. As I reported last year, some researchers and K-12 officials believe the push to get more students into calculus is in fact scaring students away from taking rigorous math late in high school and in college. Some high school seniors worry they're not ready for calculus, but they don't have any other options—like, say, a demanding applied-math class. So they take no math as a senior, and struggle with college-level math (or avoid it entirely) as a result.

After you've looked at the report, give me your thoughts. Could the momentum that has built around the Common Core effort also occur with the priorities identified in the report? Or are their goals unrealistic?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Academic scholars, as well as educators, have debated the link between students' enthusiasm for academic work and its connection to learning. If an activity can be made fun, will that help a child pick up new knowledge?

David Geary, a professor of psychological sciences at the University of Missouri, explores this topic in a recent, provocative study in the journal Educational Psychologist. Some of you may be familiar with Geary through his work as a member of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, but he has an extensive background in cognitive developmental psychology. His study, published late last year, examines what he calls "evolutionary educational psychology," or the connection between evolution and culture, and the role the schools play in helping students acquire new knowledge.

The process of evolution, Geary says in the study, has resulted in students being able to acquire certain types of new knowledge and skills in a relatively "effortless" manner, through processes that are "child-centered" and fun. These evolutionary processes have helped ease students' acquisition of language, for instance, and their understanding of living and nonliving things. Children are “motivated to develop social relationships and learn social skills from their peers, because we are a social species and thus biases to learn social skills are built-in and evolved,” Geary explained to me in an e-mail.

Schools have attempted to use child-centered and fun methods, in the belief that students' natural curiosity will lead them to take on certain, more difficult tasks, like learning to read or do fractions, in the same way they learn language or how to count, he says. But Geary argues that explicit, teacher-directed instruction will be needed for many children to learn more unfamiliar and difficult, or “evolutionarily novel information.” Evolution “has not provided the scaffolding for this learning,” Geary told me. And so “the scaffolding must come from instructional materials and teachers.” Schools should not expect students to be motivated to learn this evolutionarily novel information in the same way they are motivated to learn through social relationships. “There is no such inherent motivation to learn linear algebra or Newtonian physics,” he said. If schools help students understand that effort is necessary and important, children will have a “greater sense of personal control over their learning,” and more sustained focus and motivation as they get older, he writes in the study.

Geary noted that he is not arguing that classroom activities such as strict repetition are always the best way to teach all “evolutionarily novel” knowledge and abilities, only that they will be needed in some cases. Here’s a press release from the University of Missouri that explains some of the study’s main points. Geary fully acknowledges that the study’s conclusions have proved controversial. He’s had a number of researchers challenge his arguments since his paper was published, and he’s responded to them.

Educators—and evolutionary biologists: What do you make of Geary’s arguments?

Photo of the godfather of evolution, Charles Darwin, to the right.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently announced plans to have his state digitalize its math and science textbooks, took to the opinion pages recently to make his case.

In this op-ed piece in the San Jose Mercury-News, the governor basically makes three main arguments in favor of putting textbooks online, as I read it: 1) The move will save his revenue-challenged state a lot of money, as in many millions of dollars over time; 2) many of the texts used in classrooms become outdated not long after they're printed; and 3) the digital wave may scare us old fogies, but the Twitter generation is completely ready for the change. He also says the state can ensure that digital texts meet the state's academic standards and are high-quality.

Should be interesting to see where opposition to this proposal—"those who ardently defend the status quo," as the governor puts it—comes from. This item, published by Ars Technica, a group that writes about technology, including "open source" efforts, says that there was talk of putting free classroom materials online a few years ago, in history, but that went nowhere.

Schwarzenegger caps his commentary by suggesting that education officials can learn from the music and newspaper industries, which have discovered that "those who adapt quickly to changing consumer and business demands will thrive in our increasingly digital society and worldwide economy."

And the world's print journalists breathe an anguished sigh.

UPDATE: I’d asked who might be opposed to this digital education effort in California. Well, this story in the San Francisco Chronicle isn’t discussing the opposition, exactly, but it lays out the potential hurdles to making this online program happen. One major concern of the education officials quoted in the article, including state schools superintendent Jack O’Connell, is that the digital effort, despite promises of cost savings, will bring new costs of its own. Schools will have to add technology; teachers will have to be trained, the story says. A spokeswoman for the state’s secretary of education, however, argues that the savings will come, as districts find ways to print, download, and otherwise make innovative use of the free, online math and science curricula.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

This is just a reminder to our readers that EdWeek is hosting an online chat tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1 p.m. Eastern, on the role of informal science activities in education. What activities are we talking about? They could include everything from trips to zoos, museums, and science centers to TV shows, films, computer games, and talks between parents and children.

Our guests are two experts in the field: Heidi Schweingruber of the National Research Council, and Andrew Shouse of the University of Washington's Institute for Science and Mathematics Education. See this story I wrote on a major study released by the research council earlier this year, which both our guests worked on, for background.

So get your questions ready. To view the chat, or sign up for an e-mail reminding you to do so, go to this site.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This opinion piece, published in Florida's Gainesville Sun, explores some of the issues that worry science educators about the high-stakes testing movement. Brandon Haught, a spokesman for Florida Citizens for Science, argues that the design of Florida's state science tests, and way test results are used, aren't promoting good teaching and learning in that subject.

At a glance, Florida seems like an unlikely locale for a science advocate to make that argument. Just last year, Florida approved new science standards, which despite a major tussle over the teaching of evolution, won general praise from the scientific community for their broad and deep approach to science. Another fact in Florida's favor: Florida uses science test scores for state accountability purposes, which I believe makes it one of only a few.

Haught, whose organization was heavily involved in the evolution fight, argues that scores from Florida's science test, which is currently given at grades 5, 8, and 11, should also be used in determining whether students are retained in a grade and whether they graduate. They don't now. As a result, he argues, schools are continually "scrambling to find ways to motivate students to take the test seriously and to even show up in the first place."

He also says that the science tested at various grade levels on the FCAT, as the state's test is known, is too broad. Teachers wind up rushing to cover certain science topics, out of sequence, Haught says. In addition, the test is more about reading comprehension than understanding science, he contends. This is a common complaint about testing, across subjects.

What do you make of Haught's concerns about the science FCAT? Do other states' tests have similar flaws, in your view?

UPDATE: See Haught's comment, below. He says I misunderstood one of his points, and that he's not arguing for using the FCAT science for retention/graduation purposes. He says he would merely like to see the 11th grade science test replaced with an end-of-course exam. He explains this in more detail in a blog post found in his comment.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

As state leaders and school chiefs from 46 states press ahead with plans for common standards, an organization that has held major sway on how math is taught in this country is asking for a seat at the table.

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which has 100,000 members, this week released “Guiding Principles for Mathematics Curriculum and Assessments.” It's basically a statement describing the organization’s extensive work on standards, and more importantly, its beliefs about the core content and ideas that should guide math teaching. NCTM released voluntary national standards in 1989 and a revised version of them in 2000. For two decades, those documents have shaped how math is taught in classrooms from coast to coast, from elementary through high school.

NCTM has its critics, of course, who accuse it of foisting “fuzzy math,” which strays from basic skills, on teachers and students. But it also has legions of supporters, and there’s no denying the group’s influence. More recently, NCTM in 2006 published “Curriculum Focal Points” which offered focused guidance for how to teach elementary and middle school math. That document won praise from some of NCTM’s former detractors. It was also cited by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel as an important reference document, in its examination of how to prepare students for algebra (the panel also cited the curricula of high-performing countries like South Korea, Japan, and Singapore).

“The continuing discussions about common core standards or a national curriculum should be based on the work that has already been done,” NCTM President Hank Kepner, Jr., said in a statement. “Since any discussion of true national standards relates to the fundamental issue of local control in education, effective policy should be formed by the best current information on mathematics teaching and learning. The development of any curriculum or standards should take advantage of what has already been carefully crafted by a consensus of mathematics teachers, teacher leaders, mathematics educators, mathematicians, and researchers.”

And that investment has already been made by NCTM, he suggests. The “principles” cited by the NCTM include a focused curriculum, connections across grades, and the organization’s definition and understanding of algebra, among other topics. How these ideas would mesh with the ideas put forward by state leaders is an open question.

For instance, at a time when some state and local officials, and business types, are urging that more students take algebra earlier, NCTM’s principles say: “Algebra readiness is determined not at a prescribed grade level but when students exhibit demonstrable success with prerequisite skills. Only then should students focus explicitly and extensively on algebra, either in a course called Algebra 1 or within an integrated mathematics curriculum. Exposing students to such coursework before they are ready often leads to frustration, failure, and negative attitudes toward mathematics and learning.”

I should note that a lot of experts, some of whom very different ideas of how to teach math, share NCTM's wariness about pushing students into algebra too quickly.

The state and city officials leading the march toward multi-state standards plan to set up a "validation" committee to help shape the process. It's unclear if NCTM could be a player in that, or in some other informal capacity. My colleague Michele McNeil will have more on the common standards effort in a story this week. What role, if any, do you believe NCTM should have in the effort to create common standards? Or would that somehow complicate the process?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Former U.S. Education Secretary Richard Riley has written an opinion piece about the state of math and science education in this country, which I meant to post a couple days ago.

Riley, a former South Carolina governor who served as secretary under Bill Clinton, makes the oft-repeated case that the future job market is going to require students with sharper math and science skills. In addition to making the pitch for “common standards” around the country, he argues that school officials need to promote “entrepreneurial approaches” in education that spark changes to “the marketplace for functions such as teacher recruitment, data management, and professional development.” The column was written for the Huffington Post, a liberal blog.

He also seems to convey a message similar to one that President Obama did recently, in a speech before the National Academies: that one way to bolster the teaching of science in K-12 schools is by having actual scientists and academic researchers contribute to education programs, and get involved in promoting that subject to students and teachers.

“We must insist that our colleges and universities are at the table as full partners to the K-12 community, that science-rich institutions are fully accessed and integrated into core math and science curriculum, and that the business and philanthropic communities are pushing math and science education to the fore at every opportunity.”

I’ve written quite a bit about universities taking an interest in K-12 science, sometimes in connection to their own research projects on student achievement and engagement. In other cases, universities have taken a very different approach, sponsoring science camps and activities targeting female and minority students, in an effort to keep them interested in the subjects. And some school districts, like New York City, have formed partnerships with the “institutions” Riley refers to—zoos, museums, science centers—using their resources to supplement the science curriculum. (NYC's program is called "Urban Advantage." See a photo of a participating student, to the right.) It’s a merging of formal and informal science lessons.

I realize this may be a preposterously broad question, but how do you think schools, universities, and science institutions can work together more effectively to improve math and science education in K-12?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the most publicized and scrutinized tools for gauging U.S. students' progress on international tests is the Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA. Yesterday, a pair of researchers urged caution in drawing broad connections between specific education policies described in the reports that accompany the test and student performance in the United States and other countries.

The two speakers gave presentations at a forum called "What We Can Learn From PISA," held in Washington and hosted by the National Center for Education Statistics, the main federal office charged with crunching school data. All the speakers' talks have now been posted online.

Laura Hamilton, a senior behavior scientist at RAND, examined the link between various national school policies and achievement, which were presented in the 2006 PISA results. The PISA report, for instance, finds that ability grouping within schools to have a negative connection with student performance. Another conclusion is that public posting of school-level achievement data appears to have a positive impact. "Causal interpretations of these findings could lead to several concrete policy recommendations," Hamilton notes in her presentation. But policymakers should be wary of drawing those connections, she said. PISA collects much of its information about school policies through surveys, which can be unreliable. It also collects information about education practices for a single year, while the test is measuring the educational skills that 15-year-olds have acquired over time.

Another speaker, Robert Hauser, of the University of Wisconsin, concluded that the PISA assessment, while valuable, "over-reaches in [an] effort to draw policy implications." Hauser examines the PISA report's findings about the connection between students' socioeconomic status and their science performance. He finds that the connection between students' economic background and their achievement, as described in the report, is not as strong as is what is presented in the report.

I'm summing up these presentations very broadly. Luckily, you can review them yourself at the Web site listed above.

You'll also find several other presentations included. Longtime science curriculum expert Rodger Bybee provides "An Insider's View of the PISA Science Assessment." Former NCES Commissioner Mark Schneider examines the benefits and challenges of international benchmarking (see also our EdWeek story on this topic, and Schneider's own opinion piece from a few months ago). Former NCES Deputy Jack Buckley re-examines the connection between students' interest, or lack of it, in science and their performance. And Audrey Champagne delves into how PISA assesses "science literacy." Lots of other viewpoints are available at the site, too.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Students encounter science every day, outside formal classroom settings. These informal experiences—which occur in zoos, museums, on walks through the park, even in computer games—offer the potential to increase students' understanding and love of science, a study released earlier this year found.

Next week, at 1 p.m. on June 9, EdWeek is hosting an online chat on informal science education, which will allow readers to submit questions to researchers who've studied the topic extensively. Our guests will be Philip Bell, of the University of Washington, and Heidi Schweingruber of the National Research Council. Both of them worked on the aforementioned study, titled "Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places and Pursuits."

So get your questions ready. You will be able to access the chat through our home page, and arrange to have an e-mail reminder sent to you, under "Featured Events," at www.edweek.org, and through this link.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

President Obama, in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences last month, vowed that his administration will have federal agencies do more to inspire students to take an interest in green-energy and renewable-energy fields. The president also called for scientists to step out of their laboratories and play a stronger role in guiding students and teachers.

On the issue of urging students to take an interest in energy issues, he said:

"[T]he Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation will be launching a joint initiative to inspire tens of thousands of American students to pursue these very same careers, particularly in clean energy. It will support an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people who can help us meet the energy challenge, and will create research opportunities for undergraduates and educational opportunities for women and minorities who too often have been underrepresented in scientific and technological fields, but are no less capable of inventing the solutions that will help us grow our economy and save our planet."

I was curious to see more details about what the administration wants done in this area. A number of federal agencies, including the NSF, Department of Energy, and NASA, already sponsor outreach programs to K-12 students and teachers.

The NSF released a statement after Obama's speech pledging to support "innovative technology experiences for students and teachers." Those efforts "will assess what works and why, enable enhanced learning in the K-12 setting on topics relating to clean energy, and consider new and innovative ways to communicate the challenges and promise of clean energy," it said. Those could include "incorporating currently popular ubiquitous social communication platforms," and "projects to design and evaluate educational strategies and assess how to scale them up to reach large numbers of students. This will also include innovative technology experiences for students and their teachers that address how to effectively interest and prepare students to participate in the clean energy workforce of the future."

An NSF spokesperson told me this week that this is a new effort, created in response to the president's priorities, though at this point there is no new funding devoted to it. The agency is currently taking inventory of existing clean-energy education programs, in response to Obama's agenda, spokeswoman Maria Zacharias said in an e-mail. The new program is being run jointly by NSF and the Department of Energy, though the science foundation's directorate of education and human resources is taking the lead on this project.

What role can and should federal agencies play in creating classroom resources on energy topics for students? As I've reported, many teachers complain that scientifically reliable documents on energy and environmental topics are in short supply, so they often end up having to cull together their own. There appears to be a real hunger for "green energy" curricula and lessons in classrooms. A report released a few years ago cited a lack of coordination among federal agencies in planning and implementing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of K-12 programs. Can this new effort avoid those those pitfalls?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the carrots meant to lure college graduates, and career changers, into math and science teaching is loan forgiveness, a form of assistance offered by states, nonprofits, and the federal government. Whether these programs actually have an impact on creating a sustained pool of talented teachers is a matter of dispute. But it's probably a safe bet that for some aspiring teachers, particularly those thinking of forgoing higher-paying gigs for the classroom, the promise of paying off their college debts—especially if the debts rise as high as $50,000 or $70,000—means something.

A story in yesterday's New York Times talks about the impact of the nation's economic slide on these programs, focusing largely on what's occurring at the state level.

When I wrote about loan-forgiveness programs a few years ago, 31 states had some sort of program aimed at providing scholarships or aid to teachers and aspiring teachers. One of the main hurdles for educators on the hunt for money is fairly basic, as I learned: They don't know where to look for aid. They're often unaware of the state and federal money available to them.

If you're teaching in a math or science classroom, what impact do you think the loss of loan-forgiveness programs is likely to have on whether new recruits enter the field?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Life as a new or otherwise inexperienced chemistry teacher isn’t easy. You may be asked to conduct labs that are unfamiliar to you. Your classroom equipment may be outdated, or in short supply. Your class sizes may be too big, which makes managing a hands-on chemistry activity difficult.

If this sounds familiar, you might be interested in a new report published by the National Research Council. It focuses on “strengthening high school chemistry education through teacher outreach.” Unlike some reports by the congressionally chartered NRC, this one doesn’t contain specific findings or recommendations. Instead, it examines some of the common challenges facing chemistry teachers and looks at how teaching might be improved through professional development and other means. It was based on a workshop in 2008, which brought together teachers from top high schools, academic researchers, federal officials, and others.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the report says that research shows that students who are exposed to high-quality chemistry tend to get better grades in that subject in college. High school course requirements in chemistry have increased over the years, and many more students report taking those classes than they did a decade ago, it says. (Page 13)

Yet teachers report major hurdles in trying to prepare adequate chemistry lessons for students, the authors note. While most high school chemistry teachers have taken college classes above the level they are assigned to teach, they also say they need help in using technology in instruction, in working with students with special needs, and in using “inquiry”-based lessons, or crafting lessons based on the way that actual scientists perform science. Teachers also report struggling to connect the work that goes on in chemistry labs to students' everyday experiences. Lab work also tends to be disconnected from coursework, an issue I looked at in a story from a few years ago. (Chapter 3)

The report examines a number of options for helping prepare teachers for chemistry lessons, including teacher-to-teacher mentoring, professional development, and informal networks in which chemistry teachers can share ideas. It also mentions a few programs (some sponsored by the federal government) that put K-12 teachers in touch with professional scientists. (Chapters 5 and 6)

After you’ve had a chance to peruse the report, give me your thoughts. What are the most common challenges that chemistry teachers face, and how can they overcome them?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Teachers, researchers, undergrads, grad students, and assorted policy types looking for some summertime reading might be interested in a new resource on math and science being offered by EdWeek. It's a collection of recent stories called "Spotlight on STEM," which can be downloaded in PDF form for the price of $4.95. EdWeek has offered these packages of stories on other topics, such as "response to intervention" and tips for new teachers, but this is the first one we've put out on math and science topics.

For those who are interested in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education resource, here's the link.

Topics in the spotlight package include an examination of students' woes in algebra and what schools are trying to do to help them; the role of games in building students' math skills; the growth of renewable energy topics and curricula in schools; schools' efforts to help students apply skills in math and science to subjects like engineering; and a look at what research says (or doesn't say) about what makes an effective math teacher.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're one of those people who's still struggling to master the most basic functions on your cell phone (like send, receive, and check messages), you may not want to continue with this blog post. What it says may depress you.

As you sort through your technological shortcomings, it turns out that two young men in suburban Chicago—a 9-year-old and an 11-year-old, to be precise—have developed an application for an iPhone that allows users to solve math problems on the device. It costs 99 cents to download the application, according to this story describing their application, in the Chicago Tribune. The article says the application allows users to perform
"random addition, subtraction, multiplication or division problems and their solutions."

By now it's become routine to send e-mails and photos and video images by phone. Some journalists are quite adept at filing entire stories from their Blackberry devices. (I am in awe of their typing ability.) So it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that technology has advanced to the stage where students can use their phones to practice their math skills.

My question, after reading about this application, was how far beyond a basic calculator's functions this device would take users. A question for teachers and parents out there: What other similar devices or applications have you seen that allow students to perform math functions—and perhaps more importantly, actually challenge them to solve problems? Are these technologies encouraging students to think about and practice math outside of school? And while I'm not looking to uncoil another debate about the role of calculators in the classroom, what implications do these devices have for cultivating students' foundational math skills, and their ability to solve problems by paper and pencil?

UPDATE: I suppose that this story in the New York Times on text-messaging provides some context for understanding the role that technology plays in students' everyday lives. In one of those statistics that will make geezers like me mutter, "Can that really be right?" it says that American teenagers send and receive an average of 80 texts a day—roughly twice the number they did the previous year. Talk about a captive audience for a math teacher!

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Two stories in today's newspapers highlight efforts to improve math and science education in major cities, one of which is well under way in Los Angeles, while the other is just getting off the ground in Detroit.

A story in the Los Angeles Times describes a pilot program taking place in six schools in the city that aims to boost students' interest in computer science. So far, it seems to be having success reaching minority students, according to the story. Over the last five years, the program helped double the number of African- American students taking Advanced Placement computer science and tripled the number of Latinos and girls who were enrolling, according to the Times.

Called the Computer Science Equity Alliance, the program is supported with National Science Foundation funding, according to the story. The program's backers, who include Joanna Goode of the University of Oregon, hope to expand it to 20 more schools, with additional federal funding.

In Detroit, construction is under way on a new math and science charter high school on the city's riverfront, according to the Detroit News. The new school is to be connected to a similarly themed middle school, which is linked to the Detroit Science Center. The high school is expected to receive a major boost from a pair of philanthropies, the Thompson Education Foundation and the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, to the tune of $15 million, according to the story. Backers of the program hope the schools will support urban revitalization on Detroit's east side and draw more families back to the financially beleaguered city.

A major question, as the story points out, is whether this development will augur efforts to allow more charter schools in Motown. U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has said he hopes more charter schools will take hold in Detroit (he's also promised more federal funding as a reward for school innovation in the city), and new Mayor Dave Bing had until recently served on the board of a group that oversees public school academies in the city, including the math and science school, the News reports.

Of course, in order to prepare students for middle and high school math and science, it helps to begin early. Earlier this month, I wrote about a University of Michigan venture to improve elementary school science instruction in Detroit in about 20 schools by building students' scientific-reasoning skills. (Here's a photo from one participating school, to the right.)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week I wrote about Massachusetts' plan to require aspiring elementary school teachers to pass a math-specific portion of the state licensing test, as opposed to simply passing the generic exam.

Many of those teachers, it seems, have a major task ahead of them.

The state this week released results showing how teachers fared on the math portion of the state's licensing exam, and the scores were very poor. Seventy-three percent of elementary teachers failed the math portion, according to this story in the Boston Globe. State education officials were not especially surprised by the low scores, the story says. And why would they be, given elementary teachers' struggles with math content? If we were to break out the elementary math scores in other states (particularly in states that don't fare nearly as well as Massachusetts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress), it's hard to believe their primary-grades teachers would have done any better.

Massachusetts officials are expected to require passing scores in math on the state licensing exam, pending state board approval. They believe they're the first state in the country to take that step. Folks from the National Council on Teacher Quality also told me they think Massachusetts would be the first.

I was curious about how teachers' union officials would react to the elementary licensure results. The story says they've been calling for changes to elementary teacher-preparation programs for a long time, though one of their reps also seemed to question how much could be gleaned from the newly released results. "As a teacher, if I gave an exam and saw a 27 percent pass rate, my first inclination would not be to say there is something wrong with the people who took the test. It would be, is there something wrong with the test or something wrong with instruction?" Kathleen Skinner, an official with the Massachusetts Teachers Association, told the Globe.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

States have a hit-or-miss record in covering bioscience topics in the curriculum, according to a new report issued by the biotechnology advocates. The report evaluates states based on a number of factors, from student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress science exam to how well they incorporate bioscience into their state standards to ensuring that biology teachers are well-qualified.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Vermont and Wisconsin are deemed "leaders of the pack" in bioscience ed by the authors. Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia have a "lagging performance" in that area, they argue.

The report was produced by three organizations: BIO, Battelle, and the Biotechnology Institute, who call it the "first-ever comprehensive study" of middle and high school bioscience education across the 50 states. Why do the biosciences matter? Here's what they say:

"Bioscience workers are needed to conduct research; translate innovation into product development and improved health care techniques; and, ultimately, to manufacture biomedical and other bioscience-related products. Thus, ensuring the availability of an educated, skilled workforce is critical to developing and sustaining a highly competitive, robust bioscience cluster over the long term. It is also critical for the American society that the public is well-informed about the promise and challenges of biotechnology. Recent national legislation on genetic testing is a harbinger of the complex issues that the biosciences will pose in the years ahead."

A couple figures that stand out from the report. The portion of biology teachers who are certified ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent in the states. Average state scores on the NAEP have declined from 1996 to 2005, among 12th graders.

Some schools and states, with the help of private industry have taken a growing interest in biotech topics in recent years. Earlier this year I wrote about an Alabama initiative supported by a couple of the scientists who were involved with the Human Genome Project. In New York, a number of school districts are partnering with local colleges to bring nanotechnology into the curriculum.

Have a look at the report, and make your own judgment. Are the authors evaluating states by the right criteria?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When you think of Hong Kong, what comes to mind? International financial hub, certainly. Perhaps that spectacular skyline, ablaze in neon. Bruce Lee movies, or, if you're a younger generation of film buff, maybe John Woo.

Yet if your primary interest is education, there's a good chance you associate Hong Kong with something else: high-quality math lessons.

Devoted readers of Ed Week know that U.S. policymakers are paying a lot more attention to international assessments these days. Perhaps more importantly, they're attempting to use data to move into very detailed analyses of what other countries seem to be doing well—and what we could be learning from them.

A new study released by a pair of researchers this past week offers a good example of this detailed analysis. Steve Leinwand and Alan Ginsburg decided to examine the 3rd grade math items tested in a top-performing U.S. state, Massachusetts, against that of Hong Kong, which scores extremely well on international tests, like the TIMSS. They found that Hong Kong's test focused more intently on numbers and measurement, which they see as two key topics for preparing students for algebra, and for in-depth problem-solving. They also found that Hong Kong's test required a lot more constructed-response questions than Massachusetts' did&mdash. Those questions tend to demand more of students. And overall, Hong Kong's test questions were more challenging, in terms of difficulty and complexity.

In some ways, the study is reminiscent of Bill Schmidt's analysis of TIMSS data, which has found that high-performing countries tend to teach fewer math concepts, in more depth, than the United States does. See my recent story for more on Schmidt's work analyzing how math is taught in the high-performing state of Minnesota.

I should note that in their study, Leinwand and Ginsburg emphasize that they're not holding up Hong Kong as a model—they're holding up both jurisdictions as models. "[T]he rest of the U.S. states would likely benefit even more by incorporating characteristics of both the Hong Kong and Massachusetts assessments within their own assessments," they write.

While Massachusetts' performance on national and international tests is impressive, Hong Kong's is even better. Roughly 40 percent of Hong Kong test takers reach the "advanced" level on the TIMSS test, nearly twice the proportion that hit that mark in Massachusetts, and four times the percentage that climb that high from the United States, overall.

While we're on the topic of Asian education, I wrote a story this week that deals with math teaching in South Korea. Specifically, it's about an American professor named Janice Grow-Maienza and her quest to have Korean texts and lessons that she and a team of people have translated published commercially in the United States. So far, no luck. Like the authors of the Singapore study, Grow-Maienza is not arguing that U.S. officials adopt a foreign curriculum, or any other model, wholesale. Instead, she says, American officials can learn from various pieces of it, such as Korea's teacher manuals, which she considers especially impressive. Check out her web site of translated Korean materials here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Elementary school teachers play a crucial role in introducing students to math, yet many of those educators struggle mightily with the task. Some elementary teachers took only a little bit of math during college—and that may have been years ago. They may have little knowledge of math and how to present it in clear and correct terms to young children.

Now Massachusetts is taking an unusual step to try to improve elementary schoolers' math skills. The state is planning to require candidates for elementary certification to receive a passing score on a math-specific subject test on the state licensure exam, as opposed to simply passing the overall assessment. Massachusetts' commissioner of educator, Mitch Chester, plans to bring the policy before the state board of education next week for approval. The new requirements would be based on a set of guidelines for improving elementary teachers' math preparation, approved by the board in 2007, according to the state department of education.

The goal is to test aspiring elementary teachers' "competence in math," Chester told me yesterday. "It's a pretty substantial standard, not a trivial standard."

Chester said he believes Massachusetts will be the first state in the country to establish a math-specific passing score on its elementary licensure test. The standard would apply to candidates seeking a grade 1-6 certificate. He also plans on establishing a math passing score for preK-8 special education teachers working with students with moderate disabilities.

The commissioner also said he was going to recommend a three-year grace period for candidates who did not meet the passing score to try again.

Policymakers, academic researchers, and others have debated strategies for improving elementary teachers' math skills for years. Is Massachusetts' plan the right one, and are other states likely to follow? How does this compare with other proposals to revamp primary grades math teaching, such as creating more elementary math "specialists," who focus only on that subject, or putting more resources into roving math coaches, who travel from school to school, helping their peers?

UPDATE: Just to catch readers up, the state board in Massachusetts did in fact approve the new requirement. Elementary teachers in the state will be expected to receive a general passing score on the test, and also a passing score on the math section. Those who fall just short of the cut-off math score will have a three-year grace period, which allows them to work with an interim license while they attempt to achieve a passing mark.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why does curriculum in early-grades math matter? And when a federally sponsored study comes out that appears to favor two types of curricula in particular, how should we interpret it?

A researcher, a college professor, and the head of prominent education advocacy group came together at a forum in Washington yesterday to hash it out.

The starting point for their discussion was a study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, which found that a pair of elementary math programs, Saxon Math and Math Expressions, had an edge over two others in producing gains in boosting student achievement. (See my colleague Debbie Viadero's story on the report, from earlier this year.) Among the legions of parents, teachers, mathematicians, and policy experts who love to debate the quality of various math curricula, those results produced plenty of chatter.

On Tuesday, the author of that study, Robert Agodini of Mathematica, as well as two others taking part in a panel discussion, cautioned against drawing overly broad conclusions from the document, noting that it's only the first step in an extended research project. The two panelists, Mary Lindquist and Kati Haycock, were similarly circumspect, though all of them seemed to agree that it was just the sort of study that is desperately needed, as teachers and school officials search for answers on how to improve the quality of teaching and learning in math in this country. Curriculum, undeniably, is a big part of that, they said.

In general, the study found that, within a cohort of 1,300 1st graders from 39 schools, students who used Saxon Math and Math Expressions significantly outperformed those using Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, as well as Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. A description handed out at the event offered this general description of the programs: Saxon is a more scripted curriculum with more teacher-directed lessons; Investigations tends to be more student-centered; Math Expressions is sort of a hybrid approach;and the Scott-Foresman model combines a focus on math fundamentals, teacher-directed instruction, and “differentiated” materials for different students. Seven math curriculum programs, including the four he studied, represent 91 percent of the market for grades K-2, Agodini said at the forum.

Lindquist, a professor emeritus at Columbus College in Georgia, is the former president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. She noted the study's limitations—it only evaluated students on one test, for one year, in one grade. Those caveats tend to get lost in the public sphere, though. “I get on the Web and see ‘Two Winners,’ ” Lindquist said. “I’m anxious to see what happens [in the study] after five years.”

Haycock, as many Ed Week readers know, is the president of the Education Trust, which seeks to close the gap between low- and high-achieving students. She was similarly circumspect about the direct implications of the study, though she hoped it would prompt a broader discussion about improving teaching and learning in early-grades math. State math standards are too vague, she said. A big complaint among educators in the No Child Left Behind era is that schools promote teaching to the test. But if teachers aren't given good direction on what to teach through good curriculum, "frankly, it's no wonder" tests drive instruction, Haycock said.

"There is a sense of desperation among teachers for quality curriculum," Haycock said. "Teachers feel like, essentially, they are teaching in the dark."

Lindquist agreed. "Teachers are busy," she said, and at the elementary level, "they aren't experts in every subject." Without guidance through a good curriculum, teachers become reliant on bulky textbooks, said Lindquist, who cited a personal example.

"I know when I started teaching, I moved through the book," she said. "I don't know where my students were, but I was moving through the book."

In recent years, there have been a number of efforts to clarify, and simplify, the work of elementary teachers. The NCTM in 2006 released "Curriculum Focal Points," a document that seeks to guide teachers in elementary and middle-grades math. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, commissioned by the White House, called for educators to focus on major topics, like fractions and whole numbers, to prepare students for algebra.

What is the value of good math curriculum, for teachers, for schools? And what sorts of questions about early-grades math curriculum should the federal government be attempting to answer, through studies like the one by Mathematica?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

What’s the main goal of elementary school science instruction? And why do students who thrive in early-grades science seem to stumble when they reach middle and high school?

I explore some of these topics in a story in this week’s issue of Education Week. It’s about efforts by a University of Michigan researcher to cultivate “complex scientific-reasoning” skills in young, urban students. That researcher, Nancy Butler Songer, is challenging elementary students in Detroit not only to understand basic science facts and concepts, but also to understand what science is and what scientists actually do. That means that she and the teachers she works with in 22 Detroit schools ask elementary schools to formulate scientific arguments based on evidence, to make claims, to provide reasoning.

The idea is to give these students, some of them from the poorest neighborhoods in the city, a depth of knowledge that will serve them well later in school. Another goal is to have them develop a love of science. Test scores in the schools participating in the program, which is funded by the National Science Foundation, called BioKIDS, are improving.

Songer was quick to tell me that building scientific-reasoning skills does not mean glossing over scientific facts. Teachers in the program attempt to build knowledge of key vocabulary and ideas throughout the curriculum.

One of the more interesting aspects of this program, obviously, is the setting. Detroit’s schools are beset with problems, many of them financial. While the university has contributed resources to schools taking part in BioKIDS, the program works in very modest settings. Students collect data and make observations and do the work of scientists in scruffy playgrounds and across asphalt blacktops in the heart of the city.

What are the most essential science skills that schools should nurture in young students? After reading the story, do you believe a model like BioKIDS could work in other districts, or not?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

California will offer "free, open-source" digital textbooks in math and science for high school students, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has announced. The governor says his state would be the first in the nation to take that step.

Maybe there is something to Rahm Emanuel's quip about not letting a good crisis go to waste. Schwarzenegger, in a statement about the plan, suggests that the idea for digitalizing textbooks has come about partly because of California's severe and well-documented budget problems. He says the move will cut costs and encourage collaboration among districts.

Schools have shown an increased interest in digital textbooks in recent years, and publishers have moved to meet that demand. (See Ed Week's exploration of the digital market here and here.) Products are changing all the time, through features such as Kindle. Even so, California's plan, which is being coordinated at the state level, sounds ambitious. The governor says he and his secretary of education, Glen Thomas, want to have a set of approved digital math and science textbooks ready for the fall of 2009, and that Thomas will be working with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell and State Board of Education Chairman Ted Mitchell on the venture. The state will compile a list of digital texts that are aligned to California's academic standards, according to the governor.

An effort to digitalize textbooks in another, less populous state would be interesting on its own. It seems likely that because this is occurring in California, a major textbook market, it could have broader implications for the publishing industry. California officials say that a list of approved digital textbooks will be put together after "content developers" from around the nation have submitted their products for review.

A couple questions come to mind: How ready are publishers who now seek state approval for their products in California to take the digital step? How much money would this save the state, or individual school districts? And if public officials see potential savings in choosing a digital product over a textbook, what impact will this have on the quality of math and science lessons across the state?

For techies and non-techies out there: How will California's move affect digital education, and more importantly, student learning in math and science?

UPDATE: I was curious about who would approve digital textbooks for use across the state. The Office of the Secretary of Education explained it to me this way: California adopts textbooks for grades K-8, but local school districts are responsible for adopting high school textbooks. Under the new digital initiative, the state will review digital material for high school math and science courses based on the state's academic content standards, and provide feedback in a written report, said Jessica Hsiang, of the secretary's office, in an e-mail. The responsibility for approving a product for use, however, will remain with local districts.

I'd also asked why the state chose to focus its digital efforts on science and math, rather than other subjects. Hsiang said the decision reflected the strong state and federal interest in "STEM" education, though she added that this is just a first step in a "much broader effort" to bring digital resources to schools, presumably across subjects.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Elementary school teachers in this country, by and large, are generalists. That means they’re required to teach everything—math, science, language arts, history, you name it, regardless of how prepared they are in any particular subject. When it comes to math, a lot of people find that lack of expertise pretty troubling.

After all, many elementary teachers leave college having only taken one or two courses in math, at most. Their content knowledge may be pretty shaky, to put it mildly. Yet they’re also expected to provide the essential, ground-floor knowledge of math that young students need to prosper in more difficult math later in school.

Now a new effort is underway is create a cadre of math “specialists” at the elementary level. It’s part of a program at McDaniel College, in Maryland, being led by Francis M. “Skip” Fennell, the former president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

The “Elementary Mathematics Specialists and Teacher Leaders Project” is offering master’s degrees in elementary math teacher leadership. Fennell hopes to expand the program and ensure the continuing development and mentoring of math “teacher leaders” in Maryland. He also wants to establish a “clearinghouse” of elementary math specialist programs nationally, to examine their practices, successes and challenges. A number of universities around the country have established endorsements and degrees for elementary math teachers. You can read descriptions of them here, along with various types of math certification offered by states. Eventually, Fennell hopes the work of the program will lead the state of Maryland to create certification for elementary, or K-8 math specialists. McDaniel College has been graduating students for years with elementary-specific math training, though they haven’t received state certification for expertise in that particular area, Fennell said.

By the way, yesterday Fennell and Vern Williams talked about elementary math specialists and many other issues during an Ed Week online “chat.” The focus of the discussion was the work of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, on which both of them served.

McDaniel will be revising its courses to try to determine what kind of preparation best suits elementary specialists. It will also be staging summer institutes to train educators working at that grade level. The project’s work will also be reviewed by an external evaluator. In addition, Fennell told me that he will be coordinating his work in Maryland with research being led by Deborah Ball (another former member of the national math panel) at the University of Michigan. He said his institute will develop “modules” to support the work of Michigan researchers on the essential content and classroom skills necessary for math teachers to prosper.

Do you think elementary “specialists” could play a role in improving the quality of math teaching? What barriers exist to bringing them into schools? And what key questions should the McDaniel College effort seek to answer?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The Erikson Institute staged its first-ever international symposium on math education recently. The event brought together speakers who discussed approaches to teaching early-grades math in a number of countries, including Singapore, Japan, Australia, and China. The event was part of Erikson's Early Mathematics Education Project, which seeks to improve teaching of that subject in Chicago.

You can see all of the speakers' Power Points and presentations here.

The guests at the forum included Lyn English, a professor of mathematics education in the School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education at Queensland University of Technology in Australia. She's also the founding editor of the international journal, Mathematical Thinking and Learning. She spoke about research on early math learning in her country.

Another presenter will be familiar to many readers: Liping Ma, who has compared the skills of elementary math teachers in China against those in the United States, and found the Americans lacking in certain skills. In a book she published about a decade ago, Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, Ma found that Chinese teachers were far more likely to have developed a "profound understanding of fundamental mathematics."

I went to China two years ago and found some clear differences between how math is taught in that country and how it's presented here. Chinese education officials, I should note, found a lot to like about the U.S. curriculum. There are also clear cultural differences in how Chinese students tend to regard math and science—and for that matter, how they think about teaching as a profession.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Roughly a year after the National Mathematics Advisory Panel released a major report on teaching and learning in that subject, two people who served on the panel will answer questions in an Ed Week forum. It's an online "chat" to be held tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2 p.m. ET.

One of our guests is Francis M. "Skip" Fennell, former president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The other is Vern Williams, a math teacher at Longfellow Middle School in Falls Church, Va. You can watch the chat and submit questions (try to keep them short!) up to a half hour in advance, from this site. These two have a lot to say about math teaching.

UPDATE: The transcript of the hour-long chat is available here. Thanks to our viewers for their great questions.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One interesting sign of academic progress on the latest "nation's report card" results came among students who are presumably at a pretty serious disadvantage. Math scores for students who reported that their parents didn't complete high school rose on the NAEP from 287 to 292, on a 500-point scale, the biggest jump of any student group, as measured by parents' educational background. Overall, 17-year-olds' scores were flat among students in every performance level.

By contrast, among students who said at least one parent had graduated from college, and those who said either mom or dad had "some education after high school," math scores were flat. (Students with better-educated parents, on average, scored considerably higher than sons and daughters of high school non-completers.)

I'll put the test results out there and pose the obvious question: Why are 17-year-olds whose parents didn't make it through 12th grade making gains? One possibility I'll put out for the sake of discussion: Could this be a trickle-up effect of No Child Left Behind? That law sought to bring more scrutiny to the the performance of minority and low-income students, particularly in elementary and middle school. Are those efforts paying off, as these students reach high school? Or are state-level education policies, such curricular improvements, if they created more focused math lessons in elementary and middle school, deserving of credit? Or is there some sort of out-of-school social policy at work here, which could be benefiting students from these backgrounds?

Among 13-year-olds whose parents did not finish high school, scores also rose, from 263 to 268, though that jump was not statistically significant. The scores among students in that age group with better-educated parents also climbed by a couple points in most categories, although those increases also were not statistically relevant. (All this can be found on Figure 12 of the NAEP long-term trends report.)

Overall, parents' level of education has been improving since the late 1970s, according to the NAEP data. The percentage of students who reported that at least one parent had graduated from college increased from 32 percent to 46 percent during that time period. Similarly, the portion of 17-year-olds who said their parents top education level was having "graduated from high school," fell from 33 percent to 19 percent. (See Appendix 2)

How do you interpret the progress among these (presumably disadvantaged) 17-year-olds?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

An objective observer looking at course-taking patterns in middle and high school math in the United States, as shown in national data released this week, could argue that this country's students have made enormous strides. Thirteen-year-olds are more likely to take introductory algebra today than ever before: 30 percent of them reported being enrolled in that class today, as opposed to just 16 percent two decades ago. Thirty-two percent said they're taking prealgebra, compared with 19 percent in 1986.

Precalc or calc? Among 17-year-olds, 19 percent report having taken that class in high school, while just 6 percent could make that claim in 1978. Algebra 2 or trigonometry? The beat goes on: 52 percent said they had taken that class as their highest course, while only 37 percent reported having done so 30 years ago.

Yet as my colleague Mary Ann Zehr aptly noted in her story yesterday, if you look at U.S. high schoolers' actual test scores, that’s where the good news ends. While middle-, and especially early-grades math scores have risen on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, there's been almost no gain among 17-year-olds for the last 35 years. The scores among high school students today is 306 on a 500-point NAEP scale; it was 304 back in 1973.

Across the country, states and districts are requiring students to take more math, with more impressive-sounding titles (Algebra 1, Algebra 2) than ever before. So where's the disconnect?

One possibility, which has been voiced by a lot of math experts: The math courses being taught in schools aren’t living up to their titles. If a school or state requires students to enroll in an Algebra 1 or Algebra 2 course, the temptation among school officials is to water it down. Some teachers I’ve interviewed in the past put it in pretty plain terms: If struggling students were forced to take authentic Algebra 1 or Algebra 2 content, they’d flunk those courses or barely scrape by. As a result, courses with the same descriptors carry very different expectations. (See an entry of mine about data presented earlier this year by federal statistics official Peggy Carr on how students receiving an A in high school math scores often fare quite differently on NAEP.)

Another issue is the quality of the teaching of these courses. If schools are forced to enroll more students in tough courses, like Algebra 1 or 2, earlier in school, it stands to reason that teachers who were leading more basic math classes are going to be pressed into duty in the more demanding classes—whether they're ready or not. One researcher I spoke with recently pointed to another problem. Some teachers who are used to presenting math content, such as Algebra 1, to older students, are flummoxed when asked to work with middle schoolers. Working with younger students requires different math teaching skills, such as the ability to present content across a broad range of ability levels, the researcher told me.

Poor-quality middle and high school math courses, of course, are hardly the only likely culprit. Students who score poorly on NAEP almost certainly stumbled in math at several points along the K-12 math continuum. But you have to think that the discrepancy between students' relatively impressive course transcripts and their weak NAEP performance will prompt some serious reflection among policymakers and researchers in the months and years ahead.

A couple points worth noting in the NAEP data. Despite the overall stagnation among 17-year-olds in math, scores among the lowest-achieving teenagers (those in the bottom 10th and 25th percentiles) have risen, albeit slowly, since the 1970s. Top-tier students’ scores are flat: a 343 score today, compared with a 345 back in 1978. But despite the relative progress of low-performers, the gains among struggling students were much greater among 9- and 13-year olds.

One expert on testing quoted in Mary Ann’s story speculates that the curriculum and teaching reforms implemented in early-grades math in this country haven’t borne fruit on high school test scores yet. Do you agree? What causes do you see in the disconnect between the performance in elementary- and middle-grades math and what’s happening in high schools?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Barack Obama sounded a JFK-style motif in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences today. It came through not only in his direct mining of quotations from the 35th president, and his references to Kennedy’s (and President Eisenhower's) scientific initiatives post-Sputnik. Obama, to be sure, indicated he'd put money and political capital into scientific research and K-12 science education. But he called for some shared sacrifice in return. Specifically, he seemed to beseech scientists to step out of their labs and research facilities a lot more often, to help sell young people on the wonder of science, and the benefits of careers in math- and science-related fields.

These remarks caught my eye:

“So I want to persuade you to spend time in the classroom, talking and showing young people what it is that your work can mean, and what it means to you,” Obama said. “I want to encourage you to participate in programs to allow students to get a degree in science fields and a teaching certificate at the same time. I want us all to think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, whether it's science festivals, robotics competitions, fairs that encourage young people to create and build and invent—to be makers of things, not just consumers of things.”

Obama’s comments brought to mind the complaints I’ve heard from both K-12 science teachers and college faculty over the years—that scientists don’t always try hard enough to explain the value of their work and why it matters to lay audiences. I heard this criticism a lot during recent controversies over the teaching of evolution in public schools. Science teachers often bemoaned the public’s overall lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory, yet many of them admitted that they weren’t that adept at explaining the theory’s relevance, at least not in easily digestible form. The scientific community seems to have become far more determined on that front in recent years in getting its message out to the public, on evolution and other topics. And many top research institutions invest heavily in outreach to the K-12 community. Obama suggested that he expects scientists to not only be pioneers in their fields, but ambassadors to the next generation.

On a newsier front, the president also pledged to reward state that take innovative approaches to helping students in math and science, with access to federal stimulus money: “[S]tates making strong commitments and progress in math and science education will be eligible to compete later this fall for additional funds under the Secretary of Education's $5 billion Race to the Top program,” Obama said. In addition, he called for them to “dramatically improve achievement in math and science by raising standards, modernizing science labs, upgrading curriculum, and forging partnerships to improve the use of science and technology in our classrooms. I'm challenging states, as well, to enhance teacher preparation and training, and to attract new and qualified math and science teachers to better engage students and reinvigorate those subjects in our schools.”

He also suggested that his administration support measures to draw career-changers and math-and-science related professionals into teaching: “[L]et's create new pathways for experienced professionals to go into the classroom,” the Obama said. “ There are, right now, chemists who could teach chemistry, physicists who could teach physics, statisticians who could teach mathematics. But we need to create a way to bring the expertise and the enthusiasm of these folks –- folks like you –- into the classroom.”

He also pointed to a statewide “STEM” initiative in Pennsylvania as a good model for other states. You can read the full transcript of his remarks here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Arne Duncan spoke before the nation’s largest gathering of math teachers this weekend in Washington, D.C. While I wouldn’t say there were any dramatic departures from his earlier scripts, the secretary made a few points worth noting, particularly when it comes to trying to get more math teachers into the classroom, and persuading them to stay.

The secretary, addressing the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics on Saturday, no doubt made some new friends when he spoke highly of differential pay—basically, paying math teachers more than teachers of other subjects, as a way to lure them into the field. (Duncan made the same pitch before the National Science Teachers Association recently).

Advocates for math and science say teachers in those fields are too easily drawn out of the classroom by the promise of higher pay elsewhere. Unions sometimes oppose those measures, saying they’re unfair and lead to discord in schools.

“We have to respond to the market, and the market is telling us we have a critical need,” Duncan told the audience, which appeared to number a couple thousand. They responded enthusiastically, as you might have guessed.

Duncan also touted alternative certification as a promising route to get educators-in-waiting into schools. Early in his speech, he talked about the federal stimulus plan’s ability to stave off a “tidal wave” of job losses, and keep teachers who might otherwise be out on the street, in the classroom. Alternative certification could appeal to those career-changers, he said. “Folks are losing jobs in other fields,” he said, adding: “Why do we lock them out of education?”

While we're on the topic, I'd like to know if anyone has seen any data that shows whether differential pay plans lead to teachers sticking with the profession, or, for that matter, to student improvement. Some people have questioned the effectiveness of monetary incentives, such as grants and scholarships, to lure and keep math and science teachers in the classroom. (And see my colleague, Debbie Viadero's recent story about Richard Ingersoll's research, which suggests that universities are producing sufficient numbers of math and science teachers, but that schools are not doing enough to retain them.)

As he has in other settings, Duncan said the stimulus spending—about $115 billion in all on education—creates an opportunity for federal, state, and local policymakers to support innovations in schools. He called for local school officials, teachers included, to act as watchdogs, and suggested that if the “unprecedented” amount of K-12 money isn’t wisely spent—“if we don’t create, and if we don’t innovate”—the public is less likely to support big school investments in the future.

While stimulus and workforce issues got a lot of attention, the secretary didn’t touch at all on curriculum issues. It’ll be curious to see to what extent federal stimulus spending supports experimentation in math teaching, and what shape those efforts will take.

And how active will the Obama administration be in promoting the work of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, the expert federal group convened by the Bush White House? That panel produced a series of recommendations last year for improving early grades math instruction. In the Bush administration’s waning days in office, Margaret Spellings’ department actively promoted the panel’s findings to parents and the public. Will Duncan do the same?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The theme of this year's National Council of Teachers of Mathematics annual meeting—attended by about 12,000 educators—is “equity,” essentially trying to ensure that all students have an opportunity to learn.

It comes as no surprise, then, that one of the big themes of the teachers and academic scholars presenting at various sessions, and among companies trying to peddle commercial products in the exhibit hall, was intervention. As teachers cope with pressure to lift math scores, and attempt to teach difficult courses at earlier grades (see my earlier entry on the question of when calculus should be taught), schools are scrambling to find ways to help students who are lagging behind.

Many of the sessions focused on helping students with a specific math topic—algebra, not surprisingly, was the subject of several sessions. Other speakers explored strategies for building the skills of English-language learners in math, or helping students in informal settings through math nights, games, contests, and after-school activities. And a number of guests focused on helping students master specific, crucial areas of early-grades math, such as fractions.

Educators also flocked to sessions on the potential for technology to make math understandable to students. One big name in the school technology world, Texas Instruments, presented information on a product, TI Math Forward, which seeks to combine interactive technology (such as its Navigator technology, an interactive program) with coaching and common planning time for teachers, and double-block, or 100-minute classes. Administrators from the Richardson Independent School District, outside Dallas, said they have made progress in closing the gap between white and minority students, and improved scores on state tests, through the program. TI Math Forward is geared toward students in grades 7-9. The district had tried double-blocking math courses previously, but it wasn’t until it combined extra time with other strategies that it saw real student improvements, said Kristen San Juan, a math support specialist in the district.

“The middle-school grades are where things fall off for many students,” San Juan told me. “We wanted to address the gap, the decline at that age.”

NCTM’s attendance numbers for its annual meeting dipped a bit from some previous years—perhaps not surprising, given the state of the economy. At its annual event in Anaheim in 2005, where improving the math skills of minority students was a major theme, I reported that 14,000 educators attended.

Many attendees see conferences as a valuable way to learn about the best practices across the nation and the latest thinking among researchers and other experts for raising student achievement. For math teachers who are trying to reduce the gap between high- and low-achieving students, what strategies are showing the most promise in your schools?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For many high school students who show talent in math, or at least a moderate degree of skill in that subject, their choice of a senior-year math course may not amount to much of a choice at all. They’re expected to take calculus, which they’re told will help them get into college, and succeed once they arrive there.

Joseph G. Rosenstein, a professor of mathematics at Rutgers University, questions the logic of asking students to take that class in high school. He speculated that many of the students who take calculus in high school and struggle through it were losing interest in math upon arriving in college. A few years ago, he decided to probe the high school and college transcripts of students at his university, and what he found confirmed his doubts.

Rosenstein argues that the “acceleration” of students through high school math is not helping students, and in fact may be hurting them. This acceleration begins with the push to have students take 8th grade algebra and continues through senior-year calculus, he says.

In 2004, after examining the transcripts of 400 randomly chosen Rutgers students, he found that only a small percentage of those who had taken calculus in 12th grade, about 6 percent, continued on an "accelerated" pace through math in college—which he defined as taking Calculus 2 and Calculus 3 during their freshman year on campus.

The professor, who has written a book about discrete math and worked on professional- development programs for K-12 teachers, outlined his findings at the annual conference of the National Conference of Teachers of Mathematics, which is meeting in Washington this week. He titled his talk, "A Rush to Calculus."

Rosenstein found that students who took the AP test in that subject fared better in Rutgers math courses than those who simply took the AP course. Those findings echo some previous research on the benefits of students committing to take the AP exam, he said.

The Rutgers scholar was quick to acknowledge to the audience that his research wasn’t scientifically rigorous. But his message seemed to resonate deeply among the teachers and other mathematically minded attendees who packed into a conference room for his presentation.

Many students take calculus in high school because they believe it will satisfy college expectations, Rosenstein said. They also do because everyone else is doing it, or because their parents urge them to take it.

“The calculus fever is very strong,” Rosenstein told the audience. “The question is, is that better, and does the acceleration strategy work?”

Rosenstein suggested that high school officials try to require that students receive a relatively strong grade, such as a B, before they're allowed to move on to the next-toughest class. Of course, imposing those prerequisites is not easy. One teacher in the audience told him that when she and her colleagues recommend that a struggling student not move on to a certain advanced math topic, parents overrule them.

Students might also enroll in calculus because their schools offer few other senior-year options if they’ve already completed Algebra 2. Some researchers and scholars are experimenting with alternative senior-year courses in discrete math, applied math, and other topics, which they say can keep students on pace for college-level material, without delving too much into calculus. I wrote about those alternatives last year.

Of course, those courses can present challenges, too. Schools may not have enough teachers to lead alternative senior-year classes. They also may worry that those course offerings will morph into unchallenging classes.

How can a teacher or school official know when a student is ready for calculus? And is there any harm in waiting until college to take that class?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

NASA, or the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, has been creating curricular resources for science teachers for years. Here's a new resource for educators ready to move beyond traditional paper and pencil lessons, and even beyond traditional computer-based activities.

The space agency has created a site that facilitates "do-it-yourself podcasts" for teachers and their classes. Teachers and students with camcorder or other video-recording equipment can record video and audio clips, then intersperse them with free NASA clips provided at the site. Podcast topics include Newton's laws, science lab safety, and the spacesuits worn by astronauts (you would expect no less from NASA).

More general science materials from the space agency, for grades K-4, 5-8, 9-12, higher ed, and informal ed, can be found here.

Photo courtesy of NASA.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Students—even very young students—bring a lot of curiosity about the natural world, and assumptions about how it works, with them to school. How can preschool teachers tap into this enthusiasm, and build students' understanding of science?

Researchers and advocacy organizations have been exploring the connection between early childhood education and science instruction for years. A philanthropy, the PNC Foundation, is announcing a grant to support those science efforts, which is going to the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum and the Washington, D.C., public schools. (More details will be available next week on the particulars of the award. It will be announced at an event at the Smithsonian.)

Adults tend to think of science as a distinct subject to be taught and studied. But for students around preschool age, science is simply "finding out about the everyday world around them," as this article in the journal of the National Association for the Education of Young Children points out. (It's the top article on the page.)

Preschool teachers can help develop students' science knowledge through relatively simple activities. Yet many educators are reluctant to do so, partly because they look back on their own experiences in school science lessons as unpleasant ones, the article notes. Preschool teachers, it says, should try to build coherence in science lessons from day to day, using well-planned curricula and lessons, and encouraging students, through hands-on activities and other means, to use some of the same processes that scientists follow.

Ingrid Chalufour, of the Education Development Center, explores many of these topics in an interview in the organization's spring journal (page 10). For preschool teachers who've sought to introduce science topics to young children, what are the challenges you face—and how do you try to overcome them?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Across the country, one of the strategies schools are trying to help struggling students in algebra is essentially doubling the amount of time spent on that course. It's a popular tactic in other areas of math, and in reading, too.

A new study, however, says that double-dose courses produced mixed results in Chicago schools. On the one hand, the 9th graders studied saw their test scores rise. But the policy did not appear to result in fewer students failing the course, as school officials had hoped, the authors report. The grades of some struggling students increased, after the double-dosing, though the weakest students did not see their grades rise.

Should advocates of double-dose math courses be pleased with these results? After all, one could argue that student learning—if test scores accurately reflect that—increased. Or should persistently high failure rates raise red flags?

Chicago is, of course, coping with many of the same challenges in algebra that other districts are. The new study follows another one, released last month, which found that Chicago's failure rates increased when the district mandated that students take algebra in 9th grade. Keep in mind that some states and schools have moved to require students to take introductory algebra in 8th grade.

Chicago school leaders have put forward a number of programs and initiatives, in teaching training and other areas, in an effort to help students in algebra. We hosted a webinar earlier this year, in which a Chicago math administrator, and a former algebra teacher, spoke about those efforts.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When a principal at a school visits a teacher's classroom, it's easy for those visits to carry an aura of suspicion and anxiety, particularly for the teacher. The principal may be there to gather information for an evaluation of the teacher's work, or simply to check up on what's occurring in the classroom.

In an essay published online this month, Henry Kepner, the president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, calls for principals and teachers to forge a more cooperative relationship, which he predicts will result in better math instruction. Principals can, in a "nonthreatening" way, encourage teachers to come up with more focused, and better math lessons, which adhere to state and local standards and offer smooth transitions in the content covered from grade to grade, Kepner says. It's not an easy task. Many math experts say teachers face pressure to rush through long lists of math topics, without drawing proper connections to them or encouraging students to master them. NCTM has placed a big focus on creating a more orderly math curriculum in recent years. Principals, according to Kepner, can play an important role in this area:

"The hectic daily routine of teaching often overtakes the need to step back and ask, "What are the important concepts for my students this year?" For example, a textbook may have in excess of 180 daily lessons for the year. The challenge is to locate and agree on 15 pivotal lessons."

Principals, of course, play an important role in guiding instruction across subjects. Last year, I wrote about efforts to forge stronger ties between principals and science teachers, who sometimes feel like school administrators don't understand science content and are thus more likely to allow it to be squeezed out of the school day.

The question I would pose to math teachers: What input, advice, or support could a principal provide that you would find most valuable?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

South Korea's curriculum and school system draws a lot of scrutiny and praise because of the country's top-notch performance on international tests. The Republic of Korea, as it is officially known, is continually found near the top of the rankings of nations in math and science, on the TIMSS and PISA, two prominent country-by-country comparisons.

Imagine entering South Korea's school systems from a nation where education is de-emphasized to the point of leaving students without the most basic reading and math skills. A Washington Post story from this past week describes just such a scenario.

It's about North Korean defectors who flee to the South to escape the totalitarian country. A common route is to first head north through China and then wind through Southeast Asia nations, typically with the help of a fixer. Many of the refugees described in the story are children, who have all sorts of trouble adjusting to life in a democratic society—one that's also "rich, wired, consuming" as the story puts it. Unfortunately, many of those who arrive say they have been given little formal education (or little that's of use). The South Korean government has created programs to help them adjust, which include remedial education and job placement. Fascinating reading.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last month I attended an event marking the 20th anniversary of the National Assessment Governing Board, the independent panel that oversees the NAEP. There were a lot of good presentations, but one in particular that I've been meaning to write about was given by Peggy Carr, the deputy commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. Carr was speaking on a panel about achievement gaps between minority and white students. Her talk focused on what the NAEP, the nation's most prominent test of student academic skill, which her agency administers, tells us.

She offered a lot of intriguing information breaking down the performance of whites and African-Americans on the NAEP, which I thought would be of interest to readers of this blog—researchers, policymakers, reporters, the general public.

Carr gave me permission to post the slides from her presentation on my blog, so you can look at them here.

Her explanation of the NAEP scores lays out pretty clearly some of the challenges the nation faces in terms of closing the gaps in performance, course-taking expectations, and, it seems, the rigor of math classes, between minorities and non-minorities.

A few of the highlights:

— Among students of all races at the high school level, there are big differences in NAEP math performance depending on the highest math course students reached in school. The average student score on the exam was 152 on a 300-point scale. Students who reached calculus in school scored an average of 192. But for those who made it only as far as Algebra 2, the average was a 142. Those who got no further than Algebra 1? They scored only a 110. Bottom line: Students who take tougher math courses are doing much better on the NAEP . (Slide 3)

— The percentage of both whites and blacks taking advanced math or calculus in school is increasing. The portion who are stopping at Algebra 1 or below is dropping. Seems like good news. (Slide 4)

— Yet many more white students, 23 percent, are taking Algebra 1 before they reach high school, than are African-Americans, 8 percent. (Slide 5)

— Among those who took Algebra 1 before high school, a high percentage of both white students, 90 percent, and their black peers, 82 percent, moved on to advanced math and calculus. Similarly, a much smaller portion of students from both races moved on to those top courses if they didn't take Algebra 1 early. Take introductory algebra at a relatively young age, and you're more likely to move on to advanced math. (Slide 7)

— A piece of data I found pretty intriguing: Students who reported notching an "A" in their advanced math or calculus course often fared very differently, depending on their backgrounds, on the NAEP. Students from low-minority schools who got an "A" grade scored an 188 average, out of 300. But their peers from high-minority schools averaged only a 167. It appears that a high-grade in a challenging math course can mean very different things in schools serving different populations. (Slide 10)

A lot of policymakers in recent years have pointed to NAEP scores, and course-taking patterns, as evidence that students need to be encouraged to take more demanding classes, particularly algebra, earlier in school, if they're going to pursue the most challenging math. Others, such as Tom Loveless, have urged policymakers to be cautious in reading that data, and not simply set across-the-board course requirements in math that aren't realistic.

After you've had a chance to look at Carr's presentation, give me your read on the data, and what it says about the achievement gap.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The president of a major professional organization for science teachers has a new online essay on what seems like a familiar topic: "professional learning communities." Page Keeley, of the National Science Teachers Association, argues that too many learning communities are unfocused, and need to have a much clearer mission in order to improve science teaching and learning.

What is that mission, as Keeley sees it? It may seem obvious, but the focus of PLCs—which can be found in schools everywhere today—needs to be on improving instruction, rather than on management or departmental issues, or on loosely defined topics that are not focused on learning. Here's how she puts it:

"In many schools, administrators now require teachers to participate in PLCs on a regular basis. However, merely meeting during or after school or through an online network does not necessarily translate into a PLC. Many teachers and administrators still need better understanding of what constitutes a PLC. The PLC, like science as inquiry, has been characterized in a myriad of ways, depending on who is defining it. This ambiguity has led to a danger of it being hijacked (much like formative assessment and inquiry) and turned into the latest education fad. Unfortunately these “fads” often succumb to the TTWP (this too will pass) approach if they are not well-defined and supported.

"PLCs are not meetings where science departments come together to focus on management issues. They are not loosely defined discussion groups. They are structures where teachers come together to engage in powerful learning where student success is at the core. The teachers’ learning is continually focused on how to become more effective so student learning is supported. The collective shared goals and participation of the group achieve results. This is a shift for some teachers who have traditionally viewed professional development as going off and doing their “own thing” by attending courses, workshops, conferences, and other such events for their own individual benefit. While this approach does help an individual teacher, it doesn’t necessarily improve the teaching of that educator’s colleagues by building a common knowledge base about effective science teaching and learning."

Professional learning communities come in all forms in schools and districts. Keeley traces their growth to the commission led by former Sen. John Glenn and it's report, Before It's Too Late. We at Ed Week have written a lot about the development of PLCs, including this story about one widely praised model used at Adlai E. Stevenson High School, in Lincolnshire, Ill. That article notes that the origins of PLCs go as far back as the 1960s, when researchers were exploring strategies to encourage collaboration among teachers, rather than educators working in isolation. Here's another story on the PLC approach used by the Long Beach, Calif., district, winner of the Broad Prize.

One could argue that effective PLCs are especially important in science teaching, where educators are expected to cover large amounts of detailed content, much of which may be new to them. At early grades, those teacher may be generalists with relatively little background in science. At upper grades, they may be pressured, because of staff shortages, to take over classes with loads of unfamiliar science. Are the concerns that Keeley raises specific to science teaching, or do they have applications across subjects?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The journal Science has an interesting item about a proposal, included in the $410 million budget measure approved by Congress last month, apparently aimed at identifying and cultivating supreme mathematical talent at the K-12 level.

The article (subscription required) says that a $3 million earmark for the National Science Foundation was included in the spending plan with the potential to create a new institute serving "profoundly gifted" students in math. The spending was supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, according to the story.

How would that money create a new institute for gifted children? The story says a proposal has been submitted to create several new research centers within a larger, existing program of mathematical research institutes within NSF. Those institutes are housed within NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences. Seven current research centers are part of the program, and they focus on exploring "the frontiers of science," as the Science story puts it.

The NSF plans to supplement those existing research centers with six new institutes, which would be awarded grants based on competitive bids, the article says. Those institutes would be funded at $3 million to $5 million a year. One grant applicant, according to the story, was a team of researchers from the University of Iowa, Johns Hopkins University, and the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, in Reno, Nevada. The group's proposal is to create a National Institute for Mathematical Research, which would focus on developing "prospective mathematicians" rather than university-level researchers, the story says.

Advocates for gifted students have long said there are not enough resources in traditional public schools to meet their needs. Many states and districts have supported math and science academies aimed at serving those children, though some say that even those centers may not do enough to challenge students operating at the very highest academic level. The new NSF funding seems to be targeted toward those pupils, in particular.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:19 AM | Permalink

It's common for science teachers to try to craft classroom lessons out of things that students see every day and can easily understand. I remember a lot of the science teachers I had during my school days talking about the physics of baseball, probably with good reason. It's a sport that's rich with opportunities to discuss science.

Kathy Willens/AP

I was reminded of this when I read a new interview in Scientific American with Alan Nathan, a physics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign who has studied science's connection to the sport. In the interview, Nathan discusses the topspin on a ground ball, the physics of corking a bat, and the art of pitching (including the mysterious action on the knuckleball) among other topics. Lots of ideas for lessons for teachers here.

Nathan also has his own Web site, a sort of online library on the physics of baseball, with lots of great resources. For science teachers who can't get enough, check out this book The Physics of Baseball, by Robert K. Adair.

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

Congressman Mike Honda, a Democrat from California, is introducing a bill titled "The Global Warming Education Act." The legislation would create an education program on global warming at the National Science Foundation, an agency based in Arlington, Va., that is heavily involved in sponsoring research on math and science teaching and curriculum. Honda, a former high school science teacher, says the bill aims to provide a range of school materials for students on climate change, including formal and informal learning opportunities about topics such as new technologies, and incentives related to energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction. The measure would also create competitive grants for "innovative projects" to expand climate science education and create curriculum and education materials on the topic. Honda said in a statement. He introduced a version of the measure in 2007.

There's a strong and growing interest in schools for lessons on renewable energy. But discussions of climate change have come somewhat more slowly, as I've reported. Teachers are sometimes afraid to touch a topic they believe is politically loaded, even though the science evidence for climate change is quite strong. Another issue is that many state standards are only now being revised to include discussions on global warming, which means that textbooks tend to have only limited discussions of the issue. As a result, teachers end up having to cobble together materials on their own. That may not be a bad thing, as long as they're reliable materials.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The ASCD Express is soliciting essays on the topic of what science education should look like in the 21st Century, or "Science on the Bleeding Edge," as they call it. Here's what they're looking for:

Considering that the space age began with the launch of Sputnik just over 50 years ago, what should a 'post-space age' science curriculum look like? As students hone their 21st century skills of critical thinking, problem solving, and innovation, how are they being prepared to use them in the crucible where science, technology, society, and economics meet in the world beyond school? How are schools exploring the challenges of science and society, and are these spurring innovations in how science is being taught? What role are private and public organizations playing in improving and influencing school science to prepare students to lead and live with science and technology in the years ahead?

Whatever your thoughts, keep them within the 600-1,000 word range. More information can be found here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple of bills that take very different approaches to science, technology, engineering, and math ("STEM") education topics are in play on Capitol Hill. Here's a synopsis of both:

—Yesterday, a sub-panel of the House Committee on Science and Technology approved a bill that seeks to improve coordination for science and math education programs across the federal government. Sponsored by Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat who chairs the House science committee, HR 1709 would establish a White House committee with the responsibility of making various STEM programs work together. The committee would be housed in the White House's National Science and Technology Council. The bill resembles legislation sponsored by Rep. Mike Honda, a California Democrat, and somebody named Barack Obama, then a mere senator from Illinois, last year. Here's an item I wrote on their efforts back then.

A report released two years ago found that the federal government spends about $3 billion across agencies on STEM education programs, at agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Education to the National Science Foundation to the U.S. Department of Energy to NASA. How well these activities are coordinated with each other, and whether they learn from each others' experiences, remain open questions, some say.

The bill would require the White House committee to work with different agencies and ask them to produce detailed plans every five years, in which they set long-term objectives and specify how they are judging their STEM programs' effectiveness.

—Another bill, dubbed the "The GREEN Act," seeks to establish competitive "renewable energy curriculum development grants" to career-and-technical education K-12 and college programs. The legislation, HR 1775, by Rep. Jerry McNerney, a Democrat, calls for $100 million in grant funding for partnerships between school districts and higher education institutions, under the rules specified in the federal Perkins Act, which governs vocational education.

Interest in renewable energy lessons and curricula is booming in K-12 schools, as I discussed in a recent story. McNerney seems pretty keen on renewables, to say the least, and on "STEM" topics generally. He has a PhD in math, worked as an engineering contractor at the Sandia National labs, and founded a start-up company to manufacture wind turbines, according to his congressional bio.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earth Day, an occasion promoted by environmental organizations and advocates to raise awareness of conservation issues, is April 22. It's an event that dates back to 1970. Teachers sometimes organize lessons and activities in the weeks leading up to that day on environmental themes. That doesn't mean they have to create lessons from any particular political or ideological perspective; a good science lesson can account for the environmental and economic complexities of issues such as climate change, for instance, renewable energy, and land conservation.

Teachers looking for ideas for lessons have plenty of resources. Here are a few on the Web I've come across:

The Globe Project offers reading materials, lessons, and activities, on the carbon cycle, weather, watersheds, and other topics, with downloadable files. The National Environmental Education Foundation offers a "curricula library" for teachers, sorted by grade level. The Environmental Protection Agency's site has several activities and resources for kids and teachers. (Earlier this year, the EPA launched a blog for students.) In addition, here's a Web site that offers a compendium of Earth Day resources.

For teachers who've created lessons around Earth Day, what resources have been of most use to you?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Teachers of science, like teachers of other subjects, often wonder how much structure and guidance they need to provide students. A pair of researchers wondered the same thing.

Robert Tai and Philip Sadler, in a new study, find that students with relatively weak mathematics skills who were given self-led, less-structured science instruction in high school were at a disadvantage in college biology and chemistry classes, compared with similarly skilled peers who had come from more-structured classes. They found that students from the more free-form high school classes received lower grades in their college courses than students who had been given more direct guidance in their high school courses.

Yet among students with stronger math skills, there was hardly any difference in college performance between those who had been taught in structured environments and those who had been in unstructured ones.

Tai is an associate professor of science education at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville. He produced the study with Sadler, the director of the science education department at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge, Mass. It was published in the March issue of the International Journal of Science Education. A link to the abstract can be found here.

For their study, the authors used about 8,000 responses from a survey, known as Factors Influencing College Science Success, of undergraduate students.

One question I'm sure a lot of science educators will ask: How did the researchers define the level of lesson structure? The study says students were asked about their high school experiences with "inquiry-type learning activities," specifically, the number of student-designed projects they took part in and the degree of freedom they were given in designing and conducting labs. Tai and Sadler used the same data set for an earlier study on the benefits of "depth vs. breath" in high school science study, which I wrote about recently. Tai told me in an e-mail that the researchers have used the data set for articles published in about 20 peer-reviewed research journals.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has named Kichoon Yang, the provost at Northwest Missouri State University, as its new executive director.

Yang, who replaces outgoing executive director Jim Rubillo, will take over the post on July 1. Rubillo had announced his intent to retire last year from that position at NCTM, an influential, 100,000-member organization based in Reston, Va.

Before working at Northwest Missouri State, Yang was dean of the College of Natural Sciences and professor of mathematics at the University of Northern Iowa from 2001 through 2004, according to NCTM. He also was a program director in the Division of Mathematical Sciences at the National Science Foundation for three years. Earlier in his career, he served for 12 years on the mathematics faculty at Arkansas State University. He received a B.S. in math from the University of North Carolina and a Ph.D. in math from Washington University in St. Louis.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My colleague David Hoff has a good read about the argument, made most recently by the Alliance for Excellent Education, that the United States should more actively participate in international testing and data collection. Specifically, the Alliance says the United States should increase its participation in the research conducted by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which runs the PISA test. The Alliance also faults U.S. officials for not taking part in another, advanced study for another international test, the TIMSS.

American students already take part in the PISA, but our country could benefit much more if individual cities and states took part, according to the Alliance. In other countries, local jurisdictions do participate, and the data that's produced shapes policy and drives improvement, the organization argues in a report on the subject. Mark Schneider, of the American Institutes for Research, offers several words of caution, questioning whether the data the OECD produces is of sufficient quality to influence U.S. decision-making. Schneider is the former commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics.

In the story, Andreas Schleicher, a top OECD education official, noted that his organization's public reports have had a major impact on school policy in foreign countries. I know that I've heard scholars talk about how low PISA scores in Germany were a "watershed" moment for the country, prompting a re-examination of the education system there.

Would the United States benefit from more active participation in the OECD data collection and reporting? It's an interesting argument. Few factors, in my view, have had as great an impact on shaping school policy discussions on "STEM" topics (the area I cover at Ed Week) than Americans' middling scores on international tests, such as the PISA and TIMSS. At times, policymakers seem far more fixated on international tests than they do about American students' marks on the primary domestic exam, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. The media, and policymakers, to this point, have largely focused in broad strokes on the differences in raw test scores between top-performing nations and the United States. How much would the United States benefit from the collection and reporting of a more detailed array of data through the OECD, or another entity? What would the OECD contribute that is not being produced already?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Teachers often use manipulatives—boxes, shapes, figures and games—which students can handle during in-class activities to explain math and science concepts. A colleague of mine forwarded me a link to a site that offers teachers interactive math and science resources and Web-based "virtual manipulatives," which seeks to help educators build student understanding.

In addition to housing interactive tests and features that allow students to manipulate shapes, the site offers general suggestions on teaching for math and science educators. The entries include tips on how teachers can use popular games to explain math ("The Math in Video Games") and the possible uses of technology ("Using Google Earth in Science and Math").

For the math and science teachers out there: How useful do you find Web-based resources in your classes? How often do you get new ideas from these sorts of sites? Do you have the time—not to mention the computer resources—to have your students make use of Web resources like this one?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

There are many efforts under way in the United States to increase students' passion for science, run by private companies, nonprofits, state and local governments, and universities. But I'm not sure that any of those programs are as large scale as the Science and Engineering Ambassadors effort, which is under way in Britain.

The program arranges to have volunteers from British science, engineering, and technology companies come into schools, with the aim of encouraging students in their math- and science related studies.

Currently, 18,000 volunteers from British companies are participating, which is sponsored by the U.K. government (specifically through a program called STEMNET) according to this story in the Financial Times. The goal is 27,000 company volunteers taking part by 2011, the article says. More than half the ambassadors are younger than 35, and 40 percent are women.

British officials, like U.S. leaders, are deeply concerned about having enough workers to fill jobs in scientific professions in the years ahead. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown put forward plans to increase the academic talent pool in those subjects, as we discussed on this blog. What might the United States learn from Britain's program? Could a government-run model of this size and scale work here?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's difficult to find a set of academic programs that aren't being scaled back, or at least whose administrators aren't scrambling to reduce costs, in this economy. It appears that programs serving the most-elite students in math and science aren't being spared, either.

Today's Washington Post has a story about the impact of budget cuts on the magnet math and science program at Montgomery Blair High School, almost certainly one of the nation's top secondary programs in those subjects. The magnet program was created in 1985 with the idea of turning around an underperforming school, according to the article. Now it routinely produces students who match up well against students in the most elite math- and science-talent competitions.

Yet because of budget cuts, Blair's program has been forced to pare down its faculty, which could affect the amount of one-on-one attention students receive, the article suggests. It is also drawing fewer applications, according to the story, though school officials say they don't see that as a reason to worry.

You could debate whether the cutbacks at Blair merit comparison with some of the more severe scaling-down that's going on in other schools. But the story is at least a reminder of the breadth of the nation's economic woes and their reach across academic levels. To what extent might the federal stimulus money go to magnet programs, public math and science academies, and other programs targeting high-achievers? Should the money flow in that direction?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spoke today before a major professional organization, the National Science Teachers Association, at its annual meeting in New Orleans, delivering a message that members of the audience were likely to find appealing.

I only have a transcript from NSTA, but I'm willing to bet that the secretary drew some applause when he spoke about paying science—and math—teachers more, as a way to lure them into the profession and keep them there.

"We need to respond to the market by paying more to teachers in high-need subjects like science and math," Duncan told the audience. "I’m a big believer in differential pay. I want to reward excellence by paying teachers and principals who do a great job in the classroom.

"I want to reward them for going into struggling school districts," he continued. "That’s where the challenge is. If you’re going to take on a tough job, you should be rewarded."

Much of the discussion about the Obama administration's agenda so far has focused on the idea of performance or merit pay—basically, paying teachers more for raising student test scores, or other measures. (See this story and this one for recent background.) But differential pay, or rewarding educators in high-need or hard-to-fill subject areas, is popular with groups like NSTA. Many potential science and math teachers, the argument goes, have more lucrative opportunities in the private sector than, say, English or history teachers might. Differential pay, as you might guess, can be controversial, if other subject-area teachers feel they're being left in the dust.

The education secretary said he anticipated that a lot of NSTA members would be interested in what the $100 billion in federal stimulus money for education would do for them. While he couldn't give many specifics, he did say that the money will: A) likely pay for the modernization of outdated science labs, though the decisions will be made locally; B) save science teaching jobs; and C) fund reforms in science education though the $4.35 billion "Race to the Top" pot. Money could also flow to science education through Title I, special education, and school improvement money, he added.

Speaking more broadly, Duncan said that U.S. schools have failed to keep up with other nations in terms of promoting innovative science education and challenging students. Referring to the former Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, and its impact on the space race, he said: "America won the space race, but—in many ways—American education lost the science race."

He seemed especially worried about the struggles of low-performing students, at one point referring to a study finding that U.S. students in urban areas performed at roughly the level of students in developing nations in science.

"This kind of extreme inequity in education is not unique to science, but it has enormous repercussions in the workforce, where science-based industries are desperate for skilled workers," Duncan said.

It's difficult to convince students of the value of science, Duncan suggested, if you're boring them. He stressed the importance of using "inquiry-based" lessons, which essentially means having students learn science through hands-on experiments and the same kinds of processes used by real-life scientists.

"You need to challenge yourselves and each other to move the curriculum beyond dinosaurs and volcanoes—and I know that many of you already have—but we need to take the best ideas to scale in tough inner-city districts like this one—as well as rural areas that cannot find qualified teachers in every subject," he said.

"You need to make inquiry-based science relevant to kids—stimulate their curiosity—connect it with their lives. Together we need to change the national dialogue about science—to prepare our kids to be honestly critical and technically competent.

"Science is all about questioning assumptions, testing theories, and analyzing facts. These are basic skills that prepare kids not just for the lab—but also for life. We’re doing kids a disservice if we don’t teach them how to ask tough and challenging questions."

Duncan also alluded to the broad efforts to improve math and science instruction in Chicago, where he headed up the school system before moving to Washington. You can read a bit more about those efforts here.

UPDATE: Here's a video of the speech. Also includes a Q and A with teachers at the end, in which Duncan talks about the narrowing of the curriculum and the movement toward national standards. He was also asked for more specifics about differential pay and performance pay. Duncan mentioned a mix of possible pay approaches, such as rewards for working in high-need schools, for test-score gains, for national board certification; and rewarding all employees at schools, rather than just individual educators, for results.

Duncan also said, not surprisingly, that he's been focused so far more on the stimulus than No Child Left Behind reauthorization. He said he intends to focus on the law more later this year, and that he'll collect ideas from educators around the country about NCLB.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the more fascinating and too-often underplayed aspects of the immigration debate centers on U.S. policies toward foreign college students and highly skilled workers. Many high-tech and industry leaders say those students and employees have played a vital role in our nation's business innovation and economic growth.

A 2007 study, for instance, found that 52 percent of Silicon Valley startups had one or more immigrants as a key founder, compared with the California average of 38 percent. More broadly across the economy, immigrant-founded companies produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005. One of the authors of that study is Vivek Wadhwa, a researcher who has written and spoken extensively on the impact of highly skilled immigrant workers.

The issue of whether to increase the cap on H-1B visas, which would allow more highly skilled, foreign-born workers to stay in this country, has been heavily debated in Congress. A number of corporate leaders want it. Some critics say these measures would take potential jobs away from U.S.-born workers and drive down salaries.

Now a new survey examines the attitudes of foreign-born college students and their interests in staying in the United States after graduation. Titled "Losing the World's Best and Brightest," it found that very few—6 percent of Indian students, 10 percent of Chinese, 15 percent of European—would like to stay in the United States permanently. A higher percentage indicated they would be interested in staying for a few years, then leaving.

What's interesting is what the survey suggests about students' reasons for heading for the exits.

On the one hand, the vast majority of foreign students—for instance, 85 percent of Indians and Chinese—were concerned about obtaining work visas. Yet they also had worries about where the U.S. economy is headed and job prospects here. Only 7 percent of Chinese students, 9 percent of Europeans, and 25 percent of Indians said they believed the best days of the U.S. economy are ahead of us. By contrast, 74 percent of Chinese students and 86 percent of Indian students saw a bright future for their home nations' economies.

The survey was based on responses from 1,224 foreign nationals currently studying in the United States who had graduated by the end of 2008. It was conducted in October of last year via the Facebook social-networking site.

It was sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. (Disclosure: Kauffman provides funding to Ed Week for math and science coverage.)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At a time when policymakers are interested in improving the quality of math and science teaching, a new book examines strategies for the professional development of educators in those subjects.

It's written by Iris R. Weiss and Joan D. Pasley of Horizon Research, Inc., a private research company in North Carolina. Weiss, the president of Horizon, and her team spent several years studying the Local Systemic Change programs, professional development efforts sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The LSC program sought to reach large numbers of teachers across districts in provide them with sustained professional training (teachers were required to take part in 130 hours of PD work). Weiss' group conducted an evaluation of the LSC program in 2006.

The authors make suggestions about the development of PD programs, based on their observations of the Systemic Change programs. The book, which just came out, is titled, "Mathematics and Science for a Change: How to Design, Implement, and Sustain High-Quality Professional Development." Read a sample chapter here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:51 AM | Permalink

The names of new staffers at the U.S. Department of Education continue to trickle out, week after week. Here's one that may be of particular interest to math and science teachers around the country: Steven Robinson, who will carry the title of special adviser to Secretary Arne Duncan.

I'd heard that Robinson was working at the department, and earlier, on the presidential transition team, from math and science folks in and around the Beltway, and thought readers might like to know a bit more about him. Robinson will advise the secretary on K-12 and higher education "STEM" issues, according to department officials. His background suggests he's familiar with both worlds. He's a former middle and high school and college teacher with 17 years experience in the classroom, agency officials said. (He's taught both AP biology and AP chemistry, among other classes.) He has a Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology from the University of Michigan and a degree in biology from Princeton.

He began working with Barack Obama back when the president was a U.S. senator from Illinois. Robinson served in Obama's office as an Albert Einstein Distinguished Education Fellow. Einstein Fellows are math and science teachers given financial support to work on Capitol Hill and in federal offices. The idea is they provide policymakers with an on-the-ground perspective on teaching and education issues. He was an adviser during Obama's presidential campaign, and, as I mentioned, he worked on the transition, consulting with Congress and advocacy groups.

He also volunteered with the D.C. public schools while working in the Senate, reading and tutoring elementary students and helping middle-grade students in math, according to the biographical sketch from the department.

Where are Robinson and others in the new administration likely to focus their attention when it comes to math and science issues? Judging from what Obama's said so far, it's a safe bet recruiting and retaining more teachers in STEM subjects, and making sure they are prepared, could be a focus. One question is whether the Obama administration will carry forward some of the STEM efforts promoted by President Bush, such as the work of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. The panel released a much-publicized report last year that called for a more focused curriculum in early-grades math, an approach that won both praise and criticism, depending on the audience.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Businesses, philanthropies, and other organizations have been staging math and science competitions and contests for years as a way to motivate students to take on independent projects and have their work judged by experts in the field.

If you're interested in a competition with a theme pulled from the day's headlines, have a look at the Moody's Mega Math Challenge 2009, known as "M-3." This year, participating teams from schools around the country were given the following mission:

—Determine which elements of the $787 billion economic-stimulus plan will produce the greatest increases in employment;
—Figure out how quickly the money could have an impact on the economy; and
—Evaluate whether a second stimulus package is needed.

The contest is sponsored by the philanthropic arm of Moody's, the global financial and research firm, and it's sponsored by the Society for Industrial and Applied Math, or SIAM. Students are competing for college scholarship awards valued at between $2,500 and $20,000, which will be divided up evenly among team members.

Students were encouraged to use resources from authoritative sources on federal spending, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Congressional Budget Office, and the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The deadline for submitting answers was last week.

The Moody's competition traditionally focuses on financial and economic issues. The 2008 challenge question asked students to examine the economic implications of replacing traditional gas with ethanol. In 2007, students were asked about a hypothetical investment portfolio. My question for readers: Of the other school math competitions out there, how many of them center on financial or budgetary themes? Is the focus of these competitions changing, given the issues of the day?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This just in: Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is expected to address the National Science Teachers Association at its annual meeting on March 20. The event is being held in New Orleans.

To the science educators out there: let's suppose the secretary opens the floor for questions after his remarks. What questions would you ask him about science education policy in this country? NSTA and some other organizations have suggested that No Child Left Behind should be changed so that it mandates that science scores count towards AYP, as reading and math do now. Do you agree? What else might you ask the secretary?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Many organizations have taken a strong interest in increasing young girls' engagement in math and science, as a hook to leading them into "STEM"-oriented fields and careers. The congressionally chartered National Academy of Sciences is trying to do its part through a web site, "I Was Wondering," which seeks to introduce female students to the possibility of science careers, and to the curiosities of the scientific world.

To date, the site has offered a number of resources for girls, including the biographies of female scientists in different fields, who talk about what they do in their work, day after day. They idea is to show girls that a scientific career is not only a feasible option, but a desirable one. The site also includes ideas for labs that can be used by teachers.

Now the site has added a feature that allows young students to submit questions about science and have them answered by a scientists. It's a moderated forum called "Ask It!" in which students can write in with questions about science, vote on which questions they would like to see answered by experts in the field. The Academies staff say they have arranged for scientists from around the country to post responses to selected inquiries.

The web site includes ideas for teachers on how they can use Ask It! their classes, not just for individual students, but for group activities. Here are some other links to online science resources for students and teachers, sponsored by federal agencies, museums and others.

My question: What other moderated science forums for students are out there? What makes them valuable? How could they be improved?

UPDATE: I was curious about how scientists were chosen to answer questions on the site. Terrell Smith, who works on the project for the National Academies, told me in an e-mail that while the process is still being refined, it begins with the Ask It! team checking to see which questions have received the most votes. The team then matches the question with a scientist in the appropriate field. The scientist might from one of the Academies' institutions (the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, or the Institute of Medicine), an in-house National Academies staff member/scientist, or another expert with whom the Academies have connections.

"Currently the Ask It! Team creates an account for the scientist and posts the answer on his or her behalf," Smith told me. "But for each posting, the scientist identified as the expert answering the question has been involved one-on-one with a member of the Ask It! Team to prepare the answer. We review each scientist's response and in most cases we also have an education consultant review the answers for age appropriateness before they are posted."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've had a lot of people tell me there's been a reduction, however slight or gradual, in the level of bluster and acrimony emanating from various combatants in the so-called "math wars" in recent years.

To the extent that there's an easing of the harshest rhetoric, I would trace it partly to the release of "Curriculum Focal Points" by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics in 2006. Much of the anger from parents, mathematicians, and others who believe schools have gone too far in promoting "fuzzy math" at the expense of traditional problem-solving methods was directed at NCTM. "Focal Points," a blueprint for ordering early-grades math lessons, won over some of the organization's critics. The document calls for a more focused and coherent early-grades math curriculum, with an emphasis on certain crucial topics, like whole numbers, fractions, and quick recall of number facts. "Focal Points" reflects a growing consensus that A) the current math curriculum is overcrowded and confusing for teachers and students; and B) creating a more focused curriculum and encouraging students to master certain key topics lay the groundwork for their foray into more difficult math later.

By no means am I suggesting that debates about math curriculum are going away. To believe that, I'd have to ignore the heated comments that roll into my in-box when I write a story about one curricular approach or another. (I often forget which side of the "math wars" I'm supposed to be on. Then one of these commenters will helpfully remind me.)

You could also make the argument that in a nation where what gets taught in schools can vary considerably from state to state and district to district, debates about math curriculum are inevitable, and in fact, a vital check on policymakers' decisionmaking.

This story, about a debate over math curriculum in Palo Alto, Calif., shows why we're not likely to see debates over math curriculum go away any time soon. But I'm also highlighting it because it reveals a few of the undercurrents at work in debates over curriculum, which tend to get lost in the tangled forest that is the math wars.

In one sense, the debate is familiar: A group of parents are questioning why the district appears to be favoring one curriculum, in this case Everyday Math, over another, enVision Math, and a third one, Singapore Math, that some of them seem to like best of all.

Some parents said Everyday Math doesn't place a strong enough emphasis on traditional problem-solving methods. (The program did get a qualified, positive review from the federal What Works Clearinghouse, not easy to come by.) And as is the case in many districts, part of the parents' concerns seems to be that the lessons in the textbooks look much different from those they're familiar with from their days in the classroom, years before.

But there are issues in play. Some district officials said Singapore Math didn't offer an approach that could serve students at a broad range of ability levels, including English-language learners. Others applauded enVision Math's focus on "depth" but worried that it was too easy and "treats math as a sequence of little ideas rather than big ideas."

One parent quoted in the story, a recent transplant from Minnesota, said he was having to supplement the Everyday Math lessons with after-school work because the approach was so different from what his son used in his previous district—a common problem in a nation with a student population as mobile as ours, I suspect.

"This is a difficult choice," one parent said in written comments about the math curricula, which the board asked for. "Well-meaning parents should not be able to vote based on five minutes of Google research."

Which raises another question, in all of these skirmishes: Where are parents getting their information about the various math curricula? Is there any emerging consensus on the math curriculum at early grades? What do debates like the one in Palo Alto say about where these debates are going?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)

Apparently bowing to intense pressure from the all-powerful mathematicians' lobby, Capitol Hill lawmakers have approved House Resolution No. 224, calling for March 14 to be recognized as "National Pi Day."

Kidding aside, the chief sponsor of the resolution, Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology, and other lawmakers have a serious intent.

Teachers around the country can plan math lessons and events around March 14 to celebrate Pi, or "π," which is the relationship between the diameter of a circle (its width) and its circumference (the distance around the circle). But I'm completely confident that you knew that already.

Gordon sees the resolution as a chance for schools to emphasize the importance of math and science, at a time when there's widespread worry about U.S. students' performance in those subjects.

"This is a lighthearted event but the goals are serious,” Gordon said in a statement. "By engaging students in math and science activities from a young age, we are setting our students on a path toward science and math literacy and careers.”

On a side note, you have to love arch, ultra-formal language of congressional resolutions, especially when they're focused on a topic as quirky as Pi.

"Whereas mathematics and science can be a fun and interesting part of a child's education, and learning about Pi can be an engaging way to teach children about geometry and attract them to study science and mathematics; and

Whereas Pi can be approximated as 3.14, and thus March 14, 2009, is an appropriate day for `National Pi Day': Now, therefore, be it resolved...."

For teachers interested in crafting math lessons around this math-themed day, check out this web site, sponsored by a group that's also looking to promote the magnificence of Pi.

UPDATE: The final vote was 391-10, according to this tally. Ten holdouts apparently opposed to paying righteous tribute to Pi.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent study, which I wrote about last week, makes the case for building students' depth of knowledge in science—as opposed to focusing on "breadth," a long list of topics across the subject.

But in the era of high-stakes tests, how do you test for depth? It's not easy. Many states and schools, at the urging of science advocates and others, believe exams should be broad enough to cover a lot of topics in science, as my story explains.

It's fine if you want to pare down the list, those advocates seem to be saying—just don't jettison the particular science topic we care about the most.

Another factor that favors testing "breadth": Multiple-choice tests are typically cheaper and easier to administer, as opposed to trying to trying to gauge students' knowledge through constructed-response, or adaptive testing, or what have you.

Yet despite those odds, there are efforts to test deep science knowledge. In my story I discussed efforts by the College Board to revamp its AP science tests to probe fewer subjects with greater intensity. The College Board had been criticized for promoting an overly broad approach on its exams.

Movement on that front is also occurring with the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP science test.

I didn't have room to get into this in my story this week, but that NAEP test, which has been given in the nation's schools over the past couple weeks, includes an interactive computer feature, administered to a subset of students. The goal of that portion of the test is to measure student science knowledge that cannot easily be assessed on paper, such as the ability to formulate and and perform experiments.

That process allows students to make choices based on data during experiments, officials at the Educational Testing Service, which is helping with the NAEP science exam, told me. This, in turn, allows for a better measure depth of knowledge.

If this approach takes hold, it's possible that the science test of the future will look much different than what's being used across the country today.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At an event in Washington yesterday, President Barack Obama spelled out some of his priorities for rewarding effective teaching through extra pay. "[W]e know it can make a difference in the classroom."

And in the pages of Ed Week, a pair of researchers presented some surprising data on the question of what can be done to create and secure a more stable pool of math and science teachers—among the most sought-after educators in the market.

Much of the attention given to Obama's speech rightly focused on what he said about performance pay, and rewarding teachers who excel with more money (though it turns out listeners interpreted his message in multiple ways, as my colleagues Steve Sawchuk and Alyson Klein have aptly reported).

But given the overall attention being paid to teacher quality these days by the administration and others, I think it's fair to raise the question: How will the president's priorities mesh with what the new research on teacher supply-and-demand is saying?

As my colleague Debbie Viadero explains in her story, Richard Ingersoll and David Perda, of the University of Pennsylvania, have put forward new research suggesting that the real problem in trying to fill enough classrooms with math and science teachers is not that too few are being lured into the profession—it's rather that too few of them are staying.

Efforts to expand the pipeline of math and science teachers by focusing primarily on what colleges and universities are or aren't doing may be misdirected, their findings suggest. Relatively large numbers of teachers are picking up necessary degrees at the bachelor's and master's levels to teach, or graduating in math- and science-related subjects with an interest in teaching, they conclude.

The larger issue is turnover. With so many teachers leaving math and science classrooms, the problem is that the supply side simply can't keep up. "[W]e're pouring water into a leaky bucket," is how Ingersoll puts it.

Obama talked about creating new incentives for luring teachers into the classroom. He also touched on the importance of mentoring new educators. "Teachers throughout a school will benefit from guidance and support to help them improve," he said.

Ingersoll's and Perda's work indicates that those training, mentoring, and professional development efforts are indeed crucial, perhaps as much or more than teachers' concerns about their pay. General dissatisfaction—as the Ingersoll-Perda research noted—and lack of administrative support, traditionally rank high on the list of reasons why math and science teachers leave, in some cases more than pay concerns.

The Ingersoll-Perda research, at the very least, could carry implications for federal and state investments in teacher recruitment and retention. The federal government invests a considerable amount in trying to lure new teacher into the profession, despite, as I've reported, limited research showing that those approaches work. Much of that investment flows in the form of grants and scholarships for math and science teachers.

Other efforts, such as Math and Science Partnership programs, run through the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education, are geared more toward improving the skills of teachers already in the classroom. Is that where Obama and other policymakers should be devoting the most attention? If Obama is attempting to halt, or at least slow, the revolving door in math and science teaching, what's the best way to do it?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Barack Obama is expected today to announce a new policy lifting restrictions on funding for human embryonic stem cell research. He will also issue a presidential memorandum meant to protect federal scientists and scientific research from political influence, according to reports.

I would argue that it's the second action has the most potential for creating intriguing discussions in science classrooms. Bush administration officials were accused repeatedly of attempting to disregard or squash scientific findings and views that did not mesh with their political ideology, especially on issues such as climate change and environmental regulation. A recent series by the Philadelphia Inquirer delved into some of those issues.

Regardless of whether they agree with the Obama administration's new policy, the topic offers teachers of science and other subjects with a springboard. What constitutes political interference into scientific research and science policy? Critics of the Bush administration clearly believe the former president's staff ignored science that didn't support their political points of view and policies. Yet some conservatives have argued that the evidence supporting climate change is not as strong as the mainstream scientific community claims and that too little attention is paid to how controlling carbon emissions could hurt the economy. (A prominent expert panel has concluded that it's clear that global warming is occurring and there's a "very high confidence" that humans are contributing to it.)

These topics could merit discussion in science or social studies classes. Why do federal scientists need to be guarded against political interference, or do they? Would such a policy in any way make it more difficult for a political leader—Democrat, Republican, Independent—more difficult to govern? What if a federal scientist puts forward a conclusion that is later called into question, not only by policymakers, but other scientists?

Many scientists were disappointed when President Bush, when battles over evolution in the states were running hot, appeared to say that he supported having both evolution and intelligent design taught in classrooms. The vast majority of scientists do not regard intelligent design as science. Neither did the president's own science adviser, as the above story notes. During debates over the teaching of evolution, many scientists often voice frustration that the public not only fails to grasp the tenets of Darwin's theory, but also seems confused about the rules and principles of science, and how scientists go about their work.

I haven't yet seen any comments from Obama today on his new policy, but it's safe to assume that his goals are broader than the policy itself. He seems to want to change the public's perception of the role and status of scientists. A teacher might ask: To what extent do presidents, through the bully pulpit, have the power to shape the public's, and student's understanding of what science is, and what the rules of science are?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Originally created in Japan, the practice known as "lesson study" grew more popular in the United States in the 1990s. Basically, it's a research and instructional-improvement method in which a teacher conducts a class under the observation of other educators and interested observers. The idea with these lab-type environments is that teachers discuss the teaching methods on display and how to refine them to improve student learning, engagement, and behavior.

When we wrote about lesson study techniques in 2004 (I linked to it in the above paragraph), teachers in 29 states were experimenting with that practice, according to the story.

Educators and academic researchers interested in learning more about this practice and its application to math might consider attending a conference this spring. It's being hosted by the Chicago Lesson Study Group, from May 7-9. More details here. The organization's Web site houses several good resources on lesson study, including its uses in secondary math.

The conference is now in its 8th year, the organizers tell me. They've highlighted not only the uses of lesson study in the United States, but also in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When teacher Mike Fletcher leads students through a geometry lesson, he brings a special kind of authority to the subject. He helped write their textbook.

Fletcher, a teacher from Mobile, Ala., applied and was accepted to the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project to help draft that text, titled "Geometry" and published by McGraw-Hill, which he now uses, according to this story from the Mobile Press-Register. The story provides a glimpse at the behind-the-scenes role that talented K-12 teachers sometimes play in drafting texts in math, science, and other subjects.

Fletcher spent several weeks over the summer of 2006 working with a team of K-12 teachers and university officials on the text. Zalman Usiskin, the director of the Chicago math project, told me in an e-mail that his group relies heavily on secondary math teachers to help draft its books. In fact, some of the K-12 teachers who have worked on math texts through the UCSMP first became involved in that process in the 1980s and continue to work on newer editions of those books today.

Every teacher who's listed as an author on a UCSMP text spent at least one summer writing for the organization, as Fletcher did, Usiskin noted. (Aside from the standard role Fletcher played in drafting the book, it appears his influence is evident in other, subtle ways, the story says. Geometry teachers who notice references to driving distances in southern Alabama can thank Fletcher.)

I often see math and science textbooks where K-12 educators are listed as contributing in a variety of ways—as authors, contributors, and so on. I've got a high school biology text at my desk that lists several teachers as "consultants," though the two main authors are university-level researchers. Jay Diskey, the executive director of the school division at the Association of American Publishers, said teachers play an "invaluable" role in textbook development, in many subjects, as authors, editors, and subject matter experts. Publishers have been seeking out teachers' advice for decades, he said.

For teachers out there who've worked on textbooks, a question: What is the best role for K-12 teachers in textbook development? Are there duties for which they're not well-suited? And what is the division of duties for K-12 teachers, university scholars, and outside wordsmiths in crafting a textbook?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Barack Obama is not the only national leader talking about the importance of education during a period of deep recession. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is seeking to revamp his nation's approach to math and science instruction, pitching that proposal as a matter of long-term economic health, according to this BBC story.

Brown says he wants to double the number of British secondary students taking "triple" science—biology, chemistry, and physics. Currently, just 8.5 percent of British students take the triple science option, the story says. Brown's plan is to double that figure by 2014, which the story says would represent an extra 100,000 pupils.

Another of his ideas will seem familiar to educators on this side of the pond. The prime minister is pledging to make it easier for workers laid off in science and technology industries to find jobs as math and science teachers.

In fact, British leaders seem concerned about a lot of the same issues as U.S. officials, judging from the story. They're worried about graduating too few college majors in science- and math-related fields. They also say there aren't enough qualified teachers in specialized subjects like physics.

Conservative Party leaders, by the way, don't seem to think much of Brown's ideas. One of them is quoted bemoaning the Labour Party's "appalling record on science." Brown is affiliated with Labour.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently came across this item in Plus magazine, an online publication which seeks to introduce readers to the "beauty and practical applications of mathematics." It asks readers to vote for their favorite fictional mathematicians. I was a bit surprised by the top vote-getter.

Then again, maybe I shouldn't have been. (After voting, scroll to the bottom of this entry, about math teachers swooning over the appearance of a couple celebrity math geeks at an NCTM annual meeting.)

What about a poll of favorite real-life mathematicians? Pythagoras? Descartes? Physicist-mathematician Einstein? I would guess the stock of John Nash has risen among a younger generation, thanks in no smart part to the work of Russell Crowe.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Most teachers have probably seen their students transmit all kinds of silly, strange, and downright inappropriate gestures over the course of the school day. But sometimes in-class gestures can have a benign and productive effect, at least in mathematics.

That's the conclusion of a new study published online in the journal Psychological Science this month. It found that children required to produce correct gestures learned more than children required to produce partially correct gestures, who, in turn, learned more than children required to produce no gestures.

The researchers, who included Susan Wagner Cook of the University of Chicago and others from that institution and the University of Iowa, manipulated student gestures during math lessons and studied the results.

The findings suggest that body movements are related not only to processing old ideas, but also in creating new ones, the authors assert. "We may be able to lay foundations for new knowledge simply by telling learners how to move their hands," the study explains in its abstract.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The American Chemical Society, a big organization that seeks to take an active role in school science and math issues, is seeking to hone its message on these topics and figure out a way it can have a bigger impact. And they're looking to the K-12 community to give them ideas.

The ACS, headquartered in Washington, has created a task for force to "identify a unique role for the world’s largest scientific society in transforming education in the United States." The task force is loaded with private industry officials, academic scholars, and some K-12 officials. They describe their mission this way:

"The task force’s charge extends across all educational levels, from primary through graduate and post-graduate science studies, as well as continuing professional development and more informal science education forums, such as museums and programs sponsored by civic and special interest groups."

ACS already takes an active role in trying to shape "STEM" policy at the federal level. The organization says it has 160,000 members worldwide, and describes itself as the world's largest chemical society.

More information about the task force can be found here. Input and advice for the task force can be sent to educationtaskforce@acs.org.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As state leaders and education advocates weigh evaluating U.S. students using international benchmarks, a new report argues that one prominent test, the PISA, is flawed and may not be appropriate for judging American schools on global standards.

The author, Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, also contends that questions asked on the Program for International Student Assessment surveys of students’ beliefs and attitudes about science reflect an ideological bias, which undermines the test’s credibility.

Here's our story on the report, which includes a response from the OECD, which oversees PISA, and the National Governors Association.

A separate part of the report deals with the performance of urban districts, following up on a 2001 analysis of their performance. The report finds that big-city districts made even larger gains than other districts in states. "They are closing the gap with suburban and rural districts, slowly, to be sure, but they are clearly making progress," Loveless' report says. He cites policies shifting power to city mayors as a possible factor, and No Child Left Behind, with its demands to improve achievement among low-performers, as possible factors.

A third section of the report says that many 8th graders are being put into algebra courses they simply aren't equipped to handle. I wrote about that issue last year.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Two sets of early-grades math curricula, Saxon Math and Math Expressions, emerged as big winners in a major study released by Mathematica. A curriculum that's drawn major heat from parents in some districts, Investigations in Number, Data and Space, did not fare as well. Nor did Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics. Read my colleague Debbie Viadero's story here.

Various factions in the much-discussed "math wars" are sure to go to the report for ammunition in advancing their causes. The study only focused on 1st graders, in four states. It involved about 1,300 students.

Investigations is often referred to as a "reform" math curriculum. In the minds of some parents, it shuns traditional arithmetic problem solving in favor of less traditional problem-solving approaches. The Scott Foresman-Addison product, however, is described as a more basic-skills oriented approach in the study, the story says. Math Expressions, meanwhile, seems to take a more integrated approach. So make of that what you will. The study can be found here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the elementary math curricular programs that tends to raise the ire of parents locked in the so-called "math wars" is Investigations in Number, Data and Space. Well, a federal review of that program is in, and the grade is (drumroll) incomplete.

The What Works Clearinghouse, a federal center for reviewing the quality of curricula and interventions on strict criteria, identified 40 different studies of Investigations. Unfortunately for those seeking a clarity on the merits of the curricula, none of the studies fell within the "review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards," the office found.

"The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space," the clearinghouse says in a new report.

Investigations is a K-5 curriculum published by Pearson Scott Foresman. It's raised hackles in a number of districts around the country, recently including Prince William County, Va., in the suburbs south of Washington. In general, critics say it does not pay enough attention to traditional problem-solving methods. The program's backers say it cultivates broader mathematical skills in young students, which serves them well in later math.

Keep in mind that the What Works Clearinghouse holds review standards that are often difficult to meet. One of its nicknames is the "Nothing Works Clearinghouse." Even so, a few curricula and interventions have made the cut, including the popular early-grades math program, Everyday Math.

Of course, that hasn't spared Everyday Math from attacks, either.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While the stimulus provides a major cash infusion to the nation’s schools, the flow of federal money to school and college “STEM” education efforts, in particular, is smaller and more difficult to track.

As my colleagues at Ed Week have detailed in past stories, the package provides about $95 billion, total, for the U.S. Department of Education. Most science and math education programs at the federal level today are overseen by the department and the National Science Foundation, but they are also scattered across other agencies.

As far as the Obama stimulus plan goes, probably the largest STEM education-specific pool of funding in the stimulus is $100 million for the National Science Foundation’s math and science teacher-training and recruitment ventures. Those funds provide $60 million for Noyce scholarships, a long-standing effort that offers aid to college students and working professionals; $25 million for math and science partnerships, which support links between K-12 schools and universities; and $15 million to support master’s degree programs for teachers.

Other examples of targeted STEM-education funding are few and far between, however.

Part of the reason is that the nearly $100 billion going to the Department of Education leaves many funding decisions to the states, so it’s not clear how much will be spent on STEM education. As some people have pointed out to me, it seems very likely that some of the money from various pools of cash going to the department, such as the $5 billion in discretionary state funds and the $650 million for school technology, will eventually go to STEM.

STEM “was treated very well treated in the stimulus,” James Brown, the co-chair of the STEM-ed coalition, an advocacy group, told me. State education officials, when given the choice, are almost certain to direct stimulus funds toward math and science teacher and classroom programs, Brown predicted. “In general, it’s a big victory,” he said.

There’s been no shortage of interest in STEM issues on Capitol Hill in recent years. In 2007, Congress approved the America COMPETES Act, which authorized billions in new spending on math and science, much of it focused on supporting cutting-edge research and innovation, and created many new federal programs. (It called for about $840 million to be spent on K-12 and college STEM education, I was told last year.)

Yet Congress has yet to actually fund most of those efforts, to the frustration of the COMPETES Act supporters. The stimulus doesn’t appear to make up much of the slack, as far as STEM education goes (though STEM research fares much better). For instance, you don’t see funding for the Math Now program, which was included in the COMPETES legislation, in the stimulus. Math Now, which was backed by the Bush administration, is supposed to support “research-based” math programs in schools.

It’s possible that STEM education funding could roll out through other channels in the stimulus. After all, 11 total agencies across the federal government, including NASA and the Department of Energy, support a total of about 105 different STEM education programs, worth $3 billion, according to one recent estimate. So researchers, teachers-in-training, and school districts have a lot of math and science resources they can tap.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Informal science experiences—trips to zoos, museums, TV shows, computer games, and the like—can play an important part in improving students' science learning, a recent study found. Now the House Science and Technology Committee, chaired by Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, is delving into that topic, holding a hearing on Thursday, Feb. 26, on those out-of-school science connections.

The scheduled speakers include Joan Ferrini-Mundy of the National Science Foundation; Phillip Bell, who co-chaired a National Academies panel that studied the topic recently and produced a report that I wrote about last month (linked above); and Robert Lippincott, the senior vice president for education at PBS.

Time: 10 a.m. Place: 2318 Rayburn House Office Building. It appears that a webcast of the discussion will be available, but see the committee's Web site on the hearing for more information.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 6:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In another sign of the growing interest of renewable energy lessons in schools, community colleges—a destination for many high school graduates—are getting into the act.

One example is Kalamazoo Valley Community College, in Michigan. The college's officials have announced a new program to train wind-turbine technicians, according to this story. A similar program for wind-turbine workers is being created at North Iowa Area Community College. Iowa has no shortage of wind, the author of this blog item, a native Midwesterner, will attest.

I learned of those programs through an organization that works heavily with community colleges, the Association for Career and Technical Education. One of the places where renewable energy lessons are becoming more common, in addition to science classes, are technology and career-oriented (formerly known as voc-ed) courses, as I discussed in a story a few weeks ago.

The growth of green power education in community colleges is interesting for a couple reasons. First of all, it seems likely to make high school students (whether they're on a career-tech track or not) believe that there's a future in green industries.

It's also relevant because in tough economic times, many students are choosing the community college option because of the colleges' affordability, job losses in local industries, and other factors. I've always thought that the value and role of community colleges doesn't receive enough attention from the media, and in the public sphere, generally.

(Photo from the AP)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Researchers from around the country are coming to the National Science Foundation this week to discuss cutting-edge and otherwise innovative research on science, technology, mathematics, and engineering ("STEM") education topics.

On Thursday, Feb. 19, educational psychologists, cognitive scientists and others will present information on work funded through NSF's Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and Engineering program, known as REESE.

A number of researchers will make presentations from 3:30 to 5 p.m., at NSF's offices at 4201 Wilson Boulevard, in Arlington, Va. A full roster of the participants, along with background information on their research, is available here.

(Image courtesy of NSF)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

At a time when many educators are looking for ways to encourage more students, and more girls in particular, to take an interest in science, a new study suggests gender bias in male and female views of their high school teachers' abilities could be setting back those efforts.

The study finds that male students rate their female science teachers significantly lower than their male teachers in biology, chemistry, and physics. Females students also rate women teachers negatively, though only in physics.

Those attitudes' show up despite male and female teachers showing roughly the same level of effectiveness in preparing students for college-level science courses, as demonstrated by their grades in undergraduate science classes.

Students' different attitudes toward male and female teachers also came through even when the authors accounted for different teaching styles, different levels of popularity among students, and other variations in classroom experiences, the study found. The overall picture indicates that students' attitudes toward their science teachers are specifically linked to gender, say the authors, from Clemson University, the University of Virginia, and the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Their study was published in the journal Science Education.

The study was based on a large-scale survey of undergraduates called "Factors Influencing College Science Success." Part of the survey asks students to rate their high school teachers on various points, from their subject-matter knowledge to their ability to keep the class on task.

You can find a link to the study here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Obama administration has pledged to make the federal government's work more transparent and to give the public more opportunities to make its opinion known on issues through technology and other means.

Whether those campaign visions come to fruition remains to be seen. But the administration is launching a new online tool to allow students to share ideas and opinions on environmental policy. It's a new blog called "Greenversations," run by the Environmental Protection Agency. The site is aimed at encouraging students to share ideas about the environment and energy issues, and reducing personal energy use.

In an announcement of the new blog, officials from the EPA note that students have historically played a big role in shaping some environmental policy, such as the growth in interest in recycling. The site is being created amid a surge of interest in renewable energy and green topics in schools.

The EPA says the site is supposed to be up and running officially later this week. What's up now is a basic introduction to it. The blog will written by Michelle Gugger, a participant in the AmeriCorps VISTA program, a volunteer effort, who is working with EPA’s regional Water Protection Division; and Loreal Crumbley, an intern at the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection in Washington. It will present a new topic each week, and include tools such as a carbon calculator for students to evaluate their energy use.

(Credit for the photo goes to Steven Katovich, of the USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.org)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Someone recently forwarded me this link to a citizens' organization that is apparently tracking the revision of state math standards in New Jersey. Many of its members' concerns, and their language, will seem familiar to anybody who's followed debates over K-12 math over the years, particularly in state academic standards. For instance, the coalition's members are concerned about students at early grades becoming too reliant on calculators, and they say the draft state document is misleading from a mathematical standpoint. (I'm not certain if the draft has been reworked since then.) Nothing unusual about those complaints, as far as these things go.

But in other respects, the site shows how debates over K-12 math have changed during the last few years. First, this organization is calling itself the "New Jersey Coalition for World Class Math." It's not just that New Jersey needs a strong set of math standards, the coalitions says; it's that the state needs to be looking to the practices of high-performing countries on TIMSS and PISA. They name them, with Finland and Singapore getting a mention. Of course, your definition of "world class" standards might differ from the coalition's, but this is one sign that the globalization push within the standards movement seems to continue unabated.

Another sign of change: Much of the opinion offered on the coalition's Web site stresses the need for "coherence" in K-12 math resources, as a way of helping teachers and others. This, as opposed to more ideological debates about how to teach math (though some of those are in evidence, too.).

Finally, the coalition holds up documents offered by both the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (it's K-8 "Focal Points") and the National Math Panel as effective blueprints for how early-grades math should be taught. Advocates of those two documents have not always been on the same sides of the so-called "math wars" in the past. But they are here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Since I write about math and science education, I spend a good amount of time reporting on topics where elected officials, influential advocacy groups, and big businesses seem to speak with one voice—agreeing, to a large extent, about middling U.S. performance on international tests, unfocused math and science curriculum, poorly trained teachers, and the need to help prepare students for crucial subjects, like algebra, which are springboards to more advanced studies. The general thinking on a lot of these issues is that schools can and should be listening to the business lobby. After all, employers presumably know what skills students will need for the workplace, and where high school graduates are falling short now.

But as the nation’s economic crisis worsens, it sure looks as if the public’s resentment over a seemingly endless succession of business scandals, corporate bailouts, and investor rip-offs is spilling over into the world of education.

You see it in the blogosphere, in comments to this blog and others, when somebody touts the supposed wisdom of the business community in promoting one K-12 innovation or another—and you'll find a response along the lines of, who's the genius who thought of that?

You read it in commentaries like this one, from Carl Glickman, in a recent commentary in Phi Delta Kappa:

“We feel compelled to report to the American people that the business and financial foundations of our society are currently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur—companies that extolled themselves as models of excellent practices have deceived the American people with sloppy, undisciplined, and greedy practices that are driving Americans out of their homes, threatening their retirements, and dashing their hopes of a financially secure future. Indeed, if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre corporate financial performance that exist today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

"God forbid that our schools become more like these kinds of businesses! Our business and financial communities have, in effect, been committing rash, thoughtless acts of unilateral financial disarmament, dragging our citizens and their children into economic insecurity while having many of these same citizens pay the bill.”

If the language sounds familiar, that’s because Glickman is riffing on the tone of A Nation at Risk, the seminal 1983 report that said U.S. schools were in crisis.

You could take issue with Glickman’s ideas or his execution, but he’s expressing a point of view that, from my reading of things, is increasing as public anger grows. My question for readers—if you buy my premise—is this: Think back to previous periods when this country was slogging through a major economic downturn: the late 1970s, early 1980s. Was there any spillover, in the public's or the education community's view of the perceived wisdom of the business lobby’s K-12 ideas? Did it matter then? Will it matter now?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I've received a lot of responses to a story I wrote this week about the growth of "green" lesson plans and curriculum in schools. Some of the reaction has come from schools that are drawing power from solar energy and crafting lessons about the power of the sun.

One sun-powered display that I didn't have room to get in the story can be found in the Lagunitas school district, outside San Francisco. (It's pictured on the right.)

It was designed and built by Borrego Solar, also located in California. Borrego has seen more school districts use solar installations in recent years, efforts supported by tax credits and creative finance mechanisms, their director of business development, Brian von Moos, told me.

Images of another solar-powered school were forwarded to me by a representative of Tioga Energy. That company has built what looks like a pretty vast solar array at the Athenian School, in Danville, Calif. If you've heard of creative efforts to incorporate renewable energy into science lessons, feel free to post them.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Taking math seriously, and learning to enjoy it, will probably make your life easier in high school. It will almost certainly help you get into college and increase your odds of succeeding once you get there.

But what kinds of career options are out there for students with talent in math and a love for that subject?

I recently came across a good online resource that seeks to answer that question for students. It's the "Career Profiles" page, offered on the Web site of the Mathematical Association of America.

As the name suggests, the site aims to answer the question "why study math," by telling the stories of people in a range of careers—business, government, and academic research. The site offers the first-person accounts of workers on how math led them into their careers, and how they use it on the job.

There's the story of Capt. C.J. Haynes, a program manager who works on air traffic control systems and combat identification systems for the U.S. Navy. She also oversees a $3 billion budget, the profile explains. There's Mitchell Stabbe, a former math major in college who describes how he uses mathematical reasoning in his job as lawyer specializing in trademark law.There's former math major James L. Cooley, who's designing spacecraft for NASA.

The site is a part of the Mathematical Sciences Career Information Project. It's one of a number of useful resources I've seen in this area recently.

Another interesting one, which gives examples of how math is used from high-tech jobs to the factory floor, was published recently by Achieve. See my entry about the work in this area, "Making the Case for Advanced Math."

(Photo courtesy of the MAA.)

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sometimes an in-class lab is not enough.

I recently received a notice about a bus that is being used in Chicago-area schools as a sort of mobile science classroom to teach students about clean-air and environmental issues. It's one of a number of mobile science labs I've heard of over the years. The idea is pretty simple. You retrofit a bus or vehicle of some sort, which you then send from school to school, so that teachers make use of it to teach students about a specific science concept—in this case, environmental issues. The bus is officially known as the Clean Air Bus Club.

The vehicle in this case is owned by the Cook Illinois Corp., a bus company that serves about 2,000 schools in the Chicago region. The company has switched 90 percent of its bus fleet to biodiesel. The bus that is being used for the mobile lab was old, and most likely destined for the scrap heap, John Benish Jr., the company's chief operating officer told me, until the company decided to retrofit it into a "museum-on-wheels." The company, according to a statement forwarded to me, sponsored the bus as a way to increase awareness of asthma among school-age children, and its link with pollution.

The bus, which features hands-on interactive environmental exhibits, is available for free visits to Chicago-area schools, libraries, and community events. The company spent about $20,000 renovating the inside and outside of the vehicle, Benish said. About 1,100 students have toured it so far.

One of the long-running science labs-on-wheels is Alabama Science in Motion , which delivers resources to students and professional development to teachers in that state. Mobile labs, operating in different regions, deliver resources to schools across the state, as part of the program. It operates as part of the Alabama Math, Science and Technology Initiative, or AMSTI, one of the largest state-run professional-development and classroom-improvement initiatives in math and science in the country. I wrote about AMSTI back in January, as part of a series of stories about Alabama's efforts to improve math and science instruction.

If you know of similar labs-on-wheels, or have ideas on how they can be improved, let me know.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's a long-running debate about how the skills of U.S. students compare with those of their peers in nations like China. A recent study seeks to cut through the speculation with research from both nations' university systems.

In an article published in the journal Science, a team of researchers found that first-year Chinese university students easily beat American freshmen in a test of their knowledge of specific scientific concepts in mechanics, electricity, magnetism. Yet the U.S. students equaled their Asian counterparts when it came to a measure of their broader scientific reasoning ability.

The students tested in the study were freshmen science and engineering majors enrolled in calculus-based introductory physics courses in both the United States and China. They were tested before receiving any college-level instruction in the topics, so presumably, the researchers, from Ohio State University, were gauging skills picked up in K-12.

The Chinese students' strong performance in science knowledge was especially evident in mechanics, where most of those tested scored in the area of 90 percent correct. The American students' scores varied widely, from about 25-75 percent.

The authors note the differences between the Chinese and American science curricula as likely factors in explaining the differences. In China, every student goes through the same physics courses in grades 8-12, the authors say. (I'm assuming they mean if those students have access to schools and teachers at all. This is no sure thing in some villages and regions in China.) Physics courses in China tend to be algebra-based, and the emphasize the cultivation of conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills, they report. In the United States, on the other hand, only one out of three high school students enrolls in a two-semester physics course.

As far as students' science reasoning goes, the authors point to research that shows that "inquiry-based science"—basically, the idea of using hands-on lessons and having students learn science as scientists actually go about it—is likely to help students' performance in this area. Not enough of that kind of teaching is going on today, they suggest.

"The current style of content-rich STEM education," the article says,"even when carried out at a rigorous level, has little impact on the development of students' scientific -reasoning abilities."

Here's a summary of the results, and a link to the full article.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On the list of people you least want to tick off on Capitol Hill, Sen. Chuck Grassley's name is probably pretty high up there.

Yet some employees of the National Science Foundation have managed to do just that, after allegedly spending a considerable amount of agency time looking at pornography on the Internet.

The revelations about NSF staff members downloading sexually explicit files from the Web and storing them on their computers emerged in a semiannual report by the agency's office of the inspector general. One of the more startling revelations in the report is that an "NSF senior official" had spent up to 20 percent of his official work time viewing sexually explicit materials and engaged in explicit "chats" with various women. The inspector's report said that wasted time carried a cost of $58,000, based on the employee's estimated salary.

Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. The revelations about NSF come as the agency is seeking billions in the federal stimulus plan, a fact that is not lost on the Iowa senator. While Democrats are in control of both the House and Senate and guiding the stimulus legislation, Grassley has a pretty big platform to voice objections to giving more federal money to the agency. And Grassley says he intends to get more information, according to this story in Politico. He wrote a letter recently to NSF's inspector general, asking that the foundation turn over audit reports, evaluations, and other information related to the agency's computer systems.

"The semiannual report raises real questions about how the National Science Foundation manages its resources," Grassley wrote, "and Congress ought to demand a full accounting before it gives the agency another $3 billion in the stimulus bill."

The NSF, based in Arlington, Va., supports all sorts of research on math and science curriculum, professional development, and other efforts to improve instruction. The agency has taken some steps to more closely monitor employees' computer usage after learning of the abuses, the inspector general reported.

We'll have to see what fallout comes of this, as the stimulus moves forward.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post has a good story on what I would describe as an under-reported issue in education today: The dissimilarity of math standards and courses that, on paper, appear to be uniform.

The story focuses on Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, and their efforts to encourage more students to take Algebra 2. The story says DC is moving toward a requirement that all students complete that math class before high school graduation. While Virginia and Maryland are not taking that step, the story notes that all three jurisdictions are raising requirements for Algebra 2 in one way or another, and that Virginia requires students to take a standardized test to show they've learned the material. Nationwide, the number of states that are requiring Algebra 2, or an equivalent course, has jumped from just two in 2005 to 20 today, the story says, citing Achieve.

The story does a nice job of looking at conflicting pressures facing officials in all three systems, pressures that are playing out in districts around the country. On the one hand, they want to encourage many more students to take Algebra 2, to prepare them for college and the job market. But the reality is that many students show up in these courses far from ready. As a result, algebra classes can look very different, depending on the school, and how far the students have to catch up. One Maryland official cites that states' experience, years before, in increasing mandates for Algebra 1, when many schools were forced to offer not only a traditional class, but also "Baby Algebra," a slower-paced version, for students who couldn't keep up. It doesn't take much imagination to see how similar problems crop up in Algebra 2.

I touched on some similar issues in a series of stories I wrote last month on the state of Alabama's experience in setting relatively high math and science requirements. Alabama, despite being one of the lowest-performing states on national tests, was the first state in the country to require four years of both math and science in high school. Just last year, the state moved to increase those requirements once again, phasing in a mandate that students take Algebra 2, with trigonometry, unless their parents opt them out.

Alabama's schools, however, meet the state mandate in very different ways. In some districts, students are expected to take both math and science, literally, all four years, freshman through senior year. In other places, however, such as those using block scheduling, students can squeeze the mandated courses into three or even two years, meaning they might not take any math or science their seniors years. State officials, meanwhile have made large-scale efforts to increase the skills of their math and science teachers, though one of the largest state-run teacher training programs in the country, and students' access to high-quality courses, through distance education and other means.

As more states move to toughen math and science policies, expect to see them grappling with the issue of how to help struggling students—and how to ensure that students in math and science courses with impressive titles are being taught material that's equally impressive.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Scientists are celebrating in Texas today—or are they?

The Texas state board of education on Friday tentatively approved new science standards, the basic blueprint that spells out what students are expected to know in that subject. The overwhelming focus has been on how the document would treat evolution.

The existing version of the standards, which have been around since 1998, call for students to learn about the "strengths and weaknesses" of various scientific theories. Scientists have long complained about that wording, basically arguing that certain critics are only interested in examining what they believe are weaknesses in one theory in particular: evolution. Doing so is misleading, to say the least, most scientists say, because evolution is one of the best-supported principles in all of science.

So today, after many twists and turns, the board today tentatively approved standards that do not include the "strengths and weaknesses" language, a move likely to hearten many scientists. The revised document instead says that students should use "critical thinking, scientific reasoning and problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom," and that they are expected to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing."

The board specifically rejected an amendment to re-insert the strengths-and-weakness language.

But you can bet that a lot of biologists (not to mention chemists, anthropologists, and others) will be less enthused about another action by the Texas board. Its members approved an amendment that asks students to "analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, statis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record," according to the Texas Education Agency.

A few advocacy groups following the debate in Texas have already put out statements calling this statement an attempt to undermine the teaching of evolution. Common ancestry is a key concept in evolutionary biology, and one the public often misunderstands. I could try to explain it, but I'd rather quote from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism," a very readable booklet published by a pair of prestigious institutions, the National Academies and the Institute of Medicine, in 2007:

"Each species that lives on Earth today is the product of an evolutionary lineage — that is, it arose from a preexisting species, which itself arose from a preexisting species, and so on back through time. For any two species living today, their evolutionary lineages can be traced back in time until the two lineages intersect. At that intersection is the species that was the most recent common ancestral species of the two modern species. (Sometimes, this common ancestral species is referred to as the common ancestor, but this term refers to a group of organisms rather than to a single ancestor.) For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was a species estimated to have lived 6 to 7 million years ago, whereas the common ancestor of humans and the puffer fish was an ancient fish that lived in the Earth’s oceans more than 400 million years ago.

Thus, humans are not descended from chimpanzees or from any other ape living today but from a species that no longer exists. Nor are humans descended from the species of fish that live today but, rather, from the species of fish that gave rise to the early tetrapods

If the common ancestor of two species lived relatively recently, those two species are likely to have more physical features and behaviors in common than two species with a more distant common ancestor. Humans are thus far more similar to chimps than they are to fish. Nevertheless, all organisms share some common traits because they all share common ancestors at some point in the past. For example, based on accumulating fossil and molecular evidence, the common ancestor of humans, cows, whales, and bats was likely a
small mammal that lived about 100 million years ago. The descendants of that common ancestor have undergone major changes, but their skeletons remain strikingly similar. A person writes, a cow walks, a whale swims, and a bat flies with structures built of bones that are different in detail but similar in general structure and relation to each other." (p. 24)

Whether the document approved by the Texas board appeals to you or offends you, know this: It's not over yet. The panel is scheduled to meet in March to vote on a final version of the science standards.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

When attempting to help students in math, don't forget the human factor.

That appears to be the central conclusion of an article I came across recently, which came out this fall in the Review of Educational Research, a publication of the American Educational Research Association. Published in September (I just noticed it a few days ago), the study is a research review of 87 experimental studies of the effectiveness of elementary math programs.

You can read it here.

The basic conclusion: Changing teaching practices does more to increase students' math achievement than simply changing textbooks or using computers in instruction.The article is a review of published studies of those three approaches, which had to meet fairly select research standards to be considered.

The authors of the article, Robert Slavin and Cynthia Lake, found that there was limited evidence that particular math textbooks had an effect on student achievement, according to the criteria used in their study. The effects of computer-assisted instruction were moderate, they found. But the strongest positive effects came as a result of changes to instructional approaches, such as the use of "cooperative learning":—having students work in small pairs or small groups#151;efforts to improve teachers' skills in classroom management and how they use their time, and supplemental tutoring programs for students.

The authors point out that changing math students' computers usage, textbook instruction, and focusing on teachers' practices "do not conflict with each other" and in fact could compliment each other to improve student achievement.

Yet the findings "suggest that educators and researchers might do well to focus more on how mathematics is taught, rather than expecting that choosing one or another textbook by itself will move their students forward," they say.

Slavin and Lake are both associated with Johns Hopkins University and its Center for Research and Reform . Their review should provide some fodder for discussion, given the heated debates over math curricula and textbooks that periodically break out across the country, particularly during textbook-approval process. Here's an example of a recent conflagration.

Research has pointed to the primacy of effective teachers in math before, as noted by the National Math Panel's report last year. What's less clear is what kind of background and preparation makes for a good math teacher.

In light of those debates, I suppose the upshot of their review might be, well, what if math curricula and textbooks don't matter quite as much as everybody says they do? Of course, a lot of teachers and math experts would probably say that curricula, textbooks, and teaching are all intertwined. Unfortunately, teachers with shaky math skills rely heavily on their textbooks to guide them. And the textbooks are typically based on individual states' standards and curricula. So if the curricula and textbooks are incoherent, or simply of poor quality, that just makes the teacher's job all the more difficult.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Let's say you're entering your senior year of high school.

Your school district, or your state, is requiring you to take a fourth year of math. But the only options offered, in addition to the courses you've already taken, are pre-calculus, calculus, and a more basic course that wouldn't challenge you. You don't want to take a blow-off course, but you also don't like the calc and pre-calc options. It's not that you hate math. But you're not planning on majoring in math in college. You want math that challenges you in a different way.

Many schools are creating alternative math courses for 12th graders in the above-described predicament. One example of this approach is occurring at East Kenwood High School, in Michigan, as described in a recent story in the Grand Rapids Press. The school has added a number of alternative math classes, including Math and the FBI, Math and Sports, and Math in the Graphic Arts.

The story also describes a math course called "Geocaching," which I'm assuming has to do with hiding caches of material and then using GPS technology to find it. (And yes, I had to look it up.)

The classes are popular, and likely to become more so, as Michigan raises its graduation requirements in math, the story suggests. Many states are taking similar steps to increase those demands. The story also mentions that earlier this month, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, signed a bill into law that allows schools to award math credit for personal finance classes. A number of schools in the Michigan district are preparing to launch such classes, the article says.

I wrote last month about the growth of alternative math courses for high school seniors. A number of research and advocacy organizations and academic scholars have created curricula for these classes, saying the current lineup of courses is not serving many students. If designed and taught well, these classes can be just or nearly as challenging as traditional advanced math, their supporters say—but with a stronger emphasis on applied skills, or areas of math that are often neglected, such as statistics or reasoning.

If you know of a senior year math course that breaks from the norm, ship me a description of it. There are a lot of school officials looking for ideas.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Less than a year after a federal panel offered its blueprint for how to improve teaching and learning in math, a number of academic researchers have put some sharply worded critiques of that work in print.

Their reviews have been published in a special issue of the Educational Researcher, a journal of the American Educational Research Association. The AERA, a well-known, nonpartisan Washington organization, invited and published the essays, which examine the final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, titled “Foundations for Success.”

The math panel was appointed in 2006 by President Bush to study effective strategies for improving student learning in math, particularly in steeling them for algebra. In sum, the panel, comprised of academic scholars, cognitive psychologists, and others, called for a more streamlined pre-K through grade 8 math curriculum, with a strong emphasis on making sure that students master certain content at early grades—particularly whole numbers, fractions, and aspects of geometry and measurement. The panel’s 19 voting and 5 nonvoting members reviewed about 16,000 total documents over a 18-month period. The final, 90-page report, released in March, struck a conciliatory tone with regard to the so-called “math wars,” ideological disputes about how to teach math, calling for a mix of curricular approaches and teaching styles.

Many of the essays in the AERA journal, not surprisingly, take issue with one of the more controversial aspects of the panel’s work: the standards of evidence its members relied on to judge the effectiveness of math programs and curricula. The panel gave the strongest weight to scientific studies that “meet the highest methodological standards,” and which have been replicated in different kinds of settings. To critics, those standards resulted in too much weight being given to a research method known as a randomized control trial. The panelists’ reasoning (as explained in one of the AERA essays) is holding math programs to high standards was necessary, if the panel’s recommendations were to have relevance on a national scale in schools around the country.

One of the essays, written by Paul Cobb and Kara Jackson, criticizes the panel’s “unflagging adherence” to experimental studies, which they say “adversely affects the quality and usefulness of [it’s] recommendations.” Another essay, whose lead author is Jere Confrey, asserts that the panel applies its own standards inconsistently from math topic to topic, which results in “serious breaches” of the panel's ability to produce a high-quality, objective report. (A few years ago, Confrey led a panel of the National Research Council, which produced a 2004 report on how to judge the effectiveness of math curricula. The NRC is an independent research entity chartered by Congress.)

Confrey and her co-authors also allege that the panel’s work is already “contributing to a marginalization of mathematics educators and to the neglect of decades of research on children’s learning of mathematics.”

Another essayist, Finnbar C. Slone, of Arizona State University, has a different take. He takes issue with the panel’s reliance on randomized trials, but also suggests a new “working model” for studying math education.

The panel’s chair and vice-chair, Larry Faulkner and Camilla Persson Benbow, respond to these critiques with their own essay defending their standards of evidence. They also seek to explain the panels’ methods, and the constraints under which its members worked. They note that the panel needed to establish clear criteria for judging math research, even if definitions of what constitute scientific evidence amount to a “moving target.” Several panelists, during the group's open discussions, voiced surprise at the lack of research about what works in K-12 math education, despite the broad public worry about U.S. students’ mixed performance in that subject. Faulkner and Benbow write that they hope the panel’s work can direct academic research where it is most needed.

Readers of the report should see it not “as the end of an initiative” they write, but as “the first step of a more formalized process that moves from rhetorical handwringing to the framing of initiatives and the development of future research directions.”

After you’ve sampled the AERA essays, I hereby solicit your own commentaries in this forum.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

With the recent release of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (suggested headline: Mixed Results for the United States), it's worth noting that there are many good opinion pieces and commentaries being put forward by researchers offering their take on how to interpret these and other, nation v. nation exams.

The obvious question these commentators are trying to get at is: How good- or bad-off are we? In trying to interpret those results, I'm struck by how many respected, astute researchers have looked at the available data from international tests like TIMSS and PISA and come to very different conclusions.

One interesting opinion piece was published in the commentary section of my very own newspaper by Mark Schneider, who recently stepped down as chief of the National Center for Education Statistics. Schneider notes that, on the sunny side of things, the American students beat the averages scores on the TIMSS, and that we have many students performing at a very high level.

But he also presents a much darker view. Schneider examines the "effect sizes" of the performance gap between U.S. students and their peers in other nations, and between different populations within our country, on the TIMSS and other tests. He finds that the difference separating the performance of grade 4 students from rich and poor backgrounds in the United States is much larger than the score-distance between the United States and top-performing Hong Kong on the TIMSS. Similarly, the 4th grade gap between the United States and Hong Kong is even greater than the difference between the highest- and lowest-performing states on the 4th grade NAEP—an American exam—Massachusetts and Mississippi.

Researchers Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell have a different take on many of the international test results. On tests like TIMSS and PISA, far too much attention is paid to average test scores, they have argued. The United States has a relatively strong portion of high-performing students on international tests, and by virtue of the overall size of its population, produces far more students with the skills necessary to enter science and engineering related professions that everybody seems so worried about. They are troubled, however, by the United States producing large numbers of low-performing students, compared to foreign competitors.Some of these views are presented in a recent article in Nature, as well as in an earlier report.

The education researcher Gerald Bracey has also written extensively about his view that claims about U.S. students' educational inadequacies, as judged by average test scores, are grossly exaggerated. A sampling of his opinions of this topic is provided here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There’s a long, fractious debate over the performance of public schools v. private schools in this country, and that feud has grown more intense over the past few years, with the publication of a couple of intriguing studies on student performance that compare the two systems.

And if subject-specific fights are your thing, you’d find a similar level of rancor in play in the so-called “math wars,” the seemingly unceasing disagreement over the value of “reform”-oriented math, as opposed to a more “traditional” curriculum. (Though there has been noticeable evidence of a détente among the various factions in recent years.)

A recent study touches on both of these volatile topics, and produces some very provacative results, as my colleague Debbie Viadero noted in a recent column. It’s sure to provoke a lot more discussion, and possibly more research.

A study published by Sarah Theule Lubienski, of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, examines why public school students perform as well, and, in some cases, better than private school pupils on national math tests, as judged by NAEP scores. The study, co-authored by Christopher Lubienski (Sarah’s husband) and Corinna Crawford Crane, suggests two explanations for the relatively strong public school performance: public school students were more likely to be taught by teachers who were certified, and by those who used “reform”-focused approaches to teaching math.

The study was a follow up to an earlier one published by that same team of researchers a few years ago, which documented public schools faring well, compared to private schools. Not surprisingly, those findings were disputed by some researchers, though a federal study published shortly afterward by the National Center for Education Stastistics reached similar conclusions.

The most relevant aspect of the recent study to many in the the math community, of course, is how well “reform”-oriented math stacks up. “Reform” is a malleable, and overused term in K-12 education these days, and defining it is a perilous enterprise. But in the K-12 math universe, the term has generally been associated with the standards and methods promoted by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The study defines it generally as curriculum that “emphasizes student sense-making and…de-emphasizes (is this ok, since it’s in a quote?) rote learning and routine procedures.” The proper use of calculators and manipulatives is also encouraged. Additionally, the authors note that NCTM has modified its curricular goals to place greater emphasis on geometry and measurement, data analysis/probability, and other topics.

As the authors note, scores on the main NAEP have risen over the past 15 years, though there’s been much debate about whether those gains occurred “because of, or in spite of” NCTM standards.

The authors examined NAEP scores and linked the responses to surveys of students and teachers, given as part of the test, Ms. Lubienski explained in an e-mail. Fourth and 8th grade students were asked questions about the nature of math, such as whether they thought “learning mathematics is mostly memorizing facts,” and “there is only one correct way to solve a mathematics problem.” Teachers were asked about their classroom methods—use of calculators, emphasis on geometry and measurement, and so on.

The results showed that “reform” oriented instruction correlated positively with achievement, and that it was more common in public schools than private ones. The “strongest, most persistent predictor of achievement” at grade 4 was teachers’ emphasis on non-number math strands, the study found, such as geometry, measurement, data analysis/probability.

I suspect that the reaction to the study will focus on the authors’ assumptions about what constitutes “reform” math, and on the accuracy of the information gleaned from the NAEP student/teacher surveys. One study won’t settle anything, of course, but it will deepen the pool of research in this area, and advance the discussion (possibly on this blog).

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A judge has now officially blocked a California policy requiring students to take algebra in 8th grade from going forward. Judge Shelleyanne Chang had originally issued a "tentative ruling" saying she was likely to halt the policy, as of a few days ago. But she's now made the decision final, in a decision dated today, Dec. 22.

If you opposed California's algebra mandate, don't celebrate just yet. Ted Mitchell, the chairman of the California Board of Education, which approved the policy, says the panel will appeal, according to the Associated Press. More to come.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Zoos, aquariums, and science centers have become major resources for science teachers over the years. Educators see those facilities as places where students can study the behavior of living things, or learn about them through visually appealing exhibits, rather than simply reading about them in a textbook or hearing about them in a lecture.

In reporting a story earlier this year, I learned that 90 percent of the nation’s zoos, aquariums, and museums said that they had at least one educational outreach program. That story was about Urban Advantage, a New York City program that offered middle school students access to the city’s big network of zoos and aquariums, and provided teachers with extensive professional development on how to shape lessons for their science classes around those exhibits.

I spent time with Mitch Goodkin, a science teacher at Russell Sage Middle School in Queens, who had all sorts of in-class activities for students that were connected to zoo and aquarium exhibits. Goodkin also trained other NYC teachers come up with their own zoo-to-classroom connections.

I’m sure that many teachers would like to make use of local museums and science centers in their classes, but aren’t sure how to do it, or whether their administrators will support it. I recently came across a resource that could help them. It’s a Web site run by the Center for the Advancement of Informal Science Education, which is supported by the National Science Foundation.

One of the resources on the site is a recent study that examined how the opinions of visitors to zoos and aquariums were influenced by those trips. The study, which was published in 2007 and supported by the NSF, found that visitors, perhaps not surprisingly, bring higher-than-expected knowledge about basic ecological concepts, and that more than half of them (54 percent) reconsidered their attitudes toward environmental problems and conservation action. The study focused on adults, not children, but teachers might still find it useful.

But the web site also includes a report on how to evaluate the effectiveness of informal education projects overall. That report examines issues such as how to design studies that tell whether these efforts are having the desired effect—and what that desired effect should be. Is an informal education project having a measurable impact on students knowledge of science? Or on their attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math topics (“STEM”) overall? The report is edited by Alan J. Freidman, former director of a major science center, the New York Hall of Science.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the consequences of the financial shortfalls hitting states and school districts is that they are scaling back all sorts of programs, or cutting them altogether. In a variation on that dour theme, Oregon state officials said recently that they're planning to delay the implementation of a new math requirement, partly for budgetary reasons.

Earlier this year, Oregon's state board of education approved tougher requirements for graduation in math, as well as other subjects. But last week, board members said that while they don't plan on putting off higher graduation standards in reading, writing, and making oral presentations, the goal of having all students reach proficiency on a state math test by 2012 is simply too daunting without more financial assistance going to schools.

According to this story in the Oregonian, the failure of half the state's sophomores to pass Oregon's high school math test on the first attempt loomed large in the minds of board members. To help them, schools would need more money for interventions, such as after school and summer programs—money that isn't available.

"A quarter to a third of the students are going to have significant challenges in meeting the math standards. It could be done, but it would take a significant crusade," school board Chairman Duncan Wyse, president of the Oregon Business Council, said in the story.

Gov. Ted Kulongoski also favored delaying the more rigorous diploma requirements.

Wyse's position is interesting, given what is occurring just to the south of his state. Earlier this year, California officials, with the strong backing of business leaders, voted to phase in a requirement that 8th graders take and be tested in Algebra 1. That decision has been fought by California school administrators and others who say, among other things, that it's unrealistic without schools being given more money to help struggling students. (A California judge recently blocked the mandate from taking effect.) The Oregon board member and business leader seems sympathetic to the arguments coming from school districts.

Time will tell if other states, particularly those that have pushed tougher math and science requirements, scale back those plans, as their budgets shrink.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Public and private organizations have tried all sorts of strategies to try to get girls and women more interested in science and math studies and careers—summer camps, the use of role models and mentors in the field, outreach to parents.

Now, a new, and I suppose far hipper variation on those efforts is being tried: a social- networking site, aimed at luring more females into the so-called STEM fields.

The site, www.underthemicroscope.com, was created by the Feminist Press, of the City University of New York, along with IBM and support from the National Science Foundation. It aims to encourage girls to pursue STEM careers by offering tips on careers, advice for parents, mentoring, and science and math scholarships and internships.

It allows visitors to guest blog, post personal stories and provide relevant news. Over time, the social-networking opportunities on the site will increase, its developers said in a description of its activities put out this fall.

The Web site is being developed as part of a larger project called "Women Writing Science," created by the Feminist Press with support from NSF. The site will feature serialized chapters of Women Writing Science publications that can be downloaded for free. "Under the Microscope" will feature free teacher guides describing lesson plans and strategies for using the books in science curricula, which visitors also will be able to download for free.

The Feminist Press, founded in 1970 at the City University of New York, publishes literary and educational works by and about women. IBM, like many technology companies, wants to encourage more youths to choose science- and math-related fields.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

All schools would like to think they're capable of producing the scientists of the future—students with the academic skill, curiosity, and creativity to conduct research in cutting-edge fields. But supporters of math and science academies, or specialty high schools, see themselves as especially well-suited to that mission.

Now, a new study will attempt to examine whether specialized math and science public high schools actually turn out more scientists in the life, physical, and behavior sciences. Those schools' performance in that area will be compared against traditional high schools.

The three-year study will be conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia and the American Psychological Association. It is being funded with a $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation.

The study will include a survey of 5,000 graduates of specialized math and science schools, who will be compared against 1,000 "similarly talented" graduates of traditional high schools, the APA says.

Math and science academies have become a fixture in many states, and they come in a variety of forms—residential schools, where students live year round; magnet and charter schools; schools within schools; and schools where students spend part of the school day. Many policymakers argue that they serve a valuable function in their states, meeting the needs of elite students who need to be challenged with superior math and science coursework and resources. Academies typically offer a demanding curriculum, place a heavy emphasis on independent research projects, and boast faculty with strong credentials.

There are about 95 of those schools around the country, which serve about 37,000 students, I reported a few years ago. Many of them receive state funding.

Specifically, the study will look at the following questions:

* Are graduates of these specialized schools more likely to remain in the science, math, and technical fields than students with similar achievement and interests from traditional public high schools?

* Which instructional practices used by specialized math and science high schools are most effective in producing students who study those fields in college and make it into science-, math- or technology-related professions?

* Do these specialty-school graduates have perspectives on professional success and ethical scientific behavior that differ from their non-academy graduates?

The study seems like it could draw strong interest from policymakers at all levels, who may be intrigued by the potential of academies to serve supremely gifted students, but want to probe those schools' records a bit more deeply.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In the latest twist in the great California algebra debate, the feds have said that because the state is not complying with a testing mandate, they plan to take $1 million from the California Department of Education and redirect it to needy schools.

The move is the result of delays associated with California's attempt to test all 8th graders in introductory algebra, a controversial policy that is now stalled in court.

California's state board of education voted in July to require that all 8th graders be tested in Algebra 1 within three years, which state officials say has the effect of mandating that all students take that subject in that grade. Compared to other states' math requirements, it's a high standard. The state approved that plan after the feds said that California could not continue a policy that allowed 8th graders who had not be taught algebra to be tested in 6th and 7th grade math. The algebra mandate was backed by the business community but drew opposition from school administrators and others who said it was unrealistic. A Sacramento County Superior Court Judge has ordered that the mandate be postponed for the time being.

California will not lose out on the $1 million in funding, according to the story in the Associated Press. That money will instead be directed to needy schools, without direction from the state, the report says.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The state of Arkansas and the city of Chicago have shown the capacity to produce presidents from the Democratic Party. But less appreciated are their efforts to produce ... middle school algebra teachers!

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about a venture by Arkansas to create a specific endorsement , rather than a generic one in math, for teachers who want to teach algebra at the middle school level. The idea is to produce educators who are better prepared to teach that class in middle school, at a time when, across the country, more students are being asked to take introductory algebra in middle school. Unfortunately, a lot of them are lost in that class.

I recently found out that a major urban school system, Chicago, established its own middle school credential in algebra, called the CPS Algebra Qualification. It was launched in 2004. To receive it, Chicago teachers must have a general middle school endorsement, take certain courses, and pass a teacher-qualifying exam.

Chicago's algebra endorsement is part of an overall effort to give more students access to that course in middle school, rather than waiting until high school. Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley spoke about the city's algebra efforts late last month outside a middle school, saying that "we know that the earlier we expose some children to more complex challenges, the better they'll perform in the long run."

Chicago officials say the number of students in middle school taking algebra has more than tripled since 2006—mostly in 8th, 7th, and 6th grades, CPS officials told me.

Much of the work in Chicago has been undertaken through a project called High School Algebra for Middle Grade Students, a partnership between CPS and three universities in the Chicago area: DePaul University, the University of Iliniois at Chicago, and the University of Chicago. Chicago city schools worked with university faculty in coming up with criteria to show that teachers are ready to lead a middle school algebra course.

As states and schools press to teach algebra at earlier grades, expect to see more of these course-specific algebra credentials take hold. Administrators recognize the importance of algebra, and the importance of seeing it taught well.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple years ago, I was lucky enough to be one of many reporters who crowded into a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, Pa., to cover a landmark court case over whether "intelligent design" had a place in public school science classrooms.

The legal battle centered on a decision by the Dover, Pa., school board to require that students be introduced in biology class to intelligent design, an alternative to the theory of evolution. A group of parents sued to halt the policy, arguing that it amounted to an attempt to promote religious views in a public school science setting.

Federal Judge John E. Jones III heard countless hours of testimony from scientists and academics, as well as school board members, parents, and Dover administrators who were players in the case. In the end, Jones issued an opinion declaring that ID amounted to religion, not science. Many people I've interviewed since then have said the reasoning put forward by the jurist, in his 139-page ruling, have shaped evolution battles in schools and states ever since, by lending credence to scientists' views that attacks on evolution are misleading and not likely to stand up to legal scrutiny.

A number of journalists' accounts of the 2005 trial have appeared since then. I recently learned of another one, The Devil in Dover, authored by Laurie Lebo, who reported on the case for the York Daily Record.

Lebo brings an interesting perspective on the trial, to say the least. In the book, she not only dwells on the drama in the courtroom, but also on some apparently difficult discussions at home about the case with her deeply religious father, judging from the descriptions on the Web promoting the book.

Her account has received a number of positive reviews. One of them comes from someone who could be described as an authority: Judge John E. Jones himself, who describes it as "a most compelling narrative that accurately describes this historic battle."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There's been a steady push to encourage students to take more math, and tougher math, in high school. Business leaders, advocacy organizations, and state and local policymakers provided a lot of the muscle behind that movement, arguing that high-level math skills are going to become increasingly important in the years to come.

But why is advanced math important? For students, teachers, and parents, sometimes the responses can seem pretty vague, and unsatisfying. Some people will tell you it's because more jobs are going to require strong math skills, and the thinking that comes from taking demanding courses. Others say it's because advanced math will help prepare you for college. And a lot of high school students would probably tell you it's because that math will help you get into college. Those schools, the thinking goes, will be impressed with the courses that appear on your transcript and by your top-notch scores on college-admissions tests, where that math is needed. Some have argued that the pressure to increase math standards needs to be rethought. I wrote a story exploring some of these points a couple years ago, "What Kind of Math Matters?"

Now a Washington organization, Achieve, is attempting to make a stronger, and more specific case for advanced math, through the release of a "Math Works advocacy kit" It's a collection of documents that make a stronger link between students taking demanding math and their success in college and the workplace—and the overall health of the U.S. economy.

The toolkit includes fact sheets and policy papers making the case for advanced math. But one of the most interesting features is a series of brochures that try to explain how specific math skills are used by workers in different sectors of the American economy. The five brochures focus on aerospace, manufacturing, construction, health care, and information technology.

As someone who's read a lot of papers and heard a lot of presentations attempting to make a case between math and workplace skills, these brochures make for interesting reading. One of them, for instance, looks at the math skills used on a Toyota assembly line, and how the company seeks to provide training to new hires, many of whom have only a high school degree, in various kinds of applied math. These include computing with rational and real numbers, modeling, and using linear equations connected to electronics. The "capstone course" for these new trainees at Toyota is "Troubleshooting," in which they're taught how to use pieces of math, physics, and electronics to resolve problems that emerge on the factory floor.

The documents also discuss the availability of jobs in these five sectors of the economy and what education and skill level is typically required. They offer statistics on how much education is generally required in those jobs, and how much is likely to be required in the future.

Achieve's document seems aimed at taking the sometimes abstract policy discussions that occur about the need for strong standards and math and science and creating a more direct link with the work that goes on in offices and factories every day. You may not need a bachelor's degree to get some of those jobs—a two-year degree or, in some cases, a high school diploma may suffice—according to the group's argument, but you're likely to need some advanced math.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You might have followed the debate this year over Florida's revision of its state science standards, but it's a good bet you've never heard of something called the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee.

Yet that heretofore obscure panel is a player in odd new developments that could result in that document having to go through another review by state officials.

The science standards that were narrowly approved by the state board of education in February, you might recall, won praise from the scientific community for offering a fuller treatment of the theory of evolution. Florida's previous standards did not even mention the E-word. Some religious organizations opposed the standards' revamped description of evolution, saying it wrongly excluded alternative explanations for life's development (which are rejected by the majority of scientists). The state board of education approved the standards by a vote of 4-3.

But a few months later, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 1908, which certainly wasn't on my radar screen. That measure requires the state board of education to replace existing state standards in all subjects, known as the Sunshine State Standards, with Next Generation Sunshine State Standards by Dec. 31, 2011. What does it mean to adopt Next Generation standards? The law says that new standards, in all subjects, should place an emphasis on critical thinking, problem solving, and be aligned with postsecondary requirements, among other requirements. But the law also requires that all state academic standards need to be revised and approved by the commissioner and state board of education, specifically as "Next Generation" standards. The science standards approved a few months earlier, of course, were not.

But why would Florida officials have to re-approve science standards they labored over for months? This is where the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee comes in.

The committee's job is to review rules proposed by state agencies to see if they comply with Florida law. Agencies are required to submit proposed language to JPAC for review. If JPAC's staff attorney believes an agency's proposed rule exceeds its authority under the law, the attorney can recommend that the full committee of six legislators (made up of three Democrats, three Republicans) vote to reject the rule.

Agencies often seek informal JPAC advice before putting forward rules. Last month, Florida Department of Education officials wrote to JPAC and asked whether the newly approved science standards would comply with law requiring "Next Generation" standards. The JPAC staff attorney, Brian Moore, in a courtesy opinion, said he did not believe the new Florida standards would comply.

I spoke with Moore, who made it clear that he wasn't making any judgment about the scientific merits of the new standards. His only interest is what the law requires, and in this case, it appears that the new science standards are out of compliance, given the requirement that such documents be approved as "Next Generation" standards. So they'd have to be approved with this designation by 2011.

It's unclear what happens next. It's possible, Moore explained, that Florida's commissioner of education could seek to have various experts certify that the recently approved science standards comply with the Next Generation law. But it appears likely that new standards would have to be re-approved in some form by the state board of education.

An organization that fought hard for approval of the new standards, Florida Citizens for Science, heard about this issue early, and they're worried about it, as you might imagine. The organization offers its own interpretation of events here.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Detroit schools have taken their share of hits over the years, and many of those blows have been self-inflicted. But a recent study in an academic journal has found that a middle school science curriculum used in the district has resulted in improved science understanding, and higher standardized test scores, particularly among African-American boys.

Students who made the gains were using a curriculum devised by the Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools, developed in partnership with the district. Participants in that project published their findings in a recent issue of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

The curriculum used in Detroit was aligned with a professional-development program and the use of classroom technology, according to the study. Their project was funded by the National Science Foundation, and it was developed by faculty from Northwestern University, the University of Michigan, and officials from the Detroit and Chicago school systems.Thirty-seven teachers and approximately 5,000 students in Detroit were involved the study.

The Detroit curriculum places a big emphasis on "inquiry"—sometimes defined as the idea of having students learn science through the process of investigation and discovery used by scientists themselves. (Hands-on experiments are one element of inquiry, though not the only one.) The curriculum was broken into 8- to 10-week units, and was aligned with the standards of the city's school system. Students were given access to various pieces of science software, including something called "Model-It," which the study defines as a "multivariate modeling package," and "eChem," a "molecular visualization package." They followed curriculum units on science topics such as "What Is the Quality of Air in My Community?" "What Is the Water in My River," and "Why Do I Need to Wear a Helmet When I Ride My Bike?"

The findings do not show that "inquiry science units alone will enhance achievement," the authors write, but they do indicate that "incorporating and aligning the best practices in curriculum professional development, and learning technology in the context of a systemic reform can achieve substantive results."

Here's some background information on the NSF-funded project.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Opponents of a new mandate requiring that all California students take introductory algebra in 8th grade scored a victory in court this week. How significant a victory? Check back in December.

A Sacramento County superior court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the new mandate from taking effect. Judge Shelleyanne Chang agreed the groups that sued to prevent the requirement from going forward, the California School Boards Association and the Association of California School Administrators, would "suffer irreparable injury before the matter can be heard" formally, the Associated Press reported.

She said the state Board of Education, which approved the policy earlier this year, can't make any further decisions on the algebra test until a Dec. 19 court hearing.

Opponents of the requirement have said that the board had rushed into making the decision, which was also backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and that it would set an unrealistically high bar for many students. State data shows that many 8th graders struggle mightily in algebra, and even more basic math, on state tests. Even some experts who favor setting higher standards for elementary and middle school math have questioned the policy, saying many students would be better off waiting until 9th grade to take Algebra 1, when they're more likely to be ready.

Policymakers, and business advocates, have taken a strong interest in getting more students into introductory algebra earlier in school. They reason that those students are more likely to move on to advanced math and science courses, study those subjects in college, and choose careers in those areas.

It remains to be seen whether the California judge's decision, and the overall battle being waged there over 8th grade algebra, has an impact on other states. Only one other state, Minnesota, has a middle school algebra policy similar to California's.

A crucial question in California is the degree to which economic uncertainties will influence the algebra policy. Many economists believe the nation is headed into prolonged rough patch, which, as Ed Week has reported, is likely to sap money from state budgets for schools. (Here's an online "chat" we hosted on this topic.)

Opponents of the California algebra requirement, which was to be phased in over three years, have predicted that it would cost the state billions of dollars, in teaching hiring and other areas. (The critics include state schools chief Jack O'Connell, who says the mandate would force California schools to double the number of middle school Algebra 1 teachers.) California is already coping with a budget deficit. Will the state and school districts put money into a new math curriculum requirement, if other, existing education programs are under financial strain?

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Olena, Ana, and Ioana, we salute you.

At a time when American educators and elected officials are fretting about their inability to encourage more girls to consider studies and careers in math, you apparently jumped into that subject quite willingly. You three were high finishers in the Putnam Mathematical Competition, an intercollegiate, six-hour test of students from universities in the United States and Canada. Those results were reported in a recent study I wrote about, which examined the shortage of U.S. girls with superior math talent.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the study reports that several other top Putnam finishers were not born and educated, precollege, in the United States or Canada. According to the study, Ana and Ioana, were born and educated through high school in Romania; Olena was born in Russia and went to high school in Canada. In fact, of 11 high-scoring females on the Putnam, three listed their place of birth as Romania, two were born in Russia, one in Bulgaria. Just three were born in the United States. and one was born in Canada.

I've written, and so have many others, about the math curriculum and teaching in high-performing Asian nations, and how the strategies used in those countries can influence schools in the United States. As far as I can tell, much less attention has been paid to K-12 math study in Russia and former Soviet bloc countries, and what they do well, especially in helping their best female students.

Of course, by some measures, those nations aren't doing that well at all. On the 2006 PISA, a major international test, Bulgarian and Romanian students, on average, didn't fare especially well in math. Their performance also wasn't stellar in a study released last week, which focused on how U.S. urban students compared with their counterparts in foreign countries.

Yet some scholars have voiced admiration for the math skills of high-performing students from Russia and the former Soviet bloc. If some of these nations are doing a better job of nurturing females with superior math talent, I'd be curious to hear readers' thoughts on why.

One of the more interesting perspectives on math teaching in Eastern Europe that I've come across was that of Mark Saul. In a 2003 essay, published in the Notices of the AMS, Saul describes traveling in Eastern Europe and spending time with teachers and mathematicians in a number of countries, especially Romania and Bulgaria. While he concludes that no countries are doing as well as they should in involving girls in math, Saul also sees a lot to like about math instruction in Eastern Europe. One of his conclusions is that the math community in those countries is less divided than it is in the United States—mathematicians seem more interested in what is taught in K-12 classrooms, and teachers and scholars seem far more eager to work together.

He spoke with one Hungarian scholar, who, as I interpret the article, teaches K-12, college, and graduate-level education courses, a breadth of professional experience that Saul finds appealing.

"We don't place an emphasis on calculus in the high school years, not on earlier algebra," the Hungarian scholar said of his country's approach to teaching math. "Rather, we look for ways to get students to make better use of what they already know. We spend time developing their cognitive abilities."

Saul suggests that for years in Russia and Eastern Europe "intellectually active" people turned to math as a refuge from Communism totalitarianism. If there are readers who've examined math teaching in these countries, and can offer comparisons to the U.S. approach, I invite your perspectives.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple weeks ago, I wrote a story about a study that looked at the rising number of students taking algebra in 8th grade and made the argument that many of those middle schoolers are woefully unprepared for the challenge.

How unprepared? Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution examined coursetaking data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and found that the lowest-performing students taking 8th grade algebra were scoring five or six years below grade level.

Now a new study takes issue with Loveless' conclusions, particularly his use of data comparing average state NAEP scores and students' enrollments in 8th grade Algebra 1. It basically argues that Loveless is overstating any link between more middle schoolers taking 8th grade algebra and their struggles in math. The new review, authored by Carol Corbett Burris, says the report also doesn't do enough to touch on prior research on the potential benefits of holding middle schoolers to higher math standards.

The analysis is published by the Think Tank Review Project, a joint effort run by scholars at Arizona State University and the University of Colorado that puts studies published by policy organizations through an independent analysis. Burris is identified as a researcher and the principal of a New York school with a successful accelerated mathematics program.

You can read the review of the algebra study here. Make your own call.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Why are more minorities not pursuing undergraduate and advanced degrees in computer science?

A new book examines that question and finds that the answer can be traced to a number of factors in K-12 systems, including high school course offerings, access to counseling, the influence of teachers, and students' beliefs about their own abilities.

"Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing" by UCLA Senior Researcher Jane Margolis, was published by the MIT Press last month. The book focuses in part on the experiences of students and teachers in three public high schools in Los Angeles, including an overcrowded urban high school, a math and science magnet school, and a well-funded school in an affluent neighborhood.

The book says that the number of African-American and Latino students receiving computer- science degrees is "disproportionately low." The proportion of students in those groups receiving science and engineering degrees has risen over the past two decades, according to federal estimates I looked this up (in the report "Science and Engineering Indicators, 2008," published by the National Science Board) though it appears those students' overall numbers as a percentage of the population remains small.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

A new book examines math study in four nations that are receiving lots of attention for their education systems these days: China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore.

"Math Curriculum in the Pacific Rim" is based on the proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Center for the Study of Mathematics Curriculum, held not too long ago, which brought together government officials and scholars from across Asia. The book is edited by a Zalman Usiskin and Edwin Willmore, of the U of Chicago.

It includes written contributions from Asian education officials and scholars, as well as American experts who have studied K-12 education in those nations. Many of the contributions, which are in English, are extensions of presentations given at the curriculum conference.

A sampling of the essays included:

—An Overview of Mathematics Education in Singapore

—Some Characteristics of the Korean National Curriculum and Its Revision Process

—Mathematics Curriculum Standards of China

—Sixty Years of Mathematics Syllabi and Textbooks in Singapore

—An Historical Analysis of the Revisions of the National Curriculum Standards for Upper Secondary School Math in Japan After World War II

—Translating Elementary School Mathematics Curriculum: Isn’t School Mathematics Universal?

—The Status of Calculator Technology in United States K–8 Mathematics Curriculum

and

—Moving Beyond Myths to Foster International Collaboration

It's selling for $39.99, in paperback.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Democrats have descended on the Mile High City this week for their party's national convention (Ed Week coverage galore here and from our home page). One of the headliners will be former Vice President Al Gore, who is expected to speak the final night of the event, around the same time as presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

Gore is certain to carry a strong pro-environment message to the podium. But whatever your political views, if you're listing speakers who've made a mark on what gets taught in the classroom over the past few years, you'd probably be hard-pressed not to at least include Gore's name.

There's little doubt that his film, "An Inconvenient Truth," has brought public attention to climate change, and it's shaped discussions in classrooms, too. As I've written, some teachers have used his documentary in their presentations of science and energy issues, and presumably, as an invitation to support or counter Gore's conclusions. Some educators have said they've struggled to find reliable and age-appropriate curricular material on climate change. Many textbooks still don't say much about it.

Efforts to talk about climate change—and to discuss possible links between human activity and global warming—can create a backlash, too. In the above-mentioned article, I noted that parents in at least one school district, in Washington state, initially fought efforts to show Gore's film in class, viewing it as too political. I was reminded of this today, when I noticed the recent editorial in an Iowa newspaper: "Core Curriculum? It's More LIke Gore Curriculum."

(The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released last year, says evidence of global warming, and resultant sea and ocean temperatures and rising sea levels is "unequivocal." It also says "there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities" over the last few hundred years has been one of warming.

Gore also has many backers, of course, in the classroom and outside it. For that viewpoint, look no further than the editorial pages of the very same Iowa newspaper, where "The Energy Challenge Has Been Issued," as stated by another op-ed.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Few concepts are as fundamental to students' understanding of biology and plant life as photosynthesis. And everybody knows what photosynthesis is, right?

Right?

Well, a study published this year makes the case for introducing students to scientific concepts and phenomena, such as photosynthesis (the process by which plants use light energy to convert water and sunlight into oxygen and high-energy carbohydrates) in plain English. The study, published in the Journal of Research in Science Teaching, found that students who were introduced to science concepts in "everyday English" before learning the exact scientific language fared better on tests than students who were not taught that way.

The research was conducted by Bryan A. Brown and Kihyun Ryoo of Stanford University. They worked with 49 minority students, randomly assigned to two groups, one taught with everyday language before scientific vocabulary, and a control group taught with scientific language. The study used computer software to introduce the 5th grade students to science in different ways.

The study shows that "teaching using a content-first approach yields greater conceptual understanding, as expressed in everyday language, as well as an improved ability to understand and use science language," the authors say.

"The findings of this study have the potential to contribute to theories on scientific language, classroom pedagogy, and computer-based learning."

Researchers have been exploring how students express basic scientific ideas in nonscientific language for years, as the Stanford authors note. Educators and advocates have looked at how they can capitalize on this nascent understanding and build on it. One organization conducting research in this area is the Cheche Konnen Center, in Cambridge, Mass., which I wrote about earlier this year for our Tech Counts report.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Everybody seems to agree that the United States needs to improve the quality of its math education. There's less consensus, however, on how to get there.

A conference scheduled for next month in Washington will focus on that topic, specifically on the math taught in high schools. Hosted by the University of Maryland's Center for Math Education, the two-and-a-half day event will highlight such topics as improving the math curriculum, professional development in high schools, and the essential math skill needed to succeed in college.

The conference will be held Sept. 25-27 at the Renaissance M Street Hotel in D.C. A link to the event can be found here. So mark your calendars.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Math and science "academies" have grown more popular around the country in recent years. But the movement apparently has stalled in Gary, Ind., as Ball State University has withdrawn its sponsorship of a new school there.

The school was scheduled to open on Aug. 20 in the city the Jackson Five made famous. But according to the Associated Press, university officials found that the school had not secured an adequate building, enrolled students, or hired teachers.

The school was to be known as the Indiana Math and Science Academy, a charter school. A university official is quoted as saying it made the decision now in the hope of giving families enough time to find another school.

Math and science academies have taken hold in communities across the country. Twenty years ago, there were only 15 such academies nationwide, according to an estimate from an association that works with them. Today, there are more than 100, serving about 37,000 students. Many academies target high-achieving students, though they also include magnet schools and those serving traditional and disadvantaged student populations.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is my second and last entry blog based on a recent interview with Francis M. "Skip" Fennell, who completed his two-year run as president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, earlier this year.

The first entry focused mostly on Fennell's work in crafting and promoting "Curriculum Focal Points,". But Fennell also had another prominent task while serving as NCTM president: He was named to a seat on the National Math Advisory Panel, a White House-created group tasked with identifying the best ways to prepare kids to take and succeed in algebra.

Pretty much from the get-go, the math panel was viewed with suspicion in some quarters, including among some of NCTM's 100,000 members, who feared it would favor an overly rote, drill-oriented approach to math instruction. And when the panel released its final report this year, to no one's surprise, it drew criticism from those who said it presented a narrow view of how math should be taught.

Adding to that, panelists included people who had bashed NCTM's positions on math instruction in the past.

It would seem like these factors would put Fennell in an awkward spot.

The public meetings of the panel that I attended were collegial, though there were periodic quarrels that seemed to grow more intense as its members moved toward hammering out their final report (For a taste of those discussions, see the transcripts of the open sessions, which are available online.)

Despite the prominent names on the panel, Fennell said he felt like he was able to contribute and advocate the views of math teachers—who some said were not adequately represented.

Even so, Fennell heard criticism from those who said he did not push hard enough for NCTM's views, a jab he regards as off-base.

"I have people who think I may have given in to certain things. I don't quite get or understand that," he said. It's easy to criticize the panel's findings on any given point, he added, "when you have no idea what went into that discussion" of various math topics.

Fennell said he had longtime members of NCTM, who he respects, question why he was on the panel and ask him to quit. "I got some of that," he said.

But he said he was convinced that not having NCTM represented on the panel—and in other, major math discussions in the future—would seriously diminish the organization's power in shaping instruction and education policy.

"You're telling me that one of the largest organizations for math in the country was not [going to be] at the table?" he said of the panel. "Are you kidding me?"

It should be noted that some of the language in the panel's report clearly reflects NCTM's point of view. For instance, when the document lists the resources used in describing the "critical foundations" students need in algebra, it mentions not only the curricula in high-performing countries like Japan and Korea, but also NCTM's Curriculum Focal Points. Other passages in the document strike a conciliatory tone, describing the conflicts that have marked the "math wars" as overblown. Fennell often conveys a similiar message.

"There's this tremendous need for collaboration" on math issues, Fennell said. Neither NCTM nor its critics "should be excluded from the discussion. I think that's how some of the misconceptions about the math wars come up."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 7:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier this year, Francis M. "Skip" Fennell's two-year term as president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics officially ended. Debates over the most effective strategies for teaching math—sometimes called the "math wars"—have been playing out for years in school districts around the country. And it's safe to say that Fennell has had a unique vantage point in observing, and to some degree, attempting to mediate those disputes.

In 2006, NCTM released "Curriculum Focal Points." The document that seeks to spell out the core math skills students need in grades pre-K-8 drew praise from combatants on various sides of the math wars. Fennell has taken a major role in promoting that document to the media, the public, and to policymakers at all levels.

And more recently, he served on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, a White House-commissioned group charged with identifying the most effective ways to prepare students for introductory algebra. As a member of that group, Fennell shared a dais with some panelists who have been sharply critical of NCTM's approach to teaching math; yet he also caught flak from some of NCTM's 100,000 members, who complained that the panel was pushing an overly narrow approach to math instruction, focused far too heavily on arithmetic.

I recently spoke with Fennell, who's now returning to a more active teaching role at McDaniel College in Maryland, to get his thoughts on his varied experiences as NCTM president. He had just returned from a trip to a math conference in Monterrey, Mexico, where he spoke about the math panel's work. His official title now is NCTM past-president, and he was president-elect for another year before his two-year term officially began.

"Some say it's a four-year sentence," joked Fennell, calling the NCTM presidency "commanding and demanding."

Fennell, who helped write Focal Points, has traveled the country over the past few years, along with others who worked on the document. His goal has been to explain its goals and persuade state officials to consider using the document as they revise their state academic standards in math. (State standards are in many ways where the action is in math curricula; standards determine the content of state tests, as well as the material that teachers cover in class, and the content of math textbooks).

"That was a very important project for NCTM," Fennell said. "The issue of focus and coherence is a big one. I'd like to say that we were at the forefront of that." The organization was not trying to say "you teach less, but you have to streamline the math curriculum," he added. "People get that. ... No 4th grade teacher should be having to cover 100 different points in the curriculum. NCTM has gotten that message out."

The former president said that he and NCTM's executive director, Jim Rubillo, have joked that they should be charging people for the document, which can be accessed for free from NCTM's Web site. Focal Points and its supporting materials have been downloaded more than a million times, the organization estimates.

Fennell credits his predecessor as NCTM president, Cathy Seeley, for laying the groundwork for Focal Points. The organization is currently working on a similiar document for high school math, which it hopes to release next year. The release of that work will be overseen by current President Henry (Hank) Kepner.

Fennell said he regarded part of his role as president as an attempt to narrow some of the divides that separate his organization from his critics. He believes Focal Points will help.

"People in the past who were critical of NCTM, I've tried hard to work with those folks," he said. That doesn't mean he's asking NCTM members to accept all the views of mathematicians or cognitive psychologists about how students should be taught math, he said. But NCTM is ultimately better off working directly with its critics than ignoring or dismissing them out of hand, Fennell argued.

"Having NCTM engaged in a lot of things is a benefit," he said. "When people have these discussions [about math] today, NCTM and Focal Points come up in the discussion, and I feel good about that."

Not that bringing the two sides together is easy, he added.

"I've had mathematicians who think I'm crazy, and I've had people in my own crowd who think I made wrong decisions," he said. "I'm not looking back."

As elected officials and business leaders have called for higher standards in math and science, saying it is vital to future U.S. "competitiveness," Fennell said he has also tried to convey the message that policymakers also need to be promoting equity in the classroom. Not all students learn at the same pace, and more resources need to be put into helping struggling and disadvantaged students."We want to be competitive internationally, [but] meanwhile, we want all kids to have access" to good math instruction, he said. In the years ahead, he expects to encourage policymakers to look at the idea of hiring math "specialists" at the elementary level as a potential way to increase the quality of math teaching.

Next week, I'll post some of Fennell's thoughts about the work of the National Math Panel and his role in its discussions.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple years ago, a bunch of leading business organizations set an ambitious goal: "Double the number of U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduates with bachelor's degrees by 2015."

But as those leaders frankly acknowledged this week, the nation has barely moved toward hitting that mark so far.

The United States produced 223,255 such grads in 2005, and that number had only risen to 225,660 by 2007, reported the members of Tapping America's Potential, the business coalition. That's light years removed from their goal of reaching 400,000 by 2015. Several members of TAP, as they call themselves, assembled at the Washington offices of the Business Roundtable on Tuesday, where they released a report that summed up the situation this way: "Gaining Momentum, Losing Ground."

The nation's overall progress in addressing STEM issues, of keen interest to businesses, is mixed, attendees said. On the one hand, individual STEM initiatives, undertaken by state and local governments, philanthropies, and other organizations, are taking hold across the country. The event this week highlighted a few of them. One such program is the National Math and Science Initiative, a corporate-backed effort to replicate 1) the "U Teach" math and science teacher-training program, and 2) Advanced Placement "incentive" programs, which reward students and teachers for participating in AP. Another discussed was the Ohio STEM Learning Network, backed by the Battelle and Gates foundations, a statewide effort to create STEM-themed schools and raise the skills of the state's workforce.

On the negative side of the ledger, the assembled business leaders pointed to the fact that Congress has not provided funding for many of the STEM-themed programs in the America Competes Act, a bipartisan bill President Bush signed into law last year. It supports the creation and expansion of several teacher-training and -recruitment programs. They were also unhappy that Congress has not backed legislation allowing more skilled immigrants to remain in the United States on H1B visas, a step some corporations regard as crucial to filling high-tech jobs.

Attempts to change that visa policy have been crippled in recent years by rancorous congressional debates over immigration legislation. Attendees at this week's session were not optimistic about their prospects on the H1B issue in the near-term.

"The environment is so toxic," John Castellani, the president of the Business Roundtable, told the group, "it cannot be addressed until after the election."

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, science education advocates have worried that the law's emphasis on reading and math has resulted in their favorite subject getting pushed out of the curriculum—presumably, with students learning less about it.

A study released today, however, argues that is not necessarily happening. At least not in Florida.

The research, published by the Manhattan Institute, examines the impact of high-stakes testing in reading and math in Florida on students' performance in science. At the time of the study, science was a "low stakes" subject there, meaning poor test scores did not result in penalties for schools, though it now figures in school grade calculations in the state.

The study found that schools that received an F in the prior year, based on their reading and math scores under Florida's A+ program, made greater gains on the state's science exam than they would have if they had not received that failing grade.

The gains in science were "modest- to medium-sized," author Marcus Winters explained. The increases were similar to those the Florida schools studied had made in reading, and appeared to be smaller than their increases in math.

The authors speculate that the previous year's outcome on high-stakes testing in reading and math could have led schools to make changes that improved achievement across subjects, including science. Students' improved math and reading skills also could have boosted their skills in science, they say.

Unlike some previous analyses, the new study seeks to examine the relative health of science education not by class time spent on that subject, but by students' actual achievement, as measured by how well they scored on tests.

The findings "suggest that the incentives of Florida's high-stakes testing program have not led to significant crowding out of student knowledge in the low-stakes subject of science," the study says.

Students in Florida are tested in grade 5, 8, and 11 in science. Students in other parts of the country today, under the No Child Left Behind Act, are also tested annually in elementary, middle, and high school. The law does not, however, assign penalties for schools for low performance in science, as it does in reading and math, unless states decide to take that step.

The study focused on students' performance in 5th grade, partly because there was less variation in Florida schools' A-F grades at higher grade levels, said Winters, a senior fellow at the institute. He wrote the report with Jay P. Greene, also of the institute, and Julie R. Trivitt, of Arkansas Tech University.

The study suggests that No Child Left Behind's focus on math and reading will not necessarily weaken science instruction, as some claim, Winters says.

Whether the science-teaching community accepts the study's conclusions remains to be seen.

One point I've heard those folks make is that placing a heavy emphasis on math, and especially reading, at early grades will improve students' science performance simply because those pupils will be more adept at reading basic-science texts, test questions, and so on. Heavy doses of math and reading at upper grades, they say, are not as likely to produce the same positive effect in science. Those grades were not considered in this study. Winters says addressing that question is a likely next step in the research—his, or someone else's.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Teachers, parents, and researchers will probably be interested in a new book that focuses on why so many students seem to dislike math and what can be done about it. At the very least, I give it points for its catchy title.

What's Math Got to Do With It? Helping Children Learn to Love Their Favorite Subject—and Why It's Important for America, is the work of Jo Boaler, a professor of math education at the University of Sussex, in England.

Boaler has spent years studying middle and high school students and the impact of different teaching methods. I interviewed her a while ago for a story I did on efforts to incorporate better math lessons into career-and-technical education (formerly voc-ed) classes.

In her book, published by Viking, she offers classroom approaches and strategies for parents that she believes can boost students' math skills and reduce their fear of that subject.

She also looks at testing policies she says can improve learning in math, and how girls are discouraged from taking math and science seriously. (Chapter Title: "Paying the Price for Sugar and Spice: How Girls and Women Are Kept Out of Math and Science.") Another chapter examines the effect of American schools' grouping students by ability.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has quietly signed into law Senate Bill 733, which allows local education agencies to use supplemental classroom materials that will help students "analyze, critique, and review" scientific theories, including evolution.

The governor's action was described in a list of 75 bills that he announced he had approved on June 26, with a one-sentence statement that makes no mention of evolution.

The measure, which was sponsored by state Sen. Ben Nevers, a Democrat, and drew overwhelming support from Louisiana's legislature, specifically states that it is not meant to promote any religious doctrine or belief.

But several scientific organizations believe the law will do just that. One of the leading
scientific societies in the world, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had urged Jindal to veto the bill, citing the vast amount of scientific evidence backing up evolution and its centrality to students' understanding of science.

"There is virtually no controversy about evolution among researchers, many of whom like you, are deeply religious," AAAS President Alan I. Leshner wrote in a letter to the governor. "Rather than step backward," he added, Louisiana should "look to the future by seeking to provide Louisiana students with a firm understanding of evolution and other essential concepts so they can compete for high-skill jobs in an increasingly high-tech world economy."

Jindal, a first-term Republican, has seen his national profile rise in recent months, having been mentioned as a potential vice presidential pick of presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

The new law, titled the Louisiana Science Education Act, says that the state board of education shall "allow and assist" teachers and administrators who want to promote critical thinking of scientific theories "including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The legislation goes on to state that while teachers are expected to teach the material presented in standard textbooks supplied by their school systems, they can supplement those materials with resources that help students "understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner" unless otherwise prohibited by the state.

As I've written, global warming has gradually received more attention in science standards and classroom materials as teachers have sought more resources to talk about the subject. See my previous post on Florida's inclusion of the topic in its standards.

The impact of the Louisiana law would seem to depend on the actions taken by school districts and individual teachers. Opponents of the law have predicted that it could prompt a wave of lawsuits, if schools or educators seek to denigrate evolution in favor of religious-based views of life's development, such as creationism, or if they attempt to promote "intelligent design."

A federal judge in Pennsylvania, in a landmark decision, ruled in 2005 that intelligent design was a religious concept, not a scientific one, and that the Dover, Pa., school district's attempt to require that students be introduced to it was unconstitutional. One of the judge's conclusions was that the Dover policy was singling out evolution for special scrutiny or criticism, when the theory is, in fact, one of the foundational principles in all of science.

Louisiana was the setting for a major battle over evolution more than two decades ago. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 struck down a state law that required public schools to balance the teaching of evolution with creationism. The court found that the law violated the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion.

In the time since the more recent Dover court fight, bills have emerged in several states that have sought to present critiques of evolution as a matter of "academic freedom." So far those bills have not gathered the support necessary to make it into law, and they have drawn opposition from scientists, who see them as a backdoor way of promoting attacks on evolution in public school science classes.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 10:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Teachers College, Columbia University, is launching an effort to improve instruction in math- and science-related subjects in its backyard, with the help of a corporate gift.

The GE Foundation has given Teachers College $5 million to boost teacher training and classroom work that is tied to relevant academic standards at 10 schools in Harlem. Teachers College will work with the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, also at Columbia, and the Morningside Area Alliance, a neighborhood organization.

Corporations and their philanthropic branches have taken a major interest in "STEM" topics in recent years, supporting teachers' academies, the hiring of new teaching staff, the purchase of science lab equipment in schools, and student contests and competitions. That support makes sense, given those businesses' calls for improved students skill in math and science.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new report strongly criticizes the way in which teacher colleges, and by extension, states, are preparing aspiring educators to teach math. Count on it receiving a good amount of attention, given all the worries these days about American students lacking sound skills in that subject.

Published by the National Council on Teacher Quality, the report says the curricula used by ed schools cover too little of the math content elementary teachers need—and that what's required varies greatly from campus to campus.

Many states don't help the situation, the report found. Eighteen states have no requirements for what teacher-candidates need to know in math. The textbooks they use are out of date, and important content, especially numbers and operations, and algebra, are neglected in ed school courses, it argues.

The report is a follow-up to a 2006 NCTQ study, which said ed schools were doing a poor job of preparing teachers to teach reading skills. A number of experts agreed with that overall conclusion, though they questioned the study's methodology, which relied on an examination of course syllabi, textbooks, and teaching materials from schools. The new study also looks at syllabi and texts. The authors concede that syllabi and texts may not reflect what is actually being taught in the classroom—but they argue that 1) those materials provide an outline of the schedule and goals of ed school courses; and 2) schools are likely to be covering even less math content than what is being presented in syllabi—not more.

The study is based on 77 ed schools (there are roughly 1,200 nationwide), located in every state except Alaska.

Unlike teachers at upper grades, most elementary educators, of course, are generalists. They're expected to skip from topic to topic, one of them being math, often despite having not studied that much math in college. This has led some people to argue in favor of schools using math "specialists" in elementary school, so that students would have a better shot of being taught that subject by somebody who knows it well.

One fact from the NCTQ report that may receive some notice: The colleges studied, on average, require aspiring math teachers to take 2.5 math courses. While the authors note that's only slightly below the 3 math courses they'd recommend for elementary educators, they argue that such coursework needs to be overhauled to better reflect what those future teachers need.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I've written previously, science teachers are eager to find information on how to present sensible and accurate information about climate change, whatever their personal views on the issue. Yet many have found that those resources are hard to come by. State standards generally don't mention the topic, and, probably as a result, a lot of textbooks and curricular materials don't, either.

I will say that the publishing industry seems to be putting some money into developing new materials, judging from the sheer volume of stuff coming into my mailbox. Even so, science teachers appear to be left to cobble together materials on their own.

But summer, of course, is the time for professional development, and next month, a couple federal agencies are joining Sally Ride in sponsoring a conference for educators on how to teach about climate change. The two-day event will be held in Silver Spring, Md., July 23-24. It's sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, among others.

See my previous story for a few online resources for teachers on climate change. Just to name a few: there's NOAA, NASA, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Also, I suppose more of a primary document is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A new Web site takes a stab at spelling out the essential grade-by-grade math standards that students need from kindergarten through high school.

Not only that, the site provides model course sequences, model classroom activities, and even sample test questions for math-oriented educators who want to put those standards into practice.

It's the product of a partnership between Achieve, a Washington organization that advocates higher academic standards, and the Charles A. Dana Center, an education research hub at the University of Texas at Austin.

The new site builds on math benchmarks Achieve created for the American Diploma Project, aimed at describing the skills students need for college and the workplace. The site back-tracks and sets expectations through early grades, essentially showing what it takes to get to a level of high school preparation.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 4:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple years ago, I took a trip to Canton, Ohio, home to the illustrious Pro Football Hall of Fame, and home to a group of schools that were using classroom technology in an attempt to boost student performance in math.

Teachers in several Canton schools had set up a system called TI-Navigator, in combination with graphing calculators, both designed by Texas Instruments. The system worked like this:

A math teacher would give a problem to students, who would type answers (such as plotting points on a graph) into their calculators. Their calculators were connected by cords to "hubs," which dangled from a few points in the classroom and which sent signals wirelessly back to the teacher's computer. The teacher then received instant information on how many students -- say, two out of 20, or 18 out of 20 -- had the correct answer. Teachers could then adjust their lessons on the fly, focusing on the problems or concepts that gave students the most trouble.

You sometimes hear these programs referred to as "personal response" or "audience response" systems.

This setup might have made the class look a bit like a hospital ward (with IVs hanging everywhere), but for Canton officials, it was just the right medicine. They saw their students math scores' rise, in some cases dramatically, after using the systems.

But the question remained: Would this technology work as effectively in other math classrooms, among different groups of students?

Now, research by Douglas Owens of Ohio State University suggests the answer is a qualified yes.

Owens is the principal investigator on a four-year, federally funded project that examines the impact of TI Navigator and graphing calculators in math classes. The project, using a research method known as a randomized control trial, is looking at the performance of 1,800 students and 127 teachers from 28 states.

He found that students' math performance, after one year, rose by about 2 points on a 37-point test. It's possible that those gains will increase, as students and teachers become more familiar with the technology, Owens told me, after discussing his research at a conference on June 11 in Washington. The was hosted by the federal Institute of Education Sciences, which is supporting his study.

Read more about his research here http://ccms.osu.edu/.

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Florida’s new state science standards break new ground by including their first-ever reference to a major scientific topic.

And no, in this case I’m not talking about evolution, which got all the attention when the standards were approved back in February.

The 96-page document, in addition to having references to the previously absent e-word, also spells out that Florida’s students should understand the basic science behind climate change.

High school students should “discuss the large-scale environmental impacts resulting from human activity, including waste spills, oil spills, runoff, greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, and surface and groundwater pollution,” it says.

On its own, the place of climate change in any science standard hardly seems unusual, given the growing concern about the issue among scientists and the public. Congress is considering a “cap-and-trade” bill aimed at curbing the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change, sponsored by Sens. John W. Warner, R-Va., and Joe Lieberman, an Independent from Connecticut.

But to date, climate change has been largely ignored in state standards, which shape the content of state tests, textbooks, and instruction.

This void almost certainly isn’t the result of any political controversy over the issue—such as the extent to which pollution from human industrial activities are causing global warming. It has more to do with the slow cycle for revising state academic standards.

States typically overhaul those documents every five to 10 years—or once in 12 years, as was the case in Florida. (Read the new version of Florida's standards here. ) Scientists’ understanding of climate change has increased greatly in that time. So has the public’s grasp of the issue, as a a result of media coverage, the attention paid to Al Gore’s documentary on the topic, and other factors.

Florida officials asked for public comments in drafting their standards last year—and they were flooded with thousands of them, many of them related to evolution. The state board of education ultimately voted to include fairly extensive language on that theory in the document. (See my story on the evolution debate here.)

Public comments on the climate-change language were largely positive, according to Paul Ruscher, an associate professor of meteorology at Florida State University, who served on a committee that drafted the standards. The language related to “human activity” and “greenhouse gases” received the most criticism, he told me.

The objections were mostly, “‘Well, I’m not teaching Al Gore’s movie,’” Ruscher recalled. “Well, we weren’t recommending that.”

Ruscher, who specializes in coastal weather patterns, said the document’s drafters felt strongly about including climate change, given public interest in the topic, as well as scientific consensus about it.

For instance, a report released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that evidence of climate change is “unequivocal,” and that there is a “very high confidence” among scientists that humans are contributing to it. (Read a summary of the report here. )

Florida officials also viewed the topic as particularly relevant, given concerns in their state about rising sea levels and stronger storms, and their impact on businesses and residents, Ruscher said. Many science teachers, he added, were asking for more guidance in addressing climate change, as well as on broader weather and climate topics.

“We tried to write language in these standards that was politically neutral,” he said, “but scientifically objective.”

Posted by Sean Cavanagh at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)