Roberto Agodini, Barbara Harris, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Sheila Heaviside, and Timothy NovakMathematica Policy Research for Institute of Education SciencesFebruary 2009
Roberto Agodini, Barbara Harris, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Sheila Heaviside, and Timothy Novak
Mathematica Policy Research for Institute of Education Sciences
February 2009
If you're looking for a truce in the math wars, this study is not it. It is, however, a rigorous, in-depth review of four widely used K-2 math curricula. (If that seems small, take it in context: seven math curricula make up 91 percent of all that are used in K-2 nationally.) It's an experimental study in which 39 schools in four states were randomly assigned to one of four math curricula. Achievement data were collected from over 1,300 first grade students and analyzed using a rigorous statistical technique known as hierarchical linear modeling. The study found that students taught with Saxon Math (published by Saxon) and Math Expressions (published by Houghton-Mifflin) performed significantly better than those taught with Investigations (published by Pearson Scott Foresman) and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics (also published by Pearson Scott Foresman). Since all four curricula are to some extent a combination of student-centered constructivist and traditional teacher-centered approaches, no faction is this battle emerges a clear winner. Saxon math, however, is lauded by most traditionalists as the "Open Court" of math, and used in plenty of Catholic schools. On the other hand, the most constructivist math program of the four, Investigations, had the poorest results; this curriculum is described in the report as a "student-centered approach" that "focus[es] on understanding rather than ‘correct answers,'" and in which students "frequently create their own representations." This is only the first year of the multi-year study, so these results are preliminary. But if the next round (to include 110 schools and additional grade levels) shows similar results for constructivist elementary math curricula, let's hope that users of such approaches to teaching create something of their own too: an exit strategy. Find the report here.
Robin Chait and Michele McLaughlin
Center for American Progress
February 2009
It's been long understood that teacher quality is the number one determinant of student success that's under schools' control. Crucial to increasing the pool of talented teachers are alternative certification programs, which, done right, streamline entry to the classroom for adroit teacher candidates in high need areas or high need subjects. Unfortunately, as we found last year, few programs are done right; most offer the same hoops and headaches as traditional certification, just re-ordered. Robin Chait, of the Center for American Progress, and Michele McLaughlin, of Teach For America, agree. They point to New York City as one example, where teachers in alternative certification programs have to slog through unpaid summer training and then shell out $8,000-17,000 in tuition fees for debatably helpful education courses. This isn't always the fault of the program, however; both good and bad programs are oftentimes constrained or left unsupported by poor state policy. To rectify the situation, the duo offers three worthwhile objectives for states looking to improve: minimizing participant burden (e.g. cutting down on required course load); ensuring program quality (e.g. increasing minimum GPA requirements and raising Praxis cut scores); and encouraging innovation and growth (e.g. creating a specific alternative certification license, rather than using existing emergency or temporary licensing laws). That's a good start; you can find the rest here.
There are all sorts of new ways to let kids wiggle while they learn. But glance in the window of an elementary school classroom, and you may just see students wobbling behind their desks on stability balls. Seems these brightly colored inflatable balls aren't just a Pilates accoutrement after all. According to some teachers, stability balls actually increase student achievement by letting kids move (or bounce, as the case may be) while they learn. "I call it actively sitting," explained teacher Tiffany Miller. "The whole theory with the brain is that when your body's engaged, your brain's engaged." The kids are big fans, too; ten-year-old James Howell likes them because he can "get the wiggles out." While research from the February edition of the Chronicle of Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education backs up the wiggle-room theory, too, it remains to be seen whether this trend will really catch on--or roll away.
"Teachers Ditching Class Chairs for Stability Balls," Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press, March 2, 2009
My feet aren't frozen, but as the march toward national or "common" academic standards trudges through deepening snow, they're getting chilly. Evidence is mounting that those who take curricular content seriously may not like what we find at the end of this road, and I worry that America could be headed toward another painful bout of curriculum warfare.
Recall that the foremost arguments for national standards are that a big modern country on a shrinking, competitive globe needs a single set of minimum expectations for all its schools and kids, whether in South Dakota or South Carolina; that having fifty different sets fosters confusion, low standards and noncomparable data; and that the federal No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) has made a vexed situation worse.
But that doesn't mean national standards are inevitably superior to what states (and others) have developed, and it's possible they won't turn out to be. So far, I've accumulated seven worries.
First, both teacher unions have now joined this quest. It felt okay when Randi Weingarten came out for national standards, considering that the American Federation of Teachers' positions on standards and curriculum (though not assessment and accountability) have been sound--sometimes downright inspiring--since Al Shanker's day. But I cannot be the only person whose heart sank when Dennis Van Roekel announced that the National Education Association was also joining the "partnership" previously consisting of governors, state school chiefs, Achieve, the Hunt Institute, and a couple of other serious groups. What really formed icicles on my toes was his declaration that this move is perfectly compatible with the NEA's adoration of "21st Century skills" and "comprehensive" standards that include "accountability for child well-being, facilities and supplies." (Who else remembers the brouhaha over "opportunity to learn standards" in the early ‘90s?)
Second, speaking of 21st Century skills, the more I learn about this woolly notion, the clearer it becomes that this infatuation is bad for liberal learning; a ploy to sidestep results-based accountability; somewhere between disingenuous and naïve regarding its impact on serious academic content; and both psychologically questionable and pedagogically unsound. (For a terrific exposition of these problems, see here.) Yet I don't think the NEA is the only member of the "common standards" partnership that's smitten.
Third, some are also overly fond of PISA--that's the Paris-based OECD's international math/science/literacy testing program for fifteen year olds--and view it as the surest path to "international benchmarking" and multi-national comparisons. Yet Tom Loveless of the Brown Center at Brookings has recently unmasked PISA's ideological bias and misguided notions about what young people should know and be able to do.
Fourth, as revisions are made in Achieve's respected "American Diploma Project" (ADP) benchmarks--these are at the core of the common standards project--one hears reports of a major tussle over whether English should continue to include literature and list important literary works. (The present draft does an exemplary job of this. Go to here and scroll down to A.1.4.)
Fifth, if the common standards enterprise remains confined, like NCLB (and ADP), to English and math, it may further narrow what's seriously taught in school--with a malign effect on states that have a decently rounded curriculum that gives due weight to science, history, even art. (Picture what happens to history education in a state that joins a national project that wants no part of history.)
Sixth, suppose that the emerging standards are sound. Yet nobody is talking about common assessments to accompany them, at least not in this lifetime. But without an agreed-upon test and "cut points" for passing it (or, if you prefer, demonstrating "proficiency") these standards will have no traction in the real world of NCLB and discrepant state accountability systems.
Seventh, and maybe most troubling, is institutional instability. The United States of America in 2009 lacks a suitable place to house national standards and tests over the long haul. Who will "own" them? Who will be responsible for revising them? Correcting their errors? Ensuring that assessment results are reported in timely fashion? Nobody wants the Education Department to do this. There's reason to keep it separate from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and its governing board. Yet the awkward ad hoc "partnership" now assembling to pursue this process could fall apart tomorrow if key individuals retire, die or defect, if election results change the make up of participating organizations, if the money runs out, or if their working draft runs into political headwinds like the "voluntary national standards" of the early 90s. This is no way to run something as important as national academic standards for a big modern country.
Can this idea be salvaged? I sense that we ought not put all our eggs in one basket. Secretary Duncan and private funders should pay for several projects to develop different versions of "common standards"--and pay others to ponder new and potentially more durable institutional arrangements. This should be done on a fast track, with great transparency, and with the requirement that, once one or more sets of standards pass the laugh test, assessments must swiftly follow, complete with common "cut scores," maybe fixed (like NAEP) at several levels.
"21st Century skills" should be sidelined. History and science should be included. Yes, that makes it harder--there's the evolution issue, slavery, Reagan, Monica, Iraq, and a few other dicey issues to work through--but at least it would point us toward the development of educated people, not just kids with skills. And Uncle Sam should energize this process by signaling that nobody in Washington will move to fix NCLB's many shortcomings until sound common standards and tests--maybe a choice among several--exist and are ready to be used in NCLB 2.0.
The standards-development process should be transparent and participatory, especially when it comes to specifying "what's most important to know." Engage college professors and book reviewers who care about literature. Ask David McCullough to lead the history team, maybe teamed up with Henry Louis Gates. Place real mathematicians in charge of math standards and scientists in charge of science--but have their drafts vetted by consumers of every sort: practicing engineers, police chiefs, newspaper editors, and more. What history and civics does Bart Peterson or Tommy Thompson think kids need to know? What math does Warren Buffett recommend? What knowledge does E. D. Hirsch deem truly fundamental?
Use available tools and models to simplify and expedite this process. The U.S. doesn't need to start from scratch. Several states have fine standards. So does the Advanced Placement program. ADP is already in play. What can be borrowed or adapted from the SAT and ACT? Make the most of Lexiles, Quantiles, NAEP, NWEA's computer-adaptive testing program, and more. But don't pretend to prescribe the whole curriculum. What's common across the land, once turned into curriculum and lesson plans, should occupy maybe half the school day. Perhaps two-thirds. Leave it to states, districts, schools and teachers to augment this--and differ from each other. A common standard is the skeleton of learning, not all the flesh. It outlines the core skills and knowledge that young Americans need to acquire and should be accompanied by a reasonable assessment system to determine, at various grade levels, how well they've learned those things.
That's still worth doing. If we can figure out how.
Economists take note: there is a free lunch, and it's a cheese sandwich. Albuquerque, New Mexico is facing a troubling problem: students who show up to school without their lunch money. (Mind you, these are children who aren't eligible for the official federally-funded "free lunch" program.) In the past, the district has absorbed the cost of delinquent lunch tabs--i.e. students who run up their lunch bill by not bringing the requisite green to pay for it. But this year, the number of unpaid lunch tabs has skyrocketed; the Albuquerque School District is on track to face a $300,000 bill if current trends continue. So instead of a hot lunch--or no lunch--the district has decided to serve these children a cold plate: cheese sandwich, piece of fruit, and carton of milk. Seems like a reasonable compromise, but some parents and community activists are outraged that empty-handed kiddies aren't getting the same hot meal as everyone else. Sorry, folks, but you should be thanking Albuquerque for its generosity; other districts say no moolah, no munchies. And a cheese sandwich is surely better than going hungry.
"No more lunch bills: Schools go after deadbeats," Susan Montoya Bryan, Associated Press, February 25, 2009
Will Garden State voc ed schools give traditional high schools a run for their money? Seems that way--and in more ways than one. Vocational schools, long the ugly stepchild of the education system, have taken on a new and more alluring persona in New Jersey--complete with stem-cell research labs, advanced robotics classes, and seven different academies with specialties ranging from medicine to the arts. (A few weeks ago, we discovered that Massachusetts has seen a similar uptick in vo-tech quality.) Parents are swooning over the new options; Bergen County Academies, for example, receive seven applications for every available seat. But local school districts are unenthused; similar to the arguments used against charters, districts whine that these high tech, high performing voc ed schools, typically run by counties, are funneling off both students and funds--and providing undue competition to their low tech traditional neighbors. "To think that we need a Bronx Science in Hackensack leaves a lot to be desired, because most of our schools can handle these students," complained one local superintendent. Last time we checked, we wanted our kids taught by the school system, not "handled." And at the rate parents are picking these new vo-tech schools over their traditional counterparts, we're pretty sure they don't want their children "handled" either.
"Vo-Techs Are a new Elite, Local Districts Complain," by Winnie Hu, New York Times, March 2, 2009
Defaulting on a $2.3 million loan may spell the end of Fresno, California's KIPP Academy, one of the few high-performing middle schools in the district. The school needs a $5 million grant from the state to stay afloat, but the Fresno Unified School District is withholding its much-needed endorsement. The reasons are documented in a 63-page report of grievances, including the complaint that KIPP hired uncredentialed teachers and didn't follow state testing protocols. The district also alleges that KIPP Academy's principal--who mysteriously quit two weeks ago--used excessive disciplinary tactics. From 3,000 miles away, it's tough to tell what really happened. But we do know that Fresno's inept leadership signed one of the worst collective bargaining agreements in the country and that Fresno's KIPP Academy academically outperforms its traditional neighbors. We also know that parents are fighting like cats and dogs to keep this school open. Fresno Unified might want to try working hard and being nice rather than bullying the competition.
"Backers of KIPP Academy Press Case," by Anne Dudley Ellis, Fresno Bee, March 2, 2009
"Former KIPP Academy principal denies accusations," by Jim Guy, Fresno Bee, February 23, 2009
"KIPP Supporters Rally at Fresno Unified Board Meeting," by Ashley Ritchie and Winston Whitehurst, KMPH Fox 26, February 26, 2009
Roberto Agodini, Barbara Harris, Sally Atkins-Burnett, Sheila Heaviside, and Timothy Novak
Mathematica Policy Research for Institute of Education Sciences
February 2009
If you're looking for a truce in the math wars, this study is not it. It is, however, a rigorous, in-depth review of four widely used K-2 math curricula. (If that seems small, take it in context: seven math curricula make up 91 percent of all that are used in K-2 nationally.) It's an experimental study in which 39 schools in four states were randomly assigned to one of four math curricula. Achievement data were collected from over 1,300 first grade students and analyzed using a rigorous statistical technique known as hierarchical linear modeling. The study found that students taught with Saxon Math (published by Saxon) and Math Expressions (published by Houghton-Mifflin) performed significantly better than those taught with Investigations (published by Pearson Scott Foresman) and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics (also published by Pearson Scott Foresman). Since all four curricula are to some extent a combination of student-centered constructivist and traditional teacher-centered approaches, no faction is this battle emerges a clear winner. Saxon math, however, is lauded by most traditionalists as the "Open Court" of math, and used in plenty of Catholic schools. On the other hand, the most constructivist math program of the four, Investigations, had the poorest results; this curriculum is described in the report as a "student-centered approach" that "focus[es] on understanding rather than ‘correct answers,'" and in which students "frequently create their own representations." This is only the first year of the multi-year study, so these results are preliminary. But if the next round (to include 110 schools and additional grade levels) shows similar results for constructivist elementary math curricula, let's hope that users of such approaches to teaching create something of their own too: an exit strategy. Find the report here.
Robin Chait and Michele McLaughlin
Center for American Progress
February 2009
It's been long understood that teacher quality is the number one determinant of student success that's under schools' control. Crucial to increasing the pool of talented teachers are alternative certification programs, which, done right, streamline entry to the classroom for adroit teacher candidates in high need areas or high need subjects. Unfortunately, as we found last year, few programs are done right; most offer the same hoops and headaches as traditional certification, just re-ordered. Robin Chait, of the Center for American Progress, and Michele McLaughlin, of Teach For America, agree. They point to New York City as one example, where teachers in alternative certification programs have to slog through unpaid summer training and then shell out $8,000-17,000 in tuition fees for debatably helpful education courses. This isn't always the fault of the program, however; both good and bad programs are oftentimes constrained or left unsupported by poor state policy. To rectify the situation, the duo offers three worthwhile objectives for states looking to improve: minimizing participant burden (e.g. cutting down on required course load); ensuring program quality (e.g. increasing minimum GPA requirements and raising Praxis cut scores); and encouraging innovation and growth (e.g. creating a specific alternative certification license, rather than using existing emergency or temporary licensing laws). That's a good start; you can find the rest here.
