Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Review of Common Core Demanded by Georgia Gov. Deal

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has asked the state Board of Education to review the Common Core State Standards, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Aug. 22. He is particularly concerned about certain "text exemplars" included with the English/language arts portion of the standards, which serve as a suggested reading list to help teachers as they design their lessons.
In his letter, dated Aug. 15, Deal says he wants a "formal evaluation" of the standards and a comparison between the common core and Georgia's previous content standards, and that he wants the board to consider input from "all stakeholders." And he wants the board to reconsider the "text exemplars" that accompany the standards and for the state board to adopt its own model reading list.
Let's break down what that last part means, exactly. The text exemplars are meant to be used as "guideposts" for teachers that are "suggestive of the breadth of texts that students should encounter in the text types required by the standards," as an appendix to the ELA standards in the common core states. They're not required reading under the common core, but teachers uncertain about which texts to use might be expected to draw upon the "exemplars" as a resource in their classrooms. These are broken down by grade levels and include well-known books such as "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain, as well as poems and informational texts.
So to be clear, these exemplars are not the actual ELA standards that are part of the common core. But, it's easy to imagine that reading lists for the common core, whether they're mandatory or suggested, could provoke anger or distaste on the basis of a few titles.
Now, Deal doesn't single out any specific exemplar that he wants examined or finds particularly troubling. But Georgia Rep. William Ligon, a Republican who introduced common-core-repeal legislation earlier this year (it didn't get political traction), expressed concern specifically in the Journal-Constitution about In the Time of Butterflies and its portrayal of Fidel Castro's ouster of Fulgencio Batista. The book is a "text exemplar" for grades 9-10.
This complaint isn't entirely new—in a May 7 story for Frontpage Mag, a conservative website, Mary Grabar describes the book's "explicit descriptions of masturbation and intercourse," in addition to its portrayal of Castro and his brothers, which she deems inappropriately hagiographic: "No indication in the novel that Fidel and Raul turned out to be tyrants, or Che a mass murderer." Other text exemplars in those grade levels are Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart, Homer's Odyssey, and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451.
Grabar, by the way, teaches in Atlanta and has a Ph.D from the University of Georgia.
Deal, along with state superintendent John Barge, have previously been supportive of the standards, which the state school board adopted them back in 2010. But there's been a relatively significant amount of agitation from conservative groups in the state against the standards, in addition to Ligon's legislative efforts. And in July, the state dropped out of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, one of two state consortia developing tests aligned to the common core, with officials citing the additional costs the tests would bring to the state.
State board member Scott Johnson told the Journal-Constitution that "we'll do what the governor has asked us to do."
As the Journal-Constitution points out, Barge could be a GOP primary opponent for Deal in 2014, so there's political tension that might divide two state officials who, strictly on policy, have been on the same side when it comes to common core. Note that Barge said he thought that prior to his letter, Deal agreed with Barge about the importance of the standards.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Calculator Use on Exams to Shift With Common Core

Although calculators have not figured prominently in discussions of the common-core math standards, it's likely the complementary tests will result in far greater uniformity in their use on state exams across the nation.
Policies emerging from the two state consortia developing common-core assessments would prohibit most students from using calculators on the grades 3-5 tests, for example. At grades 6 and above, they call for calculator "on" and "off" sections and set restrictions on what functionality is allowed. (Both consortia will provide online calculators for the computer-based tests.)
Those rules, especially in today's high-stakes-testing environment, are sure to influence regular classroom use of calculators, from the elementary ban to the ways increasingly sophisticated calculator use is assumed at the secondary level, many experts say.
State policies are all over the map for using calculators on large-scale assessments. At least a few states—including Arizona, California, and Nevada—prohibit most students from using calculators at all, even on high school exams. But that approach appears to be the exception. Meanwhile, some states, such as New York and Ohio, prohibit calculators only for elementary students.
There are other variations across states, too, including whether the exams have calculator-free sections (many do, including tests in Kentucky, Maryland, and Rhode Island), and the limits imposed on the type of device students may use at different grade levels, such as a basic four-function, scientific, or graphing calculator.
Last summer, the 20-state Partnership for Assessment of College and Career Readiness, or PARCC, issued a policyRequires Adobe Acrobat Reader for its forthcoming assessments. The 25-state Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium has drafted a tentative policy that's similar in many respects to the PARCC approach. Final adoption of the Smarter Balanced policy, which has not been made widely available, is expected later this year.
Reaction from math experts and educators to the PARCC policy since it was issued in July 2012 has been mixed. Although making the exams at grades 3-5 calculator-free has been welcomed in some quarters, others criticize the move.
"The old saw is, teach to the test, and that's the reality," said W. Gary Martin, a professor of math education at Auburn University in Auburn, Ala. "If [students] can't use a calculator on the test, it's effectively banished from the classroom."
On the other hand, Mr. Martin and others praised the PARCC guidelines for high school, which call for the use of an online graphing calculator with comparable functionality to a Texas Instruments TI-84, a popular calculator in high schools.
"It will be a step in the right direction," said Brad Findell, the associate director of math-teacher-education programs at Ohio State University. "It will encourage graphing-calculator use in high school, particularly among lower-achieving students for whom this may have been withheld."
Exactly how many states will ultimately use the PARCC and Smarter Balanced assessments is unknown. Recently, Georgia and Oklahoma have bowed out of the PARCC exams, for instance, though most states are planning to use one or the other testing system.

'Appropriate' Use

The use of calculators in schools has long been a divisive issue, with some critics seeing little place for them at the K-12 level, especially for younger students. But analysts suggest the debate has quieted down in recent years.
Today, with calculators widely used in schools, particularly at the secondary level, the real dilemma is when and how to use them, argues Kathryn B. Chval, an associate professor of math education at the University of Missouri in Columbia who has studied calculator policies.
"The debate should be: When do we use calculators? When do we not use calculators? What is the calculator going to help you teach?" she said.
"I personally see them as useful tools, but like all tools, they need to be used appropriately," said Patrick Honner, who teaches math at Brooklyn Technical High School in New York City. That, he said, includes explicit training for students.
The word "appropriate" is key to how calculators are discussed in the common core. The document explicitly references using technology, including calculators and other tools such as spreadsheets and even geometry software. The main guidepost, analysts say, comes in the Standards for Mathematical Practice. The fifth practice standard, Use Appropriate Tools Strategically, says that mathematically proficient students "are able to use technological tools to explore and deepen their understanding of concepts."
What's On, What's Off
The PARCC and Smarter Balanced testing consortia have written policies for the online calculators to be used on their common-core exams. The Smarter Balanced policy is in draft form, subject to approval by member states.
Mr. Findell from Ohio State appreciates that emphasis.
"Under current practice, the words 'appropriate' and 'strategically' are too often absent from discussions of the use of calculators and other tools," he said, arguing that students often rely too heavily on them.
To that end, Mr. Findell praised plans for the common-core assessments to have calculator "on" and "off" sections at grades 6 and above, which would be a change for Illinois and some other states.
"The common core represents a reasonable middle ground that potentially, if we take it seriously enough, and assessment helps us enough, can bring us to a better place where students end up being thoughtful," he added.
In developing calculator-use policies, officials from both PARCC and Smarter Balanced said they considered several factors, including what the common standards say, current state policies, and how the issue is handled on other prominent assessments, such as national and international exams.
"We really spent time researching the standards and researching what the standards call for as technology," said Carrie Piper, a senior adviser for mathematics at Achieve, a Washington-based organization working on the PARCC assessments. "PARCC feels as though the calculator should be used as a tool for the student."
Ms. Piper also said PARCC consulted with Jason Zimba, one of the lead writers of the math standards.
The rules for national and international assessments vary. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study bans calculators for the grade 4 exam, but allows them at grade 8. But the National Assessment of Educational Progress permits calculators for some questions at grades 4, 8, and 12. On the SAT, scientific and graphing calculators are permitted.
Shelbi Cole, the math director for Smarter Balanced, said that for pilot testing conducted earlier this year, the consortium's policy was similar in many respects to PARCC's planned approach. But for the draft policy now awaiting action by the Smarter Balanced governing states, one notable change is to permit a scientific calculator at grade 7. PARCC restricts students in both grades 6 and 7 to a four-function calculator with square root.
Ms. Cole said the change came in response to feedback from educators in the field and a closer examination of the content to be tested in grade 7.
Standards Practice
One of the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice in the common core, Use Appropriate Tools Strategically, explicitly discusses the use of calculators and other technology.
"Mathematically proficient students consider the available tools when solving a mathematical problem. These tools might include pencil and paper, concrete models, a ruler, a protractor, a calculator, a spreadsheet, a computer algebra system, a statistical package, or dynamic geometry software. Proficient students are sufficiently familiar with tools appropriate for their grade or course to make sound decisions about when each of these tools might be helpful. … For example, mathematically proficient high school students analyze graphs of functions and solutions generated using a graphing calculator."
Smarter Balanced also plans some adjustments to the high school calculator functions based on feedback from educators, she said.
At high school, the draft policy says the online calculator will have scientific, regression, and graphing capabilities. In fact, it's already available online for anyone to use, though Ms. Cole said updates are being made prior to field testing—planned for early next year—to further refine it.
Smarter Balanced is still exploring how to handle calculator use for students with disabilities. PARCC's recently issued accommodations policy makes some allowances for students with disabilities on noncalculator sections.
In the draft policy, Smarter Balanced says it will not allow hand-held calculators for students who use the online test (unless explicitly allowed under the accommodations policy). PARCC will allow hand-held calculators for the first year of testing, but no decision has been made beyond that.
Ms. Cole said a key advantage of using online calculators is it levels the playing field to ensure all students, regardless of background or income level, use the same calculator on the test.
"The biggest benefit to me is the equity issue," she said.
But several educators said that while they like the idea of an online calculator for the exams, they still see reasons for concern, especially in high school.
"While everybody will have access to the same technology, not everybody will have the same background with that technology," said Cliff Bara, who teaches math and science at Troy Junior and Senior High School in Troy, Mont.
Mr. Bara also expressed concerns about the middle school restrictions in both consortia's policies.
"If the common core ... is moving a lot of the algebra down to grade 7 and especially 8th grade, for them not to allow a graphing calculator, at least at the 8th grade, seems to be a serious oversight," he said. Seventh and 8th graders at his school use them "all the time."

Chilling Effect?

The "no calculator" plan for grades 3-5 has generated considerable criticism. Some educators and experts who believe calculators have a valuable role at that level fear the policies will have a chilling effect on their use, and say it has implications for test questions.
"It's absolutely true that kids need to be able to compute without calculators, ... but that's only part of what they need," said Cathy Seeley, a senior fellow emeritus at the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin. "To prohibit them [on the exams] in grades 3-5 even when there are very useful ways students would use them to get to higher-level thinking" is a mistake. "It constrains the depth of the [test] problems you provide."
In 2011, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, long an advocate for using calculators across grade levels, issued a policy statement explicitly touting the benefits of "selective and strategic use" of calculators to support elementary math learning.
But a 2012 teacher surveyRequires Adobe Acrobat Reader suggests calculators are not regularly used at that level. Four-function calculators are available in 58 percent of elementary classrooms, it reported, but they are used at least once a week in only 13 percent.
Linda Gojak, the president of the NCTM, said she's "not too troubled" by the grades 3-5 prohibition on tests, though she said "it's really hard to make a judgment without seeing more test items."
But Jennifer Barrett, a math-curriculum consultant for the 14,500-student Kenton County district in Kentucky, welcomes the restriction. (In Kentucky, calculators are now allowed for some elementary test items.)
"This gives teachers permission to spend time on the grade-level fluencies explicitly stated in the [common core], which in recent years have been de-emphasized," she said. "If calculators are used, how is [computational] fluency and number sense being supported?"
Ms. Piper said there was little debate in PARCC on the grades 3-5 policy. "Deciding not to include a calculator was a pretty easy [call]," she said, "because of students being able to build their number-sense skills, number sense, and fluency."
Linda Kaniecki, a math specialist at the Maryland education department who worked with PARCC on its policy, said that while the rules will be a shift for her state, there's no intention to send a no-calculator message to teachers.

"We're hoping that it's still used in instruction," she said.
Bushra Makiya, an 8th grade math teacher at a New York City public school, is upbeat about the PARCC rules, which she says are quite similar to how New York, a PARCC governing member, now approaches testing, except for the planned use of online calculators.
"Calculators are a really important tool for students, and if they're going to be used effectively in the classroom, it's important that they are also used on state tests," said Ms. Makiya, who teaches at the Leadership and Community Service Academy. "I don't see how good problems that really delve into the eight mathematical practices [in the common core] can be developed if calculators aren't allowed for at least some portion of the test."
One of her chief concerns, however, echoed by other teachers, is getting students used to the online calculator that will be embedded with the computer-based tests.
"While this may seem like a small detail, I could see it really throwing some students off if there's not adequate practice time," she said.
Vol. 33, Issue 01, Pages 1,12-13

Monday, September 2, 2013

A Kinder, Slower, More Receptive Approach to the Start of School

No teacher begins a teaching career with ill intentions. Yet most of us make our biggest mistake on our very first day. I was no different, five years ago. I chose to do everything the way I had been taught in college—the way the popular new-teacher advice books said I should.
Sure, I laughed with the students and made noises about our "class community." But as the all-important first week of school progressed, I went about dictating rules, establishing who was in control, and setting tight boundaries for the year.
As a result, I lost the opportunity to create the kind of relationship with my students that leads not only to motivation and engagement but to real ownership of learning and ultimately greater achievement. At the time I didn't recognize the loss—it took several years, in fact. If you're a new teacher about to begin your journey, maybe my lessons learned can help you avoid the pitfalls of a pretend partnership with your students.

Rule-Maker in Chief

On my first actual day of teaching (the one after orientation), I stood smiling at my door, shaking the hand of each 4th grader entering my room. I was eager to start our very first conversation: “How We Enter the Classroom.” As the students took their pre-assigned seats, I asked them for their attention and then proceeded to model for them exactly how I wanted them to come into the room. I told them what they needed to bring and what the consequences would be for entering unprepared.
Then we moved on to the next important conversation: My rules and the consequences for breaking them. Here I relied on a novice-teacher staple, The First Six Weeks of School by Paula Denton and Roxann Kriete. The authors pose the enticing idea of making it appear that your students themselves are coming up with the classroom rules and procedures, thus facilitating buy-in as you steer them to the inevitable conclusion. In fact, I already had the rules typed up: “Respect each other, take care of yourself, and take care of our property.”
My intentions were noble. I wanted my students to feel like they were part of the management of the classroom. But I was creating a false notion. I had no intention of letting them set the rules. I knew from all my training and reading that my number one job was to be the leader of this learning space. And leaders make the rules.

Missed Opportunities

The rest of that first week of school was an actual blur. Most teachers (veteran and new) are dazed by the end of the first week, caught up in the anxiousness to get started with curriculum, but also busy figuring out who their students are and how they will manage them throughout the year.
I was in awe of the kindness my kids had shown to me, but also very tightly gripping the reins of control for all of our learning. Now was not the time to appear too weak or too friendly. I'd staged numerous ice-breaking activities, and I thought we had gotten to know each other well. In fact, I knew very little about each student, definitely not anything that could guide me in my teaching. I figured those things would come later (and sometimes they did), but in reality I had completely missed the biggest opportunity I would have to truly get to know my students.
In essence, I was fearful that if I did not firmly assert my authority from the very first day of school, the rest of the year would be out of control. So assert I did—that year and for several years after. We did OK. I taught. My students learned. But I could sense so much wasted potential beneath my iron grip.

Giving Back the Classroom

Since I had been taught how to set up the first week of school to assert my authority and control, dismissing those notions was hard. It's a journey I write about in a book that will be published later this year, The Passionate Learner: Giving Our Classrooms Back to Our Students Starting Today.
Let me just say here that I know now that what we do in the first week of school to listen, communicate, and share our genuine interests with one another sets the tone for the rest of the year more deliberately than any list of rules or expectations ever will.
Were you to come into my classroom now on the very first day of school, you'd see a much different approach—one that is kinder, slower, and more in tune with what I now understand my students really need: respect and a place to call their own.
Now, at the beginning of each school year, I remind myself to hold back—to not give in to the pressure of pacing guides and classroom-procedure gurus. I now know from experience that if I take my time with my students, that investment will pay off all year long.
On the first day, every year, I remind myself of the following:
• We are all brand new to each other.
• We are cementing our routines.
• We are discovering our rules.
• The curriculum will mean nothing if we do not get excited about it.
• We relish our freedom.
• We have to build trust.

Out With the Old

So what does it look like in practice when a teacher tries to honor these intuitive precepts? Well, first let me tell you what it doesn’t look like. Here are some common start-of-school practices that I now advise against:
Don't pre-post your rules. Nothing says "This is my classroom" like a beautifully laminated poster of your rules that have been hanging there for years.
Don't spend days writing a class constitution. As a social studies lesson, I think this might make be a marvelous project. But it's not a way to build classroom community. Think of it through the eyes of a child—days spent discussing the rules for the rest of the year and then pledging to uphold all 20 or so of them. What a dull way to start a year together.
Don't "set clear boundaries" and label them. I was a label master, making sure students knew exactly when they had crossed into my territory, whether it be my desk, my cabinets, or my pencils. With labels come restrictions, and classrooms have enough restrictions put on them already; we do not need to add more.
Don't invest much time in icebreakers. I have never made a connection through an ice-breaking activity, sorry. Instead, invest in something meaningful as a community, such as a connection map, or a student-designed tour of the classroom, or anything that the students can work on as a team challenge. If they can focus on a task rather than the act of connecting, the community building will naturally start to evolve.
Don't announce that "we will now build community." I love setting goals, and we set many throughout the year, but this goal is better left unsaid. It's like telling people that you are trying to become their friend; the hyper-focus tends to make things weird and uncomfortable. Instead, tell the students you are happy to be their teacher and then do something together that you know actually builds community.
Don't have a million things planned. Sometimes the best beginnings of a community come from just spending low-key time together. When you plan too much or have too much to do, there isn’t time for just getting to know each other, so be choosy what you invest your time in.

A New Start

So, if you’re not doing those things, what should you do the first week of school? Here’s might advice on fostering a creative and engaged classroom community:
Be yourself. Students can see through any phoniness and an act is hard to keep up for more than a few days. So if you happen to have the personality of a comedian or a perfectionist or a massive dork, like I do, let it shine through.
Share your life. I often start my year with a video or two of my children or a funny story about one of them. Nothing planned or long, just a quick story. The students get to know me and my family, and they share their own stories as well.
Laugh a lot. I love to laugh, and I think kids are hilarious. Give them a chance to speak in humorous ways.
Start decorating the classroom. I stress over and over that this is “OUR classroom,” so the students get to make decorating choices as well as furniture setup decisions.
Start learning. I know I said to go easy on curriculum the first week, but do get started with something right away. The students are ready to learn because they cannot wait to see what it will be like in this new grade.
Decide on expectations together. Spend some time having the students discuss what they expect out of the year and then have them discuss what that means for their learning environment.
Give it time. Great community does not spring up on the first day of school, but you do need to plant the first seeds that day. So tend to it and nurture it, and give it the time it deserves to grow tall and strong.
In the end, that first week, that first day, that first moment of school carries more weight than we realize. We know first impressions tend to stick. They are not impossible to rectify, but why not start out right? Signal to the kids that this is their room, that this year is about them, and the learning path they want to take. Let them know that they matter, that their voice matters, and that this year will matter.
They'll figure out that this year, in your class, things may be a little different than they're used to. And maybe lots better.
WEB ONLY

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Common Core: A Puzzle to Public


In a pair of new national polls aiming to capture the American public's view of the state of K-12 education, one finding is clear: Most of those surveyed are clueless about the Common Core State Standards.
Sixty-two percent of all respondents in a poll from Phi Delta Kappa and Gallup had never heard of the common core, and awareness among public school parents was not much better, at 55 percent. In a separate survey from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which polled parents of K-12 students, 52 percent said they knew little or nothing about the common core, even though educators have begun putting the more rigorous standards in English/language arts and math into practice in classrooms in the vast majority of states and school districts.
But in trying to glean what the public and parents think about another marquee issue in public schooling—standardized testing—the polls paint a much murkier picture. Depending on how the question is worded, respondents are either fed up with testing, as found in the PDK/Gallup survey, or believe it's essential for knowing how well students are stacking up, as found in the AP survey.
"People's views are just much more complex than an answer to a single question," said Jean Johnson, a senior fellow at Public Agenda, a New York City-based opinion-research organization that studies a range of public policy issues including education. "Having these polls out together actually provides a lot of information, and in some ways, suggests issues that need some attention. Clearly, common core is one of those."

Skeptics Abound

In trying to better understand what those who had heard of the common core know and think about the standards—adopted in nearly every state—the surveys had somewhat similar results.
The PDK/Gallup survey found that just 41 percent of respondents who had heard of the standards believe they will make the United States more competitive in the world. Forty-seven percent of respondents in the Associated Press poll said they believe the standards will improve the quality of education.
Of those in the PDK/Gallup poll who had heard of the common core, many were confused by, or misunderstood, the standards and their genesis. At the same time, 95 percent of poll respondents said they think schools should teach critical-thinking skills, one of the main goals of the common standards.
In a third, wide-ranging national poll also published last week, this one by the journal Education Next, 65 percent of respondents said they support to some degree states' adoption of the common standards, up slightly from the journal's 2012 survey. But the new survey of 1,138 adults also found a near doubling of opposition to the standards' adoption from last year, with 13 percent now saying they were opposed.
"Whether you are a supporter or an opponent of the common core, you'll find things that support your point of view in all of these polls," said Michael Brickman, the director of national policy for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which is one of Education Next's sponsoring institutions. "The standards will remain an unsettled issue until we start to see the actual widespread practice of using them and testing for them at the school and classroom level."

Turbulent Time

The PDK/Gallup poll—the 45th annual survey on public attitudes toward public schools from the professional educators' group and the giant polling organization—was conducted by telephone in May. The national survey of 1,001 respondents 18 and older has a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.
The poll also found strong support for charter schools and opposition to tuition vouchers, broad confidence in the safety of schools, and mixed opinions on hiring armed guards for schools. (Education Week partners with Gallup on a separate survey project, known as the Gallup-Education Week Superintendents Panel.)
Such findings come at a particularly turbulent time in public education, as the new standards and the tests being designed to measure how well students are mastering them have become the latest focus of battles over the future direction of U.S. schooling.
Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards, which were developed through an initiative led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association. (One of the 46, Minnesota, has adopted the English standards only.)
Almost as many states have signed on for the common tests being devised to replace their old assessments. Already, educators are warning that those tests—expected to be much harder—will cause student scores to drop initially.
Nearly 40 states are also working on redesigning teacher and principal evaluations to include student test scores.
Reacting to the low level of public awareness shown in the polling, Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University who favors the common core, said: "This underscores the real challenge we are likely going to see, which is major pushback from the public and parents because they don't fully understand what the standards are, and they are going to be very upset about their kids' lower scores on the new tests."
Deborah A. Gist, the commissioner of education in Rhode Island, said her biggest worry is the abundance of misinformation about the standards. Many of the PDK/Gallup respondents who had heard of the common core said, erroneously, that the federal government had forced states to adopt the standards, that the standards would cover all academic-content areas, and that they were an amalgamation of existing state standards.
"That's what we particularly need to address," Ms. Gist said. "There is so much misinformation out there that it could be problematic for us to carry this through. I think these results are a message to us that we need to engage our families much more in this transition," she said.

Views on Testing

The PDK/Gallup findings on standardized testing—that fewer than one in four of those responding believe that more student testing has led to better public schools—stand in sharp contrast to the results in the Associated Press poll. But the questions posed in the two surveys were quite different.
The PDK/Gallup poll prefaced its question by saying there had been "a significant increase in testing," before asking those being surveyed whether they thought more testing had helped, hurt, or made no difference in the performance of public schools. Forty-one per
cent said that more testing had made no difference, 36 percent said it had hurt, and 22 percent said it had helped.
The AP survey—which polled 1,025 parents and guardians with children in grades K-12—posed a different question. It asked parents how important it is for schools to regularly assess students, and found that 74 per
cent said it was either extremely or very important to use tests to gauge how their children are doing.
In the same poll, 61 percent of parents said their own children are given about the right number of standardized tests; 26 percent said their children are overtested. Sixty percent also said students' scores on state tests should be included in teacher evaluations.
The Education Next poll, meanwhile, found that just about half of all respondents favored, to some extent, linking teachers' salaries in part to how well students perform on state tests.
The PDK/Gallup survey found that 58 percent of respondents oppose requiring that teacher evaluations include student scores from standardized tests. That's a big jump in negative opinion from last year, when 47 percent of PDK/Gallup respondents opposed using test scores in evaluations.
Terry Holliday, the commissioner of education in Kentucky, said that the PDK/Gallup poll's one-year change in the public's view in using scores in job evaluations is an important data point to weigh.
"For Kentucky, where we have been slow and deliberate about how we are doing our evaluations, this tells me that we need to be even more cautious," he said.
William J. Bushaw, the executive director of Phi Delta Kappa International and co-director of the poll, said the public and parents are likely being influenced by the teachers and principals in their local schools, for whom they have high regard.
"I think parents are listening to their children's teachers and are hearing their concerns about these new evaluation systems
that are untested and deciding that maybe it's not fair," Mr. Bushaw said.
As has been true for decades, confidence in teachers who work in local schools is high. In the new PDK/Gallup survey, 70 percent of respondents said they have trust and confidence in those who teach in public schools, while 65 percent said the same of principals.

Range of Issues

Besides the common core, testing, and teacher and principal quality, the PDK/Gallup survey delves into the public's views on school safety, school choice, home schooling, funding, and overall school quality.
Most public school parents surveyed—88 percent—said they do not worry about their children's physical safety at school. Eighty percent said they are more concerned about the actions of other students, rather than the threat of outside intruders in the school.
While 59 percent of respondents favor increasing mental-health services as the best approach to promoting school safety, 33 percent of those polled said hiring more security officers would be the most effective tactic. On the question of a need to hire armed security guards, especially in elementary schools, those polled were split, while a clear majority rejected the idea of arming teachers and administrators.
On school choice issues, respondents to the PDK/Gallup poll continued to hold charter schools in high regard, with 68 percent saying they support those independent public schools and 67 percent reporting they would support the opening of new charter schools in their communities. Fifty-two percent also said that they think students receive a better education at public charter schools than at traditional public schools. But there was also a sharp rise in opposition to using public money to pay for private school expenses. Seventy percent said they oppose allowing families to attend a private school at public expense, compared with 55 percent last year.

Communication Dilemma

The major takeaway from this year's survey, said Mr. Bushaw of PDK, is that educators have their work cut out for them to mount an effective communications campaign about the common-core standards.
"The best ambassadors to tell the public about what is happening with the standards and the new assessments as well are teachers and principals," he said. "But I think because some of these same people have very real concerns about how the results will be used, that may be causing them to hold back."
Vol. 33, Issue 02, Pages 1,20-21

Halloween Greeting Card for Your Students









Box of 35 $18.00


Friday, August 30, 2013

Learning Resources Magnetic Ten Frame Answer Boards

Treating Common-Core Syndrome

COMMENTARY

A new disorder seems to have swept the nation: Common Core State Standards Syndrome. This malady is characterized by sharply polarized positions—worshiping the common core as schools' salvation, or condemning it as on the path to Armageddon.
The clinical manifestation is similar: op-eds in newspapers ("Common Core Education Is Uncommonly Inadequate," The Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2013) or editorials ("Moving Ahead With Common Core," The New York Times, April 20, 2013), impassioned blogs, and spirited tweets.
Entire states exhibit symptoms as well, embracing the standards one year and threatening to dump them the next.
Nonetheless, the attention being trained on the standards has the potential to transform our education system if the focus shifts to the more difficult challenge—implementation. Neither side in the debate believes that the standards alone will be sufficient, but the heavy lifting required may be beyond the capacity of many districts and schools.
"Are states really focusing on the crucial details of implementation and allotting enough time and resources to get the job done?"
As a nation, we do not have a history of thoroughly implementing or sustaining education reforms, which is troubling.
State standards are not new. We have always had a de facto set of them, driven by textbook publishers that produced national series used across states. As states developed their own standards, they often built them upon the standards written by others. But even with this history, education quality and student achievement have remained stagnant at best. Why?
Rigorous standards alone will not improve student achievement, and if we focus too much on the common-core standards themselves, we may limit the more urgent discussion about implementation. Are states really focusing on the crucial details of implementation and allotting enough time and resources to get the job done?
What is needed is a consensus on critical implementation requirements. These include specifying the details of the curriculum and how instruction should look so that students master the standards and struggling students receive the supports they need; planning a comprehensive assessment system that starts in kindergarten and is designed to identify or predict reading problems; providing continuous professional learning opportunities for teachers; selecting strong curriculum materials; communicating to all stakeholders; and developing knowledgeable educators.
The standards are not a curriculum. Because this is true, educators are busy "unpacking" them. What does this really mean?
State education departments should guide districts by spelling out specific frameworks. These frameworks should include sequences based on careful task analyses that lead to articulated and robust curriculum. What specific content will be taught, for how long, at what grades, and in what order? This is no easy task. In some districts this has devolved to teachers writing their own lessons without adequate preparation. Is this really time well spent?
Figuring out the right amount of practice for a new skill or concept, the correct order of introduction, when to provide more guided instruction, and when to provide more fluid structure is difficult.
The common-core mathematics standards provide a more overt progression than do the English/language arts, or ELA, standards. While the appendix to the ELA standards provides a progression for phonemic awareness and language skills, no such progression exists for writing. The standards themselves contain a phonics progression, but details on teaching are left up to schools.
Unlike the mathematics standards, the ELA standards are pedagogically neutral, except for their focus on close reading. Textbook publishers, if they do the job right and thoroughly, can bolster the implementation of strong curriculum to support achievement.
New math and ELA texts and resources are essential to implementing the common core successfully. If left to schools and districts alone, articulation and coherence may be elusive.
Amnesia also seems to afflict some educators when it comes to the National Reading Panel findings from April 2000, which recommended that systematic phonics be a routine part of reading instruction for all elementary students. The reading-foundational-skills standards in the common core show that their authors recognized the importance of these skills.
—iStockphoto.com/CSA_Images
What is not clearly evident, however, is how much time and practice needs to be devoted to mastering these skills.
Despite the evidence, we appear to be drifting away from systematic instruction in these skills. In part, this is the result of the placement of the reading foundational skills after the text-based standards in the common core, thus potentially minimizing their importance.
It also stems from a testing plan that starts in 3rd grade, with fewer states attending to the importance of preventive screening and early diagnosis of reading problems in kindergarten through 3rd grade. Continued vigilance in the primary grades and systematic reading instruction are imperative. Because of the emphasis placed on literary and informational text work, it is important to remember that children must be able to decipher words and read fluently, especially if they are going to meet increasingly rigorous textual demands.
Designing curriculum of sufficient depth to effectively address foundational skills while also meeting the common core's demands regarding text will be challenging. Will the new basal readers or anthologies meet these dual challenges?
Without a strong and continued commitment to effective research-based early-literacy instruction along side rich content, we may be doomed to high rates of failure in the upper grades by students who still don't read well.
As a profession, we seem to avoid discussions of teaching methods. Once we have defined a specific curriculum, how we teach it does make a difference. A strong body of research points to instructional methods that have a high likelihood of raising achievement. In a recent essay for the Education Week Teacher online site, Mike Schmoker argued for "soundly structured lessons" based on research dating back nearly 50 years but largely ignored. He said the research recommended:
• Articulating a purpose statement or opening with a provocative question;
• Modeling or demonstrating the carefully calibrated steps in learning a new skill;
• Guided and active practice of each individual small step the teacher modeled while checking for understanding; and
• Repeating the cycle based on student feedback and to support those who need further instruction.
Curriculum and instruction must be the levers by which the common-core standards become reality and firmly take root. State departments of education must play a vital role in ensuring this focus.
Setting rigorous expectations for what students should know and be able to do is an essential step that will bring a degree of consistency to our national education system. However, the common-core standards represent neither salvation nor Armageddon. Rather, it is time to shift national intensity from the standards to their implementation, with a focus on curriculum and instruction. Without this shift, the common core may end up as just one more failed reform.
Vol. 33, Issue 02, Pages 26-27, 29