Curriculum Matters - Education Week

40 States Probed Alleged Cheating on Tests, Federal Report Finds

2013-05-17T17:47:16Z

A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office has found that most states have looked into allegations of cheating by school officials on state tests in the past two years.

The study, released this week, found that 33 states confirmed at least one such case of cheating, and 32 reported invalidating test scores as a result of cheating.

The report was prompted by several high-profile cases of cheating on tests, such as the recent one in Atlanta. The federal government has an interest in the security and validity of state tests results because it helps fund the development of tests used for federal accountability. The GAO report says the U.S. Department of Education has funneled $2 billion toward such projects since 2002.

With that in mind, and also a 2009 report of its own that found lax security procedures in some places on state tests, the GAO sought to find out what states are doing about test security. Using the best practices outlined in a 2010 report by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the Association of Test Publishers (which EdWeek wrote about here), the GAO designed a Web-based survey asking states which of those practices they use in their state assessment programs. All 50 states and the District of Columbia responded. The GAO also conducted interviews and site visits with education officials in two states and interviewed officials from test publishers and a test-security company.

Most of the report focuses on how widely the "best practices" in assessment are being used in the states. But the extent of cheating allegations that it found is noteworthy in light of cheating scandals in Atlanta and elsewhere.

The study also notes the incentives to cheat that could flow from linking tests to honors or recognition (or, as the study did not point out, punitive responses). In 24 states, test results are linked to teacher evaluations and/or special rewards or recognitions for schools that improve test scores, the study says. In nine states, results are linked to educators' promotions, it says.

And it reports widespread jitters about cheating. All 50 states reported feeling vulnerable to cheating during their tests, and 47 reported feeling vulnerable after the test is given. Forty-three percent reported similar fears somewhere along the chain of custody of testing materials, and 40 said they feared cheating in the period leading up to the test. Forty-five states said they were concerned about cheating when using accommodations for students with special needs.

The study includes no recommendations. It notes that test security can be improved if states put strong policies and procedures in place and that the move to computer-based testing could "address some vulnerabilities of paper-based assessments." But it could also create new vulnerabilities, the GAO study says.

"Additional guidance and oversight will be key to ensuring that appropriate policies and procedures are adopted by schools to address these new vulnerabilities," the report says.

Here are the six areas of "best practice" in test security and a summary of what the GAO survey found:

•Test-security plans: 40 states reported having all seven or more of the nine leading practices in this area, including procedures for keeping materials secure.

•Security training: 32 states had 10 or more of the 11 leading practices in training personnel for tests.

•Security breaches: 42 states had five or more of the six leading practices to prevent or deal with breaches in test security.

•Test administration: 21 states had 29 to 31 of the 32 leading practices in this area, and another 24 had 24 to 28 of them. The numbers are far lower after that: Two had 18 to 20 of those practices, and four had only six to 10.

•Protecting secure materials: Seven states reported having all 16 of the best practices in this area, which includes practices such as accounting for test materials at all stages of distribution. Twenty-three states reported having 13 to 15 of those practices. Twenty-one states reported 12 or fewer.

•Leading practices in computer-based tests: The GAO reported on this separately, since only 28 states administer computer-based tests. The CCSSO/ATP—identified 14 best practices for computer-based testing, including clearly documenting and explaining the use of software and supporting devices. The GAO found that eight of the 28 states that give their tests this way use all 14 best practices. Another seven reported using 13 of the 14.

- Catherine Gewertz

Adoption of New Science Standards May Start With Rhode Island

2013-05-16T13:39:55Z

Rhode Island may prove to be the first state to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards issued in final form last month. The state board of education is expected to vote on the standards at its next meeting, on May 23.

I'm told that the standards had a "very positive reception" among board members at a May 8 work session.

The Ocean State was among the 26 "lead state partners" that helped to develop the new science standards in collaboration with several national organizations. All of the lead states have pledged to seriously consider adoption. And as I reported earlier this year, some other states also are contemplating following suit, including Florida, Louisiana, and Wisconsin.

Considerable attention already has turned to laying the groundwork for implementing the standards, as I report in the first of a two-part Education Week series on implementation of the standards. The story probes some of the big issues, including professional development and teacher education, curriculum and instructional materials, and assessment.

Other early adopter states may include Maine and Kentucky. Maine officials have signaled that a vote is likely this spring. And in Kentucky, a vote on provisional adoption is expected in June.

I should note, however, that the standards are not being welcomed with open arms from all quarters, as this blog post explains.

- Erik Robelen

Math-Tutoring Initiative With a Twist Aims to Help Chicago Youths

2013-05-14T21:53:44Z

An initiative that blends intensive math tutoring with a group-counseling intervention to keep kids from getting involved in violent activity will soon be offered to up to 1,000 adolescent boys in a dozen Chicago public schools, according to a press release issued yesterday.

The tutoring component is based on a program developed in 2004 at the Match public charter schools in Boston, where math tutoring is incorporated as a period in the school day. Several districts in Massachusetts and beyond have since started to replicate that program, including Houston and Denver.

In Chicago, the press release says, the math tutoring will be offered alongside the Becoming a Man program, a school-based counseling and mentoring initiative that focuses on violence prevention and educational enrichment for urban youths.

The schools targeted for the joint initiative are located in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, the release says. The idea of combining the two programs was piloted this academic year at Harper High School in Chicago's Englewood neighborhood.

The University of Chicago will conduct an evaluation to gauge the joint program's impact on student achievement and involvement in violent crimes. The new initiative is a collaborative effort of the University of Chicago and Match Education and is receiving financial support from the MacArthur Foundation.

- Erik Robelen

NAEP Faces Budget Ax: Social Studies Exams to Be Scaled Back

2013-05-14T20:56:51Z

Talk about a teachable moment in civics class. NAEP, a.k.a. "the nation's report card," for civics, history, and geography is being scaled back as a result of budget cuts required through sequestration, as my colleague Alyson Klein reports over at Politics K-12.

The result is that only 8th graders will take the exam for the time being.

The executive committee of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, voted recently to indefinitely postpone the 4th and 12th grade tests, Alyson explains. The exams are next scheduled for 2014.

The action by NAGB came in response to a recommendation from the National Center for Education Statistics. NCES Commissioner Jack Buckley told Alyson the action was not because of any lack of interest in social studies. It was simply "trying to make the best decision from a bad set of options."

The last round of NAEP results for social studies came out in 2011, and it was not exactly encouraging. Fewer than one-third of students reached the "proficient" level in any of the subjects. In civics, for example, just 24 percent of students scored proficient or above. The figure was 22 percent for 8th grade, and 27 percent for 4th.

So, all you civics teachers out there, here's your chance to take this up with students. What is sequestration? How did it come about? What can Congress and the White House do to resolve the situation? And, will the NAEP for social studies, at least for 4th and 12th graders, eventually become a topic you only hear about in history books? Discuss!

- Erik Robelen

Algebra 2 Pushback Turns Up in Michigan With House Measure

2013-05-10T18:57:07Z

Algebra 2 may be falling out of political favor in another state, this time Michigan.

A Michigan House committee this month approved changes to state graduation requirements, including allowing students to skip Algebra 2 if they instead take a career and technical education course, the Associated Press reports.

One reason this is noteworthy is that it could be seen as going against the grain of the Common Core State Standards, which include a level of math content that includes the rough equivalent of taking both Algebra 1 and Algebra 2. In fact, one "model pathway" outlined in an appendix to the math standards suggests students take Algebra 1, Geometry, and then Algebra 2.

The Michigan measure apparently does require that the alternative career-tech offering include Algebra 2 content, the AP story says, though I imagine some people will be wondering about the mathematical rigor of the alternative, as well as how much time would be carved out for learning algebra. (This may be entirely coincidental, but I should mention that the Michigan House last month passed a budget bill that would prohibit the use of state dollars to implement the common core. You can get the full scoop over at the State EdWatch blog.)

Michigan is not the only state where this issue has arisen lately. Last month, Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a measure that would rewrite graduation rules and make Algebra 2 an optional course for those pursuing a standard diploma.

In a blog post about the Florida measure, I explore in greater detail what the legislation looks like and some of the larger issues it raises for adherence to the common core.

Meanwhile, in Texas, which did not adopt the common core, pushback from educators and political leaders is also leading to likely changes in graduation requirements, including Algebra 2. The House bill, approved earlier this spring, would reduce from 15 to five the number of end-of-course exams. Algebra 2 is among those on the chopping block. A Senate version approved this week also reduces the number of required exams by the same amount, though it would continue to offer Algebra 2 and English 3 as optional exams for districts, according to a story in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper.

Both bills would move away from the so-called 4x4 approach of requiring Texas students pursuing a standard diploma to take four years each of math, science, English, and social studies. Instead, they would only need four years of English, though the measures do create new "endorsements" that require more coursework in certain subjects.

The Texas legislation has encountered sharp criticism from some Texas business leaders (though others support it), as well as national advocacy groups.

- Erik Robelen

English Teachers Group Opposes Machine-Scored Writing

2013-05-08T13:03:39Z

One of the major assumptions underlying the common assessments is that the writing portions will be computer-scored. This capability is pivotal in managing their cost and producing results quickly enough to provide valuable feedback for teachers.

The national association representing English/language arts teachers has come out against machine-scoring of student writing. Earlier this month, the National Council of Teachers of English issued a statement saying that machines just aren't able to score the aspects of writing teachers prize most.

As we reported to you last month, some scholars are circulating a petition opposing machine-scoring of writing as well. In that post, we noted at least one study that has found that computers can rival humans in scoring student writing.

In its statement, the NCTE says that artificial intelligence assesses student writing by only "a few limited surface features," ignoring important elements such as logic, clarity, accuracy, quality of evidence, and humor or irony.

Computers' ability to judge student writing also gets worse as the length of the essays increases, the NCTE says. The organization argues for consideration of other ways of judging student writing, such as portfolio assessment, teacher-assessment teams, and more localized classroom- or district-based assessments.

The viability of artificial-intelligence scoring on the common assessments is a powerful cost manager for the two groups of states that are designing tests for the common standards. If they decide that humans must score the essays, the expense of the tests soars. And cost is, of course, high on states' radars as they weigh their continued participation in the two groups.

- Catherine Gewertz

Online Testing Runs Off-Track in Several States

2013-05-06T15:28:59Z

It was a rocky week for large-scale online testing. It was so bad, in fact, that one state official said that stone tablets were looking like a better alternative.

In case you were napping last week, we can bring you back into the loop. As my colleagues Michelle Davis, Andrew Ujifusa, and Sean Cavanagh reported, technological snafus tangled testing in a big way in four states. See Michelle's story, and blog posts by Andrew and Sean for details.

None of this is cheery news for the two federally funded assessment consortia, whose tests live or die on states' ability to administer online tests to all students in 2015. Spokesmen for those two groups offered publicly confident faces in response to last week's testing disasters—the advantages of the new tests will outweigh the challenges; we'll work out all the kinks before they roll out in 2015. But you don't need to stretch too far to imagine that news of those disasters was not at all what the consortia needed to hear, as they seek to build confidence in the testing systems that more than 40 states are banking on.

UPDATE: Andrew reports another layer of testing trouble in Kentucky: the state has discontinued scoring the constructed-response items, passing that mantle to districts to take up if they wish to do so. This resonates on a common-assessments level, too, since the two consortia's longer, performance-based items purport to add nuance and depth to understanding a student's performance.

We'll keep you posted as this picture evolves.

- Catherine Gewertz

Knowing Student Misconceptions Key to Science Teaching, Study Finds

2013-05-03T14:02:16Z

It seems obvious that teachers need to understand the content they're trying to convey to students. But a new study finds that what's especially critical to improved science learning is that teachers also know the common misconceptions students have. And in science, there are plenty of things that young people—and a lot of adults—don't correctly understand, such as what causes the change of seasons.

The study, conducted by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, targeted middle school physical science. The researchers enlisted 181 teachers to administer a multiple-choice test of student knowledge of science concepts. Twelve of the 20 items were designed to have a "particularly wrong answer corresponding to a commonly held misconception," explained Philip Sadler, the lead author and a senior lecturer at the Harvard-Smithsonian center.

The "unusual" part of the study, he said, was that teachers also took the test, and were asked to identify both the correct answer and the one students were most often likely to incorrectly select. Although the teachers overall did "quite well" at selecting the correct answer, the results were more mixed in predicting students' incorrect response.

"Teacher knowledge was predictive of higher student gains. No surprise there," Sadler explained in an email. "However, for more difficult concepts where many students had a misconception, only teachers who knew the science and the common misconceptions have large student gains." What's key, he said, is knowing "what was going on in their students' heads."

The study, supported by funding from the National Science Foundation, was recently published online in the American Educational Research Journal. The study also is the focus of an article published yesterday in Science Daily.

The researchers acknowledge that many educators question the value of tests composed of multiple-choice items, but said in the study that when items are written to include popular misconceptions as "distractors, they function well in diagnosing misconceptions that impede the learning of science." The test questions were based on concepts covered in a set of science content standards published by the National Research Council in 1996. Topics addressed included properties of matter, motions and forces, and transfer of energy.

In his email, Sadler said the study was sparked by the reaction many educators have had to a video he helped to develop, called "A Private Universe," in which graduating Harvard University seniors reveal "the same wrong ideas" about science as middle-school students.

"So many teachers have sought me out at conferences after viewing [the video] to tell me that it was a turning point in their teaching of science," he said. "They report that although they knew that some students had unusual ideas, they were unaware of the extent and near universality of misconceptions concerning concepts that they teach."

By the way, while I had Sadler's attention, I asked him for a few quick thoughts about the Next Generation Science Standards just finalized. He was upbeat about the standards, but cautioned that effective implementation will be a heavy lift.

"I think they represent a terrific ideal for what students should be learning," he said. "However, their implementation really depends on investing in teacher professional development, more lab equipment, and far better assessments than we now have."

- Erik Robelen

History Teaching Requirements in Many States Fall Short, Report Says

2013-05-02T13:44:03Z

Many states fail to set entrance requirements for history teachers that would help ensure that those who end up in U.S. high schools would actually be knowledgeable about the subject, a new report from a conservative think tank concludes.

"Today, few states give so much as lip service to the idea that a major in history earned in a serious university department of history ought to be a prerequisite to teaching history to high school students," says the report, issued last month. "Too often, state certifiers allow an array of alternatives that do not demand study of American and world history in any real depth."

It contends that "a major weakness" is that in many states, those requirements are focused on credits and scores in social studies, rather than specific knowledge of U.S. history. (And the report makes no secret of its disdain for social studies, what it calls a "big tent" of subjects that often ends up giving history short shrift.) It notes, for instance, that more than two-thirds of states that use the Praxis II content tests for teachers have chosen the social studies version over the history exam.

The report details on a state-by-state basis the coursework and testing requirements for prospective history teachers. And it comes as recent achievement data suggest most U.S. students have a weak understanding of their own history. Results from the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress exam in U.S. history found that only 12 percent—no that's not a typo—scored proficient or above. For 8th graders, the figure was 17 percent.

Among the states the Lexington Institute draws out for criticism in the new report are New Jersey and California. For example, New Jersey offers certification as a social studies teacher, the report says, but stipulates a minimum of taking just one course in American history. The state also requires teachers to take the Praxis II Social Studies test, on which 20 percent of content is in U.S. history.

"It appears possible that one could teach social studies in New Jersey while possessing precious little knowledge to impart to students about American history," it says.

In California, the report says, the state has a single subject credential at the high school level, but offers no history credential. Instead, those who wish to teach history must earn a social sciences credential. By contrast, the state does offer such single-subject credentials in other more specialized areas, including the biological sciences and geosciences.

The Lexington Institute singles out a few other states for praise, including Texas and Rhode Island, calling the latter a "sterling example." Although Rhode Island does not require certification in history (but rather social studies), an applicant must have completed at least 18 semester hours of coursework each in several areas of history: U.S. history, European history, non-Western history, and history of Western civilization. It also stipulates a "major or equivalent in the content area or a closely related field with an emphasis on history."

To be sure, the report says state requirements are not the only way to ensure that teachers have strong knowledge of history. For wealthier districts, it suggests, "They have the money to hire a Ph.D. to teach history should they choose." But it argues those "hurt by the low teacher standards are the neediest districts, which have to scramble to fill teaching positions. And. of course, those hurt the most are the students who thereby are deprived of teachers who can impart the basics of their nation's history."

- Erik Robelen

Indiana Could Back Out of Common-Core Tests

2013-05-01T13:00:38Z

On the heels of Alabama's withdrawal from common tests, and questions about participation hanging over Michigan and Florida, Indiana is now saying it might pull out of the shared assessments as well.

In an interview yesterday with our Michele McNeil, Indiana's new superintendent of public instruction, Glenda Ritz, said she would like to see her state develop its own tests, rather than use the ones being developed by the PARCC consortium. Indiana is a governing state in that consortium. And as we've already reported to you, legislation is sitting on the Indiana governor's desk that would "pause" implementation of the common standards there.

Elsewhere in the country, there has been a cluster of technology problems that have disrupted computer-based tests. My colleagues Andrew Ujifusa at the State EdWatch blog and Sean Cavanagh at the Digital Education blog have the details for you. Those disruptions wouldn't exactly be a confidence-booster as the two federally funded assessment consortia build tests that will be entirely computer-based.

As we've reported, there's been a recent uptick in testing opposition, from the student level on up. Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and the Economy shares his analysis of this on his "Top Performers" opinion blog for Education Week. Note the strong disagreements with his thinking in the comments section of his blog post, as well. And just yesterday, AFT President Randi Weingarten called for a moratorium on any high-stakes consequences from common-core tests until teachers are fully up to speed and able to teach revised curriculum for them.

Academic testing has been divisive for a good long time. With so much money and so many people's futures riding on this new wave of tests, those divisions bear close watching.

- Catherine Gewertz

New Science Standards Draw Some Criticism

2013-04-30T21:31:25Z

With the final Next Generation Science Standards now out for exactly three weeks, reactions are cropping up in blogs, news outlets, and other media. Although I've encountered no shortage of high praise for the standards, this welcoming stance is by no means universal. Today, I'll highlight a few examples of criticism and/or caution about the standards, which were developed by a coalition of 26 states in partnership with several national organizations.

One of the most outspoken critiques I've seen was published earlier this month on a blog hosted by National Review Online, an outlet for conservative political news and opinion.

"One doesn't need to be a global-warming skeptic to be appalled by a new set of national K-12 science standards," said Heather Mac Donald, who writes on a wide range of issues for the National Review Online, and is also a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She argues that the standards "put the study of global warming and other ways that humans are destroying life as we know it at at the very core of science education. This is a political choice, not a scientific one. But the standards are equally troubling in their embrace of the nostrums of progressive pedagogy. ... The standards drearily mimic progressive education's enthusiasm for 'critical-thinking skills.' "

This post sparked considerable debate in the comments section of the blog, not all of it complimentary of the author's take.

Second, Paul Bruno, a middle school science teacher from California wrote an online commentary last weeek for EdSource, a nonprofit research and policy organization based in Oakland. The title says it all: "California Should Not Adopt the Next Generation Science Standards."

Bruno argues that while the standards "may have much to recommend them to other states, it is unlikely that they represent an improvement over the status quo for California." He identifies "the most immediately striking weakness of these new science standards is that they are difficult to read." He also argues that the standards document "overemphasizes skills at the expense of factual knowledge. As a result, I'd prefer to continue teaching under California's existing standards." (From all I've heard, California, one of the lead states in developing the standards, is likely to adopt the standards this year.)

Here too, scroll down to the comments section at the end of Bruno's commentary for reaction, including a defense of the standards by the president and president-elect of the California Science Teachers Association, and another from Chris Roe, who leads the California STEM Learning Network. (Here, by the way, is the CSTA's statement praising the final standards, as well as a statement from the STEM network touting the standards potential to transform California education, and urging their adoption.)

Finally, I'll highlight a warning for states to "hold your horses" before adopting the new standards, courtesy of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a Washington think tank led by Checker Finn, a former Reagan administration education official.

"States are being encouraged to embrace and adopt these standards—and it's no secret that most would benefit from far stronger standards than those they've been using," write Finn and his colleague Kathleen Porter-Magee at Fordham. They note that in Fordham's latest grades for science standards, issued in January 2012, the average score was a decidedly mediocre C minus. (Ouch.)

"At present time, however, we urge states considering NGSS to exercise caution and patience, for three reasons," they write.

Those reasons? In a nutshell:

• First, some "important ancillary documents" are still forthcoming, most notably materials to address alignment with the common-core standards, and a discussion of high school course sequences in science that may prove "crucial" in determining the extent to which the standards will "sufficiently impart 'college and career readiness.' "

• Second, leaving questions of quality aside, a majority of states are "already consumed" by challenges with common-core implementation and will want to weigh how many big changes they can realistically undertake at the same time.

• Third, their early read is that the final version of the standards "suffers from some of the same challenges that were evident in the first and second public drafts." (You can find the response of their panel of science and math experts to the second draft here.) Key questions Finn and Porter-Magee identify regarding the final standards include: Is crucial science content missing, especially at the high school level? Are the expectations detailed enough to inform curriculum and assessment development? And does the systematic integration of science "practices" have the effect of "constraining and distorting pedagogy by mandating classroom activities, rather than articulating student outcomes?"

Fordham is the only organization I know of that currently is in the business of evaluating—and grading—state science standards. It's planning to grade the NGSS, and also offer some kind of comparison and contrast with existing standards for each state. (However, I'm told Fordham will not make recommendations on whether an individual state should adopt NGSS or not.) The think tank, by the way, gave a grade of B+ to the National Research Council framework created to help guide development of the standards.

Also, Fordham has proven a pretty influential ally for the Common Core State Standards, especially in reassuring conservative political leaders. So, what it has to say on the subject is likely to get the ear of policymakers in at least some states as they consider whether to adopt the standards.

Meanwhile, leaving aside the critiques highlighted here, the NRC has concluded that the new standards are consistent with the intent of the framework document it developed.

Also, you can learn here which states are likely to be early adopters of the new standards.

- Erik Robelen

Teachers' Union President: Halt All High Stakes Linked to Common Core

2013-04-30T12:31:03Z

AFT President Randi Weingarten is calling for a moratorium on all stakes associated with the Common Core State Standards, saying that teachers have not had enough time or support to understand them deeply and shift their instruction accordingly.

In what's being billed as a major speech this morning in New York City, Weingarten says that it's unfair to judge students, teachers, and schools on test scores that reflect material that hasn't been adequately taught yet. Those kinds of high-stakes decisions should be held in check until states and districts develop—and carry out—implementation plans that include the time and resources necessary for professional development, curriculum, and instruction to fully reflect the standards, she said in draft remarks shared with Education Week.

Weingarten's speech was triggered by recent opposition in New York state to this year's tests, which were newly designed to reflect the expectations of the common standards. The New York state teachers' union, an AFT affiliate, raised objections to those tests—and voluntary new curriculum—on similar grounds, as we reported to you last month.

In her prepared remarks, Weingarten praised the common core, saying it held promise for better teaching and learning, especially for disadvantaged students. She described a visit to a New York City school where 4th graders were mining Christopher Columbus' diary for rich details of his experience, rather than memorizing facts of his journey. It took more than 50 hours for the teachers at that school to understand the new standards deeply enough to make necessary changes in their classrooms, and they still meet weekly to manage it, Weingarten's draft speech said.

Few schools are managing such shifts, however, the speech said. Instead, common-core-aligned tests are often being introduced before lessons and materials are even available or fully put into practice. That kind of implementation is causing a "serious backlash," according to Weingarten's speech.

Before students, teachers, or schools are judged on mastery of the common standards, Weingarten says, adequate time and support must be available to understand them, develop curriculum for them, adapt instruction, and then find out—through "a bunch of different measures"—whether all that is working. Putting the new standards into practice without adequate preparation, she says, is "a failure of leadership."

Weingarten also takes a dig at the Obama administration, noting that it earmarked more than $350 million in the Race to the Top funds for assessments, but nothing specifically for professional development. (The U.S. Education Department provides about $2.5 billion in professional-development money to states and districts annually, through the Title II grants, which they're free to use as they like.)

Anticipating the accusation that she is anti-accountability, Weingarten said in her remarks that she envisions the moratorium only in the "transitional years" in which school systems are fully absorbing the required shifts.

While Weingarten is staking out this turf, others are claiming different parts of this policy debate. Yesterday, in anticipation of Weingarten's speech, Tim Daly of the New Teacher Project blogged that teacher evaluations based on the common core should move ahead. There has also been an upsurge in protests against testing in general, the student demonstrations in Oregon being only one recent example.

For a full copy of Weingarten's speech, click here.

Assistant Editor Stephen Sawchuk, who writes Education Week's Teacher Beat blog, contributed to this report.

- Catherine Gewertz

Students Take the National Stage to Recite Poetry

2013-04-26T13:37:54Z

It's that time of year again—for poetry, and confessions.

Next Monday and Tuesday are the national finals of the annual Poetry Out Loud contest. The biggest event of its kind in the country, Poetry Out Loud draws the top 50 or so students to Washington to vie for poetry-recitation honors. They made it to the finals out of more than 375,00 students who've been competing in more than 2,000 schools all year long.

And this is where I need to come clean and declare my bias: I am an unabashed poetry lover. So I won't pretend to be indifferent here. As I said last year, I think this contest is great stuff, and offers an all-too-rare opportunity to nurture in students a love of words, not only for their meaning, but for their sounds and rhythms.

It's not all that common for students to study poetry, let alone read it out loud. And these young people are going further: They're committing great works to memory and performing them. The recitation finals are broadcast only once, live, so take a tip from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Poetry Foundation, which co-sponsor it, and organize a viewing party. The live webcast will be at www.arts.gov. You can register your viewing party and get tips on organizing it this page of the NEA's website.

The first round of the finals will be held at George Washington University here in Washington from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern time. Nine competitors will advance from that round to the finals on Tuesday, which will take place from 7 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. Eastern. Both events are free to the public. The program is online.

The Poetry Out Loud website has an archive of selected video and audio clips from previous competitions, as well as a host of other resources for teachers, such as a 650-poem library, lesson plans and background material. It also has information about how to get students involved in the competition (hint, hint).

Photo: Illinois state champion Carolyn M. Muller. Image provided by Poetry Out Loud.

- Catherine Gewertz

Science Standards Are True to NRC Framework, Reviewers Conclude

2013-04-26T13:25:17Z

A panel of reviewers convened by the National Research Council has concluded that the final Next Generation Science Standards issued this month are consistent with an NRC framework document that sought to guide their development.

This "fidelity check" had long been planned to provide some assurance that the 26 lead states and their partners who set out to write the standards did not stray from the vision for science education articulated in the framework, according to Heidi Schweingruber, the deputy director of the congressionally chartered NRC's Board on Science Education.

The NRC back in 2010 first convened a panel of experts in science and education to draft the framework document, called "A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas." In fact, Schweingruber and others tell me the standards really should be read alongside the NRC framework. (With all due respect to the standards-writers, most people will find the framework a more reader-friendly document.)

"The standards are more of a technical document," she said. "The framework really fleshes out" the ideas behind the standards. "It provides a deeper description of the content, of the practices." In fact, she said, as curriculum and instructional materials are developed, she suggests that the framework "is going to be a place to go to look at the richness of what you want students to [learn and experience]."

Unfortunately, Schweingruber said she does not yet have clearance to release the names of the reviewers at this time, but she said the NRC will do so when it releases a forthcoming document that describes the fidelity check. But she said the reviewers include some members of the original NRC framework committee, as well as "individuals who were very familiar with the framework and have science expertise." I will update this blog post with that information as soon as I have it. (You can find the members of the NRC framework committee at the bottom of this press release.)

The review actually began when the second public draft of the standards was issued in January, Schweingruber said. But then the NRC reviewers received an early copy of the final standards as well.

"The decision was that the NGSS are consistent with the framework," Schweingruber said in an email. But she cautioned that this should not be read as an endorsement of the standards.

"In general, the NRC as an independent body that provides guidance on scientific evidence doesn't 'endorse' things developed by other organizations," she said. "Rather, the review means that the experts who looked at the [Next Generation Science Standards] thought they were consistent in both content and structure with what was called for in the framework."

- Erik Robelen

All Is Common-Core Aligned at Math Education Exhibit Hall, or Is It?

2013-04-25T15:21:53Z

Math educators walking through the enormous exhibit hall last week at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics meeting in Denver couldn't help but notice a "common" theme. With so much talk in conference sessions about the common-core standards, they may have been wondering where to find instructional materials that reflect the new standards.

A stroll through the exhibit would suggest that pretty much everything already is aligned. Or, at least that's true if you take the claims at face value of many educational companies promoting their wares.

Think Through Math promises materials "built for the common core." Math 180 promotes its "Revolutionary Math Intervention for the Common Core." Kendall Hunt? "High School Math for the Common Core" and "K-5 Gifted Math for the Common Core."

Cengage Learning said it has "all new common core editions." And Texas Instruments is "your partner in common-core implementation." McGraw Hill Education, Pearson, and others also had "common core" emblazoned on their materials.

This is just a sampling of what I encountered in the exhibit hall at the conference. (That said, I scrutinized the calculator display from Casio, but could find no claims of calculators aligned with the standards!)

So, do materials branded with a "common core" label truly reflect fidelity to the math standards? Maybe yes, maybe no. But I clearly recall that in the days and weeks after the standards were completed in 2010, some publishers already were making such claims.

I asked a few math educators at the conference if they believed the claims in the exhibit hall.

"No. Some of it's just a gold sticker on the front," said Cliff Bara, a high school math and science teacher at Troy Junior and Senior High School in Troy, Mont.

Bara said he's spent some time perusing high school materials lately and isn't very impressed by the degree to which they match the standards. "So far at the high school level, I have not seen anything that jumps out at me yet," he said.

"I think they're trying," said one math teacher I met in the exhibit hall, but she wasn't convinced. Another said: "I'm not so sure yet. To me, I'd need to dive into it a lot [to better judge]."

While at the conference, I ran into Doug Sovde, a director at Achieve, a Washington-based group that helped oversee the development of the common-core standards, and asked him what he thought of such claims by educational publishers.

"I would say, 'prove it,' because [claims of] alignment can hide all manner of sin, particularly when someone is trying to sell something," said Sovde, who is himself a former math teacher and principal.

"Alignment is not a simple thing. It's as much about what you take out as what you [include]," said Sovde, who is now focused on developing instructional supports, and engaging educators, around the forthcoming common-core assessments from the PARCC testing consortium.

In the end, it's about a "balance" among a variety of factors, Sovde said. "My perception is that there's a lot of work yet to be done there."

One new resource to help is a set of "publishers' criteria" developed by the lead writers of the math common-core standards. They just issued criteria for high school math materials, as well as a revised K-8 document. These documents have been endorsed by Achieve, as well as national groups representing governors, chief state school officers, state boards of education, and large urban districts.

The bottom line? Buyer beware! Take a long, careful look before you decide if instructional materials live up to their claims.

Photos taken by Erik Robelen at the exhibit hall for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics meeting last week in Denver.

- Erik Robelen