From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Wednesday, May 30, 2007. See
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/317916_math31.html?source=mypi
Schools streamline how math is taught
Same textbooks, same lessons, at the same time
By Jessica Blanchard
When Seattle elementary-schoolers open their math textbooks this fall, they'll all be on the same page -- literally.
In an attempt to boost stagnant test scores, elementary teachers will start using the same math textbooks and materials and covering lessons at the same time as their colleagues at other Seattle elementary schools, the School Board decided Wednesday.
"It's clear to me that the math adoption is long overdue, and Seattle desperately needs a consistent and balanced approach," board member Brita Butler-Wall said.
Lessons will now be taught using the conceptual "Everyday Math" books, which help students discover algorithms on their own and explore multiple ways to solve problems, and the more traditional "Singapore Math" books, which help hone students' basic computation skills through repetition and problem solving. Teachers will follow the district's guidelines for the order the lessons would be taught.
The move is the latest step toward the district's goal of streamlining and standardizing the math curriculum. The district has two formally adopted math programs, but over the years, teachers have had the flexibility to create their own math lessons, culling bits from various other math programs they liked.
That piecemeal approach has worked well for some schools, but not all. And the inconsistency has made it difficult for students transferring from one school to another.
Starting this fall, the math program the board adopted will be usedat nearly all the district's elementary schools, except the few that can show significant progress using another math program. They willbe allowed waivers to continue using their current curriculum.
The board's decision was not without controversy.
There has been considerable debate nationwide in recent years over how best to teach math. Parents and teachers seem to fall into one of two camps -- those who favor more a conceptual, hands-on approach, and those who advocate for a traditional skills-based program.
The combination of "Everyday Math" and "Singapore Math" was intended to be a compromise, to offer a program that has elements of both approaches.
Several of the teachers, principals and parents who spoke at the public-comment session before the board's vote voiced support for the proposed adoption, including Sharon Rodgers, president of the Seattle Council PTSA.
"The kids have waited for long enough for some kind of consistency in math," she said. But most speakers urged board members to reject the standardized curriculum.
Parent M.J. McDermott asked the board to hold off on making a decision until the state's math standards are revised next year.
"If Seattle Public Schools adopts 'Everyday Math,' we will be right back here in a couple years, looking to find a new solution," she said. "It will be money wasted."
------------------
P-I reporter Jessica Blanchard can be reached at 206-448-8322 or jessicablanchard@seattlepi.com
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Need for National Curriculum Standards
From the New York Times, Friday, June 8, 2007. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/education/08scores.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
By Tamar Lewin
Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States Department of Education said yesterday in a report that, for the first time, measured the extent of the differences.
The wide variation raises questions about whether the federal No Child Left Behind law, President Bush's signature education initiative, which is up for renewal this year, has allowed a patchwork of educational inequities around the country, with no common yardstick to determine whether schoolchildren are learning enough.
The law requires that all students be brought to proficiency by 2014 in reading and math and creates sanctions for failure. But in a bow to states' rights it lets each state set its own standards and choose its own tests.
The report provides ammunition for critics who say that one national standard is needed. "Parents and communities in too many states are being told not to worry, all is well, when their students are far behind," said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation who served in the Education Department during Mr. Bush's first term.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a statement, "This report offers sobering news that serious work remains to ensure that our schools are teaching students to the highest possible standards." Still, in a conference call with reporters, she said it was up to the states, not the federal government, to raise standards.
The report for the first time creates a common yardstick to measure the results on state tests against the National Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the gold standard of testing.
The report examines the minimum score a student would have to get on each state's reading and math tests to be deemed proficient - or at grade level - and then determines what the equivalent score for that level of competency would be on the national test. Results on the national test are not used to judge schools under No Child Left Behind.
The national test divides students' scores into three achievement levels, basic, proficient and advanced. Grover J. Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education Sciences at the Education Department, said the achievement level that many states called proficient was closer to what the national test rated as just basic. And the report shows that not a single state sets its reading proficiency levels as high as the national test.
Although results were not available for all states, the Education Department report based on tests given in the 2004-5 school year illustrated starkly the variations in standards.
For example, an eighth grader in Missouri would need the equivalent of a 311 on the national math test to be judged proficient. That is actually more rigorous than the national test. In Tennessee, however, a student can meet the state's proficiency standard with a 230, a score well below even the basic level on the national exam.
And while a Massachusetts fourth grader would need the equivalent of a 234, or just below the proficiency mark on the national test, to be judged as proficient by the state, a Mississippi fourth grader can meet the state's standard with a state score that corresponds to a 161 on the national test.
Such score differences represent a gap of several grade levels. New York ranked 9th in grade 4 reading, in terms of the rigor of its standards. Its proficiency standards corresponded to 207 on the national test. It ranked third in grade 8 reading. But it was toward the bottom, 29th among 33 states in grade 4 math. And it was 13th in grade 8 math.
New York has since approved new math standards. "The results in reading are positive for New York relative to other states, but math is mixed," State Education Commissioner Richard Mills said. "The comparison reminds us of the need over time to keep raising standards and providing extra help to students."
The report found that eighth graders in North Carolina had to show the least skill to be considered proficient readers while those in Wyoming had to show the most skill. Tennessee set the lowest bar on grade 4 math while Massachusetts set the highest one.
The differences between state proficiency standards were sometimes more than double the national gap between minority and white students' reading levels, which averages about 30 points on the national test, Mr. Whitehurst said.
Many education experts criticize No Child Left Behind, saying it gives states an incentive to set low standards to avoid sanctions on schools that do not increase the percentage of students demonstrating proficiency each year. Those experts argue that uniform national standards are needed.
But Congress is unlikely to go that far. Ms. Spellings said, "It's way too early to conclude we need to adopt national standards" and added that it is also too early to conclude that state standards are too low.
On Tuesday, a survey of state scores in reading and math, released by the Center on Education Policy, an independent Washington group, found that since the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2002, student achievement had increased and the racial achievement gap narrowed in many states.
Ms. Spellings said the results showed the law has "struck a chord of success." Her department's report, though, raises doubts about just how much progress has been made.
Mr. Petrilli said, "Even if students are making progress on state tests, if tests are incredibly easy, that doesn't mean much."
States Found to Vary Widely on Education
By Tamar Lewin
Academic standards vary so drastically from state to state that a fourth grader judged proficient in reading in Mississippi or Tennessee would fall far short of that mark in Massachusetts and South Carolina, the United States Department of Education said yesterday in a report that, for the first time, measured the extent of the differences.
The wide variation raises questions about whether the federal No Child Left Behind law, President Bush's signature education initiative, which is up for renewal this year, has allowed a patchwork of educational inequities around the country, with no common yardstick to determine whether schoolchildren are learning enough.
The law requires that all students be brought to proficiency by 2014 in reading and math and creates sanctions for failure. But in a bow to states' rights it lets each state set its own standards and choose its own tests.
The report provides ammunition for critics who say that one national standard is needed. "Parents and communities in too many states are being told not to worry, all is well, when their students are far behind," said Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation who served in the Education Department during Mr. Bush's first term.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a statement, "This report offers sobering news that serious work remains to ensure that our schools are teaching students to the highest possible standards." Still, in a conference call with reporters, she said it was up to the states, not the federal government, to raise standards.
The report for the first time creates a common yardstick to measure the results on state tests against the National Assessment of Educational Progress, considered the gold standard of testing.
The report examines the minimum score a student would have to get on each state's reading and math tests to be deemed proficient - or at grade level - and then determines what the equivalent score for that level of competency would be on the national test. Results on the national test are not used to judge schools under No Child Left Behind.
The national test divides students' scores into three achievement levels, basic, proficient and advanced. Grover J. Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education Sciences at the Education Department, said the achievement level that many states called proficient was closer to what the national test rated as just basic. And the report shows that not a single state sets its reading proficiency levels as high as the national test.
Although results were not available for all states, the Education Department report based on tests given in the 2004-5 school year illustrated starkly the variations in standards.
For example, an eighth grader in Missouri would need the equivalent of a 311 on the national math test to be judged proficient. That is actually more rigorous than the national test. In Tennessee, however, a student can meet the state's proficiency standard with a 230, a score well below even the basic level on the national exam.
And while a Massachusetts fourth grader would need the equivalent of a 234, or just below the proficiency mark on the national test, to be judged as proficient by the state, a Mississippi fourth grader can meet the state's standard with a state score that corresponds to a 161 on the national test.
Such score differences represent a gap of several grade levels. New York ranked 9th in grade 4 reading, in terms of the rigor of its standards. Its proficiency standards corresponded to 207 on the national test. It ranked third in grade 8 reading. But it was toward the bottom, 29th among 33 states in grade 4 math. And it was 13th in grade 8 math.
New York has since approved new math standards. "The results in reading are positive for New York relative to other states, but math is mixed," State Education Commissioner Richard Mills said. "The comparison reminds us of the need over time to keep raising standards and providing extra help to students."
The report found that eighth graders in North Carolina had to show the least skill to be considered proficient readers while those in Wyoming had to show the most skill. Tennessee set the lowest bar on grade 4 math while Massachusetts set the highest one.
The differences between state proficiency standards were sometimes more than double the national gap between minority and white students' reading levels, which averages about 30 points on the national test, Mr. Whitehurst said.
Many education experts criticize No Child Left Behind, saying it gives states an incentive to set low standards to avoid sanctions on schools that do not increase the percentage of students demonstrating proficiency each year. Those experts argue that uniform national standards are needed.
But Congress is unlikely to go that far. Ms. Spellings said, "It's way too early to conclude we need to adopt national standards" and added that it is also too early to conclude that state standards are too low.
On Tuesday, a survey of state scores in reading and math, released by the Center on Education Policy, an independent Washington group, found that since the passage of No Child Left Behind in 2002, student achievement had increased and the racial achievement gap narrowed in many states.
Ms. Spellings said the results showed the law has "struck a chord of success." Her department's report, though, raises doubts about just how much progress has been made.
Mr. Petrilli said, "Even if students are making progress on state tests, if tests are incredibly easy, that doesn't mean much."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
