Search Results

On this day before Thanksgiving, the Learning List team would like to give thanks to our subscribing  districts and to the publishers that have submitted products for our review. Our service has been warmly received by districts large and small across the state, from Ingleside to Sonora, Victoria to Northwest, Austin to Burkburnett, Garland to Llano, and Chapel Hill to Channelview, to name just a few. And, with last Friday’s release of the longest-ever list of state-adopted instructional materials, our phones have been ablaze. Thanks to our subscribing districts, publishers are becoming increasingly aware of our service, too.  Approximately a third of the state-adopted math and science publishers have already submitted products for our review and many more have contacted us about submitting.  This week we started releasing reviews of Texas state-adopted products and will continue to do so over the next several weeks. Those products join the many non-adopted products already reviewed on LearningList.com. We thank you for taking this leap of faith with us and wish you all a safe, happy and meaningful Thanksgiving. We wish you a safe, happy, and meaningful Thanksgiving, Jackie Lain Catherine Maloney Dolores Riley Avi Elkoni M’Lynn Mooney Holly Gibson

The State Board of Education today adopted a list of 405 science, math and technical application instructional materials, 303 of which state review panels determined to be 100 percent aligned to the Texas Essential  Knowledge and Skills (TEKS).  The remaining 102 state-adopted products are aligned with between 50 and 100 percent of the TEKS.  Pearson’s and Houghton Mifflin’s materials were conditionally adopted, pending reconciliation of alleged factual errors. By subject, the state-adopted list contains: 93 Grades K-8 math products; 20 Grades K-5  Spanish math products; 221 Grades K-12 science products;  65 Grades K-5 Spanish science products; and, 22 Grades K-12 technology application products. Within each subject, the State Board adopted :   8 math products per grade in grades K-5; 15 math products per grade in grades 6-8; 17 science products per grade in grades K-5; 23 science products per grade in grades 6-8; 5 IPC, 13 Physics, 18 Chemistry, and 9 Biology state-adopted products, as well as a few products in various other high school science courses; 2 technology application products per grade for K-8 as well as in the adopted high school courses; In most grade levels, a couple of state-adopted products are available in both print, blended and/or digital formats. All others are unique products. Districts must now review the available instructional materials to determine which (1) best meet students’ needs, (2) can be implemented effectively given the district’s technical infrastructure, and (3)  reflect the community’s values. An article in the January 2014 edition of TxASCD’s will highlight specific, researched-based criteria districts should consider during their review of instructional materials. Learning List is a new service available to assist districts with the challenge of reviewing so many instructional materials. Like a type of Consumer Reports/Angie’s List for K-12 instructional materials and online courses, LearningList.com features for each product: (1) an independent alignment to the TEKS ; (2) an editorial review that highlights the types of information to help educators determine which products are best suited to meet their students’ needs; and (3) subscriber ratings and reviews . Tools on LearningList.com promote a collaborative selection process among district employees and help the district document compliance with the “100 Percent Rule”.  Beyond the selection process, the alignment reports on LearningList.com help teachers develop TEKS-aligned lesson plans for each reviewed instructional material.  Contact info@LearningList.com to learn more about this new service.

With more school districts using online instructional materials, finding enough time for students to work on computers is often a challenge for educators.  This is of particular importance when students need to be engaged with a product for a minimum amount of time each week in order to progress academically. When selecting online instructional materials, educators should pay attention to the publisher’s statements about the amount of time students should work in a particular online program in order to show academic growth. Often, educators don’t know this information until they have already purchased the product. Then they find that there is not enough time in the class’ or computer lab’s schedule to allow each student to work on a computer for the required amount of time. Learning List’s editorial reviews highlight the time requirements for online products to help educators select not only the instructional materials that meet their students’ needs, but equally important, the products that  the district or school has the technical infrastructure to support.

In this TEDtalk , high school science teacher Tyler DeWitt discusses the importance of making science fun for students.  He highlights the need for teachers to help students connect to science through storytelling and the use of accessible language, pointing to the use of precise language and jargon in science textbooks as sources of disconnection.   He explains that if young students grasp science concepts somewhat imprecisely, they are more likely to be successful than if they become frustrated with the opaque language of some textbooks: “If a young learner thinks that all viruses have DNA , that's not going to ruin their chances of success in science. But if a young learner can't understand anything in science and learns to hate it, that will.”

As we noted in a previous post, the Texas Education Agency has indicated that most of the products submitted in response to Proclamation 2014 are online materials. As most educators know, innovative online resources have the power to transform learning; however, they rapidly can become sources of frustration for both teachers and students when inadequate bandwidth, or internet speed,  results in slow download times, poor video quality, and inability to access interactive content. Education Superhighway , a non-profit group that focuses on ensuring schools have the resources needed to implement digital learning, estimates that as many as 80 percent of schools nationally do not have adequate bandwidth to support online instruction.  This suggests that instructional materials selection committees must carefully consider whether they have both the devices and the broadband capacity to support online resources when selecting new materials.  Schools may access a free test of their broadband capacity here . The State Educational Technology Directors Association has recommended that schools have minimum bandwidth of 100 Mbps per second per 1,000 students and staff by 2014-15, increasing to 1 Gbps per second per 1,000 students and staff by 2017-18. Based on these recommendations, the Texas Legislature has required that TEA conduct a broadband study to determine whether Texas school districts have the capacity to support online learning.  Specifically, the study will gauge whether: Individual campuses have the SETDA-recommended bandwidth of 100 Mbps per second per 1,000 students and staff, and Internal wide area network connections between each district and its campuses have a bandwidth of 1 Gbps per second per 1,000 students and staff. Learning List’s editorial reviews address the minimum system requirements, including broadband access, needed to effectively implement each product we review.  For each online product submitted, we ask publishers to identify the following technology requirements:  supported operating systems, hardware, software, plug-Ins, internet access (including connection speeds, supported internet browsers, browser settings), screen settings, and device compatibility. In addition, Learning List’s reviews describe how online products engage students in interactive experiences, foster collaborative learning, and adapt instruction to meet individual student needs.

As you may have read, the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results were released this week, showing that nation-wide: For 8 th grade: the average math score increased one point and reading score increased three points since 2011. For 4 th grade: the average math score increased one point but reading scores remained stagnant. The announcement of the 2103 NAEP scores begs the questions: What is the NAEP and why should we care about NAEP scores? How do the NAEP scores relate to state test scores? A 2010 report from the Center for Educational Progress (CEP), , answers both questions. What is the NAEP and why should we care about NAEP scores? NAEP is overseen by the U.S. Department of Education and is designed to track the progress of U.S. students in key subjects at the national and state levels.  NAEP is known as “the nation’s report card”. NAEP encompasses two assessment programs. The main NAEP assessment reports national results at grades 4, 8, and 12 and state-by-state results at grades 4 and 8, including trends from the 1990s. The main NAEP is administered every two years in reading and math and less often in other subjects. The other NAEP assessment program, the long-term trend NAEP, is given every four years in reading and math and reports only national results going back to the 1970s. NAEP differs from state tests in several important respects: Samples of students versus all students. NAEP assessments are designed to be administered periodically to representative samples of students in selected schools within each state, rather than annually to virtually all students in a state, as state assessments are. Each NAEP participant takes only a portion of the larger assessment instead of the entire test. Consequently, NAEP cannot produce scores for individual students or schools. Different content, format, and administration. NAEP differs from state tests—to varying degrees, depending on the state—in the content assessed, the test question formats, the rigor of the achievement levels, the testing environment, and other features. In addition, state tests are typically administered by students’ own teachers, while NAEP is administered by independent test proctors. Different standards for content. While state tests are designed to measure how well students have learned the knowledge and skills embodied in each state’s academic content standards, . Rather, NAEP’s content is based on frameworks developed by a National Assessment Governing Board, which is appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Education. Different “proficiency” definitions. The term “proficient” often means fundamentally different things on state tests and NAEP. The NAEP definition of proficient is aspirational, signaling where students be in a subject area. Because state tests are used for high-stakes accountability purposes, states are under pressure to set realistic definitions of proficiency that take into account students’ current level of achievement. State definitions of proficiency vary; while some are more aspirational than others, most are less ambitious than the NAEP definition.  The report goes on to state that “proficient” on most state tests is not really comparable to the proficient level on NAEP. Rather, it is more appropriate to compare the percentage scoring at or above the proficient level on state tests with the percentage scoring at or above the “basic” level on NAEP. High stakes and low stakes. NAEP scores are not tied to specific consequences for individual students, teachers, schools, or districts, as state test scores are. In light of these differences, it is not surprising that the state tests and NAEP sometimes produce different results.  To see your state’s performance on the 2013 NAEP math and reading tests, go to NAEP state profiles .

Later this month, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) will adopt instructional materials submitted in response to Proclamation 2014, which calls for K-8 math, K-12 science, and technology applications resources. In a press release  issued in September, the Texas Education Agency reported that more than 1,200 instructional materials had been submitted for state adoption. As the process proceeded, many publishers, particularly those who had not participated in a Texas adoption before, withdrew their materials. Over 400 products have gone through the adoption process. TEA noted that most are online products, making this “the largest review of primarily online textbook materials in state history.” The large number of products generally and the high percentage of online materials are not the only things that are unique about the current state adoption. Previously, only materials that were 100 percent aligned to Texas’ learning standards—the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)—were eligible to be included on the state’s coveted list of “Conforming” instructional materials.  Materials aligned to at least 50 percent but less than 100 percent of the TEKS were included on the state’s list of “Non-Conforming” materials. However, Senate Bill 6 (2011) replaced the state’s Conforming and Non-Conforming lists with a new “State-Adopted” list and made instructional materials eligible to be included on the State-Adopted list if they aligned to 50 percent of the TEKS. This creates a new challenge for Texas school districts statewide. Products will appear on the State-Adopted list even though they may not be 100 percent aligned to the TEKS, yet superintendents and school board presidents annually must certify to the commissioner of education and the SBOE that their students have been provided with instructional materials that address 100 percent of the TEKS for all courses in the foundation curricula, except physical education. This legal requirement is known as the 100 Percent Rule. Over the next few weeks, this blog will provide information and guidance to help educators navigate these changes. Posts will focus on strategies for meeting the requirements of the 100 Percent Rule in the wake of Senate Bill 6’s changes, as well as research-based guidance in choosing online and print-based materials that meet the unique instructional needs of students.

While attending recent Proclamation 2014 vendor conferences, we heard many publisher representatives explain that their products included Lexile-based reading levels that adapted reading passages for readers at, below, or above grade level.  In this post we discuss Lexiles and how they may be used to adjust reading levels, as well as their limitations. A Lexile is a widely-used reading measure developed by MetaMetrics that matches readers with texts that are appropriate in terms of their complexity.  A receives a Lexile measure by taking a test or participating in a program that assesses reading comprehension.  A is assigned a Lexile measure through the application of a proprietary formula that considers sentence structure, vocabulary, and word frequency.  The idea being, that through the use of Lexiles, parents and educators may more easily match readers to texts that are appropriate in terms of their difficulty.  Lexiles , designated by “L”, range from 0L to 2,000L and are rounded to the nearest 10L.  A Lexile of 200L or below generally indicates a beginning reader and 1,700L and above generally indicates an advanced reader. The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy provide the following overlapping Lexile ranges as a grade-banded guide to appropriate text complexity: CCSS Grade Band Lexile Band K-1 NA 2-3 420L-820L 4-5 740L-1010L 6-8 925L-1185L 9-10 1050L-1335L 11-CCR* 1185L-1385L Source: Supplemental Information for Appendix A of the CCSS for ELA and Literacy: New Research on Text Complexity; *CCR=College and Career Ready  While a Lexile is a useful tool for assessing the complexity of a text, it does not provide any information about a text’s literary value or the age appropriateness of its content.  For example, many bodice-ripper romance novels are written using basic vocabulary and short, simple sentences. Such texts may have Lexile measures that are well within the range of many young readers. However, parents and educators would certainly want to consider such a novel’s content before including it on a reading list. Just because a student read a text doesn’t mean a student read a text.

In order for students to progress academically each year and have the skills to be successful in the future, all educators at the campus and district level need to unite in their efforts to ensure that every student is learning the TEKS to the depth and complexity required. When teachers develop units and lesson plans, do they keep the TEKS in the forefront of their mind as to what they want their students to accomplish?  Is the priority in professional learning communities (PLCs) focused on discussions regarding teaching and assessing the TEKS, as well as analyzing ongoing student achievement data? While observing in the classroom, do campus and district administrators ask themselves what is the standard being taught, how well are the students’ tasks aligned to the TEKs, and how successful are the students working on this task? Do campus support staff discuss with the teacher what is being taught in the classroom as well as gather information on the progress of the students before they provide additional support to students in need?    Does central office curriculum staff understand the TEKS well so they can successfully facilitate curriculum writing with the end result being a closely aligned curriculum to the TEKS? Making sure that students are being taught the TEKS correctly is everyone’s business.  The old adage, “It takes a whole village to educate a child” refers in part to everyone taking responsibility to help students acquire a deep understanding of the TEKS so they can be successful and productive citizens in their communities.

As a means to support educators in identifying resources that will meet their students’ needs, Learning List provides periodic updates about grants and funding opportunities focused on improving education. Today’s post highlights some opportunities that are currently accepting applications and proposals. Emerging Teacher Leaders The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is providing grants of up to $6,000 to support the development of emerging teacher leaders in PK-5 mathematics. Grant recipients must have the support of campus principals and are expected to provide ongoing professional development focused on improving instructional practice and the understanding of mathematics in the elementary school classroom. Grants are limited to one teacher per campus.  Application packets must be postmarked by November 8, 2013. More information is available here . Improvements for At-Risk Youth The Interactive Intelligence Foundation is providing grants ranging from $5,000 to $20,000 for projects that foster life improvements for at-risk youth up to age 18.  Greater weight is given to projects that address STEM (i.e., science, technology, engineering, and math), as well as projects with clearly defined implementation periods and measurable outcomes.  Grant requests are due November 15, 2013. More information about the Foundation’s program is available here . California Gardening The California Fertilizer Foundation is providing 24 grants of $1,200 to support garden-related projects in public and private schools in California.  Grant applications are due January 15, 2014.  Application materials are available here .

One of the keynote presentation speakers at the recent Texas ASCD Conference was Dr. Jackie Walsh.  Her presentation was, “Questioning for Thinking:  Helping Students make Connections”.  Dr. Walsh talked about the importance of asking quality questions and developing effective questioning strategies to activate, support, and sustain student thinking. Dr. Walsh shared the impact that teachers have on student learning when they think of the types of questions they want to pose while developing their lesson plans instead of thinking of them spontaneously while teaching.  As a teacher of teachers, I have observed how the quality of questions asked by teachers increased when they took the time to think of effective questions before teaching the lesson.  Their questions became more open-ended and required responses that were at a much higher level of thinking.  Students were more engaged and the discussions became much more in-depth.  Teachers would comment on how difficult it was to think of effective questions at first, but then the more they practiced, the easier it got.  They began to help students ask questions of each other and that’s when teachers really started seeing student progress increase.  Students were taking responsibility for their own learning! As with any new learning, teachers need to reflect on the questions asked after the lesson to analyze the responses given by students and how the questions could be improved.  Teachers not only need to carefully think of the questions they ask of their students, but they also need to analyze the type of questions presented in instructional materials before making any purchase.  LearningList.com can help educators be assured that the type of questions asked in instructional materials align with the level of thinking required in the standards.

In the face of decreased budgets and increased pressure to improve students’ performance on standardized tests, many schools have reduced the number of field trips they provide to cultural institutions, such as museums and historical sites.  Instead, schools have focused on increasing the amount of time students spend in class preparing for tests and often allocate resources to “reward” field trips to entertainment venues, such as amusement parks, for students who improve their attendance or test scores.  However, research suggests that in de-emphasizing culturally enriching field trips, schools are missing valuable opportunities to develop students’ critical thinking skills as well as their ability to appreciate and understand diverse peoples, perspectives, and historical periods. The study, conducted by researchers a t the University of Arkansas, is the first large-scale, random-assignment analysis of the effects of cultural-enrichment field trips on student outcomes.  The research design compared survey results between matched pairs of K-12 students.  For each student pairing, one student was randomly selected to participate in a cultural-enrichment field trip during the period of the study and the second student’s participation was deferred.  Researchers found that the students who participated in field trips experienced significant increases in their critical thinking skills, as well as benefits in terms of historical empathy (i.e., the ability to understand the lives and perspectives of people who lived in different places or in different times), tolerance, and interest in cultural institutions.  Notably, the benefits of field trips were considerably stronger for disadvantaged students.  The study’s authors conclude: We don’t just want our children to acquire work skills from their education; we also want them to develop into civilized people who appreciate the breadth of human accomplishments.  The school field trip is an important tool in meeting this goal.