Search Results

Have you ever wondered how your district is going to purchase all the new instructional materials your students need?  With the Association of American Publishers noting a four percent decline of instructional materials purchases in 1Q of 2014, school budgets continue to be under close scrutiny to maximize the ROI for education. Some states, like Texas, Florida and South Carolina, provide discrete funding for instructional materials. Most others expect districts to use general formula funding to purchase instructional materials.  All states expect school districts to use local funds to fill in the gaps. But, if those funding streams aren't sufficient to cover the costs of all the new instructional materials your students need, we need to think creatively. Here are five strategies to help you stretch your dollars so that you can afford the instructional materials your students need: (1)    Get the most from the instructional materials you have purchased :  Make sure your teachers know how to fully implement the materials your district has purchased so that they do not purchase additional materials with redundant functionalities. (2)    Align the materials you have to new state standards for the same grade and subject and then fill-in-the-gaps with supplemental products or high-quality open-education resources. Learning List can help! (3)    Align your materials for one subject to the standards for another subject - then fill-in-the-gaps with supplemental or high quality open-education resources.  Learning List can help! (4)    Buy/Sell surplus.  If districts have physical ownership over instructional materials under your state's law, sell them if your district is not or will not be using them in the foreseeable future. Check whether your state's laws prescribe when and how districts in your state may sell surplus instructional materials. (5)    Use Federal funds .  Federal  funds may be used to purchase instructional materials for select students or for the general student population . Some of those funding sources include: Title I , which allows funding to ensure "... that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with challenging State academic standards so that students, teachers, parents, and administrators can measure progress against common expectations for student academic achievement...." and Title II , which provides funds to: "(1) increase student academic achievement through strategies such as improving teacher and principal quality and increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools; and (2) hold local educational agencies and schools accountable for improvements in student academic achievement." You can use one or all of the above strategies to stretch your fund$ to optimize the ROI for your instructional materials budget. We welcome you to share other strategies that have worked for your leadership team. ISTE Update: JOIN Learning List for an ISTE RECEPTION on Sunday, June 29th at 5:30 PM. RSVP Here.

As 1-to-1 and BYOD* initiatives proliferate in K12 education across the country, keyboarding skills increasingly are taking precedence over handwriting instruction in elementary school classrooms.  Perhaps the greatest indicator of the shift away from handwriting is the attention given to keyboarding proficiency in the Common Core State Standards.  The CCSS, which have been adopted in most states, call for instruction in legible writing in kindergarten and first grade, but emphasize keyboarding skills in second grade and beyond. However, psychologists warn that handwriting is an important skill that has wide benefits in supporting student learning at all ages.  For example, a 2012 study by Karin James, a psychologist at the University of Indiana, demonstrated that the practice of handwriting shapes brain development in ways that support the acquisition of reading skills in young children.  In June, Scientific American cited a 2014 study by psychologists at the University of California Los Angeles and Princeton found that college students who took notes using longhand had better retention and understanding of lecture information than students who took notes on laptops.  The authors argue that that the process of writing allows students to process and frame information in ways that support memory and understanding. In light of these findings, educators may want to seek a balance between instruction in keyboarding and handwriting skills, particularly in the elementary grades.   Educators considering such a balance may be interested in Learning List’s recent review of Handwriting Without Tears (HWT).  HWT is a comprehensive handwriting curriculum for grades K-5 that focuses on printing skills in grades K-2 and cursive writing in grades 3-5.  Across grade levels, handwriting instruction is provided in 15-minute periods that integrate learning to write with instruction in other subjects, particularly language arts.  Teacher’s guides provide support for integrating reading (e.g., encoding and decoding) and writing skills (e.g., composing words, sentences, and paragraphs) with handwriting instruction and include engaging and developmentally appropriate activities at each grade level. *BYOD = Bring Your Own Device

The Math Learning Center recently released the second edition of Bridges in Mathematics for grades K-5, and Learning List has just reviewed the new set of products.  Bridges is a comprehensive, inquiry-based program that creates a cooperative community of learners in the elementary mathematics classroom by blending teacher-led instruction, structured investigation, and open exploration of math concepts. The Bridges program includes three key components: Problems & Investigations prompt students to think independently about a teacher-posed problem and to share and evaluate strategies to reach a solution in whole class and partner discussions. Work Places are station-based activities that engage students in games and other activities that develop and practice new skills. Number Corner is a calendar-based skills program of short daily activities (20 minutes) that promote understanding of key concepts and develop computational fluency. Each component includes engaging, age-appropriate content, resources for intervention and support, as well as enrichment activities. The use of increasingly complex visual models and hands-on instructional tools moves students from the understanding of concrete concepts to more abstract thinking about mathematics. Family resources help parents understand learning goals and engage parents as partners in supporting students’ home learning. Educators enjoy sharing their experiences working with this program: see video here . At each grade level, Bridges focuses on developing students’ ability to reason mathematically, communicate their reasoning, model with mathematics, and critique the reasoning of others. Educators who provided feedback about Bridges to Learning List said the product helped them create classroom cultures in which students work independently and interact positively when discussing problem-solving strategies with classmates. Educators stressed the importance of using teacher resources and overviews to plan and guide daily instruction. They said that teachers needed to trust Bridges’ sequencing and pacing of instruction, explaining that instruction is mapped to how students learn mathematics and activities build on one another to ensure deep understanding of content.

For the first time, the Texas ASCD * Ignite '14 Conference is providing a marketplace area for conference attendees to review Exhibitors’ best practices for learning, teaching and leadership in education. Nearly 20 providers will be showcasing their solutions and services at Ignite '14 from June 16 to June 18 at the Embassy Suites DFW in Frisco, Texas. Walter McKenzie, a veteran educator and EdTech leader, is one of the attendees who encourages Texas ASCD attendees to visit Learning List at Ignite '14 . As he tweeted earlier today, Learning List is “working to align published and open resources for schools without bias.” As the editor of the Actualization Blog , Walter regularly writes about topics and insights that he gleans through the transformation of education nationwide. You can read his latest topics here . If you’re in the process of selecting instructional materials (IM) or looking ahead toward the upcoming adoption of IM for High School Math and K12 Social Studies for Texas' schools/districts, we welcome you to speak with Jackie Lain, President of Learning List, at Texas ASCD's Ignite 14 between June 16th and June 18th. The conference is also a key venue for networking and learning from internationally recognized presenters in hands-on groundbreaking sessions designed to integrate technology in the curriculum. It's a great way to provide the spark that teams need to develop innovative plans for curriculum development at schools and districts. *Texas ASCD = Texas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

As school leaders prepare for the 2014-2015 school year, one challenge remains in the forefront of Superintendents' and Curriculum Directors' minds: With thousands of instructional materials to choose from, how can we choose the right standards-aligned resources for our students' needs? Recently  featured on NPR  , Learning List is a  low-cost , subscription-based instructional materials review service for schools and districts. Think of Learning List as a combination of Consumer Reports® and Angie's List™ for K-12 instructional materials and online courses. If you need a cost-effective way to select standards-aligned instructional materials,  Learning List can help.  We invite you to  JOIN US at ISTE 2014  for a brief reception to learn more about how Learning List can simplify and expedite your district's selection processat 5:30PM on Sunday, June 29  (see invitation below). The reception will include refreshments, snacks and Door Prizes. You can  RSVP here . If you can't make it,  request a webinar  to see the reviews and tools on  LearningList.com .

Since the mid-1990s, Singapore’s students have ranked at the top of international comparisons of mathematics scores on exams such as the TIMSS and PISA . Given this success, many U.S. schools have sought to implement Singapore’s model of math instruction, which focuses on developing a deep understanding of numbers and concepts. To support these efforts, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt worked with Marshall Cavendish, the publisher of Singapore’s leading math textbooks, to produce a Singapore math program tailored for U.S. schools and students. The resulting product, Math in Focus: Singapore Math by Marshall Cavendish , is a comprehensive K-8 mathematics curriculum that was first introduced to U.S. markets in 2007.   At the request of our subscribers, Learning List reviewed Math in Focus (MiF) in the spring of 2014. Our review found that mathematical reasoning and problem solving are the primary focus of the program’s approach to instruction. MiF addresses fewer topics at each grade level, but explores these topics in greater depth. Its content is highly visual and sequenced to support students’ progression from concrete to pictorial to abstract understanding of math concepts. In addition, MiF incorporates models to help students visualize complex problems and develop strategies for solutions. Students are asked to explain and critique their solutions as well as those of their peers using mathematical language. Across grades, instruction focuses on developing students’ ability to use models, reason mathematically, and communicate their reasoning in precise language.   Educators who provided feedback for our review stressed the importance of professional development to implementing MiF successfully, noting that the curriculum marked a shift in pedagogy as well as in materials. At the elementary level, they said that teachers needed training in the program’s more rigorous content and the use of higher order questioning strategies. At the middle school level, they said that teachers needed support with the transition to a more student-centered approach of math instruction. MiF includes extensive resources to support the implementation of the Singapore system. Teacher editions include background information on unfamiliar strategies and models and online tools include chapter-specific professional development videos and podcasts in which authors provide information about MiF’s content and pedagogical approach. MiF includes comprehensive support for the Common Core State Standards and provides world-class instruction that meets the needs of U.S. students.

Reasoning Mind is an interactive, online, mathematics curriculum that provides individualized instruction for students in grades 2-6. The web-based program may be used as a comprehensive, core curriculum or as a supplement to other math instructional programs. A unique feature of the program is that it uses software that adapts instruction to meet the unique learning needs of each student, including students in need of remediation and advanced learners. Reasoning Mind also provides ongoing training and support for teachers and requires that they complete a 16- to 24-hour “Qualification Course” to be eligible to teach in a Reasoning Mind classroom. Rick Howard, Superintendent of Comanche Independent School District, recently lauded his students' success with Reasoning Mind. The district began implementing the program in fall 2013 in all elementary grades.  The superintendent noted that his students' math test scores had increased in all but one grade level over last year and credited the increase to Reasoning Mind. He commented, "Reasoning Mind seems to level the playing field among teachers; is there a similar product for English language arts?" Additionally, Reasoning Mind’s case studies showed that students who used their curriculum in 5 th and 6 th grades were more than twice as likely to accelerate into Algebra I in 8 th grade as non-Reasoning Mind students. Their team recently published a 2012-2013 Impact Report on May 23, 2014. Across grade levels, instruction focuses on solving real world problems. At grades 2-4, Reasoning Mind’s Basic I curriculum focuses on building students’ number sense and comfort with the four basic operations (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) using whole numbers. Basic I develops students problem-solving skills, including multi-step word problems, and introduces basic concepts in algebra (e.g., numerical expressions, equations) and geometry (e.g., line segments, perimeter, area). At grade 5 (Basic II), students gain a deeper conceptual understanding of basic operations, and begin to apply operations to fractions, mixed numbers, and decimals. Basic II continues to develop students’ problem-solving skills and understanding of algebraic and geometric concepts. Content at grade 5 also introduces core concepts in probability and statistics, including experiments, random events, range, median, and mode. Are there other instructional materials you are using that show similar improvements in students’ achievements? If so, let us know.

As millions of students across the country embark on their summer vacation, thousands of schools will be working hard to re-architect the textbooks, lesson plans and homework that will be needed to launch Common Core curriculum during the next school year. A recent article about Common Core implementation ( Teachers Hit the Common Core Wall ), cited three options school administrators, curriculum directors and superintendents can use to help teachers teach Common Core State Standards (CCSS). First, schools can maintain the status quo. Few, if any, schools and educational staff are likely to pursue this route because students will be taking new Common Core-based tests that are designed to better prepare them for college and careers. However, the biggest challenges toward redesigning school curriculum will be budget constraints, limited or fewer staff and insufficient time to complete a daunting task across many subjects and all grade levels. Second, schools can purchase new instructional materials. Caveat emptor : let the buyer beware. Being able to separate the wheat from the chaff to determine which materials are aligned to CCSS and which are not is a task that requires subject matter experts, instructional specialists and the engagement of teachers across all grade levels to ensure that the content, context and cognitive demands of the materials are compliant to Common Core standards. Just because a book may be labeled as “Common Core-aligned” doesn’t make it so. Another blog post touched upon this challenge: The Top 5 Things Content Developers Are Getting Wrong . Jackie Lain, Founder and President of Learning List, sought to remedy this challenge with a subscription service by and for educators. As Lain shared in the NPR article , "I kept thinking to myself, 'Why is every district spending money and taking teachers out of classrooms, reviewing essentially the same instructional materials?'" The industry-leading service quickly identifies which materials are aligned with specific state standards and the percentage of alignment. Yet if one textbook is only 90% aligned, there is a fill-in-the-gap tool that identifies what material(s) can cover the remaining 10%. Thus a set of materials can be used to achieve 100% alignment because it is rare to find any one resource that is 100% aligned to the Common Core. Finally, there is the DIY (Do It Yourself) option. School administrators would need to assemble a task force of experts across subjects and grade levels to determine what types of existing and new materials may be used to ensure alignment to Common Core with some of the same challenges/constraints as the first option. They could also leverage recommendations from non-profit organizations or use Open Educational Resources . However, some states have centralized the instructional materials selection process while others are decentralized – each school district, area or region within the state must complete their own instructional materials selection and adoption process . Whichever option is chosen from the three above, we can be assured that the educational landscape is rapidly changing. Stay tuned for more developments along the road to Common Core State Standards.

Few states make a specific appropriation to districts for the purposes of purchasing instructional materials and/or technology. South Carolina, Florida, and Texas are among the states that do. In Texas, the funds for the Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA) begin at the Permanent School Fund (PSF), which was created by the legislature in 1854 with a $2 million appropriation for the benefit of Texas public schools. By the end of the 2013 fiscal year, the market value of the PSF exceeded $33 billion. Shortly before the beginning of each biannual legislative session, the State Board of Education (SBOE) determines the annual distribution (or “payout”) from the PSF to the Available School Fund (ASF) for each of the subsequent two budget years. The SBOE sets aside half of this distribution for the Instructional Materials Fund (IMF). The legislature determines the amount of the distribution that is ultimately appropriated for the IMF. The money in the IMF is used for several different instructional materials-related expenses, such as the cost of shipping adopted instructional materials to districts. The largest portion of the IMF, though, goes to the Instructional Materials Allotment (IMA). The commissioner determines the amount of the annual, per-student allocation from the IMA based on the amount of money available in the IMF. For the 2014-2015 school year, approximately 96% of the IMF was used for the IMA. The ability to trace the flow of IM funds from their source to the local education agencies (LEAs) not only makes for an informed electorate, but also allows those who depend on those funds to estimate future IM allotments and plan for upcoming IM purchases. In estimating forthcoming allotments and planning for future purchases, however, LEAs should be bear in mind that as funds flow from their source, they pass through the capitol building , and, by the power of appropriation, the state legislature has the final word on the funding of instructional materials.

During June 2-4, several hundred representatives from publishing companies, EdTech companies and other educational service providers will be gathering for the Content in Context (CIC) Conference in the Capital Hilton in Washington. D.C. ; as the learning resource industry changes at an exponential pace, CIC is the premier event for presenting preK-12 strategies and advice to develop quality education content regardless of medium. The American Association of Publishers PreK-12 Learning Group , a division within AAP , organizes the event. One of the most significant sessions will be featured at 11AM EDT on June 3rd: New Directions/Challenges in Review and Adoption of Instructional Materials (IM). This session will feature Jackie Lain , President of Learning List and Alan Griffin , Technology Support Specialist for Curriculum Content for the Utah State Office of Education. Here's a brief preview of the topic: As new IM adoption policies and digital learning programs launch in many states, new IM review processes are being implemented to ensure that IM align with state standards. Prior to any significant process changes, reviewers must ask questions about standards alignment, personalized learning objectives and coordinating assessments. Additionally, many states are decentralizing the IM purchase process  so that even if an IM is adopted by a state, it doesn’t guarantee state-wide contracts. Jackie will share what changed in the Texas state IM adoption processes and how that may impact trends across the country as other states seek to align with their own state standards. What changes are you seeing in the IM review and adoption processes in your state?

One of the ironies we are seeing at Learning List is that although most publishers are selling online instructional materials, most districts still request materials that are also available in print.  Why? These are the three reasons we hear most often: (1)   Schools don’t have the technical infrastructure to enable all students to be online simultaneously; (2)   Teachers are not all on board with or don’t all have the technology skills to teach exclusively with online materials; and (3)   Students do not all have access to broadband at home; if schools adopt only online materials, they may exacerbate the achievement gap. The federal ConnectEd program and various state initiatives are aiming to address the first challenge by assessing the current status and funding enhancements to districts’ technology infrastructure over the next several years. Districts are taking aim at the second challenge in different ways.  The news is replete with districts rolling out 1:1 initiatives.  Presumably, those districts have and are continuing to provide intensive professional development to get their teachers up to speed quickly. Other districts are targeting a longer-term implementation plan. For example, in Houston ISD, superintendent Terry Geer has adopted a plan to implement 1:1 instruction in all of the district’s high schools by 2016. The third challenge is the most vexing because it is societal, not school-based. Some communities are expanding students’ ability to use online resources outside of school by providing community-wide Internet access, keeping libraries and community centers open later, or creating “hot spots” around them to enable students to do homework there later into the evening. AT&T and Verizon will be leading the effort to expand mobile broadband nationwide while Google and other broadband Internet service providers will continue driving fiber connectivity. What’s your view of 1:1?

A recent Education Week blog post reported on the annual Education Writers Association conference in Nashville this week. The Common Core standards took center stage, as the writer explained: “A marathon four-hour session on the common core offered reporters the chance to hear from a range of policy experts,” though “no strident critics of the standards appeared.” Interestingly, the session didn’t delve into how educators are covering the Standards. Most interesting to me was a comment by Amber Northern, the vice president for research at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington, who said, "I'd love to see an article on the top five things curriculum developers are getting wrong." Over the past 15 months, Learning List has reviewed hundreds of instructional materials aligned to both the Texas and Common Core state standards. Ms. Northern, here are five observations based on our experience: (1)   Some publishers seem to believe that as long as their content mentions part of a standard (i.e., the content or “noun” of the standard) the content is “aligned to” the standard. Educators will tell you that in order to prepare students to master the standards, instructional materials must align to the content, context and cognitive demand or performance expectation of each standard. Publishers be aware : Educators don’t give partial credit for alignment. (2)   Some publishers seem to believe that “rigorous” means “harder”.  Research suggests that rigorous instructional materials: a)       Engage students with complex but grade-appropriate, complex content, b)       Require students to think critically about what they learn, and c)        Ask students to solve problems linked to the real world and their own lives. Publishers be aware : Giving students material that is developmentally appropriate for a higher grade may be “harder,” but is not more rigorous. (3)   Some publishers comment, “Our product addresses that standard in the prior grade level.” The instructional material for a given grade level should align to the standards for that grade level. Publishers be aware : The alignment of the material at each grade level is judged separately.  Students can’t rely solely on content they produced in a previous grade to meet an expectation in a later grade and neither should instructional materials. (4)   Some publishers seem to believe that if they “bundle” several citations (e.g., lessons, pages of text, videos) each of which partially aligns to the standard, the material is aligned to the standard. However, the correlations don’t indicate which citations should be “bundled” to align to the standard. Publishers be aware : Teachers expect that each citation listed in the publisher’s correlation for a standard aligns to and will help their students master the standard. For that reason, Learning List assesses citations individually for alignment to the relevant standard. (5)   Some publishers seem to believe that saying material is aligned to the standards makes it so. Educators know when a material is and when it is not aligned to the standards. Publishers be aware : The availability of many product options, high stakes accountability systems and tight budgets have forced educators to become increasingly critical consumers of instructional materials. These are some of the common mistakes we’ve observed as we’ve reviewed a diverse range of instructional materials over the last year-and-a-half. But, we’ve identified positive trends* among content developers, too, as well as trends in districts’ selection practices and decisions. We’ll share those observations in future posts. Stay tuned…