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…

We’re pleased to share the latest published review available on Learning List:   Scientific Minds Middle School Science Starters. The subject includes 120 web-based modules that teach important middle school science concepts.  The Starters can be teacher-guided for whole-class instruction or played as a video for independent student study. Each module includes interactive vocabulary flashcards and a digital quiz. Lessons are aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) standards and are an effective tool for review, remediation, and enrichment. All lessons are designed to improved science comprehension and test scores. Each lesson contains manageable “chunks” of content that are presented with vivid visual elements accompanied by short blocks of text. The highly visual program provides strong support for struggling readers, English language learners (ELLs), and Response to Intervention (RtI) students. Existing subscribers can access the review at the Learning List site . For a brief video description of Middle School Science Starters, click here . If you're interested in subscribing, you can schedule a webinar here . What’s next? Stay tuned for more reviews to be released in early June.

A central premise of American public education is that students should have access to a rigorous, high-quality curriculum.  While education reform efforts have tended to focus on the challenges urban public schools face in achieving educational equity, rural schools also confront challenges in achieving this important goal.  Social and geographic isolation, coupled with inadequate school and community resources, limits the ability of many rural schools to provide students, particularly high school students, with access to rigorous curricula and advanced coursework. Supporting equitable access to education resources is at the center of Learning List’s service to schools and districts.  We recognize that  online instructional resources and courses can supplement traditional course offerings to achieve greater equity for students in all districts, regardless of the district's size or geography.  To this end, Learning List provides an independent verification of each material’s alignment to the CCSS or state standards. We further review the instructional content to assess its rigor, focus, and coherence assess the material’s design and ease of use, the types of assessments and monitoring tools included, and educators' experiences using the product with students. As districts nationwide work to implement the Common Core State Standards, Learning List’s reviews of Math and English Language Arts materials can significantly streamline their selection process, saving them time and money while providing greater peace of mind that the materials selected will pave the way for their students’ success.

In addition to Earth Day, today is Ralph Tyler’s birthday—an important day for Learning List because of Tyler’s influence on curriculum design.  Tyler was born on April 22, 1902, and is recognized as the principal developer of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). His thinking also influenced the policies that were formalized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.  Tyler’s seminal work “Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction” was a best seller when it was first published in 1949.  It remains in print today and continues to influence curriculum development. The small book (just over 100 pages) lays out what has come to be known as “Tyler’s Rationale,” which asserts that effective curricula are organized around four basic questions: What educational purposes should the school seek to attain? What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes? How can purposes be organized? How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? Tyler’s work in “Basic Principles” reshaped educational thinking.  Prior to its publication, educators understood curriculum as an established, static program to be taught and tested. Tyler introduced the understanding that curriculum should be dynamic and student-centered, and that it should be continually evaluated and revised to ensure that students’ learning experiences are aligned with instructional objectives. Happy Birthday Ralph Tyler, and thank you!

Discover Financial Services seeks to ensure that all students have the skills needed for a successful financial future. In support of this goal, Discover administers the Pathway to Financial Success (PFS) program which provides grants to U.S. public high schools that implement a financial literacy curriculum.  Per the PFS website, in order to be eligible for grants a high school: Must implement or be looking to implement a financial education curriculum; Use a measurement tool to assess participation in and comprehension of the financial education curriculum; and Agree to share overall results of the measurement tool's pre and post-curriculum testing with Discover upon the program's completion, to assess what worked and what didn't. Grant awards are determined on a program-by-program basis.  For more information about the grant program and  the complete RFP, click here .

Research has increasingly shown that many children from low-income homes arrive at school with weaker language skills than their more affluent peers, and that early gaps in literacy are difficult to close and frequently predict lower academic outcomes as students progress through school. Recognition of the importance of early literacy has fueled the push for government funded pre-K programs for 4-year olds, but new research has identified gaps in children’s language processing skills as early as 18-months and suggests that to be effective, intervention must begin much earlier and include parents and caregivers. Programs such as the Thirty Million Words Initiative , Too Small to Fail , Zero to Three , and Abriendo Puertas/Opening Doors , work with parents, communities, and schools to help ensure all children arrive at school with the vocabulary and skills needed to be successful. While there are variations in each program’s approach, most focus on increasing the amount of time parents and caregivers speak to children and provide a home-based early literacy curriculum to help to parents understand the importance of talking to their young children and to develop strategies for building vocabulary and literacy skills. The New York Times recently reported on new programs, such as Providence Talks , that are using technology to provide feedback and support to low-income parents in developing early literacy skills. Such programs provide families with a small recording device that may be attached to a toddler’s clothing. The device records the words the child hears and detects instances when parents listen and respond to their child’s verbal utterances.  Software analyzes the data, identifying the number of words children hear each day, and program volunteers conduct home visits to help parents make sense of the results. Volunteers coach parents on how to communicate more effectively with their children and identify opportunities to teach language skills.  Devices include safeguards to ensure that family privacy is protected (e.g., actual conversations are not recorded).  You can watch a video demonstrating the device here . Researchers highlight the value of data collected through such programs, explaining that recordings will help them understand whether the information and coaching provided to parents improves children’s vocabulary acquisition in the short term and whether academic outcomes improve in the long term.

Last week, The Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation released a report detailing the practices of Uncommon Schools , the winner of the 2013 Broad Prize for Public Charter Schools . Uncommon Schools is network of 38 charter schools that provides a college preparatory program to low-income and minority students in New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. According to the report, a defining feature of the Uncommon Schools program is its emphasis on a rigorous curriculum for all students, frequent assessments, and sophisticated analysis of student data. Administrators quoted in the report explain that while Uncommon Schools have historically outperformed other schools that serve similar student populations, the implementation of the CCSS has raised the bar and fewer Uncommon students are scoring at proficient and advanced levels on standardized tests. “ Common Core is changing a lot of things,” explains an administrator quoted in the report.  “It’s really bringing us together.” Prior to the CCSS, Uncommon Schools in each region developed their own school curricula and interim assessments aligned to individual state standards. With CCSS, however, schools have come together to develop network-wide curriculums, lesson plans, and assessments aligned to the new standards.  A centralized team analyzes student data and provides campus- and teacher-specific feedback and reports to administrators on individual campuses.  Reports focus on a few areas for improvement rather than “a laundry list of things to fix.”  In this way, teachers and school leaders are able to target their efforts on what needs to be “retaught or taught differently.” See the video below to learn more about Uncommon Schools. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrWr4QW2xHY&list=PLF922DF530D98B20F&feature=share

Last week, EdWeek ran an article about a study by two professors evaluating whether commonly used K-12 textbooks are aligned to the CCSS.  Though the study has not yet been released, the article seems to suggest that the professors found none of the textbooks to be suitably aligned.  I applaud the authors of the study and the article for cautioning educators to examine carefully instructional materials claiming to be aligned to the CCSS. While some publishers may be putting "lipstick on a pig," Learning List has found that most of the publishers whose products we've reviewed are working hard to align their content to the CCSS standards. In fact, our reviewers have found several products to be highly aligned to the CCSS, some even 100 percent aligned to the t, and of the CCSS. However, in some product lines we found dramatic discrepancies in alignment from grade to grade, suggesting that educators must review carefully the alignment of the product for the grade level they are teaching. One reason our experience may be different from the professors’ experience is that we are likely reviewing more current product editions. That’s good news for educators, as it shows that publishers are either constructing new or enhancing older versions their products to more closely align with the CCSS. In response to our alignment verifications, some publishers have added new content to align their products more closely with the rigor required of the CCSS or have changed their correlations to eliminate citations that we found not to be aligned to the standards. Thus, an ancillary but critically important benefit of our service has been to help publishers strengthen the alignment of their products. That’s good news for publishers, for educators and for students, alike

This is the time of the year when all hands are on deck to help struggling students achieve. We, as educators, have a tendency during the crunch time before state testing to work harder and faster but not always smarter. Due to this sense of urgency, teachers often give students stacks of worksheets designed in the same format as the state tests, thinking that more practice is better.  Computer labs are booked solid with students needing additional help on specific skills.  When instructional technologists ask the teachers what the students need to work on in the lab, the answer many times is, “Just pick whatever lesson you can on that particular skill.”  Now, what is wrong with this scenario? One reason that many struggling students are not more successful each year is that the provided instruction is not aligned closely with the academic standards.  If the practice worksheets or online lessons that the teacher assigns do not address standards completely, the student may not be learning a skill or concept or may be learning it wrong repeatedly. That type of damage is difficult to rectify. When a classroom teacher or instructional technologist arbitrarily assigns a lesson without first reviewing it, students may not achieve the intended learning outcome.  Not all instructional materials are aligned closely to the standards, so it is very important to check the alignment first. Learning List’s alignment reports are designed to save teachers time and effort in this process.  Each report lists multiple citations (e.g., lessons, activities, pages) that our subject matter experts have reviewed for alignment to the content, context, and cognitive demand of each standard (or breakout in Texas). If a district purchases a product Learning List has reviewed, teachers can assign the reviewed citations with confidence that they are providing their students with instructional materials that are aligned to the standards.