The ING Unsung Heroes Program recognizes K-12 educators who are innovative in the classroom and positively influence students.  The program provides 100 educators statewide with grants of $2,000 grants each year to implement creative projects in schools or school systems. The top three finalists receive awards of $27,000, $12,000, and $7,000. All K-12 educators working full-time in an accredited public or private school are eligible to apply.  Applications for 2014 grants are due on April 30, 2014, and awards will be announced in the fall. For more information about how to apply click here . http://youtu.be/8EzQjEni_Yw

A recent post on EdWeek ’s Digital Education blog underscores the value of Learning List’s service verifying publisher-provided alignments to the Common Core State Standards . In the post, Benjamin Herold reports on current research indicating that many instructional materials that claim to be aligned to the CCSS are only “modestly” aligned.  His post cites research results indicating that many CCSS-aligned instructional materials do not fully address the CCSS's grade-level content or approach the level of cognitive demand required by the standards.  Quoting one researcher, Herold writes that “districts’ mantra should be ‘don’t trust and still verify’ any claims of common core alignment.” Learning List won’t weigh in on the assertion that districts should not trust alignment claims, but verification of publisher-provided alignments is core to our mission as an instructional materials review service. To support this mission, Learning List has an established cadre of trained subject matter experts with substantial experience and expertise aligning instructional materials to the content, context, and cognitive demand of the CCSS. We suggest a new mantra for districts: Trust but let Learning List verify alignment to the CCSS.

Recently, I presented to a group of school board members and a superintendent. The superintendent made the following observation that I’ve been chewing on since our meeting. In his opinion, instructional materials increasingly are geared towards teachers, rather than students, and, specifically, towards making teachers’ jobs easier. Most people think that’s a good thing; he does not. Teacher editions typically have provided instructional guidance to teachers. Today’s products provide more guidance to help teachers individualize instruction. For example, teacher editions often explain specifically how to adapt their instruction for specific student populations, including English language learners and struggling students.  Publishers do this to meet the market’s demand, as laws and regulations increasingly require that teachers individualize instruction. Most educators appreciate publishers’ guidance to teachers. Policymakers and “education reformers” extoll online resources as a great “leveler” among teachers, arguing that adaptive online products help weaker teachers provide instruction that is as effective as stronger teachers.  That is precisely what this superintendent objects to.  To paraphrase what I believe he was saying, adaptive products lull teachers into believing that the product provides instruction, so they can facilitate or guide, rather than teach. He argues that is not good for teachers, for teaching, and most importantly, that is not good for students. I love meeting people who make me think about things from a new perspective.

Catherine Gewertz’s recent Edweek column, , summarizes current efforts to ensure that instructional materials are aligned to the Common Core State Standards .  Not surprisingly, the column mentions Learning List as one new tool to help educators “size up” instructional materials and their alignment to the CCSS.

As educators seek ways to improve student learning and decrease the dropout rate, individualized learning or what many now call personalized learning is taking the stage in the mainstream classroom.  If used correctly, personalized learning may provide students with the specific instruction that meets their needs and thus improves their achievement. In the ASCD INFObrief, “The Building Blocks of High School Redesign” by Tom Ewing, five strategies are discussed for successful high school reform. 1 Mr. Ewing points out that the first strategy is personalized learning which includes the development of individualized learning plans based on the intellectual capacity, interests, and aspirations unique to each student. Many publishers offer individualized learning paths within their online products.  The learning paths consist of auto-generated activities and quizzes based upon a student’s performance on pretests.  As a principal, I found that in order for a student to be successful in the assigned learning path, teachers needed to consider the following:  Teachers need to review and perhaps revise activities created in the learning path before they are assigned to the student, as:  Some of the learning path activities may be too easy or too difficult for the student; The focus and interest level of the activities may not be appropriate for the age of the student; and, A student may be discouraged and overwhelmed before he starts if too many activities are assigned in the learning path. The activities need to spark the student’s curiosity, relate to real world experiences, and be motivating. If a student is not successful with a particular lesson, the online product should have an effective re-teach component instead of repeating the statement, “Try again”. A strong personalized online product will adjust the difficulty level of the learning activities within the learning path so the student does not experience frustration by being unsuccessful after several attempts. The teacher needs to meet regularly with the student to review and assess the completion of the learning path and the student’s success rate.  If students are placed in an online program and not monitored, the following will likely occur: Students will race through an activity and answer questions arbitrarily; and, Student motivation and the quality of their work will decrease. If implemented correctly, individualized learning paths in online products can be very motivating and successful with students, particularly at the secondary level.  But, educators know their students best and should adjust instruction within personalized learning to maximize student achievement. 1 ASCD INFObrief, Spring, 2007 Number 49, “The Building Blocks of High School Redesign” by Tom Ewing.

In this morning’s New York Times , Quentin Hardy reports in the Bits blog on a push by the non-profit group EductaionSuperHighway to change the way the Federal Communications Commission provides broadband to schools.  With the support of 40 executives, including the CEOs of American Express, Dell, Ebay, and Facebook, EducationSuperHighway has written a letter to the FCC demanding greater transparency and competition in the federal E-Rate program, which connects schools to the Internet. In his post, Hardy notes: EducationSuperHighway’s statistics say schools are overpaying for connectivity. The median cost per school, it calculates, is $25 a megabit, and the top quartile of schools pay $2 a megabit. The bottom quartile pays $85 a megabit. Schools in typically wealthier districts, which float bonds to connect themselves, have negotiated deals to pay as little as 10 cents a megabit. Noting that schools now need approximately 100 megabits per second to support wireless connectivity but will need  10 times that in as little as three years, the letter outlines the case for less expensive broadband.  You can read the letter here .

Increasingly, policy groups and thought leaders are pointing to the need for a resource, such as Learning List , that provides objective reviews of instructional materials.  They assert that the need for independent, objective reviews has increased (1) as new instructional materials are introduced to support Common Core implementation, and (2) as more states deregulate their instructional materials markets and allow districts and schools more choice in the online and print materials they use. In a report released in November, the Business Roundtable highlighted the need for an independent organization to review new instructional materials to assess their alignment to the CCSS. And last week, Thomas Arnett of the Clayton Christensen Institute commented in a blog : e need a system for providing both expert and user reviews of course choice options, similar to those available from Consumer Reports or on sites like CNet, Angie’s List, or RateMyProfessors.com. Standardized measures are nice because they are quantitative and objective, but they cannot capture all the aspects of quality that parents and students may want to know.  Arnett’s post highlights Learning List as a service that is “stepping up” to provide educators and parents with the reviews and  information they need to choose the best instructional materials for their students.  We couldn’t agree more.

Learning List doubles/triples/quadruples the capacity of your district's curriculum staff. Tools on LearningList.com make it easy for curriculum directors  to identify products (state-adopted, non-adopted, open-source) that address 100% of the TEKS .  Learning List helps superintendents and board presidents  comply with the 100% Rule. Campus Leadership Teams can use Learning List's alignment reports to design TEKS-aligned curriculum maps and lesson plans for each instructional material reviewed. Need help selecting instructional materials? Learning List is a subscription-based, instructional materials review for schools and districts. Subscribers can access completed reviews or request reviews of additional products, including open-source. LearningList.com features three different reviews for each product: an alignment to the TEKS , an editorial review highlighting the product’s unique features and functionality, and subscriber ratings and reviews . We’ll be at the TASA Mid-Winter Conference, so please stop by: Our booth #211 to see reviews and tools on LearningList.com. Our presentation, “ Improving Your Process for Selecting IM ,” Tuesday, January 28, 11:30am-12:30pm, Room 11AB

With the beginning of spring semester comes many decisions regarding ways to help struggling students grasp the required standards before state assessments. Teachers often turn to online instructional materials to help reinforce the concepts and skills for these students. Many online materials offer formative assessments, individualized learning paths, reteach lessons, and various reports on student learning. If used correctly, these online instructional materials can be valuable tools in differentiating instruction. In order for online instructional materials to be effective with struggling students, some important points should be considered regarding pre-assessments. (1)  Review the pre-test to check that enough questions are provided to assess mastery for that particular standard.  Too few questions can lead to inaccurate diagnostic determinations. (2)  Carefully read each pre-test question to make sure it will help you determine the students’ needs.  You may want to add or delete questions within the tests to provide the best diagnostic information as possible. (3) Analyze the questions on the pre-assessment test to check that they are aligned to the 3C’s of the standards- content, context, and cognitive rigor. (See previous post on 3C’s)  Many online program test questions are aligned only to the content of the standard. One major reason that students fail the state assessments is because the formative assessments and instruction provided are not aligned to the depth and complexity of the standards. Future blog posts will discuss additional points to consider when using online instructional materials effectively with struggling students.

Siemens STEM Academy is accepting applications for its Siemens STEM Institute and Siemens Teachers as Researchers (STARS) programs through February 4, 2014.  Both programs are opportunities for middle school and high school STEM teachers to participate in all-expense-paid professional development activities in summer 2014. The Siemens STEM Institute accepts fifty educators, or STEM Fellows, to attend a week-long institute hosted by Discovery Education , located outside of Washington, D.C.  According to Siemens, “The week will be filled with guest speakers, field trips to leading institutions where Fellows will observe real-world applications of STEM subject matter, and networking opportunities with like-minded peers from across the nation.”  For more information about Institute eligibility and application requirements, click here . The STARS program selects two groups of 20 educators to participate in a two-week professional development program held at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.  Selected educators work in teams with scientists and researchers on short-term projects at the laboratory and participate in seminars, workshops, tours, and field trips.  Participating educators receive a $500 stipend and a $300 mini-grant for the purchase of classroom equipment and supplies. For information about STARS eligibility and application requirements, click here .

Over the past few months, Learning List staff have attended quite a few vendor conferences for products under consideration for state adoption in Texas.  These conferences have been hosted by Texas’ regional Educational Service Centers and have given vendors an opportunity to present their products and educators an opportunity to preview the new science, math, and technology applications materials that will be available for the 2014-15 school year.  We learned a lot at these conferences, and in the next few weeks, we’ll summarize some of the trends we noted in new products.  Today’s post focuses on  features designed to help special student populations, such as English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities (recall that most materials submitted in response to Proclamation 2014 were digital products):  Spanish-Language Translations .  Some products include full student editions in Spanish, while others limit translations to key sections, such as summaries or glossaries.  A few products include translations in languages other than Spanish. English Language Learner Resources for Teachers. Teacher editions highlight strategies to support ELLs and include ELPS correlations, Spanish vocabulary, and modifications to support mastery of concepts while developing English skills. Spanish-Language Resources for Parents .  Curriculum and homework guides for Spanish-speaking parents. Differentiation Strategies for Teachers.  Teacher editions include strategies and professional development to support differentiated instruction. Audio Readers.   Support for visually impaired students and struggling readers; some products include read aloud components in multiple languages. Adjustable Font Sizes .  Support for visually impaired students and struggling readers. Lexile-Based Reading Levels.  Text adapts for students at, above, and below grade level. Transcripts of Video-Based Lessons.  Support for hearing impaired and struggling learners; some products include transcripts in multiple languages.

As discussed in our previous post on student engagement, educators hold different views of what it means for students to be engaged in learning. Not surprisingly, research has identified several dimensions of student engagement. These include behavioral engagement, emotional or psychological engagement, and cognitive engagement.  When students are behaviorally engaged , they participate in the academic as well as the social and extracurricular components of schooling.  When students are emotionally engaged , they feel good about their school and learning experiences, as well as their relationships with teachers and peers.  When students are cognitively engaged , they are invested in academic tasks and motivated to learn.  While behavioral and emotional engagement help to set the stage for learning, cognitive engagement has the strongest connection to improved academic outcomes. There is some overlap between behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in the six teacher conceptions of engagement identified by Harris  (2008) (i.e., behaving, enjoying, being motivated, thinking, seeing purpose, and owning); however, and are most closely aligned with cognitive engagement.  In our next post in this series, we will explore how educators can design lessons and select instructional materials that facilitate students’ ability to (1) see purpose in their learning and (2) own what they learn.