Search Results

During a public hearing  over social studies lessons included in Texas’s CSCOPE curriculum management system, educators and members of Texas’s State Board of Education got into a discussion about the meaning of “rigor.” All agreed that giving students material that is developmentally appropriate for a higher grade may be “harder,” but is not more rigorous.  Research suggests that rigorous instructional materials: Engage students with complex but grade-appropriate, complex content, Require students to think critically about what they learn, and Ask students to solve problems linked to the real world and their own lives. As John Bogess explains in The Three Rs Redefined for a Flat World , these attributes address the quality of student thinking and may be found in instructional materials used at any grade level and in any subject area.

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.

Kate Alexander’s piece in last week’s Austin American Statesman carefully examines how the marketplace for instructional materials in Texas has changed in recent years. Alexander explains that implementation of the Common Core State Standards in 14,000 districts nationwide means that even large states, such as Texas and California, with more than 1,000 districts each, now hold less sway in the instructional materials market. She also discusses the effects of Texas legislation passed in 2011 that gives local districts greater control over the materials they purchase. A Texas public school administrator quoted in the article explained that the legislation created opportunities because it allows districts to select instructional materials that have not been through the state review process, but it also created some substantial challenges as districts now must “wade through the torrent of new options.” Alexander references Learning List as a service that will help publishers and Texas educators “navigate the new market.”

Yesterday, the Texas State Board of Education held a public hearing on the instructional materials submitted for state adoption this year. Not surprisingly, most of the testimony focused on science textbooks, and in particular biology textbooks. Historically, only products that addressed 100 percent of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) were eligible for state adoption. However, in 2011, the legislature changed the law to make products that address at least 50 percent of the TEKS eligible for state adoption. As a result, 516 products were submitted for state adoption this spring. Those products address K-8 mathematics, K-12 science or technology applications.  Over the course of the review process, some products were withdrawn. However, almost 165 K-8 math products and almost 300 K-12 science products have gone through the state adoption process, many, many more than ever before. The state adoption list will verify the percentage of state standards addressed by each product. But, how are educators going to tell 164 math K-8 products or 299 K-12 science products apart? And, don’t forget that there are hundreds of products available that were not submitted for state adoption.  Learning List is here to help! Learning List is a professional resource review service that helps educators and parents select the K-12 instructional materials and online courses best suited for students.  Learning List will debut at the TASA/TASB Convention in Dallas next week.  Stay tuned….

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.”

Are you confused about the difference between standards, curriculum, instructional materials and lesson plans? Well, you’re not alone. At Learning List, we often hear educators and publishers confuse the terms. Hopefully this will help you distinguish their meaning and, more importantly, understand how each is an invaluable component in helping students learn. State Standards are the state’s pronouncement of what students should know and be able to do after completing each course. Curriculum sets out what the district will teach. It contains the standards and defines when each standard will be taught and when students will be tested to measure their mastery of the standards. Districts develop their own curriculum or use a commercially available curriculum aligned to state standards. Instructional materials (IMs) include textbooks and online resources that reinforce and/or provide instruction. IMs should be “aligned” to the standards, meaning they should teach what the standards require students to know and be able to do, in order to prepare students to be successful on state and district assessments as well as have a strong foundation for the next year’s curriculum. Lesson plans are the teacher’s instructional plans for how they will teach the standards and what the students will do to demonstrate mastery of each standard. Teachers may develop their own lesson plans, drawing from multiple resources, or follow explicit instructional plans from the campus or district level.

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 .

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 .

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.

Agile Mind is a comprehensive, online program to support mathematics instruction in middle school and high school.  Agile Mind resources are designed to support teacher-led instruction and include interactive animations, simulations, and collaborative learning experiences to engage students with mathematics concepts. Agile Mind resources are aligned to the Common Core State Standards and the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills . Instruction is organized in three-part lessons: Overview activities spark students’ interest using animations and visualizations to introduce new concepts. Exploring activities provide core instruction in the context of real-world problems. Interactive simulations allow students to manipulate variables, make predictions, and analyze data. Instruction incorporates multiple representations of math concepts (e.g., words, tables, graphs, and equations) and provides opportunities for students to communicate their thinking in written and spoken formats. Summary sections review and reinforce key concepts and vocabulary . Agile Mind resources include Bloom’s and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) questioning taxonomies and Mathematics Assessment Resource Service (MARS) problem sets that are aligned to national and international standards. An Algebra I teacher from Lyford High School in Texas commented: “Even though I didn’t think I had time to implement another new program at our school, I found out that having students work on Agile Mind to explore a new topic before I taught the lesson actually saved me time in the long run!” Agile Mind provides extensive instructional support for teachers, including topic-specific support for planning and implementing lessons and downloadable student work sheets to support note-taking and lab-based activities. The program’s browser-based learning management system (LMS) is easy to use and includes tools that allow teachers to plan instruction; manage assignments, quizzes, and assessments; and communicate with students. The teacher dashboard is formatted as an interactive calendar that includes an “at-a-glance” feature that allows users to track individual student and class progress on assignments. LMS resources include comprehensive guidance in using online tools and professional development and support for instruction in print and video formats. About Agile Mind: With over 2.3 million students served in 27 states, Agile Mind was founded in 2002 to enhance one thing: the opportunity to learn. The team focuses on equity and high achievement in mathematics and science because of its importance to both the lives of students and to the future of our nation. Agile Mind’s mission—and promise—is to provide the programs, tools, and the instructional improvement systems educators need to transform student achievement through exemplary, sustainable teaching practices. Click here to learn more about Agile Mind courses and programs.

Learning List has reviewed Agile Mind’s resources for single-variable Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus AB courses.  Materials are comprehensive and available online with some printable content. Instruction addresses communication and reasoning skills and the application of mathematics to real-world situations. Instruction is organized in 36 “Topics” that address AP Calculus AB content. Each Topic structures a three-part lesson that includes (1) Overview , (2) Exploring , (3) Summary sections. Overview sections engage students using animations and visualizations to introduce new concepts and link content to students’ prior learning. Exploring sections provide core instruction in the context of real-world problems. Summary sections review and reinforce key concepts and vocabulary . Topics also include (4) Assessment and (5) Testing sections that support formative and summative assessment. The course incorporates multiple representations of math concepts (e.g., words, tables, graphs, and equations) and develops students’ ability to communicate their thinking in written and spoken formats. Instruction includes animations that engage students using real-world scenarios and problems (e.g., graphing the arc of a snowboarder’s jump). Animations are accompanied by rigorous, open-ended questions that encourage students to think critically and apply their learning. The course also includes two versions of an AP Calculus AB practice exam.  Practice exams are formatted to reflect the rigor, content, and time and technology allocations of the AP exam. Practice exams must be printed for paper and pencil administration and include complete solutions. Agile Mind has created a webinar introduction to Resources for Calculus. Subscribers may view the webinar on the product’s homepage on Learninglist.com . About Agile Mind* Agile Mind was founded to enhance one thing: the opportunity to learn. We focus on equity and high achievement in mathematics and science because of its importance to both the lives of students and to the future of our nation. For students, we have created powerful programs, tools, and strategies that help them excel in the courses that are crucial for admission to America’s leading colleges and universities. We have used the Internet to deliver these tools and services at a fraction of their historical costs. Further leveraging this infrastructure, we deliver high-quality services that schools and districts find increasingly essential to meet the high expectations of our nation, our states, and our communities.. Agile Mind is built on a combination of high-tech and high-touch strategies. In addition to Internet-delivered services, educators and administrators also receive face-to-face seminars, mentoring, and a rich array of  resources to manage their demanding workloads, expand their expertise, and dramatically improve outcomes for their students. But the success of our tools and our services is measured in the faces, in the motivation, and in the achievement of your students—all of your students. Our only success is theirs and yours. *The content in this section is provided by or adapted from Agile Mind . Subscribe to Learning List for access to full editorial reviews, alignment reports and spec sheets.