This annotated bibliography is reformatted and customized by the Center for Positive Practices. Some of the authors featured on this page include Jorge Ruiz de Velasco, Sonia Kline, Nancy Frey, Elizabeth Newman, Kara Larson, Joshua Wilson, Rachel A. Kopke, Kristine E. Pytash, Johnny Moye, and Blake Shelby.
(2016). GED Test Changes and Attainment: Overview of 2014 GED Test Changes and Attainment in Washington State, Washington Student Achievement Council. In January 2014, the GED Testing Service significantly redesigned the GED test to incorporate the Common Core State Standards and the College and Career Readiness Standards for Adult Education. The purpose of this study was to examine the significant changes made to the test in 2014, examine the impact of the changes on Washingtonians, and make recommendations to achieve the state's two educational attainment goals. The report presents available summary data from the GED Testing Service's annual statistical reports, years 2008-2013. At the time of the study, the GED Testing Service had not published state or national data for years 2014 and 2015; therefore, the study analyzed 2014 and 2015 state summary data from Washington's State Board of Community and Technical Colleges and preliminary 2014 national summary data published by the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education. Results show that, coinciding with the changes to the GED test, the number of test takers, completers, and passers plummeted. Test participation decreased by 62.8 percent: in 2013, over 22,000 Washingtonians took the test compared to fewer than 9,000 in 2014. The test completion rate decreased by 33.7 percent: in 2013, over 18,000 test candidates completed all four subject areas of the test compared to just over 4,000 in 2014. In 2013, over 15,000 completers passed the test compared to just over 3,000 in 2014. From 2008 to 2013, more than 4 percent of Washington adults without a high school credential took the test compared to 1.5 percent in 2014, which has consequences for the Washington's educational attainment goals. Possible reasons for the decline in numbers are explored. Further research is recommended. The following are appended: (1) Comparison of 2002 GED test series to 2014 GED test series; (2) Alternative pathways to high school completion; and (3) Data Tables. Contains endnotes. [More] Descriptors: High School Equivalency Programs, Common Core State Standards, College Readiness, Career Readiness
(2016). Understanding Energy, Science and Children. "Energy" is a term often used in everyday language. Even young children associate energy with the food they eat, feeling tired after playing soccer, or when asked to turn the lights off to save light energy. However, they may not have the scientific conceptual understanding of energy at this age. Teaching energy and matter could be challenging at the K-2 level because they are abstract concepts. Nevertheless, developing a concrete understanding of energy at an early age is important for children in order to rationalize why we need energy from food or why wearing gloves helps keep our hands warmer. The "Next Generation Science Standards" ("NGSS") emphasize energy beginning as early as K-2 (NGSS Lead States 2013; see Connecting to the "NGSS" on p. 58). In this article, we share our success with implementing a 5E (Bybee 1997) inquiry-based energy lesson that engages K-2 students in energy flow in everyday life. Students observe events and the associated patterns and use these patterns to formulate their evidence-based explanations for energy transfer. Drawing from "NGSS" performance expectation K-PS2-1, we use the physical model of a ball rolling down a ramp set at different heights to illustrate the effects of motion and energy. The lesson presents ample opportunities to extend the activity through connections to the "Common Core State Standards for ELA." Our main focus in the lesson is to build a strong foundation and excitement toward the abstract concepts of energy and matter at an early age, in order for these concepts to further develop during later grade levels. [More] Descriptors: Science Instruction, Energy, Scientific Concepts, Concept Formation
(2016). Learn Better by Doing Study–Third-Year Results, Technology and Engineering Teacher. The purpose of the "Learn Better by Doing" study is to determine the extent to which U.S. public school students are doing hands-on activities in their classrooms. The study asks elementary and secondary (middle and high school) science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers to respond to 13 statements concerning students "doing" in their classrooms. The first two statements are general in nature and are used for all grade levels. The remaining 11 statements are grade-level specific and based on Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013a; 2013b), Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA/ITEEA, 2000/2002/2007), and Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSO, 2010). With the vast majority of teachers indicating that students learn better by doing, and the fact that students are doing more in technology and engineering courses, it stands to reason that technology and engineering courses are excellent resources to increase student achievement and better prepare them for continued education and the workplace. This article identifies the results of the first three of four rounds of the Learn Better by Doing study. The researchers are currently conducting round four of the study. The survey instruments will be available until April 15, 2017. Using the same survey instruments and methods, the researchers will solicit input from as many elementary and secondary STEM teachers as possible. The results of the fourth round will be published in this journal. The researchers will also produce a Final Report containing the results of the four rounds, implications, and recommendations. Elementary and secondary STEM teachers are encouraged to participate in this study, and a link is provided. [More] Descriptors: Active Learning, Experiential Learning, Public Schools, Hands on Science
(2011). State Capacity for Leadership: Ensuring Meaningful Higher Education Involvement in State Implementation of New Assessments Aligned with the Common Core State Standards. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and assessments aligned to them represent a significant milestone in public education reform in the U.S. Developed with consultation from higher education, the rigorous new standards and the assessments now being drafted by two consortia promise to help students reach higher levels of academic achievement and increase their likelihood of enrolling and succeeding in college. The mission of the consortia is to create assessments that reflect the CCSS and accurately measure college readiness. This work could lead to significant improvements in the preparation of many students for postsecondary study and smooth their transition between high school and college. Higher education systems stand to benefit as well since better preparation should reduce the high proportion of students requiring developmental courses when they enroll, limit the costs associated with those classes, and cut the average time to a credential. Achieving those results, however, will require the support of higher education not only throughout the development of the exams but also into their full implementation. As a first step toward encouraging higher education systems to endorse and base judgments about students' college readiness on the new assessments, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Lumina Foundation requested the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) to identify the conditions that help build consensus between K-12 and postsecondary systems at a state level. In response, NCHEMS developed the following: (1) Criteria Reflecting Capacity for Alignment; and (2) Hallmarks of Higher Education Involvement. This paper summarizes the criteria and describes how they play out in the context of specific state environments. It is designed as a guide to help educators and policymakers understand the conditions that must be met for a state to fully embrace the goals of the new Common Core State Standards and related assessments. [This report was prepared for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Lumina Foundation.] [More] Descriptors: Core Curriculum, State Standards, Alignment (Education), Public Education
(2016). Equitable Access by Design. A Conceptual Framework for Integrated Student Supports within Linked Learning Pathways, John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities. This report proposes a conceptual framework for defining and implementing a system of integrated student supports that provides equitable access to college and career readiness via Linked Learning pathways in high schools. The framework emphasizes the central commitment of the Linked Learning approach to challenge prevailing norms of stratification in the American high school and to prepare ALL students for college and career. Integrated student supports are consequently situated in the context of the broadened learning demands of the Common Core State Standards, the Next Generation Science Standards, and the technical and workplace learning requirements of Linked Learning pathways specifically. The authors first clarify the relevant learning goals pursued through Linked Learning strategies and then define and outline the importance to those goals of program and organizational integration of student supports in schools and school districts. Two kinds of integration appear, both in the relevant literature and from practitioner experience, to be associated with positive student learning outcomes. The first type of integration involves the extent to which student supports are conceived, designed, and implemented to promote effective student engagement with the other three Linked Learning pathway components: academic mastery, technical knowledge, and workplace learning. A second type of integration involves the alignment of student services offered within a curricular pathway with other school and district (or regional) strategies for achieving college and career readiness among all students. The authors conclude by examining emergent approaches to the implementation of integrated supports that may serve to guide further research on effective and scalable practices in Linked Learning settings. An overview of evidence-based student supports, including relevant background research and resources for practitioners, is provided as an appendix to this report. [More] Descriptors: Access to Education, Equal Education, Instructional Design, Integrated Services
(2015). Moving beyond Compliance: Promoting Research-Based Professional Discretion in the Implementation of the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts, Mid-Western Educational Researcher. State- and local-level mandates are currently being implemented to ensure strict compliance to the new national Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (CCSS for ELA) and related assessments. These standards provide many potential opportunities to improve literacy education nationally and locally. However, the CCSS for ELA will likely face several implementation problems. Their content does not always comport with what research reveals about grade level progressions, text complexity, close reading, writing, and new media literacies. Such issues can result in gaps between research-based instructional practices and what teachers actually do in the classroom. Moreover, there are serious concerns about linking CCSS for ELA assessments with high-stakes testing because this may result in teaching that reflects narrow understandings of reading and writing. The CCSS for ELA also might limit the scope for educators to exercise professional judgment, which is critical for strong implementation in the classroom. To better inform policies related to the CCSS for ELA, particularly in Illinois, we conducted a comprehensive review of research, policies, and practices, and created recommendations for enhancing literacy education across K-12 schooling in light of the CCSS. This brief delineates recommendations for state and local policy makers to promote the use of research-based professional discretion by teachers and administrators to improve instruction in the implementation of the CCSS for ELA, and outlines the development of an Illinois Literacy Research Agenda. The findings indicate needed policy actions in five areas: curriculum and instruction, teacher education and professional development, program/school leadership, assessment, and research. [More] Descriptors: Academic Standards, State Standards, Language Arts, English
(2013). A Unit of Study Approach for Teaching Common Core State Standards for Writing, Middle School Journal (J3). In this article, the authors provide an overview of the unit of study framework for teaching writing and explain how it sets the stage for developing "academic momentum" in students (Strahan, 2008, p. 4). To help readers understand the unit of study framework in action, the authors describe how a unit unfolds in one subject area, language arts. They then highlight its natural application in disciplinary and interdisciplinary work. [More] Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Writing Instruction, Units of Study
(2016). The Common Core Writing Standards: A Descriptive Study of Content and Alignment with a Sample of Former State Standards, Grantee Submission. Many students do not meet expected standards of writing performance, despite the need for writing competence in and out of school. As policy instruments, writing content standards have an impact on what is taught and how students perform. This study reports findings from an evaluation of the content of a sample of seven diverse states' current writing standards compared to content of the Common Core State Standards for writing and language (CCSS-WL). Standards were evaluated for breadth of content coverage (range), how often content was referenced (frequency), the degree of emphasis placed on varied content elements (balance), and the degree of overlap between one set of standards and another (alignment). The study addressed two research questions: (1) What is the nature of the CCSS-WL and the sample states' standards for writing with respect to content breadth, frequency, and balance? (2) To what degree do the states' writing standards align with the CCSS-WL? Results indicated that CCSS-WL are succinct and balanced, with breadth of coverage in some aspects of writing but not others. The seven states' standards represented varying degrees of breadth, frequency, and balance with few patterns across states. None of the states' standards had strong alignment with CCSS-WL, indicating a potential mismatch between prior curricular materials and instructional methods developed with former standards as guides to help students meet grade-level writing expectations in the new CCSS. [This article was published in "Reading Horizons," v55 n3 Article 4 p98-141 Oct 2016, see EJ1117076.] [More] Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Writing Achievement, Writing Instruction, State Standards
(2016). Increased Expectations, Widening Gaps, and Opportunities to Engage Students: Extending the Conversation Begun by Cassidy, Ortlieb, and Grote-Garcia, Literacy Research and Instruction. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS; National Governors Association [NGA] Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010) are "hot," and authors Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey think that is the way they should be. In this article they explain why they think that it is worth the time to focus on the new standards and how that focus should be shifting from knowing the standards to enacting them. Although they acknowledge that the development of the standards might have been handled a bit more democratically and that a few more literacy educators and experts might have been invited to participate in the development of the standards, Fisher and Frey recognize that the standards were in draft form and many people, including the two of them participated in providing feedback on the structure and contents of the standards. The authors write here that one of their reasons for suggesting the standards to be worthy of attention relates to the expectations the standards establish for students. The authors also note that they have met and taught scores of students who read more and better because the teacher expected it. They recognize that the rigorous expectations alone found within the CCSS do not offer a cure for less proficient readers, however the gap highlighted by the standards provides an opportunity for teachers and researchers to identify new ways to engage students in literacy learning. The authors believe that in all likelihood high stakes testing will continue to gain attention because everyone wants to know how these new expectations are going to be measured. Beyond that they hope that the profession will turn to more effective lesson design. They see renewed interest in literacy instruction strategies and comprehensive literacy efforts. The authors' answer the question of what it will take for teachers to transition from passive literacy learning to active learning strategies by saying it will take trust, lesson design, time, and coaching. It all begins with expectations. [More] Descriptors: Expectation, Achievement Gap, Educational Opportunities, Common Core State Standards
(2016). Common Core Math in the K-8 Classroom: Results from a National Teacher Survey, Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Successful implementation of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) should result in noticeable differences in primary and middle school math classrooms across the United States. "Common Core Math in the K-8 Classroom: Results from a National Teacher Survey" takes a close look at how educators are implementing the Common Core math standards in classrooms across the nation. A nationally representative survey of over one thousand teachers reveals that they are increasingly familiar with the Common Core and believe that it will benefit students. Yet findings also point to several areas that warrant mid-course corrections if the standards are going fulfill more rigorous expectations. Takeaways include the following: (1) Teachers like the Common Core but they don't think all of their students and parents are equally enamored. (2) Teachers know what's in the Common Core-and they're teaching it at the appropriate grade level. (3) Further, teachers are changing how they teach. (4) Teaching multiple methods can yield multiple woes. (5) Teachers need support. The CCSS-M are designed to support a more focused, coherent, and rigorous instructional program that places greater emphasis on conceptual understanding and real-world application, in addition to procedural fluency. Are these shifts occurring at the classroom level? Overall, the survey results suggest they may be, though there is still much work to be done and much about how the standards are being implemented that is yet to be understood. Appended are: (1) Methodology; (2) Complete Survey Results. ["Common Core Math in the K-8 Classroom: Results from a National Teacher Survey" was written with Ann Duffett, and David Griffith. The foreword and executive summary were written by Amber M. Northern, and Michael J. Petrilli.] [More] Descriptors: Teacher Surveys, Common Core State Standards, National Surveys, Middle School Teachers
(2012). Plans to Adopt and Implement Common Core State Standards in the Southeast Region States. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 136, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Based on interviews with state officials in the six Southeast Region states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina), this study describes state processes for adopting the Common Core State Standards (a common set of expectations across states for what students are expected to know in English language arts and math) and plans for implementing the common standards and aligning state assessment systems to them. This study used interviews with state education agency staff in the Southeast Region to examine three research questions about the Common Core State Standards: (1) What processes did the six Southeast Region states use for adopting the common standards?; (2) What is (or will be) the process for state implementation of the common standards?; and (3) How are the states planning to address the alignment of their assessment programs to the common standards? The following are the key findings: (1) Respondents in all six states reported that one step in the adoption process was state education agency review of the common standards to determine the extent of alignment between the common standards and existing state standards and to gather information to disseminate to the public; (2) Four states (Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina) did not adopt any state-specific standards in addition to the common standards. Alabama and Georgia did; (3) Respondents in Florida and Mississippi reported that teachers in their state will begin teaching under the common standards in 2011/12. Respondents in Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina reported that teachers will begin doing so in 2012/13. The respondent in South Carolina reported that teachers will begin doing so in 2013/14. States varied in how they will roll out their teaching timeline–all at once for grades K-12 or phased in over time in different grades; (4) All six states reported a general implementation process moving from developing curriculum and instruction resources to training educators to teaching the standards in classrooms. All six states have dedicated 2011/12 to educator training. Some states also plan to develop resources and materials in 2011/12, and Florida and Mississippi will also begin classroom implementation. All six implementation timelines call for teaching the common standards before preparing new assessments aligned with them (expected in 2014/15); (5) All six states reported that state education agency staff are training educators on the new common standards, with three states (Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina) also involving staff at regional professional development agencies. All six state respondents reported that their states will use a combination of approaches to deliver training, including face-to-face training for school staff, online sessions for district staff and teachers, and train-the-trainer sessions for district teams, who in turn will train teachers; (6) In four states (Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina), respondents reported that monitoring standards implementation will occur at the local level. North Carolina will tie monitoring of local implementation of the common standards to the statewide evaluation of implementation of the state's Race to the Top initiative. At the time of data collection, Alabama had not yet decided whether the state education agency would monitor local implementation; and (7) All six respondents reported that their state will follow the timeline and process of the assessment consortium to which they belong. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina are members of the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers consortium; Alabama, North Carolina, and South Carolina are members of the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. Alabama and South Carolina, members of both consortia, have not yet decided which consortium's assessments they will use. The findings of this study are limited by the small number of interviews conducted–one per state–and cannot be generalized beyond the study period since state-level plans, policies, and procedures are continually evolving and may have been updated since the completion of data collection. The report is nevertheless useful, because it examines the six states' ongoing work on the Common Core State Standards–itself a new and evolving reform initiative nationwide. Education leaders and policymakers can benefit from learning how other states are approaching this work. Appended are: (1) Study methods; (2) Structured interview protocol; and (3) Quick reference state information on the Common Core State Standards. (Contains 2 boxes, 6 tables and 7 notes.) [For "Plans to Adopt and Implement Common Core State Standards in the Southeast Region States. Summary. Issues & Answers. REL 2012-No. 136," see ED528961.] [More] Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Elementary Secondary Education, Alignment (Education)
(2016). Triangles with Integer Dimensions, Mathematics Teacher. Interesting and engaging mathematics problems can come from anywhere. Sometimes great problems arise from interesting contexts. At other times, interesting problems arise from asking "what if" questions while appreciating the structure and beauty of mathematics. The intriguing problem described in this article resulted from the second context, where trying to create an interesting example to support student thinking produced a rich investigation in its own right. The main purpose of the activity presented in this article is for students to find cases of triangles where the three heights and the lengths of the three sides are all integers. The task is intended to focus primarily on the Common Core State Standard for Mathematical Practice (SMP) 1–"Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them"–while also following SMP 5–"Use appropriate tools strategically." In addition to being an interesting mathematical problem in its own right, this problem about finding at least one triangle with integer values for all the lengths of its bases and heights can help students see the need to persevere in looking for an existence case and not simply apply empirical reasoning to support why no such cases exist. Providing opportunities for students to observe that the area of specific triangles remains consistent regardless of the base and height pair chosen is important and can then lead to further discussions about why these calculations are equivalent for any triangle. Using these triangles can be productive to illustrate whether it matters which side is chosen as the base so that students establish the equivalence of the three ways to calculate the area of a triangle. [More] Descriptors: Mathematics Instruction, English Language Learners, Common Core State Standards, Language Usage
(2016). Thinking in New Ways and in New Times about Reading, Literacy Research and Instruction. Over the years, the annual "What's Hot, What's Not" survey by Jack Cassidy has served as an important indicator for issues in the continuously changing landscape of literacy education within North America. In "Beyond the Common Core," Cassidy, Ortlieb, and GroteGarcia (2016) note the meteoric rise of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in recent annual surveys. They suggest that ". . . the intense focus on CCSS by those in the field has pushed the needs of the literacy-challenged to the background" (p. 100). They worry that research-based initiatives such as early intervention, literacy coaches/reading specialists, motivation/engagement, response to intervention, and differentiated instruction may be lost in discussions about what the standards should be and how they should be assessed. The authors agree. Cassidy, Ortlieb, and Grote-Garcia's concerns for closing reading achievement gaps in this fashion are especially timely given an increasingly diverse population, increasing recognition of the needs of second language students, and growing income inequality in the United States. They worry, however, that both the approach proposed by Cassidy et al. (2016) and by the Common Core (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers [NGA Center & CCSSO], 2010) do not fully address the reading challenges that our students face today. Neither addresses the new reading skills, strategies, dispositions, and practices required for successful online reading. Since students from ages 8 to 18 spend more time reading on a screen than they do with traditionally printed text (Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010), the authors must begin to consider both offline and online reading achievement gaps. The authors present their views on the following in this commentary: (1) The offline reading achievement gap; (2) The online reading achievement gap; (3) The nature of online reading; and (4) How to best prepare economically challenged students for the demands of reading in today's world? [More] Descriptors: Reading Instruction, Literacy Education, Common Core State Standards, Reading Achievement
(2016). How Well Are American Students Learning? With Sections on Reading and Math in the Common Core Era, Tracking and Advanced Placement (AP), and Principals as Instructional Leaders. The 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education. Volume 3, Number 5, Brookings Institution. The 2016 edition of the Brown Center Report (BCR) is number five in the third volume and the 15th issue overall. As is customary, this year's BCR contains three studies. Part one is on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and instruction in math and reading. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data indicate that nonfiction is receiving greater emphasis in both fourth and eighth grade reading instruction, data and geometry are receding in importance in fourth grade math, and course enrollments in eighth grade math are shifting away from advanced courses toward a single, general math course. This section looks at the association between CCSS implementation and change of less than a single NAEP scale score point in both fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. The second section investigates whether tracking, the practice of grouping students into different classes based on ability or prior achievement, in eighth grade is related to Advanced Placement (AP) outcomes in high school. In eighth grade, the tracking question currently boils down to whether high achieving students who are ready for a formal algebra course will get one–or whether all students will take the same general math course. No relationship was found between tracking and AP participation. Part three examines school leadership from an international perspective. All around the world, school principals are called on to provide instructional leadership. Data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) are examined to see whether principals' instructional activities are associated with student achievement. No association was found. [More] Descriptors: Common Core State Standards, Reading Achievement, Mathematics Achievement, Advanced Placement Programs
(2010). Perspective, April 2010. "Perspective" is a monthly e-newsletter presenting news and views from Achieve. This issue includes a report describing how the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network selected Delaware and Tennessee from among 16 finalists as the winners of the first phase of Race to the Top (RTTT) grants. This issue also reports that: (1) The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers released the draft K-12 Common Core State Standards in English/Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics for public comment in March; (2) The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Achieve and the Hunt Institute are presenting a discussion on the Common Core State Standards on Thursday, April 22, from 10-11:30 a.m. ET, covering the content, organization and focus of the standards; (3) Achieve and the American Council on Education (ACE) are sponsoring a free Webinar for the higher education community about "Common Core Standards: What Are They? And What Could They Mean to You?" It takes place on Monday, May 3, 2010 from 3:30-5:00 p.m. ET; and (4) Florida Governor Charlie Crist has signed into law a major bill (SB 4) that upgrades the state's graduation requirements to the college- and career-ready level. Brief news clips and descriptions of new resources are also included. [More] Descriptors: State Schools, Higher Education, Elementary Secondary Education, State Standards