LaFramenta, Joanne Jensen (2011). Development of a Framework for Teaching Mathematics in Depth, ProQuest LLC. This study illuminates the practice of teaching mathematics in depth by developing a framework to serve practicing teachers and those who educate teachers. A thorough reading of the literature that began with all of the volumes in the decades since the publication of the Standards (1989) identified six elements that were profitable for effective instruction in mathematics. These elements formed the basis of a tentative framework for teaching mathematics in depth that was elaborated by the results of this study. The experience of a fifth-grade level team in a southeastern state as they implemented a mathematics curriculum and set of standards that demanded teaching mathematics in depth identified elements of the framework that were previously missing from the literature. The perceptions of other mathematics teacher educators from the university and the school district were also incorporated into the framework. Two findings emerged from the study with implication for teaching mathematics in elementary school. The first is that the conceptualization of teaching mathematics in depth is strongly influenced by the teacher's orientation toward a learning perspective. The teachers use those practices which they believe will contribute most to an increase in student understanding of a particular topic. The second finding to emerge is that the actualization of teaching mathematics in depth is contingent upon balancing the dual forces of the pacing guide (an external scheduling mechanism) and the teachers' desire to teach for mastery. Teachers create their instructional plans according to their assessment of existing student comprehension and understanding. They are seeking mastery of the topic, but the school administration's pacing guide pressures the tempo of their plans. This manuscript reveals that each of these findings holds practical implication for improvement of instruction of mathematics in elementary school–addressing pacing, the definition and timing of mastery, learning theory, and assessment efficiency. Each contributes to mitigating gaps in the research literature, and each contributes to the development of the framework. Moreover, there are implications for research due to the significant overlap of this study with the recent adoption of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and plans for national assessment instruments. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Mathematics Instruction, Instructional Effectiveness, Elementary School Mathematics, Grade 5

Jett, Tamela Drennan (2013). Teacher Perceptions of Global Citizenship Education in a Southern Elementary Public School: Implications for Curriculum and Pedagogy, ProQuest LLC. Curriculum for global citizenship education is gaining momentum as countries have experienced an increase in interdependence and interconnectedness through technology over the last century. Through qualitative research, this study employed a phenomenological methodology to understand how ten female elementary teachers in grades third- through fifth- at the site of the present study, located in Mundo Pax Elementary School (MPES), define global citizenship and how these teachers utilized their personal definitions to shape their curriculum within their classrooms. The data were collected through semi-structured personal interviews, the school-wide curriculum, teacher lesson plans, and final products projects. The researcher used the program Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software NVivo 10 to assist in the coding process, providing the researcher with a way to view themes from selected research segments. Themes that emerged from the interview data answered the research questions and include: 1) teacher perceptions about global citizenship; 2) roles and responsibilities for preparing global citizens; 3) promoting global citizenship in the classroom; and 4) challenges in global citizenship education. Overall the teacher participants felt that global citizenship involves the awareness of similarities and differences among cultures other than the cultures of their students. Some teacher participants also felt a global citizen is someone who is affected by or has an impact on the world. Most of the teacher participants in the present study felt there should be a shared responsibility when teaching global citizenship, although a few teacher participants felt it was their sole responsibility. Lack of preparation and implementation time was reiterated as the largest barrier by the participants, many of whom also felt that resistance from other teachers created challenges when implementing a curriculum for global citizenship education. Participants also cited lack of support from parents/guardians and the effect parental attitudes have on students concerning other cultures. In addition, the impact technology has on students' interpersonal communication skills and a lack of monetary resources were cited as barriers. Although many of the participating teachers used opportunities within the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) curriculum to teach about diversity or interdependence, the teachers also offered other suggestions. Suggestions included character studies, integration of curriculum through children's literature, and local and/or international field trips. Similar to a curriculum used during the 2011-2012 school year at MPES, teacher participants expressed a desire for their students to work with students from "other" cultures on projects and/or problems. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Teacher Attitudes, Elementary School Teachers, Qualitative Research, Computer Software

Silver, Edward A., Ed.; Kenney, Patricia Ann, Ed. (2015). More Lessons Learned from Research, Volume 1: Useful and Usable Research Related to Core Mathematical Practices, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This book's 28 chapters are adapted and updated from articles published in NCTM's "Journal for Research in Mathematics Education" between 2000 and 2010. The authors have rewritten and revised their work to make it clear, understandable, and–most of all–useful for mathematics teachers today. To help teachers even more, these articles have been chosen for their relevance to the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice in the Common Core State Standards. The book's three sections present chapters that relate to reasoning and proving; communicating, sense making, and using tools strategically; and modeling and problem solving. Teachers who are seeking to help students develop these mathematical practices will find insights and support in this survey of research. The chapters cover a wide range of topics, approaches, and settings, including–(1) a case study of a third-grade teacher who sought to create a math-talk learning community in an urban classroom; (2) an examination of middle school students' problem-solving behaviors from a reading comprehension perspective; (3) a meta-analysis of the effects of calculator use in K–12 classrooms; an exploration of the strategies that high school geometry students employ when using a dynamic software program; and (4) an analysis of a professional development initiative designed to help teachers select and implement cognitively challenging tasks. Mathematics teachers at all levels will find examples of research that is relevant to the challenges they face. This book enables researchers and teachers to meet on common ground to improve mathematics education for all students. Chapters include: (1) Creating a Need for Proof (Gabriel J. Stylianides and Andreas J. Stylianides); (2) Checking Students' Proofs for Correctness (Annie Selden and John Selden); (3) Proof Validation through the Lens of a Mathematician: What Practitioners Can Learn (Keith Weber); (4) Teachers and Proof in School Mathematics (Eric J. Knuth); (5) Proof Exercises and How They Challenge the Work of Students and Teachers in High School Geometry (Patricio G. Herbst); (6) Proof in School Mathematics as Early as the Elementary Grades (Andreas J. Stylianides); (7) Recognizing and Fostering Mathematical Reasoning in Elementary School Classrooms (David A. Reid); (8) How Generalizing Can Foster Proving and Vice Versa: A Case with Linear Functions (Amy B. Ellis); (9) The Linear Imperative: Why Students Overuse Linearity (Wim Van Dooren, Dirk De Bock, and Lieven Verschaffel); (10) Mapping Mathematics Classroom Discourse and Its Implications for Models of Teaching (Mary P. Truxaw and Thomas C. DeFranco); (11) Describing Levels and Components of a Math-Talk Learning Community (Kimberly Hufferd-Ackles, Karen C. Fuson, and Miriam Gamoran Sherin); (12) Lifting the Labels: A Cautionary Story about Stories We Tell about Mathematics Students (Miriam Ben-Yehuda, Ilana Lavy, Liora Linchevski, and Anna Sfard); (13) Making Sense of Graphs (Susan N. Friel, Frances R. Curcio, and George W. Bright); (14) What We Can Learn from How Professionals Read Graphs (Wolff-Michael Roth); (15) Measurement Estimation as a Vehicle for Making Sense of Measurement (Elana Joram and Anthony J. Gabriele); (16) Using School-Based Mathematical Concepts in the Workplace: An Example from Nursing (Richard Noss, Celia Hoyles, and Stefano Pozzi); (17) The Effects of Calculators on Students' Achievement and Attitude Levels in K-12 Mathematics Classes (Aimee J. Ellington); (18) Low-Achieving Students Using Graphing Software to Solve Problems (Michal Yerushalmy); (19) Using a Dynamic Software Program for High School Geometry: A Look at Strategies Students Employ (Karen F. Hollebrands); (20) The Model Method: Singapore Children's Visual Representation Tool for Solving Algebraic Word Problems (Swee Fong Ng); (21) Conceptual Model-Based Problem Solving: Emphasizing Prealgebraic Conceptualization of Mathematical Relations (Yan Ping Xin); (22) Problem-Solving Behaviors of Middle School Students: Implications for the Classroom (Stephen J. Pape); (23) The Practice of Representing and Modeling with Diagrams, Symbols, and Words (Curtis Pyke); (24) The Role of Students' Criteria for Good Algebraic Representations in the Construction of Modeling Knowledge (Andrew Izsák); (25) Knowledge Connectedness and the Quality of Student and Teacher Mathematical Knowledge (Michael J. Lawson and Mohan Chinnappan); (26) The Role of Covariational Reasoning in Understanding and Using the Function Concept (Marilyn P. Carlson and Kevin C. Moore); (27) Learning Mathematics in a Classroom Community of Inquiry: Examples from a Secondary Mathematics Classroom (Merrilyn Goos); and (28) Selecting and Implementing Cognitively Challenging Instructional Tasks: A Pathway for Engaging Students in the Standards for Mathematical Practice (Melissa D. Boston).   [More]  Descriptors: Theory Practice Relationship, Mathematics Education, Educational Research, Common Core State Standards

Kober, Nancy; Rentner, Diane Stark (2011). Federal Efforts to Improve the Lowest-Performing Schools: District Views on School Improvement Grant Requirements, Center on Education Policy. As Congress considers legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, one topic of debate is the program of school improvement grants (SIGs) authorized by section 1003(g) of Title I. SIGs are intended to help to turn around low-performing schools and are part of the larger ESEA Title I program to improve education for disadvantaged children. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided $3 billion in extra funding for section 1003(g) SIGs, which brought the total funding for fiscal year 2009 to more than $3.5 billion. This report by the Center on Education Policy (CEP), an independent nonprofit organization, provides information about school districts' experiences in implementing ARRA SIGs that can inform the ESEA reauthorization. This report describes school districts' early experiences in using this infusion of ARRA SIG funding and implementing the new SIG requirements. The information comes from a survey of a nationally representative sample of school districts conducted in late winter and early spring of 2011. Some of the findings are based on responses from all districts in the survey sample, while others are based on responses from the subsets of districts that were eligible for or had received SIG funding. The survey covered a range of topics in addition to SIGs. Other topics in the survey are discussed in a June 2011 report on the fiscal condition of districts (CEP, 2011a) and a September 2011 report on district implementation of the common core state standards (CEP, 2011b). Findings include: (1) ARRA SIG funds were concentrated on a small number of districts, as intended; (2) Most ARRA SIG-funded districts received assistance from their state in implementing improvement models; (3) In the early months of 2011, half of the districts receiving ARRA SIG funds said it was too soon to tell about the results of implementing the transformation, turnaround, or restart models; (4) ARRA SIG-eligible and ineligible districts differed in their views about the effectiveness of key program requirements; (5) Half of the ARRA SIG-eligible districts believe that more than three years may be necessary to improve the lowest-achieving schools; and (6) Among all the nation's districts, there is no clear consensus about the effectiveness of current ARRA SIG requirements. Appended are: (1) Confidence Intervals and Statistical Significance; (2) Study Methods; and (3) Confidence Intervals for Survey Responses.   [More]  Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, State Standards, Disadvantaged Youth, Academic Achievement

Visher, Mary G.; Altuna, Jacklyn N.; Safran, Stephanie (2013). Making It Happen: How Career Academies Can Build College and Career Exploration Programs, MDRC. The phrase "preparing students for college and career" has become so ubiquitous that it has become almost a mantra in educators' discourse in recent years. Whether mentioned in the Common Core State Standards, in the mission statements of high schools, or in political campaigns, improving the college and career readiness of young people is a concept that few can disagree with. Much attention has focused on how to prepare students "academically" for life after high school. But "readiness" also means having the knowledge and skills to make informed choices about careers and postsecondary education options and–once graduated–to successfully navigate both worlds. High schools are expected to teach these skills and knowledge but are rarely given the guidance or tools to do so. With a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education, MDRC and its project partner Bloom Associates developed and piloted a program to help schools build or strengthen their college and career exploration programs. Called "Exploring Career and College Options (ECCO)," the program was designed specifically for career academies but can be adapted to fit many educational settings. "Career academies" are schools within schools that enroll up to several hundred students. They are organized by a career theme, such as health sciences or media arts. Besides regular high school courses, career academy students enroll in a sequence of career-technical courses centering on the theme area. Finally, students participate in internships and other experiences in workplaces–which is often called "work-based learning"–to reinforce the connections between what they learn in the classroom and their future careers. An earlier random assignment study of career academies conducted by MDRC demonstrated the effectiveness of the model. Over the years, as the number of career academies grew, the parallel pressure to ensure that all students meet high academic standards inadvertently crowded out time for career exploration activities–the very activities that nonexperimental evidence from the MDRC study suggests may have played an instrumental role in causing the large increases in earnings that career academy participants experienced over the eight-year period following high school graduation. Career academies typically cite a lack of time, skills, and resources as the reason for not offering such activities to all of their students. ECCO is a capacity-building program to help career academies offer opportunities to students to learn about their workplace and postsecondary options through four core components: (1) a series of one-hour in-class lessons; (2) visits to local work sites; (3) visits to college campuses; and (4) a six-week internship offered to all students in the summer before or during their senior year. The curriculum includes guidance for educators on how to arrange and manage students' out-of-school experiences as well as guides for partnering employers. This report summarizes findings from a three-year study of the implementation of the ECCO program. ECCO was launched in 18 career academies in six school districts in three states: (1) California; (2) Florida; and (3) Georgia. The purposes of the study are to document the experiences of these schools in adopting the program and to assess the extent to which, when given support and resources, programs like ECCO can be fully implemented. The study also collected descriptive data to assess the promise of the program to improve student participation in career and college exploration activities and to improve their awareness of postsecondary options. Appended are: (1) Data Sources and Survey Response Analysis; (2) Additional Findings About Implementation; and (3) Additional Analyses of Student Outcomes and Methodological Explanations. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 38 tables, 12 figures, and 6 boxes.) [This report was written with Marie-Andree Somers.]   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Standards, State Standards, Student Participation, Career Academies

Carmichael, Sheila Byrd; Wilson, W. Stephen; Finn, Chester E., Jr.; Winkler, Amber M.; Palmieri, Stafford (2009). Stars By Which to Navigate? Scanning National and International Education Standards in 2009. An Interim Report on Common Core, NAEP, TIMSS and PISA, Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Subject-matter experts reviewed the content, rigor, and clarity of the first public drafts of the "Common Core" standards released in September 2009 by the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) of the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers. Using the same criteria, the same experts also reviewed the reading/writing and mathematics frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS); and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Letter grades were awarded to each. The goal is to help U.S. educators and policymakers to judge the respective merits of these influential standards, de facto standards, and possible future standards. In particular, how do the draft Common Core standards stack up alongside extant national and international benchmarks? Here are the grades: (1) Common Core Reading/Writing/Speaking/Listening: B; (2) Common Core Mathematics: B; (3) NAEP Reading: B And NAEP Writing: B; (4) NAEP Mathematics: C; (5) TIMSS Mathematics: A; (6) PISA Mathematics: D; and (7) PISA Reading: D. This report is organized as follows. Part 1: Introduction (Chester E. Finn Jr. and Amber M. Winkler) first describes the assumptions that underpin this work, then the study methods. Part 2: Grading (W. Stephen Wilson, Richard Askey, Sheila Byrd Carmichael, and Carol Jago) describes how the standards were graded, including the content-specific criteria that the expert reviewers used to assess them and the grading metric employed to score them. Part 3: Reviews (W. Stephen Wilson and Sheila Byrd Carmichael) includes the standards reviews with math first (Common Core, NAEP, TIMSS, PISA) followed by English language arts (Common Core, NAEP, PISA). Part 4 closes with a takeaway, authored by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Amber M. Winkler. Finally, the appendix (part 5, authored by Stafford Palmieri) includes an overview of the standards that have been reviewed. These interim findings will be supplemented in Spring 2010. (Contains 2 exhibits and 37 footnotes.   [More]  Descriptors: Standardized Tests, National Standards, State Standards, Global Approach

Doabler, Christian; Cary, Mari Strand; Clarke, Benjamin; Fien, Hank; Baker, Scott; Jungjohann, Kathy (2011). Using a Scientific Process for Curriculum Development and Formative Evaluation: Project FUSION, Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Given the vital importance of using a scientific approach for curriculum development, the authors employed a design experiment methodology (Brown, 1992; Shavelson et al., 2003) to develop and evaluate, FUSION, a first grade mathematics intervention intended for students with or at-risk for mathematics disabilities. FUSION, funded through IES (Baker, Clarke, & Fien, 2008), targets students' understanding of whole number concepts and skills and is being designed as a Tier 2 intervention for schools that use a multi-tiered service delivery model, such as Response to Intervention (RtI). In developing this intervention, the authors have drawn extensively from the converging knowledge base of effective math instruction (Gersten et al., 2009; National Math Advisory Panel, [NMAP] 2008) and the critical content areas of first grade mathematics recognized by national bodies (Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, [CCSS-M] 2010). Guiding the FUSION project are three primary objectives: (1) develop a 60-lesson intervention program that fosters students' procedural fluency and conceptual understanding of whole number concepts, (2) assess the feasibility of the FUSION intervention and (3) assess the potential efficacy of the intervention in a subsequent randomized efficacy trial. This presentation focuses on FUSION's initial feasibility study. The feasibility study took place in seven schools in two suburban school districts located in the northwest. Eight teachers (1 male) with varying experience levels participated in the feasibility study. Preliminary analyses indicate that teachers are meeting acceptable levels of implementation fidelity. Overall, teachers have expressed encouraging views of FUSION. Anecdotal records from classroom visits and professional development sessions indicate that teachers are satisfied with FUSION's overall structure and comfortable with lesson implementation. Teachers report that students are benefiting from the program and in particular building conceptual knowledge and procedural fluency in whole numbers. For student performance data, the authors plan to investigate student gains across the academic year. They expect to find strong relationships between FUSION and changes in CBM and ProFusion scores. These preliminary findings would serve as promise of FUSION for positively influencing student math outcomes. Analyses are currently underway.   [More]  Descriptors: Curriculum Development, Suburban Schools, Intervention, Feasibility Studies

Vasavada, Natasha; Carman, Elaine; Hart, Beth; Luisier, Danielle (2010). Common Core State Standards Alignment: ReadiStep[TM], PSAT/NMSQT[R] and SAT[R]. Research Report 2010-5A, College Board. The College Board College Readiness Pathway is an assessment system that measures the reading, writing and mathematical knowledge and skills that students need to be on track to graduate high school college-ready. It consists of ReadiStep[TM], administered in grade eight; the PSAT/NMSQT[R], administered in grades 10-11; and the SAT[R], administered in grades 11-12. Together, these programs assess the college readiness of students as they progress from middle school to college entrance. ReadiStep[TM], the PSAT/NMSQT[R] and the SAT[R] measure the reading, writing and mathematics knowledge and skills that students are learning every day in middle and high school classrooms and that are critical for success in college and beyond. Through curriculum surveys and alignment analyses, the College Board regularly studies classroom instructional practices, state standards and district curriculum frameworks, as well as the course content of first-year college courses, to ensure that the assessments measure the content knowledge and cognitive processes students need for college readiness. The assessments in the College Readiness Pathway are rigorously developed to provide the highest quality measurement and feedback. All three assessments measure the same constructs, use similar question formats and have similar score scales, which are linked to provide a vertical articulation of college readiness. ReadiStep[TM] and the PSAT/NMSQT[R] also report projected scores on the next assessment in the sequence leading to the SAT[R] and to college success. The feedback and tools provided by the three assessments help students improve their skills and help schools and districts make curricular changes that improve student learning and reduce the need for remediation in college. Appended are: (1) ReadiStep[TM], PSAT/NMSQT[R] and SAT[R] Skills Insight[TM] Categories and Descriptions; (2) ReadiStep[TM] ELA Side-by-Side Alignment Table; (3) PSAT/NMSQT[R] ELA Side-by-Side Alignment Table; (4) SAT[R] ELA Side-by-Side Alignment Table; (5) ReadiStep[TM] Math Side-by-Side Alignment Table; (6) PSAT/NMSQT[R] Math Side-by-Side Alignment Table; and (7) SAT[R] Math Side-by-Side Alignment Table.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, College Readiness, Alignment (Education)

Achieve, Inc. (2013). State Support for Open Educational Resources: Key Findings from Achieve's OER Institute. Open Educational Resources (OER) offer unique new opportunities for educators to share quality learning resources, especially in an increasingly digital world. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), providing them with the unprecedented advantage of being able to share resources that are aligned to this common set of standards. To leverage these parallel efforts and support states and districts that are implementing the CCSS, Achieve is working with a collaborative of seven states that participated in the Achieve OER Institute: California, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Washington and Wisconsin. This work builds off Achieve's previous efforts to create a series of eight rubrics that measure OER alignment to standards and other attributes of quality and to develop an online evaluation tool that allows educators to easily tag and rate resources. The goals of the OER Institute are to: (1) Encourage collaboration among states for the implementation of OER; (2) Increase awareness and use of OER in states to support successful implementation of the CCSS at the state, district, school and classroom levels; (3) Assist states in implementing high-quality, CCSS-aligned OER; (4) Increase the number of quality OER that are aligned to the CCSS and increase access to those OER for districts and teachers; and (5) Train state and district personnel to use the OER rubrics and the Achieve OER Evaluation Tool. To meet these goals, Achieve brought seven states together virtually and through an in-person meeting during the ongoing, year-long effort. Through these discussions, three areas for continued cross-state collaboration emerged: (1) Establishing commonalities in defining quality; (2) Sharing quality, standards-aligned resources; and (3) Sharing metadata about quality resources. Four key findings to date include: (1) States face a number of common challenges and barriers to implementation, including a lack of knowledge about OER and uncertainty about the quality of resources available online; (2) Experts from multiple sectors, including standards, curriculum and technology, must work together to use OER successfully in CCSS implementation; (3) States must develop a common understanding of processes for measuring quality and vetting resources; and (4) States must assess their technology and capacity needs to implement technology-based innovations. In total, Achieve developed eight rubrics with significant input and feedback from an advisory panel of OER experts. The eight rubrics are: (1) Degree of Alignment to Standards; (2) Quality of Explanation of the Subject Matter; (3) Utility of Materials Designed to Support Teaching; (4) Quality of Assessments; (5) Quality of Technological Interactivity; (6) Quality of Instructional and Practice Exercises; (7) Opportunities for Deeper Learning; and (8) Assurance of Accessibility. Challenges and barriers remain for states using OER in their CCSS implementation plans, but each state team is addressing the specific challenges in using OER as they implement the CCSS. A glossary of terms is provided.   [More]  Descriptors: Resource Units, Shared Resources and Services, Technology Uses in Education, Cooperation

Casserly, Michael; Price-Baugh, Ricki; Corcoran, Amanda; Lewis, Sharon; Uzzell, Renata; Simon, Candace; Heppen, Jessica; Leinwand, Steve; Salinger, Terry; de Mello, Victor Bandeira; Dogan, Enis; Novotny, Laura (2011). Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Council of the Great City Schools. This report summarizes preliminary and exploratory research conducted by the Council of the Great City Schools and the American Institutes for Research on urban school systems participating in the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The study is one of the first large-scale analyses of urban NAEP trends, and the first to examine local instructional and organizational practices alongside changes in NAEP scale scores in the participating cities. This report is also preliminary in the sense that it attempts to lay out a framework for how NAEP data on the TUDA districts might be analyzed in the future as the number of participating cities grows and the amount of data expands. The purpose of this project was to identify urban school systems that are making academic progress and to examine possible factors in their improvement. The overarching goal was to identify variables that might be contributing to improvement in urban education across the nation and to explore what might be needed to accelerate those gains. The report also discusses broad lessons for the implementation of the common core state standards. This report wraps up with a short list of recommendations to urban school districts about what they might put into place based on the findings of this report and a set of conclusions about next steps. Appended are: (1) How NAEP Is Administered; (2) District Demographics, NAEP Trends, Funding, and Teachers; (3) NAEP Analysis Methodology; (4) Alignment Analysis Methodology; (5) Case Study Methodology and Protocol; (6) Atlanta Case Study; (7) Boston Case Study; (8) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Case Study; (9) Individuals Interviewed on Site Visits and Materials Reviewed; and (10) Research Advisory Panel and Research Team. Individual sections contain footnotes. (Contains 101 footnotes, 141 tables, and 30 figures.) [For related reports, see "Addendum to Pieces of the Puzzle: Recent Performance Trends of Urban Districts–A Closer Look at 2009 NAEP Results" (ED528219); and "Pieces of the Puzzle: Factors in the Improvement of Urban School Districts on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Abstract" (ED528222).]   [More]  Descriptors: Urban Schools, School Districts, Public Schools, National Competency Tests

Bowman, Trinell; Wiener, Daniel; Reavis, Tamara; Griswold, Danielle (2013). PARCC Accessibility Features and Accommodations Manual: Guidance for Districts and Decision-Making Teams to Ensure that PARCC Mid-Year, Performance-Based, and End-of-Year Assessments Produce Valid Results for All Students. Second Edition, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) member states regard assessments as tools for enhancing teaching and learning, and are committed to providing all students, including but not limited to, students with disabilities, English learners, English learners with disabilities, and underserved populations with equitable access to high-quality, twenty-first century assessments. By applying principles of universal design, leveraging technology, embedding accessibility features, and allowing a broad range of accommodations, PARCC intends to provide opportunities for the widest possible number of students to demonstrate knowledge and skills while maintaining high expectations for all students to achieve the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Developed by the PARCC states, the first edition of the "PARCC Accessibility Features and Accommodations Manual" was created to ensure that: (1) Participation in the assessments is consistent across PARCC states for students with disabilities and English learners; (2) Appropriate tools are used by all students to address their individual learning needs, and accommodations are provided to eligible students (including students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities); and (3) Accommodations and features used on PARCC assessments are generally consistent with those used in daily instruction. The Manual is a comprehensive policy document that provides guidance to districts and decision-making teams to ensure that the PARCC Mid-Year, Performance-Based, and End-of-Year Assessments provide valid results for all participating students. This is the second edition of the "PARCC Accessibility Features and Accommodations Manual" (fall 2013). The Manual will undergo a number of iterations, as data on student performance is collected during PARCC item development research (being conducted this spring and summer), field testing in spring 2014, and the first operational year of administration in school year 2014-2015. This iterative process will ensure that the accommodations students receive on PARCC assessments provide a valid reflection of what they know and can do and do not alter the construct of what is being assessed. Appendices include: (1) Accessibility Features and Accommodations for Students Taking the Paper-and-Pencil PARCC Assessments; (2) Test Administration Protocol for the Read-Aloud Accommodation for English Language Arts/Literacy Assessments and Accessibility Feature for Mathematics Assessments; (3) Protocol for the Use of the Scribe Accommodation; (4) Text-to-Speech, Human Reader, or Interpreter Accommodation Guidance for English Language Arts/Literacy Assessments; (5) Guidance for Selecting and Administering the Extended Time Accommodation; (6) Unique Accommodation Request Form; (7) Use of an Emergency Accommodation on a PARCC Assessment; (8) Student Accommodation Refusal Form; (9) Audio and Human Reader Guidelines for the ELA/Literacy Assessments; (10) Audio and Human Reader Guidelines for the Mathematics Assessments; and (11) Legal Background. [This manual was the result of two years of work among states, Achieve staff and outside technical assistance. The manual was based on "Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate the use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities" written by Carver Christiansen, J. VaDeZande, and S. Lazurus. This work was sponsored by the Assessing Special Education Students State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards through the Council of Chief State School Officers. Note: Appendices are not included in this document.]   [More]  Descriptors: Testing Accommodations, Disabilities, English Language Learners, College Readiness

Dituri, Philip (2013). Proof and Reasoning in Secondary School Algebra Textbooks, ProQuest LLC. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which the modeling of deductive reasoning and proof-type thinking occurs in a mathematics course in which students are not explicitly preparing to write formal mathematical proofs. Algebra was chosen because it is the course that typically directly precedes a student's first formal introduction to proof in geometry in the United States. The lens through which this study aimed to examine the intended curriculum was by identifying and reviewing the modeling of proof and deductive reasoning in the most popular and widely circulated algebra textbooks throughout the United States. Textbooks have a major impact on mathematics classrooms, playing a significant role in determining a teacher's classroom practices as well as student activities. A rubric was developed to analyze the presence of reasoning and proof in algebra textbooks, and an analysis of the coverage of various topics was performed. The findings indicate that, roughly speaking, students are only exposed to justification of mathematical claims and proof-type thinking in 38% of all sections analyzed. Furthermore, only 6% of coded sections contained an actual proof or justification that offered the same ideas or reasoning as a proof. It was found that when there was some justification or proof present, the most prevalent means of convincing the reader of the truth of a concept, theorem, or procedure was through the use of specific examples. Textbooks attempting to give a series of examples to justify or convince the reader of the truth of a concept, theorem, or procedure often fell short of offering a mathematical proof because they lacked generality and/or, in some cases, the inductive step. While many textbooks stated a general rule at some point, most only used deductive reasoning within a specific example if at all. Textbooks rarely expose students to the kinds of reasoning required by mathematical proof in that they rarely expose students to reasoning about mathematics with generality. This study found a lack of sufficient evidence of instruction or modeling of proof and reasoning in secondary school algebra textbooks. This could indicate that, overall, algebra textbooks may not fulfill the proof and reasoning guidelines set forth by the "NCTM Principles and Standards" and the "Common Core State Standards". Thus, the enacted curriculum in mathematics classrooms may also fail to address the recommendations of these influential and policy defining organizations. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Mathematical Logic, Validity, Logical Thinking, Secondary School Mathematics

McIntosh, Shelby (2011). State High School Tests: Changes in State Policies and the Impact of the College and Career Readiness Movement, Center on Education Policy. Since 2002, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) has collected and reported data on state policies that require students to pass a state assessment in order to receive a high school diploma. The state policies associated with these assessments, also known as high school exit exams, have undergone a number of changes over the past ten years. For example, states have changed the graduation requirements attached to these assessments, the types of assessments they use, the subjects tested by these assessments, and the purposes that the assessments are intended to serve. However, exit exams are not the only assessments that states mandate for all high school students. In some states, a different assessment is administered in high school to meet federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) than the assessment administered as a graduation requirement. Additionally, some states require students to take college entrance exams, such as the SAT or ACT, and some states (sometimes the same states) require high school students to take exams that assess a student's readiness for college and career, such as the PSAT or ACT's PLAN or EXPLORE assessments. For CEP's 2011 study on state high school assessments, the author surveyed all 50 states on policies pertaining to all high school assessments, including high school exit exams, college entrance exams, and college and career readiness (CCR) assessments. Part 1 of this report provides an overview of state high school exit exam policies and discusses recent changes in these policies. Part 2 describes what the author learned from her state survey regarding college entrance exams and college and career readiness assessments. The author addresses the current national and state focus on college and career readiness and the extent to which this focus has affected state high school assessment policies. Part 2 also addresses state-led efforts in improving college and career readiness, such as the Common Core State Standards movement and the two state consortia developing assessments aligned to these standards, and how these efforts may impact state high school assessment policies. The author finds the following changes in state high school exit exam policies: (1) Twenty-five states have current or planned polices that require students to pass an exit exam in order to receive a high school diploma; (2) Three states requiring high school exit exams (Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee) have changed their policies so that students no longer have to pass an exam in order to receive a diploma; (3) More states administer or plan to administer end-of-course exams than comprehensive exams, as 19 states had current or planned policies to administer end-of-course exams in the 2010-11 school year; (4) Eighty-four percent of students of color, 78% of low-income students, and 76% of all public school students nationwide were enrolled in the 30 states with state high school exit exam policies in 2010-11; and (5) Due to policy changes in some states, fewer students were required to pass high school exit exams in order to receive a high school diploma in the 2010-11 school year than in the 2009-10 school year (65% of all public school students nationwide in 2010-11 compared to 74% in 2009-10). Findings on state high school assessment policies and college and career readiness include: (1) Twenty-seven of the 31 states with current or planned exit exams are participating in one or both of the state consortia to develop common assessments that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards intended to measure college and career readiness; (2) High school exit exams are currently used by potential employers or postsecondary education institutions in only one state (Georgia), despite many states citing assessment of college readiness (8 states) and career readiness (10 states) as a purpose of those assessments; (3) Eleven states require or plan to require students to take a college entrance exam (the ACT or SAT) in high school; however, none of these states require their students to meet a specific passing standard on the exam; and (4) Sixteen states administer, or at least offer to all students, assessments that are intended to assess students' readiness for college and/or a career.   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Alignment (Education), Career Development, Careers

Biolchino, Erin Broun (2016). A Case Study of Common Core Implementation in a Linked Learning Environment, ProQuest LLC. California is in the midst of significant educational reform initiatives, especially at the secondary level. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted in 2010, and these new standards contain significant changes in the areas of math, English, and literacy across all subjects. Many districts are also implementing new initiatives to engage secondary students and increase their preparedness for life beyond high school. Linked Learning is one such reform initiative, and at least 29 districts across California are now implementing Linked Learning. Linked Learning combines rigorous academics with technical knowledge related to an industry sector to engage students in their high school experience while also preparing them for college and career. Teachers in districts implementing Linked Learning are implementing two major educational reform initiatives–Common Core and Linked Learning–simultaneously. This qualitative case study focuses on one high school that is implementing both Common Core and Linked Learning. Hills High School (HHS) is a wall-to-wall Linked Learning high school in the Woodbridge Unified School District (WUSD) that opened in 2011, just as Common Core implementation in WUSD was beginning. This study examines the intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS by exploring teacher perceptions of the connection between Linked Learning and Common Core, the challenges that teachers faces while implementing both of these reform initiatives, and how the Linked Learning structure of HHS supports teachers. This study is based on a conceptual framework that synthesizes three theories: Bolman and Deal's structural frame, Fullan's change in practice, and Reeves's initiative fatigue. The combination of these three theories explains the context for the experiences of teachers and administrators who planned the structure of and are carrying out the work at HHS. The many different initiatives that educators face are a result of the structure of their school and district, so teachers are left to balance multiple initiatives while also balancing on the structures built by their school district and school site in an environment of change. Data for this case study included teacher and administrator interviews, teacher observations, and document analysis. Participants in the study were 10 teachers at HHS and 5 administrators in WUSD. The teacher participants were from a variety of subject areas and experience levels and taught at HHS for at least 1 year prior to the 2015-2016 school year. All teacher participants were interviewed and observed twice in their classrooms. The administrator participants were site or district level administrators who were involved in the planning of HHS and/or the implementation of Linked Learning and Common Core at HHS; all administrator participants were interviewed. Documents collected and analyzed for this study include calendar, agendas, and minutes from professional development and Pathway collaboration meetings at HHS. Analysis of this data yielded significant findings and recommendations in relation to implementing Common Core at a Linked Learning school. Findings from this study confirmed findings from the literature that, in order for teachers to seamlessly integrate Linked Learning and Common Core, the district must provide coherence between these two initiatives for teachers. Absent this coherence, teachers are unable to articulate a clear connection between Linked Learning and Common Core. Teachers expressed a significant need for professional development explicitly related to the intersection of Linked Learning and Common Core, rather than separate professional developments about these and other topics. This study also contains recommendations for teacher collaboration, professional development, and the master schedule as related to the implementation of Linked Learning and Common Core. The need for coherence between multiple simultaneous reform initiatives is a critical finding that will continue to apply to school districts in California that are in the midst of several significant educational changes at one time. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Program Implementation, Educational Change, Secondary Education, High Schools

Edwards, Virginia B., Ed. (2016). Called to Account: New Directions in School Accountability. Quality Counts. Education Week. Volume 35, Number 16, Education Week. For the past decade and a half, the fight to improve America's schools has been fought largely on two fronts: academic standards as one battleground, and accountability the other, with the issue of mandatory testing adding heat to a very public–and increasingly politicized–debate. The questions for policymakers and educators are as direct as they are complex: What should students be expected to learn, how should we measure what they've learned, and what should be the consequences when they don't achieve as expected? Even as disputes rage over standards and assessments in light of the Common Core State Standards, accountability has become entangled with a host of its own political, practical, and educational issues. For some, the very term "accountability" is synonymous with testing–especially mandated, federally driven assessments like those enshrined in the now-defunct No Child Left Behind Act and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act. Accountability is also bound up with the question of consequences: for schools that are subject to state accountability systems; for teachers, whose pay and job security can be linked to students' test scores; and for students themselves, whose promotion and even graduation can hinge on how they fare in the assessment world. At the same time, pressure mounts for schools and districts to include a variety of non-academic factors, such as school climate, in the accountability equation. This year's 20th edition of "Quality Counts" takes a deep look at issues surrounding educational accountability and how the changes being ushered in by what's widely seen as a scaling back of the federal government's policy footprint are putting newfound autonomy and opportunities for innovation in the hands of states and school districts. "Education Week" reporters traveled to schools and districts on both coasts to examine the changing face of state and local accountability approaches. They explored how those strategies can give a more fleshed-out portrait of school effectiveness and their potential to support and improve schools and struggling students. Over the years, "Quality Counts" has examined issues as diverse as standards, testing, teaching, English-language learners, international competitiveness, school climate, and the impact of the Great Recession on schools and districts. The snapshots from those reports highlighted in Quality Counts 2016 offer historic perspective and have continuing relevance in the education policy debate. One key takeaway from this year's results on the Chance-for-Success Index, with its cradle-to-career perspective: While the nation as a whole saw some small gains at either end of the arc–early childhood and outcomes for adults–it posted a dip in results in the crucial K-12 time of life. The multifaceted K-12 achievement indicator, which is based heavily on the NAEP scores as well as Advanced Placement tests and high school graduation rates and is updated biannually in line with NAEP's reporting schedule, yielded a C-minus for the nation as a whole, the same grade as two years ago, the last time the indicator was produced. Lastly, this year's report once again offers detail on how K-12 funding is allocated throughout the states and what that says for the nation as a whole. Overall, the U.S. earned a C in the area of school finance, based on 2013 data, the most recent available. The analysis found that in general, states did better in terms of how equitably they distributed their funds than they did on overall funding. Articles in this issue include: (1) Path to Accountability Taking Bold New Turns (Allyson Klein); (2) Policy Hammers (Stephen Sawchuck); (3) Highlighting NCLB-ERA Research (Sarah D. Sparks); (4) Student Achievement in the Era of Accountability; (5) Quality Counts at 20; (6) Moving Beyond Just Academics as a Way to Assess Effectiveness (Evie Blad); (7) At a Los Angeles School, Carving Safe Spaces to Share and Learn (Evie Blad); (8) States Collaborate in Pursuit of Fresh Accountability Ideas (Andrew Ujifusa); (9) In School Turnaround Efforts, Massachusetts Enlists Districts (Alyson Klein); and (10) Measuring up: Latest Scorecard Puts States, Nation to the Test.   [More]  Descriptors: Educational Quality, Accountability, State Government, Local Government