Teach Effectively!

Teachers in the Warsaw (IL, US) local education agency reported to the school board that they had chosen a new reading program for use in the elementary grades, according to Diane Vance of the Gate City Daily. In Ms. Vance’s article, the choice was based on alignment between the reading program and the state tests of reading competence. Ms. Vance quotes comments by two teachers, Sue Zinn and Melody Carr, to the board.

“After looking at the materials from three publishers, the teachers chose the ones from McGraw Hill. We agreed it best follows the format of the state test questions. It highlights vocabulary words.”

In addition to the main reading textbook for each student, the curriculum includes workbooks at three levels for each grade, a flip chart of enrichment activities and connections to more information on the Internet.

There’s no mention of relative effectiveness, of research data about outcomes in Ms. Vance’s story. I hope that the teachers’ criteria included a heavy emphasis on these factors. Am I deluding myself?

Link to Ms. Vance’s story.

I got this invitation today. It’s a good opportunity to ask questions about the evidence base for various technology practices.

The Family Center on Technology & Disability is pleased to announce the start of our next month-long, online discussion, beginning on Monday, April 3rd. Led by Dr. Mary Morningstar and Dr. Sean Smith, of the University of Kansas, we’ll look at assistive technology issues that become critical during periods of transition in a student’s life.

What do families and the organizations that serve them need to do when a student makes the transition from elementary school to middle school, from there to high school, and then, to college, work, and/or independent living? How do AT issues change with each transition and how do we ensure that a student continues to receive the services and devices he or she needs to succeed? Please join us as we explore this important topic. You can access the discussion throughout the month of April at www.fctd.info. We look forward to seeing you online!

* * *
Family Center on Technology and Disability (FCTD)
1825 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 700S
Washington, DC 20009

email | fctd@aed.org
web | www.fctd.info

Having returned from Asia where I had few chances to keep up with some of the topics dear to my heart (but lots of chances to meet folks who share my interest in those topics), I wanted to see what’s happening with the What Works Clearinghouse. There’s not much new—still just the review on middle-school math.

However, I took a minute to look at the data they are using for that review. The staff uses criteria to classify reports of research according to how scientifically trustworthy each study is. There are three categories of quality for studies (plus one that holds those that are in progress at present): (a) Those that meet evidence standards, (b) those that meet standards with some limitations, and (c) those that do not meet the standards.

Looking at these categories, I realized that they provided a glimpse of the quality of research in education. I simply tallied the number of studies in each category for the middle-school math research. The data appear at the right. (There was one study still under review.) I’d welcome a recount but, as it appears to me, greater than 75% of studies of middle-school math curricula fail to meet the standards used by the Clearinghouse.

There are myriad possible explanations. Maybe the standards are too tough. Perhaps there are technical errors in assigning categories (unreliability in the measure). Etc. One potentially compelling (to me) explanation is that too few studies really do measure up to the standards. That explanation fits with the fact that the National Reading Panel found only a few score studies out of 1000s that met criteria for rigor. Here’s hoping the quality of educational research improves.

Links to

• What Works’ list of studies on middle-school math curricula
• What Works’ page about its evidence standards
• National Reading Panel table of contents (downloadable PDFs)

Special education teachers who met Oregon HOUSSE standards for being “highly qualified” may no longer considered HQ under new guidelines, according to a Paris Achen of the Southern Oregon Mail Tribune. Oregon’s original standards gave too much credit for experience, so the state board charged with managing such matters changed the criteria.

Hundreds of middle school teachers and high school special-education teachers whom the state approved as highly qualified in the last two years may not meet the standards for the federal designation.

Following a directive by the federal government, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission of Oregon recently changed the formula for determining whether middle school teachers and high school special education teachers are highly qualified.

The changes will affect teachers in multiple local education agencies (LEAs). The state commission is depending on the LEAs to determine who is affected and to notify those teachers.

Link to the news article.