Evidence-based teaching methods for helping students who are at risk for school failure or who have disabilities.
The folks over at Weapons of Math Destruction released another in the long line of pretty-insightful-and-pretty-funny cartoons about education. Although I do not routinely use the term “educrats,” I see it often and understand its reference to educators who knowingly or unwittingly sustain ineffective educational practices. This cartoon captures an aspect of that idea, and it made me grin.
Link to a larger version
Sphere: Related ContentIt appears that there is a disagreement about how to teach mathematics effectively in at least a half dozen communities around the US. You may already know about rumblings in the states of Washington, as represented by the folks at “Where’s the Math?”, and Missouri, where it’s Columbia Parents for Math that Works. But, what do you know about Ridgewood (NJ, US), Beaverton (OR, US), New York (NY, US), Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, and Newbury Park (CA, US), and Chicago (and elsewhere in IL, US)? If you know of other groups such as these, please drop a note about them in the comments.
Continue reading ‘Math reform matters’
Sphere: Related Content
Time graphic
To what extent does a US state’s high-stakes test correspond with a consistent standard assessment? Using data from the Education Trust and the Colorado (US) Department of Education Time, magazine’s Feilding Cage (with help from Jackson Dykman) created one of those nifty Flashy things that provides an interactive means of displaying data. The interactive map, linked from the thumbnail shown here, shows the degree to which states’ reading and math assessments differ from the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the standard US metric for achievement.
The results from fewer than 5% of the states’ tests (~2*50) tests are higher than the NAEP. Mostly, it is far easier to meet standards on the state tests. In the image that I’ve clipped here, one can see that fewer students are judged proficient on South Carolina’s 8th-grade math assessment than on the NAEP. Thus the South Carolina test is more demanding than the NAEP.
To compare across states (i.e., to see where SC’s students stand nationally), one would need to have a consistent measuring stick. The NAEP provides such. States’ high-stakes tests clearly do not.
Because of the way that NAEP scores are developed, this comparison is not based on the scores of the same student on each test, but rather, on an overall comparison. There are lots of technical ins and outs about these comparisons, but the big picture is informative.
I’m attending a meeting of the federal Reading First Advisory Committee and, as serendipity would have it, I stumbled on this article. We were just discussing the problems we’re encountering with not-comparable measures of reading progress across the states; as a result, we’re having a difficult time assessing the effects that Reading First is having on children’s outcomes.
To learn more about the Education Trust, visit the organization’s site. To view another interactive map that allows one to download a detailed comparison of each individual state’s testing, click here. To download a copy of a relevant scholaraly paper from Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation by Bert Stoneberg, look here.
Flash of the electrons to Maya Frost for her post that alerted me to the Time article.
Sphere: Related ContentYes, I have more important things to do than browse cartoons, but I just spent a bit of time looking at “Weapons of Math Destruction,” a string of cartoons conceived by Oak Norton and drawn by Bob Bonham. Many of these are a hoot.
Follow this link to get to the full site where you can explore at your leisure. Follow this link to read Mr. Norton’s account of how the cartoons came into being. Follow this link to see why I blame Barry Garelick for distracting me. Follow any link to Kitchen Table Math to see why I flash the old electrons at Catherine Johnson for keeping me informed.
Sphere: Related ContentThe What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences that is currently under contract to American Institutes of Research, released several sets of new reports. The reports cover topics in (a) beginning reading, (b) drop-out prevention, (c) early childhood education, (d) elementary school math, (e) English lanaguage learning, and (f) middle school. Here’s a clipping from the release notice.
Continue reading ‘WWC releases more results’
Sometimes it just gets to me.
Learning Upgrade may have fabulous products that produce wondrous outcomes for students (I do not know whether the company does), but I’m not buying those products on the basis of testimonial evidence. The Web site’s blog offers testimonial statements (e.g., “Reading Upgrade Helps Texas 3rd Graders Avoid Retention” and “Teenager with Learning Difficulties Makes 3 Years Growth With Comprehension Upgrade“) that are no more than anecdotal evidence.
Continue reading ‘Testimonials don’t count’
Our tour of the Republic of Korea has been wonderful. The temples, the foods, and (especially) the people have been quite delightful. Although Pat Lloyd and I have been seeing some sights, I’ve also been meeting with special educators in Changwon, Busan, and Seoul.
Continue reading ‘Korea talks’
The Best Evidence Encyclopedia (BEE) from the Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education (CDDRE) at the Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore, MD, US) provides a marvelous set of resources to help educators and the public understand effective practices. BEE, which is funded by the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education, summarizes the results of meta-analyses or other integrative sumamaries that have examined the efficacy of curricula, computer applications, and instructional practices.
Continue reading ‘BEE cool’
Bad Behavior has blocked 1044 access attempts in the last 7 days.
*/goog +1 script added 20110711 */
Recent Comments