How many tests is a HS teacher now required to give to his students, as compared to ten years ago?

New Jersey high school teacher Dan Ferat reflects on how many tests he is now required to give to his students, as compared to ten years ago.

So, in only ten years, we have gone from students taking five exams per year (six for juniors with the HSPA) to 34 exams per year (30 for seniors) with many more in sight because there will be a PARCC for EVERY SUBJECT supposedly because there are CCCS for every subject except electives (plus those PSAT/SAT/ACT tests which I’m not even counting).

Forget the amount of time teachers will have to spend grading all these exams and writing them and adjusting them over the years. Honestly, that’s beside the point when it comes to education. It’s true we don’t get enough time “on the clock” as it is, but the real issue is the students. See, I always thought education was about LEARNING a subject in a classroom from readings, teachers, and experiences (like labs). But with all this testing, there will be less learning and more studying for tests. We teachers are evaluated on how well our students do on all the tests, so of course we’re going to teach to them. One would be a complete moron not to since one can wind up fired if one gets too low scores in two years. This will narrow curricula, which means less information and fewer skills learned. It will standardize curricula more, which means fewer choices for students and less of a need for EXPERIENCED TEACHERS, who share so much of their insight and experiences with students to bring their subjects to life. But if everything is just straight out of a book, like a script, all you need is a warm body to watch the kids and lead them through the standardized curriculum.

If parents understood this, they would not be happy. They would begin to recognize what the legislators and the federal government are doing to undermine genuine education and to dampen students’ ardor for learning as well as to demoralize teachers.

In defense of Common Core

What matters most is whether the new curriculum standards are an improvement. They are.

 March 13, 2014|By The Los Angeles Times editorial board

If there's anything more surprising than how quickly and calmly 45 states embraced the new Common Core curriculum standards, it's how quickly and contentiously the backlash erupted.

The standards, which California adopted in 2010, outline the skills and knowledge public school students should acquire in each grade from kindergarten through high school. Overall, they call for covering fewer topics, but covering each more deeply. They require students to think their way through math problems, rather than taking so much direct instruction from teachers. More careful reading is another part of the standards, along with the reading of more nonfiction. Students do more analysis and a lot more writing.

But almost as soon as the new standards got underway — most California schools began teaching the related curriculum this year — the coalition began to shred. Tea party conservatives claimed that the standards were being pushed too assiduously by the federal government, intruding on the states' authority to set curriculum. There's some justification for that argument. The Obama administration demanded higher academic standards from states that wanted federal grants or some freedom from the onerous No Child Left Behind law; though the Common Core standards were developed under the aegis of the National Governors Assn. and adopted by states voluntarily, it was known that embracing them would increase a state's chances of federal beneficence.

There's also a pragmatic motivation behind conservative opposition to Common Core: Its success would represent a political victory for the administration.

Backlash has also come from parents and teachers' unions, who rightly argue that the standards have been implemented hastily and sloppily in too many states. They have legitimate worries that schools and teachers will be held responsible for student performance on standardized tests even as they try to work out the kinks in a dramatically new set of expectations. Researchers recently reported that, so far, there are no textbooks that are truly aligned with Common Core standards.

Several state legislatures are now pushing back. Bills in Georgia and Wyoming call for reviewing the standards with a possible eye to junking them; legislation in Wisconsin and Alabama would repeal Common Core altogether. New York is delaying full implementation after a rushed and botched start. At the federal level, Republican legislators have introduced bills and a resolution that would scold the administration for pushing the standards, and bar any use of federal grants or regulatory favors as a reward for adopting them.

What gets lost amid the political and administrative squabbling is the issue that ought to matter most: whether the Common Core standards are a solid improvement on what most states, including California, had before. And with a few caveats, they are. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics praises them for following a more logical track in building math skills. The standards are also more closely aligned with how the top-scoring nations in international tests teach math. Educators are pleased that students will do more writing under the standards; colleges have long complained about the poor writing skills of incoming students.

California's old curriculum standards were particularly well known for being a mile wide and an inch deep. Here's one small example: In the middle of second grade, students were taught about obtuse and acute angles even though they had no geometry background to understand the concept. Although they didn't know what a right angle was or how many degrees it had, they would do a few work sheets and then drop the subject for several years.

The Common Core standards eliminate that sort of nonsense and build, from the earliest years, understanding of topics that now befuddle many students, such as multiplying and dividing fractions. In kindergarten, they might start very simply: folding paper in half, and in half again.

Criticism of Common Core — of the standards themselves, not the politics or implementation — focuses on a few areas. One is that while in many states, including California, most students are supposed to take Algebra 1 in eighth grade, under the new standards most take that or an equivalent course as high school freshmen. That gives them no time to reach calculus in high school, though advanced students may follow an accelerated course of study that allows it. If any group ought to be worried about that, it would be mathematicians. Yet the Mathematical Assn. of America says it isn't a problem. It's more important, a spokesman said, for students to get a deeper understanding of what they're being taught; and besides, the idea that a high school education must include calculus is outmoded.

4 arguments used by Stop Common Core RI in their opposition to Common Core

1)   Common Core and Teaching to the Test

Posted by Tad · January 08, 2014 4:20 PM

FACT: Imposing the high-stakes testing known as PARCC greatly increases the risk of “teaching to the test” and choosing curricula with testing in mind.

The National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National School Boards Association statement

May 29, 2013

https://www.aasa.org/aasablog.aspx?id=28590&blogid=286

 “While assessment has an important role to play as one of multiple measures for evaluating student learning and achievement, the continued reliance on one-time testing diverts attention away from content and the substance of what is being taught. This is especially problematic when the one-time tests are brand-new, recently aligned with new standards, and schools have had insufficient time to prepare teachers to meaningfully incorporate the standards and aligned assessments into their teaching.”

---

---

Principal: ‘I was naïve about Common Core’

March 4 2013

Valerie Strauss, citing: Carol Burris, Principal of South Side High School in New York. Burris was named the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/04/principal-i-was-naive-about-common-core/

“I confess that I was naïve. I should have known in an age in which standardized tests direct teaching and learning, that the standards themselves would quickly become operationalized by tests. Testing, coupled with the evaluation of teachers by scores, is driving its implementation. The promise of the Common Core is dying and teaching and learning are being distorted. The well that should sustain the Core has been poisoned.”

2)  The Common Core is Untried, Untested, and Unproven

Posted by Tad · January 08, 2014 4:19 PM

FACT: The Common Core standards are untried, untested and unproven. They have been adopted without field-testing in Rhode Island or any state to determine whether they will produce better outcomes for students compared to our current system of education.

Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards

Feb 26, 2013

Diane Ravitch, Education historian and expert, Research professor at New York University. Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education.

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/

 "I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation.
 “The Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states and the District of Columbia without any field test. They are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers, or schools. We are a nation of guinea pigs, almost all trying an unknown new program at the same time.
 “Maybe the standards will be great. Maybe they will be a disaster. Maybe they will improve achievement. Maybe they will widen the achievement gaps between haves and have-nots. Maybe they will cause the children who now struggle to give up altogether. Would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences?”

---

---

The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning? 

Brown Center on Education Policy, The Brookings Institution 

February 2012

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/newsletters/0216_brown_education_loveless.pdf

“Despite all the money and effort devoted to developing the Common Core State Standards—not to mention the simmering controversy over their adoption in several states—the study foresees little to no impact on student learning. That conclusion is based on analyzing states’ past experience with standards and examining several years of scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).”

3)  Corporate Influence on Common Core Curriculum

Posted by Tad · January 08, 2014 4:25 PM

FACT: By default, Common Core requires local school districts in Rhode Island to implement untested new curricula and purchase or deploy aligned educational materials. Many of these systems and materials (e.g. curriculum maps, text books, worksheets, etc.) were developed by corporations or special interests with a direct financial or ideological stake in their purchase or adoption.

Testimony for a Hearing on House Bill No. 2923 

April 14, 2011

Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, University of Arkansas

http://coehp.uark.edu/colleague/9863.php

 “Both testing consortia, funded by the USDE, are currently developing curriculum frameworks, models, and guides, as well as instructional materials, behind closed doors, with no public procedures for the selection of curriculum developers, for public comment and further revision, and for final public approval if what the USDE and these testing consortia are doing is constitutional and legal.”

4)  The Common Core was Undemocratically Enacted

Posted by Tad · January 13, 2014 2:26 PM

FACT: Common Core was imposed on Rhode Island without a single vote by a single democratically elected member of any local school board, town council, city council or legislative body in the state.

Rhode Island Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

FAQ

August 2, 2011

http://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Common-Core/Common-Core-State-Standards-Initiative-FAQ-8-22-11.pdf

"The Rhode Island Board of Regents voted on July 1, 2010 to adopt the Common Core State Standards. This adoption underscores Rhode Island’s commitment to maintaining high standards for all of its students."

EDITOR’S NOTE:  The RI Board of Regents was not elected by the people of Rhode Island.  Board members are appointed by the Governor.

---

---

Common Core Standards: Ten Colossal Errors

Education Week

November 16, 2013

Anythony Cody, Education Expert, 18 years teaching science and math at Bret Harte Middle School in Oakland, California. National Board Certified in Early Adolescent Science, and holds Physical and Life Science credentials.

http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/11/common_core_standards_ten_colo.html

“The process for adopting the Common Core was remarkably speedy and expedient.  Once the standards were finalized and copyrighted, all that was required for states to adopt them were two signatures: the governor and the state superintendent of education. Two individuals made this decision in state after state, largely without public hearings or input. Robert Scott, former state Commissioner of Education in Texas, said that he was asked to approve the standards before there was even a final draft.”

---

---

Why I Cannot Support the Common Core Standards

Blog Post

Feb 26, 2013

Diane Ravitch, Education historian and expert, Research professor at New York University. Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education.

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/

“President Obama and Secretary Duncan often say that the Common Core standards were developed by the states and voluntarily adopted by them. This is not true.
“They were developed by an organization called Achieve and the National Governors Association, both of which were generously funded by the Gates Foundation. There was minimal public engagement in the development of the Common Core. Their creation was neither grassroots nor did it emanate from the states.”

 

The National Education Association, Rhode Island, votes to oppose NECAP test as graduation requirement

By Linda Borg Linda Borg Providence Journal

lborg@providencejournal.com

Published: March 25 2014 11:33

 PROVIDENCE, R.I. —  Local leaders of the National Education Association Rhode Island (NEARI) voted unanimously Thursday to “take a firm stance” on the use of high-stakes testing and the corresponding national Common Core curriculum.

More than 100 representatives voted at the organization’s tri-annual meeting of the delegate assembly. Specifically, they called for the following three actions:
– The immediate end to the use of NECAP testing. The NEA, R. I., says Rhode Island Department of Education has now spent money on three different NECAP tests, allowed the use of 10 alternative tests, and allowed districts to develop waivers for students to meet their graduation requirements. Additionally, as districts transition to Common Core State Standards, there is little education value in giving a test while instructing students using a different set of criteria.
– A moratorium on the use of  the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, a test that will replace the NECAP in all but high school next year, as a graduation requirement and teacher evaluation tool. NEA says teachers, principals and superintendents have raised concerns that districts will not have the time necessary to adequately prepare curriculum for PARCC testing prior to using it as a basis for evaluation of both students and teachers.
– A thoughtful, collaborative approach to the development of the Common Core curriculum.  The NEA, R.I., says the input of educators in the development of appropriate curriculum to meet the standards is essential, yet the state Board of Education and RIDE continue to press forward without the participation of classroom professionals.
NEAR, R.I. President Larry Purtill said,  “We understand and support the commissioner’s request to the US Department of Education regarding a waiver until 2017 for PARCC to be part of teacher evaluation, but believe we need to go further.”
Purtill says that the value of NECAP testing has been undermined by the wide availability of alternative testing. He said, “Now that RIDE has given the test three times, offered 10 alternative tests, and created a waiver system, it is quite clear that NECAP has lost any real educational purpose. At what cost, both to students and taxpayers, have we instituted such relentless testing?”
“It is time, starting today” he said, “for the Board of Education and RIDE to listen to educators, students and parents and stop charging forward blindly with a test that clearly is not working.”
– Correction: The NEA, R.I., does not oppose moving to the Common Core standards.

Opposition to the Common Core Grows in Rhode Island

By Elisabeth Harrison:  RI Public Radio:  March 21, 2014

A trial run for the new standardized test known as the PARCC exam begins in Rhode Island next week. The test is slated to replace the annual NECAP in 2015, as public schools transition to a new set of standards called the Common Core.

A growing group of parents, teachers and others continue to raise questions about test and the Common Core. They are calling on Rhode Island lawmakers to stop the initiative in a movement that mirrors similar anti-Common Core efforts around the country.

In Rhode Island, some of the most vocal criticism has surfaced in Barrington, which might seem like an unlikely place for a rebellion against state education policy.  Barrington is known for pricey, waterfront real estate and some of the best public schools in the state, but parents Tad and Amy Segal fear the Common Core is putting those schools and their two children at risk.  “These kids are coming home stressed, they’re coming home complaining about the worksheets they’re having to do in school. It is a very different experience from when we went to Kindergarten,” said Tad Segal.

Segal first became concerned about the Common Core when his daughter started Kindergarten in the fall. Instead of bringing home the usual, colorful art projects, he noticed her backpack filling up with worksheets with the words "Common Core" at the bottom in big, black letters. His wife, Amy Segal, says a couple of times her daughter has broken down in tears, saying she hates school.
“My biggest complaint also has been just the lack of play in the classroom," said Segal. "They spend a lot of their time working on these common core standards and therefore the things that used to be very important, the play, interactions with other students, they are gone.” said Segal.
Alarmed, the Segals organized a meeting with other parents and soon found they weren’t the only ones with concerns. They started a Facebook page and a website called stopcommoncoreri.org and began circulating a petition calling for the state to remove Rhode Island from the Common Core Standards initiative. There are now Facebook groups against the common core from Tiverton to Burrillville.

“It’s a national experiment what’s going on, these standards were never tried on kids,” said Scott Fuller, a member of the Barrington School Committee and a high school math teacher.  Fuller points out that the Common Core has never been tested, and now it is being adopted in more than 40 states across the country.  “Between teachers and kids, we have no idea what the outcomes will be and that’s one of my biggest problems with this,”Fuller said.

 The Common Core standards were written through an initiative of the National Governor’s Association, which brought school administrators, teachers, content experts and others together to write the standards. Rhode Island Education Commissioner Deborah Gist maintains they are meant to provide a guideline for teachers.

 “They do not dictate what happens in the classroom in terms of the activities or the lessons, the books or the curriculum," Gist said. "They are a set of expectations, so they describe what we want students to know and be able to do but they don’t say how they should be taught.”

Marilyn Adams, an expert on early reading and a professor of cognitive and linguistic sciences at Brown University helped write the standards for early reading. She says the result is far from perfect, but she does believe it is better than almost any other set of state standards out there.

“And by the time you get to the upper grades, they’re stronger than anything out there, they really are," Adams said. "In terms of literature, in terms of writing, in terms of thoughtfulness that’s expected to permeate the curriculum, they are intellectually stronger.”

 Critics of the Common Core say it may be demanding too much of students. A common complaint is that the standards call for students to demonstrate some skills before they are developmentally ready.

But Deborah Lowenberg Ball, a national expert on math education and the dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan disagrees. She spent more than 15 years as an elementary school teacher.  “I’ve been teaching for a long time, and I have repeatedly taught that sort of content to children at this level , and they haven’t been particularly advanced children, they’ve been regular kids,” said Ball.  Ball believes that not only can students learn this material, The Common Core represents a major step forward because it asks students to analyze and discuss math problems in much the same way you would analyze literature.   “If it’s well taught, I think we will see kids subscribing to and being much more interested in mathematics because I think we will be engaging them in much more significant  mathematical questions and problems than we have before,” said Ball.

 But Barrington Parents Tad and Amy Segal say the new thinking about mathematics sounds better than it is. They have been watching their son, a sixth grader, get confused as his teachers ask him to explain several different ways to solve basic problems. Take long division, for example, Tad Segal says his son used to understand long division, but not anymore.  “He’s now been taught several different ways to do long division including one that uses a whole series of steps that are convoluted and confusing. And what’s happened is that he’s lost out on a clear path to learning long division,” Segal said.  What’s more, the Segals say teachers are rushing students through some material as they try to catch up to the Common Core.

 Teachers like math teacher and Barrington School Committee member Scott Fuller are struggling with how to integrate the Common Core into their classrooms. Fuller describes it like driving in a fog because even though he is familiar with the new standards, he has no idea what the new test linked to the standards will actually require students to know.  “At some point we’ll have to teach more specifically to the test because that’s how our kids will be measured, and frankly if this all goes through down the road that’s how teachers will be evaluated in a few years as well," Fuller said.

How teachers and students are evaluated is increasingly linked to test scores, and whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Common Core, Brown Education Professor John Papay says, ultimately, its impact may also depend on testing.  “Those are the standards teachers will spend more time working on and more time teaching. And so in some cases there’s growing evidence that really the test is defining what goes on in the classroom more than the standards policy makers have set,” said Papay.

Good or bad, the standards are already being used in Rhode Island classrooms, and without action from the legislature or the board of education, the test that goes with them is coming. Some 9,000 students in 260 schools around the state will take a practice version of the exam starting Monday.

The mess that Race to the Top has inflicted on Connecticut's schools

by Diane Ravitch   3/19/2014

What a mess in Connecticut!
Robert A. Frahm writes in the Connecticut Mirror about how teachers and principals are struggling with the state’s test-based evaluation system. Teachers waste time setting paperwork goals that are low enough to make statistical “gains.” If they don’t, they may be rated ineffective.
Every principal spends hours observing teachers—one hour each time—taking copious notes, then spending hours writing up the observations.
Connecticut, one of the two or three top scoring states in the nation on NAEP (the others are Massachusetts and New Jersey), is drowning its schools and educators in mandates and paperwork.
Why? Race to the Top says it is absolutely necessary. Connecticut didn’t win Race to the Top funding, but the state is doing what Arne Duncan believes in. Stefan Pryor, the state commissioner, loves evaluating by test scores, but that’s no surprise because he was never a teacher; he is a law school graduate and co-founder of a “no excuses” charter school chain in Connecticut that is devoted to test scores at all times. The charter chain he founded is known for its high suspension rate, its high scores, and its limited enrollment of English learners.
Researchers have shown again and again that test-based accountability is flawed, inaccurate, unstable. It doesn’t work in theory, and it has not worked in five years of experience.
The article quotes the conservative advocacy group, National Council for Teacher Quality, which applauds this discredited methodology. NCTQ is neither an accrediting body nor a research organization.
Our nation’s leading scholars and scholarly organizations have criticized test-based accountability.
In 2010, some of the nation’s most highly accomplished scholars in testing, including Robert Linn, Eva Baker, Richard Shavelson, and Lorrie Shepard, spoke out against the misuse of test scores to judge teacher quality.
The American Educational Research Association and the National Academy of Education issued a joint statement warning about VAM.
Many noted scholars, like Edward Haertel, Linda Darling Hammond, and David Berliner, have warned about the lack of “science” behind VAM.
The highly esteemed National Research Council issued a report warning that test-based accountability had not succeeded and was unlikely to succeed. Marc Tucker recently described the failure of test-based accountability.
But the carefully researched views of our nation’s leading scholars were tossed aside by Arne Duncan, the Gates Foundation, and the phalanx of rightwing groups that support their agenda of demoralizing teachers, clearing out those who are veterans, and turning teaching into a short-time temp job.
The article cites New Haven as an example:
“Four years ago, New Haven schools won national attention when the district and the teachers’ union developed an evaluation system that uses test results as a factor in rating teachers. Since then, dozens of teachers have resigned or been dismissed as a result of the evaluations. Last year, 20 teachers, about 1 percent of the workforce, left the district after receiving poor evaluations.”
Four years later, can anyone say that New Haven is now the best district in Connecticut? Has the achievement gap closed? Time for another investigative report.

Testing the (PARCC) Test

Below is an article on the field testing of the PARCC test.  I have a couple of questions:

1) Do the students know that "scores from the practice test will not count for any student or teacher evaluations"?  If they know that, will they not try to their fullest?  This was a problem with the NECAP in the earlier stages.

2) Will this testing be on top of NECAP testing?  How much total time will students that take both the NECAP and PAARC spend in testing (and, therefore, not learning)?

Testing the Test

 

By Elisabeth Harrison  of the Providence Journal; 3/18/2014

In school districts across Rhode Island, some 9,000 students are about to get a taste of the test replacing NECAP next year. The students are participating in field testing for the test, known as PARCC, starting next week.
PARCC is slated to be used in 17 states. Rhode Island's Education Commissioner Deborah Gist says the field testing comes as designers refine the exam, and will give teachers, administrators and students a chance to prepare for next year.
"So there are about 9,000 students who are participating in the PARCC testing in about 260 of our schools," Gist said. "Its just a sampling really of different grades and classes at schools across the state."
Scores from the practice test will not count for any students or teacher evaluations. Gist says the field testing will involve 3-5 hours of testing for students, spread out over a three-week period.
The PARCC test represents a transition to computer-based testing in Rhode Island, which means school districts must have enough computers available to their students. Paper versions of PARCC will be available for next year and for the upcoming practice test.
Rhode Island is one of several states where critics have moved to delay implementation of PARCC, arguing the test is too hard. It was designed to include a large portion of short and long answer questions, instead of the multiple choice questions common in standardized testing
Rhode Island Education Commissioner Deborah Gist rejects claims the new test is too difficult. She says it is complex, but she believes it will push students just the right amount.
"We don’t want to create a culture in our schools where people feel stressed out," Gist said. "But we want them to be stretched, we want them to strive to the greatest of their abilities."
When PARCC is in full effect, it will be administered twice a year, once in April and once closer to the end of the school year.

Block Scheduling: A Solution or a Problem?

by Sharon Cromwell:  Education World

The merits of block scheduling are a subject of great debate. Is it a flexible scheduling alternative that benefits students -- or is it a fad that's sure to pass?
Schools throughout the United States are adopting block scheduling in dramatically increasing numbers. The move to block scheduling, however, has sparked controversy.
Hailed by proponents as a vehicle for greater depth and flexibility in education, block scheduling has turned off some educators and parents, who criticize it as a faddish approach that fails to enhance academic performance.

WHAT IS BLOCK SCHEDULING?
In an article titled "All Around the Block: The Benefits and Challenges of a Non-Traditional School Schedule," Michael D. Rettig and Robert Lynn Canady estimate that "more than 50 percent of high schools in the United States are either using or considering a form of block scheduling."
In contrast with the traditional daily, six-, seven-, or eight-period schedule, a block schedule consists of three or four daily longer periods. Widely used forms of block scheduling are the alternate-day schedule, the 4/4 semester plan, and the trimester plan.

In the alternate-day schedule students and teachers meet every-other-day for extended time periods rather than meeting every day for shorter periods.

In the 4/4 semester plan students complete four "yearlong" courses that meet for about 90 minutes every day during a 90-day semester.

Students take two or three courses every 60 days in a trimester plan to earn six to nine credits per year.

Many schools work with schedules that are variations or combinations of these plans. For example, a school in Broward County, Florida, has adapted the trimester plan by adding three year-long classes to six trimester courses in order to accommodate musical performing groups and Advance Placement subjects, which need or prefer to go year round. Other school districts combine long terms and short terms to provide time for remediation and enrichment for students, as needed.

THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE TREND
Rettig and Canady maintain that a handful of factors are motivating middle and high schools across the United States to adopt block scheduling:

• When students attend as many as eight relatively short classes in different subjects every day, instruction can become fragmented; longer class periods give students more time to think and engage in active learning.
• A schedule with one relatively short period after another can create a hectic, assembly-line environment;
• A schedule that releases hundreds or thousands of adolescents into hallways six, seven, or eight times each school day for four or five minutes of noise and chaotic movement can exacerbate discipline problems.
• Teachers benefit from more useable instructional time each day because less time is lost with beginning and ending classes.

A 1995 study by Carl Glickman, a University of Georgia professor, of 820 high schools and 11,000 students reported that schools in which active learning methods were predominant had significantly higher achievement as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Teachers at schools with block scheduling may use longer instructional periods to engage students in experiments, writing, and other forms of active learning, as opposed to merely lecturing students.
In addition, the alternate-day schedule reduces the time teachers spend in record keeping because records need be kept only every other day instead of every day.
In the 4/4 format, in any one semester teachers prepare for fewer courses and work with fewer students. Grades and records need be kept for fewer students per semester. In addition, some students graduate in three years or earn a year of college credit while still in high school because eight credits can be earned each school year.

THE COPERNICAN PLAN
Like block scheduling, the Copernican Plan, developed by Joseph M. Carroll, also challenges the traditional organization of secondary schools. According to Carroll, a former superintendent who is now an education consultant and author, nothing is wrong with the traditional schedule "except that it prevents teachers from teaching well and students from learning well." Carroll also says that under a traditional secondary schedule, "teachers cannot deal meaningfully with every student every day..."

"Four hundred years ago, the renaissance scholar Copernicus demonstrated the unsystematic movements of the planets could be systematically explained if one begins with the assumption that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the universe (as was then thought)," Carroll explains. "Similarly, our Copernican Plan [challenges] tradition, the traditional organization of our secondary schools and particularly our high schools. Like Copernicus, the plan deals with facts and research that has been known for a long time, but which never seemed to make sense in the real world of schools."

"The Copernican Plan is not about 'block scheduling.' It is about the relationship between time and learning," Carroll adds. It involves change based on research and change that is systemic. It has a built-in method of continuing evaluation.
Carroll emphasizes that the Copernican Plan is not an end; it is a means to an end.

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Even though more and more schools are switching to block scheduling, the approach has drawn fire from some educators and parents. Critics of block scheduling assert that the new scheduling format creates or exacerbates certain educational problems.
What will students do for 90-minute periods? critics ask. Proponents of block scheduling cite active learning as the key to keeping students engaged and learning during longer periods. But, even with a block-scheduling format, critics say, many teachers continue simply to lecture students rather than engaging them in active learning. Block scheduling in itself is no guarantee of active learning. And if active learning doesn't take place during, for example, a 90-minute class period, students may have trouble paying attention for the entire class.
Opponents of block scheduling, like the group Parents for Academic Excellence based in Lansdale, Pennsylvania, point out that student absences create problems under block scheduling. Making up missed work is always difficult. But when a student misses one day of classes under block scheduling, the student misses the equivalent of two days of instruction under the traditional system. A weeklong absence means the student misses two weeks of material. Such an absence may cause a student to fall behind to the extent that making up the work is difficult.
Teacher absences may lead to other problems, according to doubters. Under block scheduling, will a substitute teacher be qualified to teach 90-minute periods of, for example, physics?
Courses like languages or mathematics are sequential. Some critics of block scheduling point out that a student may take French I in the fall, not take French at all in the spring, go through the summer, and then take French II the following fall. At issue is how much French the student will recall after a break of several months. Advocates of block scheduling say most forgetting happens in the first few weeks after a course is taken. Yet critics point to studies that indicate greater memory loss over longer periods of time.
A practical hurdle also stands in the way of block scheduling in some school districts. A state arbitration panel in Connecticut recently ruled that Region 13, covering the towns of Durham and Middlefield, would have to pay teachers more under a proposed block schedule plan because teachers would be required to teach six different courses a year instead of five courses. The panel ruled that teachers should be compensated for added preparation time involved in an extra course, even if the teachers would teach for the same length of time. The school district still adopted block schedule after the ruling, but it reconfigured its scheduling to ensure that each teacher is responsible for only five courses.

WHAT ABOUT COMPROMISE?
Once advocates and opponents of block scheduling become entrenched, compromise between the groups can be difficult. In districts that have experienced a smooth transition to block scheduling, the administration has generally dealt with internal opposition that might exist among the staff and brought teachers on board before.
Here are Joseph M. Carroll's recommendations for handling the change process:

• "Process is not product." Don't let the process of change itself dominate for too long.
• "Successful change must be research-based and systemic." Center the process of change on developing a system based on sound instructional research and research-based evaluations of programs that led to improved student performance.
• "Leadership is critical." Leaders must be crystal clear about what they want.
• "Change the whole school at once." School-within-a-school or pilot programs threaten people without establishing a program.
• "Evaluate, evaluate, evaluate." Make evaluation an integral part of the program.
• "A caveat: Beware of the gifted opposition." Teachers and parents connected with honors courses are succeeding under the current system; often they view change as a threat to their position.
• "Determine how much change a school community can absorb." Limit the number of changes and sequence them carefully.

REFERENCES
Block Scheduling: A Catalyst for Change in High Schools, by Robert L. Canady and Michael D. Rettig, Eye On Education, Princeton, N.J.
The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution and The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the American High School, by Joseph M. Carroll, Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, 300 Brickstone Square, Suite 900, Andover, Mass. 01983.
Think About Block Scheduling, by Robin J. Fogarty, IRI Skylight Training and Publishing, Palatine, Ill.
Retooling the Instructional Day, by Gerald E. Kosanovic, National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, (703) 860-7227
"Debunking the Semesterizing Myth," by Dennis Raphael, M.W. Walstrom, and L.D. McLean, Canadian Journal of Education, Winter 1986
"Science Achievement in Semester and All-Year Courses," by David J. Bateson, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, March 1990

***************************************************************************
WHAT'S BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH BLOCK SCHEDULING?
  

The effect of De-tracking on AP and non-AP students

by Jim Buxton (Ed Prof Salve Regina U; Poly Sci. Prof. URI)

It seems to me that more and more schools are opting for heterogeneous, as opposed to homogeneous, classes.  In homogeneous classes, you would have students with fairly even academic levels.  This process is called "tracking."  In heterogeneous classes, you’d have a full spectrum of abilities. 

An example of this would be if a school reduced the amount of US History levels from 3 to 2.  So, let’s say that a high school were to have 3 levels of US History.  The top level, Honors USH, might have 20% of the USH students.  The “lowest” level might have 20% of USH students in USH - B, and lastly the Masses (60%) would be in USH-A.  Then, driven by support for heterogeneity, or to de-track the USH classes, the school might combine USH-A and USH-B into one level.

The logic for this move is convincing.  The former USH-B students, in a homogeneous (tracked) system, generally had students that were more alienated, more problematic in regard to behavior, less likely to do homework and more likely to have learning disabilities. By lumping them altogether in one class, you make it more difficult for any of them to succeed.  There are few role models in regard to homework, more distractions in the classroom and a slower pace in regard to the teaching and learning.  Critics of a tracked system which lumps the very talented in one room, and the educationally challenged in another room, argue that this policy can also be racist because of the disproportionate amount of “children of color” in the lowest level US History class.  Hence, as a result of the above, many schools are opting to lump the middle and lower levels together, arguing that in doing so, they are more “democratic.”

Defenders of this policy move say that the resultant heterogeneous grouping is good for both the former USH-As and USH-Bs.  The USH-Bs benefit from a more well behaved classroom, a classroom culture that may more likely do homework, etc.  Supporters of the move away from tracking contend that the USH-As benefit from their likely role in tutoring some of the USH-Bs, and from other leadership experiences they might more likely have.

I would hypothesize that the grades that USH-As get are better in the “mixed classroom.”  Hence, USH-A parents, who measure success by grades, may feel that their kids are actually doing better in the “mixed classroom” and therefore may support the policy.

Grades for some of the former USH-Bs may increase due to some of the factors previously mentioned.  Some former USH-Bs may see a drop in grades if the teacher holds to the old USH-A standards   If the teacher does accommodate the USH-Bs, then the grades of former USH-As may indeed go up.

Here are my bottom line questions: 
1) If heterogeneity is such a positive, democratic move which would theoretically  benefit all students, then why not follow that line of thinking across the board?  Why not mix USH-Honors (or AP) with the USH-A and USH-B?   I think I know why!!??

2) How was your experience with homogeneous and heterogeneous classes?  What were the relative benefits of each?

3) Defenders of heterogeneous grouping say that the key to success is differentiated instruction.  They say the teacher can teach various levels within the same class.  Therefore, within a class, you might have

different groups working on different forms of the same content, which might lead to varied products and   assessments. Did you have any teachers that did this well?

4)  As de-tracking leads to a mixing of the bottom two tiers resulting in just two levels of US History, for example, will this lead to an increase in former "mid-level" US History students to "emigrate" to the AP History course, and perhaps find themselves over their head.  Might this not lead to dropping scores on the AP exams, as discussed in the following article, by Elisabeth Harrison, RIPR

RI Lags on AP testing

More Rhode Island students are taking Advanced Placement tests, but they are not passing at the same rates as their peers around the country.

 The College Board has just released its annual report on AP testing. The study shows that nearly 2,500 members of Rhode Island’s class of 2013 took an AP exam, up from roughly 1,000 in 2003. The number represents more than a quarter of all high school graduates.

 But as the number of test takers has increased, the percentage of students passing the exams has fallen.

Just 14.6 percent of last year’s senior class earned a three or better, below the national average of 20 percent. Rhode Island ranks in the bottom 10 for school systems nationwide, on par with Alaska and just slightly better than the District of Columbia.

Elsewhere in New England, 28.8 percent of Connecticut students passed at least one AP exam, the second highest rate in the country. Massachusetts ranked in the top five, with 27.9 percent of students passing. Vermont and Maine also ranked above the national average.

The study also reveals significant disparities for black and Hispanic students taking AP exams in Rhode Island. Far fewer minority students take the tests, although participation has increased, especially among Hispanic students, and far fewer minority students earn at least a three.

In the class of 2013, just two percent of black students and 10 percent of Hispanic students earned a three or better, compared with nearly 80 percent of white students.

Nearly 70 percent of white students took an AP test, down from more than 80 percent in 2003.

Explaining the Common Core Standards

By Elisabeth Harrison; Providence Journal;

Feb 26, 2014  

Rhode Island lawmakers are slated to consider a bill Wednesday that takes on one of the  most contentious issues in public education. The bill calls for a commission to study the Common Core Standards, a new set of national standards for K-12 classrooms.
Rhode Island teachers are already using the standards, and they will soon give students a new standardized test to go with them, but a growing number of critics charge the standards are stressing students out.
 So, what exactly are standards, and what are they supposed to achieve? To answer that question, I stopped by the Brown University office of John Papay, an assistant professor of education.
"Standards are what policy makers say should be taught in schools," Papay explained, adding that sometime around the mid-1990's, the idea of standards started gaining traction.

Policy makers like the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics got together to write guidelines that were supposed to help teachers in public schools.  "So policy makers decide what in a third grade mathematics classroom, what are the types of things we think should be covered, and those are the standards for that year," Papay said.

The standards set out specific learning goals for every grade level, things like learning to recognize letters or count to 100. It’s kind of like learning to play an instrument like the piano, at least that’s how Deborah Ball, Dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan puts it. You have to break down learning into distinct parts.  "You can’t imagine that people learn to play the piano by doing just anything they feel like on the instrument," Ball said. "It’s actually pretty important to break down what the components are of competent performance and that includes both dexterity and skill but it also includes some kinds of understanding."  Understanding of how the instrument works, for example, and the different sounds it can make. Take the cello and my producer John Bender. Before he could launch into a piece by Bach, he had to learn the scales. When you start reading you learn the ABC's, and when you learn music its Do Re Mi, and with time and practice you’re off and running.
Deborah Ball, who specializes math education, says all teachers break learning down into smaller parts, but until now there were huge differences in the way that happened across the country.
"So that means if you’re a little kid and you move from town to town or state to state it’s as much as 80-90 percent different," Ball told me.  "Which, from a math education point of view, is really kind of crazy. I mean it’s as though saying kids in Idaho don’t need to place fractions on the number line but kids in St. Louis do. It makes literally no sense."

To solve this problem, the National Governor’s Association decided to create a set of national standards to guide teachers around the country. The group hired a pro-standards advocacy organization called Achieve to spearhead the effort, and the result is called the Common Core State Standards.

Who actually wrote the standards is a little bit unclear. Critics like to say it was Bill Gates, whose foundation has poured more than $170 million into efforts to write the standards and put them in practice around the country, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. But Rhode Island Education Commissioner Deborah Gist says it wasn’t Bill Gates.

"No," said Gist. "There were two organizations that came together and decided to do this work. It was the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. And the actual authors were content experts, education experts, there were teachers, and others involved it was a very inclusive process."

That process included an elementary school teacher from Pawtucket and an expert on early elementary education from Brown University, among others. Gist believes the result is an improvement over the standards Rhode Island has been using for the past decade.

On the math side, they feature fewer concepts but more in-depth understanding, and on the reading side, they include a strong focus on critical analysis of text and literature.
"There’s a much deeper expectation for students to be able to engage with the piece in a way that involves much more critical thinking and requires them to take evidence from the text, and that’s the difference." Gist said.
Sounds good, right? Not so fast.
Critics say the standards place too much emphasis on nonfiction, and they point out the math standards never get to calculus, which is important for students interested in science and engineering.
Another controversy is that the new standards come with new standardized tests, which will be administered twice a year, replacing the annual NECAP. These tests have not yet been used in any classrooms, and that’s part of the reason State Representative Gregg Amore is calling for a pause. He says the state should convene a commission to take a closer look at the test and the standards.
"I have been inundated by phone calls and email from parents who tell me their first, second, third grader is coming home disgusted, crying, upset, having no fun in school," Amore said.  "What has changed?  By and large the teachers have not changed. What’s changed is the standards."
Barrington Parents Tad and Amy Segal say they see that stress in their own children. And another thing they’re worried about, where is the art in the Common Core?
"In fact, I had the teacher even say that unfortunately we don’t have a lot of artwork on the walls, we don’t have the time for it anymore," said Amy Segal, describing a recent parent night at her daughter's elementary school.

The Common Core Standards focus on math, reading, and writing, and Rhode Island is one of a few states also starting to use the science standards. The state has its own standards for art education, but that’s less of a priority in many schools because it’s not part of annual standardized testing.
The Common Core has already entered classrooms in Rhode Island, and the state has spent more than $12 million, mostly in federal grant funding, to prepare teachers and principals. State officials say they plan to move forward with the effort, but a grassroots movement of parents and other critics has started to gather strength, and they’re hoping the general assembly will be more sympathetic to their concerns.

Fox news and Florida Family Association critique of chapter on Islam in World History textbook

Jim Buxton:  This controversy, again, helps us understand why it would be so difficult to develop national History standards acceptable to all.

See below for the controversy regarding a chapter on Islam in a Prentice Hall World History book, a textbook which is widely used:

**********************************************************

Here's the indictment:

Florida Family Association sent out an email alert on December 4, 2013 titled Pearson’s World History text book continues to push biased, imbalanced view of Islam on students.

The alert stated in part:  Prentice Hall’s World History text book with its biased presentation of Islam continues to be used in numerous school districts.  The same company that published a high school text book which embellishes Islamists and belittles Judaism and Christianity also has ownership in The Economist, a leading advertiser on Al Jazeera America. 

 

Thousands of people sent emails to Pearson officials. 

*************************************************************

Here's the response from Pearson Publishing / Prentice Hall

 

John Fallon, an official with Pearson, responded to some people with the following email:

On Dec 5, 2013, at 16:31, "Fallon, John" <john.fallon@pearson.com> wrote:

We’ve recently heard concerns about a Pearson high school textbook used in Brevard County, Florida, entitled Florida World History. Some have claimed that this text, used in a 10th grade course, is biased towards Islam at the expense of Judaism and Christianity.  We’d like to set the record straight.

In Florida, as in other states, Pearson creates custom course materials that align to the state’s specific curriculum standards. Florida’s standards split the world history curriculum into two years of study, in grades 6 and 10.  The state’s standards require the sixth grade curriculum start with early civilizations and continue through to the fall of Rome (476 A.D.).  In the 10th grade, the state’s high school curriculum begins with the Byzantines (330 A.D.), proceeds to the Early Middle Ages in Europe (500 A.D.) and continues to the present day.

The Florida edition of the Pearson high school World History text aligns to the state’s standards, which require that the high school course include content on the origins of Islam, while the middle school text details the earlier origins of Judaism and Christianity. The Florida Department of Education approved the Pearson World History programs for adoption and validated that the content in our programs meets the requirements and educational goals of the state.

Pearson and its authors adhere to the highest editorial standards when creating course materials. We rigorously support the integrity of our content with both internal reviewers and independent expert reviewers. We are committed to presenting balanced, unbiased and accurate coverage of world religions.  The content is thoroughly reviewed by scholars of comparative religion, as well as academic specialists in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Sincerely,

John

John Fallon
Pearson
Always Learning

*********************************************************************

 

Here's the assessment from Todd Starnes: Fox News

 

Mr. Fallon’s response did NOT address the incorrect portrayal of Islam.  Additionally, it is ludicrous to attempt to justify the publishing of dozens of pages about Islam without including other religions because history is taught over a four year period.  This biased, imbalanced book is ALL these students will see in history class for a whole year.   It is prejudicial.  Where is the Prentice Hall book in the other four years with 36 pages devoted to Judaism and Christianity?

The same company that published this high school text book which embellishes Islamists and belittles Judaism and Christianity also has ownership in The Economist, a leading advertiser on Al Jazeera America.

Prentice Hall’s World History text book with its biased presentation of Islam continues to be used in numerous school districts.  Parents have voiced concern in several school districts regarding the book’s dishonest rewrite of history regarding Islam and the omission of Judaism and Christianity.

Pearson plc owns Prentice Hall.  Pearson also owns a fifty percent stake in The Economist Group. The Economist has been a top advertiser on Al Jazeera America during the past two months.   Pearson plc also owns the Financial Times. If Pearson plc officials are unresponsive to public concerns generated by this online campaign then Florida Family Association plans to publish more online campaigns to call on companies to withdraw their advertising support from the Financial Times and The Economist.   Americans need to know what companies are empowering Islamists.

The World History text book came under fire in July 2013 in Brevard County, Florida.  The Washington Times reports in part: 

“The book has a 36-page chapter on Islam but no chapters on Christianity or Judaism,” said Florida State Representative Rep. Ritch Workman, in Townhall, about the Prentice World History textbook. “It’s remarkably one-sided.

Mr. Workman said the textbook, which has been on the Brevard County schools’ approved course list for three years, also rewrites the history of Islam. He looked through it and found the authors “make a very obvious attempt not to insult Islam by reshaping history,” Townhall reported.

“If you don’t see it from the eyes of a parent, kids are going to take this book as gospel and believe that Christians and Jews were murderous barbarians and thank God the Muslims came along and the world is great,” he said, as Townhall reported.

Here’s an example: Muhammad and his armies’ take-over of Medina states depicted “people happily accept[ing of] Islam as their way of life. It leaves out that tens of thousands of Jews and non-believers were massacred by [Muhammad’s] armies. It’s a blatant deception.”

At the same time, the book depicts Jesus as claiming to be the Messiah — but writes as fact that Muhammad was the prophet, Mr. Workman said in the Townhall article. Students in the class are also taught about the Koran and pillars of Islam.

“They don’t do that for Christianity,” he said, as Townhall reported. “That is offensive to me.”

“Some of the descriptions of the battles use the word ‘massacre’ when it’s a Christian battle and ‘takeover’ when it’s a Muslim battle,” said Amy Kneessy to Fox News. “In young minds, massacre paints a very different visual picture than a takeover or occupation — when in fact both battles were very bloody.”

The publisher, Pearson, denied any bias. But Mr. Workman said he was told by a spokesperson for the publisher that a Muslim cleric was hired to write the sections on Islam.

The School District of Brevard County decided to provide a supplement to the Prentice Hall World History textbook.

The Volusia County School board cancelled a public meeting scheduled for November 5, 2013 after the United States Department of Justice weighed in on the issue.   WFTV in Orlando reported in part:  The Volusia County School Board said it postponed its Tuesday meeting "in the interest of public safety."  The district said it was contacted by the U.S. Department of Justice before the meeting was supposed to start and said "the nature of this information raised substantial safety concerns."  The district said with the information it received, it decided to put more security measures in place to make sure everyone at the meeting would be safe.  The district said it doesn't comment on procedures but did say there was no specific threat of violence.

If there was no specific threat then why did Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s Department of Justice weigh in on this issue?  Who filed the complaint that caused them to react?  The answer to the first question, because this administration is jihadi friendly.  Answer to second question, CAIR, most likely Hassan Shibly, executive director of CAIR Florida urged the Department of Justice to chime in like they have inappropriately done in many other matters. 

 

*******************************************************************

Volusia schools will keep using history book

Nov 19, 2013: DELTONA, Fla. (AP) — A central Florida school board has decided to keep a world history textbook that some parents wanted pulled from classes because they say it offers a pro-Islamic worldview.
The board made its decision Monday after hearing four hours of public comment. The Daytona Beach News-Journal (http://bit.ly/17GFqXb ) reports the board didn't take a formal vote after hearing from some 80 speakers. Only board member Linda Costello pushed for a more thorough review.
"I'm still confident with the book and its presentation to our students," said school board chairwoman Diane Smith. Board members Candace Lankford, Stan Schmidt and Ida Wright agreed the book should remain in the classrooms.
"It's kind of what I would have expected," said Walter Hanford, a book opponent who attended the meeting. During the meeting he told the board the "World History" textbook published by Prentice Hall "whitewashes" the history of Islam and its Muslim followers.
The controversy erupted in early November after a Deltona High parent complained to a friend about the book's treatment of the Islamic religion. The friend, from Lake County, posted information on Facebook and organized a protest rally before the board's Nov. 5 meeting.
That meeting was cancelled before it began due to security concerns. The controversy continued to simmer. The newspaper reported Volusia County Republican Executive Committee Chairman Tony Ledbetter took over leadership of the textbook protest.
A group of students also attended Monday's meeting.
Brian Vaughn, a student government representative at Spruce Creek High School, handed in a petition that he said was signed by more than 500 students at five high schools. The petitioners favor keeping the textbook.
Opponents say it's full of omissions and errors that favor Islam over other religions, including Christianity and Judaism. They asked for a thorough review of the book.
"This book is ridiculously biased," said Armando Escalante of Port Orange.
But historian Alfred Perkins argued that omissions are inevitable in textbooks that condense thousands of years of history into a single volume.
Supporters say it's important to teach students about all religions, and their impact on world history.
"Learning about Islam doesn't make anyone Muslim," said Suzanne Southard of Deland.
The last speaker of the day was Rhiannon Dotson, a 12-year-old sixth grader from Orlando.
"I feel we should learn about all cultures and religions," she told the board. "This whole thing is about hate and ignorance. Please don't teach me and my friends hate."
———
Information from: Daytona Beach (Fla.) News-Journal, http://www.news-journalonline.com

************************************************************************

Jim Buxton:  Can you imagine a chapter on Islam which would not stir significant controversy?
What's the answer to this conundrum?  Leave Islam out of the World History text?  Have 3 different assessments of Islam in the text book?  Would you do this for every controversial matter?