Tag Archives: parent engagement

Resources to Support Common Core Implementation

Posted on by

cc11The Common Core State Standards have been accepted by 46 states and the District of Columbia and are scheduled for full implementation in the 2014-15 school year. They are already being piloted in multiple locations, which this blog has written about previously.  Teachers have also recently spoken up in several surveys and have described their willingness to do their part to implement the new standards, but they have asked for help. Below are links to new resources from the Council of the Great City Schools, the National Association of State Boards of Education and Hope Street Group that have been designed to support Common Core implementation.

One of the largest issues surrounding the upcoming implementation of the Common Core Math and ELA/Literacy Standards, with similar initiatives taking place in science and social studies, is not the role of teachers; it is how much parents and other community members are being prepared for the changes that will be taking place. For those with a stake in education, such as parents, who might not have the time or access to delve into the details of these new curriculum plans on their own, the first of the following resources should prove to be extremely valuable.

The first resource comes from the Council of the Great City Schools:

The Council of the Great City Schools published Parent Roadmaps to the Common Core Standards in English language arts (in both English and Spanish) and mathematics (in both English and Spanish) for the high school grades. It has also developed other resources over the last several months to help with the implementation of the Common Core Standards: two 30-second Public Service Announcements (one in English and one in Spanish) that tells the public what the Common Core Standards are; two three-minute videos (one in English and one in Spanish) that explains the Common Core in a slightly longer form (particularly good for presentations to community and parent groups); a 45-minute professional development video for central office and school-based staff and teachers on the shifts in the Common Core in English language arts and literacy; a 45-minute professional development video for central office and school-based staff and teachers on the shifts in the Common Core in mathematics; and resources for adapting basal texts to the rigor of the Common Core in English language arts and literacy. In addition, the Council of the Great City Schools, working with Institute for Mathematics and Education and Achieve, has developed draft mathematics progressions documents for teaching across grade levels.  

The second resource, more geared towards educators, comes from the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE):

NASBE has been a leader in the effort to assist states as they adopt and implement the Common Core State Standards, and it will apply that experience to help state board members understand the development, history, and future of the Next Generation Science Standards. The development of the science standards – now in their second draft, with a final version expected in March – is being spearheaded by Achieve in conjunction with the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“State education policymakers, like many others, are working hard to answer the national call for greater emphasis on science, and the Next Generation Science Standards will provide them with a critical tool to do this,” said NASBE Deputy Executive Director Brad Hull. “But the existence of the NGSS is just a first step. The state board members who must adopt them need targeted resources and opportunities to discuss the meaning, content, and policy implications of the standards in order to effectively do their jobs. NASBE, in partnership with other education stakeholders, including those involved in the NGSS development as well as other state-level policy organizations, is uniquely positioned to provide this assistance to state boards.”

The NGSS are focused on four areas: physical science; life science; earth and space science; and engineering, technology, and practical applications of science. The standards, which were built upon on a vision for science education established by the Framework for K-12 Science Education, published by the National Academies’ National Research Council in 2011, seek to move science instruction from an inch-deep, mile-wide approach to one that is centered on deeper learning and helping students grasp concepts that stretch across traditional scientific disciplines.

During the year, NASBE will host regional symposia at which state board of education members can develop adoption plans and conduct policy audits to identify other policy areas affected by the NGSS, such as assessments, teacher professional learning, and educator licensure. In addition, NASBE staff will provide state board members with online and print resources, webinars, and toolkits – all with a special emphasis on communications – to help inform policymakers and other local, district, and state-level stakeholders.

The third resource is geared toward district level education professionals:

Hope Street Group and the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) have released a Common Core Playbook-Toolkit that both offers specific recommendations for state boards of education and highlights areas of potential concern that may require attention in coming months and years. This resource was created to provide additional support and guidance for state boards of education as they implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Among the recommendations, the Playbook-Toolkit suggests:

–State boards of education focus their role in CCSS implementation on ensuring that supportive board policies are in place and that state board policies which impede or complicate CCSS implementation are eliminated or changed;

–State boards should work to communicate to the public and educators what CCSS implementation means and how they plan to support implementation, alignment of other key areas, and address the issues that arise as a result of implementation;

–To help with the transition, state boards should work with their departments to ensure that the state has an up-to-date technology plan and policy;

–State boards should consider teacher input in planning and decision-making for educators’ professional learning.

For more information, please visit the following websites:

Council of the Great City Schools Common Core Works  – http://www.cgcs.org/Page/334

NASBE Common Core Standards Website – http://www.nasbe.org/project/common-core-state-standards-ccss/

Hope Street Group Common Core Playbook – http://playbook.hopestreetgroup.org/commoncore

 

Share

Charters still face Upward Climb

Posted on by

PPI_promoThe Center for Education Reform has just issued its annual Charter School Law Report Card, and most states do not make the grade. The majority of states, according to the report, are only making “satisfactory” progress, and only 13 states have “strong” charter school laws. Among the nation’s 43 states with charter school laws, only four received “A” scores, nine received “B” scores, 19 received “C” scores, and the remaining 11 states scored at “D” or “F”.

CER president Jeanne Allen warned against a lack of increased reforms: “At 21 years old, the national charter school movement is only making satisfactory progress. Satisfactory progress is not good enough for our students’ report cards and it shouldn’t be good enough for our state report cards. In the past two years, we’ve seen two new charter laws but both are average in their construction, unlikely to yield large numbers of successful charter schools, and only minimal state improvements. Many states failed to advance substantive reform in 2012, a fact we hope to see change this year.”

The Center for Education Reform argues that the charter school movement, which has only been active for 21 years, has shown “unparalleled” success, “with more than 2 million students today attending in excess of 6,000 public charter schools.” Whether or not the charter schools should be considered a success, the fact is that many states have simply not offered charter schools a real chance to get started. Not to mention the eight states that do not have public charter laws.

As an example, the state of Maryland exemplifies states that have done little to encourage charter schools. According to the state of Maryland education website, there are only a little over 50 public charter schools in Maryland, all contained within seven of its districts. The charter school law in Maryland was only passed in 2003.  Maryland scored a low “D” in the report by the Center for Education Reform, which cited strictures by local school boards as a major hindrance to parents looking for more school choice through public charters.

The Charter School Law Report Card is one of the key components used by the Center for Education Reform to create its Parent Power Index. The Parent Power Index is a broader index of how successful each state is at allowing access and agency for parents of students. Taking into account school choice, charter schools, online learning, teacher quality (including means of evaluation), and transparency, the Parent Power Index provides a ranking of states.

For more information, please visit the following links:

http://www.edreform.com/2013/01/annual-charter-school-law-report-card-issued/

http://www.edreform.com/in-the-states/parent-power-index/

Share

New Spotlights from Education Week

Posted on by

Education Week Spotlights contain essential news and commentary on the big issues. These Spotlights provide the information you need to understand the most talked-about topics.  Each spotlight contains seven articles.

Download the Latest Spotlights for Free! 

Deeper Learning:

  • Applying brain studies to teaching students with disabilities
  • Dual-language classes offering instruction in English and a second language
  • Developing and measuring student creativity in schools
  • Using brain biology to dispel common myths around learning behaviors
  • Efforts to make learning more about mastery and less about seat-time

Parent Empowerment and Choice:

  • Special education vouchers paving the way for broader school choice initiatives
  • ‘Parent trigger’ laws allowing parents to restructure struggling schools
  • Rethinking magnet schools to improve school quality
  • Taking a ‘hybrid’ approach to home schooling, offering private and public options
  • Understanding the impact of state voucher laws

School and District Leadership:

  • Rebuilding a school district from the ground up
  • Preparing and training school principals for the CCSS
  • Shifting control of office responsibilities to principals in magnet, charter, and neighborhood schools
  • Reshaping the work hours and job duties of superintendents in light of budget constraints
  • Developing leadership and training programs for charter schools

To access these free resources, please visit http://www.edweek.org/ew/marketplace/products/edweek_spotlights.html

Share

Parents Should Be Allowed to Pick Teachers

Posted on by

In a recent article, Time blogger Andrew Rotherham argues that not only should parents take care when picking their child’s school, but they should be able to go so far as to pick their child’s teacher as well.  He argues that even in good schools, teacher effectiveness is so variable that there is still no guarantee each child will have a great teacher.  He notes that while school choice is a hotly debated topic, there has been no concerted effort to “empower families” by giving them the right to pick their teachers.

Rotherham cites several large-scale studies that support the idea that students who are consistently placed in classrooms where the teacher is at least average makes a big difference in outcomes and long-term achievement.  Furthermore, he cites a recent study by the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research that found teacher effectiveness is more variable within schools than across schools, particularly in high-poverty schools.  But the best teachers at high-poverty schools are just as good as the best teachers elsewhere—and conversely, even good schools have bad teachers.

Rotherham is clear that he is not arguing that parents should just try to “find the good teachers in an overall lousy school,” but rather to dig deeper.  Talk with other parents to find out about their child’s school and teachers.  Do other parents try to avoid certain teachers or get their child placed with particular teachers?  Then make your own preferences known to school officials before they make class assignments.  They may not accommodate, but at the same time, it is important to make your preferences known.  After all, “squeaky wheels do get the grease.”

The bottom line for Rotherham is that parents need to become more actively involved in their child’s class placements.  Leave the arguing about teacher effectiveness to the union leaders and policy advocates; the “most salient finding from the research about teacher quality is simply that parents cannot afford to treat their children’s education as a spectator sport.”

To read the full article, please visit http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/19/parents-should-be-allowed-to-choose-their-kids-teacher/

Share

Lightening the Load: How Community Schools Can Support Effective Teaching

Posted on by

 

A new paper from the Center for American Progress takes a look at the increasingly talked about “wraparound services” for children in low-income communities, and the connections to teacher efficiency.  Wraparound services generally refer to non-classroom services such as health care, family involvement programs, and food assistance.  There is research on the potential benefits such services provide for students, but how teacher efficacy relates to these services has yet to be determined.

The authors of the paper interviewed faculty and staff from 14 schools around the country that integrate wraparound services, called “community schools” by education professionals.  From these conversations, the authors identified four main trends:

1. Providing wraparound services at school helped reduce the health-related issues that would otherwise cost students instructional time.

2. These services help students and families stay in the community by meeting basic needs, and the resulting decrease in mobility benefits teachers by creating classroom stability.

3. Family programs, such as ESL classes, encourages parents to communicate more with teachers and empowers them to help their children with homework and generally support the work the teacher does in the classroom.

4. Enlisting the help of community partners and services providers, such as onsite health professionals, can free teachers to concentrate on instruction with fewer worries about nonacademic student needs—thus reducing their stress and burnout tendencies.

Taking these trends together, the researchers make several recommendations to schools, districts and states to help them maximize the benefits of wraparound services for teachers:

A. Creatively combine multiple funding streams and align school services with any existing commitments to provide wraparound services.

B. Incorporate teacher input when aligning instructional strategies with wraparound student services.

C. Include strategies for data collection and analysis whenever possible.

D. Explore the impact of wraparound services on teacher effectiveness to see whether there is an optimal mix of service to provide at high-poverty schools, and whether the presence of such services makes these schools more attractive to teacher candidates.

To read the full report, please visit http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/chang_wraparound.html

Share

Building Family and Community Demand for Dramatic School Change

Posted on by

District-led, dramatic change efforts in failing schools-including turnarounds and school closures-often face strong resistance from families and communities. Resistance may be based on district-community tensions, failed past school improvement efforts, or a lack of understanding about what is possible in schools.  In this new presentation by Public Impact, nine strategies are proposed to address these challenges. Based on 28 interviews with leaders from community-based organizations, school districts, and other groups, these strategies include:
1. Assess political landscape
2. Develop a coherent strategy
3. Identify audiences
4. Identify messengers
5. Build trust with families and communities
6. Justify hopefulness, communicate reality
7. Define stakeholder rules
8. Measure success
9. Sustain the momentum

In addition, the following questions are addressed:
1. Why is building demand for dramatic change among families and communities such a challenge?
2. Why is it worth the effort?

This presentation is supported by the  NewSchools Venture Fund and The Joyce Foundation. To view the slides, visit http://www.publicimpact.com/images/stories/building_demand_for_change_in_failing_schools-Public_Impact.pdf

Share