redefinED
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Content
    • Analysis
    • Commentary and Opinion
    • News
    • News Features
    • Voices for Education Choice
    • factcheckED
  • Topics
    • Achievement Gap
    • Charter Schools
    • Customization
    • Education Equity
    • Education Politics
    • Education Research
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Education Spending
    • Faith-based Education
    • Florida Schools Roundup
    • Homeschooling
    • Microschools
    • Parent Empowerment
    • Private Schools
    • Special Education
    • Testing and Accountability
    • Virtual Education
    • Vouchers
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • Guest Bloggers
    • Ashley Berner
    • Jonathan Butcher
    • Jack Coons
    • Dan Lips
    • Chris Stewart
    • Patrick J. Wolf
  • Education Facts
    • Research and Reports
    • Gardiner Scholarship Basic Program Facts
    • Hope Scholarship Program Facts
    • Reading Scholarship Program Facts
    • FES Basic Facts
  • Search
redefinED
 
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Content
    • Analysis
    • Commentary and Opinion
    • News
    • News Features
    • Voices for Education Choice
    • factcheckED
  • Topics
    • Achievement Gap
    • Charter Schools
    • Customization
    • Education Equity
    • Education Politics
    • Education Research
    • Education Savings Accounts
    • Education Spending
    • Faith-based Education
    • Florida Schools Roundup
    • Homeschooling
    • Microschools
    • Parent Empowerment
    • Private Schools
    • Special Education
    • Testing and Accountability
    • Virtual Education
    • Vouchers
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • Guest Bloggers
    • Ashley Berner
    • Jonathan Butcher
    • Jack Coons
    • Dan Lips
    • Chris Stewart
    • Patrick J. Wolf
  • Education Facts
    • Research and Reports
    • Gardiner Scholarship Basic Program Facts
    • Hope Scholarship Program Facts
    • Reading Scholarship Program Facts
    • FES Basic Facts
  • Search
Tag:

Center for American Progress

Ashley BernerBlog GuestCommentary and OpinionCourse ChoiceCustomizationEducation EquityEducation ResearchFeaturedParental ChoiceSchool Choice

Why curriculum matters for state leaders

Ashley Berner April 21, 2020
Ashley Berner

Editor’s note: This commentary from Ashley Berner, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy and associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Education, is the second of a four-part series that examines the importance of high-quality materials for state leaders, schools, and parents.

The case for a knowledge-rich curriculum is strong. How can state policymakers make its use the norm? What is even possible in states with firm traditions of local control and extensive choice programs, both of which contribute to variability in content and instruction?

Two (very different) states are role models: Massachusetts and Louisiana.

In 1993, Massachusetts passed a law that required strong curricular frameworks for K-12; established new, rigorous assessments; changed teacher certification to reflect deeper mastery of subject-matter; and specified that professional development focus on subject-matter expertise (see here, here, and here). Over the next two decades, the state became one of the highest-performing educational systems in the world.

More recently, under John White’s leadership, Louisiana made high-quality materials a signature priority (see here, here, and here). In the last few years, membership organizations Council of Chief State School Officers and Chiefs for Change have elevated this work and carried it to other states and districts. See, particularly, Chiefs for Change’s policy memo and the Center for American Progress’s report, on the process.

There are at least four concrete actions that innovative state leaders could take (or have already taken), from least to most extensive, to drive change.

Make the case based on evidence.

Two kinds of evidence matter here: evidence from research, and evidence from your state. The research on the benefits of choosing a knowledge-rich curriculum and empowering teachers to deliver it is robust, but making good on that research pushes against the grain and requires an explicit, and consistent, focus. It means translating the research into the currency of your context, whether that means adequate support for English Language Learners, fiscal responsibility and cost-effectiveness, teacher leadership initiatives, or strong culturally-relevant materials, and then creating a common conversation across stakeholders.

Research on your state can take several forms but is a variation on the theme, “Do you know what your teachers are using?” To answer this question, leaders can support system-wide surveys on teachers’ materials use (as one state we worked with undertook in 2019); offer targeted funds for districts to use for such purposes (as Massachusetts did – see here); and/or develop recommended lists of strong curriculum (see Tennessee as well as Louisiana).

A good survey, such as one based on the RAND Corporation’s national panel, will tell you not only what teachers are using, but why, and for what purposes. District- and state-level findings provide actionable data that let leaders identify exemplars as well as the most pressing needs.

Change procurement.

Most of us yawn when we hear “procurement.” But the protocols by which materials and professional development are selected make a huge difference. Once it had identified high-quality materials with the help of teacher experts, for instance, Louisiana made it easier for districts to purchase them.

State and district regulations on textbook selection vary, of course, but every state can create a policy environment that promotes better choices. As Chiefs for Change wrote last year, “States should provide the knowledge and expertise necessary to help districts and schools select high-quality options without sacrificing the flexibility and autonomy needed to cater to the uniquely local needs of their communities.”

This plays out even in terms of the ideal Request for Proposals (RFP). For guidance about RFPs that incentivize, and those that discourage, high-quality applicants, see here. States could curate model RFPs for district use.

Change teacher preparation.

A third mechanism to promote high-quality curricula is to embed what my colleague David Steiner calls “Curriculum Literacy,” or “the capacity to decide whether a given set of instructional materials is strong or weak,” into teacher prep programs. There are many barriers to doing so, not least that schools of education moved decidedly away from specific content knowledge and towards developmental psychology, more than a hundred years ago.

There thus remains a strong bias in the field against requiring specific knowledge. Nevertheless, preparing teacher candidates to discern the wheat from the chaff would directly benefit the children they end up teaching. For detailed guidance on what it would look like to move the needle, see here.

Design curriculum-specific assessments.

The highest-octane change that state leaders could make would be this: Integrate high-stakes assessments with particular curriculum content that students need to master. This is how summative assessments actually operate in many other countries, with content-specific exit exams in all major subjects, at the end of each grade or grade band. Such an arrangement places meaningful responsibility on students for their own learning (a good thing) and provides clear signals to teachers and parents alike about what instruction should look like.

For a glimpse at how Alberta, Canada, does it, see here. Alberta funds all different kinds of schools, from Catholic, Jewish, and secular, to Inuit and even home schooling, but holds them together through the content knowledge that all students learn and through assessments that ensure that they master it.

An analog in our country would work the other way around, from the curriculum materials that schools actually are using, to tests that reflect that content. One could imagine states having not one but rather several state assessments, each of which draw on high-quality materials being used in the field. Think of a state like Florida, where numerous districts, charter networks, and private schools have begun to use Eureka Math, Agile Minds, or Bridges (in Math) and Wit & Wisdom, Core Language Knowledge Arts, or Guidebooks (in English Language Arts). What if the state allowed schools to choose for-stakes tests that were derived from these curricula, as opposed to only offering one curriculum-agnostic, skills-based state assessment or, for tax-credit-supported private schools, nationally-normed but curriculum-agnostic ones?

A state-approved menu of curriculum-linked assessments would round out the virtuous circle of rich content for students, teachers, and parents. Students would know what was expected of them. Teachers could lean into classroom content without “test-prep breaks” of disaggregated skills. State tests would make more sense to parents, who could draw a straight line from the books their kids are reading. (Some high-quality materials even have parent resources for every unit.)

Even formative assessments could join in, with curriculum-specific tests that guide teachers more precisely, and quickly, instead of providing data that have nothing to do with the daily work of teaching and learning.

Lest one think that this is just pie-in-the-sky, it’s actually happening: Louisiana’s pilot assessment project, for which this institute serves as a partner to the work. This initiative, currently focused on middle school students in districts that opted in, assesses students on the most commonly used English Language Arts curriculum in the state (Guidebooks). The pilot tests the usual ELA skills, of course, but also asks students to think deeply about specific sources they’ve read in class, integrate new but related content thoughtfully, and synthesize ideas that arose across the year in an end-of-grade essay. One of the testing panels also draws on the state’s social studies content, thereby reducing overall testing time.

The Louisiana initiative reinforces the knowledge-build that we know works for teachers and kids, and it could be scaled up elsewhere. Any takers?

Read Ashley Berner’s previous post in this series here.

April 21, 2020 1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
BipartisanshipBlog AdministrationCharter SchoolsCommon GroundEducation PoliticsPolicy WonksUnionism

John Podesta: Ed reform movement not yet on solid ground

Sherri Ackerman November 27, 2012
Sherri Ackerman

Recent election outcomes offer a snapshot of what people really think about education reform, said John Podesta, chairman and founder of the Center for American Progress. And lawmakers, advocates and opponents of school reform should all take note.

This month’s stunner – the ousting of Indiana public schools chief Tony Bennett, who implemented many of the same reforms found in Florida – is proof enough that reform “is not yet on solid ground,’’ said Podesta, the keynote speaker Tuesday during the fifth annual Excellence in Action National Summit in Washington, D.C.

At the same time, he noted, there are plenty of signs of progress, including historic passage of a ballot initiative  in Washington that paves the way for charter schools.

The common ground seems to be a desire to create a system that works for children, he said, and reformers should seize the moment.

“As the lines blur, the movement has to invest in collaboration … ,’’ said Podesta, a former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and longtime policy adviser.

“I think complete division between unions and reform is not helpful,’’ he said. “We have to let this go.’’

He also said reformers can’t “steamroll’’ measures without educating the public. “Stop just focusing on your enemy and start shoring up your allies,’’ he said.

Continue Reading
November 27, 2012 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
BipartisanshipEducation and Public PolicyEducation PoliticsParental ChoiceProgressives and ed reformSchool ChoiceTesting and Accountability

Ed reform is left, right and center

Ron Matus November 26, 2012
Ron Matus

The lineup for this week’s Jeb Bush education conference is further evidence that a growing centrist coalition has emerged to move the ball on education reform and school choice.

This is the Foundation for Excellence in Education’s fifth national summit, and it grows in both stature and bipartisanship every year. Two years ago, it made headlines when President Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, was announced as a keynote speaker. This year, Duncan’s speaking again. So is John Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff who heads the left-leaning Center for American Progress; and Gloria Romero, the former Democratic California state senator who authored the original parent trigger bill; and, on various panels, other Democrats like North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue and Virginia State Delegate Algie Howell.

So, on the one hand, it’s no longer so notable that more and more liberals and progressives and Democrats are part of this constellation. On the other hand, holy smokes! Clearly, they’re not on the same page with Jeb Bush and fellow conservatives on every education issue. But the strength of the arguments in favor of ed reform and school choice, and the leadership of folks like Bush and Obama, have galvanized people from all across the political spectrum to have respectful, thoughtful discussions about our schools and our kids in ways that just weren’t possible 10 or 15 years ago.

I don’t know how long this will last, but the 2012 elections have at least produced a renewed call in Congress for a bipartisan solution to the deficit crisis. I suspect this is a rare opportunity in education, and reformers of all stripes would be wise to recognize it as such, and to do what they can to extend it. One way to foster that political cooperation is to make the public better aware that all this is happening – that Republicans and Democrats have actually found common ground on more than a few planks of ed policy.

Continue Reading
November 26, 2012 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog AdministrationCharter SchoolsEducation ResearchParental ChoiceProgressives and ed reformSchool Choice

Florida roundup: Special needs students, charter schools, John Podesta & more

Ron Matus November 16, 2012
Ron Matus

Hillsborough school district must fix its problems with special education students in the wake of a student’s death, editorializes the Tampa Bay Times. It suggests an outside inquiry would be more appropriate and says of Superintendent MaryEllen Elia, “If there are larger problems with the special needs program, Elia needs to address those too. The review board she empaneled is full of insiders who hardly have an interest in exposing training or operational policies as deficient. Both clearly are.”

Podesta

Podesta to headline Jeb conference. John Podesta, former chief of staff under President Clinton, will be the keynote speaker Nov. 27 at the fifth annual national conference put on by Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. He chairs the Center for American Progress, widely considered to be a progressive think tank.

Charter school performance. University of Central Florida professor Stanley Smith says his analysis shows charter performance as a whole isn’t so hot compared to district schools, reports StateImpact Florida.

Much anticipated charter in Palm Beach County. After parents clamored for it, construction is set to begin, reports the Palm Beach Post.

Charter dispute in Polk County. The school district and the charter schools in Lake Wales are tussling over student records and recruitment for IB, reports The Ledger.

Florida DOE makes changes to contracting procedures after problems surface in the Division of Blind Services. Tampa Bay Times.

November 16, 2012 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
Blog AdministrationEducation and Public PolicyEducation ResearchFundingProgressives and ed reformSchool BoardsTeacher Quality

Report: U.S. spent (wasted?) $14.8 billion paying teachers for master’s degrees

Ron Matus July 18, 2012
Ron Matus

School districts spent nearly $15 billion in the 2007-08 school year to pay teachers extra for earning master’s degrees, up 72 percent from four years prior, concludes a report released this week by a left-leaning think tank.

The Center for American Progress suggests money for the so-called “master’s bump” was not well spent because research shows there is little difference in effectiveness between teachers who have master’s degrees and those who don’t.

“This increase, which outstripped inflation many times over during the same time period, is music to the ears of those institutions of higher education that cater to teachers and their academic pursuits,” the report says. “But for the nation’s primary and secondary schools, this increase strikes a discordant note and underscores the need to uncouple teacher compensation from the earning of advanced degrees.”

Illinois paid out the most for the average bump, coming in at $11,910. The District of Columbia was second ($11,280), followed by Minnesota ($10,090), Ohio ($8,760) and North Dakota ($8,550). Utah paid the least, at $2,010.

Florida was among the lowest per bump, at $2,850. But in 2007-08, the report shows, that extra pay added up to $197 million.

That total is likely to fall in coming years as a result of Senate Bill 736, which was signed into law last year by Gov. Rick Scott. Among other changes, it mandates that extra compensation cease for teachers whose advanced degrees are not in their certification area.

The report describes the cost for the master’s bump as a “lost opportunity” because, in its view, the money could be better spent on teachers who mentor other teachers, work in high-poverty schools, teach hard-to-fill subject areas like math and science or demonstrate “extraordinary instructional impact.”

July 18, 2012 0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestLinkedinEmail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • RSS

© 2021 redefinED. All Rights Reserved.


Back To Top