Accountability was a shock to the American school system, writes Mark Schneider in a short paper for the Fordham Foundation. It spurred gains in math scores for more than a decade, but those scores have plateaued. Time for another shock, he argues.
Schneider chalks this pattern up to “punctuated equilibrium,” a theory borrowed from natural scientist Stephen Jay Gould via political scientists Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones. Complex systems like to remain static, the theory goes, until they are jolted into change by some big event—say, the meteor that transformed the earth’s climate and wiped out the dinosaurs. The systems lapse back into stasis until the next big jolt.
That’s what happened to our schools, Schneider suggests. He notes that Texas, which was the first state to put a strong accountability regime in place, reaped big test score gains soon thereafter—at least in math. Other states caught up when they created their own accountability systems. But Texas lost steam about 5 years ago, Schneider points out, and other states are following suit. The system has settled back into equilibrium.
So what new shocks do we need to prompt the next
Online Algebra I courses can be a lifeline for rural middle school students whose schools don't offer the course in 8th grade. A new study finds that the online courses can double students' chances of going on to more advanced classes later on.
All too many rural students don't even have the option of taking an algebra class in 8th grade. The study reports that about one in four rural middle schools does not offer algebra in 8th grade, compared to about one in five urban middle schools and about one in ten suburban middle schools. When we don't even give students the chance to get on the advanced track in middle school, we're stacking the deck against them.
The study does not attempt to answer the question of whether on-line or face-to-face
Every state has to report what percentage of its students is proficient in science. That's a great idea--in theory. The problem is that states set the bar for proficiency--that is, the scores students need to pass the state tests--all over the map. As a result, "proficiency" doesn't necessarily mean anything. That's the major finding of a report Change the Equation released today.
But there is also encouraging news. For one, states have recently shown real courage on the standards front. States worked together to create common academic content standards in math and English language arts. They're now working on common tests that are aligned with those standards. States will face a moment of truth when it comes time to set passing scores on common tests. In many states, the bar will go up and the number of students deemed proficient could plummet.
There, too, states have shown courage. When it became clear just how low they had set the bar in math, for example, Tennessee, New York, Michigan and Oklahoma (among other states) raised their passing scores substantially.
But we mustn't forget science. There are in fact
Business leaders often find that good engineers are hard to come by, even in this tough job market. How frustrating, then, that relatively few young people choose engineering as a career. Only about a quarter of teens have even considered engineering.
How can we get more of them to give engineering a try? For starters, we can give them a better sense--or any sense--of what engineers do.
A new survey Intel conducted in collaboration with Change the Equation finds that many teens just aren't that familiar with the profession. When asked to rank a series of careers according to how much they knew about them, teens ranked engineering in the bottom half. Almost a third (29 percent) said they did not know about career opportunities in engineering. They don't know what they're missing.
The good news is that this problem is not insurmountable. More than 6 in 10 teens reported that they were more likely to consider a career in engineering after learning about the the average yearly salary: $75,000. More than half said they were more likely to consider the profession after hearing that the jobless rate for engineers is four percentage points lower than the overall national rate.
Most teens also warm to the profession when they learn about the exciting, unexpected
School districts often shortchange the schools that serve the lowest-income students? Why? They spend less money on teacher salaries in those schools. The students who need the most are all too often getting the least.
Researchers have long suspected this problem, but a new federal study confirms it. This isn't some nefarious plot districts carry out against their most vulnerable students. Rather, it's a structural problem. As teachers gain experience, they tend to move to schools that serve wealthier students. They earn higher salaries with more years under their belts, and that money follows them to their new schools. These inequities were hard to uncover, because districts can report teacher salaries as averages across schools.
So what to do? The Department of Education argues that it would not be expensive to set things
The message seems to be getting through in some quarters: It pays to study computer science.
PC World reports that the computer science major is getting hot again, at least at some of the country's top colleges. Professors at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, Harvey Mudd and the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology are seeing a surge in students declaring majors in computer science. (All four colleges top US News and World Report's list of the best comp sci and engineering programs).
Why the sudden popularity of the major? The Mark Zuckerbergs and Steve Jobs of the world have no doubt helped by giving the field a lot of pizzazz. But there seems to be a more prosaic reason: Computer science grads are getting jobs and high salaries, which counts for a lot these days.
According to an assistant dean at Carnegie Mellon, "One hundred percent of our seniors were placed last year. About 15% went to graduate school. The rest had jobs. We saw the return of the six-figure offer."
Even women are getting into the game at Harvey Mudd, where they make up 42 percent of computer science majors. Yes, that's less than half, but it sure beats 19 percent, which
Today's New York Times includes a very unscientific survey of 15 high schoolers' plans for the future. They run the gamut from fearful to optimistic. One striking feature: Many of these teens are striving for careers that will require math and science in one form or another. Another: Very few foresee a straight and narrow path from high school to college to career. Some prefer a more circuitous path, and others feel that college costs will force them to make detours.
Here's a sampling of what they had to say:
Only one of the students, a senior near LA, seems to have internalized fears about economic competitiveness:
In all honesty, I am not positive about my future because I know that life out of high school is nothing more than a big competition, and I know that I am not even a challenge to the millions of people I will be with, competing just to live the American dream.
Another senior from the same school is keeping to the straight and narrow, but worries that financial pressures might divert him:
I plan on getting a job with computers after graduating from college.... At this time I doubt that my relatives or family members will be able to help me out financially in any way, which is why I work so hard...I am pretty sure about my plans and my future after high school, but you never know what may happen. I try to take it a day at a time.
A third strives for a career in aerospace engineering after a detour through auto mechanics. His dreams are inspiring, and his optimism is infectious:
After graduating I am going to a community college and getting a part-time job to pay for college. I hope to get a job at AutoZone to learn more about cars and car
Should we pay students to do well in school? Will money buy performance? A story in yesterday's New York Times strongly suggests that cash for grades is a bad, bad idea. On this point, the Times is both right and wrong.
In the end, it depends on what you're paying for and what else you're doing to improve performance. In 2010, Harvard economist Roland Fryer found that paying students for test scores didn't work, because it didn't help students understand what they should do differently to get higher scores. If anything, the practice may have discouraged them from thinking beyond the test and learning for love of the subject. He guessed that paying students to do what it takes to get higher grades--read more, do the right kinds of homework, etc--might be more effective.
The AP Training & Incentive Program (one of CTEq's Featured Programs) offers another effective model. You can pay students to stretch themselves by taking on more challenging courses, but you have to give them and their teachers a lot of support to help them do well. As our story about the program shows, APTIP has dramatically raised the
The glory days of federal stimulus may be over, but the feds are offering a few new shots of money for education. At least two give science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) a central role.
The U.S. Department of Education just announced its second round of Investing in Innovation (I3) awards, which (as the name suggests) aim to promote innovative strategies to improve learning. STEM came out as the big winner, garnering the highest number of awards and almost a third of the total $150 million pot.
The Department has also announced the third, much smaller, round of Race to the Top, a competition among states for $200 million in federal money. To win a piece of the pie, states have to show how the money will advance their rerform agendas and improve learning in STEM.
Neither federal program offers huge sums of money, at least not in proportion to total spending on schools. But both seek to make a little bit of money go a long way by nurturing strategies and
It's about time....
A new report from the Center on Time and Learning takes a close look at five innovative public elementary and middle schools that are taking advantage of a longer school day to improve science teaching. This morning, Change the Equation is hosting the release of the report, Strengthening Science Education: The Power of More Time to Deepen Inquiry and Engagement.
The report makes a strong case for a new focus on science in our schools. For one, the time elementary schools spend on science has been declining. The Schools and Staffing Survey suggests that, in 2008, schools devoted an average of 2.3 hours a week to science, down from 3 hours in 1994. A recent survey of elementary school principals and teachers in California painted an especially dismal picture. Forty percent of teachers say they spend less than an hour a week teaching science. Only 44 percent of principals feel their students are getting strong science instruction in their schools.
The five schools featured in the report, all of which serve low-income students, use a longer school day to enrich their students' experience in science. According to the Press Release, the schools use