Frustrating. Fruitless. Dispiriting. Fall short. Dearth. Struggling. Rough road.

The beginning of Catherine Gewertz’s Education Week article, “Educators in Search of Common-Core Resources,” published online today, is laced with words and phrases that denote despair—despair by states, districts, teachers, and school administrators, all searching for the answer to the question, “How do we implement the new Common Core State Standards?”

Over the past year, associations, organizations, publishing companies, and coalitions have rushed to create products and resources that help educators make the transition to incorporating Common Core in their classrooms and curriculums. But how much “help” is really being done? Gewertz reported that the claims made by many companies about their products being aligned to the new standards have been subject to much suspicion and, in some cases, criticism when the claims haven’t held up.

I fear that the predicament that educators around the country face about how to implement Common Core, coupled with existing poor quality resources and curriculums with false claims, will only lead to greater discouragement about the standards in the coming weeks and months. But maybe we can prevent some of that discouragement by streamlining Common Core professional development and resources with something that actually works to reform the existing models of teaching.

“What Laying the Foundation does is it provides us with activities that are designed almost exactly to meet the Common Core Standards. It’s almost eerie how well they meet the Common Core State Standards. So when I show teachers this…lesson fits perfectly to address the Common Core State Standards, it alleviates the fear teachers have, and they feel far more comfortable with the standards coming out because they have and they know how to interpret them because they have seen lessons that address them already.” –Julie Stephenson, 2011 Louisiana High School Teacher of the Year.

The Economics and Statistics Administration released a report this past summer restating the need to recruit and retain more women to high-demand STEM fields such as engineering and computer science.

 “Women are vastly underrepresented in STEM jobs and among STEM degree holders despite making up nearly half of the U.S. workforce and half of the college-educated workforce.

That leaves an untapped opportunity to expand STEM employment in the United States, even as there is wide agreement that the nation must do more to improve its competitiveness.”

Women in STEM: A Gender Gap to Innovation (August 2011)

Young women in high school seem to have already lost interest (or still have not found an interest) in pursuing engineering or computer science as reflected by their course selections. Erik Robelen, a writer for Education Week, took the recently released College Board report on Advanced Placement courses and identified patterns in AP test taking by gender. He found males and females took Calculus AB at about the same rate, but females took a larger share of the AP Biology exams. Males, on the other hand, took a larger share of the AP Computer Science, Physics, and Calculus BC exams – subjects more directly leading to a college major in engineering or computer science.

Even within the population of adolescent girls with an interest in STEM subjects, most intend to enter a medical or healthcare profession rather than the high-demand fields of engineering, math, or computer science according to a separate survey.

Why are high-demand STEM careers not attracting bright young women? Part of the reason may be a lack of role models or misconceptions about the field of engineering.  This is what makes programs targeting middle school girls, such as ExxonMobil’s “Introduce a Girl to Engineering,” all the more exciting.

ExxonMobil’s annual event brings middle school girls to 13 ExxonMobil locations across the country. Female engineers from ExxonMobil engage young women in hands-on activities that connect math and science to real life applications. By targeting students who are just beginning to form their opinions on career options, the intent is to spark a curiosity that will last through high school and into college.

 

* ExxonMobil is a sponsor of Laying the Foundation’s parent company the National Math and Science Initiative.

In November, we blogged about the STEMPrep Project at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas. One component of this revolutionary training paradigm is targeted to seventh and eighth graders who are interested in careers in STEM or medicine.

Here's why we're writing about this again: The deadline for applications and grades for the STEMPrep Project has been extended to March 1. Great news if you missed the former deadline!

Students will still need to take the SSAT exam in March. The Distance Learning Center can provide fee waivers for the SSAT if they call the DLC office and dial Dr. Knibb.

Melissa Parma includes more information about the STEMPrep Project, including the application and a brochure, in a post on the LTF Math Forum.

This post is written by LTF Science Content Editor Paul Hightower.

The Association for Psychological Science has just published a study examining the differences in people who are numerate versus those who are not. “Numeracy” is the mathematical equivalent of literacy, meaning how well one reads and can analyze numeric values and data as with words in a sentence.

The study found that people who are innumerate were influenced by how results were presented, whereas the numerate made better critical decisions based on the same data. For example, many participants saw qualitative differences with data reporting 80% of students passing an exam versus the 20% who failed even though these numbers state exactly the same result. The innumerate saw greater risks in an event having a 1 out of 100 chance of occurring than the same event with a 1% chance.

If some consider this a trivial problem, think of the world of numbers in which we live and conduct business every day. Drugs are approved or denied based on the count of test subjects cured or experiencing side effects. Millions of dollars are gained or lost by fractional changes in a stock price. Cities, highways, airports, and hospitals are planned based on population trends and risk percentages. Would numbers affect your decision to work or live within range of a dormant volcano or coastline? Is a 40% discount on a purchase better than buy two, get one free?

We live in an academic society that places a social stigma on illiteracy, and often goes to great lengths to remedy this problem in adults. However, barely a thought is given to the numbers of functionally innumerate in our population. In a world that is saturated with data—and much of it unreliable or deliberately misleading—that is an educational crisis waiting to happen. Innumeracy needs a social stigma, too.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute and Change the Equation each recently released reports on state science standards and performance.

The Fordham report looks at the K-12 science content standards for all states, the District of Columbia as well as the “assessment framework that undergirds the NAEP science assessment.” The report compares each set of science standards to a Fordham-created rubric and concludes most states’ standards are inadequately rigorous or lack clarity. The Fordham report does not evaluate states’ implementation or assessment practices.

The Change the Equation report, on the other hand, does look at states’ assessment practices for science standards. The report compares the state assessments’ proficiency cut scores to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) cut score for proficiency. The Change the Equation report finds the majority of states set their cut score for proficiency far below NAEP’s bar for proficiency.

It is possible for states to receive high marks for their standards from Fordham, but still have their proficiency bar set lower than NAEP. Does this mean the state’s standard is too low? Or is NAEP’s standard too high? Are state assessments and the NAEP measuring students on the same benchmarks?

Regardless of where you fall on this highly debated topic, one thing is clear - varying definitions of what it means to be proficient sends mixed signals to students, districts, and policy makers on whether our nation’s students are college and career ready. 

Efforts to create unified vision of what students need to learn to be successful in college have resulted in the Common Core State Standards for English and mathematics. Common science standards, known as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), are currently being developed by a group of 26 states. If the adoption of Common Core standards for English and math are any indication, the science standards will also be widely adopted.  Along with the standards, common assessments are expected to be developed along with a common definition of what is needed to succeed in an entry-level college course.

Laying the Foundation has developed rigorous science lessons and labs that districts have been using for over seven years to promote hands-on learning and engage students in making real world connections with the material. “LTF science materials and training places a heavy emphasis on hands-on learning using rigorous, content-based activities that emphasize laboratory experience and the use of technology in the classroom,” shares Brian Graves the LTF Director of Science.

Graves also notes our vertically aligned materials address the NGSS core content areas of physical science, life science, as well as earth and space sciences. Once the standards are released, we anticipate our materials to be well-aligned with the rigorous expectations of the New Generation Science Standards, just as we found our well-established math and English curriculum to be aligned with CCSS for those subjects.

“The graphing, data interpretation/analysis, and mathematical-problem solving encouraged by LTF Trainers provide important links from early grade science classes to math-based expectations in AP-level courses,” adds Graves. “To me that matches the Next Generation Science Standards’ stated goal of providing vertically aligned science standards ‘rich in content and practice’.”

Further Exploration:

To learn more about the NGSS visit http://www.nextgenscience.org/.

To explore what it means to prepare teachers to implement CCSS, take part in our webinar series from 3:00pm to 4:00pm (CST) on the following days this week: 

• Monday, Feb. 6 Implementing the Common Core State Standards: An Overview Click here

• Wednesday, Feb. 8 Implementing the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Click here 
  

• Thursday, Feb. 9 Implementing the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics Click here 
  

• Friday, Feb. 10 Supporting the Common Core State Standards with LTF Science Lessons Click here