It's the substance & the stress (not the salary), stupid.

As some of you know, I am starting to look for, ahem, a job, including positions that would put me back in the classroom. The position of "unpaid writer" isn't exactly putting food on the table and I'm starting to feel antsy writing so much about education without actually doing much about education. Reading over and updating my teaching resume, I am reminded of former students, colleagues, schools, and yes, curriculum. I am reminded of how much I enjoy teaching, for teaching itself but also for the content I got to ponder. I graduated at the top of my class in high school and went to an elite college. I'm "the type" many education reformers talk of attracting to teaching and, initially, attracted I was, but given what teaching has become in many cases, I am somewhat reluctant to go back.

The first reason is the working conditions. While I agree teachers are underpaid and I appreciate Secretary Duncan's strident acknowledgement of this, I would do the work at the current salaries if the working conditions made the job more manageable: if I knew classes would be reasonably and appropriately sized; if I were given adequate time for planning, development, collaboration, and frankly, bathroom breaks; and if I knew the school where I might work would be fully staffed with content teachers, a librarian, a nurse, a social worker, enough administrators, etc. If I knew I could do an adequate job in a 40-hour week (obviously, it would be more some weeks and a bit less during others and yes, the work would always be on my mind), I might never have taken the break I did in the first place. I can't work the punishing hours because I have my own children to raise. And I'm in favor to the idea of changing compensation systems to reflect the different roles and demands of different teaching jobs. If there are teachers out there who have the space in their life and desire to take on more work and responsibilities than I can, I think they should be paid more. I would be happy to take on a lesser teaching position for less money than a harder working colleague if it meant I could be in the classroom again and still be the parent I want to be. Unfortunately, it became clear to me that I had to choose.

Second of all, I was attracted to teaching because it's intellectual, interesting, stimulating, creative, and socially useful. Well, at least it should be. As Diana Senechal put it in this comment:

The McKinsey researchers examined teacher recruitment and retention in Singapore, Finland, and South Korea. They found many factors that make teaching an attractive profession in those countries: salary, job security, autonomy and trust, cultural respect, and more. Given their own findings, it’s odd that they or anyone would conclude that financial incentives should reign supreme. And there were things they should have investigated but didn’t–for instance, the intellectual and spiritual appeal of the profession.  

Look at the talented people in professions where the pay is decent but not stellar–the arts, humanities, teaching, scholarship, nonprofits, journalism, and more. What brings people to these professions? Not incompetence, but interest. The work has substance.  

But when the substance is driven out, when the work turns into busywork, people turn to professions that offer the combination of qualities that they seek.

Yes, the work has substance. Or it did. Or it should. Of course teaching is going to have some busy work--all jobs do. Sometimes I even look forward to the busy work as it gives me a break from the harder tasks of thinking, evaluating, planning. Of course, there are going to be some tasks I enjoy more than others. Reading up on the Bubonic Plague, planning how my students will learn about it for a world history class, and then assessing what the students have learned counts as enjoyable. Figuring out how to teach the standardized reading test to my world history students and doing a technocratic version of reading tea leaves, i.e., charting who got the "main idea" and "context clues" questions wrong on said standardized tests is not. And when the job starts to become mostly useless, fruitless busy work and mostly teaching vapid curriculum, that's when I'd rather work as a self-employed, unpaid writer and blogger or work at something less demanding that would still save time and energy for writing.

As Nancy Flanagan put it in her typically thoughtful way,

Good teaching is not about classroom rules, cute videos, raising test scores, cool field experiences or unions. It's about relationships, mastery, analysis, persistence, diagnosis and continuous reflection. It's complex, layered intellectual work. And it happens in hundreds of thousands of "regular" classrooms, every day.

Yes, it's complex, layered, challenging, and intellectual work with so many decisions to make at almost every turn. This is primarily why I want to do it. Okay, so the pay isn't great, but when you take away the substance of it, I no longer even enjoy the work and I don't want to do it. I'd rather do something mindless (wait tables, bar tend, or be someone's personal assistant) where I won't have to go against my principles.

As teacher James Boutin describes here (and again here), at some point in my teaching career, I began to feel like a bureaucrat:

During a visit I made to a private school in Denver last November, one of the teachers there confided in me that he moved out of public education because he didn't want to be a bureaucrat. The comment struck me. I'd never thought of myself as a bureaucrat before, but he's right - I am.

Yes, there's certainly more room for me to be more data-informed and consider the values of a technocratic approach. But if that's what I wanted to do, I'd go be a bureaucrat or a technocrat. If I wanted to teach test prep, I'd go work for Kaplan. That's not what I see as the primary role of a classroom teacher. As James further demonstrates in this must-read series, the data-driven dimension of teaching has gotten out of hand and has become a huge waste of time and resnurces for educators and students alike. Moreover, as I was engaged in it and was forced to make ill-advised curricular choices, I realized that such tasks weren't helping my students learn or improving my teaching, but were fueling political point-scoring and sustaining the education reform industry.

So thanks, Arne Duncan, for saying teachers should be paid more and thanks for your attempts at debunking flawed research that states otherwise. For a next step, consider advocating against acceptance of the "new normal" that translates to terrible working conditions for teachers and principals and terrible learning conditions for students. And then consider how you're going to attract more serious college and graduate school students to the profession if the work you're asking them to do lacks substance and insults their intelligence and, eventually, expertise. Finally, consider that if the most educated among us don't want to do to the work because it's bankrupt of creativity, intellectual exercise, meaning, and substance, then the education our students are going to be getting will hardly be rich, meaningful, and relevant. Think about how many of our best and brightest would rather get paid poverty wages working as adjunct professors and journalists than teach in the classrooms your and your predecessors' policies are molding.

Perhaps this isn't the best post to put out there as I apply for teaching jobs, but then again, I'm not going to lie or pretend. I'm going to do my best to be a team player and to be open to the advantages of a more quantitatively- or data-based approach to teaching. But I'm not going to give up my principles or knowingly engage in educational malpractice. Frankly, I'd rather scrub floors.

Superintendent Luna’s Opening Remarks as President of CCSSO

The following are remarks Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna gave after he took over as President of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) at the CCSSO Annual Policy Forum on November 19, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona. 

Thank you so much for being here today.  It is an honor to serve as the President of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

First, I want to thank Chris Koch for his leadership as President.  Whether it’s the advancements we made in the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, the amazing influence we have had in the waiver process and the reauthorization bill that is working its way through congress as we speak, or the fact that we are working on the next generation of assessments and accountability, we owe a great debt of gratitude to Chris for his leadership during this time.

At the same time, we were all back in our states dealing with what is arguably the most difficult economic situation our country has faced in our lifetimes, Chris was back dealing with the same things but also all these other successes we have had at CCSSO.  Chris, thank you so much again for your work.

As state chiefs, we have led the way.  That is the way it should be.  As states, we should identify the problems we face, find the solutions to these problems, and define the federal government’s role – if any – in helping us solve these problems.

We have shown we can do this. We have addressed problems with higher standards through Common Core, with new assessments through our consortia, and increased accountability systems.  All of these are critical and absolutely necessary if we are going to improve our education system, but there is one piece that is missing that I think we need to respond to now and act upon now.

That is, do we have the capacity to meet the demands of the Common Core, to respond to the information we will receive from the new assessments?  Do we have the capacity with the workforce that we have, especially when we are facing a teacher shortage in the future, and so we know that this is one important part that is critical and it’s missing.  It’s the most important part.

We know that the most important part of a child’s academic success is the quality of the teacher in the classroom.  World-class standards, quality assessments, high accountability are important and necessary but all of these things are secondary to having a highly effective teacher in every classroom.

Together, we must tackle the challenge of teacher quality and teacher preparation programs.  We know that teachers are not the problem, they are the solution.  The challenge we face today in teacher quality is a problem with preparing our teachers for the 21st Century Classroom.

Each year, we discuss the challenge of our students graduating from high school and going to postsecondary education and needing remediation once they get there.  We are all working to solve this problem.

An equally large problem is the fact that far too many teachers are graduating from our Colleges of Education and going into the classroom and needing additional training once they get there.  I have heard – and have often repeated – that our graduates of the Colleges of Education are the most knowledgeable but the least prepared.  The fact is we are spending too much money every year training teachers on the skills they should have learned while in college.

This is not the fault of the pre-service student or the teacher in the classroom.  This is the result of antiquated teacher preparation programs and outdated certification processes.  We must address teacher quality before our teachers get into the classroom and begin teaching our students.

We know that the teacher is the MOST important factor in a student’s academic success.  This is not debatable. Just look at the impact a teacher can have on a student’s academic success.  I turn to the research of Dr. Robert Marzano.  He is an expert in education research and teacher quality.
His study looked at millions of students, thousands of schools, and numerous years.

This shows what happens to the average student – a student in the 50th percentile – depending on his/her learning experience.  If a student arrives at school with average academic achievement, has an average teacher and an average principal in the school, that student will leave school just as they came in – in the 50th percentile.

What if that same student arrived at school and had an effective principal and effective teacher?  The student would excel significantly and leave in the 96th percentile.  Now, consider if that same student arrives at a school with an ineffective teacher and an ineffective principal.  That student will drop from the 50th percentile to around the 3rd percentile.  This statistic is shocking and disturbing – but it’s real.

It’s clear: the effectiveness of a principal and a teacher has a huge impact on student achievement.  We know that once a student falls behind academically, it is difficult and sometimes almost impossible for him to catch up in the current system.  We cannot even risk one year in a student’s academic career.

Knowing this, why would we ever leave this to chance?  As a father, grandfather, and as State Superintendent, I am not going to leave this to chance.  I believe we must do everything we can to ensure a highly effective teacher is at the helm of every classroom.

It begins with our teacher preparation programs.

Secretary Duncan has called for the reform of Colleges of Education.  He said: “The current system that prepares our nation's teachers offers no guarantees of quality for anyone – from the college students themselves who borrow thousands of dollars to attend teacher preparation programs, to the districts, schools, parents, and, mostly importantly, the children that depend on good teachers to provide a world-class education.

“It is stunning to me that, for decades, teacher preparation programs have had no feedback loop to identify where their programs prepare students well for the classroom and where they need to improve. Our teacher prep programs have operated largely in the dark, without access to meaningful data that tells them how effective their graduates are in the classroom.”

But Secretary Duncan has called for reform to these programs for more than two years now.  That’s two years. To me, it’s clear then if change is going to occur and be sustained then states must take the lead.  We would not have the world class standards we have today or the work on the next generation of assessments without the states taking the lead. We must lead in this most important area.
 
We do have places to look as we begin this conversation and embark on this process. CCSSO’s Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) has developed Model Core Teaching Standards.  The Administration recently published its Teacher Education Reform and Improvement plan.  The National Council on Teacher Quality has conducted extensive research on what makes an effective teacher.  I have heard positive examples of reforms to Colleges of Education in Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana, and other states.

If we want this reform and this change to be widespread and meaningful in every state across the country, we as state chiefs have to step up and make a concerted effort together just as we did with the Common Core. We have to move from conversation on teacher quality to make the change we know needs to happen.  Through CCSSO, we can provide that focus, support and motivation necessary to move forward.  
.
As state leaders, we have to find the answers to 3 major questions.

First, what do our students need in a 21st Century teacher?  We know we want every teacher to be highly effective.  In order for our students to succeed in the 21st Century, what does the highly effective need to know and be able to do?  I believe a highly effective teacher in the 21st Century Classroom must be able to gather and analyze data and adapt to the results.  The 21st Century Teacher must be able to utilize distance learning and digital content to give students access to the opportunities they need and make lessons come alive.  In the 21st Century Classroom, a teacher must be able to manage a roomful of learners versus a room full of students.  In other words, if we want our students to be problem solvers and critical thinkers, we have to create an environment that allows them to explore, solve problems, and think critically.  The 21st Century Teachers must be able to facilitate this.

Second, what standards should be in place for our teacher preparation programs?  These standards should not be limited to our Colleges of Education.  We need to set high standards for any entity that wants to train teachers – whether it is a College of Education, Teacher for America, or ABCTE.  We will hold them accountable through a transparent evaluation process.
We must ask ourselves every year: How well is a teacher performing and where did that teacher attend pre-service?  If an organization can meet the high standards and the high level of accountability we put in place, then they can teach our students.

Third, what should the certification process look like?  We must move away from talking about traditional certification vs. alternate certification.  Instead, let’s talk about certification.  We should create the framework for a single certification process that all teachers can use – no matter where they were trained.  It will ensure they have met the high standards we have set for them in content and in pedagogy.  And it will hold the teacher preparation organization accountable for results.

As we work to answer each of these questions, here are some of the things we know must be part of our conversation going forward.  First, selectivity.  We all agree that teaching is a difficult profession and worthy profession.  Therefore, we must raise the bar for those who want to go into teaching.

Second, a focus on elementary reading and mathematics.  We know our students will need a strong foundation in reading and a strong foundation in math to be successful in the 21st Century.  That foundation begins in elementary school.  Once pre-service students are in our teacher preparation programs, we must ensure they are not only learning the academics of reading and mathematics, but the science behind teaching these subject areas.  

Finally, student teaching.  Student teaching programs must be rigorous and relevant.
They must prepare our future teachers for the classroom they will manage as soon as they graduate.  We have to ensure every student teacher is placed in the classroom of a highly effective teacher.  Just as we did with the Common Core, we must develop set of common performance standards and then measure the effectiveness of the student teaching program against the standards.

These are all challenges we face and challenges we must address if we expect to improve our public education systems across the country.  We have to look at pockets of excellence and find answers to our questions:

• What do our students need in a 21st Century teacher?
• What standards should be in place for our teacher preparation programs?
• What should the certification process look like? 

If we do this, then our Colleges of Education and teacher preparation organizations will be able to truly prepare our teachers to be successful in the 21st Century Classroom – without needing remediation once they get there.  In the coming weeks, we will be engaging you in talks to move from discussion to action, and I am confident that like the Common Core success we as states can develop common standards for certification and licensure. This is how we can truly ensure a highly effective teacher in every classroom for every student.

In closing, I attended a meeting awhile back where the keynote speaker said if you want to get access to somebody’s mind, you start with the heart.  So let me share with you a piece of my heart, and what motivates me to do this.  When I ran for the local school board in Nampa, I had a successful business.  We were a happy young family with six children in school.  I didn’t run for the school board to reform education. I ran for the school board because they told me it would only be one night a month, and I believed them.

But as I got more and more involved in education, I began to realize that access to the American Dream was tied more today to a quality education than ever before.  You see, I was one of those kids who came to school a little hungry and a little tired. I lived in a tent for awhile.  There were some teachers that were wonderful individuals with big hearts and a lot of compassion, but they knew my family situation and made excuses for me.  They didn’t expect as much from me.  Then, there were other teachers who knew my family circumstances yet they expected just as much from me as they did any child.  They convinced me that regardless of where I came from, regardless of the spelling of my last name, I was just as smart, just as capable, and I had just as much hope or opportunity in America as anyone.  You know what? I believed them.

Because of them, because of these great teachers, my brothers and sisters and I now live a version of the American Dream that my parents could not have even imagined.  I honor teachers.  I respect them and the work that they do, and I realize on a personal level the important role they will play in giving hope to those who feel like there is no hope and providing opportunity to those who feel like opportunity may have passed them by.

I am honored to serve as your President this coming year.  I think the work that we can do and accomplish on teacher preparation is the capstone to the work that we have been focused on these past few years as CCSSO has become a leader in setting policy and direction and priority for education across the country.

Thank you.

Superintendent Luna Sworn in as President of Chief State School Officers

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna became President of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) this morning at the 2011 Annual Policy Forum in Phoenix.

“It is an honor to be elected by my peers to serve in this leadership role,” Superintendent Luna said. “As state chiefs, we must identify the problems we face, find the solutions to these problems, and define the federal government’s role, if any, in helping us solve these problems.”

CCSSO is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization that represents the superintendents, secretaries and commissioners of state education agencies. CCSSO leads and facilitates collective state action to transform our public education system in the strategic areas of Educator Workforce; Information Systems; and Standards, Assessment, and Accountability. 

Superintendent Luna praised CCSSO and Past President Chris Koch of Illinois for the accomplishments made over the past year, including the development of Common Core State Standards, the next generation of assessments, and principles for increased accountability systems. 

In his opening address as President, Superintendent Luna challenged the members of CCSSO to address the challenge states now face in preparing teachers for the 21st century.

“We know the most important factor in a student’s academic success is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. Still, the fact is we are spending too much money every year training teachers on the skills they should have learned while in college. This is not the fault of the pre-service student or the teacher in the classroom. This is the result of antiquated teacher preparation programs and outdated certification processes,” Superintendent Luna said. “Collectively, we as state chiefs must address teacher quality and preparation across the country before our teachers get into the classroom and begin teaching our students.”

The CCSSO Board of Directors will work with states and organizations to address this issue in the coming year.

In Defense of Flipping the Classroom & the Lecture

There's been a lot lately about "flipping the classroom," a teaching method where students are to view a lecture at home --ostensibly on-line--of their teacher presenting key concepts while saving doing harder and trickier homework-type assignments for in class. This idea appeals to me and I've been somewhat surprised that so many other education peeps out there whom I follow don't seem as enamored. Not only are they disparaging of the idea, but they seem to think "lecture" is synonymous with torture.

Before I begin I want to offer two caveats. First, the access problem is no small one and if not satisfactorily solved, could easily be a deal breaker. Second, I am envisioning this for older students, not necessarily for younger ones. As I've written about before, considerations of grade, age, and subject are very important in any conversation about teaching and learning.

Now, I wouldn't flip the classroom all of the time (getting stuck in one practice or approach is never a good idea) or get rid of outside-of-class readings and I wouldn't say it's going to "transform education" (puh-lease), nor would I call it a silver bullet method (don't believe in silver bullets), but, again, access issues aside, what's not to like?

As a teacher, and this was partly because I generally taught students who didn't have a lot of support at home (though these same students would lack access to technology, as well), when I assigned more challenging reading, projects, papers, and essays, I had them do a lot of the work in class anyway because that's when they needed guidance the most. I saved easier reading assignments and exercises that involved practicing or analyzing what students had already learned for homework.

Other aspects of flipping the classroom that excite me: Teachers can record their lectures a few times until they get it just right and then maintain a video library, if you will, of these presentations. Teachers can share and exchange video clips with one another. Students can have access to the library of them and can view each presentation as many times as they need to. They can access the library anywhere, without having to lug a textbook with them, and unlike a textbook, it's a living source of information. The teacher can get feedback on it and alter it easily if necessary without having to send it back to the publisher; students can leave comments or questions beneath the video. For someone who can't even upload digital photos from camera to laptop without assistance, I sound pretty excited about this, don't I?

During discussions of "flipping the classroom" I have been disturbed (and this has long bothered me) by how many of my fellow educators, bloggers, and commentators use "lecture" as if it's a bad word, dismissing it as an instructional technique almost out of hand. Flipping the classroom is just another form of lecturing! Lecture?!? You can't lecture the children! Heaven forbid. Lecturing is baaaaad. Well, I disagree.

To me, the problem isn't giving lectures per se, but rather with how and when they're done. Lectures come in all shapes and sizes. Certainly, lectures can be monotonous and boring, but they can also be lively, creative, interactive. So, there are good lectures and bad lectures, and there are times, places, and audiences for lecturing. Some audiences and topics require shorter lectures and some longer. When you go to hear Alfie Kohn, Diane Ravitch, Deb Meier, or Jonathan Kozol speak, you're listening to a lecture. Listening to a news report? That's a lecture. TED talk? Lecture. Author reading? That, too, is a lecture.

When I was in ed school (to read some of my thoughts on ed schools, read this post and this comment I made on the same post), I learned that the lecture was one way to present information, or teaching methodology, but lecturing was definitely frowned upon. (As you can imagine, I especially loved being lectured on how it was bad to lecture.) When I was student teaching high school US Government, I did everything but lecture. Finally, as I was gathering feedback, which I did often (come to think of it, much more often than I did as a regular classroom teacher. Why was that? Adding that to my list of things to change when I go back to the classroom) the students were growing frustrated and unresponsive. So we stopped to talk about it. One student hesitated but then said, "Look, Ms. Levy, you're asking us to work together and put together presentations on topics we don't really know anything about. We need you to teach us about them first, to tell us about them. You're the teacher--you're supposed to know about these things." I looked around and saw the rest of the class nodding in agreement. So, for the rest of my time, I lectured more, not all of the time, but more often than I had been. On the day when my university adviser and supervisor came to observe me, I happened to have a lecture planned. In our debriefing, she asked me, and I knew this was coming, what I could have done differently besides, "you know, just standing up there and lecturing." I explained to her that I had been doing all of the other stuff but that the students had told me to lecture more. She raised her eyebrows and said, "Huh. Interesting." To her credit, she didn't evaluate me negatively on this (she actually was a fantastic teacher and adviser).

The following summer, when I started my first teaching job (and I wrote about this particular class before here) I taught tenth grade English. If I recall correctly, we spent about one quarter of the class explicitly on writing. On one piece I decided to have students do peer editing. This, I had been told, was a great thing to do, but it was a disaster. The students really got into it and tried their damndest but it wasn't working; they weren't properly editing one another's work. The straw that broke the camel's back was when as I was circulating, I overheard two students arguing heatedly about a rule of punctuation (awesome!) But they were both wrong (arrgghh!) Nobody was learning anything and worse, the students were reinforcing bad habits and giving one another terrible advice.

Since then, I've learned to assess what students already know or have been successfully taught before expecting them to "teach one another" or "learn cooperatively." For example, after teaching lessons on how to give constructive and diplomatic feedback, I have students give one another feedback on what they take away from or hear in another student's piece or suggest questions they think might be left unanswered. However, I avoid peer editing or advice that involves peers giving advice on how to write or explain rules of grammar when they don't know them themselves. That, ahem, is my job.

Which leads me to another problem I have with privileging group work or cooperative learning over direct instruction or lecturing. I've seen it as an excuse to be lazy and I've seen it done wrong. Here kids, you do this. You're responsible for your own learning now. Go forth and teach yourselves. I'll sit back and do nothing. Of course, students should certainly be responsible for their work and learning but they need some help and guidance along the way. Of course, instruction beyond direct presentation or lecturing has its place, but it's not an anti-dote to poor lecturing.

I will end this with some much more articulate and organized thoughts on the subject of group work from Diana Senechal. As usual, she says exactly what I'd like to say myself.

SUPT. LUNA TO BE SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna will be sworn in at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning, Saturday, November 19, as the President of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) at the 2011 Annual Policy Forum in Phoenix, Arizona.

Elected by his peers, Superintendent Luna  has served as President-Elect of CCSSO over the past year. Tomorrow he assumes his role as President of CCSSO.

CCSSO is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization that represents the superintendents, secretaries and commissioners of state education agencies. CCSSO leads and facilitates collective state action to transform our public education system in the strategic areas of Educator Workforce; Information Systems; and Standards, Assessment, and Accountability. More information on CCSSO is online at http://www.ccsso.org/.

BOARD SELECTS ST. ANTHONY NATIVE TO LEAD EITC

An eastern Idaho native, graduate of the University of Idaho and a thirty-year employee of the institution will be the next president of Eastern Idaho Technical College (EITC).

Dr. Steven Albiston, PhD., the current Vice-President for Instruction and Student Affairs will assume the duties of president starting January 1, 2012. “I am truly thrilled to have been given this opportunity,” said Albiston. “I’m looking forward to working with everyone; all the students, faculty, staff and supporters who do so much in helping our students succeed.”

Albiston, who was born and raised in St. Anthony, graduated from South Fremont High School, holds a bachelor’s, masters and doctorate from the University of Idaho. He came to EITC in October of 1981 as an Admissions/Vocational Counselor. He has held a number of positions including Student Services Coordinator, Student Services Manager, Dean of Students, and most recently Vice-President for Instruction and Student Affairs.

“Steve impressed us,” said Emma Atchley of Ashton, member of the Idaho State Board of Education and chair of the EITC Presidential Search Committee. “We had a very strong pool of applicants and Steve consistently rose to the top of the list. We’re thrilled to have him leading this campus.”

The position became open when current EITC President Burton Waite announced his retirement in June 2011, effective December 31, 2011.

To learn more about the Idaho State Board of Education, please visit http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/.

Education Films Series V: American Teacher

There are two ways to look at American Teacher, the recently released documentary by Dave Eggers and Ninive Clements Calegari:

1) If you don't know much about public education and school reform, then American Teacher is a well-made film which very poignantly and realistically portrays what it is to live the life of a teacher. Everyone agrees that teachers are under-paid and undervalued (well, almost everyone). After seeing this film, the public will be more aware of this.

2) If you are steeped in public education and school reform, then American Teacher is a well-made film which very poignantly and realistically portrays what it is to live the life of a teacher. Everyone agrees that teachers are under-paid and undervalued. However, it will drive you nuts that the film skips over the wild disagreements between various educators, education scholars, and education reformers on how to increase compensation for America's teachers. The film features the ideas of Linda Darling-Hammmond, Eric Hanushek, and Jason Kamras (of DCPS) as if they were all on the same page and as if the research on merit pay, VAM, and economic predictor models were uncontroversial in education reform debates.

While I still hope lots of people see it, I think it would have been better if the film makers had let the vignettes speak for themselves, alone, if they trusted the viewers to come away with their own thoughts about and reactions to education policy. The narratives and stories were so compelling and so complex, it was a shame to have them mixed in with such a confusing and shallow presentation of policy ideas.

If I am not making a clear case for what the film's flaws were, Dana Goldstein absolutely does in her review.

One personal upside to my watching American Teacher, poorly done aspects and all: Being so steeped in education and education reform topics, I was reminded to be much more skeptical of simplistic accounts from other policy topics of interest but about which I know considerably less than I do about education, even if it's coming from people and organizations I respect.

SUPERINTENDENT LUNA ANNOUNCES IDAHO TEACHER OF THE YEAR

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna announced Thursday that a Coeur d’Alene teacher has been honored as the 2012 Idaho Teacher of the Year.

Erin Lenz, a classroom teacher at Winton Elementary School in Coeur d’Alene, was named the 2012 Idaho Teacher of the Year in a surprise announcement at her school Thursday afternoon. Lenz has taught for 10 years. As Idaho Teacher of the Year, she will receive $1,000 from the Idaho State Department of Education, $16,000 in technology from the SMARTer Kids Foundation, and an all-expense-paid trip to Washington, D.C. to represent Idaho as a nominee for the National Teacher of the Year.

“Erin Lenz is a great example of the high-quality teachers we have across Idaho. She was selected as Idaho’s Teacher of the Year for her passion, vision, and continued commitment to make sure every child learns and succeeds,” Superintendent Luna said. “By focusing on every student, analyzing assessment data, and getting parents more involved, Lenz has consistently raised student achievement in her classroom and school.”

In accepting the award, Lenz said, “I am so humbled.” She said she could not have earned this recognition without the great teachers, librarians, office staff, custodians, and other school staff at Winton Elementary. “We have a great school.”

“I can think of no one better able to represent Idaho teachers than Erin Lenz. She embodies what all parents would want for their child’s teacher,” said Kristin Gorringe, principal of Winton Elementary School. “Teaching is not what Erin does but rather who she is. Her commitment, modeling, skills, and ability to relate to people, both old and young, raises the capacity and performance of all who are lucky enough to work with her. I consider myself blessed to be one of those people.”

The Idaho Teacher of the Year program began in 1959 and has become one of the most prestigious honors in the state for teachers. The program focuses public attention on excellence in teaching that has a real impact on the students of Idaho. Every year, school districts and charter schools across Idaho have the opportunity to nominate one teacher for the Idaho Teacher of the Year. A state selection committee representing teachers, education leaders, parents and legislators from across the state choose the Idaho Teacher of the Year from among the nominations.

To learn more about the Idaho Teacher of the Year program, visit http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/teacher_of_year/.

SDE's CARINA DAVIO RECEIVES LEADERSHIP IN CAREER DEVELOPMENT AWARD

As part of National Career Development Month, the Idaho Department of Labor is recognizing six Idahoans for their contributions to increasing awareness about the importance of career development among both students and adults in our state. The State Department of Education is proud to announce that one of our very own, Carina Davio, is the recipient of one of these Leadership in Career Development awards.

Carina is being recognized for her part in creating career and college readiness cultures in Idaho's schools. She is the GEAR UP Idaho Program Director here at the State Department of Education.

GEAR UP (Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs) is a national discretionary grant program started in 1999. The program is designed to increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. National GEAR UP provides six-year grants to states and partnerships to provide services at high-poverty middle and high schools.

The Leadership in Career Development awards are annually sponsored by the Idaho Career Information System division at the Idaho Department of Labor. Additional details on these awards and on this year’s recipients are available at http://goo.gl/6mwTE.

Thanks, Carina, for your hard work and congratulations on your award!

DEPARTMENT SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND WAIVER

The Idaho State Department of Education is seeking comments from the public as it works to apply for a waiver under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

The waiver application is different from reauthorization. Currently, the U.S. Senate is considering legislation that would reauthorize No Child Left Behind. Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna has strongly encouraged Congress and the Administration to take action and reauthorize No Child Left Behind, since it is four years overdue. He testified earlier this week before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee in support of the proposed legislation. (See the blog posts below for more information on Superintendent Luna’s testimony.)

However, until the federal law is reauthorized with necessary changes, Idaho is moving forward in applying for a waiver to ensure the state can create its own system of increased accountability and flexibility for all schools and districts.

With a waiver, Idaho will create a new system of increased accountability that focuses on academic growth and college and career readiness. Idaho is well positioned to apply for a waiver because the state passed the Students Come First education reform laws, which raised academic standards, implemented statewide pay-for-performance to reward teachers, and tied a portion of educator performance evaluations to student achievement.

Superintendent Luna and staff from the State Department of Education already have reached out to the leaders of educational stakeholder groups about the waiver application. Now, the public has an opportunity to comment on what Idaho’s new accountability system should look like. Parents, teachers, school administrators, students, taxpayers, business representatives, and others are strongly encouraged to comment.

To submit your comments, please visit http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/forms/ESEA_Flexibility.asp. Learn more about the waiver process before commenting online at http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/assessment/FederalReq/.

The Idaho State Department of Education will submit its waiver application to the U.S. Department of Education in February 2012.

SUPERINTENDENT LUNA SHOWS SUPPORT FOR NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REAUTHORIZATION

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna told members of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee on Tuesday that he supports the current legislation to reauthorize No Child Left Behind because it finds the right balance between the state’s responsibility and the federal government’s role.

Superintendent Luna, who also serves as President Elect of the Council of Chief State School Officers, was one of 10 individuals – and the only state chief – to testify before the committee on Tuesday.

“I applaud the bipartisan effort in the Senate to bring forth a comprehensive reauthorization bill that maintains a meaningful commitment to accountability while promoting greater state and local leadership in K-12 education,” Superintendent Luna said. “As Idaho’s State Superintendent, I have strongly encouraged reauthorization to transform this law away from a prescriptive one-size-fits-all federal model, to an approach that promotes state and local decision making, while maintaining an unwavering commitment to accountability for all students. Idaho has already moved in this direction by passing comprehensive education reform known as Students Come First that raises academic standards, creates the next generation of assessments, implements a growth model for increased accountability, ties educator evaluations to student achievement, and rewards excellence in the classroom. The Senate HELP Committee now has found the right balance to reauthorize the federal law and give states the higher levels of accountability and flexibility they need to raise student achievement.”

The No Child Left Behind Act was initially passed in 2001. It was supposed to be reauthorized four years ago; however, neither Congress nor the Administration had taken action until now. This summer, Idaho became one of the first states to tell U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan it would no longer abide by the outdated provisions in No Child Left Behind and instead move toward a new system of increased accountability based on academic growth, rather than just proficiency – or how many students can pass the test.

Idaho had already taken steps in this direction through Students Come First because these laws put in place a growth model and a system for rewarding Idaho’s great teachers, among other changes.

Under the proposed legislation before the U.S. Senate to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, states could move away from an outdated accountability system where 100 percent of schools must meet certain proficiency targets. Instead, every state could develop and implement a high level of accountability that measures academic growth as well as proficiency.
“The current No Child Left Behind law reminds me of the old Clint Eastwood movie, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The good is that it created a standards-based system where schools are accountable for every child. The bad is it is a one-size-fits-all model that is difficult to implement in rural states like Idaho. The ugly is the federal government now sets the goal and prescribes the programs we must use to meet that goal. If those programs don’t work, we are held accountable,” Superintendent Luna said to the Senate HELP Committee today. “The new piece of legislation to reauthorize No Child Left Behind keeps the good parts of the law and improves the bad and ugly parts. It moves to a growth model where we can focus on those students who are not on grade level as well as those students who are above grade level.”

Until the law is reauthorized by Congress, Idaho will move forward in applying for a waiver to ensure the state can create its own system of increased accountability and flexibility for all schools as early as next year.

The full Senate HELP Committee hearing, Beyond NCLB: Views on the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act, is available online at: http://help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=5e9041da-5056-9502-5d90-8361a1908701.

Will Flat NAEP Reading Scores Mean More Flat Reading Instruction?

At first I was annoyed with Matthew Di Carlo of the Shanker Blog for criticizing people for things they hadn't yet said. Speaking of the NAEP, he predicted, "People on all 'sides' will interpret the results favorably no matter how they turn out." But, he was right.


The results in my state of Virginia, were reported in The Richmond Times-Dispatch as follows: 

Virginia's fourth- and eighth-graders perform better in reading and mathematics than their peers nationwide, but less than two-fifths have a solid grasp of reading and less than half have a solid grasp of math. . . . In math, 40 percent of Virginia eighth-graders achieved proficient scores in 2011, up from 36 percent in 2009, according to the report. Forty-six percent of fourth-graders performed at the proficient level, compared to 43 percent in 2009.

According to VA DOE spokesman Charles Pyle, in short, Virginia students did relatively well nationally, but there's much room for improvement, especially in reading:

A lack of significant improvement in Virginia's eighth-grade NAEP reading scores over the last couple testing cycles as well as on state achievement tests has informed state efforts to pursue more rigorous standards in the subject, Department of Education spokesman Charles Pyle said. The new reading standards will take effect in 2012-13.

Oh dear. "More rigorous standards in reading"? Aren't they already "rigorous" enough? Let me enter the fray and tell you why I think reading scores are unimpressive in Virginia and flat nationally: Because in the (albeit, well-intentioned) mania to make American kids better readers, we're spending overwhelming amounts of time teaching reading as a subject, as a skill, at the expense of teaching knowledge of other subjects such as science, social studies, foreign language, art, music, PE, theater, etc.

Yes, my children spend more time on math than on other subjects, but that doesn't bother me nearly as much. Now, I don't know much about teaching math but from what I can tell from the elementary math curriculum used in the Virginia county where my kids attend school and from what I can tell from the work they bring home, yes, they are learning different strategies to solve math problems, but they are also learning math facts.

There is such a thing as math strategies. There is such a thing as mastering the mechanics of reading, which is essentially decoding and there is such a thing as reading strategies, but they aren't nearly as useful or applicable as math strategies and needn't be taught nearly to the extent that they are. There is such a thing as math facts. But there is no such thing as reading facts; there's just facts, background knowledge, and vocabulary, the more of which one knows, the better of a reader that one will be.

On a series of posts on Eduwonk between Eric Hanushek and Diane Ravitch about Hanushek's tiresome silver bullet solution of firing the bottom 5-10% of teachers based on standardized test scores (yes, teachers who don't do their jobs or who do them poorly should be removed, but I have no confidence that Hanushek's handwaving gimmickry will achieve that), superb edu-thinker Diana Senechal commented that:

We talk so much about achievement but do not adequately address the question “achievement of what?” This explains, in part, why “literacy” scores are much more stubborn and difficult to raise than math scores. There is no such subject as literacy, and we are spinning our wheels trying to teach it. There is literature, grammar, rhetoric, composition. Teach those things, and you will see some gains. (Math curricula are far from perfect in this country–but at least, in comparison with literacy curricula, they have some sort of substance and sequence.)

Exactly. Beyond teaching decoding and some limited reading strategies, if we want our children to be stronger readers, we need to teach them content (which yes, includes language arts as just outlined by Diana).

While Jeff Bryant did well to point out that NAEP shouldn't be looked at as a report card per se and "Nation At Risk" co-author James Harvey highlighted some short comings of NAEP as an assessment, I still fear the influence of these NAEP results over instruction and curriculum decisions. I worry that with NAEP reading scores being "flat," that educators and reformers will take an even more draconian and ill-informed approach, and call for beefing up reading standards and spending even more time on teaching reading and even less on everything else. For example, in a recent essay in Education Week unrelated to the NAEP release of NAEP results, Eric Witherspoon, superintendent of District 202 in Evanston, Illinois, called for just that:

Reading is the gateway to all learning. Literacy must be addressed in every classroom, every day—reading strategies must be an integral part of history class and math class and of physical and technical education. At ETHS, teachers receive training to help them implement literacy-learning strategies in everything from history and math to physical education.

Certainly, all public school teachers in America should be prepared to work with and help struggling readers, but do we really need kids in PE, math, and history to learn reading strategies? What will that serve other than teaching our kids to know less about PE, math, and history (and every other subject) than they already do. Yes, reading is a tool to learn content--indeed, it's a "gateway to learning"--but learning content is the gateway to becoming a stronger reader and more educated in general.

Matthew Di Carlo's prediction was right on. Let's hope for the education of our children that mine isn't.

Superintendent Luna to Testify Before Congress on Tuesday

Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna will testify before the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Tuesday, November 8, 2011.

The Senate HELP Committee is currently considering legislation to reauthorize ESEA, more commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  As Idaho’s State Superintendent and the President Elect of the Council of Chief State School Officers, Superintendent Luna has played a critical role in encouraging Congress to reauthorize No Child Left Behind and in shaping reauthorization legislation.

The hearing, titled Beyond NCLB: Views on the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act, will be held at 10 a.m. ET (8 a.m. MT) on Tuesday, November 8, 2011 in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

BOARD ADVANCES REQUIREMENT TO BETTER PREPARE STUDENTS FOR THE FUTURE

The Idaho State Board of Education today approved a change in the graduation requirement for high school students. Starting with the graduating class of 2016, students in Idaho will be required to take two (2) classes online.

"The vote today is a great step toward ensuring all Idaho students not only graduate from high school but graduate prepared to go on to postsecondary education and the workplace," said Supt. Tom Luna. "By allowing parents and local school districts to choose online courses and providers that best meets their students’ needs, we now know that every Idaho student will gain the critical digital learning skills they need to be successful in the 21st Century."

 Board President Richard Westerberg felt similarly: “Everything is moving online, and we’re doing our students a disservice if we’re not giving them an opportunity in this arena. Our own institutions tell us that high school students need to have online learning skills to be more successful once they arrive on campus.”

The rule, IDAPA 08-0203-1102, will start with incoming freshman in the fall of 2012. Local districts will have the latitude to determine which classes will be offered to students online and when they can take them during their four years in high school.

“Local control is the key,” said Board Vice-President Ken Edmunds of Twin Falls. “We have one-hundred-fifteen local districts in this state, and each one is unique. They must have that flexibility to work this out in the best manner possible--locally.”

The Board took extensive public comment throughout the rule making process, including a series of seven (7) local public hearings in various locations statewide. A sub-committee of local school superintendents, teachers, school board members, parents, legislators and educational experts worked on the draft rule prior to the public hearings.

“Those folks who said we did this despite overwhelming public opposition need to understand that the majority of people who commented opposed the law itself,” said Subcommittee Chairman and Board Secretary Don Soltman of Twin Lakes. “The law is passed. We are bound to comply with the law. The input we received on the actual proposed number of classes themselves was very constructive.”

The Idaho Legislature will now have an opportunity to review the rule in January of 2012.

Remake the university? How about we understand its purpose first.

Today's piece is a guest post by Michael Lopez. Michael is a few of my favorite things: an attorney-philosopher-graduate student-educator. He previously guest posted here on our shared alma mater and he also guest posts at Joanne Jacob's blog, Linking and Thinking on Education. His own blog is Highered Intelligence.


"But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution." -CK Chesterton.

Preliminarily, I'd like to thank Rachel for inviting me to guest-blog here once more. I've immense respect for her education writing and am honored to be a part of it. She's asked me to write a "response" to this article  in The New Republic about Rick Perry's "higher education vision." The author of the piece is Kevin Carey, the policy director of Education Sector, a DC think tank. And he apparently thinks that Rick Perry has great ideas for the university. So let's do two things up front (besides reading the article): let's identify Perry's ideas, and identify why Carey thinks they're so great.

The article itself provides a link to Perry's "7 Solutions". Carey also provides this brief summary of the relevant steps:

Taken together, the seven solutions are remarkably student-friendly. Four of them focus on improving the quality of university teaching by developing new methods of evaluating teaching performance, tying tenure to success in the classroom, separating the teaching and research functions within university budgets, and using teaching budgets to reward professors who excel at helping students learn. The fifth solution would give prospective students choosing colleges more information about things like class size, graduation rates, and earnings in the job market after graduation. The sixth would make state higher education subsidies more student-focused, and the seventh would shift university accreditation toward measures of academic outcomes.

So what's so wonderful about these efforts on Carey's account? Well, the long and the short of it is that both Carey and Perry share a vision of the role of the university in our society, a vision that has quite a grip on our collective consciousness these days. That vision has a few assumptions behind it: (1) that the role of the university is primarily economic; (2) that the university is part of the "social assembly line" that our elementary and high schools have become in which institutions produce citizens something in the way a screw machine turns out screws; and, (3) that college benefits (or should benefit) everyone who attends, and, specifically, does so through advancing their career prospects.

We can see these assumptions at play throughout Carey's article. For example:

A landmark study of college student learning published earlier this year by the sociologists Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa of NYU and the University of Virginia found that “American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students, and persistent or growing [race- and income-based] inequalities over time.” Fixing this problem ought to be a bipartisan concern.

That Carey assumes that these findings "should" be a universal concern convinces me that he doesn't even entertain two notions: (1) that university might not actually have as its mission teaching everyone equally; and, (2) that the university may not be a suitable a tool for eliminating at least some race- and income-based inequalities. These aren't implausible views, in my estimation, and they deserve at least consideration.

The balance of the article is really more about progressivism than it is about Rick Perry. (Although one might have guessed this by looking at the last sentence of the first paragraph, the traditional location of the "thesis statement."--Carey's doesn't mention Perry at all, despite the title and the picture.) His conclusion is, essentially, that progressives should be seriously committed to their goals of equality-through-social-engineering, that they should treat the university as a tool to accomplish those goals, and that they shouldn't allow party-line loyalty to interfere with their vision. Carey is, in other words, calling for a more consistent progressive idealism that pursues goals over political positioning:

Making college more accessible and affordable is, of course, the foundation of progressive higher education policy. Yet Democrats in Texas have almost uniformly denounced Perry’s plans.

Running through much of this discussion is a common theme: that students aren't getting everything they should from college, that some professors are not great teachers, and that the university is failing in its primary mission to educate the population and prepare them for the workforce. And there's no doubt in my mind whatsoever that universities are, indeed, failing to prepare students for the workforce. Carey and I agree about that. 

Where we disagree is that I question whether universities should be in the workforce-preparation business in the first place. That might seem like a bit of heresy these days, when the phrase "get a college degree" is almost ubiquitously followed with the words "in order to get a good job." But the fact of the matter is that while certain portions of the university are geared towards employment preparation--schools of engineering, education, law, medicine, and the like--the undergraduate curriculum is typically a curriculum in the liberal arts. That is, it is a preparation not for employment, but for life as a free, educated member of the civic body. The university has always had this split, since its inception: there was the arts curriculum on the one hand, and then there was advanced study in Theology, Medicine, or Law on the other.

The study of the liberal arts-- the preparation to live a civic life--is primarily about maturity, reflectiveness, and grounding in culture and philosophy. It's about the development of reason and the contextualization of experience, all so that one's "wider view" of the world might be brought to bear in the course of one's life. Public universities were established in order to make this sort of personal development more available to the populace, on the theory that an informed citizenry is a better citizenry, not necessarily a wealthier citizenry. (Please note that I am referring only to the more common programs at colleges of Arts and Sciences; there is a difference between the purposes of liberal arts programs on the one hand, and technical colleges such as Texas A&M on the other.)

Now perhaps this is something that we should hope for everyone, and maybe college should be more accessible, and cheaper. But if so, it's not because college is simply the last step in preparation for the workforce. The benefit of college (in the sense I'm talking about) isn't economic and the outcome of a college education should not be judged in terms of either economic outcome or economic parity.

This vision of the university does not see the professor as a content-delivery system. That is the role of the teacher in high school, which really is an institution developed and geared towards the distribution of foundational skills for use in one's economic life. Indeed, the K-12 system was developed after the university system, and can credibly be seen as a way to fill a foundational-skills void that the university system was never designed to address. A college professor is not a high school teacher; a professor is there because he or she ostensibly has a subject-matter expertise that makes him or her a resource for those who would like to learn about those things. The burden of learning, however, is on the student; the college student should be one who can teach him or herself, and who can use the professor as a resource in their own educational development.

The high school, by contrast, is an institution for imparting foundational skills that enable students to pursue their own goals and interests. If we see education as the project of providing students with the ability to lead good, flourishing lives, we can see high school as providing the student with the means, the capacities for action, while the liberal arts curriculum helps refine the student's goals.

Yet somewhere along the line--I suspect it was in the 60's--someone decided that college should become the new high school, that a college degree should be the natural continuation and culmination of the basic-skills acquisition that the K-12 system was designed to impart. Progressives like Kevin Carey see college as a way to level the playing field, to achieve their dream of economic egalitarianism. But I think it's the wrong tool for the job, and by leaving it to colleges to pick up the slack left off by a failing high school system that has substantially abandoned any attempt at hard and fast academic standards, we're asking colleges to deliver something that they are not originally equipped to deliver.

It's hardly a surprise that colleges fail at tasks for which they are, by design, incredibly ill-suited. That failure may be a problem, but by proposing seven-point reforms like those advocated by Perry, we're not "fixing" the university, but rather reshaping it into something else.

Now maybe that's really for the best. So far, I've been merely descriptive, offering an alternative vision of the university. It happens that, historically speaking, my vision is much more accurate than Perry's or Carey's. But that doesn't mean it's the best vision for our future. Nevertheless, I think that it's important that we understand what we are doing, and that we avoid the fallacy of Chesterton's Fence, that is, the reform or changing of institutions without regard to the purposes for which they were initially constructed. (Megan McArdle discusses that fallacy here. Please, especially read the block quote from CK Chesterton.) We have universities that provide a liberal arts curriculum for a reason--presumably because the society which attends to such things is a better society. If we "reform" the university, we do so at the risk of losing the benefit of that original purpose. To overstate the case somewhat, by transforming that which gives us a vision of the good life into that which gives us financial success, we risk pursuing money at the expense of our national soul.

I hope readers will excuse me if I'm not quite as eager as Perry and Carey to sprint down that road.

IDAHO STUDENTS EXCEL IN READING COMPARED TO OTHER STATES

Idaho was one of 10 states where eighth grade reading scores improved significantly over the past two years, according to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results.

In addition to overall reading scores increasing in the eighth grade, the percentage of Hispanic students in Idaho who scored at or above grade level for reading jumped significantly from 50 percent in 2009 to 67 percent in 2011. Student scores in mathematics remained similar from 2009 to 2011 as well. Idaho’s eighth graders continue to outpace the national average in mathematics.

“These results show Idaho students are doing well compared to their peers in other states. I celebrate this success and thank our talented teachers, dedicated parents, and hard-working students,” Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna said. “Still, we know our students must do better each and every year if they are going to compete and be successful in this ever-changing world. In Idaho, the state has put the necessary reforms in place to ensure our students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education and careers.”

Through Students Come First, Idaho adopted higher standards in English language arts and mathematics, is paying for every high school junior to take the SAT college entrance exam, and now gives students the opportunity to earn college credits while still in high school.

NAEP is the only assessment that compares student achievement from state to state. It measures students in reading and mathematics in grades 4 and 8. Superintendent Luna serves on the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP. Here are Idaho’s NAEP 2011 results by grade level:

· In NAEP grade 4 reading, 69 percent of students scored at or above grade level. Idaho saw the same results in 2009 grade 4 reading. Idaho’s average score was higher than 14 states, lower than 15 states, and not significantly different from 20 states.

· In NAEP grade 8 reading, 81 percent of students scored at or above grade level, compared to 77 percent of students who were at or above grade level in 2009. Idaho’s average score was higher than 25 states, lower than 7 states, and not significantly different from 17 states.

· In NAEP grade 4 mathematics, 83 percent of students scored at or above grade level, compared to 85 percent in 2009. Idaho’s average score was higher than 16 states, lower than 21 states, and not significantly different from 12 states.

· In NAEP grade 8 mathematics, 77 percent of students scored at or above grade level, compared to 78 percent in 2009. Idaho’s average score was higher than 26 states, lower than 11 states, and not significantly different from 12 states.

In 2011, for the first time, there were enough students tested in Idaho’s public charter schools that NAEP could provide Idaho results for both charter and non-charter schools. NAEP does not sample virtual schools or online schools, so the NAEP 2011 results only show results from brick-and-mortar public charter schools.

In grade 4 reading, the public charter school average was 238, which was higher than the non-charter school average of 220. The charter school average for grade 8 reading was 289, which was higher than the non-charter school average of 268.

In grade 4 mathematics, the charter school average was 257, which was higher than the non-charter school average of 240. The charter school average for grade 8 mathematics was 311, which was not significantly different from the non-charter school average of 286.

Visit Idaho’s NAEP website for more results from the 2011 NAEP assessment: http://www.sde.idaho.gov/site/naep/

GET READY FOR THE THIRD ANNUAL IDAHO MATH CUP

Math Contest Will Motivate Thousands of Idaho Students to “Do More Math” this Fall

Apangea Learning Inc., (http://www.apangea.com/), in conjunction with the Idaho State Department of Education, will kick off the 3rd Annual Idaho Math Cup. Students across the state will be battling to win the title of Idaho Math Cup Champion. Last year’s champion was Lisa Frost’s math class at the Idaho Virtual Academy. This year’s winning class will receive the coveted Idaho Math Cup and an awards ceremony where each student will receive special recognition, complete with customized certificates and t-shirts. Apangea will also name Regional Class Champions--who will receive a special pizza party prize package--and Individual Champions--receiving movie passes, Amazon Gift Cards and an Xbox 360.

“I am excited to announce the third annual Idaho Math Cup! The Math Cup is a great way to motivate Idaho students to improve their academic achievement while having fun,” Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna said. “Through web-based Apangea Math, students who struggle and those who are advanced have the opportunity to compete against other schools and classrooms in the state to solve complex math problems. I wish every student and classroom the best of luck.”

Find more details at the dedicated Apangea Idaho Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/ApangeaMathIdaho, check out http://www.apangea.com/ or hear stories from last year’s winners at Apangea Learning's YouTube channel.

The Idaho State Department of Education provides Apangea Math to students as a part of the Idaho Math Initiative. Students can access Apangea from school, at home, or from any computer with internet access including any Idaho Public Library through the Idaho Commission for Libraries’ Online @ Your Library Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. Apangea has been helping thousands of struggling kids across Idaho since 2008 with online supplemental instructional and tutoring programs.

“Doing math can and should be fun. Kids in Idaho are going to compete in a class v. class format to win the Idaho Math Cup. Many students will do extra math during the evenings and weekends to help their class get ahead. While the contest is great fun, it is also a great springboard to math success this year and beyond,” said Louis Piconi, Apangea’s Chief Education Officer, VP of National Accounts and Co-Founder.

To learn more about the Idaho Math Initiative, please visit www.sde.idaho.gov/site/math/ and click on the “Idaho Math Initiative” link.

About Apangea Learning

Apangea Learning (http://www.apangea.com/) is a pioneer in developing cost-effective, one-on-one online math tutoring services for students in elementary through high schools across the United States. School districts purchase seat licenses for Apangea’s services and provide access to their students during the school day and after hours from home. Individual families and students may also subscribe directly. With its programs based on one of the world's largest bodies of cognitive research (originally conducted by the U.S. military), Apangea has both strong technical resources and a content-development prowess that enables it to harness advanced Web technologies and offer innovative instruction techniques. The privately owned company is based in Pittsburgh, PA.

SUPERINTENDENT LUNA TO VISIT SCHOOLS IN EASTERN IDAHO, HAILEY THIS WEEK

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna is visiting schools in eastern Idaho and the Wood River Valley this week.
Superintendent Luna will visit Idaho Falls on Wednesday, Pocatello and Richfield on Thursday, and Hailey on Friday. The visits are part of Superintendent Luna’s efforts each year to travel to classrooms across Idaho and hear directly from students, teachers, school administrators and parents.

The following is a full schedule of events:

Here is the schedule for Wednesday, November 2, 2011:

Noon Superintendent Luna will speak at the Idaho Falls Rotary Club at the Red Lion Conference Center.
2 p.m. Superintendent Luna will tour Idaho Falls High School and visit with students and staff.

Here is the schedule for Thursday, November 3, 2011:

8:15 a.m. Superintendent Luna will visit The Academy at Roosevelt Center in Pocatello.
12:30 p.m. Superintendent Luna will visit classrooms in the Richfield School District.

Here is the schedule for Friday, November 4, 2011:

10 a.m. Superintendent Luna will visit Wood River Middle School in Hailey.
11:30 a.m. Superintendent Luna will visit Woodside Elementary School in Hailey.

If you have any questions, please contact Melissa McGrath at mrmcgrath@sde.idaho.gov or (208) 332-6818.