DOCSLIB.ORG

The State of State Math Standards 2005 by David Klein

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The State of State Math Standards 2005 by David Klein 2005 The State of by David Klein with Bastiaan J. Braams, Thomas Parker, William Quirk, State MATH Wilfried Schmid, and W. Stephen Wilson Technical assistance from Ralph A. Raimi and Lawrence Braden Standards Analysis by Justin Torres Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. The State of State MATH Standards 2005 by David Klein With Bastiaan J. Braams, Thomas Parker, William Quirk, Wilfried Schmid, and W. Stephen Wilson Technical assistance by Ralph A. Raimi and Lawrence Braden Analysis by Justin Torres 1627 K Street, Northwest Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 202-223-5452 202-223-9226 Fax JANUARY 2005 www.edexcellence.net THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION 1 The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is a nonprofit organization that conducts research, issues publications, and directs action projects in elementary/secondary education reform at the national level and in Dayton, Ohio. It is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Further information is available at www.edexcellence.net, or write us at 1627 K Street, Northwest Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 This report is available in full on the Foundation’s website. Additional copies can be ordered at www.edexcellence.net/publication/order.cfm or by calling 410-634-2400. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University. 2 CONTENTS Foreword by Chester E. Finn, Jr. .5 Executive Summary . .9 The State of State Math Standards 2005 by David Klein . .13 Major Findings . .13 Common Problems . .14 Overemphasized and Underemphasized Topics . .17 The Roots of, and Remedy for, Bad Standards . .23 Memo to Policy Makers by Justin Torres . .27 Criteria for Evaluation . .31 Clarity . .31 Content . .31 Reason . .32 Negative Qualities . .34 State Reports Alabama . .37 Montana . .79 Alaska . .38 Nebraska . .79 Arizona . .39 Nevada . .80 Arkansas . .41 New Hampshire . .81 California . .42 New Jersey . .83 Colorado . .45 New Mexico . .85 Connecticut . .47 New York . .87 Delaware . .48 North Carolina . .89 District of Columbia . .50 North Dakota . .91 Florida . .52 Ohio . .92 Georgia . .54 Oklahoma . .94 Hawaii . .56 Oregon . .95 Idaho . .58 Pennsylvania . .96 Illinois . .59 Rhode Island . .98 Indiana . .61 South Carolina . .100 Kansas . .63 South Dakota . .101 Kentucky . .64 Tennessee . .103 Louisiana . .65 Texas . .104 Maine . .67 Utah . .107 Maryland . .68 Vermont . .109 Massachusetts . .70 Virginia . .111 Michigan . .72 Washington . .113 Minnesota . .74 West Virginia . .115 Mississippi . .75 Wisconsin . .117 Missouri . .77 Wyoming . .118 Methods and Procedures . .121 Appendix . .123 About the Expert Panel . .127 THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION 3 4 The State of State Math Standards, 2004 Foreword Chester E. Finn, Jr. Two decades after the United States was diagnosed as “a strengthen K-12 academic achievement. The summi- nation at risk,” academic standards for our primary and teers called for “new world-class standards” for U.S. secondary schools are more important than ever—and schools. And by 1998, 47 states had outlined K-12 stan- their quality matters enormously. dards in mathematics. In 1983, as nearly every American knows, the National But were they any good? We at the Thomas B. Fordham Commission on Excellence in Education declared that Foundation took it upon ourselves to find out. In early “The educational foundations of our society are 1998, we published State Math Standards, written by the presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity distinguished mathematician Ralph Raimi and veteran that threatens our very future as a Nation and a peo- math teacher Lawrence Braden. Two years later, with ple.” Test scores were falling, schools were asking less of many states having augmented or revised their academ- students, international rankings were slipping, and col- ic standards, we published The State of State Standards leges and employers were complaining that many high 2000, whose math review was again conducted by school graduates were semi-literate. America was Messrs. Raimi and Braden. It appraised the math stan- gripped by an education crisis that centered on weak dards of 49 states, conferring upon them an average academic achievement in its K-12 schools. Though that grade of “C.” weakness had myriad causes, policy makers, business leaders, and astute educators quickly deduced that the Raising the Stakes surest cure would begin by spelling out the skills and knowledge that children ought to learn in school, i.e., Since that review, standards-based reform received a setting standards against which progress could be major boost from the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB) tracked, performance be judged, and curricula (and of 2002. Previously, Washington had encouraged states textbooks, teacher training, etc.) be aligned. Indeed, the to set standards. Now, as a condition of federal educa- vast education renewal movement that gathered speed tion assistance, they must set them in math and reading in the mid-1980s soon came to be known as “stan- (and, soon, science) in grades 3 through 8; develop a dards-based reform.” testing system to track student and school performance; and hold schools and school systems to account for By 1989, President George H.W. Bush and the governors progress toward universal proficiency as gauged by agreed on ambitious new national academic goals, those standards. including the demand that “American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in Due mostly to the force of NCLB, more than 40 states challenging subject matter” in the core subjects of have replaced, substantially revised, or augmented their English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. K-12 math standards since our 2000 review. NCLB also raised the stakes attached to those standards. States, In response, states began to enumerate academic stan- districts, and schools are now judged by how well they dards for their schools and students. In 1994, are educating their students and whether they are rais- Washington added oomph to this movement (and more ing academic achievement for all students. The goal, subjects to the “core” list) via the “Goals 2000” act and a now, is 100 percent proficiency. Moreover, billions of revision of the federal Title I program. dollars in federal aid now hinge on whether states con- Two years later, the governors and business leaders con- scientiously hold their schools and districts to account vened an education summit to map out a plan to for student learning. THOMAS B. FORDHAM FOUNDATION 5 Thus, a state’s academic standards bear far more weight Braden—was in weighting the four major criteria than ever before. These documents now provide the against which state standards are evaluated. foundation for a complex, high-visibility, high-risk As Klein explains on page 9, the review team conclud- accountability system. “Standards-based” reform is the ed that today the single most important consideration most powerful engine for education improvement in for statewide math standards is the selection (and accu- America, and all parts of that undertaking—including racy) of their content coverage. Accordingly, content teacher preparation, textbook selection, and much now counts for two-fifths of a state’s grade, up from 25 more—are supposed to be aligned with a state’s stan- percent in earlier evaluations. The other three criteria dards. If that foundation is sturdy, such reforms may (clarity, mathematical reasoning, and the absence of succeed; if it’s weak, uneven, or cracked, reforms erect- “negative qualities”) count for 20 percent each. If the ed atop it will be shaky and, in the end, could prove content isn’t there (or is wrong), our review team worse than none at all. judged, such factors as clarity of expression cannot compensate. Such standards resemble clearly written recipes that use the wrong ingredients or combine Constancy and Change them in the wrong proportions. Mindful of this enormous burden on state standards, and aware that most of them had changed substantially Glum Results since our last review, in 2004 we initiated fresh appraisals in mathematics and English, the two subjects at NCLB’s Though the rationale for changing the emphasis was heart. To lead the math review, we turned to Dr. David not to punish states, only to hold their standards to Klein, a professor of mathematics at California State higher expectations at a time when NCLB is itself rais- University, Northridge, who has long experience in K-12 ing the bar throughout K-12 education, the shift in cri- math issues. We encouraged him to recruit an expert teria contributed to an overall lowering of state “grades.” panel of fellow mathematicians to collaborate in this Indeed, as the reader will see in the following pages, the ambitious venture, both to expose states’ standards to essential finding of this study is that the overwhelming more eyes, thus improving the reliability and consisten- majority of states today have sorely inadequate math cy of the ratings, and to share the work burden. standards. Their average grade is a “high D”—and just six earn “honors” grades of A or B, three of each. Fifteen Dr. Klein outdid himself in assembling such a panel of states receive Cs, 18 receive Ds and 11 receive Fs. (The five eminent mathematicians, identified on page 127. District of Columbia is included in this review but Iowa We could not be more pleased with the precision and is not because it has no statewide academic standards.) rigor that they brought to this project. Tucked away in these bleak findings is a ray of hope. It is inevitable, however, that when reviewers change, Three states—California, Indiana, and Massachusetts— reviews will, too. Reviewing entails judgment, which is have first-rate math standards, worthy of emulation. If inevitably the result of one’s values and priorities as well they successfully align their other key policies (e.g., as expert knowledge and experience.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Professional Development for the Early Learning Content Social Studies Standards
    International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol. 2, Issue 2, March, 2010. Professional development for the early learning content social studies standards Laurie KATZ The Ohio State University, United States of America Hatice Zeynep INAN* The Dumlupinar University, Turkey Cynthia TYSON The Ohio State University, United States of America Adrienne DIXSON The Ohio State University, United States of America Hyun-Young KANG The Ohio State University, United States of America Abstract This article describes early childhood educators’ responses to a professional development series aimed at helping them to understand and incorporate early learning standards for social studies. While the primary aim of the professional development was to focus on the social studies content standards, the secondary aim was to introduce early childhood educators to culturally relevant pedagogical strategies that take into account the unique learning needs of diverse children, particularly children of colour, English language learners and children with special needs. The findings suggest that early childhood educators can benefit from sustained professional development that not only addresses content standards but also helps them to understand how to incorporate the standards into their existing curriculum using developmentally and culturally appropriate pedagogy. Keywords: Early Childhood; Social Studies; Standards; Professional Development Introduction Standards of learning for children before they attend kindergarten (ages 2 to 5 years old), typically described as early learning standards, started developing in the 21st century (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2002). The need to design standards separate from children in the early elementary years is * E-mail for correspondence: [email protected] International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.2, Issue 2, March,2010 based on “research about the processes, sequences, and long-term consequences of early learning and development” (p.5).
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of State K-3 Reading Standards and Assessments
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Analysis of State K-3 Reading Standards and Assessments SM Analysis of State K-3 Reading Standards and Assessments Final Report By E. Allen Schenck Douglas R. Walker Carrie R. Nagel RMC Research Corporation Arlington, Va. Loretta C. Webb The McKenzie Group Washington, D.C. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service 2005 This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. ED-01-CO-0055/0011, Task 7. The project monitor was Beth A. Franklin in the Policy and Program Studies Service. The views expressed herein are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings Secretary Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Tom Luce Assistant Secretary Policy and Program Studies Service Alan L. Ginsburg Director Program and Analytic Studies Division David Goodwin Director December 2005 This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with permission and copyright, 2005, Getty Images. Authorization to produce this report in whole or in part is granted. Although permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Analysis of State K-3 Reading Standards and Assessments, Washington, D.C., 2005. To order copies of this report, write: ED Pubs Education Publications Center U.
    [Show full text]
  • Errors in Standardized Tests: a Systemic Problem
    The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Errors in Standardized Tests: A Systemic Problem ErrorsErrors in in Standardized Tests: A Systemic Problem About the National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Standardized Created as an independent monitoring system for assessment in America, the National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy is located in the Carolyn A. and Peter S. Lynch School of Education at Boston College. The National Board provides research-based test information for policy decision making, with special attention to National Board on Educational groups historically underserved by the educational systems of our country. Specifically, the National Board Testing and Public Policy •Monitors testing programs, policies, and products •Evaluates the benefits and costs of testing programs in operation Tests: •Assesses the extent to which professional standards for test development and use are met in practice This National Board publication is supported by grants from The Ford Foundation and The Atlantic Philanthropies Foundation. A Systemic The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy Lynch School of Education, Boston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Kathleen Rhoades & George Madaus Telephone: (617)552-4521 Fax: (617)552-8419 Email: [email protected] BOSTON COLLEGE NBETPP Boston College Problem Visit our website at www.bc.edu/nbetpp for more articles, the latest educational news, and information on NBETPP. Kathleen Rhoades & George Madaus Lynch School of Education Boston College May 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We wish to thank the Ford Foundation for their encouragement and generous support of this project. We would also like to thank Walt Haney and Monty Neil for contributing reports on testing errors and related material.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia's Early Learning & Development Standards (ELDS)
    VIRGINIA’S EARLY LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (ELDS) BIRTH-FIVE LEARNING GUIDELINES VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION 1 VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION | doe.virginia.gov CONTENTS SED1.3. Becoming autonomous and independent 27 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 SED2. EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE 28 INTRODUCTION 6 SED2.1. Seeing and naming emotions in self and others 28 SED2.2. Expressing emotions 29 THE VALUE AND NEED FOR A UNIFIED SET OF EARLY LEARNING AND SED2.3. Communicating feelings, wants, and needs 30 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN VIRGINIA 6 SED2.4. Regulating emotions 31 GROUNDING KNOWLEDGE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES 6 SED2.5. Showing care and concern for others 32 GROUNDING KNOWLEDGE 6 SED3. INTERACTING WITH OTHERS 33 GUIDING PRINCIPLES 7 SED3.1. Developing relationships with adults 33 SED3.2. Developing relationships with other children 34 ABOUT CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PRACTICE 8 SED3.3. Engaging in cooperative play 35 Culturally Responsive Caregivers and Educators 8 SED3.4. Solving social interaction problems 36 HOW TO USE VIRGINIA’S UNIFIED EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9 AREA THREE: COMMUNICATION, LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT (CLLD) 37 DESIGN OF THE VIRGINIA EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DOCUMENT 9 CLLD1. COMMUNICATION 38 CLLD1.1. Understanding verbal and nonverbal cues 38 VIRGINIA’S EARLY LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT CLLD1.2. Using vocabulary and nonverbal cues to communicate 39 STANDARDS AT A GLANCE 10 CLLD1.3. Learning and engaging in conversational interactions 40 ORGANIZATION OF THE STANDARDS 12 CLLD2. FOUNDATIONS OF READING 41 PROCESS 13 CLLD2.1. Paying attention to print as meaningful 41 WRITING STYLE 13 CLLD2.2. Understanding ideas, vocabulary, and information in stories and texts 42 AREA ONE: APPROACHES TO PLAY AND LEARNING (APL) 14 CLLD2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Standards of Learning Mathematical Pictionary for Grades K-3. Amanda Rashelle Collins-Browning East Tennessee State University
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2009 The Language of Mathematics: Virginia Standards of Learning Mathematical Pictionary for Grades K-3. Amanda Rashelle Collins-Browning East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Recommended Citation Collins-Browning, Amanda Rashelle, "The Language of Mathematics: Virginia Standards of Learning Mathematical Pictionary for Grades K-3." (2009). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1874. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1874 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Language of Mathematics: Virginia Standards of Learning Mathematical Pictionary for Grades K-3 ____________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of Mathematics East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Mathematics ____________________ by Amanda Collins-Browning August 2009 ____________________ Dr. Frederick Norwood, Chair Dr. Jeff Knisley Dr. Michel Helfgott Keywords: Vocabulary, Pictionary, Mathematics, Instruction, Kindergarten-Grade Three ABSTRACT The Language of Mathematics: Virginia Standards of Learning Mathematical Pictionary for Grades K-3 by Amanda Collins-Browning My experience teaching in Virginia schools, pacing and aligning instruction to the Virginia Standards of Learning, caused me to recognize the need for a mathematics tool to simplify and transition K-3 mathematics vocabulary usage and instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Teachers' Perspectives on the Standards of Learning School Reform in Virginia Melanie A. Bolt Submitted to the Faculty Of
    Teachers’ Perspectives on the Standards of Learning School Reform in Virginia Melanie A. Bolt Submitted to the Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Research and Evaluation April 2003 Blacksburg, Virginia Committee chair: Kusum Singh Committee members: Lawrence Cross, Jim C. Fortune, Jim Garrison, and Sue Magliaro Keywords: high-stakes accountability, testing, standards, classroom effects, curricula, instructional strategies, student learning, teacher professional autonomy, teacher tension, school quality Copyright 2003, Melanie A. Bolt Abstract Teachers’ Perspectives on the SOL School Reform in Virginia Melanie A. Bolt School of Human Sciences and Education Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Dissertation Committee Chairperson: Kusum Singh This study discussed the need for a broader public discourse on high-stakes accountability-based school reform that underscores teachers’ perspectives. Also, the study discussed the need for fuller disclosure of the possible undesirable classroom effects of the reform. To address these needs, this study described teachers’ perspectives on the Standards of Learning (SOL) school reform in Virginia, focusing upon teachers’ views on the reform’s classroom effects. The domains of interest were (1) the adequacy of curriculum and the diversity of teachers’ instructional strategies, (2) the quality of student learning, (3) teachers’ sense of professional autonomy and level of teacher tension, and (4) school quality. The study examined whether there are differences in teachers’ views based on the income level of the school locale where the teachers teach (low-, middle-, or high-income), school type (elementary, middle, or high school), and teachers’ status on whether they teach a SOL-tested subject (yes/no).
    [Show full text]
  • A Piece of the Educational Puzzle
    Puzzle Piece 1 Running Head: PUZZLE PIECE A Piece of the Educational Puzzle Lauren D. Fowler A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Fall Semester 2006 Puzzle Piece 2 Acceptance of Senior Honors Thesis This Senior Honors Thesis is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the Honors Program of Liberty University. ____________________________ Kathie Johnson, Ed.D. Chairman of Thesis ___________________________ Clive McClelland, Ph.D. Committee Member ___________________________ Michelle Goodwin, Ed.D. Committee Member ___________________________ James Nutter, D.A. Honors Program Director __________________________ Date Puzzle Piece 3 Abstract The quality of education in America has not paralleled her vast achievements. In an effort to lessen mediocrity within the educational system, the standards-based education movement has begun to establish levels of information taught at each grade level. This educational reform which attempts to raise the quality of education across the nation has been implemented locally through the Virginia Standards of Learning. The Standards of Learning framework highlights the necessity of proficient communication for the sake of the future ambitions of students. Such an objective has been attained through grammatical instruction of Standard English integrated within the language arts. Although in the midst of such progress, fears are still prevalent that the nation is regressing towards instructional methodologies which have historically stifled America’s educational system. These fears arise from the movement’s reliance on high stakes testing. An examination of these high stakes testing reveals various aspects of teaching towards the test which indirectly emphasize practices regressing back towards rote- memorization.
    [Show full text]
  • ENHANCED SCOPE and SEQUENCE for Grades K–5
    ENGLISH STANDARDS OF LEARNING ENHANCED SCOPE and SEQUENCE for Grades K–5 Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education Richmond, Virginia 2004 Copyright © 2004 by the Virginia Department of Education P.O. Box 2120 Richmond, Virginia 23218-2120 http://www.pen.k12.va.us/ All rights reserved. Reproduction of materials contained herein for instructional purposes in Virginia classrooms is permitted. Superintendent of Public Instruction Jo Lynne DeMary Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Patricia I. Wright Office of Elementary School Instructional Services Linda M. Poorbaugh, Director Barbara F. Jones, Reading/English Specialist Office of Middle School Instructional Services James C. Firebaugh, Director Catherine Rosenbaum, Reading/English Specialist Office of Secondary School Instructional Services Maureen B. Hijar, Director Tracy Robertson, English Specialist Edited, designed, and produced by the CTE Resource Center Margaret L. Watson, Administrative Coordinator Lee Capps, Writer/Editor Bruce B. Stevens, Writer/Editor Richmond Medical Park Phone: 804-673-3778 2002 Bremo Road, Lower Level Fax: 804-673-3798 Richmond, Virginia 23226 Web site: http://CTEresource.org The CTE Resource Center is a Virginia Department of Education grant project administered by the Henrico County Public Schools. NOTICE TO THE READER In accordance with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act and other federal and state laws and regulations, this document has been reviewed to ensure that it does not reflect stereotypes based on sex, race, or national origin. The Virginia Department of Education does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of sex, race, age, color, religion, handicapping conditions, or national origin in employment or in its educational programs and activities. The content contained in this document is supported in whole or in part by the U.S.
    [Show full text]