NEPC’s 2018 report on virtual and blended schools

The NEPC has just issued its  6th annual report on virtual education, which you can get here. This study examines both full-time virtual schools (429 schools, 296,000 students), and full-time blended schools — those with a substantial on-line component as well as “traditional” face-to-face instruction  (296 schools, with 177,000 students).

I think this is a valuable series to follow, because in many states or regions, the push for increased school “choice” has revealed the basic problem that if I decide I want my student to move out of a poorly-performing school, I may actually have no place within practical reach to move her to.  Many choice advocates, in response, suggest that virtual schools are one good answer — and so, like charters, virtual schools are encouraged in many states — one way they are encouraged is by having less oversight than “traditional” schools (See here for a story on the tension around regulation, de-regulation, and school quality in Indiana.  h/t to again).

Meanwhile, blended schools are being encouraged in many states as part of the move to personalized learning, as well as to provide access to otherwise unavailable content for students in isolated or low-resourced schools.

In both cases, while private (nonprofit and for-profit) “Educational Management Organizations” (EMOs) are in the minority numerically (a little more than a third of the virtual schools for example), they have higher numbers of students per school (on average), and as a result have almost 2/3 of the students in such schools.  For profit schools tend to have higher class sizes — for example,  for blended schools, “Blended schools enrolled an average of 394 students, but blended schools managed by for-profit EMOs had a far larger average enrollment of 1,288.”

The authors believe that the trend towards poor teacher/student ratios in virtual schools is an area for urgent attention and remediation — three of their policy recommendations are related to this, including one that surprised me, because it suggests some issues worthy of deeper investigation:   Policymakers should

Require that teachers employed by virtual schools, and not parents, take primary responsibility for students’ education. The widely practiced corporate model instead largely relies on the parent as teacher and provides contracted teachers with insufficient time to interact with students and to provide support for those who struggle or drift away.

In the case of both virtual and blended schools, NEPC continues to find relatively little research on the innovations, but what information is out there, they have once again collated and examined.  Moreover, even at the basic level of data collected by the licensing agency, data are hard to come by: “Many states continue to have frozen accountability systems or to have implemented new systems that do not include an overall rating.”

What data there are, are sobering:

Virtual schools continued to underperform academically, including in compar- ison to blended schools, although the margins were much closer this year than last. Overall, 36.4% of full-time virtual schools and 43.1% of blended schools received acceptable performance ratings…. On-time graduation rate data were available for 247 full-time virtual schools and 152 blended schools. The graduation rates of 50.7% in virtual schools and 49.5% in blended schools fell far short of the national average of 83%

It is interesting to note that when districts are responsible, performance measures are more encouraging:

Among virtual schools, district-operated schools performed far better based on school performance ratings (53.8% acceptable) than charter-operated schools (20.7%).

The largest proportion of virtual schools are secondary (26% high school), while an even larger proportion of blended schools are high school (41%), and in both varieties, an uncertain but additional proportion are actually K-12 schools.  Virtual schools tend to be whiter (66% of students are “white non-hispanic” vs. the national mean of nearly 50%) (blended schools have a compostion much more similar to the national averages, both with respect to ethnicity and to special needs) .  The authors’ comment on the demographic characteristics of virtual schools makes clear how complex the story may be, and how much more data are needed to really understand what’s going on:

The fact that minority low-income families may have less access to technology may help explain underrepresentation of these groups, even though many of the virtual schools loan their students computers and often pay for internet access. There are other possible explanations for the overrepresentation of White students in these schools, such as White flight by urban families or the fact that virtual schools often pres- ent the only viable form of school choice in rural areas where minorities are less prevalent. These possible explanations warrant further exploration to determine whether they can ex- plain underrepresentation of some ethnic groups in virtual schools.

As for measures of academic performance, the news continues discouraging for virtual schools, based on the available studies:

The first decade of the new millennium provided little research into full-time virtual and blended school student achievement at the K-12 level, and results of existing research were not positive…To date, the second decade hasn’t produced much research either, and the scant research conducted has produced mixed results, with most findings being either neutral or negative…This report has consistently found virtual schools not performing well.

Although the indicators for blended schools seem better, the authors note that our ignorance about the performance of blended schools is extensive, with the lion’s share of research focusing on virtual schools.  I expect that this may change, with the increasing investment in “personalized learning,” since it seems more and more common for schools to provide at least some of the personalization through the use of on-line course work and other resources.

The authors make several recommendations for policy, and specific areas in which further research is needed.  Their final conclusions, however, lead this reader, at least, to the conviction that in this as in many aspects of the current “reform” measures, we are conducting “experiments,” but not well-designed ones, and proceeding in the faith that this is a good way to go.  The kids, the parents, and the teachers are enlisted (both in the virtual schools, and in the real schools), with varying degrees of informed consent, but too much of the insight being gained is provisional, post hoc, or anecdotal.    The study’s final recommendations:

Given the rapid growth of virtual schools and blended schools, the populations they serve, and the relatively poor performance of virtual schools on widely used accountability mea- sures, four final recommendations are offered.

  • Policymakers should slow or stop the growth in the number of virtual schools and in the size of their enrollments until the factors responsible for their relatively poor performance have been addressed.
  • Policymakers should carefully and continuously monitor the performance of full- time blended schools since the evidence base is still weak.
  • Authorities charged with oversight should specify and enforce sanctions for vir- tual and blended schools that perform inadequately.
  • State agencies should (1) ensure that virtual and blended schools fully report data related to the student population they serve and the teachers they employ, and (2) make every effort to assign all virtual schools an overall school performance rating and explain each missing rating.

Note:  The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily shared by MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Learning on the land in the city or out of it

Nature-study, then, is not science. It is not knowledge.  It is not facts  It is spirit.  It is an attitude of mind.  It concerns itself with the child’s outlook on the world.   (Liberty Hyde Bailey, The nature study idea. pg 6)

In the early years of the 20th century, a widespread “Nature-study movement” arose, from several sources.  Its advocates included  both teachers and scientists (for example, the great botanist LH Bailey);  its most famous text is still available, the Handbook of Nature Study, by Anna Comstock, and I have referred to it often over the years — even for work in subjects not embraced within Nature-study — precisely because of the outlook — the pedagogical outlook, which see such importance in the outlook of the child. 

It has been suggested that Nature-study arose in reaction (conscious or not) to the increasing urbanization of American life — though in the early 1900s, fewer Americans were urban  — about 35% — than now (according to the Bureau of the Census, 63% of the US population in 2016 lived in cities on 3.5% of the land area).   But sensitive observers 100 years ago were seeing the trend, which included more rapid transport, more mobility (and therefore less stability and a change in place-identity), more ethnic diversity with immigration — there was a general sense of big changes under way, which was costly in terms of spirit and morale.  Already by 1877, Gerard Manley Hopkins could write

Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wear’s man’s smudge, and shares man’s smell:  the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

In the early 1900s, John Dewey was advocating an approach to education that embraced children’s engagement with ideas and skills in authentic contexts that had meaning for them, not as preparation for some future envisioned by adults.  Children’s knowledge and skills were stretched and enriched by purposeful, context-rich inquiry, and Dewey recommended that such inquiry be situated in meaningful life activities, such as building, or the growing of food.  The Nature-Study advocates were well aware of this philosophical approach and argued that the whole child (the whole person) was educated by Nature-study, which responded to something deep and fundamental in the growing, learning human. (See here for a nice overview of the history and current relevance of the movement).  Bailey again:

Nature-study will endure because it is natural and of universal application.  Methods will change and will fall into disrepute; its name will be dropped from courses of study; here and there it will be incased in the school master’s “method” and its life will be smothered;  now and then it will be over-exploited; with some persons it will be a fad;  but the spirit will live. (pg. 6)

So the important movement recently stimulated by Richard Louv (The last child in the woods), who diagnosed “Nature deficit disorder” as a characteristic malady of our times, has deep roots.  With all the passage of time, new questions have been asked and some answers found, about the benefits of getting “more green” into children’s (and other humans’) daily lives.  E.O Wilson “thickened” the story with his “biophilia hypothesis.”    People are inquiring into the existence and mechanisms of “nature” for well-being on many levels — health, stress, cognition in young children as well as aging children, and more (the links provide links, and this is far from an exhaustive survey!  For more, just go to Science Daily and search for e.g. “cognitive benefits of nature.” )

The movement in its current form, as in the past, is a response to social developments that its advocates (count me in!) see as deeply and systemically harmful.  It’s not only things such as the intensification of urbanization, with the accompanying intensification of resource exploitation and waste production.  There are also the many drawbacks to the last several decades of public education policy, often seen as kicking off with A Nation At Risk (whose anniversary is attracting some comment in the blogosphere, as here with links).

I recommend two interesting stories on aspects of this current surge.

First, Valerie Strauss’s Answer Sheet blog has a story about the Chicago High School for Agricultural Sciences, which has been included as a “school of opportunity,” a program that seeks out encouraging progressive models of school innovation;  Strauss often features stories about such schools in her blog.  Strauss writes,

The Schools of Opportunity project started in 2014 as a pilot in New York and Colorado, and went national in 2015-16. Several dozen schools have been honored in the program, which assesses a range of factors, including how well the adults in a school building  provide health and psychological support for students as well as judicious and fair discipline policies, and broad and enriched curriculum.

Kevin Welner and Linda Ann Molner Kelley,  guest bloggers, write

CHSAS is a public school operating on 72 acres of Chicago’s last working farm, and it offers its entire diverse student body a first-class college-preparatory curriculum that integrates learning with a solid career-technical education.

Students at CHSAS choose between six agricultural pathways grounded in rigorous learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). These include animal science, food science, agricultural mechanics, horticulture/landscape design, agricultural education and agricultural finance. Well-resourced laboratories and facilities mean students have access to real-world tools and practical applications of their studies.

The whole post is good reading.  You can find out more at the school’s  website.

I should mention that this Chicago project presented a video in the STEM for All 2017 video showcase (you can see it here) which won a “public choice” award and engendered a lively discussion during the event (archived on the conference site).  Allow me to plug this year’s STEM for All Video Showcase, coming up May 14th-21st.  Find out more here

The other story I wanted to recommend to you is this article in The Atlantic, on “the perks of a play-in-the-mud educational philosophy.”  (h/t to Hackeducation again).   The author starts off with one of those simple, “Emperor has no clothes” questions:

Why is it odd for 4-year-olds to spend the bulk of their time outside? When did America decide that preschool should be boring routines performed within classroom walls?

This sets the stage for an exploration of the benefits and critiques of an educational approach that —true to the Nature-study vision that LH Bailey predicted was indestructible — stands in marked contrast to current favored trends in early childhood education:

There [at the school Conor Williams visited], every day, dozens of children ages 3 to 5 come to have adventures on Irvine’s more than 200 acres of woodlands, wetlands, and meadows. These muddy explorers stand out at a moment when many American pre-K programs have become more and more similar to K–12 education: row after row of tiny kids, sitting at desks, drilling letter identification and counting.

Sounds good to me.  We spend so much time, within the confines of school walls and progressions and tests, seeking to find ways to support “authentic learning” in “authentic contexts,” when there is, after all, a world out there, which is itself our context. Curious.

NOTE:  Opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and are not necessarily those of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


This week, the term “precision,” describing a new approach to social engineering, caught my attention. The first thing that caught my eye was this article, on “precision medicine.”  The Harvard Magazine article reports on genome-specific strategies for treating cancer, as well as immunotherapies, both informed by a accelerating mountain of information about cancer genetics, and methodologies for diagnosis of individuals’ oncogenetic profiles.  The article makes clear that there are real breakthroughs, and definite limitations to those successes, owing in large part (as I understand it) to the complexity of cancers’ genetics, especially the rapid mutations which render a patient’s last-year’s miracle intervention no longer effective.

Meanwhile, Ben Williamson at the fascinating blog Code Acts in Education posted a long, rich essay (his blog posts are typically long-form) on “personalized precision education and intimate data analytics.”   The rapidly expanding “personalization” movement is being linked more and more with the collection of personal data on learners, and used according to emerging theories about learning which are very often self-validated by the creators.  Williamson places “precision education” alongside its fore-runners and models, “precision medicine,” “precision agriculture,” and “precision electioneering.”

Williamson writes

precision education is based on enormous ambitions. It assumes that the sciences of genes, neurology, behaviour and psychology can be combined in order to provide insights into learning processes, and to define how learning inputs and materials can be organized in ways best suited to each individual student…Precision education represents a shift from the collection of assessment-type data about educational outcomes, to the generation of data about the intimate interior details of students’ genetic make-up, their psychological characteristics, and their neural functioning.

The term “educational neuroscience” appears frequently, but the advocates and researchers in this field clearly assume that genetics is a central part of their model of learning.  So also is psychological profiling through which large amounts of data taken on individuals (for example, through their use of educational technology) is interpreted for the purposes of guidance (or, in other words, control). Theory expressed as software — producing not just general theory about people, but a theory about how you work, you as an individual.

The “blog on learning and development” (BOLD), a good place to look for emerging ideas and research trends in this area, says

Proponents of EN argue for using the most sophisticated technologies to find out more about the learning brain and ensure that everyone has the best possible chance to learn. This process is a challenge, and EN offers no quick fixes. In time, EN will provide tools for educators and learners through carefully designed, well-thought-out research. EN will also lead to recommendations for policymakers, who can advocate for the use of scientifically-tested modern teaching and learning methods in schools.

The earnest author lets us know that we are not to expect “quick fixes.”  But it’s not as though the current educational “system” has been able to resist seizing on possibilities and turning them into quick fixes and even imperatives— think of:

high stakes standardized tests, or data-driven systems increasingly employed  to do everything from grade students’ essays to evaluate teachers’ performance on the basis of student test scores to implement unresearched personalized/competency/”knowledge ecology” systems that promise to solve problems that are defined by the advocates of such systems as the most urgent ones to address — such as the teaching of 21st century skills and 21st century compentencies, and the emergence of new ways of learning that must be incorporated as soon as possible and as thoroughly as possible — and introducing efficiencies into the labor- and resource-intensive process of helping our children increasingly participate in society.

When I put myself in the shoes of a researcher in “educational neuroscience” or one of the cognate fields of inquiry, I can feel the fascination of the science.  When I put myself in the shoes of a teacher, student, parent, citizen, however, I feel the need to ask, just what equivalence is there between “precision medicine” and  “precision education.”  What are the issues of agency, authority, and control in each case, and how do they apply?  So far, if I have cancer (or a head-cold), I can exercise some choice about how this will be addressed.  I may well cede authority to a physician to carry out the choice, I will rely on her recommendations for which path to try, but I can choose A or B, or neither — on the basis of probabilities, or reasoning about consequences, or feelings, or whim.

On the other hand, when “precision education” systems, informed by educational neuroscience,  emerge which (to quote the BOLD essay) ” lead to recommendations for policymakers, who can advocate for the use of scientifically-tested modern teaching and learning methods in schools, ”  how will that look?

What agency will a teacher, parent, or student have?  What level of evidence will be expected, before the new “findings” are put into practice?  What kinds of critique will be accepted — from the point of view of power relationships, moral agency, the implicit values of the technology and their effects on culture and on individual lives (I recommend Ursula Franklin‘s work as a good place to start — check out her Massey lectures “The real world of technology” here, briefly summarized by an admirer here).

There are so many ways in which our government and the economic system experiment on us without our knowledge or consent, and so little recourse for someone who suffers “collateral damage”  — it’s best that we think and feel and argue about all this soon.

NOTE:  The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone, and not necessarily those of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Learning styles, again

Audrey Watters, in her “weekly news,” tracks ed research and “research.” Her news post for April 13 links to an article in the Atlantic which reports  recent research  on “learning styles.” This piece is in no sense a systematic review article, as it reports principally on research that casts some shade on the concept (the title of one article on learning styles and study strategies in college anatomy students begins “Another nail in the coffin?” ).  Nevertheless, I recommend the Atlantic piece and the embedded links.  I think it provides a cautionary tale — if one more were needed — about the temptation to seize on interesting ideas, and turn them into educational dogma (in this case, held by students, teachers, educational designers, publishers, parents, and many others).

I encountered “learning styles” as an educational idea early on in my science ed career, in conversations with science teachers about why they taught the way they taught.  Some had learned some notions about learning styles during their teacher training;  some had just picked it up from colleagues or other sources.

It’s one of those ideas (sometimes labelled “neuromyths“) that has intuitive appeal for someone immersed in the complex particularities of the classroom or similar settings (they are not just a phenomenon in education.  Whether they are seen merely  heuristics — helpful rules of thumb to assist decision making — or as established findings of cognitive science, such ideas play a valuable role in imposing some manageable order on what often feels like chaos.  It’s no wonder that one study found that more than 90% of teachers from Europe to China subscribe to at least this version of the theory (see here for another study reaching the same conclusion):

Individuals learn better when they receive information in their preferred learning style (for example, visual, auditory, or kinesthetic)

“Learning styles”  theory provides two benefits in this connection.  First, it provides initial hypotheses about why some kids are learning some material only with a real struggle.  Second, it provides some ideas for actions the teacher can take to make things better.   Moreover, since this  theory suggests that all people have such learning styles, a teacher may use the theory to reflect on their own preferred “teaching style,” in terms of visual, auditory, reading/writing or kinesthetic modes.

The problem is, there is little evidence that, if you can identify the child’s  preferred learning style (a challenge in itself), and if you address it with appropriate methods for presenting information (or eliciting it from the child), the result will be “better learning,” or other kinds of success.

Rogowsky et al. (2015) did a study of students in a college history class, comparing visual with verbal learners — taking into account the students’ self-perceptions of their learning styles, but also using a standard screening technique to sort students into the two learning styles. Their study found that personal learning style did not correlate well with actual aptitude (ability to learn with either style).  Moreover, learning with a preferred learning style did not result in improved learning outcomes.   This sort of result has been borne out in many other instances.  (See here for a study comparing print book vs. ebook learning, in which there are interesting variations even within one “mode” of learning, the verbal or reading/writing — and in many contexts print serves many students better.)

An interesting,  nuance, however, is introduced by a paper like “Learning style, judgements of learning, and learning of verbal and visual information,”  (only the abstract is accessible, here).  The authors find no difference in performance between students learning through preferred mode and those that don’t — but the students’ “judgement of learning” is that they learn better in one mode than the other.

So here, the suggestion is that you may feel more comfortable about your learning if it’s in a preferred mode.  Of course this is not a negligible benefit, but it needs to be distinguished from other marks of actual learning, such as ability to recall the material, or bring it into use.   Indeed, one can argue, as cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham has on many occasions (see here for his resource page on learning styles), that it might be better for the learner to help them gain capacity using learning styles they are not comfortable with.

Willingham addresses comments from teachers who have used learning styles in their teaching, and believe it’s helped:

When I talk to teachers about this, I often get a question of this sort from a teacher who is clearly a little offended and/or a little angry. The teacher seems to take my point to imply that a teacher whose practice is informed by a learning styles theory must not be doing a good job.   It’s important to be clear that learning styles is not a theory of instruction. It is a theory of how the mind works. So when I say “there’s no evidence for learning styles” I am making a claim about the mind, not about instruction.

Kids are richly complicated.  Teachers are richly complicated.  Put them together in groups, working on interesting and perhaps challenging material, and the number of processes at work that result in some learning explodes.   As Willingham writes,

Lots of stuff aside from learning styles goes into the practice of teachers who ask me this question: their knowledge of kids, their emotional sensitivity, their knowledge of the content, their knowledge of pedagogy, etc.

I close by noting that even Neil Fleming, the educator who originated the V-A-R-K model of learning styles (and developed the VARK inventory for “diagnosing” learning styles), regrets the ways that the learning styles notion has been reified, and (may I say) commercialized and mythologized, even while maintaining its value.

VARK above all is designed to be a starting place for a conversation among teachers and learners about learning….I sometimes believe that students and teachers invest more belief in VARK than it warrants. It is a beginning of a dialogue, not a measure of personality. It should be used strictly for learning, not for recreation or leisure.

Some also confuse preferences with ability or strengths. You can like something, but be good at it or not good at it or any point between. VARK tells you about how you like to communicate. It tells you nothing about the quality of that communication.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What matters in education? Rushing the littles

Over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed several stories related to early childhood education, providing evidence that “Kindergarten is the new first grade,” or something like that.  A paper by Bassok et al. from 2016, provides some evidence that things have indeed changed over the period 1998-2010.  By “things” they mean teachers’ beliefs that more academics in kindergarten increases the likelihood of success in later schooling.  In 1998, 31% of kindergarten teachers thought kids should learn to read in kindergarten;  in 2010, it was 80%. The majority of teachers now believe that parents should have taught their kids the alphabet before K, and indeed that kids should have already had some formal preparation in reading and math. Meanwhile, music, foreign language, dance, art — all are becoming more rare:

In 1998, just over a third of kindergarten teachers reported daily music instruction. This figure dropped by 18 percentage points in 2010, and a similar pattern is evident for art instruction, where the percentage of teachers reporting daily instruction dropped from 27% to 11%. We also document a substantial increase in the likelihood that dance, theater, and foreign language are not taught at all during the kindergarten year. For example, whereas 18% of teachers reported never doing theater activities with their kindergarteners in 1998, in 2010 that figure rose to 50%.

Lilian Katz, in a report to Defending the Early Years, draws on literature about early childhood learning to draw a distinction between academic goals for children, and intellectual goals.  If you define your goals for early learning as academic, you are going to advocate instruction which is clearly designed to begin the child’s engagement with curricular content and “skills” as typically defined these days.  Intellectual goals, on the other hand, relate to things like conversation and discussion, questions and exploration, and (as she says) “a range of asthetic and moral sensibilities” — the sorts of things that children encounter in cooperative tasks, play, narrative, and the arts.   She suggests that the literature bears out this academic vs. intellectual distinction, especially in terms of lasting benefit:

the common sense notion that “earlier is better” is not supported by longitudinal studies of the effects of different kinds of preschool curriculum models. On the contrary, a number of longitudinal follow-up studies indicate that while formal instruction produces good test results in the short term, preschool curriculum and teaching methods emphasizing children’s interactive roles and initiative, while not so impressive in the short term, yield better school achievement in the long term.

A recent report from Massachusetts —  whose educational attainment  is generally held up for admiration — looks at another dimension of this question, and for me illustrates the narrowness of much educational thinking these days.  You can read an article about the study, with links to it, here at Valerie Strauss’s blog, “The Answer Sheet. ”  In the study, Clark Fowler of Salem State Univ. (Salem, MA) examines trends in the amount of “child directed activity” now typical in MA kindergartens.  The study is a nice example of someone motivated by ‘anecdata’ to colect actual data — the original anecdotes brought to Fowler’s attention  possible contrasts between high-SES schools and low-SES schools, and his study keeps that comparison in mind.

But the study also examined an additional phenomenon — the decline in K teachers’ autonomy in the classroom (or, the rise in “administrator mandated” , often scripted, instruction).  Thus, children’s loss of agency is in many cases paralleled by the teachers’ loss of agency — this despite the fact that the large majority of principals have no expertise in early childhood education.  (Spoiler alert:  Student and teacher autonomy tend to be more restricted in  low-SES communities than high-SES ones, though the trend applies to all.)

Strauss comments:

The findings … underscore a push around the country in recent years toward more “academic” kindergartens. This is the newest evidence that the pattern is continuing — even in a progressive state, despite a new emphasis in education on “social-emotional learning.”

Now, I think there are a lot of reasons to push back against this trend, and for a science educator the core reason is that the most precious resource for children as science learners is curiosity, and related to that is the experience of wonder and delight.  Related in turn to all of these are boredom and day-dreaming,which are also important reservoirs of creativity and invention.   These are not scriptable.  Thoreau put it nicely when he wrote (in Walden) that he loved a broad margin to his life. So do we all, and we need it to stay human.

But I was discouraged a bit by Dr. Fowler’s arguments for why the trend to curtain unprogrammed time (including lunch and snack time) is likely to be harmful.

In order to benefit fully from instruction, children need frequent breaks from teacher directed tasks… requiring children to pay attention to teacher assigned tasks for extended periods of time decreases children’s motivation to participate in the instructional activities and decreases their capacity to retain and  consolidate learning…. Wakeful rest is associated with default mode processing, a form of mental activity that facilitates the development of social cognition, moral emotions, and creativity. Napping is associated with increased recall and emotional stability….

Fowler also cites Montessori and Csikszentmihaly as “first noticing”   that self-selected and self-directed activities are personally meaningful.  He then goes on to make the point that high degrees of autonomy is also good for teachers (who, in his survey, report decreasing time to reflect and learn — alarming, since that time has always been too little in the typical American school, in constrast to the practice in other cultures).

There is no sense that schooling is not, in a way, an artificial environment, in which we learn to restrain or postpone some individual business or urges, while encountering experiences, people, and phenomena that we would not even know to choose for ourselves.  Yet I can’t help but agree with those who believe that we too much ignore  the narrowing and controlling of attention, subject matter, time, and values that we have been seeing and colluding with over the past 35 years or so.

I am reminded of Ellen Lagemann’s famous statement (in An elusive science, pg 185):

One cannot understand the history of education in the United States during the twentieth century unless one realizes that Edward L. Thorndike won and John Dewey lost.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Arne sees progress. How about you?

The former Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has published a column in the Washington Post (dated April 1) in which he argues that the past 30 years of education reform have been a success, or at least have produced some successes. I am curious how STEM educators react to it.  I have to admit some trouble with his claims, and his framing of the topic.   In what follows, I write as a science educator — and I hope that math, technology, engineering, and computer science educators will weigh in with their own views.

Duncan’s article, like many articles about educational interventions, is a little fuzzy on the actual time period in which “education reform” has been going on.  He mentions “the past 30 years,” so that means his start date is 1987.  What was the ground-breaking innovation that year?  A Nation at Risk (ANAR) came out in 1983.    What happened 4 years later that (perhaps in retrospect) signals the onset of modern reform?  But then elsewhere in his article, Duncan reaches further back:

Since 1971, fourth-grade reading and math scores are up 13 points and 25 points, respectively. Eighth-grade reading and math scores are up eight points and 19 points, respectively. Every 10 points equates to about a year of learning, and much of the gains have been driven by students of color.

It should be noted that the student population is relatively poorer and considerably more diverse than in 1971. So, while today’s kids bring more learning challenges, they perform as much as 2½ grades higher than their counterparts from half a century ago.

The references are to NAEP scores, whose use can be debated, but at the least it is worth noting that the largest proportion of positive change, where it occurs, happened before 2004, and much of it before 2000. This again begs the question, what “reform” are we evaluating that produced this improvement since 1987, or 1971?  Why can’t we attribute the improvements to the large investments made in curriculum materials and in teacher PD during the previous 15 years?  (Also, “10 points equates to about a year of learning”? )

Duncan heralds the establishment of  high standards as one success,

A decade ago, learning standards were all over the place. Today, almost every state has raised standards.

but here again methodology for his comparisons is not clear.  The AAAS Benchmarks, which sort of mark the onset of the era of modern standards, were published in 1993, and the NRC Science Standards in 1996.  So when are we starting the clock for this comparison, actually, and of which reforms are we considering the impact?  By 2012, the widely-quoted Fordham evaluation of state science standards gave D or F ratings to the majority of states.  Even if standards have improved in the past 5 years (on average, if you can “average” things like standards), how does that relate to his other metrics of success?

The dots are connected, for Duncan, by “accountability” and “courage.”

None of our progress happened because we stood still. It happened because we confronted hard truths, raised the bar and tried new things. Beginning in 2002, federal law required annual assessments tied to transparency. The law forced educators to acknowledge achievement gaps, even if they didn’t always have the courage or capacity to address them.

Now our timeline begins in 2002.  The reforms that made the difference (whatever that difference may actually be) were “annual assessments’ tied to “transparency, ” which seems to mean “acknowledging achievement gaps.”  I have heard this from other defenders of the NCLB strategy, and it’s never made sense to me.  Before 2002, no one knew where the issues were?  No one knew that some kids were getting short-changed, and in what ways?

A quick glance at the literature from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (not to mention earlier) makes clear that many were aware of the “achievement gap,” though at the time “achievement” was not so narrowly construed as has now become the fashion.  School performance metrics were considered, for sure, but a lot else was included, also.  Jonathan Kozol put it pretty well in 1985:

“Someday, maybe,” Erik Erikson has written, “there will exist a well-informed, well-considered and yet fervent public conviction that the most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child’s spirit.”  If that day ever comes, American educators may be able to reflect with some horror upon the attitudes and procedures that have been allowed to flourish within a great many urban public schools.

Duncan has a list of reforms that he feels have shown success:  standards and accountability;  charters and school choice;  small schools; “teacher evaluation” (whatever he means by that).  In all cases, there is equivocal evidence for success at best — and in any case, Duncan’s assessment is that where there is success (measured mostly by test scores, but also in some cases by high school graduation rates or college enrollment rates), it is because of “the reforms,” while where success is not evident, it’s because of poor implementation or insufficient courage.

I am not the only connoisseur who finds the reasoning and the data in this piece unsatisfying and ahistorical,  and “school reform” as Duncan praises it to be incoherent, and as much a hindrance to teachers and students as a help — especially when dissatisfaction with “reform” is used to intensify “disruption” of the sort beloved by free- market idolaters.

But maybe I am being too grouchy or too skeptical? If you see things getting better, what are they, and what has made the improvements happen, in your view?


NOTE:  The opinions expressed here are those of the author alone, and not necessarily those of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Talking and teaching

In your projects, what role does classroom talk take, and who is doing the talking?  The typical story of STEM education’s evolution recounts an increasing emphasis on the social construction of knowledge — and that means, a lot of the time, talk, argumentation, negotiation, story-telling… A classic paper addresses the importance of “establishing the norms of scientific argumentation  in the classroom,” and much research before and since has explored how talk  — of certain kinds — plays its central role, and how teachers can learn to support STEM talk in the classroom (see here for a “primer” for teachers from the Talk Science project).

Of course, there has always been talking in classrooms, but increasingly sophisticated classroom anthropology and sociolinguistics over the years has made clear that the kinds of talk and the balance of talk —who’s occupying air time —  in the classroom reveals a lot about the model of learning that applies.  Who’s talking to whom, at what stages of the inquiry or sense-making?  Who sets the topic of conversation, asks the questions, provides or debates possible answers?  This has been seen to provide evidence about who’s really doing the thinking in the class (see here for an article by Joni Falk and myself that sets out this point of view in relation to inquiry-based science).

Larry Cuban has started a series of blog-posts on instructional patterns, which returns to the question of talk, teacher talk, and modes of instruction.  The first has the provocative title “Whatever happened to direct instruction?”  Cuban begins by setting the problem thus:

The research evidence that direct instruction (lower-case “d and “i”) and Direct Instruction (capital letters) have positive effects on student learning–as measured by standardized test scores–has been around for decades yet most educational researchers, policymakers, and practitioners who urge school and classroom decisions to be data-driven and evidenced-based have hardly popped champagne corks welcoming this clear direction for what teachers should incorporate in their classroom lessons (see here). This is puzzling.

He notes that “direct instruction” is the generic term for teacher-centered techniques, while Direct Instruction is a term for a kind of scripted teaching, in which (at its best) teachers are supported by the script-scaffolds to adopt or consistently maintain a pedagogy that is new to them.  Regardless, “direct instruction” has over the years acquired negative associations, as an antagonistic practice to “student-centered learning”  (a term now being appropriated for more recent fads and sales campaigns).

Good pedagogues have always known that almost any pedagogical technique can be useful under certain circumstances, and a key element of teacher wisdom is being aware of the balance among the possibilities (see here for a workshop activity aimed at getting science teachers to reflect on the balance of their practices).  As Cuban writes:

Most teachers have a knapsack of techniques they use with their students that are hybrids of teacher- and student-centered approaches. Blending high student-participation in whole group activity from a discussion to a quiz game, small-group work, and lectures, say in a U.S. history or Algebra 2 class, is common. Mixed strategies of teaching is the norm among elementary and secondary teachers (see here and here)… The mixes will differ by academic discipline, age of students, beliefs about how students learn, and other factors but hybrid approaches are dominant.

Cuban then moves from this reasonable conclusion to a question that would seem (to me) not to follow at all from it:

what is the ideal ratio between percentage of teacher- and student-talk in a lesson. Is it 80-20? 70-30? 60-40? 50-50?

I would have thought that his prior reflections would provide the answer:  “It depends.”  Rather, I shoudl have thought the correct question is, How do you decide what is the right balance for these particular students, at this particular stage in their learning a topic, under these particular classroom conditions (e.g. time, space, equipment, class size, etc.).  The question of an ideal balance seems both a wrong question and a potentially misleading or damaging one, if it is turned into canons of behavior, or even metrics for assessment.

Yet, in his second post, this question does lead him to a very useful observation:

The initial problem is that most teachers simply do not know how much they talk and how much their students talk. Do most teachers talk 80 percent of a lesson? 70? 60? 50? Historical studies put the ratios in the 65-35 range (see here and here). Individually, few teachers could tell you the ratio of teacher-to-student talk in the lesson they just taught.

And indeed Larry is aware of the complexity, or unanswerability of his “ideal quantity” question — and also that there is substantial research on the nature of classroom discourse (as hinted above):

there are many kinds of teacher-talk: controlling behavior (“That’s enough Jimmy”); getting activities started (“Count off 1 to 5 for small group work”); asking content questions (“Annie, what does x equal in this equation?”); discussion moves (“Can anyone add to Tiffany’s point?”)—readers get the picture of multiple forms of teacher-talk that would have to be parsed. Ditto for student talk…Researchers call such analyses of teacher- and student-talk, “classroom discourse” (see here and here).

I look forward to the further development of his theme — but it made me browse among recent papers in the MSPnet Library:  How do these questions about teacher talk — “when, how much, and what kinds” — show up in the recent work posted there on engineering, computational thinking, modeling, etc. as elements of the improved STEM classroom?  Granted that this question would not be a focus of attention for many papers and reports, I still wondered as I wandered.  I will report on my explorations of the past 3 months of Library articles next time.

NOTE:  Opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author alone, and not necessarily those of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Science at home — and first things first

Valerie Strauss, in her blog The Answer Sheet, has posted a story entitled “Parents want to help kids learn science — but many have no idea how.”  The story is actually written by Shelley Pasnik of EDC, based on a new report by that organization and SRI: “What parents talk about when they talk about learning: A national survey about young children and science”  (you can get the full study here).   It is full of interest, and I’d be curious to know what catches your eye if you have time to read Pasnik’s article, or the executive summary (“Overview”) of the study, or the study as a whole.

A quick tour of the findings (my paraphrasing):

• Most parents think it’s important for their kids to learn — though science wasn’t on the top of the list: “social skills, literacy and math” were. (Interesting, in comparison with studies like this one by Pew which found that the majority included science as a key “skill/knowledge” for students’ success (the range depended on the amount of education the respondents had — for those with less education, the proportion was 50%;  for those with at least some college, the number rose to 63%).

• Most parents say they help their kids with school work — and they are confident about helping with  “social skills, literacy and math.”  While they often do sciencey things around the house, though, at least half say they’re not sure what to do, or are not confident about science. They aren’t sure what kids need to know, and would appreciate some help with that,  and suggestions of things to do.

• Most report “using science media weekly or more” — but are not confident that these have helped their kids learn science.   The authors suggest that “Parents may be missing opportunities to deepen the impacts of these experiences.”

I was intrigued that the researchers did not define science for the survey participants.  They did ask them to talk about what they meant by science, and they summarize the responses thus (page 9):

Parents talked about their children’s curiosity and questioning, particularly during everyday routines such as taking the bus, walking to school, or going to the doctor. Children ask their parents about everything they see—the sky, birds, trees, seasonal changes, the moon, the sun. Some parents’ top-of-mind descriptions involved children doing science in relation to special projects, such as making “volcanoes,” mixing colors, making “slime,” or trying something out to “see what happens,” such as planting a seed and watching what comes up or leaving food out to see if mold grows on it.

Some parents responded that nothing came to mind about science, that they did not like science, that their children were too young to do science, or that they did not know if what their children did would be considered science. In these instances parents talked about science as difficult or confusing.

It comes as no surprise that many parents feel unequal to helping their young children learn science, because of their lack of knowledge, or their worry that they are not able to explain to their kids in a way they can understand.  From the point of view of school success, young children thus move from homes that may be supportive but lack confidence when it comes to science, to elementary schools in which their teachers also lack confidence, and perhaps knowledge, about science as well.  Elementary teachers’ under-preparation for teaching science is widely documented, as in this paper in which the issue is taken for granted as a problem needing to be addressed, both in terms of content, and in terms of an understanding of the nature of science and science pedagogy.

The EDC study suggests that parents understand that science is part of their kids’ world — that is, their everyday lives:

Only 6% of parents reported that their children did not engage in science-related activities, because of age or interest, and only a few parents (4%) did not know what science-related activities their child liked to do.

One source of anxiety, though, is not feeling confident that what they can do with their kids “counts” as science — and here one sees a possible confounding of  science as a human activity, and science as an academic subject.  Parents, when they are thinking about helping their kids with learning, are likely to be wanting to help their kids do well in school.

The study offers “5 essential messages” that address the needs and desires expressed by the parents whose opinions they examined (pg 52).

Parents don’t have to be scientists or know the “right answer” to help their children learn science…Parents are crucial to young children’s science learning and science exploration can start with wondering aloud and be reinforced with materials tailor-made for families….Science is for home, school and all the places in between….Science is watchable, readable, playable and doable…What parents need to engage in everyday science with their young children doesn’t need to be a secret.


For me, the key is that parents and teachers share an understanding of the roots of science as an emotion, as an orientation, as one way that anyone can inquire about their world — and that if you want to be a practitioner, there are things to learn, methods to practice, stories to hear, authorities to consult, lives to emulate or learn from.

One of the commenters on Strauss’s blog posted a quote from E.O. Wilson’s autobiography, Naturalist,which struck home for me — Thank you, Malcolm Kirkpatrick!

“Why do I tell you this little boy’s story of medusas, rays, and sea monsters, nearly sixty years after the fact? Because it illustrates, I believe, how a naturalist is created. A child comes to the edge of deep water with a mind prepared for wonder….Hands-on experience at the critical time, not systematic knowledge, is what counts in the making of a naturalist. Better to be an untutored savage for a while, not to know the names or anatomical detail. Better to spend long stretches of time just searching and dreaming.” (p. 11-12).

“Adults forget the depths of languor into which the adolescent mind descends with ease. They are prone to undervalue the mental growth that occurs during daydreaming and aimless wandering. When I focused on the ponds and stream lying before me, I abandoned all sense of time.”(p. 86-87).

NOTE:  Opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author alone, and not necessarily those of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Truth decay and STEM education

Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution)… the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics can generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

Wording like this  (sometimes called “the Santorum language,” originating from the quondam Senator from Pennsylvania) has been part of legislation proposed annually in many states (and adopted in several).  The goal, sometimes stated explicitly, is  to provide a justification for the introduction of “alternatives” to such well-established but uncomfortable ideas as evolution and climate change. (See here for the 2017 scorecard of what I will call science control legislation, prepared by the National Center for Science Education).

Such language, which on the surface just is encouraging students to make up their own minds, and “think critically,” reflects the current high level of relativism being propagated and exploited to serve a variety of political and social agendas. The proponents of such legislation can have no idea what it means to “understand the full range of scientific views” on a topic such as evolutionary biology or climate change, much less for K-12 students to make their own informed choices about which views  they will espouse. The purpose, rather, is to convey a notion that science is primarily a matter of opinion, untrammeled by the constraints of theoretical coherence or empirical findings.

This is one manifestation of what an interesting study by RAND corporation calls “truth decay.”  The report examines how several powerful cultural developments have combined to render constructive social discourse and critique more and more difficult — amounting to what Al Gore some years ago called “the assault on reason.” The authors address 4 features (they call them trends) defining this decay (pg xi):
1. Increasing disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data;
2. A blurring of the line between opinion and fact;
3. The increasing relative volume, and resulting influence of, opinion and personal experience over fact;
4. Declining trust in formerly respected sources of factual information.

The report suggests that this syndrome of trends is being driven by multiple causes.

  1. Characteristics of cognitive processing — for example, “cognitive bias,” and other ways in which we hear or communicate selectively, in ways that support our identities, our loyalties, our fears, or other aspects of our personalities or histories;
  2. Changes in the information system — including the rise of social media, the proliferation of media information sources, and the rapid, broad transmission of misinformation and disinformation.
  3. Competing demands on the educational system that list its ability to keep pace with changes in the information system;
  4. Polarization — sociodemographic, political, and economic.

Some of these are not new (as a lengthy historical chapter discusses), but the current deterioration of shared bases for discussion and debate is as severe as it is, because  all 4 “drivers” are active at the same time, and in ways that mutually reinforce each other.

I read the sections relating to #3 with particular interest.  The authors concede that schools can’t be expected to fix the current dysfunction — but they certainly believe that schools share some fault. For one thing, the Common Core makes some positive moves towards the teaching of critical thinking, but

these changes… have not occurred at the same time or at the same speed as many of the changes in the information system.. It is this lag, and this gap between the challenge and student preparation that we argue has been a driver of  Truth Decay because… it contributes to the creation of an electorate that is susceptible to bias, information, and misinformation, and is also liable to perpetuate this information and the challenges that come along with Truth Decay.

The authors clearly feel that if Education Reform had proceeded more rapidly and completely, we would not be in the pickle we are in.  More civics education and more teaching of critical thinking are the ticket, and as soon as possible!    They advocate teaching Civics and Critical Thinking as subjects in themselves but also acknowledge that critical thinking at least can be integrated in the way that subject matter is taught:

According to one study, students who are trained to conduct higher-level critical thinking tasks as part of the course curriculum learn material more deeply and completely and are better able to engage with it and apply it than those who are trained only to memorize and supply basic facts and responses.

Of course, there lurks beneath some of the language here the common canards that “traditional education” as the authors imagine it was 100 years ago still obtains in most schools, and that if only schools would be more modern they’d be a major part of the solution to the problem of critical thinking and Truth Decay.  As for science, education in the “scientific method” is the prescription offered here; there is little evidence in the document that the authors have any acquaintance with research about science education or the standards juggernaut that has roiled and re-shaped the accepted ideas of what good science education should be…

The study is useful, and its framework of “trends” and “drivers” I have found helpful and can make use of.  On the other hand, as far as I am concerned, a more urgent problem is the widespread ignorance, motivated reasoning, and polarization of the adults currently making legislation, setting standards, and trying to make policy in the absence of critical thinking, a knowledge of civics, and an understanding about how science asks questions of nature, and sets about getting (and interrrogating) some answers.  As exemplified in some of the legislation perennially introduced to make science less uncomfortable, and to restrain the wildness of curiosity and the freedom of inquiry.

NOTE:  The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author. They are not necessarily shared by MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Curriculum a panacea — again?

In my career at TERC, I have been a curriculum developer more than anything else. I love that work, because it’s about the science, and about doing  my best to help teachers bring exciting and absorbing phenomena to their students — and become excited and absorbed themselves as they work with the material.  Because I have done some science, taught some science, and had the pleasure of observing many science classrooms, when I design curriculum I am intensely aware that [a] it needs to work “out of the box,” — so the teacher feels that our materials are an opportunity, not a problem, and so we communicate what our team has tried to do, and [b] good teachers must and will bring their “read” of their kids and their own experience to bear, so that the experience engages the students with something of value.  Curriculum development+implementation is a dynamic collaboration among designers, teachers, and students — one of the more complex phenomena in the universe.  Dewey’s Child and Curriculum gets it right:

The fundamental factors in the educative process are an immature, underdeveloped being; and certain social aims, meanings, values incarnate in the matured experience of the adult. The educative process is the due interaction of these forces. Such a conception of each in relation to the other as facilitates completest and freest interaction is the essence of educational theory (Dewey, The Child and the Curriculum.  Middle Works vol 2: 273)

I came into this work in the 1980s, during a second wave of major investment by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in STEM curriculum (see here for an interesting timeline of science ed events over the past 60 years or so), when the panic-ripples instilled by A Nation at Risk were only just beginning to spread disturbance throughout the education enterprise.  Very soon, the intense focus turned to accountability, standards, systemic change, and (increasingly) the modern version of “reform.” After a few years of that, the message seemed to be that we had all the good curriculum we needed (hadn’t the NSF spent jillions on it since Sputnik?).  Then the Web arrived, and we all knew that Technology (of some kind) was going to fix what was broke.

Some people, including a lot of teachers, noted that science keeps marching on, so that materials from 10 years ago might remain beautiful of their kind, but still needed updating or reframing. (I am writing personally here, and science is my sphere, not STEM, so ‘science’ it will be hereinafter, and readers with other foci can translate for their own areas of interest.)  Many of the same people noted that if we were going to continue to help students get a feel for science as a creative enterprise, teacher methods need to reflect the question-driven, reflective, and discourse-rich inquiry of science as she is done.   Curriculum materials can help there, too.

It is with mixed feelings, therefore, that I learn that the Gates Foundation, as an important shaper of the “reform” idea now in the ascendent. As one story has it,

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has a new plan intended to help public schools: improve the materials that teachers use to teach…The organization’s efforts will center on three areas, [a spokesperson] said. One is making “high-quality” materials more widely available. That means funding groups that develop curriculums and then make them publicly available, offering alternatives to the big textbook companies.   Another is steering decision-makers (read: school board members and school leaders) to select materials seen as high-quality, which the foundation will do by funding rating systems and research on teaching materials. And the third is helping teachers successfully use those materials, which Gates will do by funding organizations like TNTP that provide teacher training.

As commenters on this development note, it’s not all that easy to identify what we mean by “high quality” —  because of the dynamic nature of the classroom and the students in it, because of dramatic and often unpredictable availability of appropriate resources for science, and because teachers are different, too, in ways that are fundamental to the process of education (see here for Peter Greene’s  recent passionate reflections on this point).

The research that the Gates Foundation and its allies relies upon (importantly a recent literature review by Dr. David Steiner), sets curriculum in a central role in the design of education — and therefore as a key strategic focus for “reform” efforts that have so far produced mixed results at best.

What we teach isn’t some sidebar issue in American education: it is American education. The track record of top-performing countries, early evidence of positive effects from the faithful implementation of high-quality curricula here in the United States, and the persistent evidence that our classrooms are underchallenging our students at every level compel us to put the materials that we use to teach at the core of serious education reform.

While Dr. Steiner, and the Gates Foundation, recognize that “curriculum” is something that teachers enact, I have often had the feeling, reading through dozens of stories and think-tank reports, that “curriculum” somehow is being invested with mystic powers to effect “reform” — for example, from a story cited above:

Another analysis [BD note:  in a series entitled “Economic Studies”] found that simply allocating extra money (around $100 per student) for textbooks…can bump up elementary school test scores (though there was no noticeable impact in middle or high school).

None of the stories and advocacy pieces reflect an acquaintance with research over the past 50 years on textbook/curricula (not the same things!!) design and implementation, school culture and its effects on the classroom, the impacts of policy churn, teacher PD strategies,  and feast-famine funding cycles on classroom enactments.   Must we pretend that people only started thinking seriously about education in the past few years?

Moreover, it has been noted by commentators across the political spectrum that the metrics that will be used to identify “high quality” materials and “high quality” implementations are probably pretty poor.  As Joy Pullman of the Federalist (not a source I usually consult) writes :

The metrics for success that make the most sense to Bill Gates do not actually ensure success for children.

— the metrics being “bumps in test scores” (the linked report by Jay Greene is an interesting read).  The technocratic framing for tinkering with educational systems remains dominant (despite occasional cries of “mea culpa” from former advocates of same, see Rick Hess’s recent blog post here) .

Judging educational efficacy is just tough, no doubt about it.  Douglas Simpson and Michael Jackson write:

the curriculum is best taught, if Dewey is correct, when we view it as something that is gradually learned as novices and experts create stimulating and interactive environments that engage each student with others. The environments will need to be highly varied and variable, not created by distant spe- cialists. The outcomes of such learning will be various, too, but they will include the development of educated adults who think and act on the best available and warranted knowledge. (pg 27)

What role does curriculum play in your work?  Where are the gaps you see in educational materials?  How do you judge “quality”?  In your work on educational change, did you have to change your view of the role or importance of curriculum?

Curriculum is not “the heart” of education, but it’s close to it!

NOTE:  The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author, and not necessarily those of MSPnet, TERC, or the National Science Foundation. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment