More from ASCD
This section contains news related to:
Math Education and Standards in the News--Hot topics, including the Common Core State Standards Initiative
NCLB and Technology News dates of interest, including information about the 2010 U.S. Department of Education's National Education Technology Plan, and
Note: To see news, do not block content in your browser.
NCTM News provides the latest top stories on math education, including connecting math education research to the classroom.
Look for Recent Research on Math Education in the Educational Research Newsletter. "Since 1988, Educational Research Newsletter has informed educators of recent research on reading, math, behavior management and raising student achievement with brief reports on the most useful and relevant findings from leading journals and organizations."
Plan ahead: April is Math Awareness Month. This annual event is sponsored by the American Mathematical Society, the American Statistical Association, the Mathematical Association of America, and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Look for resources, activities of others, and post your activity.
Buy additional resources via CT4ME.
The Amazon widget below shows books using the search phrase: No Child Left Behind. You can also use the widget to search with other key words. Suggestions include:
HOT: September 12, 2006:
In response to the call for a more coherent curriculum, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics released Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics: A Quest for Coherence (NCTM, 2006a). In its press release on September 12, 2006, NCTM indicated that this document identifies three important topics for mathematics at each grade level preK-8 and presents "a vision for the design of the next generation of state curriculum standards and state tests" (NCTM, 2006b, para. 3).
HOT: April 4, 2007:
The U.S. Department of Education released its report for Congress, Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. It received immediate reaction from leaders around the country concerned about the effectiveness of technology in education and results of this study. A key finding noted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. indicated, "Test scores were not significantly higher in classrooms using the reading and mathematics software products than those in control classrooms. In each of the four groups of products-reading in first grade and in fourth grade, mathematics in sixth grade, and high school algebra-the evaluation found no significant differences in student achievement between the classrooms that used the technology products and classrooms that did not." Read this full report: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074005/
Results are in for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress Nation's Report Card: Mathematics and Reading.
Mark Schneider, Commissioner, National Center for Education Statistics, provided the following results in a press release webcast of September 25, 2007. Tests were given in reading and mathematics from January-March 2007 to a sample of 390,000 students in grade 4 and 310,000 students in grade 8. Results are available for the nation, each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense school system. NAEP reported results as average scale scores and the percentage of students at or above basic, proficient, and advanced achievement levels.
At grade 4 overall findings from 2005 to 2007:
At grade 8 overall findings from 2005 to 2007:
While it is not the role of NAEP to explain results, some who read the report might attribute gains to an effort to teach mathematics in a more rigorous way, an emphasis on use of precise language, and developments in continuous and coherent curricula. Perhaps one explanation for a rise in grade 8 math achievement could be the rise of the percentage of students who complete algebra 1 in grade 8 from when NAEP was first administered in 1990. Some might attribute gains to No Child Left Behind’s focus on reform, particularly at the elementary levels, or the more wide-spread use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement.
However, not every state made gains and much remains to be done to improve achievement of the many students performing at or below the basic and proficient levels. Results must also be considered in light of the large demographic changes in the country over the past 15 years. For example, there have been large increases in the Hispanic population in schools. There is an increase in the number of English language learners and students with identified special needs. For those states that did not do as well as expected, policy makers and the public need first to look at any demographic and economic shifts within their state before turning to education groups for possible explanation of results and examination of practices (e.g., inclusion rates).
Associate Commissioner Peggy G. Carr also commented about the results in her Q&A session StatChat. Excerpts include:
"NAEP's design is not capable of establishing a causal connection between teacher background and student performance."
"...the scores reflect the performance of the current demographic distribution...The inclusion rates do vary over time and vary across states. Because the representation of samples is ultimately a validity issue, NCES [National Center for Education Statistics] has investigated scenarios for estimating what the average scores might have been if excluded students had been assessed."
"IES is again planning to release two separate reports on American Indian/Alaska Native students [Spring 2008]. The first report will focus on student achievement in reading and mathematics. This year we will have results for 11 states with high American Indian/Alaska Native student populations. ...There are some mathematics and reading results for these 11 states (based on just their public school data) available now on the NAEP Data Explorer, which can be accessed at (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/)."
If state testing results differ from NAEP, consider: "...there are many possible reasons why results from two tests may look different from each other. If you are looking at the percentage of students who have reached a level of proficiency on two different tests, it really depends on how proficiency is defined on the two tests and where the 'cut score' (or passing score) is set on each. You may be interested in a report we released on this topic earlier this year entitled "Mapping 2005 State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales."
"...a higher score in one subject than another does not necessarily mean that performance is better in that subject. In NAEP, scores for different subjects are not comparable. The score scales are set independently for each subject. So, for example, a score of 215 in reading does not necessarily reflect the same performance level as 215 in mathematics."
"NAEP allows students with disabilities and English language learners to use most of the testing accommodations that they receive for state or district tests."
March 13, 2008:
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel, created by President George W. Bush in April 2006, released the results of its study to the President and U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings on the best use of scientifically based research to advance the teaching and learning of mathematics. The report, Foundations for Success: Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, contains 45 findings and recommendations for improving mathematics achievement for all U.S. students. Its numerous topics include curricular content, learning processes, teachers and teacher education, instructional practices, instructional materials, assessments, and research policies and mechanisms.
Of particular relevance was the development of a list of major topics in school algebra (see p. 16) and the critical foundations in K-8 math education for algebra: whole numbers, fractions (including decimals, percents, and negative fractions), and aspects of geometry and measurement (see p. 17). "School algebra is a term chosen to encompass the full body of algebraic material that the Panel expects to be covered through high school, regardless of its organization into courses and levels. The Panel expects students to be able to proceed successfully at least through the content of Algebra II" (Executive Summary, p. xvii).
HOT: June 1, 2009:
Common Core State Standards Initiative: In its June 1 press release, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (2009) announced that 49 states and territories have joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative. This initiative is "a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be research and evidence-based, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations and include rigorous content and skills" (para. 3). "The goal is to have a common core of state standards that states can voluntarily adopt. States may choose to include additional standards beyond the common core as long as the common core represents at least 85 percent of the state’s standards in English-language arts and mathematics" (para. 6). "The grade-by-grade standards work is expected to be completed in December 2009" (para. 9). See more on this initiative at the Common Core Standards website: http://www.corestandards.org/
HOT: June, 2009:
In connection with developing a common national curriculum and assessment for K-12 mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics released its Guiding Principles for Mathematics Curriculum and Assessment. According to NCTM (2009a), "If a voluntary national mathematics curriculum is developed, the topics studied in that curriculum must be taught and learned in an equitable manner in a setting that ensures that problem solving, reasoning, connections, communication, and conceptual understanding are all developed simultaneously along with procedural fluency" (p. 2). Content should include number and operations with procedural fluency, algebra, geometry and measurement, data analysis, statistics and probability. In a critique of this document, Ihor Charischak of the Council for Technology in Math Education (CLIME) stated that there is nothing new in this latest document and what is missing is the role that technology should play. According to Charischak (2009), "I'm afraid that this common ground movement is making us think narrowly about what Math Ed should look like for students who will be living entirely in the 21st century. It may ease some political tensions, but it also may throw out the baby with the bathwater because it will lack the spirit of what technology brings to the enterprise: an exciting and transformational way to teach and learn mathematics" (CLIME Blogpost, What's Missing from This Picture?, June 3).
HOT: July 16, 2009:
In its July 16 press release, Education Associations Support Common Core State Standards, the Learning First Alliance, a partnership of 17 major national education associations, expressed its support for steps taken by the Common Core State Standards Initiative to develop a common core of state K-12 standards in mathematics and English language arts.
HOT: September 21, 2009:
Revisions to the draft for a set of Common Core Standards were released for language arts and mathematics. Sean Cavanaugh of Education Week discussed some of the changes in Revised Draft of 'Common Core' Standards Unveiled. Among those for math is the addition of a new standard called "mathematical practice," which refers to how students solve problems (i.e., their thinking, strategies, and habits). For more on the revisions, see the Common Core Standards website: http://www.corestandards.org/
In their October 8, 2009, reaction, Standards Aren't Enough, Susan H. Fuhrman, Lauren Resnick, and Lorrie Shepard (2009) voiced a concern about common-core standards, saying that "standards, no matter what they say, are merely the starting point. Curricula, tests, textbooks, lesson plans, and teachers’ on-the-job training will all have to be revised to reinforce the standards. Only then will these new “common-core standards” serve as the organizing principle for U.S. public education" (para. 3).
HOT: October 6, 2009:
As a follow-up to its 2006 Curriculum Focal Points, NCTM released Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense Making, a "conceptual framework to guide the development of future publications and tools related to 9–12 mathematics curriculum and instruction." It highlights reasoning opportunities in numbers and measurements, algebraic symbols, functions, geometry, statistics and probability (NCTM, 2009b). In its press release NCTM stated that this book "suggests practical changes to the high school mathematics curriculum to refocus learning on reasoning and sense making. This shift is not a minor refinement but constitutes a substantial rethinking of the high school math curriculum" (NCTM, 2009c, para. 1). Reasoning habits are organized into four broad categories: analyzing a problem, implementing a strategy, seeking and using connections, and reflecting on a solution (NCTM, 2009a, FAQs, p. 4).
HOT: October 14, 2009.
Results are in for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress Nation's Report Card: Mathematics.
On October 14, 2009, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) announced major results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress for the 2009 mathematics test. "There has been no significant change in the performance of the nation’s 4th-graders in mathematics from 2007 to 2009, a contrast to the progress seen from 1990 to 2007 at that grade level and subject, according to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. But the 8th-grade mathematics score on the NAEP, which is also called The Nation's Report Card, continued to improve nationwide and reached its highest level since 1990" (NAGB News Release, para. 1). The test was ""administered by the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education to a nationally representative sample of 168,800 4th-grade and 161,700 8th-grade public and private school students. Results for representative samples of public school students only are also reported for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Department of Defense schools" (NAGB News Release, para. 9). See full results and commentaries on this report at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/
If anyone is concerned that 4th-grade results remained flat since 2007, read the National School Board Association's BoardBuzz reaction on October 15, 2009 in which the public is cautioned to not overreact, as one score does not necessarily make a trend. "What is a trend is the consistent improvement in scores from 1990 to 2007. A trend so consistent that fourth graders today have nearly an additional three years worth of math learning than fourth graders in 1990. A point that is often overlooked" (Time to worry? Maybe or maybe not, para. 2). "NAEP scores alone can’t provide the answer. Each state, district, and school should take a close look at their elementary math curriculum and determine whether it is effectively providing their students the math skills they need to be successful in later grades and beyond. It is only then we can know for sure if our elementary math curriculum needs to be reformed, not based on one score from one national test" (para. 4).
HOT: December 8, 2009.
Results are in for the Nation's Report Card: Mathematics 2009 Trial Urban District Assessment.
Eighteen urban districts participated in the 2009 Trial Urban District Assessment, according to this report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. "Eleven of the districts also participated in the 2007 and 2005 assessments, and 10 participated in 2003. ... In comparison to 2007, average mathematics scores for students in large cities increased in 2009 at both grades 4 and 8; however, only two participating districts at each grade showed gains. In comparison to 2003, scores for students in large cities were higher in 2009 at both grades 4 and 8. Increases in scores were also seen across most urban districts that participated in both years, except in Charlotte at grade 4 and in Cleveland at grades 4 and 8, where there were no significant changes. No districts showed a decline in scores at either grade" (sec: Description posted at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010452).
HOT: January 14, 2010.
Not everyone is in agreement with the Common-Core Standards movement. For an alternative viewpoint, read Alfie Kohn's commentary, Debunking the Case for National Standards. He stated, "The standards movement, sad to say, morphed long ago into a push for standardization. The last thing we need is more of the same" (last paragraph). Additional reader comments follow.
HOT: June 2, 2010.
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers released the final form for a set of state-led education standards for K-12 English-language arts and mathematics, the Common Core State Standards. Read the key points for mathematics at http://corestandards.org/about-the-standards/key-points-in-mathematics and the full set of standards for mathematics at http://www.corestandards.org/Math.
HOT: August 3, 2011.
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) developed and released its model content frameworks for English language arts/ literacy and mathematics to help link the standards to PARCC assessments and to provide greater insight into the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). PARCC's Draft Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics has detailed information for grades 3–8 and high school, including the big ideas of the CCSS for each grade level and high school, and three priority levels for instructional emphases by cluster for addressing the standards.
HOT: August 29, 2011.
The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium released draft math content specifications for public comment and review. The document describes the evidence students must exhibit to demonstrate mastery of the college- and career-ready knowledge and skills identified in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Appendix C also contains a sampling of assessment items.
The Mathematics Common Core Coalition was formed to "ensure the successful communication, interpretation, implementation, and assessment of the Common Core State Standards" (Mission statement section). There are eight member organizations providing their expertise and advise on issues.
HOT: November 1, 2011.
The 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress Nation's Report Card was released for mathematics. "Nationally representative samples of about 209,000 fourth-graders and 175,000 eighth-graders participated in the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their knowledge and abilities across five mathematics content areas: number properties and operations; measurement; geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra" (Summary of Major Findings section, para. 1). Among major findings: Students at grades 4 and 8 scored higher in 2011 than in previous assessments; A higher percentage of fourth- and eighth-graders performed at or above Proficient in 2011 than in 2009; There was a higher percentage of fourth- and eighth-graders who performed at or above Proficient in 2011 than in 2009 (Summary of Major Findings section). See a summary report for each state or jurisdiction that participated in the NAEP assessments. Also see results noted in the "Classroom Context" section in which teachers responded to questions in four areas: their highest degree earned, time spent on mathematics, frequency for allowing use of calculators on tests and quizzes; and their emphasis on algebra and functions.
HOT: November 9,
The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) released its October 2011 Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics, Grades 3-11 to the public. Its purpose is "to serve as a bridge between the Common Core State Standards and the PARCC assessments" (p. 4). Within the document you will find guidance in several areas. Per PARCC (2011):
HOT: February 9,
Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences "an umbrella organization consisting of sixteen professional societies all of which have as one of their primary objectives the increase or diffusion of knowledge in one or more of the mathematical sciences" released The Mathematical Education of Teachers II. This 2012 document was prompted by the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. It updates the first MET of 2001 with "recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of elementary grades, middle grades, and high school." It has "recommendations for the professional development of teachers of mathematics" and discusses "the mathematical needs of elementary mathematics specialists, and of teachers in early childhood education and special education" (Preface section).
HOT: April 25, 2012.
The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Asssessment of Readiness for College and Careers released guidance for the minimum hardware specifications for new K-12 technology purchases that may be needed to ensure that schools are equipped to deliver the new Common Core online assessments beginning in 2014-2015. There are some commonalities to those specifications in terms of hardware, operating system, networking, and device type.
HOT: May 2012.
From an announcement by Achieve.org, Common Core Math Standards Implementation Can Lead to Improved Student Achievement, we learn that "Dr. William Schmidt released key conclusions from his research detailing how the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for mathematics can potentially improve the performance of U.S. students if implemented appropriately" (para. 1). Dr. Schmidt's work was entitled: Common Core State Standards Math: The Relationship Between High Standards, Systemic Implementation and Student Achievement. "Unlike previous research, Schmidt analyzed the link between states with standards that were similar to the CCSS and their NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] math scores. He used cut scores aligned to NAEP as a proxy to determine if states were serious about high expectations and implementation of standards. The preliminary results showed states with standards in line with CCSS combined with higher cut scores also had higher NAEP scores" (para. 7). A PowerPoint Presentation and video are available related to this research.
HOT: July 20, 2012.
The writing team for the Common Core State Standards in mathematics (CCSSM) finalized a set of guidelines "to support faithful CCSSM implementation by providing criteria for materials aligned to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics" (p. 1). While meant for publishers, the document, K-8 Publishers' Criteria for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, will be valuable to school districts in reviewing previously purchased materials and tools, and for educators to review their existing teacher-developed materials and to develop new materials aligned to the standards, and for providing professional development. The 24-page document, free for download, has three sections:
HOT: August 20, 2012.
PARCC released sample test items and performance tasks for the Common Core State Standards in mathematics.
HOT: December 2012.
The TIMSS 2011 International Results in Mathematics was released authored by Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. It summarizes fourth and eighth grade student achievement in each of the 63 countries and 14 benchmarking entities which participated in TIMSS 2011. Available from http://timss.org/
HOT: February 2013.
Horizon Research, Inc. released The Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education, which "details the results of a survey of 7,752 science and mathematics teachers in schools across the United States. Areas addressed include: teacher backgrounds and beliefs, teachers as professionals, science and mathematics courses, instructional objectives and activities, instructional resources, and factors affecting instruction." The entire report or selected chapters can be downloaded. The following are among the multiple conclusions:
"[S]cience and mathematics teachers, especially in the elementary and middle grades, do not have strong content preparation in their respective subjects ... A large majority of teachers in all subject/grade-range categories believe that it is better to cover fewer topics in depth. However, many believe that students should be given definitions for new vocabulary at the beginning of instruction, that teachers should explain an idea to students before having them consider evidence for it" (pp. 31-32), and that "hands-on activities should be used primarily to reinforce ideas students have already learned, despite recommendations that these be used to help students develop their initial understanding of key concepts" (p. 22).
"Workshops are the most prevalent form of professional development, and participation in teacher study groups is also quite common. ... The emphasis of these professional development opportunities ... has largely been on planning instruction to enable students at different levels of achievement to enhance their understanding, monitoring student understanding during instruction, and assessing student understanding at the end of instruction on a topic. Learning how to use hands-on/manipulatives has also been focused on heavily in mathematics professional development, especially at the elementary level" (pp. 50-51).
"In mathematics, although most middle schools offer Algebra 1, relatively few students complete it prior to 9th grade" (pp. 66-67).
"Explanation of ideas and whole group discussion are also very prominent in mathematics instruction, as is the use of textbook/worksheet problems. Having students engage in practices consistent with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, such as explaining and justifying methods for solving a problem and comparing/contrasting different solution methods, is also a common weekly occurrence across grade ranges, although the frequency of use decreases as grade range increases. For example, 78 percent of elementary classes have students consider multiple representations in solving a problem at least once per week, compared to only 65 percent of high school classes. Similar to science, the use of technology in mathematics instruction is fairly low across grade levels" (p. 89).
"Across both science and mathematics, the same three publishers dominate [Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, and Pearson], accounting for at least 75 percent of the market at each level. ... more than 70 percent of teachers in both subjects rate their textbooks as good or better. ... Textbooks appear to exert substantial influence on instruction, from the amount of class time spent using the textbook (especially in mathematics) to the ways teachers use them to plan for and organize instruction. At the same time, it is clear that teachers deviate from their published materials substantially, both skipping parts of the text (most often because teachers know of something better) and supplementing with other materials (most often to provide additional practice or to differentiate instruction)" (p. 107).
"In mathematics, only two factors are seen as a serious problem in a substantial proportion of schools: low student interest in the subject and low student reading abilities. Lack of student interest is more likely to be seen as a serious problem in middle and high schools than in elementary schools" (p. 116).
"[T]he use of special instructional arrangements—e.g., subject matter specialists or pull-out instruction for enrichment and/or remediation—is much more prevalent in mathematics than in science, perhaps because of accountability pressures associated with mathematics. The availability of federal funds for mathematics instruction probably also plays a role. ... [P]rograms to encourage student interest in mathematics are strikingly uncommon. For example, less than one-third of schools offer mathematics clubs. ... In mathematics, the substantial influence of state standards is evident in multiple ways, among them school-wide efforts to discuss and align instruction with standards" (p. 125).
Math in the News Interactive Mind Map
Use the Math in the News Interactive Mind Map by Antonio Gutierrez of GoGeometry.com. Find world math and science news for specific subject areas (basic math, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, probability and statistics, etc.) and topics (game theory, graphing, functions, information theory, etc.). This is a great find!
NCLB at the U.S. Department of Education is highly recommended as the primary source for news on this topic. Get the latest on policy, state status and contacts, video success stories, choices for parents, proven methods in the content areas, and more.
The purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is to "close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind" (107th Congress, Public Law 107-110, 2002, 115 STAT. 1425). It requires states to assess students in math and reading each year in grades 3-8 and once during grades 10-12 to ensure that they are meeting grade-level content and achievement standards. States should have annual math and reading assessments in place by 2005-06. Until then they must administer reading and math assessments at least once during grades 3-5, 6-9 and 10-12. States are required to begin testing in science once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 beginning in the 2007-08 school year. They must also participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in math and reading for grades 4 and 8. A sample of students statewide will be used. Learning First Alliance described key provisions of NCLB and provides a timeline for implementation of major provisions of the law in their publication, The No Child Left Behind Act: Key Provisions and Timelines (updated July 2004). There are other NCLB resources, too.
W. James Popham (2004) encourages educators to discover just how appropriate your state's tests are for determining adequate yearly progress (AYP). An appropriate test that is capable of accurately identifying AYP in students' achievement should have all of the following attributes:
The test measures only a modest number of curricular aims (only about a half dozen) so that teachers are not overwhelmed by having to promote too many skills or bodies of knowledge.
The skills or bodies of knowledge the test assesses should be described with sufficient clarity so teachers can plan their instruction to meet well-understood curricular aims rather than at particular test items.
The test contains enough items related to each assessed skill or body of knowledge to determine students' mastery of that skill or body of knowledge, thereby enabling teachers to identify those parts of their instruction that need improvement.
No Child Left Behind: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
In The Politics of No Child Left Behind, Andrew Rudalevige, assistant professor of political science at Dickinson College, details the context of NCLB and its evolution through Congress. He stated, "No Child Left Behind was the cumulative result of a standards-and-testing movement that began with the release of the report A Nation at Risk by the Reagan administration in 1983" (2003, p. 63, para. 2).
The full text of Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, is available from the U.S. Department of Education at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
The Center on Education Policy: http://www.cep-dc.org/, a national, independent advocate for public education and for more effective public schools, has an entire section at its website devoted to NCLB listed under its section for Federal Education Programs. Included are a compendium of key studies, annual reports, restructuring efforts in several states, policy briefs, and so on.
The Education Commission of the States (ECS) discusses issues related to NCLB to help stakeholders understand the legislation and its implications at http://www.ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=195. The ECS also maintains a database on issues related to NCLB at http://nclb2.ecs.org/projects_centers/index.aspx
Robert Linn, Co-Director of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, uses an example to walk the reader through the steps for determining adequate yearly progress in his policy brief #6, Requirements for Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress. He discusses fixing the NCLB accountability in policy brief #8. These and others are available at http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/policy.html
Schools that fail to meet Adequate Yearly Progress goals for a third consecutive year must offer parents of low-income (Title I) students a choice of tutoring from among a state-approved list of Supplemental Education Service (SES) providers. Get more information about state and local education association responsibilities, monitoring requirements and services, arranging for such services, the role of parents, provider responsibilities and funding in NCLB Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance (June 13, 2005) at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc. Answers to frequently asked questions on school choice and SES are at http://www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/choice.html.
In What to Do with No Child Left Behind? Why the law will need more than a name change (October 15, 2008), Richard Kahlenberg discusses the three central flaws of No Child Left Behind legislation, which could undermine the standards-based-reform movement. His commentary also includes the solutions that scholars in the field proposed to those defects: the underfunding of NCLB; the flawed implementation of its standards, testing, and accountability provisions; and the failure to provide students in low-performing schools a genuine opportunity to transfer to much better ones. Kahlenberg is the editor of Improving on No Child Left Behind: Getting Education Reform Back on Track.
January 8, 2002:
President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, called in its press release "a historic new law that will change the culture of America's schools and, most important, improve student achievement in classrooms across the country" (para. 1). Find out what this landmark legislation means for your state: http://web.archive.org/web/20031011172530/http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/01/01082002.html Read reaction to this at http://www.educationnews.org/articles/testingassessment-.html
June 11, 2002:
U.S. Secretary of Education Paige Releases a Report to Congress that Calls for Overhaul of State Teacher Certification Systems. The No Child Left Behind Act calls for highly qualified teachers demonstrating subject matter knowledge to be in place in every classroom by the end of the 2005–06 school year. According to this release, "To raise academic standards, the report calls on states to require prospective teachers to pass rigorous exams in the subjects they plan to teach. Research shows that teachers with strong academic backgrounds in specific content areas are more likely to boost the academic performance of their students in those subjects." The report also calls for institutions with teacher preparation programs to eliminate many of the rigid certification requirements, such as an extensive number of methods courses, and it examines successes in alternate routes to teaching. Read this report:
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation (2002). Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary's Annual Report on Teacher Quality. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.title2.org/
Read William Bainbridge's Commentary: Leaving Children Behind in the 2002 summer edition of Technos Quarterly. According to Bainbridge, who lists among his credentials Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, "In addition to recognizing the positive aspects of this legislation, however, it also seems prudent to be concerned about what the national legislation lacks. The concern is that measurement alone will not bridge the learning gap that exists between children from homes of various socioeconomic levels. Bainbridge elaborates on his concern.
The Education Commission of the States (ECS) has developed the No Child Left Behind Database to provide policy makers and the public with an up-to-date status of how state policies are conforming to the requirements of the NCLB Act. Access additional resources, such as ECS publications and state plans.
April 9, 2003:
The U.S. Department of Education and the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) released The National Leadership Institute Toolkit: States Helping States Implement NCLB. This toolkit, which is designed to help states implement the technology requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, includes resources and best practices on topics including:
- scientifically based research
- technology literacy assessment
- common data elements
- effective teaching using technology
- the national education technology plan.
Get this toolkit at http://www.setda.org/
June 10, 2003:
Every state has submitted an accountability plan to the U.S. Department of Education for ensuring that students are proficient in reading and math by 2013-2014. Each has received a letter noting actions required to become fully approved. View your state plan, which is posted at the U.S. Department of Education: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
August 18, 2003:
Phi Delta Kappan, the professional journal for educators, posted results of the 35th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Conclusions reached by authors, Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, include that, "The public sees itself as uninformed on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, with 69% saying they lack the information needed to say whether their impression of the act is favorable or unfavorable. Forty percent say they know very little about the NCLB, with an additional 36% saying they know nothing at all about the act." However, "Responses to questions related to strategies associated with NCLB suggest that greater familiarity with the law is unlikely to lead to greater public support." The report is available in archives at http://www.pdkintl.org/
January 16, 2004:
The U.S. Department of Education issued Highly Qualified Teachers: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, revised non-regulatory guidance to help state and local educational agencies meet NCLB's teacher quality goals. "This Non-Regulatory Guidance explains how State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and State agencies for higher education can effectively use Title II, Part A funds to ensure that all teachers are highly qualified and effective, a critical component of the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" (sec: Purpose of this Guidance, para. 1). The document also includes clearer answers to the definition of a highly-qualified teacher, what is meant my core-academic subjects, and what is meant by highly-qualified professional development. The document was revised October, 2006.
January 29, 2004:
No Child Left Behind School Information Partnership Web Site Launched at School Matters (http://www.schoolmatters.com/). The School Information Partnership focuses on state academic achievement results. The web site assists all states and districts with reporting on school performance as envisioned under NCLB. It also provides a suite of analytical tools from Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services and the National Center for Education Accountability’s Just for the Kids School Improvement Model to help parents, educators and policymakers use the NCLB data to make informed decisions about student learning. Among data are adequate yearly progress results for reading and math. The web site and its tools give stakeholders immediate access to useful information about the performance and demographic makeup of schools, as well as neighboring schools and districts.
January 7, 2005:
The U.S. Department of Education released a national education technology plan: Toward a New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today's Students are Revolutionizing Expectation. The plan highlights seven action steps with accompanying recommendations for states, districts, and individual schools:
- This action includes among recommendations to "[p]rovide every student access to e-learning" and to "[e]nable every teacher to participate in e-learning training."
- This action includes among recommendations to "move away from reliance on textbooks to the use of multimedia or online information" and to consider the costs and benefits of online content, "aligned with rigorous state academic standards, as part of a systemic approach to creating resources for students to customize learning to their individual needs."
- The plan stresses, "Integrated, interoperable data systems are the key to better allocation of resources, greater management efficiency, and online and technology-based assessments of student performance that empower educators to transform teaching and personalize instruction." This action step also recommends leadership to ensure interoperability by considering School Interoperability Framework (SIF) Compliance Certification as a requirement in all RFPs and purchasing decisions.
February 23, 2005:
A special task force of the National Conference of State Legislatures released the results of a 10-month study, No Child Left Behind Task Force Final Report, in which they identified key areas of NCLB that need to be changed so that all learners can reach their potential. See Key Recommendations from the NCSL Task Force on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Final Report at http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/NCLBRecommendations.pdf Selected recommendations below from this 6-chapter report are quoted from the Executive Summary:
Chapter 1: The Role of the Federal Government in Education Reform:
Congress should create a revitalized state-federal partnership that acknowledges diversity among states and shifts focus from processes and requirements to outcomes and results.
Chapter 2: Adequate Yearly Progress:
Chapter 3: AYP: Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency:
Chapter 4: Flexibility for States to Address Unique Schools and Districts
Delegate flexibility authority in Section 9401 to states to allow to allow them to respond to the unique conditions of urban and rural communities.
Chapter 5: Highly Qualified Teacher and Paraprofessional Requirements
Allow states to establish conditions under which exceptions could be granted to the highly qualified teacher provisions.
Chapter 6: The Cost of Closing the Achievement Gap: Compliance vs. Proficiency
Substantially increase federal funding for the law. [The report notes that the federal government has dramatically increased spending on education since passage of NCLB, but the federal government's current share of education funding is only about 8 percent.]
What do we mean by multiple measures?
According to Susan Brookhart (2009), there are many ways to define and apply the concept of "multiple measures." First, one needs to know what counts as a measure. " 'Multiple measures' describes at least three different ways of using more than one score: (1) measures of different constructs, (2) different measures of the same construct, and (3) multiple opportunities to pass the same test" (p. 9). Second, one needs to know how multiple measures might be combined. Brookkart notes three ways: "Methods of combining information from multiple measures include (1) conjunctive, in which the student or group must pass all measures; (2) compensatory, in which higher performance on one measure can compensate for lower performance on another; and (3) complementary, in which the student or group must achieve the standard on just one of the multiple measures" (Chester, 2005, cited in Brookhart, 2009, p. 10).
Putting those three ways to define multiple measures together with the three ways to combine those yields nine different combinations.
Read The Many Meanings of "Multiple Measures" in Educational Leadership, November, 2009.
Growth models considered. In NCLB Update: Measuring Student Learning, an EDPolicy Update (volume 4, number 6) from ASCD, we learn that U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings "has insisted states strictly follow the law's requirement of testing students each year in grades 3��8, but new opportunities may open up for states that want to change the way they assess student learning" (para. 1). "The U.S. Department of Education has convened a series of meetings to review whether states should have a new option to meet NCLB's assessment provisions. This option would allow states to measure individual students' growth from year to year. The current practice compares the performance of students in a particular grade with the performance of students in that same grade the previous year" (para. 2). Pioneering states, concerns from policymakers and researchers, and additional resources on NCLB are provided.
The Center on Education Policy in Washington, DC released From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act (http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=540&nodeID=1). Research for this annual report on the implementation of NCLB included a survey of all 50 states and a national representation of 299 districts, case studies of 38 geographically diverse districts and 42 schools, analyses of critical issues, and three national forums. The summary of this report reveals four broad conclusions as to what happened during 2005:
NCLB has impacted teaching and learning. There has been an effort to align curriculum and instruction with state academic standards and assessments. Schools are making better use of data to assist with planning instruction to meet individual student and group needs. However, there has been narrowing of curriculum in at least one subject area to accommodate an increase in time devoted to reading and mathematics. Case studies revealed that teaching is becoming more prescriptive. There is skepticism among the surveyed state and district officials as to whether the quality of teaching has been improved, even though teachers are meeting the highly qualified conditions mandated by NCLB.
According to state and local officials surveyed, scores have risen on state tests in a large majority of states and school districts. Factors were attributed to the adequate yearly progress requirement of NCLB, but far more attributed gains to school district policies and programs.
Although there may be different schools each year, the overall percentage and number of schools identified in need of improvement has varied little. Percentages of eligible students exercising the option of school choice (less than 2%) and participating in supplementary education services (tutoring, around 20%) remains low over the last two years.
NCLB is increasingly having the greatest effects in urban districts. A major reason is due to their diversity. The majority (54%) of Title I schools identified in need of improvement are in urban districts. Urban districts are more affected by sanctions because of their size and greater number of low-income students (poverty has been linked to achievement).
April 9, 2007:
The U.S. Department of Education released Final Rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal Register, 72(67), Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2007-2/040907a.pdf. The intent of this rule is to "provide States with additional flexibility regarding State, local educational agency (LEA), and school accountability for the achievement of a small group of students with disabilities whose progress is such that, even after receiving appropriate instruction, including special education and related services designed to address the students’ individual needs, the students’ individualized education program (IEP) teams (IEP Teams) are reasonably certain that the students will not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the students’ IEPs" (sec: Summary). These amended No Child Left Behind regulations give states the option of developing alternative assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) to be administered to such students.
Readers interested in how states are developing AA-MAS as per the April, 2007, Final Rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300 should read: Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Christensen, L. L., & Cormier, D. (2007). States’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report 67). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis67/Synthesis67.pdf. "In July 2007 six states had an assessment either in place or in development that they considered to be an AA-MAS, but none had as of yet gone through the U.S. Department of Education’s peer review process. This study compiled and summarized information about these assessments" (p. 7), based on publicly available information at the time. State documents used in the analysis were from Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Maryland.
December 12, 2007:
Growth models on the rise. In Growth 'pilot' now open to all states, David Hoff (2007) reports that all states that meet federal criteria will now be allowed to take part in the U.S. Department of Education’s 2-year-old experiment with “growth models."
What's a Growth Model?
2009 ASCD Legislative Agenda calls for multiple indicators of achievement. "ASCD believes using growth models to measure student progress presents a more accurate portrayal of student achievement. Effective and accurate growth models can include a combination of state assessments, teacher-developed assessments, portfolios, grade point averages, and performance assessments such as essays and projects" (sec: Assessments, p. 4).
January 13, 2009:
As reported in the Chicago Sun Times by Lynn Sweet, Arne Duncan sails through confirmation hearing for Education Secretary. In the hearing Duncan stated, "I know that the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind will be a priority for the 111th Congress. I have seen first-hand the impact of the federal law on our students and schools. I have seen the law's power and its limitations. I agree with the President-elect that we should neither bury NCLB nor praise it without reservation. I support the core goals of high standards for all - black and white, poor and wealthy, students with disabilities, and those who are just learning to speak English. Like President-elect Obama, I am committed to closing achievement gaps, raising expectations and holding everyone accountable for results" (sec: Testimony of Education Secretary-designate Arne Duncan before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, United States Senate).
February 17, 2009:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009. The goal of this economic stimulus package is saving and creating jobs and reforming education. Read the overview of this law and access additional resources on it including the full text of ARRA at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/library/compliance/recoveryact
Charles Barone (2009) of the Education Sector reports on Are we there yet? What policymakers can learn from Tennessee's growth model. Tennessee was one of the first seven states that former Secretary of Education Spellings approved to use a "growth-to-proficiency" model (p. 1). Barone reports on the advantages and disadvantages of this model, which he hopes will "help those involved in this process to make more thoughtful and informed decisions by examining the approach" of Tennessee (p. 2). The Education Sector is an independent think tank that challenges conventional thinking in education policy.
See the U.S. Department of Education for additional information on the current status of growth models: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/index.html press releases, state applications and decision letters, guidance, fact sheets, and reports.
June 25, 2009:
School Accountability: A Broader, Bolder Approach, Report of the Accountability Committee of the Broader Bolder Approach to Education Campaign is released proposing a new accountability system designed to overcome weaknesses in No Child Left Behind. This new system would combine both qualitative and quantitative methods. "The Broader, Bolder Approach campaign proposes a new accountability system whose chief elements are: 1) an expansion and coordination of federal data collection, including expansion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, to provide comparative state-by-state information on the broad range of knowledge and skills that students need for success; and 2) federally approved and supported (but not designed) state systems of school inspection that ensure that schools are generating adequate outcomes on this range of knowledge and skills, and are following practices likely to generate these outcomes" (p. 6).
August 12, 2009:
The National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) and the National Center for Performance Incentives (NCPI) hosted a research conference entitled NCLB: Emerging Findings, the purpose of which was "to present and debate emerging findings on the merits and the weaknesses of the No Child Left Behind Act." Conference presentations are available at the site: http://www.performanceincentives.org/conferences/2009-NCLB-with-CALDER/index.aspx
February 12, 2010:
While speaking to school superintendents during the American Association of School Administrators’ National Conference on Education, Education Secretary Arne Duncan outlined the Obama administration's vision for rewriting the No Child Left Behind law. He identified three principles that will guide the administration’s approach: (1) higher standards, (2) rewarding excellence, and (3) a “smarter, tighter federal role” in ensuring that all students succeed. Read Dennis Pierce's full commentary of February 14 in eSchool News: Duncan offers ‘guiding principles’ for rewriting NCLB.
March 5, 2010:
The U.S. Department of Education released a draft for a National Education Technology Plan 2010: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. The plan presents a model of 21st century learning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity:
May 4, 2010:
The Obama administration released a series of documents outlining the research that supports the proposals in the blueprint for revising the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The blueprint released March 13, 2010, included the following sections:
The U.S. Department of Education released the final version of the National Education Technology Plan 2010: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. In his letter to the members of Congress, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated:
The model of learning described in this plan calls for engaging and empowering personalized learning experiences for learners of all ages. The model stipulates that we focus what and how we teach to match what people need to know and how they learn. It calls for using state-of-the-art technology and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) concepts to enable, motivate, and inspire all students to achieve, regardless of background, languages, or disabilities. It calls for ensuring that our professional educators are well connected to the content and resources, data and information, and peers and experts they need to be highly effective. And it calls for leveraging the power of technology to support continuous and lifelong learning. (Letter from the Secretary, 2010, para. 3)
February 6, 2013:
In an ISTE blog post, Great Start for Digital Learning Policy in the 113th Congress: Comprehensive Education Technology Bill Introduced in House of Representatives, Hilary Goldman reported that on this date, "George Miller (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce Committee introduced the Transforming Education through Technology Act. The introduction of this legislation is an important milestone in digital learning policy. With no dedicated federal funding over last few years for classroom technology, and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act stalled, the Transforming Education through Technology Act will be a rallying opportunity for the entire education community to highlight and underscore the key role digital learning plays in all aspects of teaching and learning to ensure all students are college and career ready" (para. 1). See the complete legislation draft for discussion.
Current Events in Multiple Fields
Newsvine.com is a great find for current events in multiple fields. It’s a source for local, national, and world news from services like ESPN and Associated Press. But there is a major difference. The developers of the site want to promote a different way to read, write, and interact with the news. By putting users in control, news adjusts according to what users find important. Best of all, students can set up a column and write articles for friends and the world to discuss. Newsvine’s Code of Honor helps control its content.
ASCD News and Media includes ASCD responses to a variety of issues affecting education. You'll find policy positions, education issues, public policy and more. For daily news, subscribe to ASCD SmartBrief. It's free. Keep up-to-date with the latest education research with ASCD's "Mining the Research" in Education Update. See ASCD's interactive map showing the Common Core Standards Adoption by State.
Council for Exceptional Children provides up-to-date news, issues, information, and resources on special education policy, trends, and other developments affecting the education of children with exceptionalities and the professionals who work with them.
Distance-educator.com, written by experts, is devoted to providing information and resources for distance education. The site includes links to courses, how-to articles and 11 categories of daily news about distance education, among other resources. News categories contain corporate and higher education e-learning, K-12, governances, and virtual libraries, for example. A subscription to the Policy Brief Series enables readers to stay informed about intellectual property, faculty development, and student services.
Education Commission of the States (http://www.ecs.org/). From the Web site: "Policymakers interested in particular education topics generally can find what they need on the ECS Web site or can get more detailed information from the Clearinghouse. For further access to timely education policy news, ECS has two flagship electronic publications: e-Clips, a daily roundup of the nation's top education news and e-Connection, a weekly bulletin highlighting state policy trends, new reports, upcoming meetings and events, useful Web sites and ECS news. ECS also publishes three bimonthly, topic-specific bulletins including: Governance Notes, which takes a look at what's happening in the world of education governance; Citizenship Matters, which examines efforts to improve citizenship education in our nation's schools; and TQ Update, which provides information on improving teaching quality."
Education News Headlines, a weekly newsletter sent to your e-mail address from Education World, will keep you up-to-date with the latest education news. Sign up for this newsletter at http://www.educationworld.com/maillist2.shtml
EducationNews.org has provided the latest daily EducationNews coverage from world-wide sources since 1997. "In addition to the U. S. and world media publications, commentaries and reports are featured and include comprehensive views on education issues from all sides of the political spectrum" (About section). You'll find sections devoted to education policy, technology, higher education, online schools, parenting, international/UK, and K-12 schools.
Education Week provides news, special reports (including coverage of the the latest findings and trends in education research and the impact of technology on education), state information (key players, key statistics, legislative updates, and past stories), and access to Teacher Magazine. You can sign up for a number of weekly or monthly newsletters, such as NCLB Alert, Curriculum Matters and EdTech Trends. Education Week also offers free webinars on current topics of interest, which are archived for six months after their presentation.
eSchool News developed for K-12 decision-makers, covers all aspects of school technology news, events, issues, key players, products, services, and strategies. Also learn about the business and political issues impacting school technology. Watch eSN-TV Tech Watch newscasts and the Visions of Innovation shows at http://www.eschoolnews.com/video/.
Heartlander digital magazine from the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, is an online source for the latest in education, technology, fiscal, health, environment, and finance & insurance news.
Learning First Alliance reports on what's working in public schools in its Public School Insights. There is a free e-newsletter.
MagPortal.com is a search engine and directory for finding online magazine articles. Education and reference is among categories.
Math Forum Internet News is a newsletter sent out via e-mail once a week to those who subscribe. You will get suggestions of good sites to visit for mathematics and key issues in math education.
The National Dialogue was conducted 2001-2003 as a national conversation about standards-based education and making sure that standards live up to the promise of leaving no child behind. In response to this need two nonpartisan, nonprofit education research organizations (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL and Public Agenda) teamed up to create and support community dialogues all across the country. Conversations were then continued online. Communities addressed accountability, achieving equity, assessment, classroom practice, curriculum, information and data management, leadership, policy, parent and community engagement, standards, teacher development and preparation, and local control and standards. Read the initial outcomes in:
Goodwin, B. (2003). Digging deeper: Where does the public stand on standards-based education? [Issues brief]. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.mcrel.org/topics/products/141/
Public Education Network "places education in the headlines, and in the forefront of American minds, through coverage in national publications, press releases, and NewsBlast, an e-mail newsletter that gives a quarter of a million readers the latest in education news every week.' Sign up for NewsBlast newsletter--it's free.
TechLearning News is brought to you by TechLearning.com. Technology & Learning magazine and Intel Corporation also sponsor K-12 Computing Blueprint, which focuses on planning and implementing technology initiatives, such as one-to-one or bring-your-own computing. You can subscribe to the weekly newsletters. Research results, funding, leadership, infrastructure, professional development, and curriculum information using mobile devices are provided.
U.S. Department of Education: Education News Parents Can Use is a TV series. If you miss a show, Education News is available via archived webcasts: www.connectlive.com/events/ednews.
107th Congress of the United States (2002). Public Law 107-110: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html [NOTE: The pdf document, also available for download, has 670 pages with the first numbered as 115 STAT. 1425.]
Barone, C. (2009, March). Are we there yet? What policymakers can learn from Tennessee's growth model. Education Sector Technical Report. Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/Are_We_There_Yet.pdf
Brookhart, S. (2009, November). The many meanings of "multiple measures." Educational Leadership, 67(3), 6-12. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership.aspx [See archived issues.]
Charischak, I. (2009, June 3). What's missing from this picture? Council for Technology in Math Education (CLIME) Blogpost. Retrieved from http://climeconnections.blogspot.com/
Hoff, D. (2007, December 12). Growth 'pilot' now open to all states. Education Week, 27(15), 1, 20. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/12/12/15growth.h27.html
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2007, April 5). New report released on congressionally mandated evaluation of 15 educational technology products. [Press release]. Available in press release archive: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/newsroom/releases/archive_pr.asp
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006a). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through grade 8 mathematics: A quest for coherence. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=270
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2006b, September 12). NCTM Releases Curriculum Focal Points to Focus Math Curricula. Reston, VA: NCTM News Release. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=686
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2009a, June). Guiding principles for mathematics curriculum and assessment. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=23273
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2009b). Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense Making. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=23749
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2009c, October 6). NCTM Releases new landmark publication: Focus in High School Mathematics: Reasoning and Sense Making. Reston, VA: NCTM News Release. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/news/content.aspx?id=23876
National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers (2009, June 1). Forty-nine states and territories join common core state standards initiative. Washington, DC: NGA Press Release. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_forty-nine-states-and-territories-join-common-core-standards-initiative.html
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2011, October). Model Content Frameworks for Mathematics, Grades 3-11. Retrieved from http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-content-frameworks
Popham, W. J. (2004, October). All about accountability: Tawdry tests and AYP. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 85-86. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership.aspx [See archived issues.]
Rudalevige, A. (2003, Fall). The politics of No Child Left Behind. Education Next, (4), 62-69. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20034_62.pdf