Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier

The EDifier

March 14, 2013

Study examines links between the rigor of Algebra I and Geometry course content and test scores

The National Center for Education Statistics recently released a study examining the relationship between the rigor in Algebra I and Geometry courses high school students take and student test performance in those areas on the 12th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).  This study was spurred by positive findings from the 2005 NAEP  High School Transcript study, which found that in 2005 high school students earned more math credits, took higher level math courses, and obtained higher math course grades than in 1990. 

While it is certainly good news that more students are taking more math courses at higher levels and earning higher grades, it’s not clear whether students are taking courses that are truly rigorous or whether or not this uptick in math course enrollment is resulting in more student math achievement.  This study aims to answer that question.  The study was unable to actually observe classroom instruction in order to measure rigor; however, the researchers gained access to math textbooks used in 550 public schools, analyzing the rigor of the problems in the textbooks to determine how demanding classes are.  Previous studies have shown that math textbooks are closely related to math classroom instruction and serve as a good proxy for actual course rigor.  After coding the textbooks to determine whether or not they represented basic, intermediate, or advanced levels of rigor, the study matched those rigor levels to math NAEP scores to see if there’s a relationship. 

The overwhelming finding is there is a clear relationship between classroom rigor and NAEP scores.  Students in rigorous Algebra I courses and Geometry courses scored higher on NAEP than students in basic or intermediate courses.  On the other hand, the study also finds that the labeling of a course (i.e.-whether a course is regular or honors) often has little relationship to the true rigor offered in a course.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the findings:

  • Graduates in rigorous Algebra I courses and Geometry courses score higher on NAEP.
    • Algebra I rigor level with corresponding NAEP scores (10 points is roughly equivalent to a year’s worth of learning):
      • Beginner: 137 points
      • Intermediate: 143
      • Rigorous: 146
    • Geometry rigor level with corresponding NAEP scores:
      • Beginner: 148
      • Intermediate: 152
      • Rigorous: 159
  • School course titles often do not truly represent the level of rigor a course offers.
    • 73% of students who took an honors Algebra I course actually received an intermediate Algebra I course.
    • In fact, a higher percentage of students in a regular class received a rigorous course than those in courses labeled “honors”
      • Regular title, but curriculum was rigorous: 34%
      • Honors title, but curriculum was rigorous: 18%
    • In Geometry classes, only 33% of courses title honors were actually rigorous, while 62% were intermediate, and the rest were basic.
  • Generally, about two-thirds of an Algebra I or Geometry course covers core content; the rest is a review of lower level material or a preview of higher level material.
  • Most students, regardless of race or course title, took an intermediate level Algebra I course.
    • 54% of high school students took an intermediate Algebra I course, while 14% had a beginner course, and 32% had a rigorous course.
  • Most students, regardless of course title, took an intermediate level Geometry course.
    • Classes titled “Informal”: 54% had an intermediate course (30% basic, 14% rigorous)
    • Classes titled “Regular: 68% had an intermediate course (11% basic, 19% rigorous)
    • Classes titled “Honors”: 62% had an intermediate course (4% basic, 33% rigorous)
  • While racial differences weren’t present in differences in rigor level for all other courses, racial differences were present for Honors Geometry rigor levels.
    • 37% of white students had a rigorous Honors Geometry course, while 21% of Black graduates and 17% of Hispanic graduates had a rigorous Honors Geometry course.
  • While a higher level of rigor in a Algebra I or Geometry course resulted in higher NAEP scores, white graduates still scored higher than Black or Hispanic graduates on the Algebra I and Geometry portion of NAEP, regardless of the rigor level of their math test:
    • White students rigor level of Algebra I and Geometry course and corresponding NAEP scores:
      • Algebra I
        • Basic: 142
        • Intermediate: 148
        • Rigorous: 151
      • Geometry
        • Basic: 155
        • Intermediate: 159
        • Rigorous: 165
    • Black students rigor level of Geometry course and corresponding NAEP scores:  
      • Algebra I
        • Basic: 128
        • Intermediate: 129
        • Rigorous: 134
      • Geometry
        • Basic: 120
        • Intermediate: 129
        • Rigorous: 133
    • Hispanic students rigor level of Geometry course and corresponding NAEP scores:
      • Algebra I
        • Basic: 127
        • Intermediate: 132
        • Rigorous: 132
      • Geometry
        • Basic: 140
        • Intermediate: 138
        • Rigorous: 138


February 20, 2013

Are schools replicating the mistakes of American car companies?

Yesterday I caught the Charlie Rose show, and while the topic wasn’t education, a comment a guest made got me thinking about whether we have a fatal flaw in our leadership structure in the public schools.  Rose had invited Michael Moritz, a venture capitalist with Sequoia Capital, onto the show.  The conversation meandered in many directions, but they paused for a moment to talk about leadership in major corporations.  As they pondered the nature of who should be in charge of companies, Moritz argued that no company can rely solely on “business” people; instead, you must have product people involved in leadership.  He noted that this was one of the fatal flaws of American automakers, contributing to their decline.  As the companies grew, they added more and more business people, and neglected to have product people in leadership, pushing the company towards a better car, towards innovation.

As I heard Moritz speak, I couldn’t help but wonder whether the same might be happening now in education.  Are we stacking our leadership teams with only business people and no product people?  In schools, the “product” is learning, so product people are experts in curriculum and instruction—the process of creating learning in students.  However, research shows time and time again, that most principals in schools spend very little time on the product, student learning.

In his report, “Building a New Structure for School Leadership,” Richard Elmore notes that multiple studies have shown that instruction is an area principals spend the least amount of time on.  In our own report about the function of principals in schools, we found that while principals are told to focus on student achievement, they still must perform a bevy of administrative duties, leading many principals believing that focusing on student achievement simply isn’t doable as the job currently stands.  Some might argue that such a lack of instructional leadership has little to no impact as long as teachers are experts in the product of learning and excel at teaching; however, this too contradicts research.

Just like in companies, leadership in schools does matter.  In fact, the impact of the principal on student achievement is only topped by the impact of the teacher in the classroom.  Research has shown that in schools with highly effective principals: students perform on average 10 percentage points higher than if in a school lead by an average principal, student absences are lower,  and graduation rates are 3 percent higher.

Interestingly, highly effective principals are set apart by one quality: instructional leadership.  In other words, principals make a distinct impact on student learning by being product (i.e. learning) experts, not business (i.e. administration and organization) experts.  Unfortunately, today we’re left with many schools lead by those with little time to focus on the product, student learning.  In the world of automotives, that left us with far too many years of the Ford Taurus.  In education, it’s left us with far too many years of underperforming students.

February 19, 2013

From trust to kindness, how one teacher TRICKed her students into learning

California educator Esther Wojcicki shares how putting student’s in charge of their learning, helped her build one of the largest high school journalism programs in the country.

February 8, 2013

When ‘academic freedom’ really means ‘bad science’

Several state legislatures have introduced variations of a so-called “Academic Freedom Act” that purports to encourage openness and critical thinking in science classrooms. To critics of these laws — which include virtually every scientific professional organization and a slew of Nobel laureates — it is a thinly veiled effort to insert unscientific ideas into the science curriculum.

Similar bills have already been voted into law in a few states including Tennessee and Louisiana, and are pending in Arizona, Oklahoma among others. An attempt to introduce one in Colorado failed to make it out of committee. Among those testifying against it were our friends at the Colorado Association of School Boards.  The bills have different names but the language is surprisingly the same: they call on schools to “help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed students” and specifically name the teaching of “scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

There’s a reason for the uniformity: the model language for these acts originated with the Discovery Institute, a think tank that promotes “intelligent design.”  Intelligent design is an attempt to bring scientific legitimacy to the idea that a supreme hand was behind the origin of the universe and it should therefore be allowed to be taught in public schools.  Yet this notion was famously shot down by the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover court decision that ruled intelligent design  “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism” and has no place in the science classroom. And although the courts have allowed for other origin explanations like Intelligent Design to be taught in humanities courses, there remains a push to treat them as another scientific theory.

The new bills try to circumvent Kitzmiller through re-purposing. They don’t explicitly call for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution. Rather they propose to protect “academic freedom” and promote “critical thinking” in public school science classes. The bills further assert that the provisions “must not be construed to promote religious or nonreligious doctrine.”  Yet the specific inclusion of evolution and global warming as “scientific controversies” belies their words.

To be absolutely clear, there is no scientific controversy on these issues. There is plenty of political and ideological controversy, however.  How these topics are presented, then, means a lot when the goal is to develop scientifically literate students.

I wrote about this science-ideology conflict as it relates to evolution in the September 2012 American School Board Journal. The main point I make is that a scientific theory is not just an opinion or educated guess, but must meet rigorous standards of scientific evidence. Other such theories include plate tectonics and the idea that living things are made of cells, although these do not seem to be controversial to anyone.

Global warming has been debated for years, and not just in the political arena. Scientists have also disagreed on certain aspects. But the science community overwhelming agrees that the planet is warming and that human activity is at least partly to blame.  The University of Illinois-Chicago surveyed earth scientists in 2008 on these questions. Of the over 3,000 who responded, 90 percent agreed that “global temperatures have generally risen” compared to pre-1800s levels, and 82 percent reported that “human activity is a significant contributing factor.”  The consensus among those who specialize in climate science was even stronger:  96.2 percent agreed that temperatures are rising and 97.4 percent agree on the question of humans’ contribution.

The fact that the response is not 100 percent is all the evidence climate-change deniers need to argue that there is a scientific debate, and that the domination of climate change-accepters in the discipline is somehow a sign of academic bias. But such thinking is itself a denial of the scientific zietgeist with its emphasis on skepticism and questioning as a guard against bias.

Better for me to let astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explain:

Filed under: instruction,national standards,Public education — Tags: , , — Patte Barth @ 8:00 am

December 4, 2012

5 states put time on their side

Five states have entered into a pilot project to add 300 hours of instructional time to the school year.  The participating states — Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and Tennessee — had each made more school time part of their approved ESEA waiver from the U.S. Department of Education. The Ford Foundation and the National Center on Time and Learning are providing technical assistance and support for the pilot, which is expected to reach about 20,000 students in 40 schools.

According to an AP story, the overarching goals for adding time are to raise student performance and to also provide a well-rounded curriculum including the arts and other subjects that sometimes take a backseat to reading and math.

There’s a common-sense appeal to the idea that extending time for learning will produce more learning.  A CPE review of research on school time found that to be generally true— with some caveats.

Number one is that the impact of extra time depends how it’s is used. Merely stretching 45 minutes of typical instruction into a bigger slot isn’t likely to make much difference. That’s why it will be important to give teachers their own time for planning.

Last year, CPE’s Jim Hull and Mandy Newport analyzed the amount of time students are required to be in school in different countries (cited in the AP story). They found that contrary to many reports, the U.S. requires about as much or more time than many of our economic competitors. They also found little relationship between time required and outcomes. Just consider the case of high-scoring Finland which requires the least hours compared to low-scoring Italy which requires the most. Note that time required doesn’t necessarily represent the actual instructional time students receive. Nonetheless, this underscores how vital it is to use the time effectively.

The pilot has a three-year timeframe. We’ll be watching to see how much impact it has on student learning and how it compares to investments in teacher professional development, curriculum or other strategies to raise achievement.  As budget conscious school leaders know, time in the school schedule truly is money. Hopefully, these five states will have lessons for schools across the country to make sure time is on our side.

Read more about the TIME Collaborative here.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »
RSS Feed