Helping high school students develop solid math skills is important to preparing them for college and the workplace. The new High School Math topic area will evaluate research on math curricula and interventions for high school students in subjects such as pre-algebra, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, pre-calculus, and calculus. This information from the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) will support educators in making informed decisions about math curricula, products, and classroom strategies.

The first report in this new area looks at the research on the combination of Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor® Software. Read the full report now and see how the WWC rated the research on this intervention.

Visit whatworks.ed.gov to learn more about the High School Math area and see which intervention reports are coming out soon. Stay tuned for other WWC updates and new releases throughout the year.

By Kathleen Paliokas and Deanna Hill (guest bloggers)

Our current system of education tends to isolate teachers and treat teaching as a private act, particularly in high schools.  This is counter to the way we think about teaching today.  Just as collaboration among learners improves student learning, we know that collaboration among teachers improves practice [1].  In addition, high school teachers who actively practice collaboration as professionals will be well-equipped to create learning environments for their students where they, too, can acquire the college- and career-ready skills of collaboration and team work.

The draft Council of Chief State School Officers’ Model Core Teaching Standards articulates the expectation for professional collaboration.  Standard #10, states that effective teachers “collaborate with students, families, colleagues, other professionals, and community members to share responsibility for student growth and development, learning, and well-being” (CCSSO, 2010, p. 10).  This includes participating actively as a team member in decision-making processes that build a shared vision and supportive culture, identify common goals, and monitor progress toward those goals.  It further includes giving and receiving feedback on practice, examining student work, analyzing data from multiple sources, and sharing responsibility for accountability for each student’s learning.

Unfortunately, opportunities for professional collaboration in high schools are often woefully limited.  We encourage those readers with deep knowledge and direct experience in effective team teaching, professional learning communities, or other collaborative practices at the high school level—both as teachers and as school leaders—to review the Model Core Teaching Standards and comment as to whether the expectations included within are appropriate.  Your voices and input are needed to continue to refine and fine-tune the standards. Please submit your comments by October 15, 2010.

Gust Authors:  Kathleen Paliokas is director of the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) at CCSSO.  Deanna Hill is senior policy analyst at West Wind Education Policy Inc. and is consulting with CCSSO on teacher quality.  They are two of the co-authors of the discussion paper State Policy Implications of the Model Core Teaching Standards.

By Kellie Kim (guest blogger)

The transition from high school to postsecondary education and the workplace is particularly challenging for students with disabilities (SWDs). Differences in legal frameworks for K-12 and postsecondary education may contribute to any personal challenges students may face. Unlike the K-12 system, postsecondary institutions are not required to provide the comprehensive and universal access, services, and supports mandated under of the Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Instead, postsecondary schools are only required to provide “appropriate academic adjustments” that include modifications to instructional delivery or program activities under the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). There is, in fact, substantial leeway, and in turn great diversity, in how college staff interprets the law, thus leading to variation in the “adjustments” available to SWDs.

Dual enrollment programs, which allow high school students to enroll in college courses for both high school and college credits, may help students with disabilities transition into college and careers.  In dual enrollment programs, SWDs are able to:

1. Acquire college credits in high schools where SWDs are entitled to receive accommodations: Since the policies and procedures for providing accommodation and support services for SWDs in dual enrollment programs are determined by the location of the courses [1], being able to take college credit courses in high schools may improve SWDs’ likelihood of enrolling in and completing postsecondary programs.
2. Get early exposure to postsecondary education institutions: The physical location of college courses determines policies and procedures for SWDs [1]. Therefore, for courses offered in postsecondary institutions, SWDs will be required to navigate the institutional policies of postsecondary institutions to secure accommodations and support services as well as physical topography of the campuses. This will provide opportunities for SWDs to develop or enhance self-advocacy skills necessary to persist in postsecondary settings and also help them to get used to the standards and procedures that are unique to each postsecondary institution.
3. Reduce time and cost for postsecondary degree completion: A 2004 report from the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) noted that it takes twice as long for SWDs to complete their degrees as their peers without disabilities because they generally need more time for self-care, daily living, and academic tasks [2]. The need for extended time to complete courses implies that the cost of higher education to SWDs becomes higher. They face additional years of room and board costs, semester fees, and the extra costs associated with their disability to make the same academic progress that their peers without disabilities make in a shorter time. They may also be charged more per credit hour or per course if they are taking less than the standard full-time course load. Moreover, it may affect their eligibility for federal student financial aid programs.

Thus, beginning the transition into postsecondary education through dual enrollment programs, and receiving comprehensive and universal access, services, and supports required by IDEA, may help SWDs earn more college credits, degrees, and/or certification. For more information about dual enrollment programs for SWDs, and transition programs for SWDs ages 18-22, please visit the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center at www.nsttac.org.

Guest Author: Kellie Kim is Managing Director, Education Strategies and Applied Research, at Quill Research Associates, LLC. She has extensive experience with projects funded by U.S. Department of Education, focusing on changing instructional practice based on evidence-based interventions and practices for students with disabilities.

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Assistant Secretary recently approved the goals and priorities of Year 6 that will appear in the cooperative agreement for the national network of comprehensive centers, which includes the National High School Center.  These centers, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Education, include 16 Regional Comprehensive Centers (RCCs) and 5 national content centers.  The 21 centers all originally held 5 year contracts but have received a year extension that incorporates the following goals and priorities as guidelines for the Centers’ continuing work:

Regional Comprehensive Centers:

• Goals: The major goal of the RCCs is to help increase state capacity to support their districts and schools in meeting their student achievement goals by helping states to establish infrastructures and systemic processes that will enable them to: (1) assess the improvement needs of districts and schools; (2) develop solutions to address those needs; (3) build and sustain systemic support for districts and schools that promotes positive student outcomes; and  (4) create and improve the processes and tools necessary to the implementation of that support. 

• Priorities: Work with states to address the following priority issues: (1) improve school readiness and success; (2) implement internationally benchmarked college and career ready elementary and secondary school academic standards with aligned assessments and instructional materials; (3) turn around persistently low achieving schools; (4) improve postsecondary success; (5) improve achievement and high school graduation rates in rural and high need schools; (6) promote Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM); (7) meet the needs of diverse learners (i.e. regardless of nationality, first language, ethnicity, family income, zip code, achievement level or disability status); (8) improve the achievement of English Learners; (9) recruit, hire and retain great teachers and leaders; and (10) enable data-based decision making and evidence based decision-making.

Content Centers:

• Goals: The major goal of the content centers is to supply much of the research-based information, products, guidance, analyses, and knowledge that regional centers will use when working with states. To achieve this goal, the core of content centers’ work will include the: (1) identification and evaluation of relevant research studies and other technical assistance resources; (2) synthesis across bodies of research; (3) benchmarking and identification of best practices; (4) translation into materials, training, and other resources useful for those working with state and district education systems; and (5) dissemination of such knowledge and resources.

• Priorities: Topic areas remain the same, with the expectation that content centers will pursue the priorities listed above that are related to that particular topic(s).

Race to the Top (RTTT) round two award winners were released yesterday, and the news is good for the nine state winners and the District of Columbia.  Though we’ve devoted previous blogs to round two finalists’ applications, we’re now taking a closer look at high school-specific proposals in the winning states.  Though many states have exciting and successful high school initiatives already up and running, we are primarily highlighting new innovations that states will develop using RTTT funds.

All RTTT applicants were required to focus on several Department of Education priorities that have potential implications for high schools:

College- and Career-Readiness: All states had to develop plans for ensuring college- and career-readiness, and most did so by committing to use the Common Core State Standards.  Some states, such as Hawaii and Massachusetts, plan to implement additional supports, such as web-based data systems to help students, parents and school staff plan college and career pathways.

Though all states must work towards aligning high school exit exams with college entry requirements, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia’s applications include explicit plans to establish partnerships with local colleges to aid in this pursuit.   This alignment may help Hawaii and the District of Columbia, which both set goals to increase college attendance.

Finally, many states focused on post-secondary tracking.  Hawaii, Florida, Maryland, and Massachusetts plan to build on longitudinal data systems to help track students’ career or college enrollment.  Florida intends to use these data to hold high schools accountable for their ability to place students in colleges or careers. 

Graduation Rates: Winners of round two set goals to increase graduation rates by an average of 7.8%[1], though states have drastically different plans to meet their goals.  Ohio intends to focus on closing the graduation rate gap between under-represented and majority students, while other states intend to focus on student engagement and retention.  Massachusetts will be implementing programs that prepare 8^th grade and high school students to pass state exams, while providing internships and work-based learning experiences, and Georgia will expand its Life and Learning Academies, which are dropout prevention programs that target students beginning in middle school.

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM):  Though all states were required to discuss STEM in their applications, a number demonstrated a high school-specific focus in their STEM priorities.  Maryland plans to provide STEM-based internships, co-ops, and lab experiences to give students opportunities in the field and accelerate their transition into careers in STEM fields.  Both Maryland and Hawaii will be providing “STEM-ready” endorsements for students’ diplomas.  Both Massachusetts and North Carolina will be funding STEM-targeted schools.  Massachusetts will focus on Early College High Schools, while North Carolina is putting its efforts into schools that will target industries that are relevant to the region’s economy.

In addition to these required components, many RTTT winners also prioritized other high school-directed initiatives in their applications:

Early Warning Systems:  Many RTTT round two winners, including the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island plan to implement an Early Warning System.  Some states will focus on a stand-alone Early Warning System, while others plan to incorporate a set of early warning indicators into a larger longitudinal data system. Regardless of the system selected, each of these states seeks to aid teachers and schools in identifying and targeting students that are at-risk of dropping out.

Assessments: As part of RTTT guidelines, all states will be working to better align high school exit exams with college entrance requirements.  Several will also work to implement end-of-course examinations in staple subjects like Algebra and Biology.  Though a number of states already have end-of-course examinations in place, Florida, Georgia and Hawaii will use RTTT funds to develop these tests and ensure they are aligned with college- and career-ready standards.

Professional Development: While all of the states emphasize improved school staff effectiveness, a handful of states will focus these efforts on high school-level improvement.  Florida will be funding a leadership preparation program in an effort to train principals to work at struggling high schools and their feeder schools.  Massachusetts will be emphasizing pre-AP professional development for English, math and science teachers at the high school level, and will also seek to expand The Massachusetts Model for Comprehensive School Counseling Programs to help train school counselors to better advise students for college and postsecondary careers.

Non-Traditional Curriculum:  Several states’ applications included initiatives focused on non-traditional schooling for high school students.  Both Georgia and North Carolina plan to develop virtual courses.  North Carolina will focus on math and science graduation requirements, targeting coursework for students who are at risk of failure, while Georgia will partner with Georgia Tech to develop a calculus program that can be targeted to students in rural communities with limited access to advanced math.  Massachusetts and Florida will both use RTTT funds to focus on Career and Technical education (CTE).  Florida will work to create or improve CTE programs in 24 of its lowest performing high schools, with the goal of setting higher academic standards.  Massachusetts will expand its Vocational Technical Competency Tracking System to help teachers track students’ mastery of both academic and technical standards.

We look forward to tracking these initiatives and their impact on high school success as states put their RTTT funds to use in the future.

The Campaign for High School Equity and the Alliance for Excellent Education yesterday presented a Webinar on “Implementing the Common Core State Standards to Achieve Equity.” A distinguished panel of guests urged the equity community to get involved in state discussions about adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards. We couldn’t agree more!

The Webinar provided a general primer on the Common Core standards and equity overall. Because of the broad nature of the topic, high schools were not addressed directly. Hopefully future presentations will zero in on high school-specific equity implications of the Common Core State Standards.

Among the many interesting points made was Andre Cramblit’s observation about the sovereignty of tribal nations and how they will be deliberating the Common Core to determine if they should be adopting the standards for their tribal schools. Additionally, Crambit argued that expertise in the Native Community and in other communities of color must be tapped to ensure equity in implementation. Cramblit is Operations Director of the Northern California Indian Development Council, Indian Education Center in Crescent City, California.

The U.S. Department of Education has encouraged alignment across different grant programs, including Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants. The challenge for states will be to move very quickly to refine, or in some cases create, a coherent, aligned, and systemic theory of improvement that puts teaching and learning in the center and aligns with federal, district, and local stakeholder priorities. Equally important, these theories of improvement must be translated into operational plans and implemented at record speed to meet the ambitious goals that states have set for themselves.

Much of this work will be focused on high schools—transforming high schools into organizations that prepare all students for college and career. This transformation signals a dramatic departure from “business as usual” and there’s no tried-and-true roadmap for doing this and certainly not at the scale of a district- or state-wide initiative. And, the stakes are particularly high for high schools—high school achievement has not improved, achievement gaps grow over time and are the greatest in high school, behaviors problems and absenteeism peak in high school, and the costs of dropping out of high school for students and society are incredibly high.

Through case studies of five Broad-Prize winning districts, Heather Zavadsky[1] paints vivid pictures of “the system” in diverse settings, describing management principles affecting the instructional core and alignment of education components toward the goal of improving teaching and learning.  Rather than identifying specific programs or pedagogical techniques, Zavadsky[2] describes the systems that support teaching and learning and that have created the conditions for taking school improvement to scale in these districts.

As we watch states and districts develop and implement their plans for high school improvement, we will be searching for the “system” in their systemic reform initiatives and examining the coherence of their plans and their processes for rolling them out.

Early buzz on Local Education Agencies’ (LEAs) SIG applications has shown transformation to be the model of choice as LEAs strive to select a model to help build toward school improvement[1]. High schools account for 50.4 percent of the LEA applications funded so far, and those that have been funded have conformed with this trend. Though many states are well behind the deadlines set in their state grants, we’ve been able to track down 21 states that have made formal LEA announcements. Among schools using one of the four department models, 78 percent will be using the transformation model for reform. And 76 percent of all approved high school applications have been targeted toward use of a transformation model.

On the other side of the coin, high schools account for a disproportionate number of turnaround and restart models. Of the applications we’ve seen, 48 percent of all turnaround models are being implemented in high school and 63 percent of all restarts will be implemented in high schools.

In the scheme of things, it’s too early to say much about SIG. We don’t know which models best lend themselves to meaningful instructional reform. But so far, comparatively, participating high schools are on track to provide us with the most diverse range of models from which to learn.