RUNNING HEAD: MODULE 1-TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE MODULE 1 TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE EDDD 8002 EDPD 8002 EDSD 7002: Leading the Future of Education Transformative Agents of Positive Change Experiences and motivations to pursuing an advanced graduate degree With at least five years in the teaching career, there are numerous experiences and motivations I have come along which makes me feel passionate about advancing my graduate degree. The field of teaching exposes one to the real world in that you can interact with both the young generation and the old. Interacting with the young gives you the chance to explore the 2 TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE ideas the world may not have utilized. On the other hand, when interacting with the old who mostly are the parent and the education officials, you get to know what is in the world and the possible challenges that need to be addressed. One of the motivations that have triggered me to advance my undergraduate degree is the need to share knowledge with the world. It is known that people perish due to lack of knowledge. If I enhance my undergraduate degree with several master’s degrees, am in a better position to share the knowledge I have with the world. In my experience, I have interacted with many students and teachers who are not informed about life and what the world requires of them. It becomes difficult for a student to study without a clear mind of where they are headed. Sharing the knowledge with the world will mean a better tomorrow and an informed future generation. The other motivation is to acquire new skills in new technologies and methods that have developed in the field of education and the related disciplines. In the developing world, some aspects have been on the rise and which makes the world a better place. In the United States, there are numerous technologies that are being introduced in the field of education, but very few people are interested to know them. There are multiple skills that people can learn if at all, they are interested in the studying (Sharma, p. 100). When I advance my undergraduate, I am in a better position to access the new technologies in education and the related disciplines, which make me better in the filed, which means more demand and better financial prospects. I have had an experience whereby some of the teachers are not knowledgeable about some aspects that are used in the Spanish system of education. All this has been brought about by ignorance of what they need to know. The teachers make the teaching system pathetic since they pass the ‘laziness’ to their students. Explanation of how my topics relate to issues in education RUNNING HEAD: MODULE 1-TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE The questions I addressed were my job, my knowledge, and my experience. On the first topic about my post, I am currently working as a High School Spanish and Computer Science teacher. I am also a part-time facilitator in one University while also working for HCC in dual enrolment for the Spanish Language. The jobs that I am currently holding have become so crucial in the education field as they give me the opportunity to learn more about the Spanish language and the culture. Concerning the computer science that I teach, I have also come to learn about so many challenges with the current education system more so concerning technology. The education system has been forsaken whereby most of the students are yet to access the required technology to carry on with their studies (Heddy, p. 725). The other topic I addressed was with regards to my education. At this point, I hold two Masters in Education and currently continuing for an EDh. As a student with the above degrees, I have had encounters with the different stakeholders in education including other students at my level. Some issues have been of help to them regardless of the challenges that they point out to face. Many people who define how they have benefited from it have continuously addressed issues like teamwork. This has helped me to implement the teamwork scheme in the school am currently teaching which gives the students a better chance to study and to interact. The last topic is on my experience where I have taught for almost five years now and worked with the various companies above. All the knowledge I have has taught me a lot about education. Education is said to be the key, and it indeed is. Everything about work is based on knowledge and therefore the need to incorporate the real-life activities in school as opposed to having them theoretically. Problems with the above topics 4 TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE About my education, the issue is on the system of teaching, which should be restructured in that the training is more of interactive activities as opposed to theoretical works. The teachers should be more interactive with the students making sure what they teach applies to the lives of the students and open up their minds to a better life. The problem about my job is that there is still the gap between education and the work environment. As I outlined, there is the need to have a system of learning where the students are virtually in the workplace as they study. This helps as they progress in life and are employed where they can critically solve issues without much struggle. From the experience I have, I have noted that people do not embrace the education after they are employed, or they are done with school. I work with people who are actively involved in the education process, but most of them work to be paid but not embrace the education system. The problem should be addressed, and people should be taught to appreciate and support the system for a better tomorrow (Heddy, p. 725). Goals One of the goals I would want to achieve is to serve and support others. The education system is all about helping and supporting more so when dealing with the youths who are vulnerable (Sharma, p. 100). After am competent with the new technologies and what have you, I will make sure every student who comes my way will learn something new to help them in their lives. The other goal is to invest in my future. As more as I would like to help others, I also want people to learn from me after I succeed in life. It is better being an example rather than telling people about others who have achieved in life. RUNNING HEAD: MODULE 1-TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE Becoming a transformational agent From my purist of the topic above, I am ready to become a transformational agent through the knowledge and experience I got. Leadership is the best word I would use since the exposure, and the skills I acquired will help me in that. In education, instilling knowledge into others is what best describes a leader which I will be able out of the experience I got. For example, when I complete learning about the new technologies in education, I will use that to help more students learn Spanish quickly. Reference Heddy, Benjamin C., and Gale M. Sinatra. "Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution." Science Education 97.5 (2013): 723-744. Sharma, Garima, and Darren Good. "The work of middle managers: Sensemaking and sensegiving for creating positive social change." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science49.1 (2013): 95-122. 6 TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS OF POSITIVE CHANGE Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 3 This is an authentic document from United States Department of Education. It explains the role of technology in education and explores non-traditional settings for K-12 education. A common set of standards would likely include some form of digital literacy, either in performing specific tasks while utilizing technology or measuring student achievement. Consider the function of technology while debating the use of standards in education. Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning Technology ushers in fundamental structural changes that can be integral to achieving significant improvements in productivity. Used to support both teaching and learning, technology infuses classrooms with digital learning tools, such as computers and hand held devices; expands course offerings, experiences, and learning materials; supports learning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; builds 21st century skills; increases student engagement and motivation; and accelerates learning. Technology also has the power to transform teaching by ushering in a new model of connected teaching. This model links teachers to their students and to professional content, resources, and systems to help them improve their own instruction and personalize learning. Online learning opportunities and the use of open educational resources and other technologies can increase educational productivity by accelerating the rate of learning; reducing costs associated with instructional materials or program delivery; and better utilizing teacher time. The links on this page are provided for the user’s convenience and are not an endorsement. See full disclaimer. Virtual or online learning: 48 states and the District of Columbia currently support online learning opportunities that range from supplementing classroom instruction on an occasional basis to enrolling students in full-time programs. These opportunities include dual enrollment, credit recovery, and summer school programs, and can make courses such as Advanced Placement and honors, or remediation classes available to students. Both core subjects and electives can be taken online, many supported by online learning materials. While some online schools or programs are homegrown, many others contract with private providers or other states to provide online learning opportunities. Full-time online schools: The following online or virtual schools enroll students on a full-time basis. Students enrolled in these schools are not attending a bricks and mortar school; instead they receive all of their instruction and earn all of their credits through the online school. State operated © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 6 • • • The Florida Virtual School – An online school that provides full-time learning opportunities to students in grades K-12. Districts can also work with Florida Virtual School to provide blended learning opportunities to students by enabling them to access online courses from school sites. Additional link here. Utah Electronic High School – An 18-year-old online high school providing a range of courses to students year round. The school can award diplomas to students who are home-schooled, have dropped out, or are ineligible to graduate from a traditional high school for specific reasons. North Carolina Virtual Public School – An online high school offering 120 courses to students both during and after the school day. The courses offered include Advanced Placement and honors courses, world languages, electives, credit recovery, and online college courses. The school also provides test preparation and career planning services to students. District operated • • • Karval Online Education – A public K-12 online school for Colorado residents that provides a free computer for the family to use while the student is enrolled and provides reimbursement opportunities to offset Internet and other educational expenses. Dual credit courses are available to juniors and seniors. Campbell County Virtual School – This school serves Wyoming students in grades K-6. Families of enrolled students are loaned a computer and receive subsidized Internet access, as well as materials including CDs, videos, instructional materials, and hands-on tools and resources to complement the interactive online elements of the program. Salem-Keizer Online – This online Oregon high school is an accredited program of Roberts High School in the Salem-Keizer Public School District in Oregon. The school provides 24/7 learning opportunities to students living within the boundaries of the school district and who are not enrolled in their neighborhood public school. Tuition is only required for students enrolled in summer school courses. Charter operated • Guided Online Academic Learning Academy – An online public charter high school in Colorado for students ages 14-21. The Academy offers more than 200 courses to students as well as a variety of support services, activities to support student-to-student interactions, and drop-in centers to facilitate enrollment, counseling, assessments, and other services. Blended learning: Blended learning opportunities incorporate both face-to-face and online learning opportunities. The degree to which online learning takes place, and the way it is integrated into the curriculum, can vary across schools. The strategy of blending online learning with school-based instruction is often utilized to accommodate students’ diverse learning styles and to enable them to work before or after school in ways that are not possible with full-time conventional classroom instruction. Online © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 6 learning has the potential to improve educational productivity by accelerating the rate of learning, taking advantage of learning time outside of school hours, reducing the cost of instructional materials, and better utilizing teacher time. These strategies can be particularly useful in rural areas where blended or online learning can help teachers and students in remote areas overcome distance. State operated • Michigan Virtual School – Michigan’s students are able to take online classes and access online learning tools from their middle and high schools via this virtual school. Michigan Virtual also provides full-time learning opportunities to middle and high school students. Districts in the state work with the virtual school to grant course credit and diplomas to students. District operated • • Walled Lake Consolidated School District – This Michigan district’s online summer school credit recovery program was expanded to include online learning opportunities during the school year. Students can now enroll in up to two online courses each semester while continuing to attend school for at least four hours a day. Eleventh and twelfth graders may also choose to enroll concurrently in postsecondary courses via a partnership with a local community college. The credit recovery program reduced per-student costs by 57 percent and the district estimates that by offering two online courses during the school year it has been able to save $517 per student on instructional costs. Riverside Virtual School – This school makes interactive courses available to students in Southern California and to other students in rural schools in the state. Students in grades 6-12, including those who are homeschooled, may enroll fulltime. School operated • • • San Francisco Flex Academy – This high school is a five-days-a-week hybrid school that provides an online curriculum that personalizes learning and enables students to move through courses at their own pace. These online courses are taken at the school site and are supported by credentialed teachers. Rocketship – This elementary charter school network in California is a hybrid school model. Each day, students attend the Learning Lab where they use computers to support their individual learning needs. These Labs do not require certified teachers, enabling Rocketship to reinvest the savings in training, Response to Intervention, higher teacher salaries, facilities, and academic deans. While students are in the Lab, teachers are engaging in planning. Carpe Diem Collegiate High School – Carpe Diem is a hybrid school in Arizona that offers computer-assisted instruction and onsite teacher facilitators. This model enables students to progress as they demonstrate mastery. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 6 • iPrep Academy - This Miami-Dade County Public School offers a teacherfacilitated virtual curriculum to 11th graders. Its motto is “learn anytime, anywhere at” and at the students’ own pace. The curriculum includes Advanced Placement and honors courses, distance learning opportunities that enable students to engage with their peers from around the world, and applies real word experiences to learning. Open educational resources: Open educational resources are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain and are freely available to anyone over the Web. They are an important element of an infrastructure for learning and range from podcasts to digital libraries to textbooks and games. It is critical to ensure that open educational resources meet standards of quality, integrity, and accuracy—as with any other educational resource—and that they are accessible to students with disabilities. • • • • • • Open High School of Utah – This school uses open educational resources to create an open source curriculum. To create this curriculum, teachers gather and sort through open source materials, align them with state standards, and modify the materials to meet student needs. CK-12 – CK-12 FlexBooks are customizable, standards-aligned, digital textbooks for grades K-12. They are intended to provide high-quality educational content that will serve both as core text and provide an adaptive environment for learning. Leadership Public Schools (LPS) – In each of the four LPS schools, teachers work together to utilize open-source materials to meet the specific learning needs of their students. Through a partnership with CK-12, LPS has developed College Access Readers, a series of online books with literacy supports embedded in them to meet the individual needs of students, from advanced to underperforming students. Khan Academy – The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit organization providing digital learning resources, including an extensive video library, practice exercises, and assessments. These resources focus on K-12 math and science topics such as biology, chemistry, and physics, and include resources on the humanities, finance, and history. Mooresville Graded School District – This North Carolina district launched a Digital Conversion Initiative to promote the use of technology to improve teaching and learning. In addition to the use of laptop computers and other technologies as instructional tools, the Initiative led to a shift to digital textbooks which are aligned to the state’s standards. Vail Unified School District – This Arizona district has replaced textbooks with a digital learning environment that enables every school in the district to take advantage of an online tool to create digital textbooks and support effective teaching. Use digital resources well: Schools can use digital resources in a variety of ways to support teaching and learning. Electronic grade books, digital portfolios, learning © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 6 games, and real-time feedback on teacher and student performance, are a few ways that technology can be utilized to power learning. • • • High Tech High – High Tech High (HTH) is a network of eleven California charter schools offering project-based learning opportunities to students in grades K-12. HTH links technical and academic studies and focuses on personalization and the connection of learning to the real word. To support student learning and share the results of project-based learning, HTH makes a wealth of resources available online, including teacher and student portfolios, videos, lessons, and other resources. New Technology High School – At this California school, student work is assessed across classes and grades, and feedback is made available to students via online grade books. These grade books are continually updated so that students can see how they are doing not only in each course, but also on each of their learning outcomes, averaged across all their courses. Electronic learning portfolios contain examples of students’ work and associated evaluations across all classes and grades. New Tech High is part of the national New Tech Network. Quest to Learn – This school, located in New York, utilizes games and other forms of digital media to provide students with a curriculum that is design-led and inquiry-based. The goal of this model is to use education technologies to support students in becoming active problem solvers and critical thinkers, and to provide students with constant feedback on their achievement. Additional resources: • • • • • • • Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology, National Education Technology Plan 2010, U.S. Department of Education A National Primer on K-12 Online Learning, iNACOL The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning, Innosight Institute The Technology Factor: Nine Keys to Student Achievement and CostEffectiveness, Project RED Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, U.S. Department of Education Florida Virtual School: Building the first statewide, Internet-based public high school, Innosight School of One – This math-based program for students in grades six through eight operates in three New York City middle schools. School of One uses technology to develop a unique learning path for each student and to provide individualized and differentiated instruction. The program uses data from student assessments to identify the skills that each student needs to work on. Inputs from teachers and from students provide information about how each student learns best. A computer algorithm uses the information about each student’s © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 6 demonstrated mathematics skills and his or her learning preferences to generate individual “playlists” of appropriate learning activities. Reference United States Department of Education. (2014). Use of technology in teaching and learning. Retrieved from: https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-andlearning © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 6 of 6 Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Scenario Your state is considering a required set of education standards that all schools must adopt. You have been nominated to serve on the statewide committee to inform the legislature as to which standards, if any, should be adopted. You will have the opportunity to take a stand on the following issue. Does a set of required standards improve or limit education for ALL students (e.g., general education students, special education, English language learners, gifted learners) in state schools? Consider the following questions: How can standards be implemented to improve the quality of education for ALL students in all levels and types of classroom (e.g., general education, special education, vocational)? Is it more effective to adopt district standards, state-specific standards, or national standards? Once you decide which standards to adopt, what materials, supports and training will be needed to implement them? How do different stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, government leaders, principals, teachers with various specialties and points of view, students, parents) feel about the issue of standards adoption and implementation? Stakeholders The State Department of Education, school administrators, teachers, students, parents, educational specialists, politicians, business leaders, employers, advocacy groups, and the community at large. Document Set 1 • Document 1: A brief overview of the standards-based movement with information synthesized from multiple authentic sources • Document 2: Statistics and quantitative data that demonstrates inequality and falling international performance; the data focuses on literacy, science, and math scores, as well as the importance of education on lifetime earnings This document is pieced together from a variety of authentic documents • Document 3: An authentic document that explores the function of technology in education, and non-traditional settings for K-12 education © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 2 • Document 4: An authentic document that introduces new guidelines for education reform that will prepare all public school students for college or a career Document Set 2 • Document 5: A simulated editorial from a school administrator detailing concerns and issues with implementation of the Common Core State Standards • Document 6: A simulated magazine article that illustrates some the issues regarding a set of uniform standards and expectations for English Language Learners • Document 7: A simulated blog post with relevant comments about the concern that a common set of standards might exclude such disciplines as art and music • Document 8: Simulated blog posts about the Common Core State Standards and special education NOTES: Common Core is arguably one of the most pressing and controversial issues in K-12 education. The goal of this case study is to have students consider the various stakeholders involved, and take a position on both the broad issue of standards-based education and one or more subtopics that fall under this umbrella. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 1 Standards-Based Education This brief is an overview of the standards-based movement with information synthesized from multiple authentic sources. What are educational standards? • • • • • • • Educational standards are written descriptions of the knowledge and skills students should attain. Standards are descriptions of demonstrable behaviors. Standards include both knowledge (such as knowledge of certain facts) and skills (such as the ability to perform mathematical operations or evaluate texts according to specific criteria). Standards should be evidence-based. They should be grounded in research and professional knowledge. Standards should apply to all learners. Standards are not a curriculum. While standards do outline content as well as skills, they do so in succinct ways. It is up to educators to define the curriculum that will lead students to master the standards. Standards are not instructional techniques. Standards tell teachers where to head, not how to get there. What are standards and how are they used to create educational goals? • • • • • • • • Standards are a clear roadmap for education. Without standards, individual efforts are disorganized and inefficient. Standards can provide coherence and consistency across classrooms, schools, districts, and states. In addition, teachers can build off previous materials and goals. Standards provide clear targets for improvement. Standards enable educators to prioritize. The possible realm of teachable content is infinite. Standards establish a consensus on what is most essential to teach. This allows teachers to explore topics in depth, as opposed to merely scratching the surface. Standards embody the latest research in an actionable form; thus, they enable leading-edge understandings to percolate to every level of education. Standards provide teachers, students, and families with clear, shared understandings of what is expected of teachers and learners. Standards are a key tool of educational reform. Standards are a great tool for cross-disciplinary learning. Teachers from different subject areas can work together to achieve common education goals. What are some of the factors related to the development and implementation of standards? © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 5 • • • • • Standards can be created at any level of education: local, state, national, or even international. A variety of stakeholders should be involved in the creation process, including teachers, administrators, and education experts. In general, the process of creating new standards involves a balance between maintaining coherence with the traditions of the past while breaking new ground, based on changes in society’s needs and new research into learning. Achieving community buy-in is essential in order for the standards to be successfully incorporated into learning. Once standards are adopted, changes in instruction must follow. Assessment is a tool for determining progress in relation to standards, as well as a formative and summative tool. What is controversial about standards-based education? The adoption of new standards can lead to controversy, including points such as: • • • • • Process: Who developed the standards? What research was used? Did the public have the chance to weigh in? Who has the right to impose standards? Content: Are the standards too rigorous? Not rigorous enough? Clearly written? Applicable to all learners? Fair? Funding: Who will fund the implementation and assessment of standards? Assessment: How will standards be used in high-stakes assessment and how will these assessments impact our schools and students? Gaps: What happens when certain subjects are not addressed by standards? Some educators believe that standards leave out important aspects of education and thus limit curriculum. A Brief History of Standards It is generally agreed in most endeavors that it is impossible to achieve success without first identifying clear goals. In the field of medicine, for example, experts evaluate the various tests and interventions used to diagnose and treat specific conditions and then make recommendations of what constitutes best practice. Business leaders identify a wide range of quantifiable goals, from increasing profit margins to improving environmental sustainability. Educational standards define the skills and knowledge that students are expected to learn and that schools are expected to teach. The standards-based movement in education has been in existence for decades. In 1980, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published a revolutionary document titled Agenda for Action: Recommendations for School Mathematics of the 1980s (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2014). The goal was to provide schools with a “clear-cut and carefully reasoned sense of direction” based on “an extensive survey of the opinions of many sectors of society.” The document contained a list of essential mathematical skills and the caution that the “identification of basic skills in mathematics is a dynamic process and should be continually updated to reflect new and changing needs.” In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released a report titled A Nation at Risk, which claimed that falling educational performance threatened the United States’ standing in the world. In response to the report’s recommendation for stronger © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 5 educational standards, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was established. Its goal was to establish an internal mechanism whereby the teaching profession would define accomplished practice in standards documents and then use the standards to assess and recognize accomplished practitioners. The goal was to have members of the teaching profession rather than government bureaucrats establish standards and oversee licensing, and to focus on the highest level of teaching rather than the minimal competency required for certification. By the early 1990s, most states were engaged in defining standards. The content, structure, and rigor of the standards that emerged varied widely, as did the process through which the standards were developed. Some states, such as Vermont, initiated broad-based efforts which involved members of the public and teachers. Other states, such as California, relied more on the expertise of leading educators. In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Act was reauthorized, and under the reauthorization, states and districts were required to set goals for special-education students that were aligned with state standards for other students (Olson, 2004). However, at the start of the new millennium, there was widespread concern over uneven educational attainment in the United States, most specifically the achievement gap that existed between minority students and their non-minority peers. President George Bush sent a blueprint for comprehensive education reform titled No Child Left Behind to Congress in January of 2001 and it was signed into law the following year. NCLB created an accountability system for schools based on expectations of “adequate yearly progress” that would be determined through regular assessments in English language arts and mathematics. Compliance with the law was mandatory, but states were allowed to develop their own standards and assessments. Under NCLB, accountability was tied to student performance in two subjects: reading and math. Many states then focused standards development and instruction on these two subject areas. The No Child Left Behind act held states legally accountable for ensuring that the same minimum percentage of special-education students performed at the proficient level on state assessments as other students (Olson, 2004). Because each state could set its own standards under NCLB, there was concern that some states could create easily “passable” standards. Therefore, each state’s results were compared against a national benchmark called NAEP. Nearly 10 years later, a new standards initiative called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) was underway. This time, the goal was to create “high standards that are consistent across states.” Under the auspices of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, English language arts and mathematics standards were developed and published in 2010. The Council for Exceptional Children and other national disability organizations contributed to a statement within the introduction on how the standards should be implemented for students with exceptionalities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2014). The purpose was to provide states with a shared set of goals and expectations specifying the knowledge students need to become college and career ready. The standards would allow students and educators throughout the country to collaborate based on a common set of understandings. Teachers would still have the freedom “to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms.” Federal funding enticed the majority of states to add the standards and the corresponding assessments. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 5 Pushback against the CCSS developed along many fronts, for reasons ranging from a perceived federal intrusion into the state responsibility for education, to the belief that educational reform should focus more on social issues such as poverty (ASCD, 2013). In 2014, Indiana became the first state to back off the CCSS in favor of state-developed standards (Peralta, 2014). References American College of Physicians. (2014). ACP best practice advice. Retrieved from http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/best_practice ASCD. (2013, February 25). ASCD and the Common Core State Standards political pushback on the Common Core. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/common-core/coreconnection/02-25-13-political-pushback-on-the-common-core.aspx Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1993). Developing content standards: Creating a process for change. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/rb10stan.html Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). K-12 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for the instruction of students. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Special-EdTopics/Specialty-Areas/Commom-Core-State-Standards Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Frontline. (2014). The new rules. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html The National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). Reading framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading2013-framework.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2005, August 10). Important aspects of No Child Left Behind relevant to NAEP. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Agenda for action: Basic skills. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17280 © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 5 Olson, L. (2004, January 8). Enveloping expectations. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/archives/QC04full.pdf Peralta, E. (2014, March 24). Indiana becomes first state to back out of Common Core. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwoway/2014/03/24/293894857/indiana-becomes-first-state-to-back-out-of-common-core Public Education Network and National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2004). Standards and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/standards_assessment.html United States Department of Education. (2003). Fact sheet on the major provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 5 Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 2 The following report highlights quantitative data measuring various educational outcomes related to K-12 education. The data comes from authentic sources including the Labor of Bureau Statistics, the National Assessment of Education Progress, and the Program for International Student Assessment. The information in the report is outlined as follows: A. B. C. D. E. Educational Attainment State Profiles Nation’s Report Cards International Benchmark Results Socioeconomic Effects on Testing Page 1 of 20 A. Educational Attainment The following graph is based on a 2012 study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows the effect that the level of education has on median earnings for persons ages 25 and over. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Labor Statistics (2013, December 19). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm Page 2 of 20 B. State Profiles The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) supplies education data regarding subject-matter achievement and instructional experiences for populations of students as well as specific demographics within those populations. The NAEP is a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement. Traditionally, states have had individual education standards. Consider the difference in state education outcomes. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). State profiles. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ Page 3 of 20 C. Nation’s Report Cards The following statistics are results from the Nation’s Report Card. The Nation’s Report Card communicates the findings of NAEP. Page 4 of 20 Page 5 of 20 Page 6 of 20 SOURCE: Page 7 of 20 The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). Are the nation's students making progress in mathematics and reading? Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/performance-overview Page 8 of 20 D. International Benchmark Results The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international assessment that measures 15-year-old students' reading, mathematics, and science literacy. More information about PISA and resources, including the PISA reports, PISA assessment frameworks, and international data files, are available at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development website. Page 9 of 20 U.S. Performance in Reading Literacy Page 10 of 20 U.S. Performance in Reading Literacy Exhibit 1 Description of PISA proficiency levels on combined reading literacy scale: 2009 Proficiency level and lower cut point score Level 6 698 Level 5 626 Level 4 553 Level 3 480 Level 2 407 Task description At level 6, tasks typically require the reader to make multiple inferences, comparisons and contrasts that are both detailed and precise. They require demonstration of a full and detailed understanding of one or more texts and may involve integrating information from more than one text. Tasks may require the reader to deal with unfamiliar ideas, in the presence of prominent competing information, and to generate abstract categories for interpretations. Reflect and evaluate tasks may require the reader to hypothesize about or critically evaluate a complex text on an unfamiliar topic, taking into account multiple criteria or perspectives, and applying sophisticated understandings from beyond the text. There is limited data about access and retrieve tasks at this level, but it appears that a salient condition is precision of analysis and fine attention to detail that is inconspicuous in the texts. At level 5, tasks involve retrieving information require the reader to locate and organize several pieces of deeply embedded information, inferring which information in the text is relevant. Reflective tasks require critical evaluation or hypothesis, drawing on specialized knowledge. Both interpretative and reflective tasks require a full and detailed understanding of a text whose content or form is unfamiliar. For all aspects of reading, tasks at this level typically involve dealing with concepts that are contrary to expectations. At level 4, tasks involve retrieving information require the reader to locate and organize several pieces of embedded information. Some tasks at this level require interpreting the meaning of nuances of language in a section of text by taking into account the text as a whole. Other interpretative tasks require understanding and applying categories in an unfamiliar context. Reflective tasks at this level require readers to use formal or public knowledge to hypothesize about or critically evaluate a text. Readers must demonstrate an accurate understanding of long or complex texts whose content or form may be unfamiliar. At level 3, tasks require the reader to locate, and in some cases recognize the relationship between, several pieces of information that must meet multiple conditions. Interpretative tasks at this level require the reader to integrate several parts of a text in order to identify a main idea, understand a relationship or construe the meaning of a word or phrase. They need to take into account many features in comparing, contrasting or categorizing. Often the required information is not prominent or there is much competing information; or there are other text obstacles, such as ideas that are contrary to expectation or negatively worded. Reflective tasks at this level may require connections, comparisons, and explanations, or they may require the reader to evaluate a feature of the text. Some reflective tasks require readers to demonstrate a fine understanding of the text in relation to familiar, everyday knowledge. Other tasks do not require detailed text comprehension but require the reader to draw on less common knowledge. At level 2, some tasks require the reader to locate one or more pieces of information, which may need to be inferred and may need to meet several conditions. Others require recognizing the main idea in a text, understanding relationships, or construing meaning within a limited part of the text when the information is not prominent and the reader must make low level inferences. Tasks at this level may involve comparisons or contrasts based on a single feature in the text. Typical reflective tasks at this level require readers to make a comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge, by drawing on personal experience and attitudes. Page 11 of 20 Level 1a 335 At level 1a, tasks require the reader to locate one or more independent pieces of explicitly stated information; to recognize the main theme or author‘s purpose in a text about a familiar topic, or to make a simple connection between information in the text and common, everyday knowledge. Typically the required information in the text is prominent and there is little, if any, competing information. The reader is explicitly directed to consider relevant factors in the task and in the text. Level 1b 262 At level 1b, tasks require the reader to locate a single piece of explicitly stated information in a prominent position in a short, syntactically simple text with a familiar context and text type, such as a narrative or a simple list. The text typically provides support to the reader, such as repetition of information, pictures or familiar symbols. There is minimal competing information. In tasks requiring interpretation the reader may need to make simple connections between adjacent pieces of information. NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into reading literacy levels according to their scores. Exact cut point scores are as follows: below level 1b (a score less than or equal to 262.04);level 1b (a score greater than 262.04 and less than or equal to 334.75); level 1a (a score greater than 334.75 and less than or equal to 407.47); level 2 (a score greater than 407.47 and less than or equal to 480.18); level 3 (a score greater than 480.18 and less than or equal to 552.89); level 4 (a score greater than 552.89 and less than or equal to 625.61); level 5 (a score greater than 625.61 and less than or equal to 698.32); and level 6 (a score greater than 698.32).Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009 Page 12 of 20 Page 13 of 20 U.S. Performance in Mathematics Literacy Performance at PISA Proficiency Levels PISA’s six mathematics literacy proficiency levels, ranging from 1 to 6, are described in exhibit 2 (see appendix B for information about how the proficiency are created). Exhibit 2 Description of PISA proficiency levels on mathematics literacy scale: 2009 Proficiency level and lower cut point score Level 6 669 Level 5 607 Level 4 545 Level 3 482 Task description At level 6,students can conceptualize, generalize, and utilize information based on their investigations and modeling of complex problem situations. They can link different information sources and representations and flexibly translate among them. Students at this level are capable of advanced mathematical thinking and reasoning. These students can apply this insight and understandings along with a mastery of symbolic and formal mathematical operations and relationships to develop new approaches and strategies for attacking novel situations. Students at this level can formulate and precisely communicate their actions and reflections regarding their findings, interpretations, arguments, and the appropriateness of these to the original situations. At level 5,students can develop and work with models for complex situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. They can select, compare, and evaluate appropriate problem solving strategies for dealing with complex problems related to these models. Students at this level can work strategically using broad, well-developed thinking and reasoning skills, appropriate linked representations, symbolic and formal characterizations, and insight pertaining to these situations. They can reflect on their actions and formulate and communicate their interpretations and reasoning. At level 4,students can work effectively with explicit models for complex concrete situations that may involve constraints or call for making assumptions. They can select and integrate different representations, including symbolic ones, linking them directly to aspects of real-world situations. Students at this level can utilize well-developed skills and reason flexibly, with some insight, in these contexts. They can construct and communicate explanations and arguments based on their interpretations, arguments, and actions. At level 3, students can execute clearly described procedures, including those that require sequential decisions. They can select and apply simple problem solving strategies. Students at this level can interpret and use representations based on different information sources and reason directly from them. They can develop short communications reporting their interpretations, results and reasoning. Page 14 of 20 Level 2 420 Level 1 358 At level 2,students can interpret and recognize situations in contexts that require no more than direct inference. They can extract relevant information from a single source and make use of a single representational mode. Students at this level can employ basic algorithms, formulae, procedures, or conventions. They are capable of direct reasoning and making literal interpretations of the results. At level 1, students can answer questions involving familiar contexts where all relevant information is present and the questions are clearly defined. They are able to identify information and to carry out routine procedures according to direct instructions in explicit situations. They can perform actions that are obvious and follow immediately from the given stimuli. NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into mathematics literacy levels according to their scores. Cut point scores in the exhibit are rounded; exact cut point scores are provided in appendix B. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009. Page 15 of 20 U.S. Performance in Science Literacy Page 16 of 20 Performance at PISA Proficiency Levels PISA’s six science literacy proficiency levels, ranging from 1 to 6, are described in exhibit 3 (see appendix B for information about how the proficiency are created). Exhibit 3. Description of PISA proficiency levels on science literacy scale: 2009 Proficiency level and lower cut point score Level 6 708 Level 5 633 Level 4 559 Level 3 484 Task description At level 6, students can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge and knowledge about science in a variety of complex life situations. They can link different information sources and explanations and use evidence from those sources to justify decisions. They clearly and consistently demonstrate advanced scientific thinking and reasoning, and they demon- strate willingness to use their scientific understanding in support of solutions to unfamiliar scientific and technological situations. Students at this level can use scientific knowledge and develop arguments in support of recommendations and decisions that centre on personal, social or global situations. At level 5, students can identify the scientific components of many complex life situations, apply both scientific concepts and knowledge about science to these situations, and can compare, select and evaluate appropriate scientific evidence for responding to life situations. Students at this level can use well-developed inquiry abilities, link knowledge appropriately and bring critical insights to situations. They can construct explanations based on evidence and arguments based on their critical analysis. At level 4, students can work effectively with situations and issues that may involve explicit phenomena requiring them to make inferences about the role of science or technology. They can select and integrate explanations from different disciplines of science or technology and link those explanations directly to aspects of life situations. Students at this level can reflect on their actions and they can communicate decisions using scientific knowledge and evidence. At level 3, students can identify clearly described scientific issues in a range of contexts. They can select facts and knowledge to explain phenomena and apply simple models or inquiry strategies. Students at this level can interpret and use scientific concepts from different disciplines and can apply them directly. They can develop short statements using facts and make decisions based on scientific knowledge. Page 17 of 20 Level 2 410 Level 1 335 At level 2, students have adequate scientific knowledge to provide possible explanations in familiar contexts or draw conclu- sions based on simple investigations. They are capable of direct reasoning and making literal interpretations of the results of scientific inquiry or technological problem solving. At level 1, students have such a limited scientific knowledge that it can only be applied to a few, familiar situations. They can present scientific explanations that are obvious and follow explicitly from given evidence. NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into science literacy levels according to their scores. Cut point scores in the exhibit are rounded; exact cut point scores are provided in appendix B. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004. E. Socioeconomic Effects on Testing Students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is used in NAEP as an indicator of family income. Students from lower-income families are eligible for either free or reducedprice school lunches, while students from higher-income families are not. Because of the improved quality of the data on students’ eligibility in more recent years, results are only compared as far back as 2003. Page 18 of 20 SOURCE: The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Findings in brief reading and mathematics 2011. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VnBacARUlpYJ:nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Page 19 of 20 The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Reading 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/reading_2011_report/ Public Education Network and National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2004). Standards and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/standards_assessment.html References Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Labor Statistics. (2013). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, December 7). Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004 National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). State profiles. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). Are the nation's students making progress in mathematics and reading? Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/performance-overview The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Findings in brief reading and mathematics 2011. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VnBacARUlpYJ:nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Reading 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/reading_2011_report/ The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm Page 20 of 20 Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 2 The following report highlights quantitative data measuring various educational outcomes related to K-12 education. The data comes from authentic sources including the Labor of Bureau Statistics, the National Assessment of Education Progress, and the Program for International Student Assessment. The information in the report is outlined as follows: A. B. C. D. E. Educational Attainment State Profiles Nation’s Report Cards International Benchmark Results Socioeconomic Effects on Testing Page 1 of 20 A. Educational Attainment The following graph is based on a 2012 study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows the effect that the level of education has on median earnings for persons ages 25 and over. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics. United States Labor Statistics (2013, December 19). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm Page 2 of 20 B. State Profiles The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) supplies education data regarding subject-matter achievement and instructional experiences for populations of students as well as specific demographics within those populations. The NAEP is a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement. Traditionally, states have had individual education standards. Consider the difference in state education outcomes. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). State profiles. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ Page 3 of 20 C. Nation’s Report Cards The following statistics are results from the Nation’s Report Card. The Nation’s Report Card communicates the findings of NAEP. Page 4 of 20 Page 5 of 20 Page 6 of 20 SOURCE: Page 7 of 20 The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). Are the nation's students making progress in mathematics and reading? Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/performance-overview Page 8 of 20 D. International Benchmark Results The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international assessment that measures 15-year-old students' reading, mathematics, and science literacy. More information about PISA and resources, including the PISA reports, PISA assessment frameworks, and international data files, are available at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development website. Page 9 of 20 U.S. Performance in Reading Literacy Page 10 of 20 U.S. Performance in Reading Literacy Exhibit 1 Description of PISA proficiency levels on combined reading literacy scale: 2009 Proficiency level and lower cut point score Level 6 698 Level 5 626 Level 4 553 Level 3 480 Level 2 407 Task description At level 6, tasks typically require the reader to make multiple inferences, comparisons and contrasts that are both detailed and precise. They require demonstration of a full and detailed understanding of one or more texts and may involve integrating information from more than one text. Tasks may require the reader to deal with unfamiliar ideas, in the presence of prominent competing information, and to generate abstract categories for interpretations. Reflect and evaluate tasks may require the reader to hypothesize about or critically evaluate a complex text on an unfamiliar topic, taking into account multiple criteria or perspectives, and applying sophisticated understandings from beyond the text. There is limited data about access and retrieve tasks at this level, but it appears that a salient condition is precision of analysis and fine attention to detail that is inconspicuous in the texts. At level 5, tasks involve retrieving information require the reader to locate and organize several pieces of deeply embedded information, inferring which information in the text is relevant. Reflective tasks require critical evaluation or hypothesis, drawing on specialized knowledge. Both interpretative and reflective tasks require a full and detailed understanding of a text whose content or form is unfamiliar. For all aspects of reading, tasks at this level typically involve dealing with concepts that are contrary to expectations. At level 4, tasks involve retrieving information require the reader to locate and organize several pieces of embedded information. Some tasks at this level require interpreting the meaning of nuances of language in a section of text by taking into account the text as a whole. Other interpretative tasks require understanding and applying categories in an unfamiliar context. Reflective tasks at this level require readers to use formal or public knowledge to hypothesize about or critically evaluate a text. Readers must demonstrate an accurate understanding of long or complex texts whose content or form may be unfamiliar. At level 3, tasks require the reader to locate, and in some cases recognize the relationship between, several pieces of information that must meet multiple conditions. Interpretative tasks at this level require the reader to integrate several parts of a text in order to identify a main idea, understand a relationship or construe the meaning of a word or phrase. They need to take into account many features in comparing, contrasting or categorizing. Often the required information is not prominent or there is much competing information; or there are other text obstacles, such as ideas that are contrary to expectation or negatively worded. Reflective tasks at this level may require connections, comparisons, and explanations, or they may require the reader to evaluate a feature of the text. Some reflective tasks require readers to demonstrate a fine understanding of the text in relation to familiar, everyday knowledge. Other tasks do not require detailed text comprehension but require the reader to draw on less common knowledge. At level 2, some tasks require the reader to locate one or more pieces of information, which may need to be inferred and may need to meet several conditions. Others require recognizing the main idea in a text, understanding relationships, or construing meaning within a limited part of the text when the information is not prominent and the reader must make low level inferences. Tasks at this level may involve comparisons or contrasts based on a single feature in the text. Typical reflective tasks at this level require readers to make a comparison or several connections between the text and outside knowledge, by drawing on personal experience and attitudes. Page 11 of 20 Level 1a 335 At level 1a, tasks require the reader to locate one or more independent pieces of explicitly stated information; to recognize the main theme or author‘s purpose in a text about a familiar topic, or to make a simple connection between information in the text and common, everyday knowledge. Typically the required information in the text is prominent and there is little, if any, competing information. The reader is explicitly directed to consider relevant factors in the task and in the text. Level 1b 262 At level 1b, tasks require the reader to locate a single piece of explicitly stated information in a prominent position in a short, syntactically simple text with a familiar context and text type, such as a narrative or a simple list. The text typically provides support to the reader, such as repetition of information, pictures or familiar symbols. There is minimal competing information. In tasks requiring interpretation the reader may need to make simple connections between adjacent pieces of information. NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into reading literacy levels according to their scores. Exact cut point scores are as follows: below level 1b (a score less than or equal to 262.04);level 1b (a score greater than 262.04 and less than or equal to 334.75); level 1a (a score greater than 334.75 and less than or equal to 407.47); level 2 (a score greater than 407.47 and less than or equal to 480.18); level 3 (a score greater than 480.18 and less than or equal to 552.89); level 4 (a score greater than 552.89 and less than or equal to 625.61); level 5 (a score greater than 625.61 and less than or equal to 698.32); and level 6 (a score greater than 698.32).Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009 Page 12 of 20 Page 13 of 20 U.S. Performance in Mathematics Literacy Performance at PISA Proficiency Levels PISA’s six mathematics literacy proficiency levels, ranging from 1 to 6, are described in exhibit 2 (see appendix B for information about how the proficiency are created). Exhibit 2 Description of PISA proficiency levels on mathematics literacy scale: 2009 Proficiency level and lower cut point score Level 6 669 Level 5 607 Level 4 545 Level 3 482 Task description At level 6,students can conceptualize, generalize, and utilize information based on their investigations and modeling of complex problem situations. They can link different information sources and representations and flexibly translate among them. Students at this level are capable of advanced mathematical thinking and reasoning. These students can apply this insight and understandings along with a mastery of symbolic and formal mathematical operations and relationships to develop new approaches and strategies for attacking novel situations. Students at this level can formulate and precisely communicate their actions and reflections regarding their findings, interpretations, arguments, and the appropriateness of these to the original situations. At level 5,students can develop and work with models for complex situations, identifying constraints and specifying assumptions. They can select, compare, and evaluate appropriate problem solving strategies for dealing with complex problems related to these models. Students at this level can work strategically using broad, well-developed thinking and reasoning skills, appropriate linked representations, symbolic and formal characterizations, and insight pertaining to these situations. They can reflect on their actions and formulate and communicate their interpretations and reasoning. At level 4,students can work effectively with explicit models for complex concrete situations that may involve constraints or call for making assumptions. They can select and integrate different representations, including symbolic ones, linking them directly to aspects of real-world situations. Students at this level can utilize well-developed skills and reason flexibly, with some insight, in these contexts. They can construct and communicate explanations and arguments based on their interpretations, arguments, and actions. At level 3, students can execute clearly described procedures, including those that require sequential decisions. They can select and apply simple problem solving strategies. Students at this level can interpret and use representations based on different information sources and reason directly from them. They can develop short communications reporting their interpretations, results and reasoning. Page 14 of 20 Level 2 420 Level 1 358 At level 2,students can interpret and recognize situations in contexts that require no more than direct inference. They can extract relevant information from a single source and make use of a single representational mode. Students at this level can employ basic algorithms, formulae, procedures, or conventions. They are capable of direct reasoning and making literal interpretations of the results. At level 1, students can answer questions involving familiar contexts where all relevant information is present and the questions are clearly defined. They are able to identify information and to carry out routine procedures according to direct instructions in explicit situations. They can perform actions that are obvious and follow immediately from the given stimuli. NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into mathematics literacy levels according to their scores. Cut point scores in the exhibit are rounded; exact cut point scores are provided in appendix B. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009. Page 15 of 20 U.S. Performance in Science Literacy Page 16 of 20 Performance at PISA Proficiency Levels PISA’s six science literacy proficiency levels, ranging from 1 to 6, are described in exhibit 3 (see appendix B for information about how the proficiency are created). Exhibit 3. Description of PISA proficiency levels on science literacy scale: 2009 Proficiency level and lower cut point score Level 6 708 Level 5 633 Level 4 559 Level 3 484 Task description At level 6, students can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge and knowledge about science in a variety of complex life situations. They can link different information sources and explanations and use evidence from those sources to justify decisions. They clearly and consistently demonstrate advanced scientific thinking and reasoning, and they demon- strate willingness to use their scientific understanding in support of solutions to unfamiliar scientific and technological situations. Students at this level can use scientific knowledge and develop arguments in support of recommendations and decisions that centre on personal, social or global situations. At level 5, students can identify the scientific components of many complex life situations, apply both scientific concepts and knowledge about science to these situations, and can compare, select and evaluate appropriate scientific evidence for responding to life situations. Students at this level can use well-developed inquiry abilities, link knowledge appropriately and bring critical insights to situations. They can construct explanations based on evidence and arguments based on their critical analysis. At level 4, students can work effectively with situations and issues that may involve explicit phenomena requiring them to make inferences about the role of science or technology. They can select and integrate explanations from different disciplines of science or technology and link those explanations directly to aspects of life situations. Students at this level can reflect on their actions and they can communicate decisions using scientific knowledge and evidence. At level 3, students can identify clearly described scientific issues in a range of contexts. They can select facts and knowledge to explain phenomena and apply simple models or inquiry strategies. Students at this level can interpret and use scientific concepts from different disciplines and can apply them directly. They can develop short statements using facts and make decisions based on scientific knowledge. Page 17 of 20 Level 2 410 Level 1 335 At level 2, students have adequate scientific knowledge to provide possible explanations in familiar contexts or draw conclu- sions based on simple investigations. They are capable of direct reasoning and making literal interpretations of the results of scientific inquiry or technological problem solving. At level 1, students have such a limited scientific knowledge that it can only be applied to a few, familiar situations. They can present scientific explanations that are obvious and follow explicitly from given evidence. NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into science literacy levels according to their scores. Cut point scores in the exhibit are rounded; exact cut point scores are provided in appendix B. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004. E. Socioeconomic Effects on Testing Students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is used in NAEP as an indicator of family income. Students from lower-income families are eligible for either free or reducedprice school lunches, while students from higher-income families are not. Because of the improved quality of the data on students’ eligibility in more recent years, results are only compared as far back as 2003. Page 18 of 20 SOURCE: The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Findings in brief reading and mathematics 2011. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VnBacARUlpYJ:nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Page 19 of 20 The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Reading 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/reading_2011_report/ Public Education Network and National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2004). Standards and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/standards_assessment.html References Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Labor Statistics. (2013). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, December 7). Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004 National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). State profiles. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). Are the nation's students making progress in mathematics and reading? Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/performance-overview The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Findings in brief reading and mathematics 2011. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VnBacARUlpYJ:nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Reading 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/reading_2011_report/ The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm Page 20 of 20 
Purchase answer to see full attachment