In recent years, international test scores have shown that the United States has fallen behind other countries’ results. While many contributing factors have been debated, including cost and logistics, the effectiveness of the time students spend in school should perhaps bear the heaviest consideration.

Data from The Center for Public Education shows that most U.S. schools require as much or more instructional time as do other countries. Typically, American students in younger grades receive fewer instructional hours than students in higher grades; this is also the case in high-performing countries like Japan, Korea, and Finland. When the number of required hours increases, however, test scores don’t seem to tag along.

Collectively, the states require between 900 and 1,000 hours of instructional time per year depending on the grade level. According to the OECD, by 8th grade, students will have been required to receive more hours of instruction than students in most industrialized countries. Data shows that countries with less instructional hours, such as Japan (868), Korea (867), and Finland (777), have outperformed U.S. schools, suggesting that increased instructional time does not correlate with increased achievement.

Therefore, maybe it isn’t so much the number of instructional hours that matters, but the quality of instruction. Students should get the most out of their time in the classroom, so the question becomes, “How effectively is classroom time used?”

Are teachers engaging students? Are lessons and activities creative and well-developed? Will assignments advance the learning process rather than overwhelm students? Do supplementary materials actively involve students? Are teachers motivating rather than demanding?

Achieving the goal of increasing test scores in U.S. schools starts in the classroom. It is largely the responsibility of teachers to make material interesting for students and engage them in the learning process. One thousand hours is a lot of time to be used otherwise.

This week, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (a state-represented consortia under U.S. Department of Education funding) selected CTB/McGraw-Hill as developers of the first Common Core Assessments test items. These items will eventually be included in the Smarter Balanced assessment system. This system, in turn, will be rolled out for use in the 2014-2015 school year.

This represents another enormous step forward for the Common Core State Standards, which continue to gain steam in a somewhat divided national education landscape (a few states have not yet accepted the new system). A development such as this emphasizes the fact that, for most teachers and students, Common Core is here to stay.

What will these test items be? According to CTB, there will be "a variety of innovative formats, challenging performance elements and rich technological enhancements." Once created, the plan is for states to develop assessments around these items for student testing.

With many districts, schools, and teachers struggling to transition from previous systems to Common Core, this development adds a little more fuel to the fire. What is your school or district doing to facilitate this change? How will you handle the transition? Share your Common Core thoughts with us!

For most of the United States, the Common Core State Standards are a reality. For four states (Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, and Alaska), they are an important and looming decision. Well, make that three and a bit.

Recently, Alaska's Anchorage School District, which constitutes some 37 percent of the state's pre-college students, voted to adopt the standards; they also called for an implementation plan as soon as possible.

It's another victory for the national initiative. At this point, Common Core can be likened to a conquering force, and the aforementioned holdout states the last vestiges of perhaps futile resistance. It makes me curious - what are the primary reasons for standing against the Common Core wave?

There are, of course, political motivations, which this blogger will not attempt to tackle (do feel free to sound off in the comments, however). But why be one of a handful refusing to join in? Are the standards inadequate? Is the potential headache caused by transitioning from state-specific to national standards too much to fathom?

It's hard to argue against the benefits of a universal set of standards. Reduced state-to-state achievement gaps, for instance, or one set of benchmarks for college preparation as opposed to fifty. It's equally difficult to hold the standards up as perfect. But given an overwhelming majority of state adoption, is ignoring Common Core really a good idea?

At Bridging the Gaps in Education, we blog a lot about new and emerging technologies in the classroom. Needless to say, there is an abundance of such topics about which to write. It seems that at any time, there are several new technologies, devices, or ideas competing for the world's attention, all clamoring that they're the next big thing. A recent article on Education Week's website has me wondering, at last, if it isn't all too much.

The article deals with one technology in particular - interactive whiteboards. It wonders if the whiteboard's time has come and gone, and along with it, the innovation's opportunity to alter the educational landscape. The author cites emerging tablet technologies, Bring Your Own Device initiatives, and restricted budgets and funding as harbingers of this once next big thing's demise.

As I read the article, I couldn't help but ask myself: Is the field of educational technology shooting itself in the foot? And, more imperative: Are the ricochets boring holes in our students' learning experiences?

Think about it. Teachers: how many times have you been encouraged or tempted to look into a new device that purports a revolution for you and your students? Parents: How many changes have you witnessed to your child's learning environment in the last few years (let alone the last few decades), all for the better? Computers. Laptops. Online learning. Gaming. Cell phones. Smart phones. Whiteboards. Tablets. Even I, at 28, only experienced the dramatic educational impact of computers and the Internet. The sheer number of changes and enhancements being plugged in switched on now is, when considered at once, staggering.

Truth be told, it's overwhelming.

How can we keep up? It's clear we don't have enough money to do so. With so many options, school districts and administrators are forced to focus available funding on one technology or device, after which they must fervently hope they've chosen properly. Or, they can sit on their hands and wallets, waiting out the fierce melee, until a clear winner separates itself from the rest. What kind of a choice is that for the future of our students?

Look, I'm not questioning the value of technology in the classroom. Nor the importance of constant innovation and foresight. But it seems that technology is a double-edged sword when wielded on the field of education, and it's important to consider which side bears the keener edge. Are we cutting into the future? Or are we cutting off chances to truly change tomorrow's classroom for the better?

There are no easy answers to these questions. It's a difficult situation confronting us. Education Week describes a "fad factor" in technology. Our eyes are always forward, our hands grasping for the next game-changing device or iteration. When it comes to education, I'm beginning to fear that, while focusing on an ever-changing horizon, we're overlooking the only truly important thing - the best possible education for our students and children.

The February 2012 issue of Learning and Leading with Technology features three editorial pieces on BYOD (bring your own device), a hot topic in education and technology spheres. BYOD advocates students bringing and using their own devices in the classroom, rather than working on school-provided technologies. Instead of using dated computers, for example, students work on their cell phones, iPads, or eReaders.

A debate is raging over whether or not BYOD is a good thing for education. The theory is a wonderful one. Students use devices they know and love to define their individual educational experiences. The concepts fed to a classroom are the same, but each learner is free to shape how he or she attacks them. A student that struggles with math facts uses a smartphone to make flash cards; another uses a tablet's dictionary application to reinforce a weak vocabulary. The teacher is free to monitor technology use and provide individual instruction as needed.

Put under a microscope, however, some of BYOD's glossy possibilities lose their shine. It's easy to assume that, in today's plugged-in society, every student has access to a high-functioning device, but what of the kids without smartphones or internet-enabled tablets? What of those without any device whatsoever? Do they share with better-equipped classmates? Do they use outdated and barely functional school reserves? What about the less than tech-savvy teacher? It's unreasonable to expect one person to easily keep up with multiple learning styles and the devices that allow them.

The need for technology in education is unquestionable, and the increasing prevalence of newer and better models among students seems to support those clamoring for BYOD. But does the idea's most basic premise, that of allowing students to use better and more personalized tools to maximize learning, hold up under scrutiny when there's no guarantee every boy and girl can take such advantage? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Education Week recently released Quality Counts 2012, their annual report card on state and national education. Each state was given an average taken from six category scores (the categories include: Chance for Success; K-12 Achievement; Standards, Assessments, and Accountability; The Teaching Profession; School Finance; and Transitions and Alignment).

The United States average score was 76.5 percent - a C. The highest score was obtained by Maryland (87.8 - B +) and the lowest by South Dakota (68.1 - D +), with a majority of states (41) scoring between 70 and 80. The nation has managed similar scores in the past three years: 76.3 (2011), 75.9 (2010), and 76.2 (2009).

We took a closer look at Ohio's marks (we're based in Dayton). The state managed an average of 79.5, a C +. It scored an A for Standards, Assessments, and Accountability and ranged from C - to C + in the remaining 5 categories. Of note is the fact that in 2011, Ohio had access to some 70 million dollars via a Race to the Top grant awarded in 2010. Ohio received the largest grant of 12 state recipients.

What to make of an average national performance? It depends on the standards to which you hold yourself. Though a C isn't necessarily a negative mark, this particular blogger expects better. The United States has the resources to excel. Only the future will tell if the entire country agrees with me.

What do you think about the U.S. score? How did your state perform? What numbers do you project for 2012? Get grading in the comments section below.

 

The holidays are fast approaching, and we here at Lorenz Educational Press are in the spirit of giving! Later this month, we're giving away some of our best and brightest products to some of our much-deserving fans and followers. All you have to do is visit our Facebook page and Like us, and you'll be entered for a chance to win some free educational products. Here's the scoop:

"It's almost time for the 12 Days of Christmas Giveaway!!

As an expression of our gratitude for all that you do as teachers, each day between December 14 and Christmas we will draw the name of one of our FB followers to receive selected LEP products from our '12 Essential Elements for Today's Classroom' (details on that to follow).

Want an extra chance to win? Refer a Friend! For every FB fan that enters the sweepstakes, you'll get a bonus entry! Happy Holidays!"

We'll update you with information concerning the 12 Essential Elements as soon as we get our hands on it. Until then, what are you waiting for? Get over to our Facebook page and give us a Like! (Thanks in advance!)

A November 14 article from the Chicago Tribune highlighted one city school's first (and decidedly negative) experience with the Common Core Standards. Perez Elementary School, a public school in Chicago's Pilsen area, had performed very well last year on the Illinois Standard Achievement Test. It was one of the first schools to incorporate the Common Core Standards for reading and mathematics. Testing on these would-be standards of the future did not go nearly so well.

According to the Tribune article, only about one-third of students between the grades of 3 and 5 scored at or above their grade level in reading tests associated with the CCS. Students were only slightly better at mathematics testing - again, the approximate figure was one-third. For grades 6 and 8, the results were worse. Some one-fourth of students scored at or above their grade level in reading.

While this school's negative results are unquestionably isolated, they are also unquestionably troubling, particularly when compared with statistics related to the previous state standards. For a school that had done so well under one system to struggle so mightily under the new one raises a number of uncomfortable questions. Were the old standards inadequate? Are the new ones too difficult? Will most schools experience a similar drop in results?

What do you think? Does this story worry you? Does it matter? Share your reactions in the Comments section below.

Lorenz Educational Press would like to wish everyone the happiest of Thanksgivings. Enjoy the food and fellowship - we sure will! One of the many things we're thankful for is you, dear reader, so have an extra slice of pie on us.

We'll be back next week with more news, updates, and discussion.