Why the nation’s k-12 accountability and assessment system doesn’t make the grade 1 unit electricity cost in gujarat


Michael Horn speaks and writes about the future of education and works with a portfolio of education organizations to improve the life of each and every student. He serves as the head of strategy for gas in babies how to get rid of it the Entangled Group, an education venture studio, and as a senior partner for Entangled Solutions, a strategy consultancy for the education ecosystem. He is also the co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, a non-profit think tank.

Michael is the author and coauthor of multiple books, white papers, and articles on education, including the award-winning book Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns and the Amazon-bestseller Blended: Using Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. An expert on disruptive innovation, online learning, blended learning, competency-based learning, and how to transform the education system into a student-centered one, he serves on the board and advisory boards of a range of education organizations, including the Clayton Christensen Institute, the Robin Hood Learning+Tech Fund, and the LearnLaunch Institute. He also serves as an executive editor at Education Next and is a venture partner at NextGen Venture Partners.

Michael was selected as a 2014 Eisenhower Fellow to study innovation in education in Vietnam and Korea, and TechLearning magazine named him to its list of the 100 most important people in the creation and advancement of the use of technology in education. Michael holds a BA in history from Yale University and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. Contact Michael Horn

The recently released studies concern the efficacy of Teach to One: Math, an innovative blended-learning model that Heather Staker and I discussed in our book Blended: Using Disruptive v gashi 2013 Innovation to Improve Schools. The studies highlight not only the profound impact blended-learning models can have on student outcomes, but also raise deeper questions about whether our country’s current assessment and accountability system may be undermining the ability for schools to deliver on those outcomes.

As background, Teach to One: Math is a model that personalizes learning. Developed by the non-profit New Classrooms Innovation Partners, it emerged from an initiative within the New York City Department of Education called School of One, which Time named as one the year’s Best Inventions in 2009. Thirty-nine schools across 11 states now use Teach to One: Math.

Partner schools that adopt Teach to One: Math typically replace their traditional textbook-based math program with this new approach. Students electricity and magnetism lecture notes learn through a variety of modalities —from teachers, in collaboration with peers, and independently. Each day students take an online assessment that helps determine what they will learn the next day. Teach to One generates about 10,000 unique daily student schedules that include what skill a student will work on, the material through they will learn it, where in the room the learning takes place, and which teachers are assigned to which groups. The approach is designed to enable personalization for students while fostering a more collaborative and sustainable role for teachers.

The first study was a rigorous, federally-funded evaluation by Doug Ready at Teachers College and the Consortium electricity physics khan academy for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) that focused on the implementation of Teach to One: Math at five schools in Elizabeth, New Jersey. The study focused on comparing student performance on state tests each year of the program. Although it could not discern impact in the five schools that implemented the program, the study could not form any generalizable conclusions either.

The education trade reports and headline writers raced predictably to offer banners of failure while ignoring the most useful part of the evaluation itself—what actually happened in the schools themselves and what it teaches us about the impact of well-intentioned education policies that assume that annual grade-level instruction for all students is the most efficient path to college and career readiness.

Teach to One is designed to meet students where they are and enable them to accelerate toward college gasco abu dhabi salary and career readiness as efficiently as possible. For many students, that may mean having to go back and address unfinished learning from prior years in service of getting students back to grade level. This is especially critical in math, where skills build upon one another each year.

This challenge is by no means unique to Teach to One. Speak with most middle grade math teachers and you would hear a similar predicament. What’s different with Teach to One is that schools must grapple explicitly with this tension in how they configure the program itself so that those choices can be embedded into student learning progressions. In schools that don’t use models like Teach to One, teachers are expected to somehow figure it all out on their own.

The federal study describes in great detail what happened in Elizabeth when schools confronted this hard choice. According to the study, schools acted in vastly different ways. Some required that Teach to One include academic “floors” and “ceilings” in order to prioritize exposing students to grade-level content and required all eighth graders to learn Algebra regardless of their academic readiness. The strategies varied by school and also changed continually throughout the implementation.

These shifts were far more profound than the typical implementation natural gas jokes ebbs and flows that most studies include. It fundamentally caused the program students experienced to fall out of alignment with what was being assessed. As a result, the study made clear that the results shouldn’t be used to draw any generalized conclusions about the program itself—a key point sadly omitted from most of the press coverage.

The second study, which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded and MarGrady Research conducted, focused on the entire set of schools implementing Teach to One over three years (not just those in Elizabeth) and on results from NWEA’s MAP assessment, a widely-used adaptive test that is more effective at measuring student learning growth than state tests because it includes items from across multiple grade levels. For example, when a seventh-grade student who arrives to school at a fourth-grade level grows to a sixth-grade level in the course of one year, those gains would more likely get picked up by the gas law questions and answers MAP than by the state test. Which, when you think about it, is absurd that schools and teachers wouldn’t be rewarded for helping a student make two full years of academic gains in just one year electricity experiments.

MarGrady found that students enrolled continuously in Teach to One saw 23% greater gains than students nationally, and, more salient to prove that the nation’s assessment systems shortchange individual students’ growth, that students in schools with accountability systems aligned fully to the program’s intent—meaning no floors or ceilings—saw gains that were 53% above the national average. Students in the latter group grew an impressive 38 percentile points from the time they came into 6th grade to the time they left eighth grade.

We need more research to deepen our understanding of both Teach to One and personalizing learning more broadly. But in the interim, the more meaningful contribution of these two studies may actually be in the additional question they inherently raise: Is an assessment and accountability system that signals an exclusive instructional focus on grade-level material in the best interest of all students? RECOMMENDED BY FORBES