Action Plan Template
Use this template to assist you with developing a plan for
positive change. As you develop the plan, consider and reflect
on the following questions:
· For each goal, who are the stakeholders? What information is
important for them to know?
· What feedback system will you use to keep stakeholders
informed?
· How can you best utilize the individuals who are assisting
you? What information can they provide to make the plan
successful or more meaningful?
· What type of evaluation is most appropriate for each goal?
· What resources or training is needed? Who will do it?
· Who will perform the evaluation, and how will it be reported?
Goal
(Consider Short & Long Term)
Action
(Training, Investigation, Pilot Study, Interviews, etc.)
Time
Frame
Stakeholders
Evaluation
(Formative, Summative, etc.)

© 2015 Laureate Education, Inc.
1 of 1
Running Head: MODULE 4 1
MODULE 4 5
MODULE 4
Student Name

Institution Affiliation
Module 4 Discussion
Education-Related Issues-Narrowing the Topic
During my career, I have been more aware due to the
importance of understanding regarding due to important issues
that affect the education field. There exist the plethora of
problems connected to education where one cannot force them.
We need to change the focal view on our lens so as to try to
handle any of the problems. This paper will focus on identifying
the issues that each problem presented and presented the key
information discovered concerning the issues and finally create
a problem statement.
Identify a problem for each issue that can be researched.
· The Opportunities in Urban Schools Art Education – there
exist lack of the art education provided in schools because of
funding (Rupport, 2016).
· Common Core Application- education information have been
offered in the district common core as well as adoption
practices which lead to more poor testing scores as well as
jeopardizing the longevity of works for the instructors that are
viewed to be ineffective.
· ‘Discipline for Special Education learners – learners are
gaining the same discipline special education learners in the
general kids’ education as well as it is not viewed as logical
(Rupport, 2016).”
Identify one piece of key information you have discovered in a
scholarly resource about each problem.
· The Opportunities in Urban Schools Art Education: art

participate to the success and the achievement of students. The
advantages of student learning are organized in 3 areas:
comprehensive academic and basic. As said by one of the
prominent people of all times, Mitchell Obama that “Learning
through the arts reinforces critical academic skills in reading,
language arts and math and provides students with the skills to
creatively solve problems.”
· Common Core Application: research done by Kearns, Kleinert,
Thurlow, Gong and Quenemoen (2015) explains that the
instructors require professional growth if learners results from
the CCSS evaluation that are to be utilized as sections of
teachers efficient and effective evaluation.
· Discipline for Special Education learners: considering the
services and support offered before suspension, most
suspensions in the 10+ interferes that have validity of a learners
IEP concerning student statement. An IEPT should first put into
consideration the character manifestation of any disability
Create problem statements that concisely define the scope of
how you will research each problem.
Art Education: “How does art education contribute to the
overall success of a student achievement? Would equal access
to Art Education in urban schools show high achieving results
as peers in suburban schools? (Kearns et al., 2015)”
Common Core Implementation: “How will districts give more
support to teachers to assist in aligning CCSS with IEP goals
and teach effectively so that student success is shown?
(Rupport, 2016).”
Discipline for Special Education learners: “What
social/emotional effects does non logical discipline have on
students with disabilities? (Rupport, 2016).”

References
Kearns J., Kleinert H., Thurlow M., Gong B., Quenemoen R.
(2015). Alternate assessments as one measure of teacher
effectiveness: Implications for our field. Research and Practice
for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40, 20-35.
doi:10.1177/1540796915585105 Retrieved from
waldenulibrary.org
Michigan State Dept. of Education, L. O. of S. E. and E. I. S.
(2016). Special Education Considerations in Student Discipline
Procedures. Retrieved from
https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohos
t.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED443256&site=ed
s-live&scope=site
Rupport S,S (2016).Critical Evidence: How the Arts Benefit
Student Achievement. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529766.pdf

Further Reading for Issues in K-12 Education Case Study
Existing Problems With The Roll Out Of The Common Core
And High-
Stakes Testing—Concerned Parents
Challenges in Implementing Common Core Standards 2011
Haycock, K. (2012). Implementation of Common Core State
Standards: Roles for
advocates. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Kober, N., & Rentner, D. (2011). States’ progress and
challenges in implementing
Common Core State Standards. Center on Education Policy.
Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GOrM4
hD4s_AJ:files.e
ric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED514598.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=u
s

Wiener, R. (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating
implementation of Common Core
and teacher effectiveness policies. Aspen Institute. Retrieved
from the Walden
Library databases.
Reports From The Common Core In Individual States
Belcher, E. (2012) Future shock. Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S06oW
wztvUAJ:ed.sc.
gov/agency/programs-services/190/ccss-
support/documents/Future_Shock-
_Early_Common_Core_implementation_lessons_from_Ohio.pdf
+&cd=5&hl=en&
ct=clnk&gl=us
History of Using Standards in Education
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
© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 3

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S06oW
wztvUAJ:ed.sc
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GOrM4
hD4s_AJ:files.e
EdSource. (2014). Standards-based education. Retrieved from
https://edsource.org/iss_sta.html
What Are The Standards? Why Are We Using Them Now? What
Is The Function?
ACT, Inc. (2010). A first look at the Common Core and college
and career readiness.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Frequently
asked questions. Retrieved
from http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-
questions
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). National
Governors Association and
state education chiefs launch common state academic standards.
Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/articles/8-national-governors-
association-and-
state-education-chiefs-launch-common-state-academic-standards
New Hampshire Department of Education. (2013). NH college-
and career-ready
standards frequently asked questions. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3iZY1B
ICFgMJ:www.e
ducation.nh.gov/instruction/curriculum/documents/faq-
ccrs.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Hunt Institute. (2012). Background information on common
core standards.
Retrieved from http://www.hunt-institute.org/knowledge-
library/articles/2010-4-

28/background-information-on-common-core-standards/
Common Core Implementation and Accommodation
Beals, K. (2014, February 21). The common core is tough on
kids with special needs.
The Atlantic. Retrieved from
http://www.hunt-institute.org/knowledge-library/articles/2010-4
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3iZY1B
ICFgMJ:www.e
http://www.corestandards.org/articles/8-national-governors-
association-and
http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-
questions
https://edsource.org/iss_sta.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-
common-core-is-
tough-on-kids-with-special-needs/283973/
Constable, S., Grossi, B., Moniz, A., & Ryan, L. (2013).
Meeting the Common Core
State Standards for students with autism. Council for
Exceptional Children.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2013). Common Core
State Standards:
Implementation tools and resources. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542700
Maxwell, L., & Samuels, C. (2013, April 23). PARCC proposes
Common-Core test
accommodations. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/04/24/29parcc.h32.htm
l?qs=ell+common
+core

Maxwell, L. (2014, February 6). Supporting Academic
Discussions for ELLs in Common-
Core Classrooms. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-
language/2014/02/supporting_academic_discourse_.html?qs=ell
+common+core
Quay, L. (2010). Higher standards for all: Implications of the
Common Core for equity in
education. Research Brief. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute
On Race, Ethnicity
And Diversity. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). P21 Common Core
toolkit: A guide to
aligning the Common Core State Standards with the framework
for 21st century
skills. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/04/24/29parcc.h32.htm
l?qs=ell+common
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-
common-core-is

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study
Document 8
Discussion on Implementation of CCSS ELA Skills for Special
Education Students
Read the following simulated blog posts from special educators
with differing
perspectives on the implications of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) for

special education students.
The Common Core’s potential benefits for students with special
needs
As a longtime educator in the field of special education, I’m
writing to express my belief
that the CCSS will most likely benefit the students my respected
colleagues and I teach.
It is my belief that raising expectations for students with special
needs ultimately
improves educational outcomes. The goal of the CCSS is to
provide more rigorous
educational standards. The needs of students in special
education were considered from
the outset when the standards were developed. The Council for
Exceptional Children
(CEC) contributed to the initial statement on how the standards
should be implemented
for children with disabilities. It is hoped that the new standards
will provide all students
with the skills they need to be college or career ready.
As a special educator, I am aware that providing students with
alternative ways to
demonstrate learning outcomes—or letting kids create those
alternative ways
themselves—is key to overcoming challenges. It is my
contention that the CCSS will
challenge all students to perform at a higher level than required
by previous state
standards. Thus, the adoption of the CCSS may erase some of
the differences between
general and special education.
Another barrier that will be overcome is the difference between

one set of state
standards and another. In the past, students with special needs
who moved across state
lines often experienced a dramatic disruption in their education.
Under the CCSS,
making the transition from one state (or school district) to
another will be smoother
because schools will operate according to a shared set of core
expectations.
In order to implement the CCSS as part of an effort to include
students with special
needs in general education classrooms, it will be important for
special educators and
general educators to collaborate closely. Special educators have
the knowledge and skill
sets to provide targeted, specific strategy instruction that are
grounded in valid and
reliable assessment procedures. By working as a team with our
general education
colleagues, I believe that all students will benefit and be better
able to acquire and
implement the knowledge and skills specified by the CCSS. To
realize all of the potential
benefits of adopting the CCSS, school districts will have to
move with care and
consideration. We need professional development and
communities of support to help
both general and special educators.
In conclusion, I am cautiously optimistic about what the
Common Core standards
represent for students with special needs. If the new standards
are implemented, I
believe that all students will benefit. And that will be a very
good thing.

Letitia Rangel
Some concerns about the Common Core Standards and their
effects on Special
Education

As an educator with over 25 years of experience in the field of
Special Education, I am
writing to express my concern about the implementation of the
CCSS. I am worried that
in the rush to develop more rigorous educational standards,
many factors were
overlooked, including the complex needs of students with
exceptionalities. I realize that
the CEC was consulted during the writing of the CCSS, but
from what I have been
hearing recently, I wouldn’t be surprised if the CEC withdraws
its support in the near
future.
As a special educator, I certainly endorse the goal of improving
educational outcomes
for my students, and I realize that raising standards can play a
part in improving
outcomes. However, I have seen firsthand that there is no
simple correlation between
creating a “rigorous” standard and successfully implementing it
in the classroom. Others
share my reservations. According to Diane Haager of California
State University and
Sharon Vaughn of The University of Texas at Austin,
“Increasing the rigor of K-12
expectations is likely to present increased challenges for
students with LD and their
teachers” (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Students will be expected
to deal with challenging
texts at earlier ages, to engage with more informational texts in
the elementary grades
than ever before, and to apply higher-order skills to the
interpretation of texts.

In her recent blog post citing the perceived benefits of the
CCSS for students with
special needs, Letitia Rangel observes that a common set of
standards will reduce
educational disruption for students who move from one state to
another. She neglects to
point out that if the shared-state standards are problematic, the
student might be better
off making the adjustment to state-specific standards.
While I applaud the CCSS’s stated goal of helping all students
become college and
career ready, I am concerned that state departments of
education, and individual school
districts, may not fully realize, or be prepared to provide, the
full range of supports and
accommodations that will be necessary to help students with
special needs meet this
goal. Modifications will need to be supplied in both instruction
and assessment. Special
educators and other educators will need support and training for
collaboration. This
entire endeavor will call for creativity, sensitivity, and follow-
through.
Implementation of the CCSS offers great potential for
improving the academic education
of students with special needs—but, again, this potential will
not become a reality
without an enormous effort. Special educators will need
intensive training in the
interpretation of the CCSS. They will need support in terms of
time, materials, and other
resources, in order to be able to apply the CCSS from day to
day. Special educators,
and other educators, will need to collaborate more intensively

than ever before to benefit
students with disabilities. Other educators will need training on
multiple strategies within
the field of special education. With sufficient professional
development, complex
coordination, and ongoing support, the CCSS may transform
special education in
positive ways. But without such initiatives, it will become a
burden.

In sum, I am not against the CCSS. I want students with special
needs to have the best
possible elementary and secondary education, and I want them
to have opportunities for
satisfying employment or further education when they graduate
from high school. But I
want my readers to understand exactly what these rigorous new
standards involve and
what a dramatic commitment educators, government officials,
and the public will need to
make in order to apply the standards successfully to the
education of students with
special needs.
Maurice Budaj
References
CAST. (2014). Professional learning. Retrieved from
http://www.cast.org/pd/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Application to
students with disabilities.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-
to-students-with-
disabilities.pdf
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-Ed-
Topics/Specialty-Areas/Commom-Core-State-Standards
Donovan, F. (2012, Summer). Assessment and the Common
Core Standards. The
Special EDge. Retrieved from

http://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/Edge_summer_2012_n
ewsletter.pdf
Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). The Common Core State
Standards and reading:
Interpretations and implications for elementary students with
learning disabilities.
Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfvie
wer/pdfviewer?sid=4afa
5ce8-3a6f-4c63-a908-
14650b690201%40sessionmgr4001&vid=8&hid=4204
McLaughlin, M. (2012, September/October). Six principles for
principals to consider in
implementing CCSS for students with disabilities. Retrieved
from
http://www.naesp.org/principal-septemberoctober-2012-
common-core/access-common-
core-all-0
Shah, N. (2012). Standards open the door for best practices
from special ed. Education
Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs-
speced.h31.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=rss&utm_campa
ign=mrss
Weiner, R. (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating
implementation of Common Core
and teacher effectiveness policies. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542704.pdf
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542704.pdf

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs
http://www.naesp.org/principal-septemberoctober-2012-
common-core/access-common
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfvie
wer/pdfviewer?sid=4afa
http://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/Edge_summer_2012_n
ewsletter.pdf
http://www.cec.sped.org/Special-Ed
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-
with
http://www.cast.org/pd

Document 6
English Language Learner Instruction and Twenty-First Century
Education
This is a simulated article from a leading educational journal.
The target audience is K-12
teachers, administrators, as well as prospective teachers still
studying. It is about standards-
based education in the twenty-first century and its impact on
English language learners (ELLs).
The author is an instructor who is both enthusiastic and anxious
about the implementation of
rigorous new academic expectations for ELLs.
English language learners (ELLs) are defined as students who
learn English as a non-native
language. As an ELL instructor, I know firsthand that students
and instructors face unique
challenges related to teaching and learning complex academic
skills, in addition to mastering
the English language. Standards-based instruction offers
opportunities to incorporate ELLs into
the general education population by diminishing the
achievement gap between ELL students
and those for whom English is their first language. However,
uniform academic standards also
present a great challenge (Maxwell 2012).
Although ELL students belong to one common category, that of
non-native speakers, they are
far from a homogeneous group. Not only do they speak many
different first languages, but they
come from different cultural backgrounds and possess widely
different academic skills. ELL

students are typically categorized on their need for language
instruction, rather than their
academic ability. In addition to having ELL students with
different levels of English, they are
often placed in classes with native English speakers. I’ve
witnessed the resulting challenges.
We teachers try to achieve the delicate balance between
appreciating the individual talents and
needs of students while providing an entire classroom with
standards-based instruction.
One important dilemma in the education of ELLs centers on the
difference between academic
English and social English. Social English is essential for
everyday, basic communication.
Academic language is the language of formal texts and
scholarly discourse. Academic language
involves precise terminology rather than vague, general words
or slang. Academic vocabulary is
often more abstract than social or survival vocabulary.
Academic discourse requires mastery of
grammar and usage.
In the past, social English was typically the main focus of
instruction for beginning ELLs (Colorin
Colorado 2014). Students were not introduced to academic
English until they were proficient in
social English. This approach made it difficult for many
students to develop grade-appropriate
content knowledge in core academic subjects because they
lacked the vocabulary necessary
for comprehension and expression (Illinois State University
2014).
Today, there is an increased emphasis on preparing all students
to become college and career

ready. Academic standards are rich and rigorous. One specific
area of emphasis is instruction in
“Tier 2” academic vocabulary, defined as general academic
words that are used frequently
across different subject and content areas (Cruz 2004).
There is much that English language educators can do to give
our students the tools they will
need to acquire these more rigorous academic skills and to
perform well on standardized

assessments. We can teach Tier 2 academic vocabulary. We can
work with other content
experts to help students master content-specific vocabulary and
knowledge. We can help
students distinguish between casual, social speech and the more
formal language of college
and careers. We can teach the language of higher-order thinking
skills, such as critical thinking
and problem solving (Maxwell 2013).
For example, one method of incorporating social and academic
language into a lesson is to
present students with two documents: one using formal language
and the other informal. The
content should be similar and should allow students to identify
the differences in language,
presentation, and purpose.
Helping a student achieve English language proficiency, while
simultaneously delivering
discipline-specific instruction presents challenges to educators.
Students do not learn to
communicate in carefully segmented blocks, but in a fluid,
ongoing process that develops over
time (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
2012). We, as educators, need
to carefully consider different strategies to adapt a standards-
based education to accommodate
such a wide range of abilities and understanding.
The shift toward heightened expectations of ELL students is a
welcome reform. The goal of
immersing ELL students in academic content as early as
possible is laudable; but it is important
to accommodate these students, and for educators to develop
assessments that accurately

reflect the abilities of ELLs. It is only then that the achievement
gap can be identified, solutions
can be discussed, and new strategies can be implemented.
If our state adopts rigorous and broad standards, we must
support students and educators in
meeting them. According to a 2011 American Community
Survey, the number of Americans
who speak a language other than English at home “is now 20.8
percent—fully one-fifth of all
people living in the U.S” (Badger 2013). The implementation of
more rigorous standards must
be accompanied by the allocation of additional resources. Only
then will we be able to prepare
all of our students, whatever their first language, to become
highly functioning members of our
knowledge society.
References
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
(2012). Fulfilling the promise of the
Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lCguM
XWlKL4J:educore.ascd.org/res
ource/download/get.ashx%3Fguid%3D1d60f46d-b786-41d1-
b059-
95a7c4eda420+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Badger, E. (2013, August 6). Where 60 million people in the
U.S don’t speak English at home.
The Atlantic Cities. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-
lifestyle/2013/08/geography-
americas-many-languages/6438/

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-
lifestyle/2013/08/geography
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lCguM
XWlKL4J:educore.ascd.org/res
ColorinColorado. (2014). Academic language and English
language learners. Retrieved from
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/academiclanguage/
Cruz, M. C. (2004). Can English language learners acquire
academic English? Retrieved from
http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/
Language/About%20Language/

Cruz-ELL%20Academic%20Language.pdf
Illinois State University. (2014). Session 4: Academic
vocabulary. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yskdQ
MgepukJ:education.illinoisstate
.edu/downloads/casei/AV-3-2-14%2520academic-vocabulary-6-
12-ela-content-area-
teachers.ppt+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Lu, A. (2014). States reconsider Common Core tests. The Pew
Charitable Trusts. Retrieved
from
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-
reconsider-common-core-
tests-85899535255
Maxwell, L. (2012, April 23). Language demands to grow for
ELLs under new standards.
Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs-
ell.h31.html
Maxwell, L. (2013, January 15). Three districts test model
Common-Core unit for ELLs.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/16/17ellstanford_ep
.h32.html
Murphy, P., Regenstein, E., & McNamara, K. (2012). Putting a
price tag on the Common Core:
How much will smart implementation cost? Thomas B. Fordham
Institute. Retrieved from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zDdlil7
L9s4J:files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED532509.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). Costs
associated with the Common Core
State Standard. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/common-core-state-
standards-costs.aspx
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English
language learners. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we
b&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAA
&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncte.org%2Flibrary%2FNCTEFiles
%2FResources%2FPolicyResea
rch%2FELLResearchBrief.pdf&ei=XHEOU7vTObLQsATMyoG
AAg&usg=AFQjCNFlbkkyWn55-
dRTIlTNW5Awb2-
_XA&sig2=n6EKifqcao1jxwYXoehKbw&bvm=bv.61965928,d.c
Wc (ELL)
The National Institute for Health and Human Development.
(2005). Autism overview, what we
know. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED486273
Plank, D. (2011). ELL assessment: One size does not fit all.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/31/02plank.h31.htm
l
Robertson, K. (2006). Increasing academic language knowledge
for English language learner
success. Retrieved from
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/13347/
http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/13347

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/31/02plank.h31.htm
l
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we
b&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAA
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/common-core-state
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zDdlil7
L9s4J:files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/16/17ellstanford_ep
.h32.html
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/states-
reconsider-common-core
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yskdQ
MgepukJ:education.illinoisstate
http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/
Language/About%20Language
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/academiclanguage

Document 5
Letter to the Editor: Issues with the Common Core
This is a simulated editorial from a high school principal. The
letter aims to address concerns
with Common Core State Standards implementation.
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative is a recent
effort to establish a single set
of clear educational standards for K-12 in English language arts
and mathematics. It is a reform
movement that will greatly affect education on a local, state,
and federal level.
The standards were created by three entities: a board of state
governors, a council of school
officers, and a private consulting firm. States had the option to
adopt this set of standards or not,
with the incentive that they would be eligible for more federal
funding for their schools if they did.

The federal government has been vocally supportive of the
standards. The goal of the
standards is to prepare students who graduate from high school
to enter a higher education
program, or to enter the workforce. The standards emphasize
problem solving, critical thinking,
and written communication as the most valuable skills.
The CCSS standards have generated criticism from school
administrators, parents, teachers,
students, and the community as a whole. Much of the frustration
is directed at the
implementation of the standards as opposed to their explicit
goal. I have summarized some of
my main concerns as succinctly as possible. As someone
personally and professionally affected
by these standards, I have a strong opinion about the effect that
they will have in our school.
I encourage those of you with interest in our community’s
education to conduct your own
research and formulate your own opinions. I plan to hold a
forum during the coming school year
to allow an outlet for people to express their opinions.

• Federal Imposition on States’ Rights
The federal government has no jurisdiction over individual state
education curricula.
Admittedly, the United States Department of Education was not
directly responsible for
creating the CCSS, but it has tied federal funding to adoption as
a way to compel states to
implement the standards. Some states have opted not to
implement the standards, but they
are few and far between. Many cash-strapped state governments
didn’t really have a choice
on whether to adopt the standards or not. Attaching federal
funding to the standards moved
the issue of a common set of standards to the political sphere.
• Trial Period for Effectiveness
There was no trial period to measure the effectiveness of the
CCSS, nor any time to
determine the ability of schools to make this significant change.
There is no evidence to see
what effect, or how big an effect, these standards will have. I
cannot recall such a
monumental shift in education policy taking place without due
consideration and review

prior to implementation. How do we know that teaching these
standards will actually help
with future college and career success?
• High-Stakes Testing and Teacher Professional Development
In the past, states have spent a great deal of money developing
state-specific assessments.
The states adopting the CCSS must use assessments that will
test the standards. There are
two national consortia that are using different assessment tools.
Old assessments were
discarded in favor of the CCSS-aligned assessments. States
were given the ability to
choose either consortium, but assessments were a mandated part
of the CCSS, linked to
the funding available from the federal government. The tests
were rapidly developed before

the standards could be fully implemented. Our school is
struggling to implement these
standards, and anxiety is high amongst teachers and students.
The truth is that many
students will fail these tests, damaging student confidence and
enthusiasm for learning in
the process. Not only will students suffer, but teacher
evaluations are being tied to student
performance. Teacher advocacy groups are increasingly
skeptical of high-stakes testing;
the whole process has completely politicized the field of
education. If the standards are
implemented, a slow, calculated rollout of the standards,
followed by eventual inclusion of
student (and indirectly teacher) assessment would be the best
method. Resources are
wasted on a fast rollout of the CCSS. Funds would be better
allocated on teachers’
professional development related to the interpretation and
application of the new standards.
• Financial Cost
The CCSS will have enormous financial repercussions. Teachers
have to be trained,
expensive standardized assessments need to be created,
curricula will have to be re-
designed, and textbooks and ancillaries will have to be replaced,
or significantly revised.
• Larger Issues Regarding Education Reform
Most importantly, the standards movement does not address
some of the larger educational
issues that are affecting our nation. We need high-quality
preschools, expanded summer

and after-school programs, improved instructional resources,
better ways of attracting and
retaining the best teachers, and a reduction in class sizes. It
seems to me that the intense
focus of resources spent on the CCSS might take resources away
from some of the other
issues that we face in education. Perhaps fixing some of these
issues, decreasing class
size for example, would improve our educational system better
than standards reform.
Two purposes of the CCSS are to better prepare students for the
future, and to present clear,
accessible goals for students, teachers, and parents. These are
great ideals that are
championed across the board. My reservations are not with the
idea of improving our students’
education, but with how this particular brand of reform is being
carried out.
Kieren Hale, MEd

Principal of Monit High School
References
Apache County Superintendent of Schools. (2013). ADE
response to issues raised about
Arizona’s Common Core Standards. Retrieved from
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jPdYoR
r-ZxUJ:www.azed.gov/special-
education/files/2013/05/issues-responses-regarding-arizonas-
common-core-
standards.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Baker, A. (2014, February 16). Common Core curriculum now
has critics on the left. The New
York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early-
champion-of-common-core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0
Cohen, R. (2013, December 3). Understanding the pros and cons
of the Common Core State
Standards. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-
context/23329-understanding-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-
common-core-state-standards.html
Dornfield, A. (2013, January 17). Seattle high school’s teacher
toss district’s test. National
Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/17/169620124/seattle-high-schools-

teachers-toss-districts-test
Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the Common Core.
Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.sht
ml
New York State Senate. (2013, December 20). Ranzenhofer co-
sponsors four bills to address
issues concerning Common Core Learning Standards. Retrieved
from
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/ranzenhofer-co-
sponsors-four-bills-address-issues-
concerning-common-core-learning-stan
http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/ranzenhofer-co-
sponsors-four-bills-address-issues
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.sht
ml
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/17/169620124/seattle-high-schools
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jPdYoR
r-ZxUJ:www.azed.gov/special

Document 4
This is an authentic document from the United States
Department of Education. It
introduces new guidelines for education reform that will prepare
all public school
students for college or a career.
College- and Career-Ready
Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
To help achieve President Obama’s stated goal for the country
of ensuring that all
students are ready for college and careers when they graduate
from high school, the
administration has designed a blueprint for a reenvisioned
federal role in education
through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA).
The new ESEA will call for
• Raising standards for all students in English language arts
and mathematics;
• Developing better assessments aligned with college-and
career-ready standards;
and
• Implementing a complete education through improved
professional development
and evidence-based instructional models and supports.
In each of the sections below are set forth the expectations for
the federal government,
states, districts, and schools to meet these benchmarks for the
college and career
readiness of America’s students.
College- and Career-Ready Students
The administration’s proposal for reauthorizing ESEA will
maintain formula grants to
high-poverty school districts while making significant changes
to better support states,
districts, and schools, including middle and high schools, in
improving achievement for
all groups of students, including low-income and minority
students, English Learners,
and students with disabilities. This support will be focused on
the following efforts.
Rigorous College- and Career-Ready Standards. Following the
lead of the nation’s
governors and state education leaders, the administration is

calling on all states to
adopt state-developed standards in English language arts and
mathematics that build
toward college and career readiness by the time students
graduate from high school,
and high-quality statewide assessments aligned with these
standards. States may
choose to: either upgrade their existing standards, working with
their four-year public
university system to certify that mastery of the standards
ensures that a student will not
need to take remedial coursework upon admission to a
postsecondary institution in the
system; or work with other states to create state-developed
common standards that

build toward college and career readiness. To ensure that all
students are learning what
they need to succeed, standards must be based on evidence
regarding what students
must know and be able to do at each grade level to be on track
to graduate from high
school college- and career-ready. Such standards will also give
families and
communities the information they need to determine whether
their students are on track
toward college and career readiness and to evaluate their
schools’ effectiveness. States
will continue to implement statewide science standards and
aligned assessments in
specific grade spans, and may include such assessments—as
well as statewide
assessments in other subjects, such as history—in their
accountability systems. Finally,
states will develop and adopt statewide English language
proficiency standards for
English Learners, aligned so that they reflect the academic
language necessary to
master state content standards.
Rigorous and Fair Accountability and Support at Every Level.
Building on these
statewide standards and aligned assessments, every state will
ensure that its statewide
system of accountability rewards schools and districts for
progress and success,
requires rigorous interventions in the lowest-performing schools
and districts, and allows

local flexibility to determine the appropriate improvement and
support strategies for
most schools.
In all of our conversations with people from every state, we’ve
heard a consistent
message that our schools aren’t expecting enough of students.
We need to raise our
standards so that all students are graduating prepared to succeed
in college and the
workplace. We’ve also heard that people aren’t looking to
Washington for answers.
They don’t want us to provide a prescription for success. Our
role should be to offer a
meaningful definition of success—one that shows teachers and
students what they
should be striving for.
—U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Testimony Before
the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House
Education and Labor
Committee on the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for
Reauthorizing the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), March 17, 2010. To
foster public accountability
for results and help focus improvement and support efforts,
states must have data
systems in place to gather information that is critical to
determining how schools and
districts are progressing in preparing students to graduate from
high school college- and
career-ready. States and districts will collect and make public
data relating to student
academic achievement and growth in English language arts and
mathematics, student

academic achievement in science, and, if states choose, student
academic
achievement and growth in other subjects, such as history. At
the high school level, this
data will also include graduation rates, college enrollment rates,
and rates of college
enrollment without need for remediation. All of these data must
be disaggregated by
race, gender, ethnicity, disability status, English Learner status,
and family income.
States and districts also will collect other key information about

teaching and learning
conditions, including information on school climate, such as
student, teacher and school
leader attendance, disciplinary incidents, or student, parent, and
school staff surveys
about their school experience.
Measuring and Supporting Schools, Districts, and States. State
accountability systems
will be expected to recognize progress and growth and reward
success rather than only
identify failure. To ensure that accountability no longer falls
solely at the doors of
schools, districts and states will be held accountable for
providing their schools,
principals, and teachers with the support they need to succeed.
States will be asked to
recognize and reward schools and districts making the most
progress, to provide
flexibility for local improvement efforts, and to focus the most
rigorous support and
interventions on the very lowest-performing schools and
districts. The administration will
call on states, districts, and schools to aim for the ambitious
goal—by 2020—of all
students graduating or on track to graduate from high school
ready for college and a
career. Performance targets, based on whole-school and
subgroup achievement and
growth, and graduation rates, will guide improvement toward
that ambitious goal, and
those that are meeting all of their performance targets will be
recognized and rewarded.
States, districts, and schools will look not just at absolute
performance and proficiency
but also at individual student growth and school progress over

time, and at the
additional data described above, to guide local improvement and
support strategies for
schools.
Why Focus on College and Career Readiness?
Four of every 10 new college students, including half of those
at two-year institutions,
take remedial courses, and many employers comment on the
inadequate preparation of
high school graduates.
The schools, districts, and states that are successful in reaching
performance targets,
significantly increasing student performance for all students,
closing achievement gaps,
or turning around the lowest-performing schools (at the district
and state levels) will be
recognized as “Reward” schools, districts, and states. States
will receive funds to
design innovative programs to reward high-poverty Reward
schools and Reward
districts. Rewards may include financial rewards for the staff
and students and for
development of and participation in communities of practice to
share best practices and
replicate successful strategies to assist lower-performing
schools and districts. Rewards
may also include flexibility in the use of ESEA funds and, as
appropriate, competitive
preference for Reward states, high-need Reward districts, and
high-need Reward
schools in some federal grant competitions. Reward districts
will also be given flexibility
in implementing interventions in their lowest-performing

schools, described further
below.
At the other end of the spectrum will be “Challenge” states,
districts, and schools. States
will identify Challenge schools that are in need of specific
assistance. The first category
of Challenge schools will be the lowest-performing 5 percent of
schools in each state,
based on student academic achievement, student growth, and
graduation rates, that are

not making progress to improve. In these schools, states and
districts will be required to
implement one of four school turnaround models, to support
better outcomes for
students. Reward districts will receive flexibility to implement
a different research-based
intervention model beyond the scope of the four school
turnaround models. The next 5
percent of low-performing schools will be identified in a
warning category, and states
and districts will implement research-based, locally determined
strategies to help them
improve.
Schools that are not closing significant, persistent achievement
gaps will constitute
another category of Challenge schools. In these schools,
districts will be required to
implement data-driven interventions to support those students
who are furthest behind
and close the achievement gap. For all Challenge schools,
districts may implement
strategies, such as expanded learning time, supplemental
educational services, public
school choice, or others, to help students succeed. Challenge
districts whose schools,
principals, and teachers are not receiving the support they need
to succeed may also
face significant governance or staffing changes, including
replacement of the
superintendent. Both Challenge districts and states will face
additional restrictions on
the use of ESEA funds and may be required to work with an
outside organization to
improve student academic achievement.

Building Capacity for Support at Every Level. As the
administration asks more of each
level of the system, it will also build state and district capacity
to support schools, school
leaders, teachers, and students. The administration’s proposal
will allow states and
districts to reserve funds to carry out such activities as (1)
supporting and
complementing the adoption of rigorous standards and high-
quality assessments, and
supporting teachers in teaching to those standards; (2)
supporting the more effective
use of data to identify local needs and improve student
outcomes; (3) improving
capacity at the state and district levels to support the effective
use of technology to
improve instruction; (4) coordinating with early learning
programs to improve school
readiness; or (5) carrying out effective family engagement
strategies.
Districts will be required to set aside a portion of funds under
this program to improve
student performance in high-need schools by implementing
effective school
improvement strategies and carrying out strategies to ensure the
equitable distribution
of effective teachers and school leaders. Reward districts will
be allowed flexibility
around this set-aside.

Fostering Comparability and Equity. To give every student a
fair chance to succeed and
to give principals and teachers the resources to support student
success, the
administration will encourage increased resource equity at every
level of the system.
Over time, districts will be required to ensure that their high-
poverty schools receive
state and local funding levels (for personnel and relevant
nonpersonnel expenditures)
comparable to those received by their low-poverty schools. In
addition, districts that use
their resources to provide strong support to disadvantaged
students will be given
additional flexibility to provide such support. States will be
asked to measure and report
on resource disparities and develop a plan to tackle them.

Assessing Achievement
The administration’s proposal also will maintain support for
state efforts to improve the
quality of their assessment systems, and to develop and
implement the upgraded
standards and assessments required by the College- and Career-
Ready Students
program (the $14.5 billion request for the reauthorized Title I,
Part A, currently the Title I
Grants to Local Educational Agencies). Improved assessments
can be used to:
accurately measure student growth; better measure how states,
districts, schools,
principals, and teachers are educating students; help teachers
adjust and focus their
teaching; and provide better information to students and their
families.
States will receive formula grants to develop and implement
high-quality assessments
aligned with college- and career-ready standards in English
language arts and
mathematics that accurately measure student academic
achievement and growth,
provide feedback to support and improve teaching, and measure
school success and
progress. States may also use funds to develop or implement
high-quality, rigorous
statewide assessments in other academic or career and technical
subjects, high school
course assessments, English language proficiency assessments,
and interim or
formative assessments. Beginning in 2015, formula funds will
be available only to states

that are implementing assessments based on college- and career-
ready standards that
are common to a significant number of states. The program also
will support competitive
grants to consortia of states and to other entities working in
partnership with states for
research on, or development and improvement of, additional
high-quality assessments
to be used by multiple states in such areas as science, history,
or foreign languages;
high school course assessments in academic and career and
technical subjects;
universally designed assessments; and assessments for English
Learners and students
with disabilities.
This publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced
in whole or in part. It
comprises excerpts from A Blueprint for Reform: The
Reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, U.S. Department of Education,
March 2010. To read the
full text, visit www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint.

For more information, visit www.ed.gov or call 1-800-USA-
LEARN.
May 2010
Reference
United States Department of Education. (2014). College and
career ready standards
and assessments. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html
http:www.ed.gov

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

• 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

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 full-
time.
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.

• iPrep Academy - This Miami-Dade County Public School
offers a teacher-
facilitated 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
under-
performing 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

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 Cost-
Effectiveness, 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

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-and-
learning
https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and
Page 1 of 20
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. Educational Attainment
B. State Profiles
C. Nation’s Report Cards
D. International Benchmark Results
E. Socioeconomic Effects on Testing
Page 2 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

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 4 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.

of 20
Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20
SOURCE:
Page 8 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

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 10 of 20
U.S. Performance in Reading Literacy
Page 11 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

Task description
Level 6
698
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.
Level 5
626
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.
Level 4
553
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.
Level 3
480
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.
Level 2
407
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.

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 13 of 20
Page 14 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
Task description
Level 6
669
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.

Level 5
607
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.
Level 4
545
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.

Level 3
482
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 15 of 20
Level 2
420
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.
Level 1
358
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.
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.
Development (OECD), Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA), 2009.
Page 16 of 20

U.S. Performance in Science Literacy
Page 17 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
Task description
Level 6
708

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 demonstrate 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.
Level 5
633
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.
Level 4

559
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.
Level 3
484
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 18 of 20

Level 2
410
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.
Level 1
335
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.
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.

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 reduced-
price
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 19 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:VnBac
ARUlpYJ:nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct
=clnk&gl=us
Page 20 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:VnBac
ARUlpYJ: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
U.S. Performance in Mathematics LiteracyU.S. Performance in
Science LiteracyPublic Education Network and National
Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2004).
Standards and assessment. Retrieved from

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?
• 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

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.

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/core-
connection/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
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-Ed-
Topics/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?pa
gewanted=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/publication
s/frameworks/reading-
2013-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
http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17280
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp
http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publication
s/frameworks/reading
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild
/nclb.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pa
gewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.cec.sped.org/Special-Ed

http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-
questions
http://www.ascd.org/common-core/core
http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/best_
practice
Olson, L. (2004, January 8). Enveloping expectations.
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/thetwo-
way/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
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

Here are potential problem statements for each issue:Art Education in Urban Schools: How does limited access to art education programs impact student achievement and outcomes in urban school districts compared to those with full art programs? Common Core Implementation: What are effective supports and professional development models for helping teachers align Common Core State Standards with IEP goals to improve special education student outcomes on standardized tests?Discipline for Special Education Students: How does the use of the same disciplinary procedures for special education students as general education students impact their social-emotional wellbeing and educational progress

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von AMMY30

Mehr von AMMY30 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)