Cstudy1

You will find a balance of assignments (e.g., case studies, Discussions, and Assignments). The case studies, Discussions, and Assignments will help you to identify and debate key issues, refine your critical thinking and decision-making skills, and assist you in your development as a scholarly writer. To facilitate your journey, you will find a resource toolkit and video-based faculty introductions to each module. The course also features student and faculty interviews that outline suggested keys for success. Leading the Future of Education is the first step in a life journey of commitment to scholarship, leadership, research, and meaningful social change.

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Cstudy1

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

Scenario

Your state is considering a required set of education standards that all schools must adopt. You have been nominated to serve on the statewide committee to inform the legislature as to which standards, if any, should be adopted. You will have the opportunity to take a stand on the following issue. Does a set of required standards improve or limit education for ALL students (e.g., general education students, special education, English language learners, gifted learners) in state schools?

Consider the following questions: How can standards be implemented to improve the quality of education for ALL students in all levels and types of classroom (e.g., general education, special education, vocational)? Is it more effective to adopt district standards, state-specific standards, or national standards? Once you decide which standards to adopt, what materials, supports and training will be needed to implement them? How do different stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, government leaders, principals, teachers with various specialties and points of view, students, parents) feel about the issue of standards adoption and implementation?

Stakeholders

The State Department of Education, school administrators, teachers, students, parents, educational specialists, politicians, business leaders, employers, advocacy groups, and the community at large.

Document Set 1

• Document 1: A brief overview of the standards-based movement with information synthesized from multiple authentic sources

• Document 2: Statistics and quantitative data that demonstrates inequality and falling international performance; the data focuses on literacy, science, and math scores, as well as the importance of education on lifetime earnings

This document is pieced together from a variety of authentic documents

• Document 3: An authentic document that explores the function of technology in education, and non-traditional settings for K-12 education

• Document 4: An authentic document that introduces new guidelines for education reform that will prepare all public school students for college or a career

Document Set 2

• Document 5: A simulated editorial from a school administrator detailing concerns and issues with implementation of the Common Core State Standards

• Document 6: A simulated magazine article that illustrates some the issues regarding a set of uniform standards and expectations for English Language Learners

• Document 7: A simulated blog post with relevant comments about the concern that a common set of standards might exclude such disciplines as art and music

• Document 8: Simulated blog posts about the Common Core State Standards and special education

NOTES: Common Core is arguably one of the most pressing and controversial issues in K-12 education. The goal of this case study is to have students consider the various stakeholders involved, and take a position on both the broad issue of standards-based education and one or more subtopics that fall under this umbrella.

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_newsletter.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/pdfviewer/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_campaign=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

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3http://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/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4afa http://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/Edge_summer_2012_newsletter.pdf http://www.cec.sped.org/Special-Ed http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with http://www.cast.org/pd

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study 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

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study 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:lCguMXWlKL4J: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/

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:yskdQMgepukJ: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. Education Week. Retrieved from 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:zDdlil7L9s4J: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=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAA &url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncte.org%2Flibrary%2FNCTEFiles%2FResources%2FPolicyResea rch%2FELLResearchBrief.pdf&ei=XHEOU7vTObLQsATMyoGAAg&usg=AFQjCNFlbkkyWn55- dRTIlTNW5Awb2-_XA&sig2=n6EKifqcao1jxwYXoehKbw&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cWc (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. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/31/02plank.h31.html

Robertson, K. (2006). Increasing academic language knowledge for English language learner success. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/13347/

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/13347 http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/31/02plank.h31.html http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED486273 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAA http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/common-core-state http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zDdlil7L9s4J: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:yskdQMgepukJ:education.illinoisstate http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Language/About%20Language http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/academiclanguage

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 7

Benefits of Arts Education

This is a simulated blog post from two teachers, followed by responses from other interested individuals. There are three responses to the original post. The content focuses on disciplines that might be excluded from a standards-based education.

Benefits of Arts Education: A Plea from Teachers As longtime teachers of art and music in our city’s public schools, we are writing to deplore the dramatic narrowing of the curriculum in our country and to urge that the arts once again take their important place in the education of our children.

It is our understanding that the goal of the standards-based education movement was to increase the quality and richness of curricula and instruction for all kids in America. Sadly, the opposite has occurred.

Since No Child Left Behind went into effect in the early 2000s, schools have tried to improve students’ performance on mandated reading and math tests by increasing the amount of time spent instructing those core subjects. According to a Center on Education Policy brief from July of 2005, 20% of schools have reduced their instructional time for art and music (Center on Education Policy, 2005). Several years later, another study from the same organization indicated that elementary schools had cut instructional time for subjects, such as social studies, art, and music, by an average of 32%. A 2010 report on a nationwide study of No Child Left Behind, issued by the National Art Education Foundation in 2010, revealed widespread negative effects of the legislation on arts education, from poor morale to reduced funds for art supplies (NAEF, 2010). A 2012 United States Department of Education report on arts education, based on thousands of surveys, contains the following discouraging statistics: In 1999-2000, 13% of elementary schools did not offer visual arts instruction. Ten years later, the number of schools without arts education had increased to 17% (Parsad and Spiegelman, 2012).

The shift away from a diverse curriculum filled with options for all interests and learning styles has been most severe in low-performing schools, where the pressure to raise students’ reading and math scores is ferocious. Tests drive instruction, and high-stakes tests do not assess the ability to play a musical instrument or express oneself through drawing or sculpture.

In our school, the “lowest-performing students” are now barred from taking any subject except math, reading, and gym! This is nothing less than criminal, in our opinion. Art and music liberate the human spirit. Removing them from the curriculum is a form of imprisonment.

The arts do far more than help with self-expression or provide a break from the grind of academic work. There is plenty of research on the complex benefits of arts education. Studies show that music education is associated with increases in motor skills, SAT scores, and attentiveness (Arts Education Partnership, 2011).

A recent Australian study showed increases in verbal learning and memory in students who had studied instrumental music (Rickard, Vasquez, Murphy, Gill, & Toukhsati, 2010).

Music study may even help students do better on standardized tests! A 2007 study published by a professor of music education at the University of Kansas revealed that students at schools with excellent music programs scored roughly 20% higher on math and English standardized tests than students who went to schools with poor music programs. To those who assume that’s because the first group of schools were just better funded in general, here’s an interesting side-note: The findings held true regardless of socioeconomic differences! For a rich overview of recent research into the benefits of arts education, from preparing a twenty-first century workforce, to teaching students how to persevere in the face of obstacles, I highly recommend a 2013 publication by the Arts Education Partnership, a division of the CCSO, titled Preparing Students for the Next America (Arts Education Partnership, 2013).

But most importantly, arts education engages students’ hearts and minds. Art gives kids access to a realm where risk-taking is encouraged and there is no “right” or “wrong.” For special needs students, students who are at high risk of dropping out of school, and others for whom standard academic fare may be challenging, arts education is nourishing and supportive. We have seen the way art classes can motivate students not only to explore the world of art, but to gain confidence and curiosity that transfer to other aspects of school.

We strongly believe that increasing access to arts instruction will make students happier, more engaged, more confident, and ultimately more successful on those very standardized tests that have edged art out of the curriculum!!

Signed,

Maeve Costagliola, Art

Frank Anh, Music

Responses

As a longtime educator, I strongly believe that arts education makes for better balanced, more curious, and more sensitive members of society. Let’s make the case for art on its own merit instead of asserting ridiculous claims that don’t hold up to serious scrutiny. The claim that arts education leads to better standardized test scores has no clear basis.

The correlation between arts education and higher SAT scores is just that: a correlation. There is no evidence that art classes cause higher test results.

Arts advocates need to stop grasping at straws and focus on the facts. Art is valuable; it just doesn’t relate to reading and math proficiency.

William Lacy

Wow. Is there anything more irritating than someone who presents hard-nosed, fact- based claims that are actually based on fuzzy logic and false “information.” William Lacy states that there is no research supporting the practical benefits of arts education. How about the many studies cited in the 2010 report titled Music Matters—citing everything from boosts in reading skills and algebra, to improvements in working memory and abstract reasoning (Arts Education Partnership, 2011)?

This list goes on… I’d be more than happy to provide Mr. Lacy with a full bibliography!

Signed,

Sun Hee Kim, Ph.D.

I was one of those “at-risk” students Ms. Costagliola and Mr. Anh refer to in their letter. My elementary and middle school years were one long struggle with academics. (Turns out I had an undiagnosed learning disability, but that’s another story.) I joined band in middle school, and I loved it. Putting in the hours after school to practice my instrument was a joy, not a chore, and the discipline I gained help me focus better on my regular homework. Then in high school, I was lucky enough to have Ms. Costagliola for my art teacher. (That’s when kids like me were still allowed to take art.) She taught me how to really see the world. My distracted brain slowed down when I drew; I learned to focus and concentrate better, and most importantly, I no longer felt like a failure. I’m no scientist, but I know when my grades in my academics went up in high school, it was at least partly because I was first a success in art.

Thanks, Ms. C and Mr. A—You guys got it right!

Jeff Laughlin

References

Arts Education Partnership. (2011). Music matters. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541070.pdf

Arts Education Partnership. (2013). The benefits of an arts education. Retrieved from http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Preparing-Students-for-the-Next- America-FINAL.pdf

Brown, L. (2013). The benefits of music education. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/music-arts/the-benefits-of-music-education/

Center on Education Policy. (2005, July 1). NCLB Policy Brief 3. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=239

NAEF. (2010). No Child Left Behind: A study of its impact on art education. Retrieved from http://www.arteducators.org/research/NCLB_Press_Release_2-10.pdf

National Education Association. (2008). Center on Education Policy: NCLB narrows the curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/17993.htm

Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools 1999–2000 and 2009–10. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev.pdf

Pogrebin, R. (2007, August 4). Book tackles old debate: Role of art in schools. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/arts/design/04stud.html?_r=0

Rickard, S., Vasquez, J., Murphy, F., Gill, A., & Toukhsati, S. (2010). Benefits of a classroom based instrumental music program on verbal memory of primary school children: A longitudinal study. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ff570 fcf-4ab6-448c-8eb7-ac75b242701c%40sessionmgr4003&vid=4&hid=4204

Ruppert, S. (2006). Critical evidence: How the arts benefit student achievement. National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529766.pdf

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 6 of 6http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529766.pdf http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ff570 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/arts/design/04stud.html?_r=0 http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev.pdf http://www.nea.org/home/17993.htm http://www.arteducators.org/research/NCLB_Press_Release_2-10.pdf http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=239 http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/music-arts/the-benefits-of-music-education http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Preparing-Students-for-the-Next http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541070.pdf

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study 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:jPdYoRr-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.shtml

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

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 3http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/ranzenhofer-co-sponsors-four-bills-address-issues http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.shtml 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:jPdYoRr-ZxUJ:www.azed.gov/special

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study 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.

• Federal Imposition on States’ Rights

• Trial Period for Effectiveness

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

• Financial Cost

• Larger Issues Regarding Education Reform

Kieren Hale, MEd

Principal of Monit High School

References

Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the Common Core. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.shtml

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 1

Standards-Based Education

This brief is an overview of the standards-based movement with information synthesized from multiple authentic sources.

What are educational standards?

• Educational standards are written descriptions of the knowledge and skills students should attain.

• Standards are descriptions of demonstrable behaviors. • Standards include both knowledge (such as knowledge of certain facts) and skills

(such as the ability to perform mathematical operations or evaluate texts according to specific criteria).

• Standards should be evidence-based. They should be grounded in research and professional knowledge.

• Standards should apply to all learners. • Standards are not a curriculum. While standards do outline content as well as

skills, they do so in succinct ways. It is up to educators to define the curriculum that will lead students to master the standards.

• Standards are not instructional techniques. Standards tell teachers where to head, not how to get there.

What are standards and how are they used to create educational goals?

• Standards are a clear roadmap for education. Without standards, individual efforts are disorganized and inefficient.

• Standards can provide coherence and consistency across classrooms, schools, districts, and states. In addition, teachers can build off previous materials and goals.

• Standards provide clear targets for improvement. • Standards enable educators to prioritize. The possible realm of teachable content

is infinite. Standards establish a consensus on what is most essential to teach. This allows teachers to explore topics in depth, as opposed to merely scratching the surface.

• Standards embody the latest research in an actionable form; thus, they enable leading-edge understandings to percolate to every level of education.

• Standards provide teachers, students, and families with clear, shared understandings of what is expected of teachers and learners.

• Standards are a key tool of educational reform. • Standards are a great tool for cross-disciplinary learning. Teachers from different

subject areas can work together to achieve common education goals.

What are some of the factors related to the development and implementation of standards?

• 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 http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/rb10stan.html

Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Frontline. (2014). The new rules. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html

The National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). Reading framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/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

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 5http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17280 http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.cec.sped.org/Special-Ed http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/rb10stan.html 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. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/archives/QC04full.pdf

Peralta, E. (2014, March 24). Indiana becomes first state to back out of Common Core. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/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 http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/standards_assessment.html

United States Department of Education. (2003). Fact sheet on the major provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html

© 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 5http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/standards_assessment.html http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/archives/QC04full.pdf

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 3

This is an authentic document from United States Department of Education. It explains the role of technology in education and explores non-traditional settings for K-12 education. A common set of standards would likely include some form of digital literacy, either in performing specific tasks while utilizing technology or measuring student achievement. Consider the function of technology while debating the use of standards in education.

Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning

Technology ushers in fundamental structural changes that can be integral to achieving significant improvements in productivity. Used to support both teaching and learning, technology infuses classrooms with digital learning tools, such as computers and hand held devices; expands course offerings, experiences, and learning materials; supports learning 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; builds 21st century skills; increases student engagement and motivation; and accelerates learning. Technology also has the power to transform teaching by ushering in a new model of connected teaching. This model links teachers to their students and to professional content, resources, and systems to help them improve their own instruction and personalize learning.

Online learning opportunities and the use of open educational resources and other technologies can increase educational productivity by accelerating the rate of learning; reducing costs associated with instructional materials or program delivery; and better utilizing teacher time.

The links on this page are provided for the user’s convenience and are not an endorsement. See full disclaimer.

Virtual or online learning: 48 states and the District of Columbia currently support online learning opportunities that range from supplementing classroom instruction on an occasional basis to enrolling students in full-time programs. These opportunities include dual enrollment, credit recovery, and summer school programs, and can make courses such as Advanced Placement and honors, or remediation classes available to students. Both core subjects and electives can be taken online, many supported by online learning materials. While some online schools or programs are homegrown, many others contract with private providers or other states to provide online learning opportunities.

Full-time online schools: The following online or virtual schools enroll students on a full-time basis. Students enrolled in these schools are not attending a bricks and mortar school; instead they receive all of their instruction and earn all of their credits through the online school.

State operated

• 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

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 3

Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning

The links on this page are provided for the user’s convenience and are not an endorsement. See full disclaimer.

State operated

District operated

Charter operated

State operated

District operated

School operated

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.

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

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

Page 1 of 20

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 2

The following report highlights quantitative data measuring various educational outcomes related to K-12 education. The data comes from authentic sources including the Labor of Bureau Statistics, the National Assessment of Education Progress, and the Program for International Student Assessment.

The information in the report is outlined as follows:

A. 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

Page 3 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.

Page 5 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

Page 9 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.

Page 12 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.

NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into mathematics literacy levels according to their scores. Cut point scores in the exhibit are rounded; exact cut point scores are provided in appendix B. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009.

Page 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 demon- strate willingness to use their scientific understanding in support of solutions to unfamiliar scientific and technological situations. Students at this level can use scientific knowledge and develop arguments in support of recommendations and decisions that centre on personal, social or global situations.

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.

NOTE: To reach a particular proficiency level, a student must correctly answer a majority of items at that level. Students were classified into science literacy levels according to their scores. Cut point scores in the exhibit are rounded; exact cut point scores are provided in appendix B. Scores are reported on a scale from 0 to 1,000.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2009.

SOURCE:

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004.

E. Socioeconomic Effects on Testing

Students’ eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is used in NAEP as an indicator of family income. Students from lower-income families are eligible for either free or 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:VnBacARUlpYJ: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:VnBacARUlpYJ:nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Reading 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/reading_2011_report/

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm

U.S. Performance in Mathematics Literacy
U.S. Performance in Science Literacy
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

Review the case study scenario below and the 8 resources attached related to analyzing issues and developing and defending positions related to those issues. Examine the information in the case study to identify stakeholders and problems related to the issue. Consider the information you need to obtain to develop a better understanding of the issue and consider how you might locate this information.

AssignmentWrite a 2- to 3-page analysis of the case study below and Include the followinginformation:· Identify at least two stakeholders and explain their relevance to the issue described in the case study.· Explain at least two problems associated with the issue.· Pose at least three questions that will help you gain a better understanding of the issue.· Explain how you would proceed to obtain the answers to your questions.Issues in K-12 Education Case StudyThe materials in this case study are a combination of authentic public domaindocuments and simulated documents created specifically for the case study thatdraw on authentic research and data from government and scholarly sources,and from the opinions of experts in the field.The scenario outlines real issues in higher education, but Rogal College is afictional institution, invented for the purposes of this case study.ScenarioYou are on the “Programming & Curriculum Development” task force of a small,private college, Rogal College, which is trying to improve its national standing asan undergraduate institution. Your task is to take a stand on whether theinstitution should increase curricular focus, funding, and new hiring forprofessional and technical fields or maintain a more purely academic, liberal artseducation with a focus on the humanities.As you examine this issue, consider the following perspectives: What role does acollege or university play in society? How will the college’s decision to alter ormaintain its curricular focus affect students and alumni? How will the college’sdecision affect funding and academic status for the institution? What is the bestpreparation Rogal can offer to help its students succeed after graduation? Howwill the task force’s decision affect pedagogy in the classroom? Finally, take intoconsideration various stakeholders: current and future students, alumni, currentteaching staff, the administration, and business leaders.

About us

WHY US

Our Writing services