Understanding & Implementing Common
Core Standards
|
Dr. Pamela Bernards,
Ed.D. |
|
|
Facilitator: |
Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed. |
|
Phone: |
509-891-7219 |
|
Office Hours: |
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday - Friday |
|
Email: |
|
|
Address: |
Virtual Education Software |
|
|
23403 E Mission Avenue, Suite 220F |
|
|
Liberty Lake, WA 99019 |
|
Technical Support: |
Introduction
Welcome to Understanding
& Implementing Common Core Standards, an interactive computer-based
instruction course designed to give you a deeper understanding of the rationale
for and structure of this particular standards-based
framework. In this course you will learn a number of
factors that contributed to the overall design of the Common Core Standards as
well as practical pedagogical approaches that will support practitioners
working toward deeper implementation. We will reflect on the instructional
“shifts” emphasized throughout the Common Core Standards and contextualize the
shifts based on the diverse population of students
course participants serve. Understanding
& Implementing Common Core Standards will also provide connections to a
variety of instructional considerations that will support implementation regardless
of educational context. Practitioners will be provided opportunities to reflect
on current practice and the degree to which they align with the Common Core
Standards as well as with colleagues across a wide range of settings
implementing these standards.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting
program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on
your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in the
Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
|
Title: |
Understanding
& Implementing Common Core Standards |
|
Publisher: |
Virtual Education Software, inc.
2014, Revised 2016, Revised 2019, Revised 2022 |
|
Instructor: |
Dr. Pamela Bernards,
Ed.D. |
|
Facilitator: |
Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed. |
Academic Integrity
Statement
The structure and format of most distance-learning courses
presumes a high level of personal and academic integrity in completion and
submission of coursework. Individuals enrolled in a distance-learning course
are expected to adhere to the following standards of academic conduct.
Academic Work
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers,
assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately
attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of
commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own
work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by
refraining from providing materials or information to another person with
knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards
will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit
for the course.
Level of Application
This course is designed for anyone working to implement the
Common Core State Standards with a diverse learning population across the K–12
spectrum. While the information presented may have relevance to any
student-centered educational setting, it will have the most relevance for K–12
mixed ability classrooms.
Expected Learning
Outcomes
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate
their ability to:
1)
Understand the major
shifts in English and Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics reflected in
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
2)
Learn about the design
features of the CCSS (what to teach) and implications for professional practice
(how to teach it)
3)
Explore research-based
pedagogical strategies that align with what is emphasized in the CCSS
4)
Appreciate the importance
of mapping any implementation gap that may exist between current personal
practice and what research indicates aligns with the CCSS
5)
Self-reflect on the
degree to which a “CCSS mindset” has been developed that supports the “what”
(CCSS), the “how” (instruction), and the “who” (ALL learners) required for implementation
6)
Develop a plan of action
with implementation strategies designed to deepen student learning as well as
generate evidence of your actions
7)
Recognize the connection
between the creation of equitable learning conditions and developing a “Common
Core Mindset” that integrates a number of dimensions
8)
Distinguish between
“rigor” and “difficulty” and understand the implications for teachers
9)
Articulate the difference
between a “fixed” and a “growth” orientation and implications of each view for
students and teachers
10)
Self-assess the priority
level to teach students that ability is expandable
11)
Learn a seven-step
process for teaching students that ability is expandable
12)
Learn a four-step process
for articulating standards and increasing student ownership over learning outcomes
13)
Recognize the ways that
student and teacher self-efficacy are interconnected
14)
Learn the purpose of and
a process for providing effective prescriptive feedback
15)
Understand the
significance of the emergence of educational neuroscience as it relates to
implementing the Common Core Standards
16)
Understand the importance
of explicitly teaching academic language and methods for increasing student
ownership of learning
17)
Delineate the difference
between a teaching strategy and a learning strategy
18)
Articulate the rationale
for using the compare and contrast learning strategy
when implementing the Common Core Standards
19)
Use web-based tools
designed to simultaneously engage students with primary source documents and in
higher order thinking skills
20)
Learn strategies to increase
comprehension and problem-solving skills
21)
Develop an understanding
of the role of reasoning and argument in the CCSS
22)
Recognize why writing in
numerous formats is an essential cross-cutting strategy
23)
Provide evidence of
professional context and learning within a course using a reflection strategy
for further planning implementation of the CCSS
Course Description
This course, Understanding
& Implementing Common Core Standards, has been divided into four
chapters. The organization of the course covers the rationale for and design of
the Common Core State Standards, the “Common Core Mindset” practitioners need
for successful implementation, and what specific actions can be taken for
deeper implementation across settings.
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Shifts Resulting From
CCSS Implementation
Chapter 2: Developing a CCSS Mindset
Chapter 3: Common Core Mindset in Action
Chapter 4: Thinking Through the Core
Course Overview
In Chapter 1, we
will outline the rationale for and structure of the Common Core State
Standards. The major shifts in English and Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and
Mathematics reflected in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will be covered.
An overview of design features of the CCSS (or “what to teach”) will be
connected to the practical implications for providing instruction (or “how to
teach”). Research-based pedagogical strategies aligned with what is emphasized
in the CCSS are highlighted. The importance of mapping any implementation gap
between current practice and what is needed to deeply
implement the Common Core Standard will also be explored.
In Chapter 2, we
will move past the “what” of standards to identify the underlying principles
teachers need to understand when implementing the CCSS. Teachers who take time
to re-examine their operating principles are in the best position to know how
well their approach aligns with what the authors of the CCSS had in mind when
developing the standards. This is what is referred to in this course as developing
the “CCSS Mindset.” Clarification will be made between “rigor” and “difficulty”
and the implications will be discussed for teachers as they work to create
equitable learning conditions. We will also articulate the difference between a
“fixed” and a “growth” orientation and the implications of each view for
students and teachers. A self-assessment tool will be used so course
participants can determine the priority level to which course participants and
their students believe that ability is expandable. A seven-step process for
directly teaching students that ability is expandable is also provided.
In Chapter 3, the
emphasis will be on designing accessible learning conditions in partnership
with students. We do this in partnership with learners in ways that will
accelerate their growth toward college, career, and citizenship. The various
ways in which student and teacher self-efficacy are interconnected will be
discussed. In light of these interconnections, a
four-step process for articulating standards and increasing student ownership
over learning outcomes will be outlined. Additionally, the purpose of and a
process for providing effective prescriptive feedback will be provided. As it
pertains to the implementation of the Common Core Standards, the significance
of the emergence of educational neuroscience and corollary strategies will be
outlined. The importance of explicitly teaching academic language and methods
for increasing student ownership of learning across settings will also be
outlined. Participants will be supported to think through how they will
approach students who struggle when implementing the Common Core Standards and
the role of differentiation.
In Chapter 4, we
will further explore how implementation of the Common Core Standards is aimed
at deepening student comprehension and higher order thinking skills. The
difference between a teaching strategy and a learning strategy will be
discussed in conjunction with a particular implementation strategy, compare and contrast. Specific web-based tools for designing
engaging learning activities using primary source documents and for engaging
students in higher order thinking skills will be provided. The importance of
student use of reasoning and argument in writing across the CCSS is addressed. Course
participants will be provided a tool for further
reflection on their own implementation of the standards and support in planning
for any changes identified through reflection.
Each chapter contains additional handouts that cover specific
topics from the chapter in greater depth. They are provided for you to read,
ponder, and apply to the setting in which you work. Some of the handouts are
directly related to the concepts and content of the specific chapter, but also
included are handouts indirectly related to provide extended learning
connections.
Student Expectations
As a student you will be expected to:
●
Complete all four information sections showing a
competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
●
Complete all four section examinations, showing a
competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall
score of 70% or higher, with no
individual exam score below 50%, and
successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by
college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to
determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
●
Complete a review of any
section on which your examination score was below 50%.
●
Retake any examination,
after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a
minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a
minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts).
*Please note: Minimum exam score requirements
may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course
addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
●
Complete all course
journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown
for each writing assignment.
●
Complete a course
evaluation form at the end of the course.
Examinations
At the end of each course section, you will be expected to
complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may take these
exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the highest score.
After your third attempt, each examination will lock
and not allow further access. The average from your
exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final
grade since your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally
written or poorly written required writing assignments, or violation of the
academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect your grade. As
this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course
information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any
examinations until you have answered all questions. If
you try to exit the exam before you complete all questions, your information
will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
Writing Assignments
All assignments are reviewed and may impact
your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly
written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course
syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is
determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines
the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines, which were sent as an attachment with your
original course link. You should also
refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum, which was sent as an attachment with
your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in
addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article
Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments must meet the
minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final citations
as part of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not
to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking
Questions
There are four CTQs that
you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words
(maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you
gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong
understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the
questions, click on REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to
complete; this will bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to
course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you
must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE
before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article Summations
You are required to
write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or
scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a
Ph.D., Ed.D., or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the
“Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts, news articles, or
similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate specifically to
the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You will choose a total of
three relevant articles (one article per JAS) and write a thorough summary of
the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200
words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to
provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical
information to allow the facilitator to access and review each article.
To write your summary,
click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A
writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When
you are ready to stop, click SAVE.
Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are
done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment,
please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE
before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
Facilitator Description
Understanding &
Implementing Common Core Standards has been developed with the widest
possible audience in mind because the core principles and practices of
implementation need to be applied across K–12 settings. The primary goal of the
course is to provide the rationale for the Common Core Standards (the why) and
what research-based pedagogical approaches will help practitioners implement
these standards in their unique context. The course acknowledges that
practitioners are at varying stages of implementing these standards, so
opportunities for self-reflection, learning about cross-cutting implementation
strategies, and action planning are based on each course participant’s current
practice and context.
Steven Dahl has served as a district-level administrator
overseeing a variety of federal programs, such as Special Education, English
Language Learning (ELL), and Title 1, for over 14 years. He currently serves as
a school administrator overseeing programs for students who are provided
academic and social emotional learning opportunities in very restrictive
settings, including regional juvenile justice facilities. He has a master’s degree in Special Education and has completed
post-master’s coursework to obtain a Washington State Administrator Credential,
which certifies him to oversee programs ranging from preschool settings through
12th grade (as well as post-secondary vocational programs for 18–21-year-old
students). He has 22 years of combined experience in resource-room special
education classrooms, inclusion support in a comprehensive high school, and
provision of support to adults with disabilities in accessing a wide range of
in-school and community learning opportunities. He currently serves as Director
of Professional Learning and Content Development for the Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) and as an educational
consultant nationally. Please contact
Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Instructor Description
Pamela Bernards has 30 years of
combined experience in diverse PK–8 and high school settings as a teacher and
an administrator. In addition to these responsibilities, she was the founding
director of a K–8 after-school care program and founder of a pre-school program
for infants to 4-year-olds. As a principal, her school was named a U.S.
Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 1992, as was the
school at which she served as curriculum coordinator in 2010. She currently
serves as a principal in a PK3–Grade 8 school. Areas of interest include
curriculum, research-based teaching practices, staff development, assessment,
data-driven instruction, and instructional intervention (remediation and
gifted/talented). She received a doctorate in Leadership and Professional
Practice from Trevecca Nazarene University. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or
examination questions.
Contacting the
Facilitator
You may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl
at steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com or calling him at
509-891-7219, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages
will be answered within 24 hours.
Phone conferences will be limited to 10 minutes per student, per day, given
that this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the
instructor about technical problems, course glitches, or other issues that
involve the operation of the course.
Technical Questions
If you have questions or problems related to the operation
of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists
please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help
section of your course.
If you need personal assistance
then email support@virtualeduc.com or call 509-891-7219. When
contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is
located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be seated in front of the computer at
the time of your call.
Minimum Computer
Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about the compatibility
of your operating system.
Refer
to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information,
Items to be Submitted, and how to submit your completed information. The
addendum will also note any additional course assignments that you may be
required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Bibliography (Suggested
Readings)
Abadie, M., & Bista, K. (2018).
Understanding the stages of concerns: Implementation of the Common Core State
Standards in Louisiana schools. Journal of School Administration Research
and Development, 3(1), 57–66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190934.pdf
Achieve the Core: Resources developed
by Student Achievement Partners. Free, ready-to-use classroom resources
designed to help educators understand and implement the Common Core and other
college and career ready standards.
https://achievethecore.org/
Coherence Map for Common Core State Standards
in Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/1118/coherence-map
Deep Dive Into
the Math Shifts: http://achievethecore.org/page/400/deep-dive-into-the-math-shifts
Dismantling racism in mathematics instruction
using math language routines. (Updated 2023). https://achievethecore.org/page/3433/dismantling-racism-in-mathematics-instruction-using-math-language-routines
Instructional Practice Toolkit and
Classroom Videos: The Instructional Practice Toolkit is designed for use by
teachers and those who support teachers to build understanding and experience
with instruction aligned with College and Career Readiness (CCR) standards in
mathematics and ELA/literacy. http://achievethecore.org/category/1193/instructional-practice-toolkit-and-classroom-videos
Lesson Planning Resources: Rather than
focusing exclusively on literacy skills, the Common Core State Standards set
expectations for the complexity of texts students need to be able to read to be
ready for college and careers. This collection includes tools to help with each
step and research to support teachers’ understanding of text complexity. To
plan a close-reading lesson with text complexity in mind, use the Lesson
Planning Tool. http://achievethecore.org/lesson-planning-tool/
Priority instructional content in
English language arts/Literacy and mathematics. https://achievethecore.org/page/3267/priority-instructional-content-in-english-language-arts-literacy-and-mathematics
Progressions
documents for the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. http://achievethecore.org/page/254/progressions-documents-for-the-common-core-state-standards-for-mathematics
Understand How CCSS Aligned Assessment
is Different: All of the mini-assessments presented
are designed to highlight the math Shifts of Focus, Coherence, and Rigor. The
resources below explain what each of the Shifts look like in CCSS-aligned assessment.
Learn more about the math Shifts. http://achievethecore.org/page/2732/understand-how-ccss-aligned-assessment-is-different
Understand the Common Core State
Standards Shifts in Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/900/the-common-core-state-standards-shifts-in-mathematics
Understand the Mathematics Tasks: http://achievethecore.org/page/2738/understand-the-mathematics-tasks
Understanding
the Shifts: http://achievethecore.org/category/419/the-shifts
Advanced Education. (June 2022). List
of standardized tests by state. https://educationadvanced.com/resources/blog/list-of-standardized-tests-by-state/
Akkus,
M. (2016). The Common Core State Standards for mathematics. International Journal of Research in
Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 49–54. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105174.pdf
Allensworth, E., Cashdollar,
S., & Cassata, A. (2022). Supporting change in instructional practices to
meet the Common Core Mathematics and Next Generation Science Standards: how are
different supports related to instructional change? AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221088010
Allensworth, E., Cashdollar,
S., & Gwynne, J. (2021). Improvements in math instruction and student achievement
through professional learning around the Common Core State Standards in
Chicago. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986872
American Federation of Teachers (2016).
A teacher’s guide to the Common Core: A
resource guide for success in English language arts for teachers who work with
English learners and students with disabilities. http://achievethecore.org/page/2892/a-teacher-s-guide-to-the-common-core-a-resource-guide-for-success-in-english-language-arts-for-teachers-who-work-with-english-learners-and-students-with-disabilities
Bleiberg, J. (2021). Does the Common
Core have a common effect? An exploration of effects on academically vulnerable
students. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211010727
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. David McKay.
Brookhart, S. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills
in your classroom. ASCD.
Brophy, J. (1998, May). Failure syndrome students. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED419625.pdf
Breaking
Barriers, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, Santa Clara County
Office of Education, & WestEd. (2022). Supporting
California’s children through a whole child approach: A field guide for
creating integrated, school-based systems of care. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED621273.pdf
Bryk, A., Greenberg, S., Bertani, A.,
Sebring, P., Tozer, S. & Knowles, T. (2023). How a city learned to
improve its schools. Harvard Education Press.
Carter
A., Maki E., & Pandya, J. (2020, April 1–3). Assessing and improving the impact of K-12 curriculum implementation in
Stockton Unified School District [Conference session]. Carnegie Foundation
Summit on Improvement in Education, San Francisco, CA. https://www.pivotlearning.org/on-demand-presentation-assessing-and-improving-the-impact-of-k-12-curriculum-implementation-in-susd/
California Department of Education.
(2023, April 24, last review). Roadmap policy: California English learner roadmap
State Board of Education policy: Educational programs
and services for English learners. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/rm/elroadmappolicy.asp
Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST). http://www.cast.org/
CEEDAR Center. Collaboration for
Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR). https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
Center for Educational Effectiveness [CEE].
(2021). Characteristics of positive outlier schools. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/60cbb75e71f161355d06d718/1623963490505/CEE+Outlier+Study+Final+Report.pdf
Practitioner Summary: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/6123c297057dc2593a10241c/1629733528928/Practitioner+View.pdf
Report Brief: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/61a818ead33ac974d24a582a/1638406380128/CEE+Outlier+Brief.pdf
Center for Parent Information and
Resources. (2016, January). ESSA/Every Student Succeeds Act. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/essa-reauth/
Common Core State Standards Initiative.
(n.d.). Common Core State Standards. https://learning.ccsso.org/common-core-state-standards-initiative
Read the ELA Standards at https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ELA_Standards1.pdf.
The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in
History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (“the standards”)
represent the next generation of K–12 standards designed to prepare all
students for success in college, career, and life by the time they graduate
from high school.
Read the Mathematics Standards: https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Math_Standards1.pdf
Read the Standards: http://www.thecorestandards.org/read-the-standards/
Common Core State Standards Appendix A:
https://achievethecore.org/page/1192/ccss-ela-literacy-appendix-a-research-supporting-key-elements-of-the-standards-glossary-of-key-terms
CCSSO
Tools and Resources for Standards Implementation: https://ccsso.org/tools-and-resources-standards-implementation
CCSSO
General Resources
A beginner’s guide to text complexity. https://www.generationready.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/A-Beginners-Guide-to-Text-Complexity-GR-White-Paper-3.2.pdf
Navigating text complexity. http://navigatingtextcomplexity.kaulfussec.com/
New research on text complexity:
Supplemental information for Appendix A of the Common Core State Standards for
English language arts and literacy: New research on text
complexity. (2017). http://www.corestandards.org/assets/E0813_Appendix_A_New_Research_on_Text_Complexity.pdf
Science SCASS States. (2018, May 1). Using
crosscutting concepts to prompt student responses. CCSSO Science SCASS
Committee on Classroom Assessment. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586953.pdf
Teaching to the Core. https://ccsso.org/resource-library/teaching-core
Data Wise Project. Harvard University. https://datawise.gse.harvard.edu/
DocsTeach
website: https://www.docsteach.org/ The
online tool for teaching with documents, from the National Archives.
Dweck, C. (2010, September 1). Even
geniuses work hard. Educational
Leadership, 68(1), 16–20. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/even-geniuses-work-hard
Ecker, A. (2016).
Evidence-based practices for teachers: A synthesis of trustworthy online
resources. Insights into Learning
Disabilities, 13(1), 19–37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103670.pdf
Edgerton, A., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs,
L. (2020). New standards and old divides: Policy attitudes about college—and
career-readiness standards for students with disabilities. Teachers College
Record. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604562.pdf
EngageNY.
(New York State Common Core State Standards). https://www.engageny.org/common-core-curriculum
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). https://www.ed.gov/essa
Equitable Math website: https://equitablemath.org/ A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction is an
integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual
students in grades 6–8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns
instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers guidance and
resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also
offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an
anti-racist math practice. The toolkit “strides” serve as multiple on-ramps for
educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to
anti-racism.
Stride 1: Dismantling Racism in
Mathematics Instruction: Exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases
to transform their instructional practice: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf
Stride 2: Fostering Deep Understanding:
Methods for deepening student conceptual understanding through orchestrated
math discussions that build on and connect multiple strategies. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/2_STRIDE2.pdf
Stride 3: Creating Conditions to
Thrive: Environments and practices that support students’ social, emotional,
and academic development. https://equitablemath.org/#downloads
Stride 4: The Interconnectedness of
English Language Learning and Mathematical Thinking. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/4_STRIDE4.pdf
Stride 5: Sustaining Equitable Practice:
Coaching structures that support math educators’ in
their ongoing centering of equity principles. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/5_STRIDE5.pdf
Feldman, J. (2019, April
29). Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 52–55. https://kappanonline.org/standards-based-grading-equity-reform-feldman/
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D.
(2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in
reading. International Reading.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Smith, D.
(2019). All learning is social and emotional: Helping students develop
essential skills for the classroom and beyond. ASCD.
Francis, E. (2017). What is depth of knowledge? https://www.ascd.org/blogs/what-exactly-is-depth-of-knowledge-hint-its-not-a-wheel
Francis, E. (2016). Now that’s a good question! How to promote
cognitive rigor through classroom questioning. ASCD.
Frizell, M., & Dunderdale, T. (2015,
February). A compendium of research on the Common Core State Standards. Center for Education Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555455.pdf
This updated compendium includes over
85 research studies focused on the Common Core State Standards and encompasses
research from multiple sources, such as government entities, independent
organizations, and peer-reviewed publications from academic journals and other
outlets. Each study in the compendium has been summarized and categorized
across nine topic areas. A URL link to the original research is also provided
when possible. The compendium will be updated regularly as the body of
CCSS-related research grows.
Gao, N., & Lafortune,
J. (2019). Common Core State Standards in
California: Evaluating local implementation and student outcomes. Public
Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/common-core-state-standards-in-california-evaluating-local-implementation-and-student-outcomes/
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter
more than IQ. Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence: The new science of
human relationships. Bantam.
Guskey,
T. (2021). Learning from failures: Lessons from unsuccessful grading reform
initiatives. NASSP Bulletin, 105(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211029375
Guskey,
T., Townsley, M., & Buckmiller,
T. (2020). The impact of standards-based learning: Tracking high school
students’ transition to the university. NASSP
Bulletin, 104(4), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636520975862
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., Stecher, B. M., Naftel, S.,
Robbins, M., Thompson, L. E., Garber, C., Faxon-Mills, S., & Opfer, V. D. (2016). What
supports do teachers need to help students meet Common Core State Standards for
mathematics? Findings from the American teacher and American school leader
panels. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1404-1.html
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive
teaching & the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of
Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning:
The sequel. Routledge.
Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N.
(2016). Visible learning for literacy.
https://visible-learning.org/2016/03/visible-learning-for-literacy-hattie/
Hess, K. (2013). A guide to using
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge with Common Core State Standards. https://www.casciac.org/pdfs/Webbs-DOK-Flip-Chart.pdf
Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing. Heinemann.
Hull, T. H., Miles, R. E. H., &
Balkan, D. S. (2012). The
Common Core mathematics
practices: Transforming practices through team leadership. Corwin.
Institutes of Education Sciences (IES).
(2023, May). Report on the Condition of Education 2023. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2023/2023144.pdf
Institutes of Educational Sciences
(IES). (2009, April). Assisting students
struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI)
for elementary and middle schools. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf
Institutes of Educational Sciences
(IES). (n.d.). Fast facts: Percentage of students with disabilities included in
general education settings. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
Institutes of Educational Science
(IES). (2022, August). US education in the time of COVID. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/pdf/Education-Covid-time.pdf
International Reading Association
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State
Standards [White paper]. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ela-common-core-state-standards-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=b1a4af8e_8
International Literacy
Association (ILA) website: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/ The
ILA is a global advocacy and membership organization that transforms lives
through literacy across 75
countries.
Jennings, J. (2012). Why
have we fallen short and where do we go from here? Center for Educational Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528905.pdf
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Corwin.
Johnson, T., & Wells, L. (2017).
English language learner teacher effectiveness and the Common Core. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 25(23). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137865.pdf
Kaufman, J. H., Opfer,
V. D, Bongard, M., & Pane, J. D (2018). Changes in what teachers know and do in the
Common Core era: American teacher panel findings from 2015 to 2017. RAND
Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2658.html
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunities to change. Harvard Business
Press.
Kirst, M. (2020, April). In California,
Common Core has not failed. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/california-common-core-has-not-failed-forum-response/
Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes
in state standards, school practices, and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(35). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2834
Letwinsky,
K., & Cavender, M. (2018). Shifting preservice teachers’ beliefs and
understandings to support pedagogical change in mathematics. International
Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 106–120. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169843.pdf
Loveless, T. (2021, March 18). Why
Common Core failed. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/03/18/why-common-core-failed/
Marchitello,
M., & Wilhelm, M. (2014). The
cognitive science behind the Common Core. Center for American Progress. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561076
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research
into action. ASCD.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A
comprehensive framework for effective teaching. ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Heflebower, T. (2011). The
highly engaged classroom. Solution Tree.
Meador, D. (2019, July 3). What are
some pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards? https://www.thoughtco.com/common-core-state-standards-3194603
Medina, J. (2008) Brain rules. Pear Press.
McCray, E.D., Kamman,
M., Brownell, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). High-leverage practices and
evidence-based practices: A promising pair. University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator
Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/portfolio/high-leverage-practices-and-evidence-based-practices-a-promising-pair/
McLeskey,
J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis,
T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler,
M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage
practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children &
CEEDAR Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf
Milkman, K. (2021). How to change: The science of getting from
where you are to where you want to be. Penguin.
Moss, C., & Brookhart, S. (2012). Learning targets: Helping students aim for
understanding in today’s lesson. ASCD.
National Assessment of Educational
Progress. (2023). The nation’s report card: 2022 reading at grades 4 & 8.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/?grade=4
National Assessment of Educational
Progress. (2023). 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment: Highlighted results at
grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/?grade=4
National Association for the Education
of Young Children. (2015). Developmentally
appropriate practice and the Common Core State Standards: Framing the issues.
Research brief. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/15_developmentally_appropriate_practice_and_the_common_core_state_standards.pdf
National Center on Accessing the
General Curriculum. (n.d.). Coordinating K–12 systems. https://aem.cast.org/coordinate/k-12#.XDAF3VxKjIU
National Center on Accessing the
General Curriculum. (2003). Access to the
general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal
interpretation. https://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2003/ncac-curriculum-access-legal-interpretation
National Center on Intensive
Intervention. (n.d.). Academic intervention tools chart. https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
National Center on Intensive
Intervention. (n.d.). Planning standards–Aligned instruction within a
multi-tiered system of supports: Reading comprehension example. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/ReadCompExample_508.pdf
New Meridian. (n.d.). Resource center. (Includes
list of links to all PARCC assessment resources curated on ERIC). https://resources.newmeridiancorp.org/research/
Oberman, M., & Boudett,
K. P. (2015, November 1). Eight steps to becoming datawise.
Educational Leadership, 73(3). ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/eight-steps-to-becoming-data-wise
Oregon Department of Education. (n.d.).
Apply the concepts. http://oregonliteracypd.uoregon.edu/topic/academic-language
Pak, K., Polikoff,
M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E.
(2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for
educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness
for College and Careers (PARCC) website: http://parcc-assessment.org/
Polikoff,
M. S. (2021). Beyond standards: The fragmentation of educational governance and
the promise of curriculum reform. Harvard Education Press.
Polikoff,
M. S. (2017). Is Common Core “working”?
And where does Common Core research go from here? https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417691749
Polikoff,
M. S., Petrilli, M. J., & Loveless, T. (2023). A decade on, has Common Core failed?
Assessing the impact of national standards. Education
Next, 20(2), 72–81. https://www.educationnext.org/decade-on-has-common-core-failed-impact-national-standards-forum-polikoff-petrilli-loveless/
PowerSchool. (2021). Standards-based grading: What to know for
the 2021-2022 school year. https://www.powerschool.com/resources/blog/standards-based-grading-what-to-know-for-the-2021-2022-school-year
Reeves, D. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. ASCD.
Reeves, D., & Eaker,
R. (2019). 100 day leaders: Turning short-term wins into
long-term success in schools. Solution Tree Press.
Reeves, D., Wiggs, M., Lassiter, C.,
Piercy, T., Ventura, S., & Bell, B. (2011). Navigating implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Lead
and Learn Press.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative.
John Wiley.
Schlechty,
P. (2011). Engaging students: The next
level of working on the work. Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker,
M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the
essentials to radically improve student learning. ASCD.
Silver, H., Dewing, R., & Perini,
M. (2012). The core six: Essential
strategies for achieving excellence with the Common Core. ASCD.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium:
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/about/
Smarter Balanced Resources for
Educators: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/educators/
Song, M., Garet,
M., Yang, R., & Atkinson, D. (2021). Did states’ adoption of more rigorous
standards lead to improved student achievement? Evidence from a comparative
interrupted time series study of standards-based reform. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211058460
Sousa, D. (2010). Mind, brain, and education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom.
Solution Tree.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A.
(2011). Differentiation and the brain:
How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly
classroom. Solution Tree.
Stewart, A. (2021).
Personalizing learning = UDL and SDI + MTSS. The Source. https://www.smore.com/95gav-the-source?ref=email-content#w-2722552697
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis,
J. (2008, January). Enhancing student
learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ807558
Surr,
W., Carter, K., & Stewart, A. (2022, September). Teachers making the
shift to equitable, learner-centered education: Harnessing mental models,
motivations, and moves. Aurora Institute. https://aurora-institute.org/resource/teachers-making-the-shift-to-equitable-learner-centered-education/
Swinney, R., & Velasco, P. (2011). Connecting content and academic language for
English learners and struggling students grades 2–6. Corwin.
The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2018).
The opportunity myth: What students can show us about how school is letting
them down—and how to fix it. https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/
The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2022,
August). Unlocking acceleration: How below grade-level work is holding
students back in literacy. https://tntp.org/assets/documents/Unlocking_Acceleration_8.16.22.pdf
TODOS. (n.d.). Mathematics education
through the lens of social justice: Acknowledgment, actions, and accountability
A joint position statement from the National Council of Supervisors of
Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL. https://www.todos-math.org/assets/docs2016/2016Enews/3.pospaper16_wtodos_8pp.pdf
Tomlinson, C. (2010). Differentiation
flow chart. Institutes on Academic Diversity. http://differentiationcentral.com/model/
Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2014).
A differentiated approach to the Common
Core: How do I help a broad range of learners succeed
with challenging curriculum? ASCD.
U.S. Department of Education, Office
for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of
COVID-19 on America’s students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Every
Student Succeeds Act. Link to resources: https://www.ed.gov/essa
U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022). School connectedness helps students thrive.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/connectedness.htm
U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences. (n.d.). TIMSS 2007 results. National Center for Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS).
https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp
University of Oregon’s Brain
Development Lab. (2008). Changing brains:
Effects of experience on human brain development [DVD]. Available from https://bdl.uoregon.edu/changing-brains-2/
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. (2002) Depth of knowledge (DOK) levels in 4 content
areas. https://mathed.umbc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/524/2022/08/Webb_2002_DOK_Levels.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February). Teacher training, evaluation, and
compensation intervention report: National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards Certification. https://whatworks.ed.gov
Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016).
Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of
education. Rowman & Littlefield.
Wiliam,
D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment.
Solution Tree.
Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite student learning: Insights from a
neurologist and classroom teacher. ASCD.
Wormeli,
R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal:
Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Stenhouse.
Zinski,
C., & Rea, D. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds
Act (ESSA): What it means for educators of students at risk. National Youth At-Risk Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/nyarj.2016.020101
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic
conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Stenhouse.
Course content is updated every three
years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or
may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command
line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether
the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding
organization’s web home page.
7/19/23 jn