Early childhood case study

Write a 2- to 3-page analysis of the case study in which you:

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.

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

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

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

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

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

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542704

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

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 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

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

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

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

Pogrebin, R. (2007, August 4). Book tackles old debate: Role of art in schools. The New
York Times. Retrieved from:

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

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529766

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ff570

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev

http://www.nea.org/home/17993.htm

http://www.arteducators.org/research/NCLB_Press_Release_2-10

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

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 +&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

http://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

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 4

This is an authentic document from the United States Department of Education. It
introduces new guidelines for education reform that will prepare all public school
students for college or a career.

College- and Career-Ready

Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

To help achieve President Obama’s stated goal for the country of ensuring that all
students are ready for college and careers when they graduate from high school, the
administration has designed a blueprint for a reenvisioned federal role in education
through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
The new ESEA will call for

• Raising standards for all students in English language arts and mathematics;
• Developing better assessments aligned with college-and career-ready standards;

and
• Implementing a complete education through improved professional development

and evidence-based instructional models and supports.

In each of the sections below are set forth the expectations for the federal government,
states, districts, and schools to meet these benchmarks for the college and career
readiness of America’s students.

College- and Career-Ready Students

The administration’s proposal for reauthorizing ESEA will maintain formula grants to
high-poverty school districts while making significant changes to better support states,
districts, and schools, including middle and high schools, in improving achievement for
all groups of students, including low-income and minority students, English Learners,
and students with disabilities. This support will be focused on the following efforts.

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

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

Rigorous and Fair Accountability and Support at Every Level. Building on these
statewide standards and aligned assessments, every state will ensure that its statewide
system of accountability rewards schools and districts for progress and success,
requires rigorous interventions in the lowest-performing schools and districts, and allows
local flexibility to determine the appropriate improvement and support strategies for
most schools.

In all of our conversations with people from every state, we’ve heard a consistent
message that our schools aren’t expecting enough of students. We need to raise our
standards so that all students are graduating prepared to succeed in college and the
workplace. We’ve also heard that people aren’t looking to Washington for answers.
They don’t want us to provide a prescription for success. Our role should be to offer a
meaningful definition of success—one that shows teachers and students what they
should be striving for.

—U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Testimony Before the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Education and Labor
Committee on the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for Reauthorizing the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), March 17, 2010. To foster public accountability
for results and help focus improvement and support efforts, states must have data
systems in place to gather information that is critical to determining how schools and
districts are progressing in preparing students to graduate from high school college- and
career-ready. States and districts will collect and make public data relating to student
academic achievement and growth in English language arts and mathematics, student
academic achievement in science, and, if states choose, student academic
achievement and growth in other subjects, such as history. At the high school level, this
data will also include graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and rates of college
enrollment without need for remediation. All of these data must be disaggregated by
race, gender, ethnicity, disability status, English Learner status, and family income.

States and districts also will collect other key information about teaching and learning
conditions, including information on school climate, such as student, teacher and school
leader attendance, disciplinary incidents, or student, parent, and school staff surveys
about their school experience.

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

Why Focus on College and Career Readiness?

Four of every 10 new college students, including half of those at two-year institutions,
take remedial courses, and many employers comment on the inadequate preparation of
high school graduates.

The schools, districts, and states that are successful in reaching performance targets,
significantly increasing student performance for all students, closing achievement gaps,
or turning around the lowest-performing schools (at the district and state levels) will be
recognized as “Reward” schools, districts, and states. States will receive funds to
design innovative programs to reward high-poverty Reward schools and Reward
districts. Rewards may include financial rewards for the staff and students and for
development of and participation in communities of practice to share best practices and
replicate successful strategies to assist lower-performing schools and districts. Rewards
may also include flexibility in the use of ESEA funds and, as appropriate, competitive
preference for Reward states, high-need Reward districts, and high-need Reward
schools in some federal grant competitions. Reward districts will also be given flexibility
in implementing interventions in their lowest-performing schools, described further
below.

At the other end of the spectrum will be “Challenge” states, districts, and schools. States
will identify Challenge schools that are in need of specific assistance. The first category
of Challenge schools will be the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in each state,
based on student academic achievement, student growth, and graduation rates, that are
not making progress to improve. In these schools, states and districts will be required to
implement one of four school turnaround models, to support better outcomes for
students. Reward districts will receive flexibility to implement a different research-based
intervention model beyond the scope of the four school turnaround models. The next 5
percent of low-performing schools will be identified in a warning category, and states
and districts will implement research-based, locally determined strategies to help them
improve.

Schools that are not closing significant, persistent achievement gaps will constitute
another category of Challenge schools. In these schools, districts will be required to
implement data-driven interventions to support those students who are furthest behind
and close the achievement gap. For all Challenge schools, districts may implement
strategies, such as expanded learning time, supplemental educational services, public
school choice, or others, to help students succeed. Challenge districts whose schools,
principals, and teachers are not receiving the support they need to succeed may also
face significant governance or staffing changes, including replacement of the
superintendent. Both Challenge districts and states will face additional restrictions on
the use of ESEA funds and may be required to work with an outside organization to
improve student academic achievement.

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

Districts will be required to set aside a portion of funds under this program to improve
student performance in high-need schools by implementing effective school
improvement strategies and carrying out strategies to ensure the equitable distribution
of effective teachers and school leaders. Reward districts will be allowed flexibility
around this set-aside.

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

Assessing Achievement

The administration’s proposal also will maintain support for state efforts to improve the
quality of their assessment systems, and to develop and implement the upgraded
standards and assessments required by the College- and Career-Ready Students
program (the $14.5 billion request for the reauthorized Title I, Part A, currently the Title I
Grants to Local Educational Agencies). Improved assessments can be used to:
accurately measure student growth; better measure how states, districts, schools,
principals, and teachers are educating students; help teachers adjust and focus their
teaching; and provide better information to students and their families.

States will receive formula grants to develop and implement high-quality assessments
aligned with college- and career-ready standards in English language arts and
mathematics that accurately measure student academic achievement and growth,
provide feedback to support and improve teaching, and measure school success and
progress. States may also use funds to develop or implement high-quality, rigorous
statewide assessments in other academic or career and technical subjects, high school
course assessments, English language proficiency assessments, and interim or
formative assessments. Beginning in 2015, formula funds will be available only to states
that are implementing assessments based on college- and career-ready standards that
are common to a significant number of states. The program also will support competitive
grants to consortia of states and to other entities working in partnership with states for
research on, or development and improvement of, additional high-quality assessments
to be used by multiple states in such areas as science, history, or foreign languages;
high school course assessments in academic and career and technical subjects;
universally designed assessments; and assessments for English Learners and students
with disabilities.

This publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced in whole or in part. It
comprises excerpts from A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, U.S. Department of Education, March 2010. To read the
full text, visit www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint.

For more information, visit www.ed.gov or call 1-800-USA-LEARN.

May 2010

Reference

United States Department of Education. (2014). College and career ready standards
and assessments. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

http:www.ed.gov

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

https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and

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/

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2013/08/geography

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lCguMXWlKL4J:educore.ascd.org/res

ColorinColorado. (2014). Academic language and English language learners. Retrieved from
http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/academiclanguage/

Cruz, M. C. (2004). Can English language learners acquire academic English? Retrieved from
http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Language/About%20Language/
Cruz-ELL%20Academic%20Language

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 +&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 &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/

http://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 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

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

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005, August 10). Important aspects of No
Child Left Behind relevant to NAEP. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Agenda for action: Basic skills.
Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17280

http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17280

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp

http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/reading

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html

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

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

http://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

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 +&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 +&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

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.

Assignment
Write 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 Study

The materials in this case study are a combination of authentic public domain

documents and simulated documents created specifically for the case study that

draw 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 a

fictional institution, invented for the purposes of this case study.

Scenario

You are on the “Programming & Curriculum Development” task force of a small,
private college, Rogal College, which is trying to improve its national standing as
an undergraduate institution. Your task is to take a stand on whether the
institution should increase curricular focus, funding, and new hiring for
professional and technical fields or maintain a more purely academic, liberal arts
education with a focus on the humanities.
As you examine this issue, consider the following perspectives: What role does a
college or university play in society? How will the college’s decision to alter or
maintain its curricular focus affect students and alumni? How will the college’s
decision affect funding and academic status for the institution? What is the best
preparation Rogal can offer to help its students succeed after graduation? How
will the task force’s decision affect pedagogy in the classroom? Finally, take into
consideration various stakeholders: current and future students, alumni, current
teaching staff, the administration, and business leaders.

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Analysis

Student’s Name

Institution

Course

Date

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Analysis

Simple Message Related to The Case Study

The main purpose of this case study is to apply new standard to improve the quality of education. This standard must be applied in all school and from the level of kindergarten to 12 (K-12). This is not easy task to implement new standard at all level because there are many stockholders who are not in the favor of change in education. The main two stockholders of this case study are “Business leaders and teachers”. The both stockholders are playing very important role to improve the standard of study but they also have problem when we are implementing new standard in business. It is very difficult for business leader to provide new educational material to schools and colleges. They need more income, new employee or may be new machinery to increase the quality of pages. It is also very difficult for them to publish new standards books in short time. In other hand the teacher is also big stakeholder because when new standard is implemented it is much harder task for teacher to study first and then implement it towards student.

The Three Audiences

Create a written communication one for each of three audiences you identified – using the appropriate type of writing for each context. (Each written communication should be approximately 2 paragraphs long).

Audience 1:

Audience 2:

Audience 3:

Why different types of writing are appropriate for different audiences

Explain why different types of writing are appropriate for different audiences/stakeholders. Provide specific examples

References
Buttram, J. L., & Waters, J. T. (1997). National Association of Secondary School Principals.
NASSP Bulletin, 81(590), 1.
Dukes, C. c., Darling, S. M., & Bielskus-Barone, K. (2017). States’ Description of Common Core State Standards to Support Students with Severe Disabilities. Research & Practice For Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 143-154. doi:10.1177/1540796917715016
Lynch, S., & Adams, P. (2008). Developing Standards-Based Individualized Education Program Objectives for Students With Significant Needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 36-39.
Matlock, K. L., Goering, C. Z., Endacott, J., Collet, V. S., Denny, G. S., Jennings-Davis, J., &
Wright, G. P. (2016). Teachers’ views of the Common Core State Standards and its
implementation. Educational Review, 68(3), 291-305
doi:10.1080/00131911.2015.1070333
McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating Reform: Race to the Top, Competitive Grants and the Obama Education Agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136-159.
Voltz, D. L., & Collins, L. (2010). Preparing Special Education Administrators for Inclusion in Diverse, Standards-Based Contexts: Beyond the Council for Exceptional Children and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Teacher Education & Special Education, 33(1), 70-82. doi:10.1177/0888406409356676

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

Order Now Talk to Us

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
Paper Formatting $05FREE
Cover Page $05FREE
Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
Dedicated User Area $08FREE
24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

On-time Delivery
24/7 Order Tracking
Access to Authentic Sources

Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

Call Us +1 (877) 657-8180 Discuss Order Details Now

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

Clear elicitation of your requirements.
Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

Proactive analysis of your writing.
Active communication to understand requirements.

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

Thorough research and analysis for every order.
Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.

Place an Order Start Chat Now

Early childhood case study

What Will You Get?

Premium Quality

Experienced Writers

On-Time Delivery

24/7 Customer Support

Complete Confidentiality

Authentic Sources

Moneyback Guarantee

Order Tracking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Areas of Expertise

Essay

Thesis

Presentation

Dissertation

Term Paper

Research Paper

Book Review

Assignment

Report

Case Study

Letter

Article

Coursework

Speech

Q & A

Critical Thinking

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

Preferred Writer

Grammar Check Report

One Page Summary

Plagiarism Report

Free Features $66FREE

Our Services

Academic Writing

Professional Editing

Thorough Proofreading

Thorough Proofreading

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Check Out Our Sample Work

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

Share Your Requirements

Place Order & Deposit Funds

Release Payment to Your Writer

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades