Duffy, Mark; Park, Elizabeth (2012). LDC and MDC Theory of Action and the Landscape of Implementation. Brief One, Research for Action. To support the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested in the development and dissemination of two tools aimed at operationalizing classroom instruction based on the standards: (1) the Literacy Design Collaborative (LDC)'s Framework; and (2) the Math Design Collaborative (MDC)'s Formative Assessment Lessons. These tools stress teachers' attention to high quality instructional tasks, use of formative assessments embedded in those tasks, and professional learning opportunities that focus on both content knowledge and instruction. Experts from the LDC have developed a Framework that can be customized by English Language Arts (ELA), social studies and science teachers into writing tasks designed to facilitate CCSS-based student literacy and content learning. LDC also developed a module structure that teachers can use to create a plan for teaching students the content and literacy skills necessary to complete the writing task. For example, a social studies teacher might teach a template task that asks students to write an argumentative essay on how the political views of the signers of the Constitution impacted the American political system. The entire process takes approximately two to three weeks of classroom time to complete. Similarly, experts from the Shell Centre have developed a set of Formative Assessment Lessons (Lessons) for secondary mathematics teachers to facilitate CCSS-based student mathematics learning and provide teachers with feedback about student understanding and mastery. Unlike the LDC Framework, the Lessons are not customizable and typically take a few days to complete rather than few weeks. Another key difference between the modules and the Formative Assessment Lessons is that modules can be utilized to teach new content whereas Formative Assessment Lessons are meant for gauging student mastery and/or reinforcing already-taught material. For this reason, Lessons are intended to be taught about three quarters of the way into a unit. Research for Action (RFA) began examining the implementation of this initiative in its pilot year of 2010-2011 (Year One), and has continued this research into the 2011-2012 school year (Year Two), which has seen the expansion of the use of the tools. The results of the authors' research at the end of the second year of the initiative are presented in four Research Briefs, which are related but are also designed to stand alone. The first of four briefs on the LDC/MDC initiatives, Brief One presents key background information that will be referred to throughout the other three briefs. To describe the implementation and the scale-up of the LDC/MDC initiative, this brief includes: (1) the Theory of Action, which provides a comprehensive organizing framework for the presentation of the research results; (2) a national overview of the initiative, highlighting the extent of training on the LDC and MDC tools across the United States; (3) a detailed look at changes to the number of schools and teachers involved across Research for Action's four LDC and four MDC study sites; (4) a description of the research methodology; and (5) a short summary of Briefs 2, 3, and 4.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Core Curriculum, Curriculum Implementation, Literacy

Gewertz, Catherine (2010). States Adopt Standards at Fast Clip, Education Week. Nearly half the states have adopted a new set of common academic standards, barely a month after their final release and, in most cases, with little opposition. As of July 9, 23 states had decided to replace their mathematics and English/language arts standards with the common set. Another flurry of adoptions is expected by Aug. 2, since the $4 billion federal Race to the Top contest gives more points to states that meet that deadline. By the end of the year, 41 states are expected to have adopted the standards, according to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The CCSSO and the National Governors Association (NGA) organized the Common Core State Standards Initiative and track states' adoption plans. Though many challenges remain in crafting curricula and tests that embody the aims of the new standards, the mounting adoption numbers represent a major landscape change in a short time. The NGA and the CCSSO announced the initiative in April 2009. They released the first public draft of the standards in March and the final version June 2. Once the federal incentives were offered, however, states were dogged by questions about their primary motives in adopting the standards, especially since the recession left them strapped for money. They tried to boost their chances of winning a slice of the federal reform pie by enacting laws that raised charter school caps, established performance-based teacher-evaluation systems, and embraced other measures favored by the U.S. Department of Education, which is awarding the competitive grants. Likewise, some states went out of their way to adopt the standards by Aug. 2 for maximum Race to the Top points. In more than 30 states, standards adoption is the province of state boards of education. And some boards, such as those in Georgia, Missouri, and Nevada, moved their anticipated adoptions from August to June or July. Four states–Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia–wanted to endorse the common core even though it was not completed, so they adopted it provisionally, contingent on review of the final version.   [More]  Descriptors: State Standards, Academic Standards, Grants, Incentives

Finn, Chester E., Jr.; Petrilli, Michael J. (2010). Now What? Imperatives & Options for "Common Core" Implementation & Governance, Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Over the past year, the nation's governors and state school chiefs have achieved laudable consensus around a set of math and English standards, developed voluntarily and without federal involvement through the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI). Most states have signed on to them. More recently, the states have again teamed up–this time with federal funding–to develop new assessment systems that align with the common standards. What happens next? This is an enormously consequential question for American education, because charting the future of the Common Core (and the forthcoming assessments) is inseparable from some fundamental decisions about how the K-12 education system will be organized and governed. The authors asked experts from across the education sector to respond to a dozen perplexing questions on the future of the Common Core. They synthesize some of their collective input below. All final judgments, however, are solely those of the authors. The authors agree with Andy Rotherham that the three "essential elements" of any long-term Common Core governance arrangement are "independence, representation, and transparency." But what form should it take and how should it evolve? After examining the many tasks that must be successfully undertaken if the Common Core standards are themselves to succeed, this paper lays out three different governance models: (1) "Let's Become More Like France"; (2) "Don't Rock the Boat"; and (3) "One Foot before the Other." In the end, the authors call for a version of Model #3–a Common Core Coordinating Council ("4C," or even "Foresee")–that plays a temporary information-sharing and facilitation role but might morph into something more ambitious (and more permanent) over time. Partial List of Questionnaire Respondents is appended. (Contains 1 table and 4 footnotes.) [This paper was written with Paul E. Barton, Jeb Bush, David T. Conley, Pasquale J. DeVito, David P. Driscoll, Michael W. Kirst, Paul E. Lingenfelter, Paul Manna, Neal McCluskey, Mark Musick, Rod Paige, Judith A. Rizzo, Andrew J. Rotherham, Mark Schneider, Robert B. Schwartz, Eric J. Smith, Michael D. Usdan, and Gene Wilhoit.]   [More]  Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, State Standards, Educational Change, Foreign Countries

Clark, Constance; Cookson, Peter W., Jr. (2012). High Standards Help Struggling Students: New Evidence. Charts You Can Trust, Education Sector. The Common Core State Standards, adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia, promise to raise achievement in English and mathematics through rigorous standards that promote deeper learning. But while most policymakers, researchers, and educators have embraced these higher standards, some question the fairness of raising the academic bar on students who are already struggling. Do higher standards hurt struggling students? "High Standards Help Struggling Students: New Evidence" argues that the answer to that question is "no." In the analysis, Education Sector analysts Constance Clark and Peter Cookson Jr. use state-by-state NAEP data to examine the effect of high standards on student achievement. They find there is no evidence that high standards have hurt low-achieving students. In fact, they found that higher standards have probably helped. Clark and Cookson compare struggling students–those who score at "below basic" levels on the NAEP in reading and math–across states with low and high standards in 2003 and 2011. To define the rigor of the standards, they use a measure proposed by researchers Paul E. Peterson and Frederick M. Hess that evaluates standards based on the cut scores states use to set proficiency categories. The higher the cut score, the higher the state's standards are judged to be. Here is what Clark and Cookson found on the extremes of the Peterson-Hess rating: (1) In fourth-grade math, the percentage of below basic students, on average, declined 26 percent among high-standards states and 20 percent in low-standards states. In reading, the decline was narrower, with a 10 percent reduction in high-standards states, and 9 percent in low-standards states. (2) In eighth-grade math, the reduction in the percentage of below basic students was 23 percent in high-standards states. In low-standards states, the decline was 14 percent. In eighth grade reading, the decline was 10 percent in both cases. Overall, in nearly all cases, Clark and Cookson find that higher standards help below basic students. Equally significant, Clark and Cookson challenge the notion that a state's economic health contributes to the achievement gap. Controlling for these economic conditions, they found no evidence that below basic students do better in rich states than in poor states, regardless of standards. In other words, all students benefit from the implementation of higher academic standards. As the nation anticipates the implementation of the Common Core Standards, Clark and Cookson argue, "There is no reason for states to dilute the strength of the standards with lower expectations of performance." High standards bring out the best in students.   [More]  Descriptors: Charts, Low Achievement, Comparative Analysis, Academic Standards

US Department of Education (2012). Race to the Top. Tennessee Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]. This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Tennessee's Year 1 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation to date. Tennessee received its Race to the Top grant in July 2010 as part of the first round of the competition. Since receiving the award, the State has made progress implementing several initiatives, including integrating the First to the Top (FTTT) Act goals and objectives into daily operations, aiding the LEAs' transition to new Common Core State Standards (CCSS), and designing and implementing a new educator evaluation system. The State is supporting LEAs in their transition to the CCSS by providing trainings, a crosswalk between the existing State standards and the CCSS, and pacing guides to help connect the new standards to professional growth. Over the past year, TDOE provided introductory training to more than 4,000 educators statewide on the CCSS. Additionally, most of the State's LEAs are voluntarily implementing the CCSS standards in kindergarten through second grade in school year (SY) 2011-2012. Tennessee encountered some impediments to the implementation of its Race to the Top plan during the first year of the grant. After winning its Race to the Top award, Tennessee elected a new Governor who then appointed a new Commissioner of Education. Although the new Governor collaborated with TDOE staff prior to taking office, and both he and his new Commissioner are committed to education reform, the transition to new leadership was not seamless. The time required to fill key leadership positions impacted both TDOE's project timelines and its capacity to support LEAs. TDOE also experienced turnover within the assessment, data systems, and educator evaluation offices. During the summer of 2011, the Commissioner engaged in a strategic planning process and is considering how to fill vacancies and hire additional staff at TDOE in alignment with the agency's key priorities needed to drive student achievement at the classroom level. Tennessee learned valuable lessons during the first year of Race to the Top that will inform TDOE as it continues to foster supportive relationships with LEAs and schools. In Year 1, the State offered guidance, trainings, and in-person support to LEAs and schools on several Race to the Top initiatives, including TVAAS, the CCSS, and the TAP observation rubric. The guidance and resources provided by the State built stronger relationships with LEAs to ensure successful implementation of many foundational Race to the Top initiatives in Year 1. A Glossary is included. (Contains 13 footnotes.) [For the parent report, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the full report, "Race to the Top. Tennessee. State-Reported APR: Year One", see ED529329.]   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Academic Standards, Accountability, Achievement Gains

Loveless, Tom (2011). The 2010 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning? With Sections on International Tests, Who's Winning the Real Race to the Top, and NAEP and the Common Core State Standards. Volume II, Number 5, Brookings Institution. This edition of the Brown Center Report marks the tenth issue of the series and the final issue of Volume II. The publication began in 2000 with Bill Clinton in the White House and the Bush-Gore presidential campaign building toward its dramatic conclusion. That first report was organized in a three-part structure that all subsequent Brown Center Reports followed. Part I presents the latest results from state, national, or international assessments and alerts readers to important trends in the data. Part II explores an education issue in depth, sometimes by investigating different sources of empirical evidence than previous research, sometimes by posing a conventional question in an unconventional way. Part III analyzes a current or impending question regarding education policy. In all three sections, the studies strive to ask clear questions, gather the best available evidence, and present findings in a nonpartisan, jargon-free manner. An overarching theme of this year's report is that events in the field of education are not always as they appear to be–and especially so with test scores. Whether commentators perpetrating myths of international testing, states winning races while evidencing only mediocre progress, or an eighth-grade test dominated by content below the eighth grade, the story is rarely as simple as it appears on first blush. This report tried to dig beneath the surface and uncover some of the complexities of these important issues. (Contains 6 tables and 54 notes.) [For the related report, "The 2010 Brown Center Report on American Education: How Well Are American Students Learning?–An Early Release of Part III. Volume II, Number 5", see ED514724.]   [More]  Descriptors: Achievement Tests, National Competency Tests, Scores, Reading Achievement

Patterson, Margaret Becker; Zhang, Jizhi; Song, Wei; Guison-Dowdy, Anne (2010). Crossing the Bridge: GED Credentials and Postsecondary Educational Outcomes. Year One Report, GED Testing Service. For most high school non-completers, the GED[R] credential provides a bridge to postsecondary education, but little is known about how successfully GED (General Educational Development) Test candidates make that transition and whether enrollment rates change with time. The American Council on Education (ACE) has begun a three-year longitudinal study to understand the effect of the GED credential on postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion. This study reports the latest data available from a 2003 cohort of GED candidates who tested shortly after the introduction of the current 2002 Series GED Tests. This study is in support of a new effort to transition adults without a high school diploma to the GED credential and career and college readiness via accelerated learning. The initiative is a comprehensive, multiyear program designed to dramatically increase the numbers of individuals who earn the GED credential. It consists of three key components: education and preparation; enhanced career- and college-ready assessment aligned with the Common Core State Standards and enhanced credentialing process; and connections and transition services to postsecondary education and career opportunities. The 148,649 GED Test passers in the 2003 cohort study attended 2,787 postsecondary institutions throughout the United States. The vast majority of students who had passed the GED Test initially enrolled in colleges offering programs of two years or fewer; 77.8 percent enrolled in public two-year or fewer-than-two-year institutions. The majority of passers in the 2003 cohort who enrolled in postsecondary institutions enrolled within the first three years after passing the test (i.e., 2003, 2004, or 2005) and tended to take their time to progress in postsecondary programs, perhaps at a less consistent pace than other adult learners. A majority (66.6 percent) who enrolled maintained enrollment for two or more semesters, yet only 11.8 percent of 2003 passers who enrolled graduated from a postsecondary program by September 2009. Major findings of interest in this first year of a three-year study reflect a positive relationship between the GED credential and entering postsecondary education. Findings of predictive survival analyses for event occurrence of postsecondary enrollment and graduation are presented in this report. Other results include comparisons between postsecondary institutions that GED credential recipients attend and postsecondary institutions in general, and between GED credential recipients and traditional high school graduates. A discussion of findings and their implications for future longitudinal research follow.   [More]  Descriptors: Credentials, Postsecondary Education, Educational Objectives, State Standards

US Department of Education (2012). Race to the Top. District of Columbia Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]. This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of the District of Columbia's Year 1 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation to date. The Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) manages the District of Columbia (District) educational system. The District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) is the largest local educational agency (LEA) in the District. There are also over 50 public charter schools that operate as independent LEAs. OSSE, DCPS, and charter schools have come together to implement the reform efforts that the District outlined in its Race to the Top grant. The District is receiving a total of $74,998,962 in Race to the Top funds. The District's broad goals under Race to the Top include building capacity to support LEAs, moving swiftly to adopt the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), funding the development of instructional improvement systems (IIS) for LEAs to support data-driven instruction, building and supporting stronger pipelines for effective teachers and principals, and creating conditions of support and attracting effective educators to the District's persistently lowest-achieving schools. In its Year 1 Annual Performance Report (APR), OSSE reported 30 participating LEAs (DCPS and 29 charter LEAs) as of June 30, 2011. This represents 90 percent of the District's K-12 students and over 92 percent of its students in poverty. OSSE included DCPS and charter schools in the planning and implementation of its reform work. OSSE established task forces focusing on the CCSS; human capital; student growth measures; and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The State Board of Education adopted the CCSS for the 2011-2012 school year (SY), and all participating LEAs developed a transition plan for implementing the CCSS and received professional development on it. OSSE also awarded major competitive subgrants to LEAs for work in such areas as developing an IIS, professional learning communities, and teacher residency programs. During the first year of the grant, OSSE experienced significant turnover among leadership and staff. Multiple individuals have served as the lead for Race to the Top, each one for fewer than six months. Additionally, no one who was involved in writing the original application remains with the OSSE team responsible for administering the District's Race to the Top grant. Despite changes in leadership and staff during the first year of the grant, the District has made strides toward accomplishing its Race to the Top goals and has leveraged other senior OSSE staff to keep work moving forward. There have, however, been delays in finalizing a District-wide education research agenda; releasing CCSS resources; providing support to intervention efforts in chronically lowest-achieving schools; and receiving, reviewing, and approving LEA plans for teacher and leader evaluations. Because of the turnover in staff during Year 1 of the grant, OSSE did not spend all of its Year 1 funding allotted for personnel. OSSE will hire additional staff in Year 2 with the personnel funds remaining from Year 1. Also, OSSE plans to identify a permanent Race to the Top lead in Year 2. Finally, OSSE will continue recent efforts to better align its Race to the Top intervention efforts with its School Improvement Grant (SIG) efforts, both at OSSE and DCPS. A glossary is included. (Contains 6 footnotes.) [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the full report, "Race to the Top. District of Columbia. State-Reported APR: Year One," see ED529307.]   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Academic Standards, Accountability, Achievement Gains

Achieve, Inc. (2010). Perspective, May 2010. "Perspective" is a monthly e-newsletter presenting news and views from Achieve. This month's issue commences with a report presenting the recommendations made by Achieve to the Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) Committee for the improvement of the college and career readiness of all students. This issue also reports: (1) 37 states plus the District of Columbia have notified the U.S. Department of Education (USED) that they are planning to compete in the second round of Race to the Top, in which $3.4 billion in economic-stimulus funds are still available; and (2) governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, 2 territories and the District of Columbia have committed to developing a common core of state standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12; and (3) the Education Trust and Achieve are launching the nonprofit U.S. Education Delivery Institute (EDI) with the support of McKinsey & Company under the leadership of Sir Michael Barber, founder and former head of Prime Minister Blair's Delivery Unit. Brief news clips and descriptions of new resources are also included.   [More]  Descriptors: Elementary Secondary Education, State Standards, Newsletters, College Preparation

US Department of Education (2012). Race to the Top. New York. State-Reported APR: Year One. This paper describes New York's progress in implementing a comprehensive and coherent approach to education reform from the time of application through June 30, 2011. In particular, this report highlights key accomplishments over the reporting period in the four reform areas: standards and assessments, data systems to support instruction, great teachers and leaders, and turning around lowest-achieving schools. Highlights of this report include: (1) The State Board of Regents adopted the Common Core State Standards for Math and ELA; made progress in developing and disseminating CCSS implementation resources–including conducting a statewide webinar with David Coleman and creating the EngageNY.org microsite; completed the design of its very successful statewide Network Team Summer Institute for approximately 500 educators (August 2011); continued its active engagement as a governing state for PARCC; and conducted a gap analysis to determine how well aligned its current state assessments are to the CCSS; (2) One of five states participating in Phase One of the CCSSO Shared Learning Initiative (SLI); launched initiatives to develop comprehensive course catalog and data system security for teachers, students, and parents; started working with a number of other NYS agencies to enhance the P-12 data system; and collaborated with NY's two public higher education systems (SUNY and CUNY) to promote data sharing and enhance functional and systems architecture; (3) This Spring, the Board of Regents adopted regulations to implement the historic 2010 legislation on teacher and school leader effectiveness by requiring annual evaluations based in significant part on student achievement. This new law and regulations not only fundamentally change the way teachers and principals are evaluated, but requires that these evaluations be a significant factor in decisions relating to promotion, retention, tenure, and differentiated professional support and professional development. The law also provides an expedited disciplinary process for the removal of ineffective teachers and principals. The State Education Department also published guidance to the field around the regulations and conducted a statewide webinar on the regulations as well. The state made substantive progress on the design of RFPs to promote clinically-rich pilot programs in undergraduate and graduate teacher education and for principal preparation; and (4) Awarded 2009 Cohort 1 SIG grants and almost completed the review of applications for SIG 2010 Cohort 2 during this time period; published guidance to districts with PLA schools regarding the implementation of the new Teacher/Leader evaluation system and for implementation of Educational Partnership Organizations; conducted Joint Intervention Teams to new PLA/SURR schools; aligned NCLB and IDEA Accountability Systems; redesigned and strengthened the Regents approach to charter school authorizing. [For the parent document, "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267. For the state summary report, "Race to the Top. New York Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]," see ED529326.]   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Academic Standards, Accountability, Achievement Gains

Gannett, Cassandra Dunn (2012). Attending High School Algebra I: In Search of Well-Managed, Engaging, Culturally Relevant, and Caring Classrooms, ProQuest LLC. The inequities in learning between the rich and the poor have become pervasive in United States. This is evidenced by the high school graduation rates, college attendance percentages, and employment statistics. Upon another wave of reform, the Common Core State Standards in mathematics are currently being adopted in hopes of increasing learning for all students, with a focus on college and career readiness. This study is intent on finding ways to remedy the inequities in mathematics between the high income and low income schools by focusing on one of the great glass ceilings to high school graduation and beyond, high school Algebra I. This study gives examples of how successful teachers are providing opportunities for learning Algebra I despite barriers that students, administrators, and policy-makers deliver in low-income schools amidst the latest reform movement. The researcher provides a portrait of how three different algebra teachers in three different low-income high schools, in the same city in Colorado, teach within the confines of various reform mandates to meet the diverse needs of their students. The research was conducted with a particular focus on the classroom management strategies, student engagement strategies, culturally relevant pedagogy, and caring relationships contributed to the learning in these classrooms. Using observations, teacher interviews, and student interviews, the researcher employs the method of Educational Criticism and Connoisseurship to answer the research question. The question that guided this study was: What practices do effective algebra teachers employ in high poverty, diverse high school algebra classrooms to implement the curriculum and influence student learning? This question was supported by the sub-questions: (a) What classroom management strategies contribute to student learning?; (b) Which teaching strategies contribute to student engagement?; (c) Which culturally relevant pedagogy practices contribute to students' opportunity to learn?; (d) How do relationships in the classroom support students' opportunities to learn?; and (e) How are classroom management strategies, engagement strategies, culturally relevant pedagogy, and caring relationships intertwined in classrooms today? The findings of this study provide a stark warning to overly prescribed curricula and pedagogy, along with the heightened use of standardized tests tied to teacher evaluation. Answering the primary question using Eisner's (1998) dimensions of schooling and Uhrmacher's administrative dimension, paints a bleak picture for low-income schools under the current movement for accountability using student test scores. The negative consequences of a punitive administrative oversight on the teaching and learning of students paints a depressing scene for low-income schools. Conversely, the efforts of teachers to provide classroom management and student engagement supported by culturally relevant practices and caring relationships give a picture of hope if we focus on supporting and keeping in the schools that need them the most. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Algebra, Classroom Techniques, Learner Engagement, Culturally Relevant Education

Collins, Anne; Dacey, Linda (2010). Zeroing in on Number and Operations, Grades 7-8: Key Ideas and Common Misconceptions, Stenhouse Publishers. "The Zeroing in on Number and Operations" series, which aligns with the Common Core State Standards and the NCTM Standards and Focal Points, features easy-to-use tools for teaching key concepts in number and operations and for addressing common misconceptions. Sharing the insights they've gained in decades of mathematics teaching and research, Anne Collins and Linda Dacey help you focus on what students really need to know and understand at each grade level. The 30 modules in the grades 7 and 8 flipchart are designed to engage all students in mathematical learning that develops conceptual understanding, addresses common misconceptions, and builds key ideas essential to future learning. The modules are organized into three sections: Number Theory and Integers; Fractions, Decimals and Percents; and Ratio and Proportionality. Each module begins with the identification of its "Mathematical Focus" and the "Potential Challenges and Misconceptions" associated with those ideas. "In the Classroom" then suggests instructional strategies and specific activities to implement with students. "Meeting Individual Needs" offers ideas for adjusting the activities to reach a broader range of learners. Each activity is supported by a reproducible (located in the appendix), and "References/Further Reading" provides resources for enriching your knowledge of the topic and gathering more ideas. At grades 7 and 8, the authors focus on the key ideas that are essential for success at these levels: (1) Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic using the uniqueness of the prime factorization for any given composite number; (2) Characteristics of whole numbers including primes, composites, evens, odds, square, cubic, and triangular numbers; (3) Properties of integers to include commutative, associative, distributive, identity, and inverse; (4) Rational numbers to include equivalencies among fraction, decimal, and percent representations and location of rational numbers on the number line; (5) Operations on all rational numbers to include fractions, decimal, integers, positive and negative exponents to include the multiplicative identity property; (6) Rational numbers to include division to represent any fraction as a decimal including fractions that represent infinite decimals; (7) Ratio and proportionality including rates and scaling; (8) Ratio as rate of change and its connection to slope; and (9) Ratio tables and their connection to multiplication.   [More]  Descriptors: Grade 7, Grade 8, Misconceptions, Academic Standards

US Department of Education (2012). Race to the Top. Florida Report. Year 1: School Year 2010-2011. [State-Specific Summary Report]. This State-specific summary report serves as an assessment of Florida's Year 1 Race to the Top implementation, highlighting successes and accomplishments, identifying challenges, and providing lessons learned from implementation to date. Florida received a Race to the Top award in September 2010 as part of Phase 2 of the Race to the Top competition. Since receiving the award, the State has made progress in implementing several reform projects. These projects include assisting LEAs in designing new teacher and principal evaluation systems that use multiple measures, including a statewide value-added model for measuring student-growth; helping LEAs begin the transition to new Common Core State Standards (CCSS); launching the Local Systems Exchange (LSE) that allows LEAs to share information on their Local Instructional Improvement Systems; and engaging stakeholders through the creation and engagement of eight Implementation Committees. Florida encountered obstacles in implementing its Race to the Top plan during the first year of the grant. Since receiving its Race to the Top award, Florida has elected a new Governor and has had three Commissioners of Education. These leadership transitions have proven challenging as Florida Department of Education (FDOE) Race to the Top program staff work to update the new leaders on the Race to the Top plan. In addition, the State experienced difficulties in hiring staff at the State level and in the regions, which slowed the start of some Race to the Top activities. The State's most significant challenge is executing the large number and scope of contracts associated with its Race to the Top plan. Florida budgeted approximately 98 percent of its Race to the Top State-level funds for contracts. Despite its experience with managing contracts, the State has struggled to issue contracts in a timely manner. Leadership changes, legal challenges, disparate vendor quality in some initial responses, the lack of staff needed to execute the large number of contracts, and difficulties in hiring qualified individuals contributed to significant delays in Year 1 and have resulted in the start date of many Year 1 activities shifting to Year 2 or beyond. As part of its planning for Year 2 of the grant, Florida is considering ways to build on its accomplishments and address its challenges from Year 1. The State found the stakeholder input from the Student Growth Implementation Committee, coupled with national expertise, to be very valuable in the development of its statewide value-added student growth model. The State plans to use this collaborative effort as a model for continued work across reform areas. The State is also learning from its experience with Race to the Top contracts issued to date and is using the lessons learned to try and avoid contract delays in the future. Florida states that it is managing contract timelines in a manner that will allow it to make up for time lost on activities not started in Year 1. In addition, Florida is using a project management system to facilitate oversight of its many contracts once they are executed. Finally, the State is working with a vendor to conduct a formative and summative evaluation of its Race to the Top implementation that the State expects will provide insight into its progress and areas in need of improvement. A glossary is included. (Contains 6 footnotes.) [For the full report, "Race to the Top. Florida. State-Reported APR: Year One," see ED529311. For "Race to the Top Annual Performance Report," see ED529267.]   [More]  Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Academic Standards, Accountability, Achievement Gains

Sher, Stephen Korb (2011). Teacher Implementation of Reform-Based Mathematics and Implications for Algebra Readiness: A Qualitative Study of 4th Grade Classrooms, ProQuest LLC. This study looked at 4th grade classrooms to see "how" teachers implement NCTM standards-based or reform-based mathematics instruction and then analyzed it for the capacity to improve students' "algebra readiness." The qualitative study was based on classroom observations, teacher and administrator interviews, and teacher surveys. The study took the perspective of instruction as interaction and mathematics as a sense making activity. The "NCTM Process Standards" were used to evaluate learning activities. The" Adding It Up, Strands of Mathematical Proficiency" served as a qualitative metric for assessing the likeliness of the instruction to better prepare students in mathematics, specifically for algebra. Together, these standards are the basis for the "Common Core State Standards for Mathematical Practice." The study also looked for student engagement in important mathematical content and ideas, particularly those necessary to prepare students for algebra. Furthermore, the study looked for rigor and an opportunity for students to struggle with important mathematics.   The study observed teacher created Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) lessons and lessons from Contexts for Learning replacement units. Teachers implemented reform-based mathematics instruction in two ways, in distinct reform-based lessons and integrating some of the reform-based pedagogy in their traditional text-based lessons. Observation lessons revealed that students were genuinely engaged in the Process Standards for over 90% of the instructional time. Learning engaged children in understanding mathematics in the context of real-life situations, accurate computation and algebraic reasoning were stressed. Classroom sociomathematical norms were developing around the Process Standards, which served as distributed scaffolding to support children in their conceptual understanding. The study found evidence to support a bridge between social constructivist theory and reform or standards-based practice.   The study determined that students engaged in qualitatively different activities from traditional classrooms which should positively impact algebra readiness. Learning emphasized important mathematical content and ideas necessary for success in algebra. Students were developing conceptual understandings of arithmetic which were explicitly connected to standard computation methods. Student solutions expressing mathematical relationships were always conveyed in both words and standard mathematical notation, and frequently in expressions or equations. The study concluded that students were making progress in each of the five Strands of Mathematical Proficiency, providing them more of the tools needed for algebra.   The study found that students' engagement with the Process Standards and their trajectory in the Strands of Mathematical Proficiencies will not only serve students wishing to enter the STEM fields, but provide skills useful for academic, career, and personal facets of their life. Commonly mentioned 21st century skills, such as problem solving, critical thinking/reasoning, effective communication, flexible application of knowledge, and creativity are addressed in the Process Standards and Strands of Mathematical Proficiencies, now combined in the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practice.   [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: www.proquest.com/en-US/products/disserta…   [More]  Descriptors: Elementary School Mathematics, Mathematics Instruction, Academic Standards, State Standards

Jimerson, Shane R., Ed.; Burns, Matthew K., Ed.; VanDerHeyden, Amanda M., Ed. (2016). Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, 2nd Edition, Springer. The second edition of this essential handbook provides a comprehensive, updated overview of the science that informs best practices for the implementation of response to intervention (RTI) processes within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) to facilitate the academic success of all students. The volume includes insights from leading scholars and scientist-practitioners to provide a highly usable guide to the essentials of RTI assessment and identification as well as research-based interventions for improving students' reading, writing, oral, and math skills. New and revised chapters explore crucial issues, define key concepts, identify topics warranting further study, and address real-world questions regarding implementation. Key topics include: (1) Scientific foundations of RTI; (2) Psychometric measurement within RTI; (3) RTI and social behavior skills; (4) The role of consultation in RTI; (5) Monitoring response to supplemental services; (6) Using technology to facilitate RTI; (7) RTI and transition planning; and (8) Lessons learned from RTI programs around the country. The second edition of the "Handbook of Response to Intervention" is an essential resource for researchers, graduate students, and professionals/scientist-practitioners in child and school psychology, special and general education, social work and counseling, and educational policy and politics. The book begins with a foreword and an acknowledgements section. Following are forty-one chapters divided into eight parts. Chapter 1: From Response to Intervention to Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Advances in the Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention (Shane R. Jimerson, Matthew K. Burns and Amanda M. VanDerHeyden); is followed by: Part I: "Foundations of Science" and its chapters: (2) Data-Based Decision-Making (Stanley L. Deno); (3) Applied Behavior Analysis: A Foundation for Response to Intervention (Scott P. Ardoin, Liliana Wagner and Kathryn E. Bangs; (4) Learning Disabilities/Special Education (John L. Hosp, Sally Huddle, Jeremy W. Ford and Kiersten Hensley (5) Prevention and Response to Intervention: Past, Present, and Future (Ann C. Schulte) and (6) Problem-Solving Consultation (William P. Erchul and Caryn S. Ward). Part II: "Foundations of Practice" contains the following chapters: (7) The Role of Professional Learning Communities in Successful Response to Intervention Implementation (Lori Helman and Kay Rosheim); (8) Response to Intervention and Accountability Systems (Timothy J. Runge, David J. Lillenstein and Joseph F. Kovaleski); (9) Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and Evidence-Based Practices (Karen C. Stoiber and Maribeth Gettinger); (10) Preservice Teacher Education and Response to Intervention Within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: What Can We Learn from Research and Practice? (David H. Allsopp, Jennie L. Farmer and David Hoppey); (11) Common Core State Standards and Response to Intervention: The Importance of Assessment, Intervention, and Progress Monitoring (Shane R. Jimerson, Rachel Stein, Aaron Haddock and Reza Shahroozi). Part III: "Tier 1–Assessment, Problem Analysis, and Intervention" contains the following chapters: (12) Screening Assessment Within a Multi-Tiered System of Support: Current Practices, Advances, and Next Steps (Nathan H. Clemens, Milena A. Keller-Margulis, Timothy Scholten and Myeongsun Yoon); (13) The Role of Tier I Mathematics Instruction in Elementary and Middle Schools: Promoting Mathematics Success (Asha K. Jitendra and Danielle N. Dupuis); (14) Classroom Reading Instruction for All Students (Barbara R. Foorman and Jeanne Wanzek); (15) Classwide Intervention Using Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (Kristen L. McMaster and Douglas Fuchs). Part IV: "Tier 2–Assessment, Problem Analysis, and Intervention" presents the following chapters: (16) Assessment: Periodic Assessment to Monitor Progress (Benjamin Silberglitt, David Parker and Paul Muyskens); (17) Problem Analysis at Tier 2: Using Data to Find the Category of the Problem (Matthew K. Burns, Kathrin E. Maki, Abbey C. Karich, Matthew Hall, Jennifer J. McComas and Lori Helman); (18) Multilevel Response-to-Intervention Prevention Systems: Mathematics Intervention at Tier 2 (Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs and Amelia S. Malone); (19) Implementation of Tier 2 Reading Interventions in the Primary Grades (Jeanne Wanzek, Stephanie Al Otaiba and Brandy Gatlin). Part V: "Tier 3–"Assessment, Problem Analysis, and Intervention" consists of chapters: (20) Progress Monitoring for Students Receiving Intensive Academic Intervention (David A. Klingbeil, Tera L. Bradley and Jennifer J. McComas); (21) Introduction to Problem Analysis to Identify Tier 3 Interventions: Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic Problems (Melissa Coolong-Chaffin and Jennifer J. McComas); (20) Tier 3: Intensive Mathematics Intervention Strategies (Robin S. Codding and Ryan Martin); (22) Tier 3 Primary Grade Reading Interventions: Can We Distinguish Necessary from Sufficient? (Stephanie Al Otaiba, Jill Allor, Miriam Ortiz, Luana Greulich, Jeanie Wanzek and Joseph Torgesen). Part VI: "Contemporary Implementation Science" contains chapters: (23) Assuring the Response to Intervention Process Has Substance: Assessing and Supporting Intervention Implementation (George H. Noell and Kristin A. Gansle); (24) Accuracy and Validity of Methods for Identifying Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention Service Delivery Framework (Jeremy Miciak, Jack M. Fletcher and Karla K. Stuebing); (25) Contextual Influences and Response to Intervention (Amy L. Reschly and Melissa Coolong-Chaffin); (26) Using Single-Case Design in a Response to Intervention Model (T. Chris Riley-Tillman and Daniel M. Maggin). Part VII: "Contemporary Implementation Topics" presents chapters: (27) Technology-Based Assessment and Problem Analysis (Gerald Tindal and Julie Alonzo); (28) Educational Technology and Response to Intervention: Affordances and Considerations (Janet S. Twyman and Melinda S. Sota); (29) Response to Intervention for English Learners (Diana Socie and Mike Vanderwood); (30) Essential Features of Tier 2 and 3 School-Wide Positive Behavioral Supports (Barbara S. Mitchell, Allison L. Bruhn and Timothy J. Lewis); (31) Implementing Response to Intervention in Secondary Schools (Mark R. Shinn, Holly S. Windram and Kerry A. Bollman); (32) Advances in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Prekindergarten Children: Lessons Learned from 5 Years of Research and Development from the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (Judith J. Carta, Charles R. Greenwood, Howard Goldstein, Scott R. McConnell, Ruth Kaminski, Tracy A. Bradfield, Alisha Wackerle-Hollman, Maura Linas, Gabriela Guerrero, Elizabeth Kelley and Jane Atwater); (33) Teacher Formative Assessment: The Missing Link in Response to Intervention (Linda A. Reddy, Christopher M. Dudek and Elisa S. Shernoff). Part VIII: "Effective Contemporary Models" consists of chapters: (34) Challenges Faced by New Implementation Sites: The Role of Culture in the Change Process (Dawn Miller and Rachel Freeman); (35) Making Response to Intervention Stick: Sustaining Implementation Past Your Retirement (Kim Gibbons and W. Alan Coulter); (36) Evaluating the Impact of Response to Intervention in Reading at the Elementary Level Across the State of Pennsylvania (Edward S. Shapiro); (37) Data-Based Decision-Making, the Problem-Solving Model, and Response to Intervention in the Minneapolis Public Schools (Doug Marston, Matthew Lau, Paul Muyskens and Jennifer Wilson); (38) Implementing Response to Intervention in a Rural Setting (Renee Guy, Amanda Fields and Lynn Edwards); (39) School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Response to Intervention: System Similarities, Distinctions, and Research to Date at the Universal Level of Support (Timothy J. Lewis, Barbara S. Mitchell, D. Tichelle Bruntmeyer and George Sugai); (40) Toward a Unified Response-to-Intervention Model: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (Matthew K. Burns, Shane R. Jimerson, Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Stanley L. Deno). Chapter (41) Index. Also provided is a section with information about the authors and a list of contributors.   [More]  Descriptors: Response to Intervention, Student Evaluation, Reading Skills, Writing Skills