Understanding & Implementing Common
Core Standards
|
Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D. |
|
|
Facilitator: |
Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed. |
|
Phone: |
509-891-7219 |
|
Office Hours: |
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday – Friday |
|
Email: |
|
|
Address: |
Virtual Education Software |
|
|
23403 E Mission Avenue, Suite 220F |
|
|
Liberty Lake, WA 99019 |
|
Technical Support: |
Introduction
Welcome to Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards, an interactive computer-based instruction course designed to give you a deeper understanding of the rationale for and structure of this particular standards-based framework. In this course you will learn a number of factors that contributed to the overall design of the Common Core Standards as well as practical pedagogical approaches that will support practitioners working toward deeper implementation. We will reflect on the instructional “shifts” emphasized throughout the Common Core Standards and contextualize the shifts based on the diverse population of students course participants serve. Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards will also provide connections to a variety of instructional considerations that will support implementation regardless of educational context. Practitioners will be provided opportunities to reflect on current practice and the degree to which they align with the Common Core Standards as well as with colleagues across a wide range of settings implementing these standards.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
|
Title: |
Understanding & Implementing
Common Core Standards |
|
Publisher: |
Virtual Education
Software, inc. 2014, Revised 2016, Revised 2019, Revised 2022, Revised 2026 |
|
Instructor: |
Dr.
Pamela Bernards, Ed.D. |
|
Facilitator: |
Professor
Steven Dahl, M.Ed. |
Academic Integrity Statement
The structure and
format of most distance-learning courses presumes a
high level of personal and academic integrity in completion and submission of
coursework. Individuals enrolled in a distance-learning course are expected to
adhere to the following standards of academic conduct.
Academic Work
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
Students are required to view/read each screen in each exercise of each chapter. Screens, exercises and chapter content may not be skipped. Students are also required to access and read all content in each course handout. A participant who fails to complete the entire course in the manner intended and as outlined may have their grade reduced or fail the course. It is the student's responsibility to contact the facilitator, instructor-of-record, or VESi registrar if there is any question as to the manner in which this course is to be completed.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or information to another person with knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards
will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit
for the course.
Level of Application
This course is designed for anyone working to implement the Common Core State Standards with a diverse learning population across the K–12 spectrum. While the information presented may have relevance to any student-centered educational setting, it will have the most relevance for K–12 mixed ability classrooms.
Expected Learning Outcomes
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
1)
Understand the major
shifts in English and Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics reflected in
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
2)
Learn about the design
features of the CCSS (what to teach) and implications for professional practice
(how to teach it)
3)
Explore research-based
pedagogical strategies that align with what is emphasized in the CCSS
4)
Appreciate the importance
of mapping any implementation gap that may exist between current personal
practice and what research indicates aligns with the CCSS
5)
Self-reflect on the
degree to which a “CCSS mindset” has been developed that supports the “what”
(CCSS), the “how” (instruction), and the “who” (ALL learners) required for
implementation
6)
Develop a plan of action
with implementation strategies designed to deepen student learning as well as
generate evidence of your actions
7)
Recognize the connection
between the creation of equitable learning conditions and developing a “Common
Core Mindset” that integrates a number of dimensions
8)
Distinguish between
“rigor” and “difficulty” and understand the implications for teachers
9)
Articulate the difference
between a “fixed” and a “growth” orientation and implications of each view for
students and teachers
10) Self-assess the priority level to teach
students that ability is expandable
11) Learn a seven-step process for teaching
students that ability is expandable
12) Learn a four-step process for
articulating standards and increasing student ownership over learning outcomes
13) Recognize the ways that student and
teacher self-efficacy are interconnected
14) Learn the purpose of and a process for
providing effective prescriptive feedback
15) Understand the significance of the
emergence of educational neuroscience as it relates to implementing the Common
Core Standards
16) Understand the importance of explicitly
teaching academic language and methods for increasing student ownership of
learning
17) Delineate the difference between a
teaching strategy and a learning strategy
18) Articulate the rationale for using the compare and contrast learning strategy when implementing the
Common Core Standards
19) Use web-based tools designed to
simultaneously engage students with primary source documents and in higher
order thinking skills
20) Learn strategies to increase
comprehension and problem-solving skills
21) Develop an understanding of the role of
reasoning and argument in the CCSS
22) Recognize why writing in numerous
formats is an essential cross-cutting strategy
23) Provide evidence of professional
context and learning within a course using a reflection strategy for further
planning implementation of the CCSS
Course Description
This course, Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards, has been divided into four chapters. The organization of the course covers the rationale for and design of the Common Core State Standards, the “Common Core Mindset” practitioners need for successful implementation, and what specific actions can be taken for deeper implementation across settings.
Chapter
1: Introduction
to the Shifts Resulting From CCSS Implementation
Chapter
2: Developing
a CCSS Mindset
Chapter
3: Common
Core Mindset in Action
Chapter
4: Thinking
Through the Core
Course Overview
In Chapter 1, we will outline the
rationale for and structure of the Common Core State Standards. The major
shifts in English and Language Arts/Literacy (ELA) and Mathematics reflected in
the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will be covered. An overview of design
features of the CCSS (or “what to teach”) will be connected to the practical
implications for providing instruction (or “how to teach”). Research-based
pedagogical strategies aligned with what is emphasized in the CCSS are highlighted.
The importance of mapping any implementation gap between current practice and
what is needed to deeply implement the Common Core Standard will also be
explored.
In Chapter 2, we will move past the “what” of standards to identify the underlying principles teachers need to understand when implementing the CCSS. Teachers who take time to re-examine their operating principles are in the best position to know how well their approach aligns with what the authors of the CCSS had in mind when developing the standards. This is what is referred to in this course as developing the “CCSS Mindset.” Clarification will be made between “rigor” and “difficulty” and the implications will be discussed for teachers as they work to create equitable learning conditions. We will also articulate the difference between a “fixed” and a “growth” orientation and the implications of each view for students and teachers. A self-assessment tool will be used so course participants can determine the priority level to which course participants and their students believe that ability is expandable. A seven-step process for directly teaching students that ability is expandable is also provided.
In Chapter 3, the emphasis will be on designing accessible learning conditions in partnership with students. We do this in partnership with learners in ways that will accelerate their growth toward college, career, and citizenship. The various ways in which student and teacher self-efficacy are interconnected will be discussed. In light of these interconnections, a four-step process for articulating standards and increasing student ownership over learning outcomes will be outlined. Additionally, the purpose of and a process for providing effective prescriptive feedback will be provided. As it pertains to the implementation of the Common Core Standards, the significance of the emergence of educational neuroscience and corollary strategies will be outlined. The importance of explicitly teaching academic language and methods for increasing student ownership of learning across settings will also be outlined. Participants will be supported to think through how they will approach students who struggle when implementing the Common Core Standards and the role of differentiation.
In Chapter 4, we will further explore how implementation of the Common Core Standards is aimed at deepening student comprehension and higher order thinking skills. The difference between a teaching strategy and a learning strategy will be discussed in conjunction with a particular implementation strategy, compare and contrast. Specific web-based tools for designing engaging learning activities using primary source documents and for engaging students in higher order thinking skills will be provided. The importance of student use of reasoning and argument in writing across the CCSS is addressed. Course participants will be provided a tool for further reflection on their own implementation of the standards and support in planning for any changes identified through reflection.
Each chapter contains additional handouts that cover specific topics from the chapter in greater depth. They are provided for you to read, ponder, and apply to the setting in which you work. Some of the handouts are directly related to the concepts and content of the specific chapter, but also included are handouts indirectly related to provide extended learning connections.
Student Expectations
As a student you will be expected to:
● Students are required to view/read each
screen in each exercise of each chapter. Screens, exercises and chapter content
may not be skipped. Students are also required to access and read all content
in each course handout.
●
Complete all four section examinations, showing a
competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall
score of 70% or higher, with no
individual exam score below 50%, and
successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by
college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to
determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
●
Complete a review of any
section on which your examination score was below 50%.
●
Retake any examination,
after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a
minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a
minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts).
*Please note: Minimum exam score
requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to
your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements
are.
●
Complete all course
journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown
for each writing assignment.
●
Complete a course
evaluation form at the end of the course.
Examinations
At the end of each course section, you will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the highest score. After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow further access. The average from your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect your grade. As this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
Writing Assignments
All assignments are
reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written
assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus
for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined
by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other
fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading
Guidelines that were sent as an attachment with your original course link. You should also refer to the Course Syllabus
Addendum, which was sent as an attachment with your original course link, to
determine if you have any writing assignments in addition to the Critical
Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you do, the
Essay Grading Guidelines will also
apply.
Your writing assignments must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final citations as part of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking Questions
There are four CTQs that you are
required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words (maximum
1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you gained from
the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong understanding of the
course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on
REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will
bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to course submission,
you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you must be certain to
click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE
before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article Summations
You are required to write, in
your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or scholarly
journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a Ph.D.,
Ed.D., or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the
“Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts, news articles, or
similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate specifically to
the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You will choose a total of
three relevant articles (one article per JAS) and write a thorough summary of
the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200
words with a 400-word maximum
per JAS). Be sure to provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any
other critical information to allow the facilitator to access and review each
article.
To write your summary, click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE
before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
Facilitator Description
Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards has been developed with the widest possible audience in mind because the core principles and practices of implementation need to be applied across K–12 settings. The primary goal of the course is to provide the rationale for the Common Core Standards (the why) and what research-based pedagogical approaches will help practitioners implement these standards in their unique context. The course acknowledges that practitioners are at varying stages of implementing these standards, so opportunities for self-reflection, learning about cross-cutting implementation strategies, and action planning are based on each course participant’s current practice and context.
Steven Dahl has served as a district-level administrator overseeing a variety of federal programs, such as Special Education, English Language Learning (ELL), and Title 1, for over 14 years. He currently serves as a school administrator overseeing programs for students who are provided academic and social emotional learning opportunities in very restrictive settings, including regional juvenile justice facilities. He has a master’s degree in Special Education and has completed post-master’s coursework to obtain a Washington State Administrator Credential, which certifies him to oversee programs ranging from preschool settings through 12th grade (as well as post-secondary vocational programs for 18–21-year-old students). He has 22 years of combined experience in resource-room special education classrooms, inclusion support in a comprehensive high school, and provision of support to adults with disabilities in accessing a wide range of in-school and community learning opportunities. He currently serves as Director of Professional Learning and Content Development for the Center for Educational Effectiveness (CEE) and as an educational consultant nationally. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Instructor Description
Pamela Bernards has 30 years of combined experience in diverse PK–8 and high school settings as a teacher and an administrator. In addition to these responsibilities, she was the founding director of a K–8 after-school care program and founder of a pre-school program for infants to 4-year-olds. As a principal, her school was named a U.S. Department of Education Blue Ribbon School of Excellence in 1992, as was the school at which she served as curriculum coordinator in 2010. She currently serves as a principal in a PK3–Grade 8 school. Areas of interest include curriculum, research-based teaching practices, staff development, assessment, data-driven instruction, and instructional intervention (remediation and gifted/talented). She received a doctorate in Leadership and Professional Practice from Trevecca Nazarene University. Please contact Professor Dahl if you have course content or examination questions.
Contacting the Facilitator
You may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl at steve_dahl@virtualeduc.com or calling him at 509-891-7219, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages will be answered within 24 hours. Phone conferences will be limited to 10 minutes per student, per day, given that this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the instructor about technical problems, course glitches, or other issues that involve the operation of the course.
Technical Questions
If you have questions or problems related to the operation of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your course.
If you need personal assistance then email support@virtualeduc.com or call 509-891-7219. When contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer
to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information,
Items to be Submitted, and how to submit your completed information. The
addendum will also note any additional course assignments that you may be
required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Annotated Bibliography (Suggested Readings)
Abadie, M., & Bista, K. (2018).
Understanding the stages of concerns: Implementation
of the Common Core State Standards in Louisiana schools. Journal of School
Administration Research and Development, 3(1), 57–66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190934.pdf
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Coherence map
for Common Core State Standards in mathematics. https://achievethecore.org/coherence-map/
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Instructional
practice toolkit and classroom videos. The Instructional Practice Toolkit is
designed for use by teachers and those who support teachers to build
understanding and experience with instruction aligned with college and career
readiness (CCR) standards in mathematics and ELA/literacy. http://achievethecore.org/category/1193/instructional-practice-toolkit-and-classroom-videos
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Lesson
planning resources. This collection includes to support
teachers’ understanding of text complexity. To plan a close-reading lesson with
text complexity in mind, use the Lesson Planning Tool. http://achievethecore.org/lesson-planning-tool/
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Resources
developed by Student Achievement Partners. Free, ready-to-use classroom
resources designed to help educators understand and
implement the Common Core and other college and career ready standards. https://achievethecore.org/
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). The shifts. http://achievethecore.org/category/419/the-shifts
Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Understand
the mathematics tasks. http://achievethecore.org/page/2738/understand-the-mathematics-tasks
Achieve the Core. (Updated 2016).
Progressions documents for the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. http://achievethecore.org/page/254/progressions-documents-for-the-common-core-state-standards-for-mathematics
Achieve the Core. (Updated 2020). Deep
dive into the math shifts. http://achievethecore.org/page/400/deep-dive-into-the-math-shifts
Achieve the Core. (Updated 2021).
Priority instructional content in English language arts/literacy and
mathematics. https://achievethecore.org/page/3267/priority-instructional-content-in-english-language-arts-literacy-and-mathematics
Achieve the Core. (Updated 2023).
Dismantling racism in mathematics instruction using math language routines. https://achievethecore.org/page/3433/dismantling-racism-in-mathematics-instruction-using-math-language-routines
Akkus,
M. (2016). The Common Core State Standards for mathematics. International Journal of Research in
Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 49–54. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105174.pdf
Allensworth, E., Cashdollar, S., &
Cassata, A. (2022). Supporting change in instructional practices to meet the
Common Core Mathematics and Next Generation Science Standards: How are
different supports related to instructional change? AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221088010
Allensworth, E., Cashdollar, S., &
Gwynne, J. (2021). Improvements in math instruction and student achievement through
professional learning around the Common Core State Standards in Chicago. AERA
Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986872
American Federation of Teachers.
(2016). A teacher’s guide to the Common
Core: A resource guide for success in English language arts for teachers who
work with English learners and students with disabilities. https://achievethecore.org/page/2892/a-teachers-guide-to-the-common-core-a-resource-guide-for-success-in-english-language-arts-for-teachers-who-work-with-english-learners-and-students-with-disabilities
Arold, B., & Shakeel, M. (2021).
The unintended effects of the Common Core State Standards on non-targeted
subjects. Brown University, EdWorkingPaper No.
21-418. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED671898.pdf
Bleiberg, J. (2021). Does the Common
Core have a common effect? An exploration of effects on academically vulnerable
students. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211010727
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. David McKay.
Bon, E. A., Besonia,
J. A. S., Arabia, R. P., Babas, A. N., Luena, R. B., Villaruel, C. G. D.,
Daquin, M. A. L., Decrepito, K. C., Jardenil, C. M.
B., Baclagon, S. M. H., Espora,
M. F. M., Bernardez, V. G., Nobleta, M. J. V., & Galagala, J. M. G. (2025). Electronic differentiated
instruction as a remedial strategy to enhance the reading skills of
frustration-level readers. International Journal of Advanced and Applied
Sciences, 12(5), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.05.023
Brookhart, S. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills
in your classroom. ASCD.
Brophy, J. (1998, May). Failure syndrome students. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED419625.pdf
Breaking
Barriers, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, Santa Clara County
Office of Education, & WestEd. (2022). Supporting California’s children
through a whole child approach: A field guide for creating integrated,
school-based systems of care. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED621273.pdf
Bryk, A., Greenberg, S., Bertani, A., Sebring, P., Tozer, S.
& Knowles, T. (2023). How a city learned to improve its schools.
Harvard Education Press.
Center for Applied Special Technology
(CAST). http://www.cast.org/
CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0. (2024). Universal
design for learning guidelines version 3.0 [graphic organizer]. Author. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/static/udlg3-graphicorganizer-digital-numbers-a11y.pdf
CEE [Center for Educational
Effectiveness]. (2021). Characteristics of positive outlier schools. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/60cbb75e71f161355d06d718/1623963490505/CEE+Outlier+Study+Final+Report.pdf
CEE. (2021, June). Practitioner summary.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/6123c297057dc2593a10241c/1629733528928/Practitioner+View.pdf
CEE. (2021, June). Characteristics
of positive outlier schools: Research brief. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/61a818ead33ac974d24a582a/1638406380128/CEE+Outlier+Brief.pdf
CEEDAR Center. Collaboration for
Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR). https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
Center for Parent Information and
Resources. (2016, January). ESSA/Every Student Succeeds Act. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/essa-reauth/
Cohen, J., Hutt, E., Berlin, R., &
Wiseman, E. (2022). The change we cannot see: Instructional quality and
classroom observation in the era of the Common Core. Educational Policy, 36(6),
1261–1287. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1347647.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative.
(n.d.). Common Core State Standards. https://www.thecorestandards.org/
Read the ELA Standards at https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ELA_Standards1.pdf. The Common Core State Standards for
English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and
Technical Subjects (“the standards”) represent the next generation of K–12
standards designed to prepare all students for success in college, career, and
life by the time they graduate from high school.
Read the Mathematics Standards: https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Math_Standards1.pdf
Read the Standards: http://www.thecorestandards.org/read-the-standards/
Common Core State Standards Appendix A.
(Updated 2017, December 30). https://achievethecore.org/page/1192/ccss-ela-literacy-appendix-a-research-supporting-key-elements-of-the-standards-glossary-of-key-terms
CCSSO [Council of Chief State School
Officers]. (2013). Navigating text complexity. http://navigatingtextcomplexity.kaulfussec.com/
CCSSO. (2018, May 1). Using crosscutting
concepts to prompt student responses. CCSSO Science SCASS Committee on
Classroom Assessment. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586953.pdf
Data Wise Project. Harvard University. https://datawise.gse.harvard.edu/
Deas, K. (2018). Evaluating Common
Core: Are uniform standards a silver bullet for education reform? The Journal
of Educational Foundations, 31(3–4). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1212042.pdf
Doan, S., Eagan, J., Grant, D., &
Kaufman, J. (2025, December 19). American Instructional Resources Survey: 2025
technical documentation and survey results. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4594-1.html
DocsTeach
website: https://www.docsteach.org/ The online tool for teaching with
documents, from the National Archives.
Dweck, C. (2010, September 1). Even
geniuses work hard. Educational
Leadership, 68(1), 16–20. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/even-geniuses-work-hard
Ecker, A. (2016).
Evidence-based practices for teachers: A synthesis of trustworthy online
resources. Insights into Learning
Disabilities, 13(1), 19–37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103670.pdf
Edgerton, A., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs,
L. (2020). New standards and old divides: Policy attitudes about college—and
career-readiness standards for students with disabilities. Teachers College
Record. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604562.pdf
The Education Trust West. Equitable
Math website: https://equitablemath.org/ A Pathway to Equitable Math
Instruction is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx,
and Multilingual students in grades 6–8, addresses barriers to math equity, and
aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers
guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum,
while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to
develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit “strides” serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and
collective journey from equity to anti-racism.
Stride 1: Dismantling Racism in
Mathematics Instruction: Exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases
to transform their instructional practice: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf
Stride 2: Fostering Deep Understanding:
Methods for deepening student conceptual understanding through orchestrated
math discussions that build on and connect multiple strategies. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/2_STRIDE2.pdf
Stride 3: Creating Conditions to
Thrive: Environments and practices that support students’ social, emotional,
and academic development. https://equitablemath.org/#downloads
Stride 4: The Interconnectedness of
English Language Learning and Mathematical Thinking. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/4_STRIDE4.pdf
Stride 5: Sustaining Equitable
Practice: Coaching structures that support math educators’
in their ongoing centering of equity principles. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/5_STRIDE5.pdf
Every Student Succeeds Act. (Last
reviewed 2025). https://www.ed.gov/essa
Feldman, J. (2019, April 29). Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 52–55. https://kappanonline.org/standards-based-grading-equity-reform-feldman/
Fisher, D., Frey, N.,
Almarode, J., Flories, K., & Nagel, D. (2020). The
PLC+ playbook, grades K–12: A hands-on guide to collectively improving student
learning. Corwin Press.
Fisher, D., Frey, N.,
Barbee, K., & Ortega, S. (2026). Instructional strategies to move
learning forward: 50+ tools that support the gradual release of responsibility (1st
ed.). Corwin.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D.
(2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in
reading. International Reading.
Fisher, D., Frey, N.,
& Marshall, J. (2025a). 50 strategies for activating your PLC+.
Corwin.
Fisher, D., Frey, N.,
& Marshall, J. (2025b). RIGOR unveiled: A video-enhanced flipbook
to promote teacher expertise in relationship building, instruction, goals,
organization, and relevance (1st ed.). Corwin.
Fisher, D., Frey, N.,
Ortega, S., & Hattie, J. (2023). Teaching students to drive their
learning: A playbook on engagement and self-regulation, K–12. Corwin.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Smith, D.
(2019). All learning is social and emotional: Helping students develop
essential skills for the classroom and beyond. ASCD.
Francis, E. (2017, May 9). What is
depth of knowledge? https://www.ascd.org/blogs/what-exactly-is-depth-of-knowledge-hint-its-not-a-wheel
Francis, E. (2016). Now that’s a good question! How to promote
cognitive rigor through classroom questioning. ASCD.
Frizell, M., & Dunderdale, T. (2015,
February). A compendium of research on the Common Core State Standards. Center for Education Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555455.pdf
This updated compendium includes over
85 research studies focused on the Common Core State Standards and includes research
from multiple sources, such as government entities, independent organizations,
and peer-reviewed publications from academic journals and other outlets. Each
study in the compendium has been summarized and categorized across nine topic
areas. A URL link to the original research is also provided when possible. The
compendium will be updated regularly as the body of CCSS-related research
grows.
Fuchs, L., Seethaler, P., Fuchs, D.,
& Espinas, D. (2023). Severe pandemic learning loss and the promise of
remotely delivered intervention in students with comorbid reading and
mathematics learning difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56(4),
278–294. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/00222194231170313
Gao, N., & Lafortune, J. (2019,
September). Common Core State Standards
in California: Evaluating local implementation and student outcomes. Public
Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/common-core-state-standards-in-california-evaluating-local-implementation-and-student-outcomes/
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter
more than IQ. Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence: The new science of
human relationships. Bantam.
Goodman, S., & Marx, T. A. (2018,
July). How can we ensure IEP teams provide the most intensive supports? https://intensiveintervention.org/resource/IEP-Teams
Green, S., Sanczyk,
A., Chambers, C., Mraz, M., & Polly, D. (2023). College and career readiness:
A literature synthesis. Journal of Education, 203(1), 222–229.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211002209
Guskey, T. (2021). Learning from failures: Lessons from unsuccessful grading reform initiatives. NASSP Bulletin, 105(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211029375
Gwinn, C. (2018, March 19). Dr.
Seuss, resilience, and the science of hope. PACES Connection. https://www.pacesconnection.com/blog/dr-seuss-resilience-and-the-science-of-hope-by-chan-hellman-phd-and-casey-gwinn-j-d
Gwinn, C., & Hellman, C. (2018). Hope
rising: How the science of hope can change your life. Morgan James
Publishing.
Guarino, C., Kang, H., Bargagliotti, A., Li,Y., & Smith, T. (2024). Did mathematics achievement
gaps for students with disabilities widen after the introduction of the Common
Core and its aligned assessments? Annenberg Institute, Brown University. EdWorking Paper No. 24-1077. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED662428.pdf
Guskey, T., Townsley, M., &
Buckmiller, T. (2020). The impact of standards-based learning: Tracking high
school students’ transition to the university. NASSP Bulletin, 104(4),
257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636520975862
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H.,
Stecher, B. M., Naftel, S., Robbins, M., Thompson, L. E., Garber, C., Faxon-Mills,
S., & Opfer, V. D. (2016). What supports do teachers need to help students meet Common Core
State Standards for mathematics? Findings from the American teacher and
American school leader panels. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1404-1.html
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive
teaching & the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of
Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship
of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible Learning:
The sequel. Routledge.
Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N.
(2016). Visible Learning for literacy. Sage.
Hellman, C. (2026). Hope Research
Center, University of Oklahoma (Tulsa, OK). Assorted publication links:
Webpage: https://www.ou.edu/tulsa/hope/publications
Understanding
the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experience, PTSD, and Hope:
Munoz, R. T., Pearson, L. C., Hellman,
C. M., McIntosh, H. C., Kojasteh, J., & Fox, M. D. (2018). Adverse
childhood experiences and posttraumatic stress as an antecedent of anxiety and
lower hope. Traumatology, 24(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000149
Measuring Hope: https://hoperisingwa.org/resources/measuring-hope
The Children’s Hope Scale: Child-Hope-Scale-1-1.pdf - Google Drive
The Adult Hope Scale: Adult-Hope-Scale-1.pdf - Google Drive
Hess, K. (2013). A guide to using
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge with Common Core State Standards. https://www.casciac.org/pdfs/Webbs-DOK-Flip-Chart.pdf
Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing. Heinemann.
Hull, T. H., Miles, R. E. H., &
Balkan, D. S. (2012). The
Common Core mathematics practices: Transforming practices through team leadership.
Corwin.
IES [Institutes of Education Sciences].
(n.d.). Fast facts: Percentage of students with disabilities included in
general education settings. National Center for Education
Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
IES. (2009, April). Assisting students struggling with
mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for
elementary and middle schools. National Center for Education Statistics. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf
IES. (2022, August). US education in
the time of COVID. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/pdf/Education-Covid-time.pdf
IES. (2023, May). Report on the
Condition of Education 2023. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2023/2023144.pdf
International Reading Association
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State
Standards [White paper]. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ela-common-core-state-standards-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=b1a4af8e_8
International Literacy
Association (ILA) website: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/ The ILA is a global advocacy and
membership organization that transforms lives through literacy across 75 countries.
Jennings, J. (2012). Why
have we fallen short and where do we go from here? Center for Educational Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528905.pdf
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Corwin.
Johnson, T., & Wells, L. (2017). English language learner teacher effectiveness and the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(23). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137865.pdf
Kaufman, J. H., Opfer, V. D, Bongard,
M., & Pane, J. D (2018, September 27). Changes
in what teachers know and do in the Common Core era: American teacher panel
findings from 2015 to 2017. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2658.html
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunities to change. Harvard Business
Press.
Kirst, M. (2024). Standards-based
education reforms: Looking back to look forward. Learning Policy Institute.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED671010.pdf
Kirst, M. (2020, April). In California,
Common Core has not failed. Education Next, 26(1). https://www.educationnext.org/california-common-core-has-not-failed-forum-response/
Krishnan, S. (2026). A framework for integrating
the Common Core Standards to a functional skills curriculum
in high school. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education
Professionals (JAASEP), 21(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.617
Leane, B. (2025a, November 19). The 7-step instructional cycle for PLCs [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/W1tQUvSd0NM?si=fk-Vt5l8tv9z3eaX
Leane, B. (2025b). The PLC
dashboard: Implementing, leading, and sustaining your professional learning community
at work. Solution Tree.
Leane, B. (2025c). Resources for
teachers. https://brigleane.com/teachers/
Leane, B., & Yost, J. (2022). Singletons
in a PLC at work: Navigating on-ramps to meaningful
collaboration. Solution Tree.
Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes
in state standards, school practices, and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(35). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2834
Letwinsky, K., & Cavender, M. (2018). Shifting preservice teachers’ beliefs and understandings to support pedagogical change in mathematics. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 106–120. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169843.pdf
Library of Congress. (2026). Getting
started with primary sources (webpage). Accessed 3/31/26 at: https://www.loc.gov/programs/teachers/getting-started-with-primary-sources/
Primary Sources and Standards: https://www.loc.gov/programs/teachers/getting-started-with-primary-sources/primary-sources-and-standards/
Primary Source Analysis Tool: https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/teachers/getting-started-with-primary-sources/documents/Primary_Source_Analysis_Tool_LOC.pdf
Free to Use and Reuse Sets: https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/
What is a primary
source? (Video): https://www.loc.gov/item/2021689434/
Loveless, T. (2021, March 18). Why
Common Core failed. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/03/18/why-common-core-failed/
Marchitello, M., & Wilhelm, M. (2014). The cognitive science behind the Common Core. Center for American Progress. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561076
Marshall, T., & Rodick, W. (2023). The
search for more complex racial and ethnic representation in grade school books. Education Trust. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED641895.pdf
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research
into action. ASCD.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A
comprehensive framework for effective teaching. ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Heflebower, T. (2011). The
highly engaged classroom. Solution Tree.
Meador, D. (Updated 2019, July 3). What
are some pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards? https://www.thoughtco.com/common-core-state-standards-3194603
Medina, J. (2008) Brain rules. Pear Press.
McCray, E.D., Kamman, M., Brownell, M.,
& Robinson, S. (2017). High-leverage practices and evidence-based
practices: A promising pair. University
of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability,
and Reform Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/portfolio/high-leverage-practices-and-evidence-based-practices-a-promising-pair/
McLeskey, J., Barringer, M-D.,
Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J.,
& Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special
education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf
Milkman, K. (2021). How to change: The science of getting from
where you are to where you want to be. Penguin.
Miller, L. (2022, June). List of standardized tests by state. Advanced Education. https://educationadvanced.com/resources/blog/list-of-standardized-tests-by-state/
Moore County Schools. (n.d.). EngageNY. (New York State Common Core State Standards). https://www.ncmcs.org/academics/mathematics/engageny
Moss, C., & Brookhart, S. (2012). Learning targets: Helping students aim for
understanding in today’s lesson. ASCD.
Muhammad, A. (2024). The way
forward: PLC at Work and the bright future of education. Solution Tree.
Namkung, J., & Fuchs, L. (2025).
Vulnerability to achievement stressors: More evidence that students with
learning disabilities require intensive intervention. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 58(4), 274–286.
National Assessment of Educational
Progress. (2023). The nation’s report card: 2022 reading at grades 4 & 8.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/?grade=4
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2023). 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment: Highlighted results at grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/?grade=4
Nottingham, J. (2023). Teach
brilliantly: Small shifts that lead to big gains in student learning.
Solution Tree.
NAEYC [National Association for the
Education of Young Children]. (2015). Developmentally
appropriate practice and the Common Core State Standards: Framing the issues.
Research brief. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/15_developmentally_appropriate_practice_and_the_common_core_state_standards.pdf
National Center on Accessing the
General Curriculum. (n.d.). Coordinating K–12 systems. https://aem.cast.org/coordinate/k-12
NCII [National Center on Intensive
Intervention]. (n.d.). Academic intervention tools chart. https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
NCII. (n.d.). Planning standards–aligned instruction within a multi-tiered system of supports: Reading comprehension example. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/ReadCompExample_508.pdf
NCII. (n.d.). Standards-relevant
instruction & MTSS. Literacy examples.
Phonological Awareness example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/PhonoExample_508.pdf
Decoding example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/DecodingExample_508.pdf
Fluency example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/FluenExample_508.pdf
Vocabulary example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/VocabExample_508.pdf
Reading Comprehension example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/ReadCompExample_508.pdf
Spelling example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/SpellingExample_508.pdf
NCII. (n.d.). Standards-relevant
instruction & MTSS. Mathematics examples.
Counting Number Sense example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/CountNumExample_508.pdf
Basic Facts example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/BasicFactsExample_508.pdf
Place Value example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/PlaceValExample_508.pdf
Fractions as Numbers example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/FracNumExample_508.pdf
Computation of Fractions example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/CompFracExample_508.pdf
Algebra example: https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/AlgebraExample_508.pdf
NCII. (n.d.). What is data-based
individualization? https://intensiveintervention.org/data-based-individualization
New Meridian. (n.d.). Resource center. (Includes list of links to all PARCC assessment resources curated on ERIC). https://resources.newmeridiancorp.org/research/
Nielsen, M. (2024). The 15-Day
Challenge: Simplify and energize your PLC at Work process. Solution Tree.
Oberman, M., & Boudett, K. P. (2015, November 1). Eight steps to becoming datawise. Educational
Leadership, 73(3). ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/eight-steps-to-becoming-data-wise
OSPI [Washington State Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction]. (2026a). Key shift in the WA ELA 2026
learning standards. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2026-03/key-shift-k-12-learning-standards-ela.pdf
OSPI. (2026b). Key shift in the K–12
learning standards for mathematics. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2025-11/key-shift-k-12-learning-standards-mathematics.pdf?ref=thehighlinejournal.com
OSPI. (2026c). What’s new in the K–12
learning standards for English Language Arts. https://ospi.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/2026-03/whats-new-k-12-learning-standards-ela.pdf
Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L.
M., & Saldívar García, E. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum
implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform.
AERA Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) website: http://parcc-assessment.org/
Polikoff, M. (2023). The Common Core
Debate Revisited. Educational Researcher. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X231169
Polikoff, M. S. (2021). Beyond
standards: The fragmentation of educational governance and the promise of
curriculum reform. Harvard Education Press.
Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Is Common Core “working”? And where does
Common Core research go from here? AERA Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417691749
Polikoff, M. S., Petrilli, M. J., &
Loveless, T. (2023). A decade on, has Common Core failed?
Assessing the impact of national standards. Education Next, 20(2), 72–81. https://www.educationnext.org/decade-on-has-common-core-failed-impact-national-standards-forum-polikoff-petrilli-loveless/
PowerSchool. (2023, July 11). Everything you need to know about standards-based
grading. https://www.powerschool.com/resources/blog/standards-based-grading-what-to-know-for-the-2021-2022-school-year
Reeves, D. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. ASCD.
Reeves, D., & Eaker, R. (2019). 100 day leaders: Turning short-term wins into
long-term success in schools. Solution Tree Press.
Reeves, D., Wiggs, M., Lassiter, C.,
Piercy, T., Ventura, S., & Bell, B. (2011). Navigating implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Lead
and Learn Press.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative.
John Wiley.
Schlechty, P. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working
on the work. Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically
improve student learning. ASCD.
Silver, H., Dewing, R., & Perini,
M. (2012). The core six: Essential
strategies for achieving excellence with the Common Core. ASCD.
Smarter Balanced Resources for
Educators: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/educators/
Song, M., Garet, M., Yang, R., & Atkinson,
D. (2021). Did states’ adoption of more rigorous standards lead to improved
student achievement? Evidence from a comparative interrupted time series study
of standards-based reform. American
Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211058460
Sousa, D. (2010). Mind, brain, and education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom.
Solution Tree.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A.
(2011). Differentiation and the brain:
How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom. Solution Tree.
St. Martin, K., Vaughn, S., Troia, G., Fien,H.,
& Coyne, M. (2024). Intensifying literacy instruction: Essential
practices, Version 2.1. MiMTSS Technical
Assistance Center, Michigan Department of Education. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/-/media/Project/Websites/mde/Literacy/Literacy-in-Michigan/Intensifying_Literacy_Instruction_Essential_Practices.pdf
Stewart, A. (2021). Personalizing
learning = UDL and SDI + MTSS. The Source,
1(11). https://www.smore.com/95gav-the-source?ref=email-content#w-2722552697
Stiggins, R., &
Chappuis, J. (2008, January). Enhancing
student learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ807558
Surr, W., Carter, K., & Stewart, A.
(2022, September). Teachers making the shift to
equitable, learner-centered education: Harnessing mental models, motivations,
and moves. Aurora Institute. https://aurora-institute.org/resource/teachers-making-the-shift-to-equitable-learner-centered-education/
Swinney, R., & Velasco, P. (2011). Connecting content and academic language for
English learners and struggling students grades 2–6. Corwin.
The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2018).
The opportunity myth: What students can show us about how school is letting
them down—and how to fix it. https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/
The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2022, August). Unlocking acceleration: How below grade-level work is holding students back in literacy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED624426.pdf
Tindal, G., Zopluoglu,
C., Glasgow, A., & Llewellyn, J. (2025). CBMSkills
mathematics development. Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of
Oregon. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED675839.pdf
TODOS. (n.d.). Mathematics education
through the lens of social justice: Acknowledgment, actions, and accountability
A joint position statement from the National Council of Supervisors of
Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL. https://www.todos-math.org/assets/docs2016/2016Enews/3.pospaper16_wtodos_8pp.pdf
Tomlinson, C. (2010). Differentiation
model. Institutes on Academic Diversity. http://differentiationcentral.com/model/
Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2014).
A differentiated approach to the Common
Core: How do I help a broad range of learners succeed with challenging
curriculum? ASCD.
Tortorelli, L.S.,
Gerde, H.K., Rohloff, R., & Bingham, G.E. (2022). Ready, set,
write: Early learning standards for writing in the Common Core era. Reading
Research Quarterly, 57(2), 729–752. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.436
Townsley, M., & Wilcox, J. (2024).
Standards-based grading: Core principles and current implementation debates. The
Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 97(3),
76–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2024.2357615
U.S. Department of Education, Office
for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of
COVID-19 on America’s students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Every
Student Succeeds Act. Link to resources: https://www.ed.gov/essa
U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). TIMSS 2007 results. National Center for Trends in International
Math and Science Study (TIMSS). https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp
University of Oregon’s Brain
Development Lab. (2008). Changing brains:
Effects of experience on human brain development [DVD]. Available from https://bdl.uoregon.edu/changing-brains-2/
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Webb, N. (2002) Depth of knowledge (DOK) levels in 4 content
areas. https://mathed.umbc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/524/2022/08/Webb_2002_DOK_Levels.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February). Teacher training, evaluation, and
compensation intervention report: National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards Certification. https://whatworks.ed.gov
Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016).
Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of
education. Rowman & Littlefield.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree.
Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite student learning: Insights from a
neurologist and classroom teacher. ASCD.
Woo, A., Doss, C., Shapiro, A., & Steiner, E. (2025a, December 16). How public school-based pre-K teachers use and combine instructional materials: Findings from the American public school pre-K teacher survey. RAND. Downloaded 3/31/26 from: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4412-1.html
Woo, A., Cannon, J., Doss, C., Shapiro,
A., & Steiner, E. (2025b, December 16). Professional learning opportunities
for public school-based pre-K teachers: Findings from the Spring 2025 American
public school pre-K teacher survey. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4412-4.html
Wormeli,
R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal:
Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Stenhouse.
Zinski, C., & Rea, D. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): What it means for
educators of students at risk. National
Youth At-Risk Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/nyarj.2016.020101
Zwiers, J., O'Hara, S., &
Pritchard, R. (2014). Common Core Standards in diverse classrooms: Essential
practices for developing academic language and disciplinary literacy (1st
ed.). Routledge.
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic
conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content
understandings. Stenhouse.
Course content is updated every three
years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or
may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command
line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether
the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding
organization’s web home page.
7/28/26 jn