Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards
Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday - Friday
Virtual Education Software
23403 E Mission Avenue, Suite 220F
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
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.
Understanding & Implementing Common Core Standards
Virtual Education Software, inc. 2014, Revised 2016, Revised 2019, Revised 2022
Dr. Pamela Bernards, Ed.D.
Professor Steven Dahl, M.Ed.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
As a student you will be expected to:
● Complete all four information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
● Complete all four section examinations, showing a competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall score of 70% or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
● Complete a review of any section on which your examination score was below 50%.
● Retake any examination, after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
● Complete all course journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown for each writing assignment.
● Complete a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
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.
All assignments are reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines, which were sent as an attachment with your original course link. You should also refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum, which was sent as an attachment with your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final citations as part of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You may contact the facilitator by emailing Professor Dahl at email@example.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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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.
Abadie, M., & Bista, K. (2018). Understanding the stages of concerns: Implementation of the Common Core State Standards in Louisiana schools. Journal of School Administration Research and Development, 3(1), 57–66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1190934.pdf
Achieve the Core: Resources developed by Student Achievement Partners. Free, ready-to-use classroom resources designed to help educators understand and implement the Common Core and other college and career ready standards. https://achievethecore.org/
Coherence Map for Common Core State Standards in Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/1118/coherence-map
Deep Dive Into the Math Shifts: http://achievethecore.org/page/400/deep-dive-into-the-math-shifts
Dismantling racism in mathematics instruction using math language routines. (Updated 2023). https://achievethecore.org/page/3433/dismantling-racism-in-mathematics-instruction-using-math-language-routines
Instructional Practice Toolkit and Classroom Videos: The Instructional Practice Toolkit is designed for use by teachers and those who support teachers to build understanding and experience with instruction aligned with College and Career Readiness (CCR) standards in mathematics and ELA/literacy. http://achievethecore.org/category/1193/instructional-practice-toolkit-and-classroom-videos
Lesson Planning Resources: Rather than focusing exclusively on literacy skills, the Common Core State Standards set expectations for the complexity of texts students need to be able to read to be ready for college and careers. This collection includes tools to help with each step and research to support teachers’ understanding of text complexity. To plan a close-reading lesson with text complexity in mind, use the Lesson Planning Tool. http://achievethecore.org/lesson-planning-tool/
Priority instructional content in English language arts/Literacy and mathematics. https://achievethecore.org/page/3267/priority-instructional-content-in-english-language-arts-literacy-and-mathematics
Progressions documents for the Common Core State Standards for mathematics. http://achievethecore.org/page/254/progressions-documents-for-the-common-core-state-standards-for-mathematics
Understand How CCSS Aligned Assessment is Different: All of the mini-assessments presented are designed to highlight the math Shifts of Focus, Coherence, and Rigor. The resources below explain what each of the Shifts look like in CCSS-aligned assessment. Learn more about the math Shifts. http://achievethecore.org/page/2732/understand-how-ccss-aligned-assessment-is-different
Understand the Common Core State Standards Shifts in Mathematics: http://achievethecore.org/page/900/the-common-core-state-standards-shifts-in-mathematics
Understand the Mathematics Tasks: http://achievethecore.org/page/2738/understand-the-mathematics-tasks
Understanding the Shifts: http://achievethecore.org/category/419/the-shifts
Advanced Education. (June 2022). List of standardized tests by state. https://educationadvanced.com/resources/blog/list-of-standardized-tests-by-state/
Akkus, M. (2016). The Common Core State Standards for mathematics. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 2(1), 49–54. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105174.pdf
Allensworth, E., Cashdollar, S., & Cassata, A. (2022). Supporting change in instructional practices to meet the Common Core Mathematics and Next Generation Science Standards: how are different supports related to instructional change? AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221088010
Allensworth, E., Cashdollar, S., & Gwynne, J. (2021). Improvements in math instruction and student achievement through professional learning around the Common Core State Standards in Chicago. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420986872
American Federation of Teachers (2016). A teacher’s guide to the Common Core: A resource guide for success in English language arts for teachers who work with English learners and students with disabilities. http://achievethecore.org/page/2892/a-teacher-s-guide-to-the-common-core-a-resource-guide-for-success-in-english-language-arts-for-teachers-who-work-with-english-learners-and-students-with-disabilities
Bleiberg, J. (2021). Does the Common Core have a common effect? An exploration of effects on academically vulnerable students. AERA Open, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211010727
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1. David McKay.
Brookhart, S. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
Brophy, J. (1998, May). Failure syndrome students. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED419625.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). http://www.cast.org/
CEEDAR Center. Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR). https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/
Center for Educational Effectiveness [CEE]. (2021). Characteristics of positive outlier schools. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6050e383f7f4047a291609c8/t/60cbb75e71f161355d06d718/1623963490505/CEE+Outlier+Study+Final+Report.pdf
Center for Parent Information and Resources. (2016, January). ESSA/Every Student Succeeds Act. https://www.parentcenterhub.org/essa-reauth/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.). Common Core State Standards. https://learning.ccsso.org/common-core-state-standards-initiative
Read the ELA Standards at https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ELA_Standards1.pdf. The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (“the standards”) represent the next generation of K–12 standards designed to prepare all students for success in college, career, and life by the time they graduate from high school.
Read the Mathematics Standards: https://learning.ccsso.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Math_Standards1.pdf
Read the Standards: http://www.thecorestandards.org/read-the-standards/
Common Core State Standards Appendix A: https://achievethecore.org/page/1192/ccss-ela-literacy-appendix-a-research-supporting-key-elements-of-the-standards-glossary-of-key-terms
CCSSO Tools and Resources for Standards Implementation: https://ccsso.org/tools-and-resources-standards-implementation
CCSSO General Resources
A beginner’s guide to text complexity. https://www.generationready.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/A-Beginners-Guide-to-Text-Complexity-GR-White-Paper-3.2.pdf
Navigating text complexity. http://navigatingtextcomplexity.kaulfussec.com/
New research on text complexity: Supplemental information for Appendix A of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy: New research on text complexity. (2017). http://www.corestandards.org/assets/E0813_Appendix_A_New_Research_on_Text_Complexity.pdf
Science SCASS States. (2018, May 1). Using crosscutting concepts to prompt student responses. CCSSO Science SCASS Committee on Classroom Assessment. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED586953.pdf
Teaching to the Core. https://ccsso.org/resource-library/teaching-core
Data Wise Project. Harvard University. https://datawise.gse.harvard.edu/
DocsTeach website: https://www.docsteach.org/ The online tool for teaching with documents, from the National Archives.
Dweck, C. (2010, September 1). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/even-geniuses-work-hard
Ecker, A. (2016). Evidence-based practices for teachers: A synthesis of trustworthy online resources. Insights into Learning Disabilities, 13(1), 19–37. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1103670.pdf
Edgerton, A., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2020). New standards and old divides: Policy attitudes about college—and career-readiness standards for students with disabilities. Teachers College Record. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED604562.pdf
EngageNY. (New York State Common Core State Standards). https://www.engageny.org/common-core-curriculum
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). https://www.ed.gov/essa
Equitable Math website: https://equitablemath.org/ A Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction is an integrated approach to mathematics that centers Black, Latinx, and Multilingual students in grades 6–8, addresses barriers to math equity, and aligns instruction to grade-level priority standards. The Pathway offers guidance and resources for educators to use now as they plan their curriculum, while also offering opportunities for ongoing self-reflection as they seek to develop an anti-racist math practice. The toolkit “strides” serve as multiple on-ramps for educators as they navigate the individual and collective journey from equity to anti-racism.
Stride 1: Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction: Exercises for educators to reflect on their own biases to transform their instructional practice: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf
Stride 2: Fostering Deep Understanding: Methods for deepening student conceptual understanding through orchestrated math discussions that build on and connect multiple strategies. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/2_STRIDE2.pdf
Stride 3: Creating Conditions to Thrive: Environments and practices that support students’ social, emotional, and academic development. https://equitablemath.org/#downloads
Stride 4: The Interconnectedness of English Language Learning and Mathematical Thinking. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/4_STRIDE4.pdf
Stride 5: Sustaining Equitable Practice: Coaching structures that support math educators’ in their ongoing centering of equity principles. https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/5_STRIDE5.pdf
Feldman, J. (2019, April 29). Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 52–55. https://kappanonline.org/standards-based-grading-equity-reform-feldman/
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Lapp, D. (2012). Text complexity: Raising rigor in reading. International Reading.
Frey, N., Fisher, D., & Smith, D. (2019). All learning is social and emotional: Helping students develop essential skills for the classroom and beyond. ASCD.
Francis, E. (2017). What is depth of knowledge? https://www.ascd.org/blogs/what-exactly-is-depth-of-knowledge-hint-its-not-a-wheel
Francis, E. (2016). Now that’s a good question! How to promote cognitive rigor through classroom questioning. ASCD.
Frizell, M., & Dunderdale, T. (2015, February). A compendium of research on the Common Core State Standards. Center for Education Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED555455.pdf
This updated compendium includes over 85 research studies focused on the Common Core State Standards and encompasses research from multiple sources, such as government entities, independent organizations, and peer-reviewed publications from academic journals and other outlets. Each study in the compendium has been summarized and categorized across nine topic areas. A URL link to the original research is also provided when possible. The compendium will be updated regularly as the body of CCSS-related research grows.
Gao, N., & Lafortune, J. (2019). Common Core State Standards in California: Evaluating local implementation and student outcomes. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/common-core-state-standards-in-california-evaluating-local-implementation-and-student-outcomes/
Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam.
Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships. Bantam.
Guskey, T. (2021). Learning from failures: Lessons from unsuccessful grading reform initiatives. NASSP Bulletin, 105(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/01926365211029375
Guskey, T., Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. (2020). The impact of standards-based learning: Tracking high school students’ transition to the university. NASSP Bulletin, 104(4), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636520975862
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., Stecher, B. M., Naftel, S., Robbins, M., Thompson, L. E., Garber, C., Faxon-Mills, S., & Opfer, V. D. (2016). What supports do teachers need to help students meet Common Core State Standards for mathematics? Findings from the American teacher and American school leader panels. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1404-1.html
Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching & the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin.
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021
Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel. Routledge.
Hattie, J., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2016). Visible learning for literacy. https://visible-learning.org/2016/03/visible-learning-for-literacy-hattie/
Hess, K. (2013). A guide to using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge with Common Core State Standards. https://www.casciac.org/pdfs/Webbs-DOK-Flip-Chart.pdf
Hillocks, G. (2011). Teaching argument writing. Heinemann.
Hull, T. H., Miles, R. E. H., & Balkan, D. S. (2012). The Common Core mathematics practices: Transforming practices through team leadership. Corwin.
Institutes of Education Sciences (IES). (2023, May). Report on the Condition of Education 2023. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2023/2023144.pdf
Institutes of Educational Sciences (IES). (2009, April). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf
Institutes of Educational Sciences (IES). (n.d.). Fast facts: Percentage of students with disabilities included in general education settings. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
Institutes of Educational Science (IES). (2022, August). US education in the time of COVID. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/annualreports/pdf/Education-Covid-time.pdf
International Reading Association Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Committee. (2012). Literacy implementation guidance for the ELA Common Core State Standards [White paper]. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ela-common-core-state-standards-guidance.pdf?sfvrsn=b1a4af8e_8
International Literacy Association (ILA) website: https://www.literacyworldwide.org/ The ILA is a global advocacy and membership organization that transforms lives through literacy across 75 countries.
Jennings, J. (2012). Why have we fallen short and where do we go from here? Center for Educational Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528905.pdf
Jensen, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching. Corwin.
Johnson, T., & Wells, L. (2017). English language learner teacher effectiveness and the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(23). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1137865.pdf
Kaufman, J. H., Opfer, V. D, Bongard, M., & Pane, J. D (2018). Changes in what teachers know and do in the Common Core era: American teacher panel findings from 2015 to 2017. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2658.html
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunities to change. Harvard Business Press.
Kirst, M. (2020, April). In California, Common Core has not failed. Education Next. https://www.educationnext.org/california-common-core-has-not-failed-forum-response/
Lee, J., & Wu, Y. (2017). Is the Common Core racing America to the top? Tracking changes in state standards, school practices, and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(35). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2834
Letwinsky, K., & Cavender, M. (2018). Shifting preservice teachers’ beliefs and understandings to support pedagogical change in mathematics. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 106–120. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169843.pdf
Loveless, T. (2021, March 18). Why Common Core failed. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/03/18/why-common-core-failed/
Marchitello, M., & Wilhelm, M. (2014). The cognitive science behind the Common Core. Center for American Progress. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED561076
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD.
Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective teaching. ASCD.
Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Heflebower, T. (2011). The highly engaged classroom. Solution Tree.
Meador, D. (2019, July 3). What are some pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards? https://www.thoughtco.com/common-core-state-standards-3194603
Medina, J. (2008) Brain rules. Pear Press.
McCray, E.D., Kamman, M., Brownell, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). High-leverage practices and evidence-based practices: A promising pair. University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/portfolio/high-leverage-practices-and-evidence-based-practices-a-promising-pair/
McLeskey, J., Barringer, M-D., Billingsley, B., Brownell, M., Jackson, D., Kennedy, M., Lewis, T., Maheady, L., Rodriguez, J., Scheeler, M. C., Winn, J., & Ziegler, D. (2017, January). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CEC-HLP-Web.pdf
Milkman, K. (2021). How to change: The science of getting from where you are to where you want to be. Penguin.
Moss, C., & Brookhart, S. (2012). Learning targets: Helping students aim for understanding in today’s lesson. ASCD.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2023). The nation’s report card: 2022 reading at grades 4 & 8. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/?grade=4
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2023). 2022 NAEP mathematics assessment: Highlighted results at grades 4 and 8 for the nation, states, and districts. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/?grade=4
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2015). Developmentally appropriate practice and the Common Core State Standards: Framing the issues. Research brief. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/15_developmentally_appropriate_practice_and_the_common_core_state_standards.pdf
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (n.d.). Coordinating K–12 systems. https://aem.cast.org/coordinate/k-12#.XDAF3VxKjIU
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. (2003). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal interpretation. https://www.cast.org/products-services/resources/2003/ncac-curriculum-access-legal-interpretation
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d.). Academic intervention tools chart. https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d.). Planning standards–Aligned instruction within a multi-tiered system of supports: Reading comprehension example. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/ReadCompExample_508.pdf
New Meridian. (n.d.). Resource center. (Includes list of links to all PARCC assessment resources curated on ERIC). https://resources.newmeridiancorp.org/research/
Oberman, M., & Boudett, K. P. (2015, November 1). Eight steps to becoming datawise. Educational Leadership, 73(3). ASCD. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/eight-steps-to-becoming-data-wise
Oregon Department of Education. (n.d.). Apply the concepts. http://oregonliteracypd.uoregon.edu/topic/academic-language
Pak, K., Polikoff, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Saldívar García, E. (2020). The adaptive challenges of curriculum implementation: Insights for educational leaders driving standards-based reform. AERA Open, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420932828
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) website: http://parcc-assessment.org/
Polikoff, M. S. (2021). Beyond standards: The fragmentation of educational governance and the promise of curriculum reform. Harvard Education Press.
Polikoff, M. S. (2017). Is Common Core “working”? And where does Common Core research go from here? https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417691749
Polikoff, M. S., Petrilli, M. J., & Loveless, T. (2023). A decade on, has Common Core failed? Assessing the impact of national standards. Education Next, 20(2), 72–81. https://www.educationnext.org/decade-on-has-common-core-failed-impact-national-standards-forum-polikoff-petrilli-loveless/
PowerSchool. (2021). Standards-based grading: What to know for the 2021-2022 school year. https://www.powerschool.com/resources/blog/standards-based-grading-what-to-know-for-the-2021-2022-school-year
Reeves, D. (2010). Transforming professional development into student results. ASCD.
Reeves, D., & Eaker, R. (2019). 100 day leaders: Turning short-term wins into long-term success in schools. Solution Tree Press.
Reeves, D., Wiggs, M., Lassiter, C., Piercy, T., Ventura, S., & Bell, B. (2011). Navigating implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Lead and Learn Press.
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. John Wiley.
Schlechty, P. (2011). Engaging students: The next level of working on the work. Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student learning. ASCD.
Silver, H., Dewing, R., & Perini, M. (2012). The core six: Essential strategies for achieving excellence with the Common Core. ASCD.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/about/
Smarter Balanced Resources for Educators: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/educators/
Song, M., Garet, M., Yang, R., & Atkinson, D. (2021). Did states’ adoption of more rigorous standards lead to improved student achievement? Evidence from a comparative interrupted time series study of standards-based reform. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211058460
Sousa, D. (2010). Mind, brain, and education: Neuroscience implications for the classroom. Solution Tree.
Sousa, D. A., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom. Solution Tree.
Stewart, A. (2021). Personalizing learning = UDL and SDI + MTSS. The Source. https://www.smore.com/95gav-the-source?ref=email-content#w-2722552697
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2008, January). Enhancing student learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ807558
Surr, W., Carter, K., & Stewart, A. (2022, September). Teachers making the shift to equitable, learner-centered education: Harnessing mental models, motivations, and moves. Aurora Institute. https://aurora-institute.org/resource/teachers-making-the-shift-to-equitable-learner-centered-education/
Swinney, R., & Velasco, P. (2011). Connecting content and academic language for English learners and struggling students grades 2–6. Corwin.
The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2018). The opportunity myth: What students can show us about how school is letting them down—and how to fix it. https://opportunitymyth.tntp.org/
The New Teacher Project (TNTP). (2022, August). Unlocking acceleration: How below grade-level work is holding students back in literacy. https://tntp.org/assets/documents/Unlocking_Acceleration_8.16.22.pdf
TODOS. (n.d.). Mathematics education through the lens of social justice: Acknowledgment, actions, and accountability A joint position statement from the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and TODOS: Mathematics for ALL. https://www.todos-math.org/assets/docs2016/2016Enews/3.pospaper16_wtodos_8pp.pdf
Tomlinson, C. (2010). Differentiation flow chart. Institutes on Academic Diversity. http://differentiationcentral.com/model/
Tomlinson, C., & Imbeau, M. (2014). A differentiated approach to the Common Core: How do I help a broad range of learners succeed with challenging curriculum? ASCD.
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2021). Education in a pandemic: The disparate impacts of COVID-19 on America’s students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/20210608-impacts-of-covid19.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Every Student Succeeds Act. Link to resources: https://www.ed.gov/essa
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022). School connectedness helps students thrive. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/connectedness.htm
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). TIMSS 2007 results. National Center for Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). https://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp
University of Oregon’s Brain Development Lab. (2008). Changing brains: Effects of experience on human brain development [DVD]. Available from https://bdl.uoregon.edu/changing-brains-2/
Webb, N. (2002) Depth of knowledge (DOK) levels in 4 content areas. https://mathed.umbc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/524/2022/08/Webb_2002_DOK_Levels.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February). Teacher training, evaluation, and compensation intervention report: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Certification. https://whatworks.ed.gov
Whitman, G., & Kelleher, I. (2016). Neuroteach: Brain science and the future of education. Rowman & Littlefield.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree.
Willis, J. (2006). Research-based strategies to ignite student learning: Insights from a neurologist and classroom teacher. ASCD.
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Stenhouse.
Zinski, C., & Rea, D. (2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): What it means for educators of students at risk. National Youth At-Risk Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.20429/nyarj.2016.020101
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings. Stenhouse.
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding organization’s web home page.