Assignment: Application:
Preparing to Debate an Issue
In this module, you will complete this Application Assignment first, as it prepares you for the Discussion. You will use the information you obtain and analyze in this Assignment to inform your debate postings in the Discussion.
As an education leader, you will need to stay aware of issues that impact the work in your specialization. You will need to be well informed about the issues and understand their potential impact in your field. As a leader, the position you take on an issue may be influential, so your position should be carefully considered and supported. As you carefully examine a case study in this Assignment, the critical analysis skills you practice reflect the types of skills you will use as a leader in your field.
In Module 1, you identified three topics of interest in fields related to education. You also read case studies and selected a case that was particularly relevant to you and your interests.
Review the case study that you selected as well as the required module Learning Resources. Be sure to review the optional resources as you may find them equally helpful for this Assignment. Examine the information in the case study to identify stakeholders and problems related to the issue. Consider the information you need to obtain to develop a better understanding of the issue and consider how you might locate this information.
By Day 3 (of Module 2)
Submit 3-page analysis of the case study in which you:
Identify at least two key stakeholders and explain their relevance to the issue described in the case study.
Explain at least two problems associated with the issue.
Pose at least three questions that will help you gain a better understanding of the issue.
Explain how you would proceed to obtain the answers to your questions.

Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Scenario Your state is considering a required set of education standards that all schools must adopt. You have been nominated to serve on the statewide committee to inform the legislature as to which standards, if any, should be adopted. You will have the opportunity to take a stand on the following issue. Does a set of required standards improve or limit education for ALL students (e.g., general education students, special education, English language learners, gifted learners) in state schools? Consider the following questions: How can standards be implemented to improve the quality of education for ALL students in all levels and types of classroom (e.g., general education, special education, vocational)? Is it more effective to adopt district standards, state-specific standards, or national standards? Once you decide which standards to adopt, what materials, supports and training will be needed to implement them? How do different stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, government leaders, principals, teachers with various specialties and points of view, students, parents) feel about the issue of standards adoption and implementation? Stakeholders The State Department of Education, school administrators, teachers, students, parents, educational specialists, politicians, business leaders, employers, advocacy groups, and the community at large. Document Set 1 • Document 1: A brief overview of the standards-based movement with information synthesized from multiple authentic sources • Document 2: Statistics and quantitative data that demonstrates inequality and falling international performance; the data focuses on literacy, science, and math scores, as well as the importance of education on lifetime earnings This document is pieced together from a variety of authentic documents • Document 3: An authentic document that explores the function of technology in education, and non-traditional settings for K-12 education © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 2
Case Study 3: Issues in K-12 Education
Issues in K-12 Education Case Study Document 4 This is an authentic document from the United States Department of Education. It introduces new guidelines for education reform that will prepare all public school students for college or a career. College- and Career-Ready Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act To help achieve President Obama’s stated goal for the country of ensuring that all students are ready for college and careers when they graduate from high school, the administration has designed a blueprint for a reenvisioned federal role in education through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The new ESEA will call for • Raising standards for all students in English language arts and mathematics; • Developing better assessments aligned with college-and career-ready standards; and • Implementing a complete education through improved professional development and evidence-based instructional models and supports. In each of the sections below are set forth the expectations for the federal government, states, districts, and schools to meet these benchmarks for the college and career readiness of America’s students. College- and Career-Ready Students The administration’s proposal for reauthorizing ESEA will maintain formula grants to high-poverty school districts while making significant changes to better support states, districts, and schools, including middle and high schools, in improving achievement for all groups of students, including low-income and minority students, English Learners, and students with disabilities. This support will be focused on the following efforts. Rigorous College- and Career-Ready Standards. Following the lead of the nation’s governors and state education leaders, the administration is calling on all states to adopt state-developed standards in English language arts and mathematics that build toward college and career readiness by the time students graduate from high school, and high-quality statewide assessments aligned with these standards. States may choose to: either upgrade their existing standards, working with their four-year public university system to certify that mastery of the standards ensures that a student will not need to take remedial coursework upon admission to a postsecondary institution in the system; or work with other states to create state-developed common standards that © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 6 build toward college and career readiness. To ensure that all students are learning what they need to succeed, standards must be based on evidence regarding what students must know and be able to do at each grade level to be on track to graduate from high school college- and career-ready. Such standards will also give families and communities the information they need to determine whether their students are on track toward college and career readiness and to evaluate their schools’ effectiveness. States will continue to implement statewide science standards and aligned assessments in specific grade spans, and may include such assessments—as well as statewide assessments in other subjects, such as history—in their accountability systems. Finally, states will develop and adopt statewide English language proficiency standards for English Learners, aligned so that they reflect the academic language necessary to master state content standards. Rigorous and Fair Accountability and Support at Every Level. Building on these statewide standards and aligned assessments, every state will ensure that its statewide system of accountability rewards schools and districts for progress and success, requires rigorous interventions in the lowest-performing schools and districts, and allows local flexibility to determine the appropriate improvement and support strategies for most schools. In all of our conversations with people from every state, we’ve heard a consistent message that our schools aren’t expecting enough of students. We need to raise our standards so that all students are graduating prepared to succeed in college and the workplace. We’ve also heard that people aren’t looking to Washington for answers. They don’t want us to provide a prescription for success. Our role should be to offer a meaningful definition of success—one that shows teachers and students what they should be striving for. —U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Testimony Before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee on the Obama Administration’s Blueprint for Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), March 17, 2010. To foster public accountability for results and help focus improvement and support efforts, states must have data systems in place to gather information that is critical to determining how schools and districts are progressing in preparing students to graduate from high school college- and career-ready. States and districts will collect and make public data relating to student academic achievement and growth in English language arts and mathematics, student academic achievement in science, and, if states choose, student academic achievement and growth in other subjects, such as history. At the high school level, this data will also include graduation rates, college enrollment rates, and rates of college enrollment without need for remediation. All of these data must be disaggregated by race, gender, ethnicity, disability status, English Learner status, and family income. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 6 States and districts also will collect other key information about teaching and learning conditions, including information on school climate, such as student, teacher and school leader attendance, disciplinary incidents, or student, parent, and school staff surveys about their school experience. Measuring and Supporting Schools, Districts, and States. State accountability systems will be expected to recognize progress and growth and reward success rather than only identify failure. To ensure that accountability no longer falls solely at the doors of schools, districts and states will be held accountable for providing their schools, principals, and teachers with the support they need to succeed. States will be asked to recognize and reward schools and districts making the most progress, to provide flexibility for local improvement efforts, and to focus the most rigorous support and interventions on the very lowest-performing schools and districts. The administration will call on states, districts, and schools to aim for the ambitious goal—by 2020—of all students graduating or on track to graduate from high school ready for college and a career. Performance targets, based on whole-school and subgroup achievement and growth, and graduation rates, will guide improvement toward that ambitious goal, and those that are meeting all of their performance targets will be recognized and rewarded. States, districts, and schools will look not just at absolute performance and proficiency but also at individual student growth and school progress over time, and at the additional data described above, to guide local improvement and support strategies for schools. Why Focus on College and Career Readiness? Four of every 10 new college students, including half of those at two-year institutions, take remedial courses, and many employers comment on the inadequate preparation of high school graduates. The schools, districts, and states that are successful in reaching performance targets, significantly increasing student performance for all students, closing achievement gaps, or turning around the lowest-performing schools (at the district and state levels) will be recognized as “Reward” schools, districts, and states. States will receive funds to design innovative programs to reward high-poverty Reward schools and Reward districts. Rewards may include financial rewards for the staff and students and for development of and participation in communities of practice to share best practices and replicate successful strategies to assist lower-performing schools and districts. Rewards may also include flexibility in the use of ESEA funds and, as appropriate, competitive preference for Reward states, high-need Reward districts, and high-need Reward schools in some federal grant competitions. Reward districts will also be given flexibility in implementing interventions in their lowest-performing schools, described further below. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 6 At the other end of the spectrum will be “Challenge” states, districts, and schools. States will identify Challenge schools that are in need of specific assistance. The first category of Challenge schools will be the lowest-performing 5 percent of schools in each state, based on student academic achievement, student growth, and graduation rates, that are not making progress to improve. In these schools, states and districts will be required to implement one of four school turnaround models, to support better outcomes for students. Reward districts will receive flexibility to implement a different research-based intervention model beyond the scope of the four school turnaround models. The next 5 percent of low-performing schools will be identified in a warning category, and states and districts will implement research-based, locally determined strategies to help them improve. Schools that are not closing significant, persistent achievement gaps will constitute another category of Challenge schools. In these schools, districts will be required to implement data-driven interventions to support those students who are furthest behind and close the achievement gap. For all Challenge schools, districts may implement strategies, such as expanded learning time, supplemental educational services, public school choice, or others, to help students succeed. Challenge districts whose schools, principals, and teachers are not receiving the support they need to succeed may also face significant governance or staffing changes, including replacement of the superintendent. Both Challenge districts and states will face additional restrictions on the use of ESEA funds and may be required to work with an outside organization to improve student academic achievement. Building Capacity for Support at Every Level. As the administration asks more of each level of the system, it will also build state and district capacity to support schools, school leaders, teachers, and students. The administration’s proposal will allow states and districts to reserve funds to carry out such activities as (1) supporting and complementing the adoption of rigorous standards and high-quality assessments, and supporting teachers in teaching to those standards; (2) supporting the more effective use of data to identify local needs and improve student outcomes; (3) improving capacity at the state and district levels to support the effective use of technology to improve instruction; (4) coordinating with early learning programs to improve school readiness; or (5) carrying out effective family engagement strategies. Districts will be required to set aside a portion of funds under this program to improve student performance in high-need schools by implementing effective school improvement strategies and carrying out strategies to ensure the equitable distribution of effective teachers and school leaders. Reward districts will be allowed flexibility around this set-aside. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 6 Fostering Comparability and Equity. To give every student a fair chance to succeed and to give principals and teachers the resources to support student success, the administration will encourage increased resource equity at every level of the system. Over time, districts will be required to ensure that their high-poverty schools receive state and local funding levels (for personnel and relevant nonpersonnel expenditures) comparable to those received by their low-poverty schools. In addition, districts that use their resources to provide strong support to disadvantaged students will be given additional flexibility to provide such support. States will be asked to measure and report on resource disparities and develop a plan to tackle them. Assessing Achievement The administration’s proposal also will maintain support for state efforts to improve the quality of their assessment systems, and to develop and implement the upgraded standards and assessments required by the College- and Career-Ready Students program (the $14.5 billion request for the reauthorized Title I, Part A, currently the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies). Improved assessments can be used to: accurately measure student growth; better measure how states, districts, schools, principals, and teachers are educating students; help teachers adjust and focus their teaching; and provide better information to students and their families. States will receive formula grants to develop and implement high-quality assessments aligned with college- and career-ready standards in English language arts and mathematics that accurately measure student academic achievement and growth, provide feedback to support and improve teaching, and measure school success and progress. States may also use funds to develop or implement high-quality, rigorous statewide assessments in other academic or career and technical subjects, high school course assessments, English language proficiency assessments, and interim or formative assessments. Beginning in 2015, formula funds will be available only to states that are implementing assessments based on college- and career-ready standards that are common to a significant number of states. The program also will support competitive grants to consortia of states and to other entities working in partnership with states for research on, or development and improvement of, additional high-quality assessments to be used by multiple states in such areas as science, history, or foreign languages; high school course assessments in academic and career and technical subjects; universally designed assessments; and assessments for English Learners and students with disabilities. This publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced in whole or in part. It comprises excerpts from A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, U.S. Department of Education, March 2010. To read the full text, visit www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 6 For more information, visit www.ed.gov or call 1-800-USA-LEARN. May 2010 Reference United States Department of Education. (2014). College and career ready standards and assessments. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 6 of 6
Bibliography for Issues in K-12 Education Case Study
ACT, Inc. (2010). A first look at the Common Core and college and career readiness. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. American College of Physicians. (2014). ACP best practice advice. Retrieved from http://www.acponline.org/clinical_information/guidelines/best_practice Apache County Superintendent of Schools. (2013). ADE response to issues raised about Arizona’s Common Core Standards. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jPdYoRrZxUJ:www.azed.gov/special-education/files/2013/05/issues-responsesregarding-arizonas-common-core-standards.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Arts Education Partnership. (2011). Music matters. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541070.pdf Arts Education Partnership. (2013). The benefits of an arts education. Retrieved from http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Preparing-Students-for-theNext-America-FINAL.pdf ASCD. (2013, February 25). ASCD and the Common Core State Standards political pushback on the Common Core. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/commoncore/core-connection/02-25-13-political-pushback-on-the-common-core.aspx Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2012). Fulfilling the promise of the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lCguMXWlKL4J:educor e.ascd.org/resource/download/get.ashx%3Fguid%3D1d60f46d-b786-41d1-b059- 95a7c4eda420+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 10 Badger, E. (2013, August 6). Where 60 million people in the U.S don’t speak English at home. The Atlantic Cities. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-andlifestyle/2013/08/geography-americas-many-languages/6438/ Baker, A. (2014, February 16). Common Core curriculum now has critics on the left. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/nyregion/new-york-early-champion-ofcommon-core-standards-joins-critics.html?_r=0 Beals, K. (2014, February 21). The Common Core is tough on kids with special needs. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-common-core-istough-on-kids-with-special-needs/283973/ Brown, L. (2013). The benefits of music education. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/music-arts/the-benefits-of-music-education/ Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Labor Statistics. (2013). Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm CAST. (2014). Professional learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/pd/ Center on Education Policy. (2005, July 1). NCLB Policy Brief 3. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=239 Cohen, R. (2013, December 3). Understanding the pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/23329-understanding-thepros-and-cons-of-the-common-core-state-standards.html © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 10 ColorinColorado. (2014). Academic language and English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/webcasts/academiclanguage/ Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Application to students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-tostudents-with-disabilities.pdf Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (1993). Developing content standards: Creating a process for change. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/rb10stan.html Constable, S., Grossi, B., Moniz, A., & Ryan, L. (2013). Meeting the Common Core State Standards for students with autism. Council for Exceptional Children. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:m5f6i6AzEnsJ:www.cd d.unm.edu/autism/handouts/Article%2520Constable%2520et%2520al.%2520201 3.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). K-12 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for the instruction of students. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/SpecialEd-Topics/Specialty-Areas/Commom-Core-State-Standards Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). K-12 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for the instruction of students. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/SpecialEd-Topics/Specialty-Areas/Commom-Core-State-Standards © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 3 of 10 Cruz, M. C. (2004). Can English language learners acquire academic English? Retrieved from http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Content/Academic_Resources/Language/About %20Language/Cruz-ELL%20Academic%20Language.pdf Dillon, S. (2006, March 26). Schools cut back subjects to push reading and math. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=all&_r= 0 Donovan, F. (2012, Summer). Assessment and the Common Core Standards. The Special EDge. Retrieved from http://www.calstat.org/publications/pdfs/Edge_summer_2012_newsletter.pdf Dornfield, A. (2013, January 17). Seattle high school’s teacher toss district’s test. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/01/17/169620124/seattle-high-schools-teachers-tossdistricts-test Frontline. (2014). The new rules. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/nclb.html Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (2013). The Common Core State Standards and reading: Interpretations and implications for elementary students with learning disabilities. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Haycock, K., (2012). Implementation of Common Core State Standards: Roles for advocates. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 4 of 10 Illinois State University. (2014). Session 4: Academic vocabulary. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yskdQMgepukJ:educati on.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/casei/AV-3-2-14%2520academic-vocabulary-6-12- ela-content-area-teachers.ppt+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the Common Core. Rethinking Schools. Retrieved from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/28_02/28_02_karp.shtml Lu, A. (2014). States reconsider Common Core tests. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/statesreconsider-common-core-tests-85899535255 Maxwell, L. (2012, April 23). Language demands to grow for ELLs under new standards. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29cs-ell.h31.html Maxwell, L. (2013, January 15). Three districts test model Common-Core unit for ELLs. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/16/17ellstanford_ep.h32.html McLaughlin, M. (2012, September/October). Six principles for principals to consider in implementing CCSS for students with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/principal-septemberoctober-2012-common-core/accesscommon-core-all-0 Murphy, P., Regenstein, E., & McNamara, K. (2012). Putting a price tag on the Common Core: How much will smart implementation cost? Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from: © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 5 of 10 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zDdlil7L9s4J:files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED532509.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us NAEF. (2010). No Child Left Behind: A study of its impact on art education. Retrieved from http://www.arteducators.org/research/NCLB_Press_Release_2-10.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2005, August 10). Important aspects of No Child Left Behind relevant to NAEP. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nclb.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2010, December 7). Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011004 National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). State profiles. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/ National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Agenda for action: Basic skills. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17280 National Conference of State Legislatures. (2014). Costs associated with the Common Core State Standard. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/common-core-state-standards-costs.aspx National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ve d=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncte.org%2Flibrary%2FNCTEFiles% 2FResources%2FPolicyResearch%2FELLResearchBrief.pdf&ei=XHEOU7vTObL © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 6 of 10 QsATMyoGAAg&usg=AFQjCNFlbkkyWn55-dRTIlTNW5Awb2- _XA&sig2=n6EKifqcao1jxwYXoehKbw&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cWc (ELL) National Education Association. (2008). Center on Education Policy: NCLB narrows the curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/17993.htm New York State Senate. (2013, December 20). Ranzenhofer co-sponsors four bills to address issues concerning Common Core Learning Standards. Retrieved from http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/ranzenhofer-co-sponsors-four-billsaddress-issues-concerning-common-core-learning-stan Olson, L. (2004, January 8). Enveloping expectations. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/archives/QC04full.pdf Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools 1999–2000 and 2009–10. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev.pdf Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). P21 Common Core toolkit: A guide to aligning the Common Core State Standards with the framework for 21st century skills. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Peralta, E. (2014, March 24). Indiana becomes first state to back out of Common Core. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwoway/2014/03/24/293894857/indiana-becomes-first-state-to-back-out-of-commoncore Plank, D. (2011). ELL assessment: One size does not fit all. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/08/31/02plank.h31.html © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 7 of 10 Pogrebin, R. (2007, August 4). Book tackles old debate: Role of art in schools. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/arts/design/04stud.html?_r=0 Public Education Network and National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education. (2004). Standards and assessment. Retrieved from http://www.ncpie.org/nclbaction/standards_assessment.html Quay, L. (2010). Higher standards for all: Implications of the Common Core for equity in education. Research Brief. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity And Diversity. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Rickard, S., Vasquez, J., Murphy, F., Gill, A., & Toukhsati, S. (2010). Benefits of a classroom based instrumental music program on verbal memory of primary school children: A longitudinal study. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases. Robertson, K. (2006). Increasing academic language knowledge for English language learner success. Retrieved from http://www.colorincolorado.org/article/13347/ Ruppert, S. (2006). Critical evidence: How the arts benefit student achievement. National Assembly of State Arts Agencies. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529766.pdf Shah, N. (2012). Standards open the door for best practices from special ed. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/25/29csspeced.h31.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mrss The National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). Reading framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 8 of 10 http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/re ading-2013-framework.pdf The National Institute for Health and Human Development. (2005). Autism overview, what we know. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED486273 The Nation’s Report Card. (2013). Are the nation’s students making progress in mathematics and reading? Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/performance-overview The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Findings in brief reading and mathematics 2011. Retrieved from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VnBacARUlpYJ:nces.e d.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=u s The Nation’s Report Card. (2012). Reading 2011. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_2011/reading_2011_report/ The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012- results.htm United States Department of Education. (2003). Fact sheet on the major provisions of the conference report to H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html United States Department of Education. (2014). Use of technology in teaching and learning. Retrieved from: https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teachingand-learning © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 9 of 10 United States Department of Education. (2014). College and career ready standards and assessments. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html Weiner, R. (2013). Teaching to the core: Integrating implementation of Common Core and teacher effectiveness policies. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542704.pdf © 2014 Laureate Education, Inc. Pag