term paper ccsu professor sogunro
TRANSCRIPT
Fall 2009
Central Connecticut State UniversityDepartment of Educational Leadership
EDL 551: Curriculum LeadershipProfessor: Olusegun A. Sogunro Ph.D
CURRICULUM LEADERSHIP RESEARCH AND METHODS
By
Peter Giardini
1
Curriculum leadership in the twenty first century is identified as an
interdisciplinary method to student centered learning that enables multiple approaches to
student learning. Our current methods of student centered teaching may not meet
adequate or proficient standards necessary for 21st century learning. According to the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NAEP) found that student progress has
been (flat or low) despite modest increases in math. Suason (2006) In spite of stagnant
reports, academic aptitude is the foremost desire educators look for, and why the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) became law. The expansion of the core curriculum
content of the NCLB implements additional approaches such as vocational and
constructivist theories that provides schools with common approaches designed to
identify the mission of the schools. North Carolina high schools have implemented the
High Schools the Work (HSTW) initiative which gave the largest regional southern board
school districts work initiatives for high school and middle grades. In 1987 the Southern
Regional Education Board, (SREB) established the HSTW program with the intention to
provide students and their parents choices of program majors that integrates both career
oriented learning, and the states high school standards. In 1994, the federal government
drafted the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) which gathered data and
resources on the effectiveness of school to work initiative, curriculum instruction, and the
preparation to school to work initiatives.
Since the enactment of STWOA, one main aspect of 21st century learning is the
center of attention on proficiency by implementing student testing to solve, “multifaceted
problems by thinking creative and generating original ideas from multiple sources”.
Silva, (2008). In addition, getting students to perform better on assessments is the main
objective to solve multifaceted problems. What is significant about the results of the data
is the STWOA initiative found that American students lacked real world skills compared
to other students in other countries. According to the results from the Programmed for
International Student Assessment (PISA) found that between 1999 to 2003 American did
improve in performance, but when compared to international students math and science
scores, found that American students were the lowest performers. (Appendix A)
2
The PISA study integrated a variety of ways to test 21st century skills in the
classroom and real world scenarios. They conclude that students lack the real world
application to experience and education. The results of PISA conclude that while
American students test well, they cannot incorporate what they learned in real world
scenarios.
The results of the PISA study reveals that measuring skills for the twenty first
century should center on objectives on real application of problem solving, so that they
are able to become, independent thinkers, multifaceted, and decision makers, Silva et al.
The study recommends that students be tested with real world scenarios, and articulate a
solution in writing. The article states that measuring skills for the twenty first century is a
very expensive endeavor. Many school districts will not have the funding in place and
will find the cost related to score “real world application tests” very high. In a 2003
report conducted by the Government Accounting Office, (GAC) discovered the cost to
score the North Carolina high school multiple choice exam was approximately 60 cents
per test. In Massachusetts, it was approximately $7 dollars per test. The cost to score a
real world application test is $40 forty dollars per test. Silva e al. It is perceived that
many school districts do not have the enough funding to provide students with these tests.
Often time’s teachers have been well-known to use their own money to supply their
students with just basic learning materials. Readings in Tanner discuss that just because
teachers do not complain about inadequate resources, does not mean that the resources
provided by the school and the district are adequate. Tanner & Tanner (1995) Indeed, to
the extent resources are limited, nothing in my research indicated that districts with
limited resources perform lower than districts with abundance of resources. However,
what is obvious is that most districts cannot afford the $40 cost associated to score these
exams. What the PISA study implies is curriculum and testing should be more consistent
with international students. Moreover, American students who scored poorly on exams
measured real world applications, maybe it is that our educational philosophy could be a
factor. Much of what we base our principles on, like memorization and recitation, often
lacks any connection to solve real world problems.
3
Over four hundreds of years of American education has been built on the
premise on “recitation and memorization”. Students studied, memorized, and recited their
lessons until the material was committed to memory. Henson (2006) In 1875 Colonial
Francis Parker discovered the teacher centered instructional strategy wasn’t working so
he gave his teachers real life problems, this system known as the Quincy System, that
confirmed that teachers should base most of their instruction to real world application.
The progressive education movement covered more than 60 years, and has proven over
and over that when students apply there knowledge into experience with a collaboratively
planned interdisciplinary curriculum they learned better. Henson et al. A report called a
Nation at Risk promoted reform throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. In the year 2000, the
Bush and Clinton era prompted the endorsement of national testing program called Goals
2000. In 2001, the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, Pub.L.107-110) was
the latest federal legislation that enacts the theories of standardized based education,
requiring states to develop assessments in basic skills tests, to be given to all students, in
order to receive federal funding from NCLB. The term federal funding covers all states
and school districts that are named title one recipients. Since the NCLB enactment,
congress increased federal funding for education, ranging from 42.2 billion in 2001 to
54.4 billion in 2007. The majority of states received a 40.4% percent increase from 17.4
billion in 2001, to 24.4 billion for NCLB and the funding for reading quadrupled from
$286 million in 2001 to 1.2 billion. Wikipedia, NCLB (2009). According to the U.S
Dept of Education funding for reading has quadrupled in forty years, data from 1966
through 2000 shows that only 32% percent of fourth graders are reading proficiently
(Appendix B)
What is interesting about funding provisions of the NCLB, is that it requires states
to create and accountability system that measures tests results, graduation rates,
attendance, and other indicators of student performance. In addition, schools must meet
yearly achievement standards called “Adequate Yearly Progress”. AYP according to the
NCLB law and web resource states that, “every student must reach state proficiency
levels by the 2013-2014 school years”. NCLB.com (2009) In 2005 the secretary of
education Margaret Spellings announced a new path for the NCLB to set a common sense
4
to guide states as they measure their progress to share seven common principles that
assist states meeting AYP and the core principles of the NCLB. U.S Department of
Education (2005).
Many states have opposed these legislative benchmarks that have warned failing
schools who do not meet AYP will be closed. They have argued that some of the
challenges of meeting AYP is that schools, districts, and states must report test scores of
minority students, and students with disabilities, leaving behind those who do not close
the achievement gap. Opponents of the law argue that achieving 100% percent
proficiency lacks realism, and public education lacks the capabilities. They point out
several factors why schools have failed, one is because they lack the resources, training,
techniques and materials required, especially to help disadvantaged students. Tomsho,
(2007)
One of the challenges with meeting AYP is federal law protecting students with
special needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA) of 2004, is the
federal law dealing with the education of children with disabilities, in short the purpose
of this title is to, “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free
appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services
designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment
and independent living”. Wikipedia (2009) One of the provisions of the law describes
this as education services in the least restrictive environment, removing children from the
regular education environment only when the nature or severity of their disability makes
it necessary to do so. Briefly, students with disabilities are allowed to access the same
content as students without disabilities.
(IDEA and NCLB)
Establish goals for the performance of children with disabilities that are the same as the
state’s definition of AYP and are consistent with any other goals and standards for
children by the state.
Include all children with disabilities in all general state and district wide assessment
programs including those assessments required by NCLB students must be given
appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments as indicated in their IEPs.
Cortiella (2006) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004
5
Further, IDEA provisions focus on the individual student, and the formation of an
Individualized Education Program, (IEP). In the article by Cortiella notes, “That nothing
in IDEA holds schools accountable for the progress and performance of children with
disabilities”. The perception is that students with disabilities have some advantage in
High Stakes Tests. Further, IDEA provisions list certain objectives in student with
disabilities assessment and are as follows.
State rules, regulations, and policies under this title shall support and facilitate local
educational agency and school-level system improvement designed to enable children
with disabilities to meet the challenging State student academic achievement standards.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
More Importantly, IDEA and NCLB require that content and achievement
standards are the same for all students, including students with disabilities.
(APPENDIX C). Proponents of the law advocate that including individuals with
disabilities is a wonderful thing to do. Available research has shown it can have both
positive and negative results. In an article discussing 21st century learning and equal
opportunity law recommend that it is not acceptable to have two separate and unequal
educational systems in place. The policy study looks at how students with special needs
have been affected by the changing legislation affecting students with disabilities. The
study emphases the obligation as a society to provide the same opportunities to learn as
students with no disabilities, the objectives focused on, “is to level the playing field for
students with special needs without providing them an advantage”. According to the U.S
Department of Education has estimated that 5.1 million American students ages 3-21
will qualify for special education services. Research by Bechard clearly states, “while
the same standard rule applies for both groups, for students with the most significant
disabilities alternate assessments that test the same domains or content areas must be
developed, with the hope for standards based reform is that students will be able to use
their knowledge and skills in the real world”. Bechard (2000)
The study finds three significant outcomes of “inclusion,” students with disabilities in
large scale assessments.
6
There is better monitoring of the participation of students with disabilities in state and
district wide assessments.
States that examine student performance know more about student progress and find that
students with disabilities often show more progress more quickly.
Teachers report that when they know they can use accommodations such as reading test
aloud, they adapt their instruction more. Bechard (2000)
It is important to note that the students with disabilities could be dis-serviced if
they are engaged in general education instruction without any proof they are “getting the
material”, based on the hope that educators belief that all students can succeed. Indeed, I
believe all students regardless of disabilities can learn, but what they are learning, and
the content in which they are learning is imperative. A report published by the Wall
Street Journal, called “Parents of Disabled Students Push for Separate Classes”,
illustrates why inclusion could dis-service students. Parents stated that after their child
attending regular classes, “their child began disrupting and lashing out at others”.
Tomsho. (2007)
The above exemplar illustrates both views of (inclusion and segration) and equal
education opportunity and the law. While some advocates believe that not including
students in general education classrooms is a dis-service, others believe it is far more
beneficial. The reasons that it is less expensive, and potentially productive for student
learning, as opposed to keeping them restrained in a limited learning environment.
Educators agree that there exist some socially inept consequence to this approach, but
many believe with the right training students with disabilities can integrate well in
classroom with students with no disability. As described earlier, the main prerogative is
leveling the playing field for students with special needs without providing them an
advantage, but how do we accomplish this? One way is by looking at new educational
approaches that address the needs of both groups.
It is estimated that the government will spend millions for students with
disabilities. Along with the inception of IDEA integrating students with disabilities in
general education classrooms, and perform IEP’s, alternative assessments, and measure
7
the abilities of students is all gathered by standardized tests. One question remains open
in the forefront of education reform, is that the (quality and quantity) of instruction to
regular students may be hampered if we are spending too much time on students with
disabilities. When teachers are asked to perform alternative lesson planning, and to align
the curriculum around students with disabilities are we doing a dis-service to regular
students by focusing our attention on disability instruction rather than continuing to
enhance the regular students learning? How can curriculum leaders uphold the standards
of the NCLB, and AYP, if we integrate alternative assessments in general education as
prescribed by IDEA?
Proficiencies and Percentiles
Minimum (low and high)&
Maximum (low and high)
Probably one of the most intriguing pieces of information an educator can receive
is gathering the student’s report card. Whether being mid-point, or at the end of the
school year, the final report is the association of who meets or exceeds the school district
assessment. It is in this progress report we find some of the most noteworthy of
information on the student achievements. The most influential part of this process is
when the school report card is sent to the parents, displaying the grades, achievements,
academic awards, and deans list. The deans list is categorized into two distinct groups,
(1) honors, and (2) high honors. This piece of information is shared to parents presenting
there child’s proficiency; both groups exhibit honors, but one group gets high honors.
Every student gets honors, provided they attend, do homework, and take tests. The
second group does this also, but their test scores are well above the other students, which
places them into a higher percentile labeled “High honors”. What if we had an education
system with a similar approach? What would a single vs. two-fold base educational
system look like? In the next page you will see a diagram that quantifies this approach.
SINGLE BASE SYSTEM
Figure 1.a z_______________
>High
8
Median proficiency «-------------------- ª___________________
IMEDIAN
°____________
<Low
_______________________________________________________________________Figure 1.a illustrates median standards using a single based educational system using uniform standards.
- Indicates an ideal level of proficiency for all students.z Indicates high proficiency test results.o Indicates low proficiency test results.a Indicates median proficiency results.I Symbolizes median national standards.< Low indicates minimum proficiency standards.> High indicates maximum proficiency standards.« Indicates median proficiency standards for all students.
_______________________________________________________________________
TWO FOLD BASE DIAGRAM
Figure 1.b
Minimum high ↑Upper percentile
Minimum low└*GEN ED ┘Maximum low
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1.b illustrates a two fold educational approach to student assessment using national standards.
└ Symbolizes minimum state approved and age appropriate grade level standards. ┘ Symbolizes maximum state proficiencies measuring maximum low and high standards.↑ Symbolizes upper percentile of results of maximum student achievement tests. * Gen Ed indicates a national curriculum and national standards.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Diagram design by Giardini, P. (2009)
I designed a single system and two fold educational system, that looks at
minimum (low and high), and maximum (low and high) criteria. This diagram is a
representation of how I would structure a modern day educational system. I suggest what
our current system needs is a recognized model that measures all assessments including
students with disabilities, regular students, and high achievers. Additionally, a general
9
education should model a national standard consisting of data results of valid and
reliable empirical evidence, to establish a national standard. The diagram draws a model
that distinguishes two groups, all groups would demonstrate adequate state approved,
age appropriate, and minimum (low and high) and maximum (low and high)
proficiencies. Moreover, national data from all state tests may be used to establish a
national norm base, doing so by using existing data from today’s level of proficiency. As
referred to in Millot (2006), and according to NCLB; in 2014 all states must meet 100%
proficiency in reading, science and math, schools that do not meet these proficiency
standards may be closed. Further, the NCLB act states tests may need to be
reconstituted, but I think finding a middle ground is vital rather than setting far reaching
goals such as the 100%/2014 proficiency goal.
Education policy should focus on how to test multicultural students, with diverse
populations. Studies show that an overwhelming number of disadvantaged students come
from lower income families, and are English language learners. Using a one size fits all
approach does not work for minority students, which may explain why the government
spends so much on reading proficiencies for students, and why 5.1 million American
students qualify for disability services. Specifically, approaches in classroom instruction
should focus more on differentiated instruction. Tomlinson describes this as the belief
that differentiated instruction involves providing students with different avenues to
acquire content; that is, (processing, constructing, or making sense of ideas,) and
developing teaching products so that all students within a classroom can learn essential
skills, regardless of differences in ability. Tomlinson (2001)
The term differential stems from the belief about differences among learners;
(i.e.) how they learn, learning preference, and individual interests. Also, differentiated
learning is described as how the student learns material, and what he/she has learned.
cited in Wikipedia, (2009) In Tomlinson’s book called, How to Differentiate Instruction
in Mixed-Ability, clarifies why this style is helpful for our students using various
instructional methods to facilitate learning. She explains matching abilities with
10
appropriate material, and using methods such as whole group, individual instruction and
continuous assessment that adapts to needs of all learners. Tomlinson, et al. Further, she
suggests the first step in determining differentiated instruction is determining what the
students already know. Interestingly, the only way to determine this is through testing
the students prior knowledge of the material, “differentiated instruction is the
instructional approach and choice of content are driven by the data from students
assessment results, and other outcomes, that pre-and post-assessment leads to successful
differentiation by producing the results that communicate the students needs.” as cited in
Wikipedia (2009)
In relation to what students should know what prior knowledge they have gained
is a difficult to determine. Many debates exist between what students should have
already learned going into the next grade. However, the most significant is what material
they have forgotten during summer break. According to one survey conducted in Canada
schools asking parents of school-aged children of their attitudes towards their children’s
education, and learning over the summer break found.
Nearly all parents (95 per cent) that 20% believe that school material will be forgotten over the summer.
One third of these parents with children behind expect their children will forget more during the summer months.
Nearly one quarter of Canadian parents (23 per cent) say that encouraging children to read is the most important thing they can do to keep their children engaged in learning.
While 80 per cent of parents think their children need a break during the summer.
(2003) Kumon/Ipsos-Reid SurveySeveral key issues using differentiated instruction are that; while some students
remember what they where taught in the previous grade, others will forget during the
summer. This can result in a number of students being left behind, which lowers the
quality and quantity of the content being learned because by using differential pre and
post assessments may not result in grade level proficiency. If the student forgot what
they have learned, the differentiated assessments will produce the same, or not grade
appropriate results, thus creating a “watered down curriculum”. There is correlation
11
that recognizes that these factors are a result of two issues; (1) students are not engaged
in further learning/instruction throughout the summer, and (2) increasing the amount of
calendar days of the school year. The first debate is that students can retain the
knowledge they have learned through proper engagement of reading and mathematics,
the other debate is increasing the number of school days per year so students can
transition and learn more material into the next grade. These issues examine the
transition and retention of knowledge which is an entire research of its own.
Research studies have been studied between the discrepancy of increasing the
school year to promote learning, and personal opinions about longer school year/day by
using questionnaires given to elementary school principals, middle schools, high school
principles, and superintendents. (APPENDIX D) This survey focuses on the premise
that United States schools are not doing well compared to other international nations
such as Japan. In the United States the school year is standardized at 180 days. In Japan,
the elementary and secondary school system is reported as being 240 days. U.S
Department of Education, (1987) as cited in Woods. The reason this study was
conducted was mainly due to the discussion of increasing the number of school days
students are in school as a way to improve the school system. What this study failed to
do was provide the reader with a diagram illustrating a comparison of why American
schools differ from Japanese schools, (e.g.) why the number of days off, months, and
school year is different than the American school year. I have taken the initiative myself
to discover why they are different. On the next page you will see a scale that indicates
why American schools and Japanese schools differ in comparison.
Figure 2.a
AMERICAN SCHOOL DAYS 180
† | | | | | |_ | | | Î Î S O N D J F M A M J J A
Ž -6 -1 -4 -6 -2 -5 0 -6 -2 -5 22 -21 O = 80 Š 16 21 17 17 19 15 23 16 19 14 0 0 A=177
12
TOTAL=177
________________________________________________________________________† Denotes beginning of school yearÎ Denotes summer month breakZ Symbolizes total monthly school holidays/days offS Symbolizes total monthly number of school days0 Denotes total number of school year holidaysA Denotes total number of school days per year= Total approximate number of school days per year
________________________________________________________________________Figure 2.b
JAPANESE SCHOOL DAYS240
| | | | | | | † | Î | | S O N D J F M A M J J A
Ž -3 -3 -4 -9 -7 -3 -2 -7 -5 -22 -7 -7 O= 79 Š 21 26 16 18 19 21 25 18 21 0 20 20 A=225
TOTAL=225
_____________________________________________________________________________________† Denotes beginning of school yearÎ Denotes summer month breakZ Symbolizes total monthly school holidaysS Symbolizes total monthly number of school days0 Denotes total number of school year holidaysA Denotes total number of school days per year= Total approximate number of school days per year
________________________________________________________________________Scale designed by Giardini, P. (2009)
Calculation Procedure
My first method was to ascertain two school calendars, (1) A American school
calendar and (2) a Japanese school calendar. Then compare the number of holidays and
school days off students have per month. I found that the Japanese school system is a bit
different, I discovered that they have only one month summer break, while we have a two
month summer break, further, I have also found:
13
Japanese students have fewer holidays than American Schools (Which
means that fewer days are off from school).
Japanese students attend school on Saturdays, (whatever days they lose for
holiday’s they gain back by an extended school week).
American students have a constant 43 days off from school during the
summer, double that of Japanese students.
Japan students have only 22 constant days off, but adequately prepare for
the next school year.
American schools and Japanese schools have approximately the same days
per year off.
This calculation was conducted by computing the number of school days off, and
adding the number of school days on. The American schools resulted in a total number of
177 which is consistent with the statement of 180 days. For Japanese schools it was more
complicated, I had to count the number of holidays, minus the number of school days off,
add the number of school days per month, and deduct the number of school days off, and
then re-count the school days including Saturdays. The total number resulted in 225,
which is consistent with the statement of 240 school days, using a Standard Error of
Measurement (SEM) plus or minus (15). If you look at the results of the survey by
Woods shows that most school administrators OPPOSE increasing the amount of time
students spend in schools. But found that increasing the number of DAYS, would be a
preference. However, ZERO amount of school administrators recommended
SATURDAY morning school as a preference. (APPENDIX D)
SUMMARY & IMPLICATIONS
In summary, there seems to be significance in how we implement content that
goes beyond how we evaluate students. More specifically, our desire as educators to
provide sensible directions and objectives for all students is the single most important
14
aspect of education. Ultimately, it is the way our current education system is made that
will determine how successful students will become. I believe our current model is
inadequate, and needs to be restructured to meet the needs of all students, especially in
the testing process. Since the enactment of the NCLB our students are being left behind,
and that legislative effort to fix the problems is bleak. I believe in order to improve long
term economic prosperity we must improve our educational system. In this paper, I
addressed many key issues that could be taken into consideration when looking at some
of the many issues presented in our educational system. Many of these issues cannot be
fixed at the local, district, or state level. However, many of the issues could be remedied
if students are provided with a greater variety of alternate tests, assessments, and
accommodations. Along with accommodation, it is important to raise testing standards
for students whom demonstrate higher proficiency, and to provide them with assessments
that measure multifaceted, and real world problems. These are several important ways
educators can do to ensure the continued success of students, and make our nation strong,
and ensure economic prosperity for generations to come.
IMPLICATIONS
Students benefit more when they are actively engaged with career oriented
learning perspectives. (STWOA)
International students are greater prepared than American students as well as
there knowledge of real world applications in testing. (PISA)
15
America spends more money on educating students in reading than any other
country. (U.S Dept of Education archive)
International countries like Japan spend more days per week and are more
prepared for the next grade than American students. (Japanese school calendar)
Parents and administrators oppose to a shorter summer break, and Saturday
school. (Woods)
Students may forget much of what they learned in the school year during
summer break leading to a “watered down”, curriculum. (Kumon/Ipsos)
Special needs students should not be given the same tests as regular students
that may lead to lower standards.
Students with special needs are placed into general education classes and some
parents object to it.
Higher achievers should be tested on real world applications on tests.
Our current education system is a single base system that measures a single
uniform level of proficiencies that is inadequate in addressing the needs of all
students.
A two-fold system with minimum and maximum proficiencies could better
serve special needs, regular, and higher achieving students by providing them
with different level proficiencies.
END.
REFERENCES
Adequate Yearly Progress, Requirements and assessments. Wikipedia, (2009).
Retrieved from, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/adequate..yearly..progress.com
16
Bechard, S (2000). Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. (Policy brief). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for education and Learning.
Corteilla, C. (2006) NCLB and IDEA what parents of students with disabilities need to know, and do. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota, National Center of Educational Outcomes 2006.Retreived from www.cehd.umn.edu/ncec/onlinepubs/parents.pdf
Differentiated Instruction, Wikipedia, (2009) As cited in Tomlinson, C. (2001) How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, (2.ed.) Retrieved from www.wikipedia.org/wki/differentiated...instruction#cite..note Tomlinson 2009.
Guilford public school calendar, Guilford public schools (2009)
Henson, K.T. (2006) Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. p89. (3rd.ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Hughes, K. (2009) School-to-work making a difference in education, Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. p14.Gale, Cengage Learning 2008. Retrieved fromwww.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi..6952/is..4..84/ai..n28130810/pg..14
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of (2004), Wikipedia, 2009. Retrieved from. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/individuals with disabilities..education..act.
Japanese holidays and school calendar (2009) Retrieved from, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/public/school/holidaysjapan
Kumon/Ipsos reading and math center (2003) Kumon/Ipsos-Reid Survey: Children may forget what they learned in school, over the summer, but kids still need break, parents say. Toronto Canada, 2003. Retrieved from www.kumon.com/pressroom/pressrelease/canada/pdf/20030402.pdf
Millot, D. (2007) Does a lack of political will make NCLB’s “100/2014” Impossible? Education Week, 2009. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/edweek/edbuzz/2007/10/do..we..have..the capacity..html.
Silvia, E. Measuring skills for the 21st century. Education sector reports, Nov, 2008. Retrieved from www.educationsector.org.
Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (1995) Curriculum development: Theory into practice (3rd.ed.). p657. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentise-Hall
17
Tomlinson, C. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Vol.57 N.8. Personalized Learning. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903. Retrieved from, www.ascd.org/ascd/pdf/juornals/ed..lead/el199909..tomlinson.pdf
Tomsho, R. (2007) Parents of disabled students push for separate classes. The Wall Street Journal, 2009. Online Journal, Retrieved from, www.online.wsj.com/article/sb11961034832004184.html
U.S department of Education, (2000) Why no child left behind is important to America. A Nations Report Card Reading 2000. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/nclb.overview/importance/edlite-index.htlm
U.S Department of education (2008) Growth models: Ensuring grade-level proficiency for all students by 2014. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/profociency.html.
Wood, R. Vik, P. (1991) Increasing the length of the school year: A survey, Rural
Educator, v13n1 p20-23 Fall 1991.
18
19
20
21