28 Jan What is your experience with differentiated instruction?

What is your experience with differentiated instruction?
social science question

What is your experience with differentiated instruction?
Please describe a time in your K-12 experience when a teacher differentiated instruction. How did they differentiate it?(1 point) Please tie in course material (e.g., what instructional element did the teacher differentiate on? How would you define that instructional element in your own words?) (2 points) If it was differentiated for you, do you think it helped or would have helped? Why or why not? (1 point)
Requirements: 200 | .doc file
EDUCATORADVOCATESOctober 2013COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDSPolicy PointsASCD Policy Points is an ASCD Educator Advocates resource that spotlights timely education policy issues of importance to all educators. Future editions may illuminate education issues on which you can take action and will include links to useful resources, infographics, and tips for increasing your influence with policymakers and other education stakeholders. Sign up at www.educatoradvocates.org to receive the Capitol Connection e-newsletter and the most up-to-date information on federal education policy.ANDMythsFactsCOMMON CORE STATE STANDARDSMYTH: The Common Core standards were developed by the federal government.FACT: States developed the standards. The nations governors and state education commissioners spear-headed Common Core development to provide clear and consistent understanding of the reading and math knowledge and skills that students need to be ready for lifelong learning and career success. Working through their representative organizations?the National Gover-nors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)?state leaders collaborated with educators, subject matter experts, and researchers to write and review the standards. The federal govern-ment was not involved with the standards development.The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) outline what students should know and be able to do in reading and mathematics from kindergarten through 12th grade. The standards align with the knowledge and skills needed to successfully enter college or the workforce, are benchmarked to the standards of the worlds top-performing countries, and mark the first time that states share a common set of expectations for the nations students.Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core standards and are preparing to fully implement them?including administering tests based on them?in the 2014?15 school year. But rumors and myths about the CCSS have run rampant, causing confusion among educators, policymakers, and the public. This resource clarifies what the standards are and are not and tackles these myths head-on.
MYTH: The federal government required states to adopt the standards. FACT: State Common Core adoption is voluntary. Four states (Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia) have chosen not to adopt the standards in either subject, and Minnesota has adopted the English language arts standards but not the math standards. However, the federal governments Race to the Top grant competition incentivized states to adopt college and career readi-ness standards, such as the CCSS, by providing state applicants with additional points for doing so. Addition-ally, the U.S. Department of Education required states to adopt college- and career-ready standards in order to receive waivers from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements. To receive a waiver, states needed to adopt either the Common Core standards or another set of reading and math college- and career- ready standards approved by its network of higher education institutions.MYTH: The Common Core standards include all core academic subjects.FACT: The Common Core includes only math-ematics and English language arts standards. The standards do, however, connect with student learning in other subjects by emphasizing literacy, academic vocabulary, problem solving, and mathematical rea-soning across the curriculum, including in history and science. Separate efforts to create model standards for science, social studies, and the arts are under way, but these efforts are not part of the CCSS. States have com-plete control over which standards to adopt. They may adopt the CCSS without adopting standards in other subjects and vice versa. Additionally, states may choose to adopt only the reading or only the math portion of the Common Core standards. MYTH: The Common Core standards will fully prepare students for college and their careers.FACT: Students need more than reading and math proficiency to be fully ready for college and their careers. To be sure, the CCSS?which are often described as college- and career-readiness standards?are an important first step in delineating the reading and math knowledge and skills that students will need to succeed after high school graduation. But to attain postsecondary success, students must have access to a comprehensive education that also includes instruction in the arts, civics and government, economics, foreign languages, geography, health education, history, physical education, and science.Furthermore, a whole child approach to education is essential to realizing the promise of the standards. Only when students are healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged will they be able to meet our highest expectations and realize their fullest potential. Similarly, effective professional development that helps educa-tors integrate the standards into the classroom and translate the standards into instructional strategies that meet their students unique needs is crucial to the new standards success. MYTH: The Common Core standards are a national curriculum that dictates what and how every educator must teach. FACT: The standards are not a curriculum. Stan-dards are targets for what students should know and be able to do. Curricula are the instructional plans and strategies that educators use to help their students reach those expectations. The CCSS are a set of shared goals for the knowledge and skills students should possess in English language arts and mathematics to be proficient in those subjects. As such, districts and schools should use the standards as a basis for devel-oping their own curricula by designing course content, choosing appropriate instructional strategies, develop-ing learning activities, continuously gauging student understanding, and adjusting instruction accordingly. MYTH: The CCSS will usurp local control of schools.FACT: School boards remain responsible for set-ting their own visions and executing their own approaches for helping students reach the stan-dards. In addition, districts and schools will continue to choose their own textbooks and instructional materials, provide teachers with tailored professional development, and design supports and interven-tions to help students reach proficiency. Moreover, states adopting the Common Core standards had the option to add up to an additional 15 percent of locally developed standards.COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS?MYTHS AND FACTS2To view previous issues, please visit www.ascd.org/policypoints.
School districts have always had to abide by state-approved education standards, of which the CCSS is one example. At the same time, districts had the flexibility and responsibility to implement the state-approved standards in a manner that reflected their local contexts and students needs. The same holds true with the Common Core standards. As has always been the case, educators and local communities will continue to make decisions about what happens in their districts, schools, and classrooms.MYTH: Student test scores will plummet on the new Common Core assessments com-pared with scores on current state assess-ments.FACT: The Common Core assessments that are under development are new tests based on new standards, which means that they will set a brand-new benchmark for student performance. As such, it is simply not valid to compare scores on the new tests with scores on previous state assessments.To measure student understanding of the Common Core standards, the majority of states are participating in one of the two assessment consortia that are devel-oping tests aligned with the standards: The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Con-sortium (Smarter Balanced). In addition to setting those new performance benchmarks, the consortias assess-ment systems differ markedly from current state assess-ments in delivery, complexity, and timing. Both consor-tias assessments are computer-based and will feature more varied and sophisticated questions?including performance-based items?that are designed to evalu-ate students problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. In addition, both consortia are offering optional interim assessments intended to help educators adjust and differentiate their instruction throughout the year.MYTH: The Common Core assessments are not more expensive than current state assessments.FACT: It depends on the state in question and what expenses are rolled into the assessment costs. PARCC estimates that its summative assessments will cost $29.50 per student. The consortium reports that about half of the PARCC states currently spend more on their summative tests, while the remaining states spend less. Meanwhile, Smarter Balanced estimates that its summative assessments will cost $22.50 per student, which it says is less than what two-thirds of its member states currently pay for their assessments. Although the consortia tests may be less expensive than what the majority of states are currently paying for their assessments, these cost estimates do not encompass all of the additional expenses associated with imple-menting the new assessments. Most states will need to upgrade classroom technology and improve their technological infrastructure and capacity to administer the computer-based tests. For example, districts and schools need to be sure they have ample network band-width and enough computers that meet the minimum operating system requirements to support large groups of students participating in testing simultaneously. PARCC plans to offer a paper-and-pencil version of its test during the first year of implementation for schools that dont make these technological investments right away, but the paper tests have an additional cost of $3.00 to $4.00 per student. In addition, both PARCC and Smarter Balanced are developing optional formative assessments, which will cost states extra, to measure student understanding and performance throughout the year. MYTH: States, districts, and schools are spending excessive resources on Common Core implementation. FACT: Although transitioning to the new standards will initially cost states additional money, the col-laborative nature of the Common Core provides states with the opportunity to share resources, assessments, and educator professional develop-ment, resulting in economies of scale never before possible. Its also important to note that the costs associated with CCSS implementation?updating instructional materi-als, providing professional development for educators, and improving assessments?are ongoing investments for states, districts, and schools and would be requisite expenses for any new standards a state chooses to adopt. A report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute affirms that if states current expenditures in those three areas are taken into consideration, the initial cost of transitioning to the new standards ?does not have to be To view previous issues, please visit www.ascd.org/policypoints.COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS?MYTHS AND FACTS3
We need your help! Congress is making education policy decisions that affect you, your local schools, and your students. Dont let Congress make decisions without the crucial information you can provide. You can help them, and they will welcome your input.Get Involved. JOIN Educator Advocates.EDUCATORADVOCATESCOMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS?MYTHS AND FACTS4wildly expensive?and could also support changes that have a permanent and positive impact on the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning.? By its esti-mates, the initial, one-time expenses of transitioning to the Common Core standards would cost, for example, New York State an additional $71 million (or $26.00 per student) and Iowa $16 million (or $33.00 per student) if the states opt for a balanced implementation approach that seeks to reduce costs in some areas while investing in more effective strategies in others. MYTH: Implementing the new standards involves analyzing and reporting information about individual students and puts students privacy at risk.FACT: Common Core participation does not require student-level data sharing, analysis, or reporting. Each state decides how to assess its students on the standards and how to use the results of those assess-ments. PARCC and Smarter Balanced will collect basic demographic data on students so that states have information on subgroup performance for account-ability purposes, but they will not report assessment or demographic information at the individual student level. States will make their own decisions about whether to further analyze or share the assessment data as a way to inform, improve, and personalize instruction. To view previous issues, please visit www.ascd.org/policypoints.? The EduCore digital tool provides educators with free, evidence-based resources, strategies, formative assessment lessons, and videos to help with the transition to the Com-mon Core State Standards. http://educore.ascd.org ? ASCDs Common Core web page includes background information about the initiative and links to CCSS videos, webinars, professional development, and more. www.ascd.org/commoncore ? Core Connection: ASCDs free e-newsletter, sent every two weeks, features the latest Common Core news and resources, from updates about PARCC and Smarter Balanced to infor-mation on states implementation progress. www.ascd.org/coreconnection ? ASCD EDge?: ASCDs professional networking community for educators includes two CCSS?focused groups?ASCDs Com-mon Core Standards and Common Core in the Classroom?that allow educators to network and share resources about the standards. http://ascdedge.ascd.orgASCD RESOURCES for the COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
Curriculum,Instruction,Assessment, andStandardsIn this chapter, curriculum is defined so that readers can have a sharedunderstanding of this key term. Next, we examine approaches to curriculumthat schools use to address standards and high-stakes testing as a way todiscuss the interrelationships of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards.I suggest why these approaches may not work over the long term and propose amodel demonstrating how the balanced curriculum integrates curriculum, instruc-tion, assessment, and standards.CURRICULUM: WHATIT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOTCurriculum describes (in writing) the most important outcomes of the schoolingprocess; thus, the curriculum is a document in which resides the districts ?collectedwisdom? about what is most important to teach. When reviewing book titles orchapter headings in a textbook, the titles summarize the most important conceptscovered by the textbook, just as unit titles or courses in the curriculum indicate themost important ideas to be taught.Curriculum is based on standards; as a result, curriculum and standards arelinked. Curriculum specifies how standards are met. Standards are not the curricu-lum. Rather, standards provide a vision of the appropriate content and processes3101-Squires.qxd 8/19/2004 6:25 PM Page 3
(usually for a subject area, such as mathematics) by outlining what students shouldknow and be able to do across a range of grade levels. Curriculum is more specificthan the standards. Whereas standards usually describe appropriate content andprocesses for a range of ages or grade levels, curriculum specifies what should hap-pen during a shorter period of time, such as a year, quarter, or a month. Decisionsabout what is most important to teach and learn should be made with the standardsin mind. Furthermore, a good curriculum documents the alignment process andbalances the curriculum in reference to the standards.Acurriculum is the plan that focuses and guides classroom instruction and assess-ment. For example, if a social studies curriculum specifies a unit on World War I,teachers need to instruct on World War I and not the Great Depression or currentevents. Even though those topics are valuable, having a unit on World War I inthe curriculum says that learning about World War I has the most value. Students,therefore, should spend time learning about World War I.If the curriculum focuses on World War I, then the classroom assessment alsoneeds to focus on World War I. In this way, the curriculum, the curriculum-embeddedassessment, and the instruction are aligned with each other. Assessments answerthe question of how much knowledge and skill are good enough to meet the standardsaligned in the unit. Teachers use assessments to determine how good is good enough.Classroom assessment is inexorably linked to the curriculum.Curriculum sequences the outcomes so they build on each other. This ensuresthat students have the prerequisite skills necessary for success on the next unit orgrade level. Although a sequential order may not be inherent in every discipline, acurriculum can overcome problems of sequence. For example, for mathematics,automaticity in number facts is a prerequisite to fluent application of multiplicationor long division algorithms. Curriculum can provide a sequential plan for instructionthat specifies student memorization of number facts before going on to multiplicationor division algorithms.High-stakes tests and state standards influence curriculum design. To be fair tostudents, content and skills assessed on high-stakes tests need to be covered in thecurriculum, requiring curriculum decisions to be aligned and balanced with thesetests. In this way, the weight given to the standardized tests content and skills isappropriate given other influences on the curriculum, such as student development.High-stakes tests are linked to the curriculum and influence its design, but they arenot the only influence.The curriculum plan is rooted in students human development. Some viewcurriculum as the districts plan for student development. This expands the scopeof curriculum. For example, if we know that 5th-grade students wrestle with theissue of fairness (see Nothings Fair in Fifth Gradeby Barth DeClements), then partof a 5th-grade curriculum might directly address this developmental task throughdiscussions of rules or examination of literature that deals with fairness issues.When curriculum is designed to meet many different criteria, such as informingdevelopmental tasks as well as fitting into a state-prescribed scope and sequence, thecurriculum is strengthened.Curriculum is discipline based. Subject areas (English, mathematics, social studies,science, and the arts) drive curriculum. Disciplines encapsulate different ways ofseeing and knowing the world. Ageologist sees a grain of sand differently from a poet.Acurriculum is a plan for helping students to understand the differences in the waysvarious disciplines view the world.4CURRICULUM TOOLS AND CONCEPTS01-Squires.qxd 8/19/2004 6:25 PM Page 4
Curriculum applies learning theory to instructional design. For example, weknow from learning theory that paced practice is generally better than massed prac-tice. So, to practice for high-stakes tests, we know that it is better to practice over alonger period of time than to practice a large amount over a shorter period of time.One-month review sessions before high-stakes testing is a misapplication of learningtheory. Curriculum can help to institutionalize appropriate applications of learningtheory and instructional design and provide a structure for eliminating instructionalpractices that do not make sense. In the Balanced Curriculum, periodic assessmentsgive students practice on the format of high-stakes tests throughout the year, notjust a month before testing.Curriculum development and implementation is the province of the district,not the school. Schools generally do not have the capacity to develop their own cur-riculum, just as individual teachers find it difficult to invent a curriculum if noneis provided. Furthermore, by law, districts are generally charged with developingand implementing a curriculum. When districts abdicate this responsibility, schools,students, and families suffer. In the Comprehensive School Reform Design, forexample, schools could apply for money to implement one of many school reformmodels. In some districts, many models were adopted, leaving the district to try tomanage and understand many different approaches to what is most important toteach students. This further fragmented and complicated the districts responsibilityfor authoring and implementing a strong curriculum.Curriculum is not standards, tests, textbooks, or programs. Standards tell whatis important for students to know and be able to do, but they dont tell a districtsteachers how the standards should be met (see Chapter 3). Tests, both standardizedand state developed, are not the curriculum. Tests are designed to sample a smallportion of students knowledge. From that sample of knowledge, tests are designedto support inferences about how much students know (see Chapter 4). For example,if I get the only two problems dealing with multiplication correct on a test, the test-ing entity assumes that I probably know how to multiply. Tests are limited by thenumber of concepts and applications that can be covered in a short testing period,which restricts the number of topics that can be adequately ?tested? so the inferencesare valid. Tests, then, contain only a small but important subset of what studentsneed to know and be able to do. High-stakes tests are not the curriculum.Just as tests are limited, textbooks are too broad in scope to be considered acurriculum (see Chapter 2). Textbooks, given market forces, are designed to beall things to all teachers and students. In most textbooks, complete coverage ofthe textbook is impossible. So teachers pick and choose what is most important fortheir students or what they like most. Teachers using the same text cover content dif-ferently. Generally, little coordination happens among teachers within a school, letalone coordinating what happens across a district using the same textbook series.Districts that assume the textbook is the curriculum have difficulty knowing or con-trolling what students learn as different teachers decisions to cover different contentin the text leaves the next years teacher with no standard expectation of what wasmost important for students to know and be able to do.Programs are not the curriculum. Generally, programs address pieces of whatshould be in a curriculum. Districts who rely on adopting a series of programs asa way of meeting standards or assuring high quality may underestimate the diffi-culty of stitching programs together in an integrated whole. For example, a hand-writing program may be adopted as a way to structure and sequence instruction.5CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT, AND STANDARDS01-Squires.qxd 8/19/2004 6:25 PM Page 5
If the handwriting program requires a half-hour a day of a 2-hour language artsblock, the time requirement may be too much. As a result, other parts of the lan-guage arts program, such as spelling, literature study, or phonemic awareness, mightsuffer as teachers make decisions to implement the handwriting program in the timeperiod specified.TEACHER AUTONOMYAND THE ROLE OF CURRICULUMThe dilemma for districts is to strike a balance between teacher autonomy andcurriculum specificity. The diagram in Figure 1.1 indicates that teachers will haveless autonomy when the curriculum is more specific. With no curriculum, teachershave complete autonomy to teach whatever they want. Conversely, a very specificcurriculum that indicates what should be taught, how it should be taught, and whenit should be taught leaves teachers with less autonomy.Generally, districts have given teachers more autonomy with little curriculumguidance. High-stakes testing and standards then enter the picture. Districts try to usethe high-stakes testing and standards as a basis for limiting teachers autonomy so theappropriate content is addressed. The tool of curriculum was little used in the past; ifit was used, it was constructed in such a way that it did little to limit teacher auton-omy, and the curriculum atrophied. Now, districts dont see curriculum as the tool tomake sure there is balance when addressing standards and high-stakes tests. Districtleadership may not want to be more specific about the curriculum because of the?infringement? on teacher autonomy. Yet they want the standards and high-stakestests covered. Instead of using curriculum to decide what is most important to teachand learn, including standards and tests, districts abdicate their responsibility by say-ing teachers must cover what is on the test, and the rest is left up to teacher discretion.To bring all students to high standards, districts need to examine their stanceon curriculum. We know most students can learn if they are taught. Curriculums6CURRICULUM TOOLS AND CONCEPTSFigure 1.1Teacher autonomy and curriculum specificityLessAutonomyLessSpecificCurriculumSpecificityTeacher AutonomyMoreSpecificMoreAutonomy01-Squires.qxd 8/19/2004 6:25 PM Page 6
purpose is to help teachers understand and deliver to students what is importantfor students to learn, and districts need to decide what this is. Curriculum isthe tool available to balance competing priorities. The Balanced Curriculum processprovides a template for a district-developed curriculum, within which teachershave quite a bit of flexibility.WHY IS CURRICULUM IMPORTANT?Curriculum is the container that holds the institutional knowledge of what wasthe best of past instruction. The curriculum being used now is what the districthas decided is the best of the past. Curriculum, viewed in this way, is a historicaldocument.Curriculum is also a plan for the present. The curriculum is the districts bet thatthe written mix of standards, content, and skills covered in the curriculum will pro-duce better results for students. Curriculum represents the districts bet on how toimprove in the future. Curriculum, while rooted in the present, takes the best of thepast to make the future better.Nothing else in the arsenal of school reform can take the place of decidinghow best to structure and sequence what is most important for students to knowand be able to do so that students can and will succeed. Students need equal accessto high-quality instruction. The job of curriculum is to provide teachers a structurefor instruction so that they can balance the often competing forces of standards, tests,textbooks, and programs. The curriculum provides the structure for management ofteaching and learning as well as staff development. Without a curriculums structure,there is chaos.DISTRICTSRESPONSES TOSTANDARDS AND HIGH-STAKES TESTSIn this section, I examine different district responses to standards and high-stakestesting. To understand curriculums centrality to school and district improvement,curriculum must be seen in relationship to other tools used in school, such as stan-dards, assessments, and instruction. To understand the variety of possible relation-ships, typical district responses to standards and high-stakes testing are outlined.The descriptions that follow are a typology of districts responses to standards andhigh-stakes tests. We identify the approaches as Tell Them, Show Me, Test Them, andKeep Up the Pace.Tell ThemSome districts assume that if teachers have staff development on the stan-dards and high-stakes test, then their instruction will be appropriate for coveringstandards. The following diagram shows that state standards influence the contentof high-stakes test, which, in turn, influences instruction in classrooms. It alsoassumes that if teachers know the standards, the standards will be incorporatedin their instruction.7CURRICULUM, INSTRUCTION, ASSESSMENT, AND STANDARDS01-Squires.qxd 8/19/2004 6:25 PM Page 7
One study questions the assumption that telling teachers will change behavior.The study examined the topics teachers covered in the classroom and aligned themwith the topics on the standardized test (Brady, Clinton, Sweeney, Peterson, &Poynor, 1977). The range of topic coverage on the standardized test ranged from 4%to 95%. This indicates that, left to their own judgment, some teachers will cover mostof the topics and some will cover very few. Teachers are not likely to change theirrange of coverage based on an overview of standards.Some districts create district standards to tell teachers the standards that shouldbe covered at particular grade levels. District standards often take the grade range ofstate standards (K?4, 5?8, or 9?12) and segment them into grade-level expectations.In this case, our model looks like:Often district standards do not specify when or how during the year the standardsshould be taught, narrowing the playing field a little but leaving room for individualteachers to develop their own instructional strategies.Show MeSome districts response to high-stakes testing and standards is to provide somestaff development on the standards and then require that teachers list the standards ontheir lesson plans. In this way, teachers have aligned the instruction with the standardsand with the high-stakes test, a derivative of the standards.This guarantees that most instruction is aligned to some standards. The district,however, has no information on what is taught or whether students have graspedthe concepts because the teachers and the district have no way of aggregating thisalignment data. An unanswered question for this model is, ?Did the teachers missimportant standards??Test ThemOther districts decide on creating internal tests aligned with the high-stakes testsand assume that the emphasis on local testing will help teachers focus their instruc-tion. Districts with this approach do not know how the teachers changed instructionbecause a management system is not in place. Another variation on this theme is todetermine ?exit? performances for students graduating at particular grade levels.For example, students are required to write a paper defending a point of view andpresent the results to an audience of those outside the school. Such an internalassessment may or may not be aligned with standards and high-stakes tests.State StandardsHigh-Stakes TestInstruction8CURRICULUM TOOLS AND CONCEPTSInstructionStandardsHigh-Stakes TestLesson PlansDistrictStandardsHigh-Stakes TestStandardsInstruction01-Squires.qxd 8/19/2004 6:25 PM Page 8
With the addition of internal assessment to the model, the district now has resultsof the internal assessment that gives teachers and the district feedback on how welltheir students do on a test similar to the high-stakes test (if there is alignment betweenthe district test and the high-stakes test).Show Me?Test ThemAdiagram showing a combination of Show Me and Test Them strategies follows.The district created internal assessments and requires teachers to align standards tolesson plans. This exerts two forces for application of the standards and high-stakestest to instruction: the alignment of lesson plans and the assumption that anotherassessment in addition to the high-stakes test will focus instruction.Afew difficulties arise in this model. First, not all standards show up on high-stakes tests. Unless teachers know the standards tested, aligning lesson plans withstandards may miss the emphasis of the high-stakes test. Second, aligning standardswith lesson plans tells the standards that individual lessons address but does noth-ing to indicate whether, over time, some standards were left out or some were over-addressed?a matter of balance. Third, this model overemphasizes the high-stakestest by creating an internal assessment aligned with the high-stakes test. Teachersnow have important pieces of data: one from the district, the other from the state, allfocused on the rather narrow content of the high-stakes test. Fourth, teachers willrespond to this emphasis on testing by narrowing their instruction to cove