Best Practices for Common Core Implementation - Email … · 2017-03-16 · A survey of states’ progress on CCSS implementation, conducted by Education First and the EPE Research

In the following report, Hanover Research explores curriculum and professional

development best practices and resources for the implementation of the Common Core

State Standards, and provides profiles of states and districts currently implementing the

standards.

Best Practices for Common Core Implementation

May 2014

Hanover Research | May 2014

© 2014 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3

Section I: Common Core Implementation .......................................................................... 4

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION LANDSCAPE ................................................................................. 4

COMMON CORE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 6

Key Curriculum Shifts ......................................................................................................... 6

Curriculum and Instructional Development Resources ..................................................... 7

COMMON CORE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................ 9

Professional Development Needs ..................................................................................... 9

Professional Development for Principals ........................................................................ 15

Section II: District and State Profiles ................................................................................ 17

ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA ............................................................................ 17

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, OHIO ....................................................................... 18

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NEW YORK ............................................................... 20

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FLORIDA ........................................................................ 22

STATE OF KENTUCKY .................................................................................................................. 23



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

In this report, Hanover Research explores curriculum and professional development best practices and resources for the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The report is divided into two sections. Section I reviews the general landscape of CCSS implementation in the United States and the resulting curricular and instructional shifts. This section will also describe professional development best practices applied to CCSS implementation and summarizes the curriculum and professional development resources that are available. Section II examines CCSS implementation strategies used by districts and states that were early adopters of the standards.

KEY FINDINGS

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) do not prescribe a particular mode of instruction or define a specific curriculum, allowing local educators to use the standards as a guide to develop a local curriculum. Still in the early phases of implementation, little research exists regarding CCSS curriculum best practices. However, many educational organizations have developed or are developing curriculum planning resources such as learning modules, lesson plans, and grade‐ and subject‐level curricula.

Basic professional development needs among teachers implementing the CCSS include assessment literacy training, technology skills, practical learning experiences oriented toward the new standards and assessments, time for professional collaboration, teacher leaders in each school, and continuous networking between teachers.

District‐level professional development programs typically include resources such as locally designed online professional learning modules; partial‐, full‐, and multi‐day workshops and learning seminars; one‐time and ongoing learning opportunities for educators; updated curriculum sequencing guides; teacher leaders; and professional learning communities and other opportunities to collaborate.

The examined districts and states are implementing the CCSS through strategies such as building initial awareness at schools and using incremental implementation by grade level bands. Districts have trained smaller cohorts of teachers to serve as implementation leaders in their schools, provided time for PLCs or other leadership networks, explained necessary changes to student assessments, and offered “day to day” examples of Common Core standards in the curriculum.



SECTION I: COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION This section briefly overviews the current landscape of CCSS implementation and then examines curriculum and professional development best practices and resources.

COMMON CORE IMPLEMENTATION LANDSCAPE

The Common Core State Standards are expectations for the knowledge and skills that students should possess in mathematics and English‐language arts (ELA) by the end of each K‐12 grade level. Currently adopted by 44 states and the District of Columbia,1 the standards are the product of collaboration among teachers, parents, administrators, educational researchers, and content experts.2 The effort to develop the standards, which was overseen by the Council of Chief of State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, had the overarching aim of establishing evidence‐based standards for college and career readiness that would be consistent across states. The standards were crafted to be applicable to all states so that a student might receive rigorous preparation for college regardless of location. To ensure the high quality of the standards, designers drew upon best practices from the highest‐achieving states and countries.3 According to Student Achievement Partners, a nonprofit founded by designers of the CCSS, the new standards also possess three advantages currently missing from preexisting state standards. In brief, the CCSS are fewer, clearer, and higher.4 Notably, the standards do not prescribe a particular mode of instruction or define a specific curriculum. Educators remain free to select the optimal method of instruction for their students and to add content or emphases to their classes. This level of flexibility offers the benefit of being able to tailor curriculum and instruction to local needs. However, it also creates a challenge for educators in the initial stages of implementation trying to design curriculum with little guidance or past experience. The implementation of the CCSS throughout the country is in its early stages. For instance, Kentucky, the first state to implement CCSS, began the process in the fall of 2010.5 The majority of states that have adopted the standards did not plan to implement them until the

1 A 46th state, Minnesota, has adopted only the ELA standards. 2 “The Common Core State Standards Initiative.” Council of Chief State School Officers.

http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/The_Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative.html 3 “Frequently Asked Questions.” Common Core State Standards Initiative.

http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently‐asked‐questions 4 “Why the Common Core?: How these Standards are Different.” Student Achievement Partners. p. 5. Available from:

http://www.achievethecore.org/page/278/why‐the‐common‐core 5 Butrymowicz, S. “What Kentucky Can Teach the Rest of the U.S. About the Common Core.” The Atlantic, October 15,

2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/10/what‐kentucky‐can‐teach‐the‐rest‐of‐the‐us‐about‐the‐common‐core/280453/



2013‐14 or 2014‐15 school years.6 As a result, very little research exists yet that can identify best practices on CCSS implementation or instruction, and because of the vastness of the initiative, it may not be available for years. Nevertheless, states, districts, and schools are moving forward with CCSS implementation. In a survey of ASCD members and conference participants in 2012, ASCD asked what each school or district was doing or planning to ensure that instructional practices are aligned to the higher expectations of the CCSS. Figure 1.1 displays survey respondent answers, which revealed that the highest number of respondents (68 percent) indicated “Ongoing, job‐embedded professional development” was a component of their plans. Respondents also indicated that they would be employing other best practice strategies during the implementation, such as using classroom observation, curricular tools, model lessons and instruction, and exemplar student work to help guide the transition.

Figure 1.1: Plans to Align Instructional Practices to the Common Core

Source: ASCD7

A survey of states’ progress on CCSS implementation, conducted by Education First and the EPE Research Center in the fall of 2011, found that 20 states had completed professional development plans preparing teachers to meet the new CCSS standards, while the other 25 CCSS states were still developing similar plans. 8 Recommendations for professional development related to the CCSS implementation are included later in this section.

6 “Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standards.” ASCD, 2012. p. 25.

http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/commoncore/CCSSSummitReport.pdf 7 Ibid., p. 28. 8 “Planning for Change: A National Perspective on Common Core State Standards Implementation Planning.”

Education First and Editorial Projects in Education, Inc. January 2012. p. 10. http://www.edweek.org/media/preparingforchange‐17standards.pdf

17%

28%

39%

44%

48%

68%

0% 50% 100%

Not sure

Identifying student work exemplifyinginstructional shifts

Model lessons and instruction

Identifying curricular tools supporting theinstructional shifts

Classroom observation

Ongoing, job‐embedded professionaldevelopment



COMMON CORE CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

KEY CURRICULUM SHIFTS

CCSS is a set of learning standards, but it does not dictate curricula. The initiative leaves particular curriculum design to states, districts, schools, and teachers themselves.9 Aligning curricula and instruction to the CCSS requires three instructional shifts or changes of emphasis in both ELA and mathematics instruction, as outlined in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: CCSS Instructional Shifts

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MATHEMATICS

Building knowledge through content‐rich nonfiction

Focus: Focus strongly where the standards focus.

Reading, writing, and speaking grounded in evidence from text, both literary and

informational

Coherence: Think across grades, and link to major topics

Regular practice with complex text and its academic language

Rigor: In major topics, pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and

application Source: Student Achievement Partners10

The ELA shifts involve adjustments of both content and instructional technique. The increased emphasis on nonfiction reading means that K‐5 students will read about half nonfiction and half fiction texts; by grades 9‐12 the balance will be about 70 percent nonfiction and 30 percent fiction. Regardless of the type of text, the standards focus on discussion and assessment grounded in evidence from the text. Accordingly, teachers will need to move away from activities and questions that are only tangentially related to the text to focus on text‐dependent activities and questions. Finally, the emphasis on textual complexity and linguistic sophistication will require instructors to provide students with adequate support for difficult texts, including multiple readings, reading aloud, and reading texts in small chunks.11 In mathematics, the first shift aims to narrow the range of material covered and to intensify the focus on that material. In order to address this shift, educators should spend the greatest amount of time and attention on the key focus areas for each grade level. The second shift, which emphasizes coherence, requires teachers to connect learning at the current grade level with concepts acquired in previous years. In turn, teachers will be able to depend on solid understanding of content from past years. For instance, a teacher

9 Fastman, B. “An Idiot’s Guide to the Common Core.” Santa Barbara Independent, August 15, 2013.

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/aug/15/idiots‐guide‐common‐core/ 10 “The Common Core Shifts at a Glance.” Student Achievement Partners.

http://www.achievethecore.org/content/upload/Shifts%202%20pager_091313.pdf 11 “Introduction to the ELA/Literacy Shifts of the Common Core State Standards.” Student Achievement Partners. pp.

5‐17. http://www.achievethecore.org/file/337



covering the concept of area should be able to ask students to relate area to the concepts of multiplication and addition learned in previous years.12 Finally, the third shift, rigor, incorporates three elements. First, conceptual understanding focuses comprehension of mathematical concepts beyond the mere mastery of formulas or techniques. For example, students should understand not only how to find equivalent fractions but also the significance of writing fractions in equivalent forms. Second, fluency demands procedural speed and accuracy; this in turn requires instruction and homework to include repeated practice of a single procedure. Lastly, application requires students to use mathematical concepts in new, appropriate contexts without prompting. Accordingly, teachers should provide opportunities for students to apply mathematical concepts in a variety of “real world” situations appropriate to each grade level.13

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES

An important consideration for school districts is the vetting of instructional material for its alignment to CCSS so that it meets the shift in standards described above. The ASCD recommends that schools and districts form committees of teacher leaders who are familiar with the CCSS to provide guidance in resource selection. Many open educational resources, which are free for schools and districts to use, offer CCSS‐aligned instructional material, as do many textbooks.14 A number of organizations provide online tools to help schools and districts evaluate instructional materials for CCSS alignment, including the Common Core State Standards Initiative publishers’ criteria for CCSS and Achieve’s EQuIP resource.15 Although still in its early phases, many organizations and governmental education agencies are developing curriculum aids for use by districts, schools, and educators. States like New York and California have developed and published online curricula, lesson plans, and modules. Achieve’s EQuIP, ASCD, EduCore, the Council of the Great City Schools, and other organizations have also developed a variety of resources such as lesson plans, learning modules, learning progressions, and curriculum, as well as webinars, videos, and DVDs, all of which provide resources for educators designing CCSS‐aligned curriculum for their own schools. These resources are summarized in Figure 1.3 below.

12 “Introduction to the Math Shifts of the Common Core State Standards.” Student Achievement Partners. pp. 17‐23.

http://www.achievethecore.org/file/784 13 Ibid., pp. 28‐35. 14 “Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standards” Op. cit., p. 32. 15 [1] “Resources.” Common Core State Standards Initiative. http://www.corestandards.org/resources [2] “Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products.” Achieve, Inc. http://achieve.org/EQUIP



Figure 1.3: Summary Table of Curriculum and Instructional Development Resources

ORGANIZATION RESOURCES WEBSITE

Achieve

Rubrics for lessons and units Learning modules Text selection aids Exemplar lessons

http://www.achieve.org/EQuIP

ASCD Online courses and development institutes http://www.ascd.org/common‐core‐state‐standards/common‐core.aspx

Council of the Great City Schools

Progression documents Exemplar lessons Learning modules

http://www.commoncoreworks.org/Page/239

EduCore Evidence‐based teaching tools for CCSS http://educore.ascd.org/

EngageNY Curriculum modules Tests

http://www.engageny.org/

Institute for Mathematics and

Education

CCSS grade level math progression documents

http://ime.math.arizona.edu/progressions/

OER Commons User rated CCSS aligned open education

resources http://www.oercommons.org/

Partnership for 21st Century Skills

Sample lesson starters Links to member CCSS implementation

resources

http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21CommonCoreToolkit.pdf

Student Achievement Partners

Lesson banks for various subjects Sample tasks Student writing samples Assessment questions Sample readings Text selection Progression documents

http://www.achievethecore.org/

Teaching Channel CCSS teaching best practice videos https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos?page=1&categories=topics_common‐core

Source: Organization websites



COMMON CORE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

Educators will require professional development to adapt to the shifts in content and emphasis under the CCSS. As the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) notes, the standards call for increased attention to high‐order questioning skills and engagement with students, two areas in which teachers may require further training.16 According to ASCD, the most important focus for CCSS implementation should be “ensuring that classroom teachers have the time, tools, and supports to make the standards come alive in the classroom.”17 State, district, and school leaders should actively listen to what educators need and want from professional development, as they are on the front lines and are in the best position to determine training needs. To that end, Achieve, Education First, and the U.S. Education Delivery Institute developed a Common Core Survey Tool, available free online, for state and district leaders to gather teacher feedback on how CCSS implementation is progressing and what adjustments might be needed.18 Nationwide, a 2012 survey of over 10,000 teachers conducted by Scholastic and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found that while many teachers had heard of the CCSS (78 percent), of those, only 22 percent indicated they were very prepared, and 51 percent reported they were somewhat prepared for the implementation of the standards. Over one quarter, 27 percent, felt they were somewhat or very unprepared. 19 The survey also asked teachers about the “types of resources you think you will need to effectively implement the Common Core Standards in your classroom.” As Figure 1.4 demonstrates, the most popular response was the need for student‐centered technology; however, a similar percent of teachers indicated the need for professional development focused on understanding the requirements of the standards themselves. Additionally, over half of the teachers surveyed felt they needed more support with new formative assessments and curricula, as well as training in best practices for teaching the new components of the standards.

16 “Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the Secondary School Leader.” National Association

of Secondary School Principals. p. 19. http://www.nassp.org/Content/158/SecondaryActionBrief_Final.pdf 17 “Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standards” Op. cit., p. 28. 18 “Feedback Loops for Common Core State Standards Implementation.” Achieve, Education First, and the U.S.

Education Delivery Institute. http://www.deliveryinstitute.org/publications/feedback‐loops‐common‐core‐state‐standards‐implementation

19 “Primary Sources: 2012: America’s Teachers on the Teaching Profession.” Scholastic and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2012. p. 18. http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/pdfs/Gates2012_full.pdf



Figure 1.4: Tools Teacher Say They Need to Effectively Implement CCSS

Source: Scholastic and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation 20

The previously referenced 2011 Education First and EPE Research Center survey found that state professional development plans for the CCSS implementation varied, but the three most common types of activities included conferences and workshops, online modules, and webinars. Teacher networks, state or regional academies, or regional education service centers were other popular strategies.21 While the professional development activities included in the plans by states offer effective strategies, best practice research on professional development applied to CCSS implementation suggests that more sustained, school‐based, and peer driven training should receive greater emphasis. The executive director of Learning Forward recently released a report outlining recommendations for professional development activities that can assist educators in implementing new standards and assessment systems. The report is intended to guide local and state discussions on how professional development can address educator skill deficits.22 According to author Stephanie Hirsh, the professional needs outlined in Figure 1.5 are common among educators implementing the CCSS.

20 Ibid., p. 19. 21 “Planning for Change: A National Perspective on Common Core State Standards Implementation Planning,” Op. cit.,

p. 10. 22 Hirsh, S. “Building Professional Development to Support Student Assessment Systems.” Learning Forward. p. 8.

http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/stephanie_hirsh‐building_professional_development.pdf

59%

60%

61%

63%

64%

0% 50% 100%

New curricula and learning tools aligned to thenew standards in English and math

Professional development on how to teach partsof the standards that are new to them

Formative assessments that measure how wellstudents are learning the standards

Professional development focused on therequirements of the standards

Student‐centered technology and resources tohelp students best learn to these new standards



Figure 1.5: Professional Development Needs

All educators require basic assessment literacy training.

• Ensure that educators understand the distinctions between formative, interim, and summative assessments. Teachers also need to learn how to prepare and use common assessments.

Many educators lack the technology skills they will need to use the new assessments.

• Teachers will need to understand the technology associated with the new assessments, including what knowledge and skills they are required to possess to access and use the new assessment systems in their classrooms. Additionally, teachers will require specific skills to effectively administer, understand, and generally work with computer‐adaptive and computer‐based testing, as well as with acquiring and interpreting results.

Teachers need practical but intensive learning experiences oriented toward the Common Core State Standards and new assessments.

• Teachers need to integrate the new expectations into their own classrooms, and these experiences must be introduced over several months and followed by ongoing support for a minimum of one year. Experiences should include oral, written, and collaborative engagement in teaching, learning, and evaluating the knowledge, skills, and dispositions and practices related to implementation of the CCSS and the assessments.

Resources, in many formats, will be essential to efforts to transition to the new standards and assessments.

• Teachers must be trained to use a variety of resources to assist them in making transitions to new assessments and curricula. These include curricula guides, pacing guides, strategies, student work, and anchor lessons that align to the assessments and standards. Contributing to the development of resources is another form of valuable professional development.

Teachers need schools where collaboration is required and time is provided.

• The pace of change will be faster than previously experienced for many teachers, and the stakes will be higher; all teachers will require time to gain the knowledge and skills and apply the new tools in real work settings, and the success of such efforts will be accelerated when work is conducted in collaboration with peers. Principals and other school leaders can use this transition to establish new governing norms for collaborative work cultures and expectations for shared responsibility within their schools.

Teachers need ready access to one or more teacher leaders in their buildings who are broadly expert on Common Core State Standards and related curricula and assessments.

• Early in the transition process, it is important to identify and support teachers who become early adopters and serve as models for implementation by coaching other teachers. These teacher leaders will require professional development for the new standards and assessments in addition to training to support their roles as coach and facilitator.

Teachers require networking with peers in the same grade level or course for support with implementation.

• Regular time should be set aside, and a well‐ prepared facilitator can guide these teams of teachers as they study the standards at a deeper level (unpacking the standards), plan for integrating the new assessments, interpret assessment results, problem solve, construct new lessons in response to assessment findings, and more.

Source: Learning Forward23

23 Adapted from: Ibid., pp. 8‐11.



Learning Forward identified seven key components of successful professional development, targeting the pedagogical and content changes required of the shift to the CCSS: Learning Communities, Leadership, Resources, Data, Learning Designs, Implementation, and Outcomes.24 In interviews with educators involved in CCSS implementation in Ohio, Belcher confirmed the importance of these components, which are further examined below. Their experiences show that:25

Small learning communities are the most effective form of professional development

Frequent communication is essential

Teachers appreciate tools they can “see”

Understanding and analyzing data allows for the identification and elimination of achievement gaps

Professional development must be tied to “unpacking” the CCSS and to the outcomes they are designed to affect

Professional learning communities provide the type of collaboration recommended by professional development best practice research. The embedded nature of learning communities facilitates collaboration and fosters an ongoing, school‐based professional development model. Successful professional learning communities encourage collaboration at all levels of the school community, and are often nurtured with frequent meetings, team problem solving and curricular development, and study groups to develop strategies, support systems, and learn about education research and practice. In addition, learning communities often encourage peer observation of teaching practice. This mutual observation can provide a safe environment for feedback, assistance, and collaborative analysis of student work and data.26 In its guide to developing school‐based systems for professional learning and planning, the Great School Partnership recommends that school administration should encourage leadership among teachers by “delegating responsibility, distributing decision‐making authority, recognizing good ideas, providing leadership‐development training, and creating new opportunities for professional advancement.”27 A core team of teacher leaders can

24 “Meet the Promise of Content Standards: Professional Learning Required.” Learning Forward, 2012. pp. 18‐23.

http://www.learningforward.org/docs/pdf/read‐the‐brief‐(pdf).pdf?sfvrsn=0 25 Belcher, E. “Future Shock: Early Common Core Implementation Lessons from Ohio.” Thomas B. Fordham Institute,

May 2012. pp. 6‐7. http://www.edexcellence.net/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/FORINS%20FutureShock%20ReportHR_8.pdf

26 Darling‐Hammond, L., and N. Richardson. “Teacher Learning: What Matters?” How Teachers Learn, 66:5, February 2009. pp. 3‐5. http://www.mimathandscience.org/downloads/math__professional_development/how_teachers_learn_20110908_165813_22.pdf

27 “Harnessing Teacher Knowledge: A Guide to Developing School‐Based Systems for Professional Learning and Planning.” Great Schools Partnership, March 2011. p. 5. http://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/06/harnessing_teacher_knowledge.pdf



plan and lead professional development activities, including organizing faculty meetings, training new teachers, and analyzing student data. According to Learning Forward, effective professional development “requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating resources for educator learning.”28 Research shows that long‐term, ongoing, and cumulative professional development is significantly more effective than periodic, disconnected workshops. The Great Schools Partnership suggests that a school’s professional development program be “intensive, in‐depth, and ongoing throughout the school year.” Research from the Great Schools Partnership demonstrates that teachers require at least 50 hours of “practice‐specific, content‐based” professional development in order for it to transform practice.29 These professional development reforms, taking place alongside curriculum and instruction reforms, require that schools, districts, and states set aside sufficient resources of both time and money. Learning Forward’s recommended investments for CCSS professional development are shown in Figure 1.6.

Figure 1.6: Recommended Investments in Professional Development

INVESTMENT PURPOSE

10 days embedded within educators’ work year and/or expanding educators’ work

year

To extend individual, team, school wide, and district wide professional learning, teachers participate in university courses; enroll in expert‐ and peer‐facilitated workshops; engage in blended, face‐to‐ face, and online courses; attend local, state, or national conferences; interact virtually or in person with researchers and other experts.

Adjust school‐day schedules to provide three to four hours

weekly for collaboration among teachers, between

teachers and their principals, and among principals

To provide daily time for educators to transfer learning into practice, develop shared expertise, and refine practice through continuous improvement by studying content standards and curriculum to plan units and lessons of curriculum, assessment, and instruction; analyzing student learning progressions to identify and design interventions; solving problems related to student learning; calibrating student performance expectations; supporting peer professional growth; and reflecting on and assessing practice.

Provide technology infrastructure and innovative programs and resources to

increase accessibility, efficiency, and adaptability of

professional learning

To provide access to just‐in‐time learning, models of effective practices, simulations of classrooms and schools, tools for knowledge management, analysis of practice, and presentation of learning; to connect educators with local and global networks of experts and peers to solve problems, seek information and support, and give and receive constructive feedback; and to make educators’ practice public in networking environments.

28 “Meet the Promise of Content Standards: Professional Learning Required,” Op. cit., p. 20. 29 “Harnessing Teacher Knowledge: A Guide to Developing School‐Based Systems for Professional Learning and

Planning,” Op. cit., p. 9.



INVESTMENT PURPOSE

Provide differentiated staffing and compensation to support

coaches, mentors, and teacher and principal leaders

To tap the expertise of educators within the school and school system through which master teachers and principals provide mentoring, coaching, and facilitated learning to individuals, teams, and school faculty to adapt and implement learning; to increase the accuracy and frequency of use of the practices; and to increase their collective expertise.

Increase funding for professional learning expert

consultants, technical assistance, conference

registrations, program fees, print or electronic

professional books and journals, memberships to

To maintain professional libraries with resources linked to national, state, district, and school goals; to provide registrations for local, state, and national conferences to acquire cutting‐edge research and practices; and to access technical assistance from experts with new perspectives and research‐ and evidence‐based practices to support goal attainment and address identified gaps, needs, or problems.

Source: Learning Forward30

In addition, professional development should be data driven. Educators should use data from “students, teachers, principals, and systems” to analyze the effects of instructional strategies on student learning by monitoring progress, and should use these findings to make improvements to meet the needs of individual teachers or teams.31 Professional learning should be continuous, but it should also be school‐based and centered on sustained practice. This requires sustained support in its implementation. Learning Forward explains that old models of professional development are no longer sufficient:

Too much professional learning depends on one‐size‐fits‐all, short‐term, pull‐out, knowledge‐focused, expert‐led learning experiences such as workshops or courses taught with one or two instructional methodologies. These learning experiences leave educators to manage independently the harder part of the learning process—transferring the knowledge to practice within their workplaces. Learning cannot be bound by the length of a workshop or course. It is a continuous process of examining data, setting goals, identifying learning foci, engaging in learning, implementing the learning, analyzing the results of implementation, evaluating the learning process, and repeating the cycle again multiple times within a single school year.32

Finally, professional learning should be aligned with the outcomes expected of students and educators under the new Common Core standards.33 According to ASCD, the first aim of professional development should be to ensure that educators “deeply understand the Common Core State Standards.” Further, the ASCD recommends that all teachers and staff, including elective teachers and non‐classroom teachers, understand the new standards and

30 “Meet the Promise of Content Standards: Investing in Professional Learning.” Learning Forward, 2012. P, 11.

http://www.learningforward.org/docs/pdf/meetpromiseinvesting.pdf?sfvrsn=2 31 Ibid., p. 21. 32 Ibid., pp. 21‐22. 33 Ibid., p. 23.



impending changes.34 This is especially pressing, as the ASCD reports that educators reported not having sufficient time to “collaborate and engage one another” to gain a deeper understanding of CCSS instructional shifts. The lack of specific instructional resources and examples has exacerbated the problem by limiting the ability of teachers to become familiar with concrete CCSS instructional shifts.35 Districts should use curriculum development resources that are now becoming available, like those described in the previous section, that provide concrete curriculum and instructional development tools aligned to Common Core standards, giving teachers a better idea of the content of the standards and how to teach them. As one Cincinnati teacher explained, having concrete curriculum models is “very calming… in a sea of turbulence.”36 Learning Forward published a number of professional learning units online for the use of professional development facilitators.37 Some states have also published online professional development modules, which will be discussed in Section II below.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR PRINCIPALS

Professional development is a concern not only for teachers but for principals as well. The NASSP observes that “[t]he adoption of the CCSS means that school leaders are faced with the challenge of increasing the capacity of most of their instructional staff within a relatively brief period of time.”38 Principals will have to foster consensus about the specific actions the school will take to develop the ability of teachers to adapt to the standards. To identify professional development that targets the needs of faculty and receives school‐wide support, the NASSP recommends the following steps:39

Meet with school leadership team, data team and literacy council and discuss professional development needs based on the assessed needs of the students and the observed needs of the teachers as they relate to implementation of the CCSS.

Establish three to five goals for professional development.

Work with [the] district and state agencies to seek highly effective professional development experiences aligned to the CCSS and to Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning.

Because the school staff will need short‐term wins to maintain motivation, create both short‐term and long‐term (minimum of three years) plans for continuous, connected, ongoing and job‐embedded professional development.

34 “Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standards” Op. cit., p. 35. 35 Ibid., p. 32. 36 Belcher, Op. cit., p. 7. 37 “Professional Learning Units.” Learning Forward. http://learningforward.org/publications/implementing‐common‐

core/facilitator‐modules 38 “Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the Secondary School Leader,” Op. cit., p. 19. 39 Bulleted points taken verbatim from: Ibid., p. 20.



Stephanie Hirsh, the Executive Director of Learning Forward, suggests that school leaders are likely to find that their teachers need professional development in basic assessment literacy to understand purpose and use of the new assessments; technology skills to administer the new assessments, and practical, intensive learning experiences to aid with the transition to the CCSS and new assessments.40 Kentucky’s 2008 high school principal of the year, Tracey Lamb, uses faculty meetings that meet twice per month to monitor Common Core implementations, emphasizing, “Monitoring, monitoring, monitoring, and teaching, teaching, teaching.” She explains, “It’s all about instruction and facilitating to make sure that what is supposed to be happening is happening.”41 ASCD recommends that principals become instructional leaders themselves. Principals should understand the shifts in the Common Core Standards and what that means for teachers, including what support they will need and how they will be evaluated.42 To meet these goals, ASCD recommends that principals should do the following:43

Reserve time during faculty meetings to address updates on Common Core implementation from the district and state and to provide a forum for teachers to highlight best practices and lessons learned.

Advocate for common planning time and make sure that teachers use the time effectively.

Share and collaborate with peers at other sites to make certain that the district’s efforts are guided by what is happening in the classroom.

Scrutinize information for its applicability to implement the standards and ensuring that it is communicated to staff.

40 Hirsh, Op. cit., pp. 8‐9. 41 Gewerts, C. “Common‐Core Training for Principals on Increase.” Education Week, May 30, 2012.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/30/33principals.h31.html 42 “Fulfilling the Promise of the Common Core State Standards” Op. cit., p. 34. 43 Replicated from: Ibid., pp. 34‐35.



SECTION II: DISTRICT AND STATE PROFILES This section describes Common Core State Standards implementation strategies by the Orange Unified School District in California, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District in Ohio, the New York City Department of Education in New York, Hillsborough County Public Schools in Tampa, Florida, and the state of Kentucky. Each of these profiles was selected due to the early adoption of CCSS.

ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

Orange Unified School District is located in California’s Orange County, serving the cities of Anaheim, Garden Grove, Orange, Santa Anna, and Villa Park. The district has 38 schools, 23 of which have been recognized as California Distinguished Schools, and serves approximately 30,000 students in kindergarten through grade 12.44 Orange USD’s Common Core Innovation Plan serves to guide the district through CCSS implementation over the next decade (2012‐2022).45 Starting with building awareness, the district held a professional development day in partnership with Educators Co‐op to introduce the background and fundamental concepts of CCSS, and to help educators understand how mathematics and ELA education would shift under the new standards.46 The district’s administrative director for curriculum, Linda Stoterau, explained that implementation would be incremental: alignment will occur first for Kindergarten and Grade 1 mathematics in 2013‐2014, followed by K‐2 ELA in 2014‐2015. As those students move up in grade levels, they will continue to see Common Core standards throughout their time in the district. Teacher leaders are also developing instructional guidelines for the grades 9‐12 English curriculum, which the district will also pilot in the 2013‐14 school year.47 The district is using a number of strategies to implement the shift to CCSS. The Teacher Innovator Program (TIP) trained an initial cohort of 53 district teachers, who met to learn about “Common Core Standards, Key Shifts, and Smarter Balanced Assessment.” Those teachers worked together using classroom observation to develop new instructional strategies aligned to Common Core standards. The TIP teachers identified “three key instructional shifts:” depth of learning, collaborative student groups, and questioning keys to success. Under CCSS, students must learn to think more deeply, and TIP teachers found that focusing on key concepts and requiring students to “verbalize their thinking” was the key to success. Encouraging students to think deeply and verbalize their thinking required a

44 “About Us.” Orange Unified School District. http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/news/about.asp 45 “Common Core Innovation Plan 2012‐2022.” Orange Unified School District.

http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/ed_svcs/CommonCoreForParents/doc/CommonCoreInnovationPlan2012‐2022.pdf

46 “Common Core Connection.” Orange Unified School District, January 22, 2013. http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/curriculum_council/pdf/2013/EducationalServices2013.pdf

47 Stoterau, Linda. “Common Core Transition in Full Force in Orange.” Orange County Register, March 13, 2013. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/students‐499656‐ccss‐teachers.html



different and more patient kind of questioning. Teachers also found that students performed better in groups when they worked collaboratively to produce a single product instead of individually creating similar work. The cohort of teachers initially trained in TIP can act as teacher leaders, helping to provide lesson plans and training to other district teachers.48 Orange USD also uses co‐teaching and collaboration as implementation strategies. The district adopted its co‐teaching model as one of the “effective strategies that support the needs of all learners and the Common Core State Standards,” with training beginning in May 2013. In addition, the district’s Process of Achievement, which includes key district initiatives around RTI, teacher collaboration, and leadership development, emphasizes collaborative professional development by fostering strategies such as professional learning communities and collaborative academic support teams.49 The district has established teacher committees to review textbooks and compare current district resources to CCSS‐aligned instructional materials.50 In addition, the district held CCSS training for all principals in February of 2013. Principals learned about CCSS implementation resources that the district had made available, including sample questions from the Smarter Balanced assessment and plans for technology support. The district also held a day‐long Summer Institute for Principals in August 2013, with “professional trainings conducted by ‘experts’ within OUSD.”51

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, OHIO

The Cleveland Metropolitan School District is an urban school district with 103 schools serving 48,392 pre‐school through Grade 12 students.52 Cleveland, along with New York City, Boston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, St. Paul, Albuquerque, and the District of Columbia, was one of the first districts to pilot CCSS. Beginning in 2011, these districts served as “lead districts” working with the Council of the Great City Schools, and were funded by a $4.6 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to pilot implementation of the Common Core standards.53

48 “Common Core State Standards.” Orange Unified School District, April 22, 2013. p. 3.

http://www.orangeusd.k12.ca.us/curriculum_council/pdf/2013/CommonCoreConnectionV1I2.pdf 49 Ibid., p. 2. 50 Stoterau, Op. cit. 51 “Common Core State Standards,” Op. cit., pp. 2‐4. 52 “Cleveland Metropolitan School District.” Education.com.

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/ohio/district/cleveland‐metropolitan‐school‐district/ 53 “$4.6‐Million Project Launched to Help Urban Schools Implement Common Core Standards.” Council of the Great

City Schools, August 15, 2011. http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/29/Gates_Foundation_Grant11.pdf



According to the district’s Deputy Chief of Curriculum and Instruction, Karen Thompson, preparation for implementing CCSS began early, and the district started its “communication drive” by the end of 2010.54 A blog post by the Director of Professional Issues for the Cleveland Teachers Union, Mark Baumgartner, revealed the steps taken within the Cleveland Metropolitan School District to establish a professional development program for teachers implementing the Common Core. First, the district investigated strategies for integrating CCSS training into its existing professional development activities, which included recurrent grade‐level training. The district determined that grade band implementation would be most effective because “smaller groups of teachers could get the personalized training they needed to become experts.”55 Training was implemented in one‐year phases, beginning with teachers of kindergarten through grade 2 in spring 2011, followed by grades 3‐5 in spring 2012, and grades 6‐10 in the spring of 2013.56 The district’s schools further divided into cohorts of 20 schools for training sessions. For the first rounds of training, the district “brought all … K‐2 teachers together, in cohorts by grade level, for two six‐hour professional development programs during the school day.” This initial training session focused on:

Unpacking and becoming familiar with the CCSS. This first day is focused on delving deeper into the standards and on resource alignment. A focal goal of this session is to help teachers understand what the standards would look like in day‐to‐day lessons. The second day includes actual lesson planning in addition to helping teachers understand the need for and to design appropriate formative assessments so [the] teachers would know their students ‘got it.’57

As teachers began introducing the CCSS in their classrooms, they continued to receive professional development through an additional four sessions. Teachers participated in professional learning communities led by instructional coaches, and explored the different resources that can be used to teach the CCSS. Teachers also used these sessions to collaborate on effective instructional strategies.58 The aim of using professional learning communities and partitioning training by grade into smaller groups is to make a “big district small,” according to Thompson. She explains that, “People listen to colleagues,” adding, “We’re doing it (preparing for the adoption) together. We’re not doing it to them.”59 Teachers meet after the end of the school year “to identify what specific standards for their grade and subject areas will be taught during each of eight five‐week blocks (early first

54 Belcher, Op. cit., p. 9. 55 Baumgartner, M. “Common Core PD – In Practice at Cleveland Metropolitan School District.” Cleveland Teachers

Union – Local 279. 2012. http://oh.aft.org/CTU/index.cfm?action=article&articleID=98e5de16‐47df‐471e‐8f94‐c22919ee3ae1

56 Belcher, Op. cit., p. 10. 57 Baumgartner, Op. cit. 58 Ibid. 59 Belcher, Op. cit., p. 10.



quarter, late first quarter, etc.).”60 Additionally, the district updated its existing “Scope & Sequence” curriculum‐pacing guide by including the CCSS. The district will continue to update the guide each year as the different grade bands participate in CCSS implementation activities.61

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NEW YORK

The New York City Department of Education, the nation’s largest school district with over 1,700 schools and about 1.1 million students,62 was also one of the first school districts to adopt the Common Core State Standards. New York State adopted CCSS in 2010, and the city began piloting the program in 100 schools in 2010‐2011. By 2013‐14, the city implemented “citywide instructional expectations as [the] final part of transition to the Common Core,” and New York State aligned the statewide Regents exams with Common Core.63 After piloting CCSS, the city provided teachers with a full day to engage in professional activities and plan for full implementation of the CCSS at the beginning of the 2011‐2012 academic year. Teachers trained by evaluating student work for CCSS compliance, learning about new teacher evaluation rubrics, and “strengthening student work and teacher practice.” The district also asked teachers to access the library of materials supplied online by the New York City Department of Education and become familiar with the new standards and concepts prior to the beginning of the school year.64 These resources to guide implementation of the CCSS included instructional expectations, instructional shifts, and links to curriculum and professional development modules. Examples of such resources are included in Figure 2.1 on the following page. Additionally, EngageNY, which serves as a statewide resource for educators, offers a variety of resources including state‐sponsored curricula, tools for teacher/leader effectiveness, and a Common Core Professional Development Kit.65 The CCSS aligned curricula provide modules and units for grades P‐12 in ELA and mathematics, and “can be adopted for local purposes.” The professional development kit helps prepare teachers for the implementation of the CCSS and contains a facilitation guide and a full‐day presentation. The presentation addresses general awareness of the Common Core as well as instructional shifts, and provides an opportunity to identify gaps in student knowledge between the former learning standards and the Common Core.

60 Belcher, Op. cit., p. 10. 61 Baumgartner, Op. cit. 62 “About Our Schools.” New York City Department of Education. http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/default.htm 63 “NYC and the Common Core.” New York City Department of Education.

http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/About/NYSStandards/default.htm 64 Cramer, P. “City’s Common Core rollout ramps up today with teacher training.” Gotham Schools, September 7,

2011. http://gothamschools.org/2011/09/07/citys‐common‐core‐rollout‐ramps‐up‐today‐with‐teacher‐training/ 65 “EngageNY: Our Students. Their Moment.” EngageNY. http://www.engageny.org/



Figure 2.1: New York CCSS Implementation Resources

RESOURCES DESCRIPTION WEBSITE

New York City Resources http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/CommonCoreClassroom/default.htm

Citywide Instructional

Expectations for 2013‐2014

Overview of teacher and school leader tasks for adjusting their practice, classroom‐ and school‐level conditions for successful implementation, assessment changes, and accountability and evaluation procedures

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C8CFE95F‐9488‐458B‐AEBF‐1A21AD914F64/0/201314CitywideInstructionalExpectationsMay62013.pdf

Implementation Guidance for the 2013‐14 Citywide Instructional Expectations

Provides guidance on using a framework for teaching, implementing CCSS‐aligned units of study, definitions, guidance, and support

http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4DE712A9‐0D3D‐4E75‐97C2‐57768912AF05/0/CIEGuidance52813.pdf

Instructional Shifts

Downloadable professional development resources on Common Core instructional shifts in mathematics and ELA/Literacy, including a Facilitation Guide, the state’s detailed Learning Standards, crosswalks of instructional shifts, and a Note‐Taking Guide

http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/About/InstructionalShifts/default.htm

NYC and the Common Core

Provides Common Core implementation support, such as curriculum and professional development support

http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/About/NYSStandards/default.htm

Mathematics Resources

Provides math curriculum and professional development by grade level

http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/CommonCoreClassroom/Mathematics/default.htm

ELA Resources Provides ELA curriculum and professional development by grade level

http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/CommonCoreLibrary/CommonCoreClassroom/ELA/default.htm

New York State Resources http://www.engageny.org/

Common Core Curriculum

Provides curriculum modules and units by discipline and grade http://www.engageny.org/common‐core‐curriculum

Common Core Professional

Development Kit Provides professional development kits by discipline and grade

http://www.engageny.org/resource/common‐core‐professional‐development‐kit/

Source: Individual institution websites



HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, FLORIDA

Hillsborough County Public Schools serves 206,841 students in Tampa and the surrounding areas with 250 schools.66 The district began its implementation of CCSS in 2011, making it one of the first large school districts to do so.67 The district’s implementation strategy began by communicating the initiative early, with a full day meeting of “stakeholders, including district leaders, state education officials, teachers, principals, and union representatives.”68 According to Wynne Ty, Hillsborough’s Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, district leaders “spent the full first year building awareness and commitment at all levels of the district,” adding, “We knew it was critical to spend time early on getting everyone on the same page. Our approach to implementation has been to go slow to go fast.”69 From the first meetings in 2011, the district emphasized the importance of “teacher‐tailored, teacher‐led training” and curriculum development. The district’s Director of K–12 Literacy, Lynn Dougherty‐Underwood explained that:

In past instructional reform efforts, we would have turned the standards over to the district content folks and said, ‘Okay, you know English, go formulate the right materials.’ Then we handed those materials to teachers and said, ‘This is how instruction will change tomorrow in your classroom.’ But we recognized that for the Common Core to truly change instruction across the district, we needed to spend time developing a shared vision of the ‘why’ among our teachers and those that support them.70

The district developed multiple professional development structures to support the CCSS implementation process: teacher leaders, faculty developed instructional modules, and professional learning communities. Together, these concepts emphasize teacher‐led professional development and training, suggesting that the CCSS implementation process is a practitioner‐based initiative that seeks to take advantage of the experience of those closest to the students in the classroom. Figure 2.2 provides a more detailed description of these practices at work.

66 “Hillsborough County Public Schools.” U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/labor‐management‐

collaboration/conference/hillsborough‐county‐public‐schools 67 Rodde, A. and L. McHugh. “Building the Missing Link between the Common Core and Improved Learning.” The

Bridgespan Group, September 2013. p. 9. http://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/dbbc1330‐cf41‐4c7b‐b96f‐08c6f076438a/Common‐Core‐Standards‐and‐Improved‐Learning.pdf.aspx

68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 70 Ibid.



Figure 2.2: Hillsborough Teacher Training Models

Source: The Bridgespan Group71

STATE OF KENTUCKY

In fall 2010, Kentucky became the first state to implement Common Core State Standards.72 Kentucky’s strategy for implementing the new standards was to create Content Leadership Networks, bringing together “district, school, and classroom leaders” grouped into eight geographical regions and further grouped by discipline.73 The purpose was to create professional learning communities that were “focused on developing its own content and pedagogical expertise and the leadership skills necessary to work within their districts and schools to support implementation of Kentucky Core Academic Standards and the state‐adopted characteristics of highly effective teaching and learning.”74

71 Ibid., p. 10. 72 Butrymowicz, Op. cit. 73 Rodde, and McHugh, Op. cit., p. 5. 74 “Meet the Promise of Content Standards: Professional Learning Required,” Op. cit., p, 25.

TEACHER LEADERS

District held a six hour Dana‐Aspen Instituite CCSS

"deepening" training for 260 district teacher leaders.

Teacher leaders worked with district personel to develop grade and content specific

training.

Teacher leaders led training sessions for other district

teachers one evening a week and Saturdays.

INSTRUCTIONAL MODULES

District created teacher teams by subject and grade to create model instructional modules and student scoring rubrics.

Teacher teams introduced modules to thier schools.

Example: 12th graders’ analysis of Federalist Number 10, exploring students’ ability to not only understand the arguments in the text but also their ability to explore how author James Madison used and refined the meaning of a key term like “faction”

over the course of his writing.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNINGCOMMUNITIES

Small groups of teachers meet regularly to study more

effective teaching and learning practices.

This is supported with added time by ending school early on Mondays for planning time.



According to the Kentucky Department of Education’s Director of Program Standards, Karen Kidwell:

You need extended time if you’re serious about going deep and solving together. Our Leadership Network approach is really dependent on helping people recognize their strengths and their talents and skills. We wanted the same group of people for a solid three years because this is hard work, and it needs to be continuous. You really need the leaders and teachers in each district to own the work, and then go back and make these changes happen.75

Each regional network met monthly for a full day. The networks were composed of teams from each district in the region, including “three math teachers, three English language arts (ELA) teachers, three principals or other school leaders, up to three district‐level supervisors, and the superintendent.”76 Kidwell explained that one important component was that, “districts needed to be able to solve their own problems,” adding, “We saw the Leadership Networks as a place to deepen understanding, try out some processes, and bring forward problems that superintendents, principals, and teachers were having in their districts and get feedback from peers.”77 At the meetings, teams divided into discipline specific groups, which then reconvened by district to share information and strategies that participants had learned. In particular, the networks focused on the following CCSS implementation topics:78

Translating the standards and preparing for initial rollout

o Group review of each standard and what they would require students to understand

Planning to effectively assess student learning based on the standards

o Analyze existing assessments and items for their relation to the new standards and develop new assessments

Developing strategies and tools to ensure effective teaching and learning

o Establish an iterative process looking at best‐practice strategies for teaching the content, experimenting in classrooms, and reporting and reflecting

Strengthening the ability of Network teachers, school leaders, and administrators to lead their local districts in improving teaching

o Reflect on how to continue to improve teaching, such as refining and revising instructional support tools like sample lessons and assessment items

75 Rodde, and McHugh, Op. cit., p. 7. 76 Ibid., p. 6. 77 Ibid. 78 Bullet points adapted from: Ibid., p. 7.



PROJECT EVALUATION FORM Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.



1750 H Street NW, 2nd Floor

Washington, DC 20006

P 202.756.2971 F 866.808.6585

www.hanoverresearch.com

Best Practices for Common Core Implementation - Email … · 2017-03-16 · A survey of states’ progress on CCSS implementation, conducted by Education First and the EPE Research

Documents