December 2012 - Putnam City Schools

Curriculum
re View
Volume 5 Number 4
December 2012
Fern Melton
CIA Director - Dr. Joe Pierce
Dear PC Colleagues
What does the Common Core-centered classroom look
like? One approach worth developing is not all that new, but
may be more relevant now than ever. Check these examples
and the accompaning article recently featured in District
Administrator magazine...
“Project-based learning looks different, and may seem
messier, than traditional instruction. Folks visiting PBL
classrooms shouldn’t expect to see orderly rows of
students moving through the curriculum together. Instead,
they’re likely to find small teams of students working on
investigations of open-ended questions. Students should be
able to explain what they’re doing and how activities relate
to the project goals.
At Howe High School in the Howe Public Schools in
Oklahoma, a small school making the shift to PBL, an
administrator questioned a student about why he was in the
hallway using his cell phone during class. Tammy Parks,
district technology coordinator for Howe Public Schools,
said the student had no trouble explaining his purpose: “He
said, ‘I’m calling the mayor’s office to set up a meeting
about our project.”
Principal Rody Boonchouy of the Da Vinci Charter
Academy in Davis, Calif., says that comprehensive evidence
of learning in PBL should include “mastery of concepts,
skills to achieve and demonstrate mastery, and detailed
reflection of personal processes.” To encourage reflection,
he recommends that administrators ask students “to talk
about how they are learning,” including how their thinking
has changed. He suggests using a reflection prompt that asks
students to explain, “I used to think … but now I believe
…”
PBL typically culminates in public presentations of what
students have learned, with audience members invited to ask
questions, offer feedback, and score student performances.”
The Challenge of Assessing Project-Based
Learning
On the heels of Common Core State Standards,
administrators begin assessing critical thinking and content
mastery.
By:Suzie Boss, District Administration, October 2012
Mesquite Elementary School students in the Vail (Ariz.) School
District collaborate on a project as part of the school’s Media
Center Enrichment Program. In anticipation of the new Common
Core State Standards, the district is introducing projects at all
grade levels to increase rigor and relevancy.
Ask high school juniors at Da Vinci Charter Academy in the Davis
(Calif.) Joint Unified School District, to explain the causes and
consequences of war in American history, and you won’t get a rote
recitation of dates and places.
Instead, these students are able to demonstrate their learning by
screening the preview for a feature film they produced on the
conflict in Afghanistan through the eyes of a young American
soldier. They can offer highlights of their interviews with Vietnam
veterans, which they contributed to the Library of Congress as
primary source material.
For their ambitious project, called America at War, students didn’t
just study history. They became historians. Their project offers
compelling evidence of what students can accomplish through
project-based learning (PBL), an instructional approach that
emphasizes authentic assessment.
The project earned top honors at last summer’s annual conference
of the New Technology Network, a group of 120 all-PBL public
high schools, including charters and magnet schools in 19 states.
For Rody Boonchouy, principal of Da Vinci Charter Academy,
the project was worth doing because of the deep learning it
produced. “Students had a transformational learning experience
by diving deep into all the dynamic implications of war,” he says.
“Their preexisting beliefs and opinions were challenged through
exploration of conflicts and interactions with veterans who were
there.”
(continued on pg. 2)

PBL as Driver of Change
A third-grade class in Robious Elementary School in the
Chesterfield County (Va.) Public Schools planted seeds and
sprouts in the school community garden as a lesson in the plant
unit.
Although PBL has a long history in American education, dating
to John Dewey and other early advocates of learning by doing,
the project approach has gotten a second wind over the past
decade as a strategy to engage diverse learners in rigorous
learning.
Early adopters include several public school networks, such as
the New Tech schools, that leverage technology-infused PBL as a
driver of school change. High Tech High, which has a deliberate
focus on preparing high-poverty students for college, began
with one school in Southern California and has expanded to 11
public charter schools, elementary through high school, across
San Diego County. Expeditionary Learning, another national
network, reaches approximately 50,000 students in a variety
of K12 public school settings. Its model emphasizes servicelearning
and place-based projects that have strong connections to
communities.
PBL is expanding beyond these early adopters as districts
consider strategies to help students meet the Common Core
State Standards. In projects such as America at War, students
are assessed based on what they produce or demonstrate rather
than what they can recall for a test. “That application of learning
is a higher need as we transition to the Common Core,” says
Superintendent Calvin Baker of the Vail School District in
Arizona. In anticipation of the new standards, his district is
introducing projects at all grade levels, with the dual goals of
increasing “rigor and relevancy.”
Robious Middle School students in the Chesterfield County
schools work with volunteers from the nearby James River Park
system to learn about geocaching. During this activity, students
incorporate multiple skills, like map reading and learning
concepts of interconnectedness to the watershed.
And Holly Bremerkamp, Acuity product manager at CTB/
McGraw-Hill, adds that project-based learning and assessments
are becoming increasingly important as there is a need to
measure students’ abilities to think critically and collaborate with
peers. Acuity is a comprehensive assessment-as-learning support
system. “We’ve found that project-based learning methods—and
the performance-based assessments that accompany them—
are valuable in pushing students to demonstrate what they
have learned in meaningful ways and valuable for teachers
to understand how well students can apply their knowledge,”
Bremerkamp says.
Beyond the Bubble
For administrators accustomed to the bubble tests of No Child
Left Behind, the decision to implement PBL across a school
system raises a challenging question: How should districts
assess more open-ended learning that likely involves critical
thinking and collaboration as well as content mastery? Rather
than testing for recall of information, projects are better suited to
performance-based assessments that ask students to demonstrate,
apply and reflect on what they have learned.
At Federal Hocking High School, part of Federal Hocking Local
Schools in Stewart, Ohio, students end each semester with halfday
performances of learning. Physical education students might
be asked to design a personalized, hour-long exercise program,
based on analysis of their own metabolic data, to work off the
calories in a candy bar.
“Students should be able to demonstrate their knowledge
through application. That’s the ticket,” says George Wood, who
is both superintendent of Federal Hocking Local Schools and
principal of Federal Hocking High. He is also board president
for the Coalition of Essential Schools, a nonprofit that promotes
personalized learning and intellectual excellence in hundreds of
member schools nationwide.
Performance assessments like the ones Federal Hocking uses are
still relatively rare in public schools, but they could soon become
more commonplace. Two organizations have won federal
contracts to develop next-generation assessment systems for
English language arts and math. The Partnership for Assessment
of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium are developing measurement
tools, with implementation expected by the 2014-2015 school
year.
Students at Da Vinci Charter Academy take part in a WWI
project whereby each student team represents one nation in the
war with role playing.
Many observers are predicting parallels between the new
assessments and the authentic assessment called for in PBL.
PARCC describes its forthcoming assessments, for grades 3
through high school, as “rich performance tasks” that will
measure students’ readiness for entry-level college courses.
Smarter Balanced recently released a sample of a pilot
assessment task that asks students in grade 11 to “engage
strategically in collaborative and independent inquiry to
investigate/research topics, pose questions, and gather and
present information.” That description prompted David Ross,
director of teacher professional development for the Buck
Institute for Education (BIE), a nonprofit resource for projectbased
learning, to remark in a blog post, “Sounds like PBL to
me.”
Foot in Both Worlds
Until the new assessments are rolled out, districts remain
accountable to traditional state assessments, even if they’re
shifting their instructional model to PBL. “We’re trying to stand
with a foot in both worlds,” Baker says. “Everyone’s talking
about what the new assessments will be like, but no one has
shown them to us yet. When assessment changes, it’s a whole
new game.” “We know that students can do more than what’s
assessed by current state tests,” adds Allison Rowland, a former
principal in California who is now an assessment specialist for
New Tech Network.
She welcomes the new generation of assessments, calling them
“a means to drive students toward deeper learning and stronger
preparation for college.” As administrators, she says, “we pay
attention to what we measure. If we can shift the measurement
so that students are better prepared and more engaged learners,
then let’s do it.”
Overcoming Anxiety
Not all administrators are so eager for the changes ahead.
“Leaders at the district and state levels are feeling some anxiety
about moving to an assessment system that’s more open-ended,”
acknowledges Rosanna Mucetti. A former principal, Mucetti is
the director of district and state initiatives for BIE, which has
been promoting best practices in PBL for 25 years.
Under No Child Left Behind, districts across the country

have kept a laserlike focus on standardized test results.
“Administrators have spent a decade getting up in front of their
organizations, emphasizing data and meeting targets,” Mucetti
says. “We’ve all been conditioned to pay close attention to that.
The future horizon is not as crystal clear in terms of assessment.
People are wondering, ‘What’s coming? And in the interim, what
evidence should we focus on?’ There’s this tension.”
Answers with One Model
Students in the New Tech @ Ruston school, part of the New
Technology Network, in the Lincoln Parish School Board in
Louisiana take part in a Recyclable Roller Coasters project. They
created a roller coaster from recyclable materials that could roll
a marble unassisted for 20 seconds. In doing so, they learned
about potential energy, kinetic energy, work and the law of
conservation of energy.
Answers are emerging from both practice and research. On the
practice side, BIE emphasizes effective assessment strategies
during its popular three-day professional development workshop,
PBL 101, which it offers to teachers and instructional leaders in
participating districts across the country. During the workshop,
teachers develop rubrics to assess students’ final projects
according to multiple measures. Students are assessed on mastery
of significant academic content plus development of specific
21st-century skills, such as collaboration or critical thinking.
The BIE model also emphasizes using formative assessment
strategies throughout a project to check on student understanding
and to make just-in-time adjustments in instruction. (Samples
of summative and formative tools are available at www.bie.org/
tools/freebies.)
On the research side, evidence of the value of PBL for rigorous
coursework is emerging from an ongoing multiyear study called
Knowledge in Action, designed by University of Washington
researchers and implemented by Advanced Placement teachers
in three states. Funded by an alliance that includes the George
Lucas Educational Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, the study shows that AP pass rates increased by
as much as 30 percent during the 2011-2012 school year when
students engaged in a project-based curriculum rather than more
traditional instruction. Researchers emphasize that projects need
to be the “spine” of the curriculum rather than add-ons. (Read
more at education.washington.edu/research/rtm_11/knowledgein-action.html.)
Rethinking Assessments
To paint a clearer picture of assessment in PBL, 20 teachers
(still being selected as of early August) from New Tech schools
in several states are starting a yearlong research project on
performance assessment. Funded by the Hewlett Foundation’s
Deeper Learning initiative, the national study will take place
throughout the 2012-2013 school year, with results expected by
next summer. “We’re piloting performance assessments that are
aligned to the Common Core and that will demonstrate students’
readiness for college,” says New Tech Network’s Rowland.
PBL emphasizes student choice and open-ended questions.
“There’s an infinite number of projects you could do,” Rowland
points out. “We want to make sure that PBL adds up to students
actually being ready for college.”
The Stanford University Center for Assessment, Learning
and Equity researchers are consulting on the Deeper Learning
research to determine which competencies to assess to ensure
that high school graduates are indeed college-ready. Rowland
says that assessments will be systematic and common across
schools. Teachers at different schools might select different
novels for language arts projects, for example, “but the rubrics
and expectations of students will be the same.” Teachers will
spend time examining student writing, video productions, and
other project artifacts together as part of the yearlong study. That
practice is already common in many PBL schools. High Tech
High teachers, for example, use a protocol for examining student
work together. “We do it to have a narrative of quality work,”
High Tech High founder Larry Rosenstock explained during a
recent conference presentation.
Considering the Deeper Learning research project, a Webbased
platform is being developed that will allow teachers from
different states to upload student work samples. That means
teachers at different locations “can assess student work together
and calibrate around it,” Rowland says. “We’ll be looking not
just within a school but across schools in our network.” The
result, she continues, should be a sharper picture “of what it
means to have high-quality, proficient student work.”
Insights from these PBL early adopters “could create proof
points of success” for the hundreds more school systems that are
just starting to shift to projects, says BIE’s Mucetti. “They need
to see how this would be replicable to their system.”
Bold Leadership
One district to watch is Chesterfield County (Va.) Public
Schools, which serves 60,000 students. To update its strategic
plan, the district spent the last two years conducting a series of
community forums that engaged parents, students, teachers and
business leaders, and that included guests such as an astronaut,
an entrepreneur, a peace activist and a futurist. “They helped
us paint a vision of what our students need for the future,” says
Donna Dalton, the district’s chief academic officer.
Chesterfield County’s strategic planning process pointed to PBL
as the way to realize that vision, and now the district is preparing
to introduce PBL across the entire system. It will start with
six “trailblazer” schools that will become demonstration sites
for PBL. The first wave of professional development will be
provided by BIE next summer. The district plans to grow its own
teacher-leaders for professional development by 2015 when PBL
will reach all 62 schools. As the initiative expands, teachers will
be involved in developing common rubrics and other assessment
tools.
Costs and Timeline
The costs of shifting to project-based instruction and assessment
are hard to quantify, but they primarily involve time and
resources for professional development. “This requires a shift
in focus in teaching,” says Rowland. “That involves teacher
learning, which takes time.” If teachers are new to performance
assessment, they may need to learn how to write rubrics and help
students understand what high-quality project work looks like.
To ensure that similar standards are applied from one classroom
to the next, teachers also need time to examine student work
together. “If you’re measuring something that’s not a bubble-in
answer, it takes more conversation and calibration,” Rowland
explains.
Research presented at the American Educational Research
Association’s annual meeting in April 2012 underscores the need
for professional development to help teachers gain confidence
with PBL methods. Using Project Based Learning to Teach
21st-Century Skills: Findings from a Statewide Initiative
reported results from a pioneering West Virginia initiative
in which teachers became peer leaders in a statewide PBL
Curriculum reView December 2012
3

ollout. The study found that teachers who engaged in extended
professional development have been able to implement projects
“as a way to teach and assess 21st-century skills without
sacrificing academic rigor.”
In the Vail School District, common grade-level projects are
being developed by lead teachers from all 17 schools. “Having
common projects gives teachers a model of expectations [for
quality work] and templates for project design they can use
in their classroom,” explains Deborah Hedgepeth, assistant
superintendent for instruction.
Rather than bringing in outside experts, the Vail district is
growing its own capacity to do PBL. The 20-plus teachers
developing grade-level projects “are the experts who can work
with their fellow teachers,” Hedgepeth says. She estimates
that the cost of bringing her teachers together to spend four
days intensively poring over the curriculum is about $60,000.
“But that’s just a small piece of it,” she explains, adding that
follow-up work at the local school level makes it difficult to put
a price tag on the whole effort.
For smaller districts, the challenge of developing new assessment
systems can be traumatic, says Vail’s Baker, especially in tight
budget times. His district digitizes its curricula and assessment
materials and shares them for a fee on an award-winning site
called Beyond Textbooks (beyondtextbooks.org). The site is used
by 70 districts and individual charter schools across Arizona.
“Our goal isn’t to make a profit, Baker says. “It’s to help other
districts improve the academic achievement of their students and
be ready for the sweeping changes ahead.”
Suzie Boss is the author of Bringing Innovation to School and
Reinventing Project-Based Learning. She is a member of the
Buck Institute for Education’s national faculty.
Secondary Language Arts - Ranee Staats
Adolescent Literacy, Part 1: School-Wide
Literacy Planning
Posted on October 30, 2012 by Ed View 360, By Joan
Sedita
PART 1
In recent years there has been a growing interest in
adolescent literacy, especially as Americans become
more concerned about the economic and civic health of
the nation. Literacy skills are necessary more than ever
to succeed in college and work, as well as to manage the
everyday life demands of an increasingly more complex
society and world economy. The best example of this focus
is the tagline “college and career ready” from the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS).
More middle and high school leaders are beginning
to acknowledge that they must develop a school-wide
approach to teaching literacy skills that includes two tiers
of instruction. The first tier is content literacy instruction
for all students that is delivered in regular classes,
including history, science, math, and English/language arts.
The second tier is literacy instruction for struggling readers
that is delivered partly in regular content classes and
partly in intervention settings (including extended English/
language arts blocks and individual/small-group settings).
A school-wide approach to literacy instruction must
involve all teachers in the delivery of reading and writing
instruction, including content-area teachers and staff who
work with special populations. This is a major tenet of the
literacy CCSS. A successful school-wide plan must also
have strong, committed leadership that provides ongoing
support for literacy instruction.
A Literacy Planning Model
I have worked with numerous schools and districts to
help develop literacy plans using a planning model that
addresses six components:
1. Establishment of a literacy planning team
2. Assessment planning for screening, guiding instruction,
and progress monitoring
3. Literacy instruction in the content classroom
4. Interventions for struggling readers that address phonics,
word study, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension skills
5. Flexible scheduling to allow for grouping based on
instructional needs
6. Professional development planning
A key first step is to assemble a literacy planning team
that is representative of the major stakeholders who will
have to implement the plan. Members of the team should
include teachers of all subject areas, interventionists,
parents, reading specialists, and administrators. It is
important to recognize that literacy planning is a process,
not an event. Like most school-wide initiatives, developing
and executing a literacy plan will take time and sustained
effort; literacy planning teams should be prepared for the
process to take 1–3 years.
Once a planning team is assembled, the first step is to
take stock of what is already in place in relation to the
six components. This includes gathering information that
answers questions such as:
What assessments are currently used to identify good and
struggling readers?
What assessments are used to identify specific needs of
individual struggling readers? What reading instruction
is already taking place in content classrooms, and what
professional development do content teachers and
others need in order to effectively address all reading
components?
What reading interventions and supplemental reading
programs are currently offered for struggling readers?
What information and professional development do the
teachers of struggling readers need?
Is the scheduling process flexible enough to accommodate
different grouping patterns for struggling readers?
After information has been collected to answer these
questions, the planning team can set and prioritize goals
and action steps for each of the six components. Some
action steps are like low-hanging fruit—easy to accomplish
quickly and with minimal expense. Other action steps will
take longer to address. A concrete plan for addressing the
Curriculum reView December 2012
4

action steps throughout the coming year or two is essential
to keep the process moving forward.
A literacy assessment plan is key to successfully
implementing a school-wide literacy plan. Screening
literacy assessments provide the data to determine which
students are struggling, while diagnostic assessments help
determine why they struggle, and progress monitoring
assessments determine if instruction is working in both
content classrooms (Tier I) and with supplemental
instruction (Tier II)
The six planning components are interrelated. Action steps
for one component need to be related to action steps for the
other components. For example, decisions about both tiers
of instruction should be based on assessment data, along
with how to group students and schedule supplemental
instruction. Plans for professional development should be
made based on the needs of teachers and other members of
the team.
Middle and high school administrators must make
the acquisition of literacy skills a priority and provide
adequate time in the school schedule for reading and
writing instruction. They must also be willing to use
flexible grouping patterns when scheduling students in
order to implement a two-tiered model for delivering
reading instruction in both content classes and intervention
settings. Professional development for content teachers and
specialists is also essential.
The time, effort, and expertise necessary to develop
a school-wide plan for providing effective literacy
instruction to all students present a challenge for most
middle and high schools. The challenge is worth taking, as
there is an urgent need to improve the reading, writing, and
comprehension skills of these students.
Elementary Language Arts - Melissa Ahlgrim
Daily 5 and Writing
We had a great turnout at the recent trainings for small
group instruction. As you will recall, we spent quite a bit
of this time talking about how to structure the classroom
so that students are independently engaged in rigorous
work while the teacher is working with a small group. One
possible structure that was introduced was Daily 5.
The Daily 5 is a structure for organizing literacy
instruction. It is designed as a “catch and release” model—
where the teacher catches the students in for short, targeted
instruction as a whole group, then releases them back to
practice the skills learned independently. When students
are released to work, they are working through rotations
like Read to Self, Read to Someone, Listen to Reading,
Work on Writing, and Word Work. This cycle can be
repeated as many times as needed, ending with some short
closure at the end to discuss what we learned and how
things went that day.
One of the most essential components of Daily 5 is
the explicit instruction of procedures. In both the workshop
we offered and in the book, time was spent talking
about how these procedures are introduced. The teacher
introduces the activity (such as Read to Self) to students,
discussing the PURPOSE of the activity. The students then
help the teacher create an I-CHART (I=Independent) to
list the procedures or expectations for the students. This is
one step I am finding that we are often skipping, but it is
a critical piece. Students (and teachers) need to have these
procedures and expectations in writing, where they can
be referred to often. When evaluating how the activity is
going, students (and teachers) need to be able to look at
these expectations to identify what is going well and what
needs to be fixed. Teachers need to be able to point out
specific actions to praise or correct so that students can
understand the feedback being given.
After identifying the purpose and creating an
I-Chart, students need to be able to practice often. Having
students model what the activity should, as well as should
NOT, look like helps students understand exactly what
is being expected of them. As they go off to practice, the
need to be able to practice correctly to build their stamina.
The phrase “practice makes perfect” is erroneous. It should
be “perfect practice makes perfect”. Once students are
practicing, as teachers we need to get out of the way for
two reasons: (1) we don’t want to interrupt their work and
(2) we don’t want them to be dependent on us to monitor
their behavior. When we talk about getting out of the
way, we are not saying to go grade papers, check e-mail,
etc. This is the time to be hyper-alert to what students are
doing without them being aware of what you are doing.
This can be hard!
So how long should we spend building this
stamina? The general rule of thumb is that once K-1
students have achieved 7-8 minutes, 2-3 students are at
9-10 minutes, and 4-5 students are at 11-12 minutes, you
are ready to introduce a new activity and keep things
moving.
Once procedures and structure are in place, don’t
forget about content! The Daily 5 allows for how to
structure our students, but what you teach is not specified.
This is where our resources, such as Rigby, come in. When
thinking about how our students are getting a balance of
grade level content with working on their own level, think
of it this way: during the whole group mini-lesson you
are exposing students to grade level text and content. The
small group time and centers are your opportunity to have
students work at their instructional level on the content
they need—whether it is reinforcing the content taught
in the whole group, remediating foundational skills the
student is lacking, or having them move beyond the grade
level expectations.
Curriculum reView December 2012
5

Elementary Math - Paula Dyer
Fluency
The required fluency in the Common Core standards are:
Kindergarten – Add/subtract within 5
1st – Add/subtract within 10
2nd – Add/subtract within 20 and Add/subtract within 100
3rd – Multiply/Divide within 100 and Add/subtract within
1000
4th – Add/subtract within 1,000,000
5th – multiply multi-digit whole numbers
As we are using Common Core standards the fluencies
look different as we progress through the grade levels.
Fluency is defined as accuracy (correct answer), efficiency
(a reasonable amount of steps), and flexibility (using
strategies).
Fluency is more than just a timed test where students
are just rote memorizing numbers. It is more about how
numbers work together.
In Kindergarten fluency is an understanding and
internalizing the relationships that exist between and
among numbers. Seeing facts related to other facts (fact
families), understanding what the commutative property is,
seeing sub-parts within a number.
With repeated experiences with many different types of
concrete materials Kindergarten students will recognize
that there are only particular sub-parts for each number.
A Kindergarten teacher shared that she was doing another
number talk with the number 5. She showed the students
5 items, then took 2 away and asked the class how many
were in the other hand. They had done this activity with 5
items multiple times, sometimes taking 1 away, 2 away, 3
away or none away, over and over. But on this particular
day as some of the students responded you have 3 one of
her students said, “Oh, I get it, 2 and 3 and 3 and 2 always
makes 5.” This is fluency, understanding and internalizing
that there are only particular sub-parts for each number.
We must be diligent working on Number Sense, attaching
number to quantity, recognizing numerals, writing
numerals, seeing all the parts for each number, relating
addition with subtraction (not making these separate
entities). As we progress through elementary our students
need to dig deep into the meanings of numbers and how
they work, they need to find strategies that they can use so
that they understand the meaning behind.
Let your students struggle with problems and share with
their peers how they solve the problem. Learning is more
than listening.
ELL- Dr. Jean Laine’
This month’s article answers the following frequently
asked questions:
Is there a significant difference between the pull-out
and push-in or pull-in ESL program models? How much
time per week should ELL students spend in the ESL
classroom?
The pull-out English as a Second Language (ESL) program
model is by far the most popular ESL instructional model
in the world because it is easier to implement than the
push-in one, especially, when resources are scarce. For
instance, a school with a high number of ELL students
may not be able to adequately meet the instructional needs
of all the ELL students in the mainstream classroom with
the push-in model. Schools would do better to pull out the
students during specials so that ESL teachers can address
language development in a meaningful way. Serving
all ELL students is a must, and it is a federal mandate.
Therefore, school districts do not have the luxury of
picking and choosing which students to serve. All the
students who are identified as limited English proficient
should receive ESL instruction. School districts are
required to monitor proficient students for two years to
ensure that they are able to show real academic progress in
mainstream classrooms.
The ESL pull-out program model has been used in both
elementary and secondary schools in the form of small
flex groups or a class period. At the elementary level, it is
recommended that English language learners (ELLs) spend
30 minutes daily in the ESL classroom. When resources
are scarce, school districts may opt for 30 minutes three
to four days a week, but experts in linguistics suggest a
daily meeting time in order to guarantee higher probably of
academic success.
As far as the pull-in or push-in model is concerned, it is
used mainly at the elementary school settings. The ESL
teacher goes into the regular classrooms to teach the ELL
students. The content of the instruction is based on the
objectives selected by the regular classroom teacher(s).
The nature of this ESL instructional model is contentbased.
This instructional model should be used when the
ESL teacher involved is certified in elementary education,
and he or she feels comfortable working collaboratively
with the mainstream classroom teacher.
Having examined ELL students’ performance data for
six years in the Putnam City school district, I have not
seen any significant difference between the pull-out and
push-in models. Both models seem to work when they are
implemented with fidelity. Principals should endeavor to
support ESL teachers by ensuring that they have access
to all the ELL students daily. The push-in model should
be avoided if it means serving just a few of the total ELL
students at the respective site.
This is a good time in education.
Curriculum reView December 2012
6

The Arts - Jason Memoli
A Commitment To Music In Education
“We must move beyond art for art’s sake, to convey the
importance of art for education’s sake.”
—Dr. Charles fowler, strong arts, strong schools, 1996
With the Journal for Learning Through Music, the New
England Conservatory, through its Music Education
department and Research Center for Learning Through
Music, supports the belief that this is a critical time
for music and the arts in schools. This new journal is
intended to promote a national discourse focused on the
extraordinary range of learning associated with music by
providing a forum for the discussion of new perspectives
on the essential role music can play in public school
education. By providing a vehicle for joining evidence of
the impact of 1) musical training on learning, 2) successful
arts in education programs, and 3) positive change in
schools due to music, the thinking and practices can be
strengthened everywhere.
The Journal is intended to speak to a broad audience:
artists, teachers, educators, researchers, policy makers, and
leaders of both cultural and arts-in-education organizations.
It is hoped that members of that varied audience will
find in this publication a place to describe efforts, share
questions and findings, and engage in the debates that are
necessary if the role of music in classrooms is to be more
fully articulated and realized.
In order to present some of the many perspectives on
Learning Through Music, the Journal includes articles
that, taken together, focus on the philosophy, research,
and innovative program practices that address issues
concerning the essential role of music in education reform.
We want here to recognize the report, Champions of
change: The impact of the arts on learning
(Edward Fiske, 1999). It serves as a primary point of
departure for the ongoing discourse about the role of music
in the context of the arts education and school change
efforts represented in this journal.
The Journal also features interleaved “conversational
interludes,” “photo essays,” and “provocative examples
from the field,” meant to stimulate interconnections among
the multiple perspectives from article to article. These
“connectives” are intended to stimulate commentary
that supports discourse between the authors and reports
from the field. Accordingly, examples, imagery, and
commentary emanating from ongoing action research at
school sites are intended both to intro- duce each paper
and to further the conversations implicit across articles.
The first two issues of the Journal for Learning Through
Music are intended to provide a focal point for the debate
concerning the most appropriate and effective role of
music as a resource and tool for arts efforts in public
schools.
THE FIRST ISSUE: AUGUST 2000
This first issue is devoted largely to topics presented at
the conference, “Why Integrate Music Throughout the
Elementary School Curriculum?” hosted a year ago in
Ipswich Massachusetts by the New England Conservatory.
It explores various perspectives on this topic by including:
• Commentary from philosophical and historical
perspectives on music in the context of arts in education
• Interviews, essays, and action research reports that reveal
the practical experience of developing New England
Conservatory’s new Learning Through Music Partnership
Schools
• Research underway at the New England Conservatory
that considers music and learning from qualitative and
quantitative perspectives.
THE SECOND ISSUE: WINTER, 2001
A second issue, “Making Music Work for Public
Education: Innovative Program Development and Research
from a National Perspective,” is to be published in the
winter of 2001. It will present findings from New England
Conservatory’s national conference held on September 7-
9, 2000. This issue will feature a broader range of topics,
including keynote presentations, panel discussions, and
roundtable responses which focus on the implications of
music in education programs from a national perspective.
We anticipate that the Journal for Learning Through
Music will soon be available in electronic form. This
format will allow authors to make better use of photographic
evidence and documentation. It will also allow the
presentation of video documentation of lessons, programs,
interviews, and performances.
REFERENCES
Fiske, Edward B. (Ed.). (1999). Champions of change: The
impact of the arts on learning. Arts Education Partnership
and the President’s Committee on the Arts and the
Humanities.
Fowler, Charles. (1996). Strong arts, Strong Schools: The
Promising Potential and Shortsighted Disregard of the
Arts in American Schooling. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Curriculum reView December 2012
7

Social Studies - Brenda Chapman
NCHE’s History’s Habits of the Mind
(Guidelines for Teaching History in Schools, Bradley Commission and NCHE)
Courses in history, geography, and government should be designed to take students well beyond formal skills of critical
thinking, to help them through their own active learning to:
• Understand the significance of the past to their own lives, both private and public, and to their society.
• Distinguish between the important and the inconsequential, to develop the “discriminating memory” needed for a
discerning judgment in public and personal life.
• Perceive past events and issues as people experienced them at the time, to develop historical empathy as opposed
to present-mindedness.
• Acquire at the same time a comprehension of diverse cultures and shared humanity.
• Understand how things happen and how things change, how human intentions matter, but also how their
consequences are shaped by the means of carrying them out, in a tangle of purpose and process.
• Comprehend the interplay of change and continuity, and avoid assuming that either is somehow more natural, or
more to be expected, than the other.
• Prepare to live with uncertainties and exasperating, even perilous, unfinished business, realizing that not all
problems have solutions.
• Grasp the complexity of historical causation, respect particularity, and avoid excessively abstract generalizations.
• Appreciate the often tentative nature of judgments about the past, and thereby avoid the temptation to seize upon
particular “lessons” of history as a cure for present ills.
• Recognize the importance of individuals who have made a difference in history, and the significance of personal
character for both good and ill.
• Appreciate the force of the non-rational, the irrational, and the accidental, in history and human affairs.
• Understand the relationship between geography and history as a matrix of time and place, and as a context for
events.
• Read widely and critically in order to recognize the difference between fact and conjecture, between evidence
Rubber and Glue by www.xkcd.com
and assertion, and thereby frame useful questions
Curriculum reView December 2012
8

Science-Bob Melton
Lesson learned! Next Generation Science
Standards
by Doug Haller, November 27th, 2012 http://smartblogs.com/
education/2012/11/27/lesson-learned-next-generation-standardsbuild-challenges-encountered-1990s-douglas-f-haller-ed-m/
The second public draft of the Next Generation Science
Standards, developed by Achieve, is due for release before
the new year. This draft represents step four in a ninestep
process to update standards for K-12 sciences and
engineering education. The nine-step process includes three
public and two state review and comment periods before
delivery of a final product. Once complete, states will opt
to select or not select the NGSS for local implementation.
The NGSS focus on science and engineering education
whereas the Common Core State Standards initiative
addresses math and English language arts education
standards. The two independent efforts seek to achieve
very similar goals: preparing U.S. students for academic
and career success and global competitiveness in the 21st
century. Each effort also seeks to provide educators and
parents clear, cohesive and consistent guidelines that lead
to a robust and meaningful education.
The common core and NGSS initiatives benefited greatly
from hard lessons learned during the development and
implementation of the first generation of education
standards disseminated in the 1990s. First and perhaps
foremost, the current efforts actively sought state
participation at the start of the process. National standards
developed in the 1990s came across as top-down mandates.
Next, the latest standards appear very concise and
cohesive. In my area of expertise, science, the first draft
NGSS were only 90 pages in length whereas the original
NRC Standards and AAAS Benchmarks exceeded 200
and 400 pages respectively. Thirdly, NGSS developers
have anticipated the relationship between standards and
assessment. The first generation of education standards
led to a cycle of assessment development and standardized
testing. The NGSS start with performance expectations
that are aligned to scientific and engineering practices,
crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas. Starting
with how and what to assess, rather than what to teach,
focuses on learning rather than teaching, placing the
student at the center of the process.
The Council of Chief State School Officers and the
National Governors Association initiated the common core
effort. These groups elected to focus on math and ELA.
The “3 Rs” continue to heavily influence early elementary
education — without a strong foundation in reading,
writing and mathematics students struggle throughout
grades K-12 regardless of the subject matter. The NGSS
derive from a 400-plus page document known as the
“Frameworks” developed by a team of scientists, engineers
and experts in science and engineering education from
the National Research Council. The Frameworks could be
likened in the new standards process to the NRC Standards
and AAAS Benchmarks of the 1990s. However, this time
the Frameworks were written to inform the development of
the NGSS rather than to act as the standards.
“48 states and territories, the District of Columbia, and the
Department of Defense Education Activity have adopted
the Common Core State Standards and are in the process
of implementing the standards locally.” — Council of
Chief State School Officers.
Let’s hope that the NGSS receive as much support as the
common core standards. The NGSS effort includes 26
states that likely will adopt the final product. The original
science education standards were rarely adopted directly
by states. Rather, states reviewed the Standards and
Benchmarks, reinterpreting them into actionable items for
teachers, a costly and time-consuming effort.
Of course, with new standards in math, ELA and science
and an overt directive to include engineering in grades
K-12, educators, administrators, parents and education
product developers should anticipate a whole new cycle of
curriculum development and assessment design, as well as
debates about accountability and effectiveness. Whether
these are viewed as opportunities or as challenges,
remember that at the heart of the discussion remains
improving education for our youth.
Doug Haller is the principal of Haller STEM Education
Consulting. Haller is an education consultant specializing
in strategic planning and market analysis to drive design,
development and sales of niche education products for
clients in the for-profit, nonprofit, and education and
public outreach fields. His creative approach is based on
years of practical experience as an educator, instructional
designer and education consultant. Check out his blog,
STEM Education: Inspire, Engage, Educate.
Upcoming Science Olympiad Events
PC West Science Olympiad Tournament
(Divisions B and C)...................................December 15
Norman Science Olympiad Tournament
(Divisions B and C)....................................January 9
Putnam City Elementary School (Division A) Science
Olympiad Tournament, PC High ...............January 26
Putnam City High School Science Olympiad Tournament
(Divisions B and C)....................................February 2
(tentative)
Oklahoma State Science Olympiad Tournament
(Divisions B and C) UCO.........................March 2
Curriculum reView December 2012
9

Oklahoma School Testing Program
2012 – 2013 Test Dates
State Law Title 70 O.S. § 1210.508 and Federal Law H.R. 1
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Secondary Level
End-of-Instruction (EOI)
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Modified
Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Modified
Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Writing; Reading,
Mathematics,
Science, and U.S.
History
Oklahoma Modified
Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP)
Mathematics,
Reading, and Science
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Modified
Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Mathematics,
Reading, and
Geography
Oklahoma Modified
Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP)
Mathematics and
Reading
Oklahoma Core
Curriculum Tests
(OCCT)
Writing; Reading,
Mathematics, Science,
and U. S. History
Oklahoma Modified
Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP)
Mathematics, Reading,
and Science
Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT)
ACE Algebra I, ACE Algebra II, ACE Biology I, ACE English II,
ACE English III, ACE Geometry, and ACE U.S. History
Oklahoma Modified Alternate Assessment Program (OMAAP)
Algebra I, English II, Biology I, and U.S. History
Multiple-Choice
Testing Window:
Wednesday,
April 10, 2013 –
Wednesday,
April 24, 2013
Multiple-Choice
Testing Window:
Wednesday,
April 10, 2013 –
Wednesday,
April 24, 2013
Writing Test Date:
Wednesday, April 3
and Thursday,
April 4, 2013
Multiple-Choice
Testing Window:
Wednesday,
April 10, 2013 –
Wednesday,
April 24, 2013
Multiple-Choice
Testing Window:
Wednesday,
April 10, 2013 –
Wednesday,
April 24, 2013
Online testing window
for Grade 6
Mathematics and
Reading is extended
through Friday, May 3,
2013, for flexibility in
scheduling computer
time.
Multiple-Choice
Testing Window:
Wednesday,
April 10, 2013 –
Wednesday,
April 24, 2013
Online testing
window for Grade 7,
Mathematics,
Reading, and
Geography is
extended through
Friday, May 3, 2013,
for flexibility in
scheduling computer
time.
Writing Test Date:
Wednesday, April 3
and Thursday, April 4,
2013
Multiple-Choice
Testing Window:
Wednesday,
April 10, 2013 –
Wednesday,
April 24, 2013
Online testing window
for Grade 8
Mathematics and
Reading is extended
through Friday, May3,
2013, for flexibility in
scheduling computer
time.
Winter:
Optional Retest Window (OCCT online tests only)
Monday, November 19 – Friday, November 30, 2012
Multiple-Choice Testing Window
Paper/pencil accommodation Monday, December 3, 2012 – Friday,
December 21, 2012
Online is extended through Friday, January 11, 2013
Writing Test on Tuesday, December 11 and Wednesday, December
12, 2012
Trimester:
Multiple-Choice Testing Window
Paper/pencil accommodation: Monday, January 21, 2013 – Friday,
February 8, 2013
Online is extended through Friday, February 15, 2013
Writing Test on Tuesday, January 29 and Wednesday, January 30,
2013.
Spring:
Optional Retest Window (OCCT online tests only)
Monday, April 1, 2013 – Friday, April 12, 2013
Multiple-Choice Testing Window
Paper/pencil accommodation: Monday, April 15, 2013 – Friday, May
3, 2013
Online is extended through Friday, May 10, 2013
Writing Test on Tuesday, April 23, and Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Summer: Monday, June 3, 2013 through Friday, August 2, 2013
Note: March 18-22, 2013, Suggested Coordinated Spring Break Week
Curriculum reView December 2012
10

Calendar of Meaningful Dates by www.xkcd.com
Curriculum reView December 2012
11