Fall 2009

Central Connecticut State UniversityDepartment of Educational Leadership

EDL 551: Curriculum LeadershipProfessor: Olusegun A. Sogunro Ph.D

CURRICULUM LEADERSHIP RESEARCH AND METHODS

By

Peter Giardini

1

Curriculum leadership in the twenty first century is identified as an

interdisciplinary method to student centered learning that enables multiple approaches to

student learning. Our current methods of student centered teaching may not meet

adequate or proficient standards necessary for 21st century learning. According to the

National Assessment of Educational Progress, (NAEP) found that student progress has

been (flat or low) despite modest increases in math. Suason (2006) In spite of stagnant

reports, academic aptitude is the foremost desire educators look for, and why the No

Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) became law. The expansion of the core curriculum

content of the NCLB implements additional approaches such as vocational and

constructivist theories that provides schools with common approaches designed to

identify the mission of the schools. North Carolina high schools have implemented the

High Schools the Work (HSTW) initiative which gave the largest regional southern board

school districts work initiatives for high school and middle grades. In 1987 the Southern

Regional Education Board, (SREB) established the HSTW program with the intention to

provide students and their parents choices of program majors that integrates both career

oriented learning, and the states high school standards. In 1994, the federal government

drafted the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STWOA) which gathered data and

resources on the effectiveness of school to work initiative, curriculum instruction, and the

preparation to school to work initiatives.

Since the enactment of STWOA, one main aspect of 21st century learning is the

center of attention on proficiency by implementing student testing to solve, “multifaceted

problems by thinking creative and generating original ideas from multiple sources”.

Silva, (2008). In addition, getting students to perform better on assessments is the main

objective to solve multifaceted problems. What is significant about the results of the data

is the STWOA initiative found that American students lacked real world skills compared

to other students in other countries. According to the results from the Programmed for

International Student Assessment (PISA) found that between 1999 to 2003 American did

improve in performance, but when compared to international students math and science

scores, found that American students were the lowest performers. (Appendix A)

2

The PISA study integrated a variety of ways to test 21st century skills in the

classroom and real world scenarios. They conclude that students lack the real world

application to experience and education. The results of PISA conclude that while

American students test well, they cannot incorporate what they learned in real world

scenarios.

The results of the PISA study reveals that measuring skills for the twenty first

century should center on objectives on real application of problem solving, so that they

are able to become, independent thinkers, multifaceted, and decision makers, Silva et al.

The study recommends that students be tested with real world scenarios, and articulate a

solution in writing. The article states that measuring skills for the twenty first century is a

very expensive endeavor. Many school districts will not have the funding in place and

will find the cost related to score “real world application tests” very high. In a 2003

report conducted by the Government Accounting Office, (GAC) discovered the cost to

score the North Carolina high school multiple choice exam was approximately 60 cents

per test. In Massachusetts, it was approximately $7 dollars per test. The cost to score a

real world application test is $40 forty dollars per test. Silva e al. It is perceived that

many school districts do not have the enough funding to provide students with these tests.

Often time’s teachers have been well-known to use their own money to supply their

students with just basic learning materials. Readings in Tanner discuss that just because

teachers do not complain about inadequate resources, does not mean that the resources

provided by the school and the district are adequate. Tanner & Tanner (1995) Indeed, to

the extent resources are limited, nothing in my research indicated that districts with

limited resources perform lower than districts with abundance of resources. However,

what is obvious is that most districts cannot afford the $40 cost associated to score these

exams. What the PISA study implies is curriculum and testing should be more consistent

with international students. Moreover, American students who scored poorly on exams

measured real world applications, maybe it is that our educational philosophy could be a

factor. Much of what we base our principles on, like memorization and recitation, often

lacks any connection to solve real world problems.

3

Over four hundreds of years of American education has been built on the

premise on “recitation and memorization”. Students studied, memorized, and recited their

lessons until the material was committed to memory. Henson (2006) In 1875 Colonial

Francis Parker discovered the teacher centered instructional strategy wasn’t working so

he gave his teachers real life problems, this system known as the Quincy System, that

confirmed that teachers should base most of their instruction to real world application.

The progressive education movement covered more than 60 years, and has proven over

and over that when students apply there knowledge into experience with a collaboratively

planned interdisciplinary curriculum they learned better. Henson et al. A report called a

Nation at Risk promoted reform throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. In the year 2000, the

Bush and Clinton era prompted the endorsement of national testing program called Goals

2000. In 2001, the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, Pub.L.107-110) was

the latest federal legislation that enacts the theories of standardized based education,

requiring states to develop assessments in basic skills tests, to be given to all students, in

order to receive federal funding from NCLB. The term federal funding covers all states

and school districts that are named title one recipients. Since the NCLB enactment,

congress increased federal funding for education, ranging from 42.2 billion in 2001 to

54.4 billion in 2007. The majority of states received a 40.4% percent increase from 17.4

billion in 2001, to 24.4 billion for NCLB and the funding for reading quadrupled from

$286 million in 2001 to 1.2 billion. Wikipedia, NCLB (2009). According to the U.S

Dept of Education funding for reading has quadrupled in forty years, data from 1966

through 2000 shows that only 32% percent of fourth graders are reading proficiently

(Appendix B)

What is interesting about funding provisions of the NCLB, is that it requires states

to create and accountability system that measures tests results, graduation rates,

attendance, and other indicators of student performance. In addition, schools must meet

yearly achievement standards called “Adequate Yearly Progress”. AYP according to the

NCLB law and web resource states that, “every student must reach state proficiency

levels by the 2013-2014 school years”. NCLB.com (2009) In 2005 the secretary of

education Margaret Spellings announced a new path for the NCLB to set a common sense

4

to guide states as they measure their progress to share seven common principles that

assist states meeting AYP and the core principles of the NCLB. U.S Department of

Education (2005).

Many states have opposed these legislative benchmarks that have warned failing

schools who do not meet AYP will be closed. They have argued that some of the

challenges of meeting AYP is that schools, districts, and states must report test scores of

minority students, and students with disabilities, leaving behind those who do not close

the achievement gap. Opponents of the law argue that achieving 100% percent

proficiency lacks realism, and public education lacks the capabilities. They point out

several factors why schools have failed, one is because they lack the resources, training,

techniques and materials required, especially to help disadvantaged students. Tomsho,

(2007)

One of the challenges with meeting AYP is federal law protecting students with

special needs. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA) of 2004, is the

federal law dealing with the education of children with disabilities, in short the purpose

of this title is to, “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free

appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services

designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment

and independent living”. Wikipedia (2009) One of the provisions of the law describes

this as education services in the least restrictive environment, removing children from the

regular education environment only when the nature or severity of their disability makes

it necessary to do so. Briefly, students with disabilities are allowed to access the same

content as students without disabilities.

(IDEA and NCLB)

Establish goals for the performance of children with disabilities that are the same as the

state’s definition of AYP and are consistent with any other goals and standards for

children by the state.

Include all children with disabilities in all general state and district wide assessment

programs including those assessments required by NCLB students must be given

appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments as indicated in their IEPs.

Cortiella (2006) Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 2004

5

Further, IDEA provisions focus on the individual student, and the formation of an

Individualized Education Program, (IEP). In the article by Cortiella notes, “That nothing

in IDEA holds schools accountable for the progress and performance of children with

disabilities”. The perception is that students with disabilities have some advantage in

High Stakes Tests. Further, IDEA provisions list certain objectives in student with

disabilities assessment and are as follows.

State rules, regulations, and policies under this title shall support and facilitate local

educational agency and school-level system improvement designed to enable children

with disabilities to meet the challenging State student academic achievement standards.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

More Importantly, IDEA and NCLB require that content and achievement

standards are the same for all students, including students with disabilities.

(APPENDIX C). Proponents of the law advocate that including individuals with

disabilities is a wonderful thing to do. Available research has shown it can have both

positive and negative results. In an article discussing 21st century learning and equal

opportunity law recommend that it is not acceptable to have two separate and unequal

educational systems in place. The policy study looks at how students with special needs

have been affected by the changing legislation affecting students with disabilities. The

study emphases the obligation as a society to provide the same opportunities to learn as

students with no disabilities, the objectives focused on, “is to level the playing field for

students with special needs without providing them an advantage”. According to the U.S

Department of Education has estimated that 5.1 million American students ages 3-21

will qualify for special education services. Research by Bechard clearly states, “while

the same standard rule applies for both groups, for students with the most significant

disabilities alternate assessments that test the same domains or content areas must be

developed, with the hope for standards based reform is that students will be able to use

their knowledge and skills in the real world”. Bechard (2000)

The study finds three significant outcomes of “inclusion,” students with disabilities in

large scale assessments.

6

There is better monitoring of the participation of students with disabilities in state and

district wide assessments.

States that examine student performance know more about student progress and find that

students with disabilities often show more progress more quickly.

Teachers report that when they know they can use accommodations such as reading test

aloud, they adapt their instruction more. Bechard (2000)

It is important to note that the students with disabilities could be dis-serviced if

they are engaged in general education instruction without any proof they are “getting the

material”, based on the hope that educators belief that all students can succeed. Indeed, I

believe all students regardless of disabilities can learn, but what they are learning, and

the content in which they are learning is imperative. A report published by the Wall

Street Journal, called “Parents of Disabled Students Push for Separate Classes”,

illustrates why inclusion could dis-service students. Parents stated that after their child

attending regular classes, “their child began disrupting and lashing out at others”.

Tomsho. (2007)

The above exemplar illustrates both views of (inclusion and segration) and equal

education opportunity and the law. While some advocates believe that not including

students in general education classrooms is a dis-service, others believe it is far more

beneficial. The reasons that it is less expensive, and potentially productive for student

learning, as opposed to keeping them restrained in a limited learning environment.

Educators agree that there exist some socially inept consequence to this approach, but

many believe with the right training students with disabilities can integrate well in

classroom with students with no disability. As described earlier, the main prerogative is

leveling the playing field for students with special needs without providing them an

advantage, but how do we accomplish this? One way is by looking at new educational

approaches that address the needs of both groups.

It is estimated that the government will spend millions for students with

disabilities. Along with the inception of IDEA integrating students with disabilities in

general education classrooms, and perform IEP’s, alternative assessments, and measure

7

the abilities of students is all gathered by standardized tests. One question remains open

in the forefront of education reform, is that the (quality and quantity) of instruction to

regular students may be hampered if we are spending too much time on students with

disabilities. When teachers are asked to perform alternative lesson planning, and to align

the curriculum around students with disabilities are we doing a dis-service to regular

students by focusing our attention on disability instruction rather than continuing to

enhance the regular students learning? How can curriculum leaders uphold the standards

of the NCLB, and AYP, if we integrate alternative assessments in general education as

prescribed by IDEA?

Proficiencies and Percentiles

Minimum (low and high)&

Maximum (low and high)

Probably one of the most intriguing pieces of information an educator can receive

is gathering the student’s report card. Whether being mid-point, or at the end of the

school year, the final report is the association of who meets or exceeds the school district

assessment. It is in this progress report we find some of the most noteworthy of

information on the student achievements. The most influential part of this process is

when the school report card is sent to the parents, displaying the grades, achievements,

academic awards, and deans list. The deans list is categorized into two distinct groups,

(1) honors, and (2) high honors. This piece of information is shared to parents presenting

there child’s proficiency; both groups exhibit honors, but one group gets high honors.

Every student gets honors, provided they attend, do homework, and take tests. The

second group does this also, but their test scores are well above the other students, which

places them into a higher percentile labeled “High honors”. What if we had an education

system with a similar approach? What would a single vs. two-fold base educational

system look like? In the next page you will see a diagram that quantifies this approach.

SINGLE BASE SYSTEM

Figure 1.a z_______________

>High

8

Median proficiency «-------------------- ª___________________

IMEDIAN

°____________

<Low

_______________________________________________________________________Figure 1.a illustrates median standards using a single based educational system using uniform standards.

- Indicates an ideal level of proficiency for all students.z Indicates high proficiency test results.o Indicates low proficiency test results.a Indicates median proficiency results.I Symbolizes median national standards.< Low indicates minimum proficiency standards.> High indicates maximum proficiency standards.« Indicates median proficiency standards for all students.

_______________________________________________________________________

TWO FOLD BASE DIAGRAM

Figure 1.b

Minimum high ↑Upper percentile

Minimum low└*GEN ED ┘Maximum low

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1.b illustrates a two fold educational approach to student assessment using national standards.

└ Symbolizes minimum state approved and age appropriate grade level standards. ┘ Symbolizes maximum state proficiencies measuring maximum low and high standards.↑ Symbolizes upper percentile of results of maximum student achievement tests. * Gen Ed indicates a national curriculum and national standards.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Diagram design by Giardini, P. (2009)

I designed a single system and two fold educational system, that looks at

minimum (low and high), and maximum (low and high) criteria. This diagram is a

representation of how I would structure a modern day educational system. I suggest what

our current system needs is a recognized model that measures all assessments including

students with disabilities, regular students, and high achievers. Additionally, a general

9

education should model a national standard consisting of data results of valid and

reliable empirical evidence, to establish a national standard. The diagram draws a model

that distinguishes two groups, all groups would demonstrate adequate state approved,

age appropriate, and minimum (low and high) and maximum (low and high)

proficiencies. Moreover, national data from all state tests may be used to establish a

national norm base, doing so by using existing data from today’s level of proficiency. As

referred to in Millot (2006), and according to NCLB; in 2014 all states must meet 100%

proficiency in reading, science and math, schools that do not meet these proficiency

standards may be closed. Further, the NCLB act states tests may need to be

reconstituted, but I think finding a middle ground is vital rather than setting far reaching

goals such as the 100%/2014 proficiency goal.

Education policy should focus on how to test multicultural students, with diverse

populations. Studies show that an overwhelming number of disadvantaged students come

from lower income families, and are English language learners. Using a one size fits all

approach does not work for minority students, which may explain why the government

spends so much on reading proficiencies for students, and why 5.1 million American

students qualify for disability services. Specifically, approaches in classroom instruction

should focus more on differentiated instruction. Tomlinson describes this as the belief

that differentiated instruction involves providing students with different avenues to

acquire content; that is, (processing, constructing, or making sense of ideas,) and

developing teaching products so that all students within a classroom can learn essential

skills, regardless of differences in ability. Tomlinson (2001)

The term differential stems from the belief about differences among learners;

(i.e.) how they learn, learning preference, and individual interests. Also, differentiated

learning is described as how the student learns material, and what he/she has learned.

cited in Wikipedia, (2009) In Tomlinson’s book called, How to Differentiate Instruction

in Mixed-Ability, clarifies why this style is helpful for our students using various

instructional methods to facilitate learning. She explains matching abilities with

10

appropriate material, and using methods such as whole group, individual instruction and

continuous assessment that adapts to needs of all learners. Tomlinson, et al. Further, she

suggests the first step in determining differentiated instruction is determining what the

students already know. Interestingly, the only way to determine this is through testing

the students prior knowledge of the material, “differentiated instruction is the

instructional approach and choice of content are driven by the data from students

assessment results, and other outcomes, that pre-and post-assessment leads to successful

differentiation by producing the results that communicate the students needs.” as cited in

Wikipedia (2009)

In relation to what students should know what prior knowledge they have gained

is a difficult to determine. Many debates exist between what students should have

already learned going into the next grade. However, the most significant is what material

they have forgotten during summer break. According to one survey conducted in Canada

schools asking parents of school-aged children of their attitudes towards their children’s

education, and learning over the summer break found.

Nearly all parents (95 per cent) that 20% believe that school material will be forgotten over the summer.

One third of these parents with children behind expect their children will forget more during the summer months.

Nearly one quarter of Canadian parents (23 per cent) say that encouraging children to read is the most important thing they can do to keep their children engaged in learning.

While 80 per cent of parents think their children need a break during the summer.

(2003) Kumon/Ipsos-Reid SurveySeveral key issues using differentiated instruction are that; while some students

remember what they where taught in the previous grade, others will forget during the

summer. This can result in a number of students being left behind, which lowers the

quality and quantity of the content being learned because by using differential pre and

post assessments may not result in grade level proficiency. If the student forgot what

they have learned, the differentiated assessments will produce the same, or not grade

appropriate results, thus creating a “watered down curriculum”. There is correlation

11

that recognizes that these factors are a result of two issues; (1) students are not engaged

in further learning/instruction throughout the summer, and (2) increasing the amount of

calendar days of the school year. The first debate is that students can retain the

knowledge they have learned through proper engagement of reading and mathematics,

the other debate is increasing the number of school days per year so students can

transition and learn more material into the next grade. These issues examine the

transition and retention of knowledge which is an entire research of its own.

Research studies have been studied between the discrepancy of increasing the

school year to promote learning, and personal opinions about longer school year/day by

using questionnaires given to elementary school principals, middle schools, high school

principles, and superintendents. (APPENDIX D) This survey focuses on the premise

that United States schools are not doing well compared to other international nations

such as Japan. In the United States the school year is standardized at 180 days. In Japan,

the elementary and secondary school system is reported as being 240 days. U.S

Department of Education, (1987) as cited in Woods. The reason this study was

conducted was mainly due to the discussion of increasing the number of school days

students are in school as a way to improve the school system. What this study failed to

do was provide the reader with a diagram illustrating a comparison of why American

schools differ from Japanese schools, (e.g.) why the number of days off, months, and

school year is different than the American school year. I have taken the initiative myself

to discover why they are different. On the next page you will see a scale that indicates

why American schools and Japanese schools differ in comparison.

Figure 2.a

AMERICAN SCHOOL DAYS 180

† | | | | | |_ | | | Î Î S O N D J F M A M J J A

Ž -6 -1 -4 -6 -2 -5 0 -6 -2 -5 22 -21 O = 80 Š 16 21 17 17 19 15 23 16 19 14 0 0 A=177

12

TOTAL=177

________________________________________________________________________† Denotes beginning of school yearÎ Denotes summer month breakZ Symbolizes total monthly school holidays/days offS Symbolizes total monthly number of school days0 Denotes total number of school year holidaysA Denotes total number of school days per year= Total approximate number of school days per year

________________________________________________________________________Figure 2.b

JAPANESE SCHOOL DAYS240

| | | | | | | † | Î | | S O N D J F M A M J J A

Ž -3 -3 -4 -9 -7 -3 -2 -7 -5 -22 -7 -7 O= 79 Š 21 26 16 18 19 21 25 18 21 0 20 20 A=225

TOTAL=225

_____________________________________________________________________________________† Denotes beginning of school yearÎ Denotes summer month breakZ Symbolizes total monthly school holidaysS Symbolizes total monthly number of school days0 Denotes total number of school year holidaysA Denotes total number of school days per year= Total approximate number of school days per year

________________________________________________________________________Scale designed by Giardini, P. (2009)

Calculation Procedure

My first method was to ascertain two school calendars, (1) A American school

calendar and (2) a Japanese school calendar. Then compare the number of holidays and

school days off students have per month. I found that the Japanese school system is a bit

different, I discovered that they have only one month summer break, while we have a two

month summer break, further, I have also found:

13

Japanese students have fewer holidays than American Schools (Which

means that fewer days are off from school).

Japanese students attend school on Saturdays, (whatever days they lose for

holiday’s they gain back by an extended school week).

American students have a constant 43 days off from school during the

summer, double that of Japanese students.

Japan students have only 22 constant days off, but adequately prepare for

the next school year.

American schools and Japanese schools have approximately the same days

per year off.

This calculation was conducted by computing the number of school days off, and

adding the number of school days on. The American schools resulted in a total number of

177 which is consistent with the statement of 180 days. For Japanese schools it was more

complicated, I had to count the number of holidays, minus the number of school days off,

add the number of school days per month, and deduct the number of school days off, and

then re-count the school days including Saturdays. The total number resulted in 225,

which is consistent with the statement of 240 school days, using a Standard Error of

Measurement (SEM) plus or minus (15). If you look at the results of the survey by

Woods shows that most school administrators OPPOSE increasing the amount of time

students spend in schools. But found that increasing the number of DAYS, would be a

preference. However, ZERO amount of school administrators recommended

SATURDAY morning school as a preference. (APPENDIX D)

SUMMARY & IMPLICATIONS

In summary, there seems to be significance in how we implement content that

goes beyond how we evaluate students. More specifically, our desire as educators to

provide sensible directions and objectives for all students is the single most important

14

aspect of education. Ultimately, it is the way our current education system is made that

will determine how successful students will become. I believe our current model is

inadequate, and needs to be restructured to meet the needs of all students, especially in

the testing process. Since the enactment of the NCLB our students are being left behind,

and that legislative effort to fix the problems is bleak. I believe in order to improve long

term economic prosperity we must improve our educational system. In this paper, I

addressed many key issues that could be taken into consideration when looking at some

of the many issues presented in our educational system. Many of these issues cannot be

fixed at the local, district, or state level. However, many of the issues could be remedied

if students are provided with a greater variety of alternate tests, assessments, and

accommodations. Along with accommodation, it is important to raise testing standards

for students whom demonstrate higher proficiency, and to provide them with assessments

that measure multifaceted, and real world problems. These are several important ways

educators can do to ensure the continued success of students, and make our nation strong,

and ensure economic prosperity for generations to come.

IMPLICATIONS

Students benefit more when they are actively engaged with career oriented

learning perspectives. (STWOA)

International students are greater prepared than American students as well as

there knowledge of real world applications in testing. (PISA)

15

America spends more money on educating students in reading than any other

country. (U.S Dept of Education archive)

International countries like Japan spend more days per week and are more

prepared for the next grade than American students. (Japanese school calendar)

Parents and administrators oppose to a shorter summer break, and Saturday

school. (Woods)

Students may forget much of what they learned in the school year during

summer break leading to a “watered down”, curriculum. (Kumon/Ipsos)

Special needs students should not be given the same tests as regular students

that may lead to lower standards.

Students with special needs are placed into general education classes and some

parents object to it.

Higher achievers should be tested on real world applications on tests.

Our current education system is a single base system that measures a single

uniform level of proficiencies that is inadequate in addressing the needs of all

students.

A two-fold system with minimum and maximum proficiencies could better

serve special needs, regular, and higher achieving students by providing them

with different level proficiencies.

END.

REFERENCES

Adequate Yearly Progress, Requirements and assessments. Wikipedia, (2009).

Retrieved from, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/adequate..yearly..progress.com

16

Bechard, S (2000). Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. (Policy brief). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for education and Learning.

Corteilla, C. (2006) NCLB and IDEA what parents of students with disabilities need to know, and do. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota, National Center of Educational Outcomes 2006.Retreived from www.cehd.umn.edu/ncec/onlinepubs/parents.pdf

Differentiated Instruction, Wikipedia, (2009) As cited in Tomlinson, C. (2001) How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, (2.ed.) Retrieved from www.wikipedia.org/wki/differentiated...instruction#cite..note Tomlinson 2009.

Guilford public school calendar, Guilford public schools (2009)

Henson, K.T. (2006) Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education reform. p89. (3rd.ed.) Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Hughes, K. (2009) School-to-work making a difference in education, Phi Delta Kappa, Inc. p14.Gale, Cengage Learning 2008. Retrieved fromwww.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi..6952/is..4..84/ai..n28130810/pg..14

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of (2004), Wikipedia, 2009. Retrieved from. www.wikipedia.org/wiki/individuals with disabilities..education..act.

Japanese holidays and school calendar (2009) Retrieved from, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/public/school/holidaysjapan

Kumon/Ipsos reading and math center (2003) Kumon/Ipsos-Reid Survey: Children may forget what they learned in school, over the summer, but kids still need break, parents say. Toronto Canada, 2003. Retrieved from www.kumon.com/pressroom/pressrelease/canada/pdf/20030402.pdf

Millot, D. (2007) Does a lack of political will make NCLB’s “100/2014” Impossible? Education Week, 2009. Retrieved from www.edweek.org/edweek/edbuzz/2007/10/do..we..have..the capacity..html.

Silvia, E. Measuring skills for the 21st century. Education sector reports, Nov, 2008. Retrieved from www.educationsector.org.

Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (1995) Curriculum development: Theory into practice (3rd.ed.). p657. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentise-Hall

17

Tomlinson, C. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Vol.57 N.8. Personalized Learning. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903. Retrieved from, www.ascd.org/ascd/pdf/juornals/ed..lead/el199909..tomlinson.pdf

Tomsho, R. (2007) Parents of disabled students push for separate classes. The Wall Street Journal, 2009. Online Journal, Retrieved from, www.online.wsj.com/article/sb11961034832004184.html

U.S department of Education, (2000) Why no child left behind is important to America. A Nations Report Card Reading 2000. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/nclb.overview/importance/edlite-index.htlm

U.S Department of education (2008) Growth models: Ensuring grade-level proficiency for all students by 2014. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/growthmodel/profociency.html.

Wood, R. Vik, P. (1991) Increasing the length of the school year: A survey, Rural

Educator, v13n1 p20-23 Fall 1991.

18

19

20

21