Linden Feeder Pattern STEM Audit

Math,
Science, Social Studies, and Reading Math, Science, Social Studies, and Reading
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN
Assessment Team Assessment Team

David Haury, Ph.D. David Maury, Ph.D. Dee H artindale Dee Martindale Marcy Raymond Marcy Raymond Sheli Smith, Ph.D. Sheli Smith, Ph.D.
A PAST Foundation Publication A PAST Foundation Publication
2010 The PAST Foundation The PAST Foundation 1929 Kenny Road, Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43210 Phone: (614) 340-1208 Fax: (614) 292-7775 www.pastfoundation.org
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

iii iii
Table of Contents Table of Contents

I. II. I. II.
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Methodology B. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 A. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview ....................... 3 1. Content Audit B. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview ....................... 3 2. Content Comparison 1. Content Audit 3. Achievement Audit 2. Content Comparison 4. Opportunities fudit 3. Achievement A or STEM C. The Design Process ............................................................................................... 4 4. Opportunities for STEM D. The Design .Process ............................................................................................... 4 C. Definitions ........................................................................................................... 4 III. Science Audit by David Haury D. Definitions ............................................................................................................ 4 A. Content by David Haury III. Science Audit Audit ....................................................................................................... 6 B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 9 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 6 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 10 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 9 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 10 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 11 IV. Social Opportunities for DTEM ........................................................................................ 11 D. Studies Audit by S ee Martindale A. Studies Audit ...................................................................................................... 13 IV. Social Content Audit .by Dee Martindale B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 15 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 13 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 16 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 15 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 16 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 17 V. Mathematics Audit bor STEM .Raymond D. Opportunities f y Marcy ....................................................................................... 17 A. Content Audit . y Marcy Raymond V. Mathematics Audit b...................................................................................................... 19 B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 20 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 19 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 21 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 20 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 21 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 23 VI. Reading and Language Arts Audit by Marcy Raymond D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 23 A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 24 VI. Reading and Language Arts Audit by Marcy Raymond B. Content Aomparison ............................................................................................ 27 A. Content C udit ....................................................................................................... 24 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 27 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 27 D. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 27 C. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 29 VII. Summary of Columbus City Schools Improvement Plans ........................................ 31 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 29 VIII. SENCER A of Columbus S ity Schools Improvement Plans . Materials ...................... 32 VII. Summary ssessment of CTEM Readiness Through Curricular ....................................... 31 IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report .Materials ...................... 32 VIII. SENCER Assessment of STEM Readiness Through Curricular ...................................... 37 X. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38 IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report ....................................... 37 XI. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 41 X. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38 XII. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 41 XI. Appendices A. Science XII. Appendices Content Matrix ........................................................................................ 46 B. Science Content Matrix ddressed ......................................................................... 47 A. Science GLIs Explicitly A ........................................................................................ 46 B. Science GLIs Explicitly Addressed ......................................................................... 47
iv


Science Process Standards Audit .......................................................................... 48 Social Studies Content Matrix .............................................................................. 49 Mathematics Content Matrix ............................................................................... 52 Reading Content Matrix ....................................................................................... 53 Ohio Department of Education Report Cards for Linden Feeder Pattern Schools 1. Hamilton STEM Elementary School ............................................................ 56 2. Linden STEM Elementary School ................................................................ 63 3. South Mifflin STEM Elementary School ...................................................... 70 4. Windsor STEM Elementary School .............................................................. 77 H. CCS School Improvement Plans for Linden Feeder Pattern Schools 1. Hamilton STEM Elementary School ............................................................ 84 2. Linden STEM Elementary School ................................................................ 97 3. South Mifflin STEM Elementary School ...................................................... 112 4. Windsor STEM Elementary School .............................................................. 123 C. D. E. F. G.
Tables I. I. II. I. II. III. I. II. III. IV.II. III. IV. V. IV. V. V.
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN v STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN v SSTEM AUDIT FOR INDEN FFEEDER PATTERN viii TEM AUDIT FOR LLINDEN EEDER PATTERN v
Tables Tables Table of Contents
Science Achievement Scores .......................................................................................... 10 Science Achievement Scores .......................................................................................... 10 Social Studies Achievement Scores ................................................................................ 17 Science Achievement Scores .......................................................................................... 10 Social Studies Achievement Scores ................................................................................ 17 Mathematics Achievement Scores ................................................................................. 22 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Social Studies Achievement Scores ................................................................................ 17 Mathematics Achievement Scores ................................................................................. 22 Reading Achievement Scores ......................................................................................... 29 Methodology chievement Scores ................................................................................. 22 Mathematics A Reading Achievement Scores ......................................................................................... 29 SENCER Rubric ................................................................................................................ 33 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Reading Achievement Scores ......................................................................................... 29 SENCER Rubric ................................................................................................................ 33 B. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview ....................... 3 SENCER Rubric ................................................................................................................ 33 1. Content Audit 2. Content Comparison Figures 3. Achievement Audit Figures Figures 4. Framework Pyramid ................................................................................... 3 I. Assessment Opportunities for STEM I. Assessment Framework P.yramid ................................................................................... 3 C. The Design Cycle ................................................................................................... 4 .............................................................................................. 4 II. Design Principles Process yramid ................................................................................... 3 I. Assessment Framework P II. Design Principles ............................................................................................................ 4 Cycle ................................................................................................... 4 D. Definitions III. Transdisciplinary Pyramid .............................................................................................. 4 II. Design Principles C III.III. Science Audit by Pyramid .............................................................................................. 4 Transdisciplinary Dycle ................................................................................................... 4 avid Haury IV. Twenty First Century Skills ............................................................................................. 4 III. Transdisciplinary Pyramid . Diagram ............................................................................... 5 IV. Twenty First Century ...................................................................................................... 6 A. Content Audit . Skills Diagram ............................................................................... 5 IV. Twenty First Century Skills Diagram ............................................................................... 5 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 9 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 10 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 11 IV. Social Studies Audit by Dee Martindale A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 13 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 15 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 16 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 17 V. Mathematics Audit by Marcy Raymond A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 19 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 20 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 21 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 23 VI. Reading and Language Arts Audit by Marcy Raymond A. Content Audit ....................................................................................................... 24 B. Content Comparison ............................................................................................ 27 C. Achievement Audit ............................................................................................... 27 D. Opportunities for STEM ........................................................................................ 29 VII. Summary of Columbus City Schools Improvement Plans ........................................ 31 VIII. SENCER Assessment of STEM Readiness Through Curricular Materials ...................... 32 IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report ....................................... 37 X. Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 38 XI. Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 41 XII. Appendices A. Science Content Matrix ........................................................................................ 46 B. Science GLIs Explicitly Addressed ......................................................................... 47

I. Introduction
A. Rationale for the External Audit of the K-6 Linden-McKinley Feeder Schools
Columbus City Schools (CCS) requested that an outside agency conduct a preliminary audit of the curriculum being utilized in the four elementary schools (Linden, South Mifflin, Hamilton, Windsor) that feed into the middle- and high-school Linden-McKinley STEM Academy. CCS sought this audit to ensure that the best curricular and pedagogical practices were employed as they establish the foundation for rigorous and transformative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education. The scope of the study charged the reviewer team with determining the extent to which the four elementary feeder schools could accomplish two key goals: 1. Support the transition to STEM from a curricular standpoint, and 2. Create the educational foundation needed for student success at the Linden-McKinley STEM Academy. This audit is benchmarked against four of the six commonly cited STEM educational reform principles: 1. STEM embraces a comprehensive education philosophy, based on student inquiry and experience, 2. STEM schools thrive in a connected P-16 education continuum, where students cultivate a passion for mathematics and science in the early grades and earn college credit and work experience in the later grades, 3. STEM schools educate the whole child, incorporating the arts, languages, and humanities into student curricula. STEM schools reflect an interdisciplinary approach, offering students the opportunity to make sense of the world around them, rather than learn isolated bits and pieces of subjects in separate forums, and 4. STEM schools engage students in the technological design process, using technology to meet the challenges of life (Haury 2002; Morrison 2005 and 2006), using the Science Education for New Civic Engagement and Responsibility (SENCER) rubric (National Science Foundation 2010). The purpose of the audit was to streamline access from the current kindergarten through grade six curriculum used at these feeder schools to transdisciplinary, project-based STEM learning.
II. Methodology
A. Introduction
The audit was conducted over the summer of 2010 by a team of educators representing higher education, high school education, kindergarten through grade six education, and informal education. Under the direction of the PAST Foundation, this audit team systematically examined the materials provided by Columbus City Schools as well as data publicly available from the Ohio Department of Education. By creating a team that has a working knowledge of STEM education and its implementation, PAST was able to keep the projects scope and focus well defined. The makeup of the team created a
vertical alignment of understanding for how STEM must coordinate with all levels of education and how the long-term transformation of STEM must therefore progress. The audit examined Columbus City Schools current K-6 Science, Math, Social Studies, and Reading/Language Arts curriculum to determine how its (1) curriculum scope, (2) intellectual rigor, and (3) instructional practices align with the structure of the program being developed at Linden-McKinley STEM School. Published materials used in the evaluation included the CCS Pacing Guides, website information, textbooks, assessment practices, school improvement plans, and achievement data. Columbus City Schools supplied all materials, or reviewers accessed public documents created for Columbus City Schools. We did not go beyond these parameters for the purposes of this study. Individual reviewers examined each content area separately, using the same matrix and talking points thus providing an independent, yet cohesive audit. In the following sections, each content area is broken down into four different levels, creating an audit of: 1. What currently exists in the curriculum (Content Audit), 2. How the CCS curriculum compares to current reform and pedagogical practices at the state and national educational levels (Content Comparison), 3. The current evidence of student achievement with existing models (Achievement Audit), and 4. How the CCS School Improvement Plans address perceived gaps between instruction and achievement, and what the opportunities are for improvement and implementation of STEM pedagogies (Opportunities for STEM). The Achievement Audit included both Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) data and CCS quarterly assessment data for the four elementary schools, to determine the degree of alignment between written curriculum and performance assessments. Each school improvement plan was also cross- referenced for evidence of strategic goals that address instructional gaps and student deficiencies. In addition, this STEM audit compares itself to the CCS Turnaround Middle School Research Report (Community Research Partnership 2009), which used a different methodology for assessment. The primary difference in methodologies is the predominance of qualitative data in the CCS Turnaround Middle School Research Report, whereas this audit relies solely on quantitative data. Since this audit took place during the summer months, the reviewers were not able to interview or observe instructors and classes in action. As noted, this audit only examined published documents. However, PAST did compare the qualitative findings of the Turnaround Report to PASTs quantitative findings in an effort to confirm the accuracy of conclusions and recommendations from both studies. Finally, PAST synthesized the individual content findings to create a series of recommendations intended to streamline transformation of STEM educational practices and delivery of transdisciplinary, project- based learning in Linden-McKinley feeder pattern schools.

B. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview

Content Audit Achieve -ment Audit Content Compar -ison
To establish clear working protocols, the figure to the left indicates the four main components to the overall strategy of the Linden STEM audit. The foundation for the study rests upon the Content Audit and the Content Comparison. Once these are completed, Achievement Scores are compared and Opportunities analyzed, creating a synthesized set of Recommendations for STEM deployment through the Linden feeder pattern.
STEM Oppor- tunihes

Figure 1. Assessment Framework Pyramid
Content Audit The content audit consisted of reviewers examining the information delivered to students throughout the school year, at each grade level. Reviewers utilized curriculum materials, textbooks, and CCS Pacing Guides to determine when Grade Level Indicators (GLI) were being addressed, how often concepts were revisited, and areas of content integration. Each content reviewer developed a matrix to track the focus of content by quarter (See Appendix A). This information was then examined to determine the vertical progression from kindergarten through grade six. Content Comparison The project team conducted a content comparison between the CCS Pacing Guides and various reform initiatives and expectations for student learning published by local and national organizations. The content comparison also involved the examination of pedagogical practices employed by CCS as evidenced by the lessons provided on the CCS Pacing Guides for areas of inquiry, project-based learning and transdisciplinary opportunities. Achievement Audit The project team reviewed each schools state report card data (See Appendix B) and quarterly assessment data to determine levels of student achievement and gauge CCS students performance against their peers within the CCS district and statewide in Ohio. Reviewers also examined each schools Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Value Added data. District quarterly assessment data is embedded within each of the following content area sections. Opportunity for STEM Compiling the Content Audit and the analysis from the Content Comparison, the project team collaboratively created a list of real and relevant STEM opportunities in each of the four content areas that, if adopted, will accelerate a systematic approach to transdisciplinary, project-based STEM learning, as well as close gaps in content, application, and synthesis. Also, the recommended opportunities are intended to enhance the delivery of twenty first century habits and skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009).
C. The Design Process

The design process codifies the methods of inquiry, defining the four major parts of the process. First illustrated in a circular diagram in the 1880s, the Design Process is an essential part of STEM learning. The design process systematically guides investigators through the steps of problem solving. Although there are many permutations of the model, all involve the following components: 1. Planning Identifying the Problem, Brainstorming, Developing a Plan 2. Implementation of the plan 3. Evaluation/Redesign/Improvement of the Plan 4. Communication of the Results Universal to the understanding of the Design Process is its cyclical nature, allowing investigation to move forward and backward as needed. This is in contrast to the linear nature of scientific methods commonly taught in elementary school science classes.
The Design Process should be an integral part of all STEM environments, including professional development, curriculum development, school planning, and content delivery. Teachers should model the design process for students and have students identify where they are in the design process throughout instructional activities.
Figure 2. The Design Principles Cycle
D. Definitions
Curriculum: For the purpose of this STEM audit, curriculum is defined as any document, media, or device that informs teachers about what students are expected to learn. In short, curriculum is the sum of all the activities, experiences, and learning opportunities.
Figure 3: Transdisciplinary Pyramid
Transdisciplinary: The seamless cohesion of all disciplines in the pursuit of understanding problems and issues. A transdisciplinary approach to problem solving is not limited to a single or selected group of disciplines but encompasses all disciplines (Basarab 1996, 1997).

Twenty First Century Skills Overarching Categories:
Learning and Innovation Skills: think creatively, work creatively with others and Implement innovations Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Skills: Reason Effectively, Use Systems Thinking, Make Judgments and Decisions, Solve Problems Communication and Collaboration Skills: Communicate Clearly and Collaborate with Others Information, Media and Technology Skills: Information Literacy, Media Literacy, Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) Literacy Life and Career Skills: Flexibility and Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross- Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility
Figure 4: Twenty First Century Skills connected to learning. (Courtesy of P21)
III. Science Audit by David Haury

Science: Content Audit
The following content analysis specifically examines CCS instructional resource materials for K-6 Science. The reviewer also analyzed all written materials for emerging themes and scaffolded content in the current science curriculum (See Appendix A-2). The following represent the summary of that analysis: Matrices of Grade Level Indicators (GLI) for science indicate that most GLIs for science are being explicitly addressed by the activities and textbook Readings of the program of study. At most grade levels, the science GLIs for content standards (Earth and Space Sciences, Life Sciences, and Physical Sciences) are being addressed separately and independently of the science GLIs for process standards (Science and Technology, Scientific Inquiry, and Scientific Ways of Knowing). The CCS Pacing Guides do not explicitly address some science GLIs, particularly those associated with process standards. The GLIs for Scientific Ways of Knowing, for instance, are not explicitly addressed in kindergarten or grades two and six. The GLIs not explicitly addressed in the CCS Pacing Guides are indicated by color within the matrices. Most GLIs at each grade level are addressed within the topics of only one grading period during the year. The exception for science content standards is that many GLIs for the Life Sciences standard for some grade levels (kindergarten, one GLI in grade one, and grades two, four, and six) are addressed by topics within two grading periods. Most GLIs for science process standards are also explicitly addressed by one unit or topic at most grade levels. GLIs for grade six Science content have been restricted to those of the Life Sciences for grades six to eight. It is assumed that a parallel re-clustering of GLIs for Physical Sciences and for Earth and Space Sciences has been planned for grades seven and eight. The matrix of science units and topics for K-6 indicates that science units and topics are planned for each grading period at each grade level. Science units and topics focusing on science processes and process standards are scheduled as standalone curriculum components, rather than being integrated within the context of topics and units addressing science content standards. That is, units such as Thinking like a scientist focus on the tools and skills of scientific investigations in the context of activities that are disconnected from the science content GLIs for each grade level. The organizing structure for science units and topics for each grading period is determined largely by the chapter structure of the textbooks being used. There seems to be some confusion regarding the difference between the Design Process and Scientific Inquiry. Note, for instance, that a unit in grade four, during grading period two, is titled, Doing scientific inquiry, but the topic listed under this unit title is The design process. Acknowledging that different groups apply different meanings to these terms, the Design Process in STEM education is typically used to denote the process by which technology specialists (engineers) go about identifying and selecting solutions to problems. This is similar in some ways to the inquiry process associated with science, but most reform advocates differentiate these two processes, with inquiry being used to denote the processes by which scientists find answers to questions and construct new knowledge, while design is used to denote the processes by which engineers find solutions to problems or construction challenges.

The assigned textbooks endorse the discredited notion of a didactic scientific method which has not been endorsed by educational organizations for over 20 years. STEM promotes the holistic approach to inquiry that aligns more with the stance of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that describes science as an enterprise that employs a variety of inquiry processes and methods to gain new knowledge (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989). The science content at each grade level is largely clustered within grading periods according to the traditional structure of the disciplines (life sciences, earth and space sciences, or physical sciences), rather than according to principles that correspond to the daily lives, community resources, or lived experiences of students. In examining the learning progressions through each academic year and across grade levels, there seems to be no discernable pattern in the sequence of topics. They seem disarticulated, both within the science disciplines and across other disciplines. Career awareness is de-contextualized and addressed separately from units and topics organized around the content domains of science, rather than being linked to science and engineering professions associated with the particular content being studied at a particular time. An examination of the CCS Pacing Guides and textbooks for each grade level seems to indicate that the core program of studies is essentially text-based, with occasional activities provided to verify concepts and principles presented in the textbook, or to demonstrate concepts and principles being presented. The CCS Pacing Guides provide no guidelines, resources, or examples for formative assessment of student learning or performance. Neither the CCS Pacing Guides nor the textbooks offer alternative activities or guidance for teachers in support of differentiated instruction. The assigned textbooks and other supplementary materials associated with the Science and STEM CCS Pacing Guides contain factual errors and phrasing that reinforce common misconceptions or likely lead to conceptual confusion. Although the entire text was not examined for these errors, enough existed to be noted. Here are three examples: Example 1 Science (Columbus City Schools STEM CCS Pacing Guides, 2009) The gulping goldfish AIMS Activity for week 7 of the first grading period for Grade 2: An activity using gill movements in goldfish is used to illustrate processes associated with inquiry, and students are directed to notice how a fishs breathing rate changes in response to other changes in its environment or activity level. However, fish have no lungs and thus do not breathe. Use of such inappropriate language engenders misconceptions and is contrary to the careful use of vocabulary terms in science. Example 2 Science (Bell et al. 2006: 126) In the Harcourt Science textbook for level 2, there is inappropriate teleological phrasing in a section on adaptation. In a section titled, How animals and plants adapt, we find this pair of sentences: Over time, animals and plants adapt, or change, to be able to live in their environment. They adapt in different ways to meet their needs. These statements are misleading and imply purpose in evolution. It is true that animals and plants are constantly evolving, and this change is sometimes due to pressure in the environmentbut not always. If teachers are only presenting adaptation as a response to the environment, students will develop misconceptions. Research among college level biology students show that misconceptions introduced at an early age and reinforced over time are hard to change (Nehm and Schonfeld 2010). Our students future learning depends upon us not introducing them to faulty ideas.

Example 3 Science (Bell et al. 2006: 108) The same Harcourt Science textbook for level 2 contains another misleading narrative that engenders another common misconception that even persists at the college level. In a section titled Plants, the following sentences appear: Living things need food, water, and oxygen. Oxygen [highlighted in yellow] is a gas in air and water. The next paragraph continues: Plants make their own food. They use water, light, and gases in the air to make it. Though food technically refers to substances consumed or absorbed into a body, the use of the phrase plants make their own food is so common that it would be folly to combat it here. It is, however, unfortunate that the textbook, while carefully using the plural gases when describing how plants make their own food, emphasizes the importance of oxygen to living organisms without mentioning carbon dioxide as the gas that is essential for making food. Though this narrative is expanded to include mention of carbon dioxide at higher-grade levels of this textbook series, it is unfortunate that level 2 students are left with the impression that oxygen is the only important gas that is explicitly mentioned. This may seem like a minor point, but one of the most well-documented misconceptions in academia today, no matter how many units on photosynthesis to which students are exposed, is the notion that carbon dioxide is a waste product and that the bulk of plants nutrition comes from the soil through the roots (Schneps and Sadler 1997). Somehow, most students never comprehend that the bulk of air we enjoy daily is converted by plants from carbon dioxide in the air.
These three examples are simply illustrations of many misleading and inaccurate statements found in the Harcourt textbook series, and in many other textbooks as well. A curriculum that is essentially organized around a textbook series could easily become a means of generating misconceptions among students that are very hard to correct as students pass through the educational system. The presence of these faulty narratives is another reason for using something other than textbook narratives and structures as the organizing principle for science units. Further, there are implications here for the sort of professional development that must be provided for teachers when textbooks such as these are an integral component of the curriculum. In addition to the science curriculum outlined by the kindergarten through grad six CCS Pacing Guides, there is separate STEM CCS Pacing Guides for Kindergarten through grade two. There are activities planned for each week of each grading period, and various AIMS modules augment activities in the science textbook. There is uneven correlation in terms of timing or sequencing of the STEM activities with the science scope and sequence. For instance, the kindergarten science CCS Pacing Guides focus on plants and animals during grading period four, whereas the STEM CCS Pacing Guides include attention to earthquakes, volcanoes, and other earth science phenomena. Similarly, in grading period two of grade two, the science CCS Pacing Guides focus on sound and light, while the STEM CCS Pacing Guides focus on phases of the moon and phenomena associated with weather. The same incongruity between the science CCS Pacing Guides and STEM CCS Pacing Guides is found throughout kindergarten through grade two. It is also noted that the science GLIs addressed by the STEM CCS Pacing Guides and the science CCS Pacing Guides differ within grading periods.

Science: Content Comparison

The Content Comparison for Science examines the CCS science curriculum and practices in comparison to the curricular practices endorsed by reform documents and professional organizations representing the sciences. Reform documents during the past 20 years have consistently emphasized the importance of inquiry- based science instruction that integrates the learning of science concepts with the learning of scientific reasoning and associated skills (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989, AAAS 1994, Schmidt et al. 2001, and NSTA 2010). A major misalignment between the CCS science curriculum for K-6 and the thrust of reform in science education is the separation of these elements. The CCS Pacing Guides focus on the tools and processes of scientific investigation within topics and units that are independent of those focusing on content areas in science. Policy statements stress the importance of learning fundamental knowledge in science through the engagement of students in the processes of scientific inquiry. Ideally, use of the various process skills associated with science should be evident and explicit within every science unit or topic (NSTA 2010). Reform documents consistently advocated a move away from the traditional didactic approach associated with curriculum and instruction that begins with Readings, followed by activities to demonstrate or verify concepts presented in the Readings. Another misalignment between the CCS science curriculums as documented by the CCS Pacing Guides and current reform recommendations is heavy reliance on the didactic and linear curriculum pattern that is guided by textbook Readings and is very prescriptive. The pattern of engagement most strongly endorsed by science education organizations and reform documents is one that begins with direct experiences to engage learners, followed by inquiry-oriented investigation, and concluding with constructed explanations and applications. The popular 5-E model of science instruction, often referred to as the learning cycle (Ohio Department of Education 2010), reflects this learning pattern, as it begins with direct experiences, eliciting of prior knowledge, and questioning to eventual construction of explanations and elaboration through applications. Integration of learning across the sciences and integration of learning in science with other content areas has been strongly endorsed by scientists and science education societies for over 20 years (Rutherford and Ahlgren 1989). Findings in cognitive psychology have confirmed that learning is enhanced when students see the connections between discrete knowledge domains and when there is greater variety in the number and types of associations that students are able to make with new ideas being learned (Halpern 1998). The CCS Pacing Guides do not facilitate these crosscutting linkages due to the pattern of organizing topics and units around textbook chapters that follow the traditional structures of the disciplines. International research studies of science curricula conducted in conjunction with the TIMSS comparisons of student learning have documented a link between curricular patterns and student performance (Schmidt et al. 2001). The curricula of lower-performing populations are more typically comprised of many unarticulated units of study that lack coherence. The CCS Pacing Guides tend to follow this prevailing pattern in U.S. schools; there is no explicit progression of concepts to be learned from grading period to grading period, or from grade level to grade level. Science units and topics are for the most part brief, free standing learning encounters that are unconnected. From the perspective of traditional principles of curriculum design, the effort to develop units and topics that address specific Grade Level Indicators (GLI) has lead to the construction of a curriculum that is fairly well balanced across the traditional science disciplines and appropriate in scope. The principles used to sequence units and topics are not evident, however, and the overall
10

program lacks coherence. As mentioned previously, this is a generally recognized problem among schools in the United States that hinders development of deep understanding in science.
Science: Achievement Audit

Since 2006, the Linden McKinley feeder pattern schools have been underperforming their peers across the district and the state on the Ohio Achievement Assessments. In 2008, 9.1% of South Mifflins fifth graders passed the state assessment 65.9% lower than state expectations. In 2009, only 17.5% of Mifflin Elementary fifth graders passed the Science Assessment 57.5% lower than state expectations. Out of the four feeder pattern schools, Linden Elementary students scored the highest on the 2009 state science assessment with 32.4% of students passing still 42.6% lower than state expectations. Data from the districts 2009-2010 quarterly science assessments also illustrates a gap between instructional practices and assessments (Table 1). Each quarter, students are not meeting achievement goals. It is apparent that the current curriculum, CCS Pacing Guides, and methods for instruction are not meeting the educational needs of the students. Students are not obtaining the necessary skills and content for success in their current grade level which helps establish the foundation for success in future years. Table 1
Science Percent of Students Proficient on 2009-10 Quarterly Assessments Hamilton PK-6 Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient 0.00% 0.00% 22.70% 77.30% 4.20% 95.80% 9.80% 90.20% 27.30% 72.70% 7.10% 92.90% 4.20% 95.80% 4.90% 95.10% 17.90% 82.10% Linden PK-6 3.00% 97.00% 31.90% 68.10% 11.30% 88.70% 19.70% 80.30% 0.00% 100.00% 10.00% 90.00% 4.10% 95.90% 4.80% 95.20% 0.00% 100.00% S Mifflin PK-6 4.50% 95.50% 8.30% 91.70% 41.40% 58.60% 5.30% 94.70% 4.30% 95.70% 18.50% 81.50% 0.00% 100.00% 2.10% 97.90% 32.30% 67.70% Windsor PK-6 4.70% 95.30% 28.20% 71.80% 18.20% 81.80% 5.40% 94.60% 5.90% 94.10% 16.00% 84.00% 2.60% 97.40% 14.70% 85.30% 13.60% 86.40%
03/05/10 Gr4 Science: Q3 03/05/10 Gr5 Science: Q3 03/05/10 Gr6 Science: Q3 12/11/09 Gr4 Science: Q2 12/11/09 Gr5 Science: Q2 12/11/09 Gr6 Science: Q2 09/28/09 Gr4 Science: Q1 09/28/09 Gr5 Science: Q1 09/28/09 Gr6 Science: Q1

11
Science: Opportunities for STEM-Science

Since there are materials and CCS Pacing Guides in place for science at all grade levels, the challenge to close the gaps between the existing science program and something more aligned with reform principles need not involve a replacement process. Rather, the existence of a comprehensive program that is appropriate in scope and balance primarily calls for a transitional re-centering and reorganization of existing topics. Re-center the curriculum by defining new organizing principles for units that would not reflect the structure of the textbooks, but would reflect topics or themes more representative of student interests, community identities, lived experiences, school-wide or grade-level themes, or other strategies for increasing the evident relevance and coherence of program components. Within the re-centered units, greater emphasis could be given to inquiry-oriented, project-based, or place- based instructional strategies that would integrate process and content while engaging students in active investigations of their familiar environments. Reorganize, or re-cluster, unit content to facilitate greater linkage between science concepts and greater attention to learning progressions across grade levels. For instance, currently at grade four, there are separate units on the water cycle (Earth and Space Sciences benchmark) and changes in matter (Physical Sciences benchmark). In a reorganized unit, the concepts of physical properties, changes of state, and the effects of temperature on matter could be linked to develop a deeper understanding of the interactions that drive the water cycle. A larger theme such as water in the environment or water world could pull these ideas together into a more coherent module relating to familiar experiences that students have, and it could provide the context for raising questions, directing inquiry, and discussing science-related careers associated with both chemistry and the engineering of hydrology. Reorganize units so that they allow further thinking about vertical alignment, or learning progressions across grade levels. The current program of study in science includes very similar topics on motion in kindergarten, grade one, and grade three. A more explicit learning progression could be developed that reduces redundancy and shifts focus as students progress across grade levels. For instance, the progression could begin in kindergarten by focusing on noting, describing, and representing different types of motion, progressing in grade one to measuring and recording motion, and noting different actions that cause motion, with grade three focusing more on attempts to explain motion using the concept of force. Organize centers and learning progressions that are carefully constructed so that there is the opportunity to expand and deepen study of science by reducing or eliminating the current review units in grade five. The need for review would be greatly reduced if the units each year extend the conceptual base constructed in previous years. If learning progressions were carefully constructed and attention to process were integrated with content, there would be opportunity to incorporate several additional units within the curriculum, or expand existing units. Re-center curricular units on foci other than textbook chapters and structure to provide opportunity for schools to collectively adopt a more current model of inquiry to replace the prescriptive notion of the scientific method. Rather than focusing on a prescriptive set of procedures that are not characteristic of all sciences, a more current model of inquiry should be adopted that focuses on inquiry as a thinking process that takes different forms in the context of the different questions addressed by the different sciences. Reorganization of the science program
12

would also allow an opportunity both to deliberately cluster the science and STEM units into integrated units, and to invest more deliberate attention to differentiated instruction. Perhaps introducing a core and options approach to unit design would enable deliberate structures that would accommodate the needs of both accelerated students and those requiring more remediation. Such a model would allow a variety of ways to incorporate attention to the same process skills within the context of a unit. Develop a staged process that would begin with a re-visioning process involving inter-school teams of teachers to identify a broad, overall framework for conceptualizing and guiding the re- centering and reorganization process of the basic unit. Establish module or unit development teams that would prototype units, at least one per grade level, which could be piloted to demonstrate proof of concept and establish islands of success in each school. Establish a continuous improvement process that would include three components: professional development to help teachers adjust to the new paradigm (particularly, integrating content and inquiry model), continuous improvement process for piloted units, and process for developing new units. Consider the working draft of the new National Research Council (NRC 2010) framework for science standards in the development process. Because this document will eventually have broad impacts on science programs, attending to the emerging working drafts would put CCS ahead of the curve.

13
IV. Social Studies by Dee Martindale

Social Studies: Content Audit
The following content analysis specifically examines CCS instructional resource materials for social studies kindergarten through grade six. Content analysis of the CCS Pacing Guides indicates that most of the Grade Level Indicators (GLI) are addressed, over the course of the year, by the activities and lessons in the textbook series (See Appendix A-3). Of primary importance in reviewing the Grade Level Indicators is the fact that although the GLIs are regularly covered in the CCS Pacing Guides, they are only addressed within the topics of one grading period and are seldom revisited. Example 1 Social Studies (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009) In Grade two, all of the Geography indicators are taught during quarter one and are not addressed again for the remainder of the year, except for GEO A1. Also, the Geography indicators are presented in the abstract, void of relevance. Example 2 Social Studies (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009) In Grade six, four of the six Economics indicators (GLI 2,3,4, and 5) are only taught during quarter three. They are not integrated prior to or after quarter three. So, if a teacher strictly follows the prescribed guide, students have no discussion or application of economic concepts until early spring. In grade six, GLIs 1 and 6 are not addressed at all during the course of the year. Separating Government and Economics standards engenders isolated content delivery and stifles important associations with any historical context. The organizing structure for social studies is largely determined by the chapter structure of the textbooks being used. An examination of the CCS Pacing Guides, CCS Grade 6 curriculum guide, and textbooks for each grade level indicate that the core program of social studies is text-based, with occasional activities supplemented to reinforce or extend the content. The textbooks utilized by CCS are appropriate resources if viewed as resources and not the curriculum. The text series utilized by CCS provide essential questions, ideas for content integration, and projects. The projects that accompany each unit in the textbook are good initial ideas for getting students more involved with the content and should be viewed as an essential component of instruction, but not the only ideas. All project ideas should be open to alteration, or tweaking, as needed, to increase rigor and relevancy. Also, projects introduced at the beginning of the unit, increase student engagement and establish motivation for learning. Example 3 Social Studies (Christensen et al. 2008:160) Grade four text: Social Studies Ohio students choose an important event in Ohios history and create a press conference about the event. This project gives students ownership of learning and makes the content engaging and purposeful. Unfortunately, this specific project is listed as only a one-week activity in quarter three. Unless tied to standards and given sufficient time for Writing and Research, this projects time allotment on the pacing guide is woefully inadequate to assure the students gain deep knowledge and experience success.
14

Most of the learning activities are teacher directed, with little student ownership of learning. There is not much opportunity for inquiry or project-based learning. Although there are hands-on activities, they are usually prescriptive, guiding students step-by-step to a predetermined right answer (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). Enrichment Activities placement is unclear. The CCS Pacing Guides reference Enrichment activities for each unit that are more project based. However, time does not appear to be built into the CCS Pacing Guides to accommodate these projects. All of these activities are highlighted (shaded) on the pacing document, but the document does not explain this formatting. It is not clear whether these enrichment activities are optional or intended to be used with all students (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). Integration of inter- and transdisciplinary content is not aligned. The CCS Pacing Guides make suggestions for areas of content integration, but the areas of content integration do not coincide with the learning targets in the other content areas for that grading period. For example, in grade four, quarter one, week two, student activities involve coordinate grids and mapping, a task which does not appear in the Math CCS Pacing Guides until the end of quarter three (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). Technology plays a small or non-existent role in the social studies curriculum. Technology is mostly referenced in sixth grade with students doing internet scavenger hunts as extension activities (Columbus City Schools Social Studies Curriculum Guide 2010). Time allotment for learning key Social Studies concepts is not sufficient. Classroom time devoted to social studies does not appear to be sufficient for the amount of learning that needs to take place. In kindergarten through grade two, the duration is simply listed as sessions, e.g. grade one, lesson one: How Do We Get Along in School? six sessions. There is no identification of how much time a session entails. In grades three through five, thirty-minute class periods or 150 minutes per week are allocated for social studies instruction. At this grade level, thirty minutes is inadequate for students to truly engage in the content. In grade six, the CCS Pacing Guides is based on fifty-minute periods, which is more desirable (Columbus City Schools Social Studies CCS Pacing Guides 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides provide no guidelines, resources or examples for formative assessment of student learning. Assessments of learning appear to only be summative traditional paper/pencil tests. Questions regarding these assessments are: How are teachers using assessment data? What do they do when students havent met learning goals? When administrators review assessment data, what teachers seem to be having the most success with students? What instructional practices are these teachers using? Are they strictly following the CCS Pacing Guides? What type of feedback are students given and are they afforded the opportunity to revisit concepts not mastered? Grade six is the only level that supplied a Curriculum Guide document in addition to the CCS Pacing Guides. The grade six curriculum guide clearly articulates learning targets and provides multiple resources and lessons to support instruction. The guide provides teachers with background knowledge of each topic covered in the lesson. It also scaffolds information letting the current teacher know the focus in the prior grade and the expectations for the future grade. The guide also points out how lessons build towards student understanding of content on the Ohio Graduation Test. The curriculum guide also lets teachers know how students will be assessed on the content by providing them with sample achievement test items. Although many of the activities in the curriculum guide do not promote higher-level thinking, this guide is a good resource for teachers, especially for a first year teacher (Columbus City Schools Social Studies Curriculum Guide 2010).

15
Social Studies: Content Comparison

The Content Comparison for Social Studies involves the examination of the CCS Social Studies curriculum and practices in comparison to the curricular practices endorsed by reform documents and professional organizations representing the social sciences (Ohio Social Studies Standards 2010, National Core Social Studies Standards 2010, and Ohio Council for the Social Studies 2010). The newly adopted State Social Studies Standards directly address the 21st-Century skills; civic literacy, financial and economic literacy, and global awareness. Problem solving, communication, media literacy, and leadership skills will be developed in the states model curriculum (Ohio Department of Education Academic Content Standards Revision 2010). The current CCS curriculum does not address these skills nor provide the type of instructional activities that foster the development of twenty first century skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills 2009). Content shifts occur in grades four, five and six in the newly adopted state social studies standards. New, grade four curriculum focuses on the early development of Ohio and the United States. Grade five curriculum studies the Western Hemisphere (North and South America) and grade six curriculum studies the Eastern Hemisphere (Africa, Asia, Australia and Europe). As CCS strives to improve upon current curriculum for the STEM program, these new state standards should be kept at the forefront of any curricular redesign and integrated accordingly (Ohio Department of Education Academic Content Standards Revision 2010). According to the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), teaching and learning in social studies are powerful when they are meaningful, integrative, value-based, challenging, and active. The social studies program should integrate within the discipline and across disciplines. The CCS Pacing Guides do not truly integrate within the discipline or across disciplines. Learning does not appear to be rigorous or active as the CCS Pacing Guides follow a traditional didactic approach to instruction (National Council for the Social Studies 2010). Meaningful social studies instruction also builds curriculum networks of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs that are structured around enduring understandings, essential questions, important ideas, and goals (National Council for the Social Studies 2010). The CCS Pacing Guides, grades three through six, are not centered around essential questions. Instead, the curriculum is structured around the framework of the textbook, using chapter headings or lesson titles as the theme. For example, the topics Road to Statehood, and Explore the United States are arbitrarily featured instead of developing themes that are relevant to students and span disciplines. Social Studies programs should use a variety of primary and secondary sources that accommodate a wide range of reading abilities and interests, to help students obtain, analyze and evaluate information (NCSS 2008). The textbook appears to be the main source of information, which does not accommodate differentiated levels of Reading abilities and interest, or promote the notion of varying sources from multiple perspectives. Historical thinking should be emphasized. Historical thinking is an active and logical process of learning history by conducting investigations of past events using both primary and secondary sources. Real historical understanding requires students to engage in historical thinking: to raise questions and provide evidence to support their answers; to read historical narratives and fiction; to consult historical documents, journals, diaries, artifacts, historic sites and other records from the past; and to do so imaginatively and critically (National Center for History in the Schools 2010). The primary instructional practice utilized at CCS, based on the written curriculum, appears to be very traditional, with the teacher presenting information and the students receiving. Little evidence was found of students utilizing historical thinking/inquiry based instruction.
16

Social Studies programs should provide a connection to the world of work through the exploration of careers and the application of essential social studies skills (NCSS 2008). STEM feeder schools must have staff and students who understand that STEM education is much more than the disciplines included in the acronym; its a way of thinking, a process. STEM strives to build critical thinkers curious, confident and intellectual risk takers who know how to acquire, synthesize, and evaluate information; to adapt and collaborate. The CCS curriculum guide occasionally has students working together on projects, but due to the didactic structure of the curriculum, students are not afforded the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills on a daily basis. Instead of simply reading and answering questions from a textbook, students should be taught to question, evaluate, and challenge information. Students should be involved in debates, simulations, discussions, and projects that require application of content.
Social Studies: Achievement Audit

Since 2006, the Linden-McKinley feeder pattern schools have been underperforming their peers across the district and the state on the Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) in Social Studies. Windsor is the only school in the study that showed constant growth, with 39.4% of students passing the 2009 OAA, which was 5% higher than the district average. Linden Elementary and South Mifflin performed the lowest on the social studies assessment out of the four feeder pattern schools in this study, with only 13.5% of Linden and 5.0% of South Mifflin students passing the assessment. Although Windsor still fell significantly short of state achievement expectations, students there are experiencing more success than others across the feeder pattern. More study should be conducted through observation and conversation with the staff at Windsor Elementary to determine the difference in student achievement for potential replication across the feeder pattern. The 2009 performance averages for the four schools are 40 percentage points below the state average in fifth grade. The social studies data from the district quarterly assessments is equally alarming. The most recent data 2009-2010 indicates that students in grades four through six consistently perform below expectations (Table 2). Rarely did the student proficiency percentage rise above 10%. It is apparent that the current curriculum, CCS Pacing Guides, district assessments and pedagogy are not meeting the educational needs of the students. Students are not obtaining the necessary content and processes in their current grade levels that help build the foundation for success in the future.

Table 2
17
Social Studies - Percent of Students Proficient on 2009-10 Quarterly Assessments

03/05/10 Gr4 SocStud: Q3 03/05/10 Gr5 SocStud: Q3 03/05/10 Gr6 SocStud: Q3 12/11/09 Gr4 SocStud: Q2 12/11/09 Gr5 SocStud: Q2 12/11/09 Gr6 SocStud: Q2 09/28/09 Gr4 SocStud: Q1 09/28/09 Gr5 SocStud: Q1 09/28/09 Gr6 SocStud: Q1 Hamilton PK-6 Linden PK-6 S Mifflin PK-6 Windsor PK-6
Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient Proficient Not Proficient
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 9.80% 90.20% 4.80% 95.20% 9.10% 90.90% 4.90% 95.10% 8.30% 91.70% 2.20% 97.80% 12.80% 87.20%
0.00% 100.00% 9.90% 90.10% 13.00% 87.00% 7.10% 92.90% 8.30% 91.70% 7.80% 92.20% 17.80% 82.20% 7.30% 92.70% 11.30% 88.70%
0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 6.90% 93.10% 5.30% 94.70% 4.40% 95.60% 7.10% 92.90% 9.80% 90.20% 2.10% 97.90% 6.70% 93.30%
0.00% 100.00% 5.60% 94.40% 12.00% 88.00% 0.00% 100.00% 12.10% 87.90% 29.20% 70.80% 2.60% 97.40% 2.90% 97.10% 8.00% 92.00%
Social Studies: Opportunities for STEM

Integrate content, beginning within the discipline and then across disciplines. Powerful teaching spans disciplinary boundaries to address topics that promote social understanding and deep learning. It also integrates knowledge and skills with authentic actions. With teacher guidance, students can actively explore processes and concepts of social studies while simultaneously exploring and utilizing skills in other content areas. Use core social studies content as the basis for project development that pull in Reading, Math, Art, and Science. Content integration must be intentionally focused and follow a logical sequence. It should not be a loose link to experiences, skills and content that marginally relate to a theme or project. Students need to be made aware of the learning targets in all areas or the integration will have little impact and students will not see the connectivity. Reading Resources for Non-Fiction should reinforce and support Social Studies Content. Relevant non-fiction that tackles relevant issues resonates with students. For example, the currently popular book, Three Cups of Tea, tackles the issue of education in Pakistan, an area of great relevance to our nation and students who may have older siblings, cousins and parents engaged in the military
18

(Mortenson and Relin 2006). The more experiences students have with the content the more likely they are to retain and truly understand the information. Increase the time allocation for Social Studies instruction. Thirty minutes each day is not enough time for students to think deeply and apply the content. With a strong interdisciplinary curriculum, teachers can promote student competence in social studies, literacy, mathematics and science without trying to find more time in the school day. Incorporate more primary and secondary sources into the curriculum and decrease reliance on the textbook. Allow students to obtain, compare, synthesize and evaluate information from varied sources. The textbooks should be viewed as one of many resources. Integrate more technology into the curriculum. Many of the student projects listed in the CCS Pacing Guides involve the creation of posters, brochures, stories, articles, etc. Many of these could be enhanced with the use of technology (power points, movies, storyboards, pod casts, web- quests). Use the existing text series for ideas on projects that promote student problem solving, higher level thinking, inquiry and collaboration. Adapt the projects as necessary for rigor and inquiry. These projects should be mandatory for all students and not considered enrichment activities they are essential activities. Students must begin to take more ownership of their learning and apply the content in authentic ways.

19
V. Mathematics by Marcy Raymond

Mathematics: Content Audit
The following content analysis specifically examined CCS instructional resource materials for K-6 Mathematics. The materials indicate the presence of a focused progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics as defined by the text (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). Topics within the benchmarks Grade Level Indicators (GLI) are repeated in multiple years across the benchmark grade band. However these repetitions do not appear to exhibit closure via hands on project work or student inquiry. It is noted that these extensions exist at the end of most of the chapters from the texts, but the activities are marked optional (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). There is little evidence of scaffolding repeated GLIs. In most cases, the process of instruction begins over again at the same entry point. There are examples between grades three and five in which fractions are introduced in exactly the same fashion within the text. The associated problems within the chapters increase with complexity within the grade six text with more frequency (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009, Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides and text materials give adequate information for students to understand key concepts, achieve automaticity as appropriate (e.g., with addition and related subtraction facts), develop flexible, accurate, and automatic execution of the standard algorithms, and use these competencies to solve basic mathematical problems. However, the development of higher order thinking is disjointed and lacks coherence (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). Student autonomy in complex problem-solving situations is not evidenced or emphasized by the CCS Pacing Guides. The kinds of activities necessary for complex thinking are marginalized to extension activities and are elective (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides, 2009). Experience and exposure to algebraic concepts should be a major goal for K6 mathematics (NCTM, 2010). Demonstration of proficiency with fractions (including decimals, percent, and negative fractions) was found to be emphasized, but was not found to demonstrate sufficient complexity for a student to enter into Pre-Algebra as a grade seven student (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides and text materials did demonstrate an emphasis on the foundations of geometry: whole numbers, fractions, and measurement. However, skills within the three areas were not connected for the student to experience more complex geometric skills or problem solving (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). The kindergarten through grade two mathematics program emphasizes the experiences of mathematics in very engaging ways as evidenced through the activities suggested in the CCS Pacing Guides. The materials suggest that the teacher provide hands-on activities where the students apply the concepts through multiple learning styles and preferences. This changes with the grade three through six materials, in which there is simply repetition of like-problems from the text that do not have associated applications within the context of student experimentation. Inquiry practices were available but not required activities throughout the K -6 curriculum. The number and quality of student inquiry opportunities was greatest in the K-2 materials and this diminished each subsequent year (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). Some evidence was found regarding the simultaneous development of conceptual understanding,
20

Mathematics: Content Comparison
computational fluency, and problem-solving skills. This evidence was marked as optional throughout most of the 6th grade materials (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides treat most of the GLIs as discrete conceptual skills. Few text materials provide opportunities for students to apply understanding of mathematical operations, practice executing procedures that would allow effective and efficient methods of problem solving (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009). In all cases, a conceptual understanding of fractions and decimals and the operational procedures for using them were reinforced by both the time allotted to the skill through the CCS Pacing Guides and the practice opportunities provided through the text materials. The CCS Pacing Guides affords sufficient time on task to ensure acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge of fractions. Proportional reasoning as a result of more open ended or guided inquiry is addressed, but in limited scope or complexity. Evidence of proportional reasoning in contextual situations relevant to the student was limited in grades five and six. Teachers regular use of formative assessment was evidenced through the short cycle assessment process described in the curriculum guide. It is not clear if the assessments can be changed if a decision is made to offer benchmarks at a time different than the current CCS Pacing Guides (Columbus City Schools Mathematics CCS Pacing Guides 2009). It was not apparent whether teachers have additional guidance on using the assessment to design and individualize instruction through differentiation or small group work. Although mentioned in the introductory materials and suggested in the teacher notes of the text, the practice is not addressed as an emphasis from the district perspective based upon the materials supplied (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). There was no evidence of performance assessment requirements for student achievement via the materials provided (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). The use of real-world contexts to introduce mathematical ideas is evidenced throughout the materials provided. There are two working definitions within the materials regarding the term real world. One definition is that real world included exposure to the students to word problems that could actually be needed by someone some day. A second definition found only in the kindergarten and grade 1 materials is that real world included hands on contexts that students could see, feel or need to know the answer (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009). Assessment of real world contexts through performance assessment practices was not evidenced. The presence of design challenges or the design process integrating mathematics with other content areas was not evidenced in the materials provided. Integration of other content areas was suggested in many of the text materials provided, but not required. However these suggestions lacked depth and the problems associated with these suggestions were not robust enough to encourage transdisciplinary instruction (Schielack et al. 2009, Charles et al. 2009).
The Content Comparison for Mathematics involved the examination of the CCS Mathematics curriculum and practices in comparison to the curricular practices endorsed by reform documents and professional organizations representing mathematics (Ohio Mathematics Standards 2010, National Core Standards 2010, National Council for Teachers Mathematics Standards 2010).

21
The following standards are the summaries for the Mathematics published by the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and should be the benchmark by which kindergarten through grade six CCS Mathematics curricula is gauged (National Council for Teachers of Mathematics 2010): Numbers And Operations Students are expected to have a basic understanding of numbers and their relationships, and to be able to read and write numbers. Further, they should understand the meanings of operations, and be able to compute fluently and make reasonable estimates. Algebra students should be able to sort, classify, and order by size and other properties; recognize, describe, extend, and analyze patterns; use algebraic symbols to represent and analyze mathematical situations; use mathematical models to represent and understand quantitative relationships; and analyze change in various contexts (e.g. growing taller over a specified period of time). Geometry students should engage in analyzing characteristics and properties of two- and three- dimensional geometric shapes, and develop mathematical arguments about geometric relationships; describe spatial relationships using coordinate geometry and other representational systems; apply transformations (i.e. slides, flips, and turns) and use symmetry to analyze mathematical situations; and use visualization, spatial reasoning, and geometric modeling to solve problems. Measurement students should understand measurable attributes of objects and the units, systems, and processes of measurement. They should able to apply appropriate techniques, tools, and formulas to determine measurements. Data Analysis and Probability students should engage in formulating questions that can be addressed with data and in collecting, organizing, and displaying relevant data to answer those questions. They should be able to select and use appropriate statistical methods to analyze data. Students should also develop and evaluate inferences and predictions that are based on data, and understand and apply basic concepts. Problem Solving students should be guided to build new mathematical knowledge through problem solving, apply and adapt a variety of appropriate strategies to solve problems in math and other contexts, and reflect on those processes. Reasoning and Proof students should be able to recognize reasoning and proof as fundamental to mathematics; and to develop, investigate, use, and evaluate appropriate conjectures, arguments, and proofs. Communication Standard students should be learning to organize and consolidate their mathematical thinking and to communicate that thinking coherently, clearly, and precisely to peers, teachers, and others; they should be able to analyze and evaluate the mathematical thinking and strategies of others. Connections students need to be able to recognize and use connections among mathematical ideas; understand how those ideas interconnect and build on one another to produce a coherent whole; and recognize and apply mathematics in other contexts. Representation students should create and use representations to organize, record, and communicate mathematical ideas; and then select and apply those representations to solve problems and to model and interpret physical, social, and mathematical phenomena.
Mathematics: Achievement Audit

Since 2006, the Linden-McKinley feeder pattern schools have been underperforming their peers across the district and the state on the Ohio Achievement Assessments in Mathematics. Hamilton and South
22
Mifflin are each year in school improvement regarding AYP and are currently listed in Academic Emergency. In mathematics, between 2006 and 2009, grades three through six underperformed their district peers by an average of 22 percentage points and underperformed the state averages by as much as 50 percentage points. Linden Elementary and Windsor Elementary are in Academic Watch and are designated as school improvement regarding AYP. In mathematics, both schools score within close proximity to their peers in the district. However the performance averages 19 percentage points below the state in each grade level (See Appendix B). Quarterly assessment data for 2009-2010 also indicates that students are struggling throughout the year to meet grade level expectations (Table 3). Table 3
Mathematics - Percent of Students Proficient on 2009-10 Quarterly Assessments Hamilton Linden S Mifflin Windsor PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 03/05/10, Gr1 Math: Q3 Proficient 48.10% 16.40% 11.90% 42.90% NotProficient 51.90% 83.60% 88.10% 57.10% 03/05/10, Gr2 Math: Q3 Proficient 31.50% 44.60% 16.70% 9.50% NotProficient 68.50% 55.40% 83.30% 90.50% 03/05/10, Gr3 Math: Q3 Proficient 10.80% 16.00% 15.10% 27.80% NotProficient 89.20% 84.00% 84.90% 72.20% 03/05/10, Gr4 Math: Q3 Proficient 12.20% 15.10% 4.70% 4.70% NotProficient 87.80% 84.90% 95.30% 95.30% 03/05/10, Gr5 Math: Q3 Proficient 9.30% 1.40% 4.20% 2.60% NotProficient 90.70% 98.60% 95.80% 97.40% 03/05/10, Gr6 Math: Q3 Proficient 5.30% 20.40% 41.40% 37.50% NotProficient 94.70% 79.60% 58.60% 62.50% 12/11/09, Gr1 Math: Q2 Proficient 37.50% 53.70% 62.50% 55.80% NotProficient 62.50% 46.30% 37.50% 44.20% 12/11/09, Gr2 Math: Q2 Proficient 30.60% 13.50% 11.40% 10.20% NotProficient 69.40% 86.50% 88.60% 89.80% 12/11/09, Gr3 Math: Q2 Proficient 3.00% 21.60% 13.50% 25.70% NotProficient 97.00% 78.40% 86.50% 74.30% 12/11/09, Gr4 Math: Q2 Proficient 0.00% 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% NotProficient 100.00% 98.60% 100.00% 100.00% 12/11/09, Gr5 Math: Q2 Proficient 6.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NotProficient 93.20% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 12/11/09, Gr6 Math: Q2 Proficient 0.00% 13.00% 37.00% 20.00% NotProficient 100.00% 87.00% 63.00% 80.00% 09/28/09, Gr1 Math: Q1 Proficient 13.60% 20.80% 53.70% 32.70% NotProficient 86.40% 79.20% 46.30% 67.30% 09/28/09, Gr2 Math: Q1 Proficient 56.80% 48.60% 36.10% 27.10% NotProficient 43.20% 51.40% 63.90% 72.90% 09/28/09, Gr3 Math: Q1 Proficient 12.70% 20.90% 10.40% 34.30% NotProficient 87.30% 79.10% 89.60% 65.70% 09/28/09, Gr4 Math: Q1 Proficient 0.00% 10.00% 2.80% 0.00% NotProficient 100.00% 90.00% 97.20% 100.00% 09/28/09, Gr5 Math: Q1 Proficient 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% NotProficient 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 09/28/09, Gr6 Math: Q1 Proficient 10.30% 0.00% 3.30% 4.30% NotProficient 89.70% 100.00% 96.70% 95.70%
23
The current curriculum, CCS Pacing Guides and methods of instruction are not meeting the educational needs of the students. Students are not obtaining the necessary skills and content for success in their current grade level which helps establish the foundation for success in future years.
Mathematics: Opportunities for STEM

Based upon the materials provided, a STEM environment could easily be accessed across the grade bands (kindergarten through grade six) through the refocusing of the curricular context. The indicators and benchmarks are present through the CCS Pacing Guides and within the materials, but an overreliance on the text as indicated through the CCS Pacing Guides has resulted in limited exposure to theme and context throughout the curriculum. Integrate math content the within the discipline and across the disciplines, enabling students to see the relevancy, engage in the design process through inquiry, and exhibit learning to authentic audiences. This would most likely result in increased student performance primarily in the math processing benchmarks. Develop more performance based assessments and projects that require the application of mathematical skills and concepts. Complex problem solving experiences should not be marked as extension activities nor be elective, but should be viewed as essential for long-term learning to take place. Revise curriculum to include more algebraic content in grades three through five. The algebraic curriculum needs to be scaffolded to build upon prior years rather than reviewing basic level algebra skills year after year. Establish design challenges to increase rigor and relevancy to skills and concepts. Thematic design challenges and coordinated integrated instruction across disciplines are two STEM strategies (design qualities) that when coupled with problem based learning is within reach of the teachers in this feeder pattern. Stress relevancy and application of skills over repetition and rote activity. Practicing math computations over and over again do not result in better understanding, especially if students are doing the computations incorrectly. Quality of content application versus quantity should be stressed. Model the curriculum of grades three through six with instructional practices found in the curriculum of kindergarten through grade two, which is more active, utilizes manipulative concepts, and addresses math content in relevant context.
24 24
VI.
STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN
Reading and Language Arts by Marcy Raymond and Dee VI. Reading and Language Arts by Marcy Raymond Martindale Reading and Language Arts: Content Audit
The following content analysis specifically examined the instructional resource materials for K -6 Reading and following content analysis specifically ange of print aind non-print resource materials for K -6 Reading The Language Arts. Students read a wide r examined the nstructional texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, tudents he cultures of the United Sand non-print texts to bacquire understanding of and Language Arts. S and of t read a wide range of print tates and the world; to uild an new information; to respond to the needs aof tdemands of sf the United he workplace. Among the reviewed texts are texts, of themselves, and nd he cultures o ociety and t States and the world; to acquire new information; fiction and t on-fiction as nd demands of society and the workplace. Among the the K-6 curriculum to respond no the needs awell as classic and contemporary works ranging across reviewed texts are as evidenced both through twell as classic and contemporary and associated tcross the K-6 curriculum as fiction and non-fiction as he curriculum CCS Pacing Guides works ranging a exts. evidenced both through the curriculum CCS Pacing Guides and associated texts. The materials provided through the textbook series are directly correlated to the CCS Pacing Guides. The materials provided through the textbook series are directly correlated to the CCS Pacing The text materials supply a rich cultural spectrum and relevancy. Guides. The text series uses upply a rich cconsiderate texts aembedded support) for students who are materials s elements of ultural spectrum ( nd relevancy. second language learners, enabling access to tcomprehension. support) for students who are The text series uses elements of considerate exts (embedded The teacher support materials are robust ato cencourage the teacher to modify instruction for second language learners, enabling access nd omprehension. differentiation by ability and for visual learners. The reviewer eacher to modify instruction for The teacher support materials are robust and encourage the t did not find instances of specific differentiation by ability and ther learning styles. differentiation strategies for ofor visual learners. The reviewer did not find instances of specific The text series strategies for other lf strategies to fill schema gaps for students who struggle with differentiation includes a variety o earning styles. Reading ceries includes a variety of strategies to fill schema gaps for students who struggle with The text somprehension. The teacher materials include strategies for individual, small group, and large group strategies. Reading comprehension. However it is up to teacher discretion to d or individual, small group, and large group strategies. The teacher materials include strategies fiscern the frequency and structures for instruction. Intervention strategies are discretion tthe iscern nstructional materials reviewed. iThe text series However it is up to teacher present in o d core i the frequency and structures for nstruction. promotes three tiers of intervention n the c(ore instructional materials reviewed. The text series Intervention strategies are present inoted Beck et al. 2008): 1. Basic Intervention scaffolding of core instructional m promotes three tiers of intervention noted (Beck et al. 2008): aterials through leveled readers and 1. literacy centers. scaffolding of core instructional materials through leveled readers and Basic Intervention 2. Strategic enters. literacy c Intervention extra support and Reading practice for below-level readers for 2. mainstreamed classroom environments primarily through before, during, and after Rfeading Strategic Intervention extra support and Reading practice for below-level readers or strategies and tclassroom environments primarily he same bheme while increasing RReading mainstreamed he placement of texts that are in t through t efore, during, and after eading levels as the theme lacement mf texts that are in the same theme while increasing Reading strategies and the p becomes o ore complex. 3. Intensive Intervention stand ore complex. levels as the theme becomes m alone programmatic implementation in which basic technical skills are entervention or non-mainstreamed students with learning din which basic technical 3. Intensive Imphasized f stand alone programmatic implementation ifficulties. The CCS Pacing Guides of the unon-mainstreamed students with learning difficulties. as that of skills are emphasized for pper elementary are not formatted in the same manner primary Prades. Tuides of the upper elementary are not who does niot thave access to Microsoft of The CCS g acing G his could pose a problem for a teacher formatted n he same manner as that Publisher rades. This ll ould pose aormatted fsor a teacher wser does not have be a consideration primary g at home. A c should be f problem imilarly and u ho access should access to Microsoft (Columbus t home. All should be formatted similarly and user access should be a consideration Publisher a City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The introduction of phonics and phonemic awareness is emphasized in the text series. In some (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). cases, the CCS Pacing Guides does not emphasize strategically the need fhe text series. In some The introduction of phonics and phonemic awareness is emphasized in t or some of the letter- sound the CCS Pacing Guides does the year. As an strategically the need for some eek 12 lof the cases, knowledge early enough in not emphasize example, /b/b and /k/k are in w of the etter- pacing knowledge early enough in the year. uch an example, VC words /Beck re ial. 2eek 12 of the sound calendar and should be introduced m As earlier for C /b/b and (k/k a et n w 008). The progression of the instruction for Reading is logical and sequential however 2here is an pacing calendar and should be introduced much earlier for CVC words (Beck et al. t 008). overemphasis of lower ilnstruction for Reading is logical iand sequential however there is an City The progression of the evel performance expectations n the CCS Pacing Guides (Columbus Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). overemphasis of lower level performance expectations in the CCS Pacing Guides (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009).
Reading and Language Arts: Content Audit

Example 1 Reading (Beck et al. 2008: 1.1 - 1.4, 2.3 2.5) In 1.1, the student reader is asked to identify story elements. In 1.2 and again in 1.4, the student is asked to identify story elements in the exact same manner as in 1.1. Identification of story elements is a content benchmark, and the teacher guide for 1.4 includes extensions where the student is asked to create a new story using story elements. This activity requires creative and evaluative thinking, but is not a required component of the CCS Pacing Guides. Then in 2.3, students again are asked to identify story elements with a similar pattern of extensions offered for higher order thinking through the teacher edition. Again, the skill is practiced but there is not a requirement for the kinds of extensions that would enable students to exhibit higher order thinking.
25
Opportunities for analysis, synthesis and evaluation through real world contexts are not frequently present in the textbooks and do not lend themselves to be regularly integrated to STEM focused curriculum. In many cases, the teacher would need to supplement materials both fiction and non-fiction examples of context rich texts for students to learn from. Example 2 Reading (Beck et al. 2008: 4.3 4.5) In lesson 4.3, the targeted benchmark is compare and contrast two characters within the Danitra Leaves Town story. The next two lessons reinforce that benchmark with more specificity, and, with only one exception (question 2, 4.4), do not encourage students to extend beyond the concepts of comparing and contrasting to the higher levels of evaluation and decision-making. The emphasis from the textbook perspective based upon the suggestions from the curriculum CCS Pacing Guides, (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009), is development of basic Reading strategies. There is not a concentration on thinking skill development within the text examples supplied nor is there an emphasis on critical thinking strategies within the curriculum outlined in the CCS Pacing Guides other than those listed in the teacher editions of the series as extensions or differentiation activities. The primary focuses of both are Reading skills in isolation (Beck et al. 2008). Students read a wide range of literature from many contexts and a variety of genres to build an understanding of the multiple dimensions (e.g. philosophical, ethical, aesthetic) of human experience. However, the literature rarely addresses science and technology (Beck et al. 2008). Instructional practices in the CCS Pacing Guides are limited to the textbook materials. There is little evidence of literature projects that promote transdisciplinary inquiry (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). Vocabulary instruction resides primarily through the initiation of themes. There was no evidence of synthesis of vocabulary that a student may need from other content areas such as math or science. Rarely were examples within the text materials focused on vocabulary acquisition in other content areas (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The text materials enable students to apply a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate texts. However the curriculum CCS Pacing Guides does not require that the student have experience and exposure to this variety. The suggested activities are generally skill based. The activities for extension and analysis available are optional. These optional activities encourage students to draw on their prior experience, their interactions with other readers and writers, their knowledge of word meaning and of other texts, their word identification strategies, and their understanding of textual features (e.g., sound-letter correspondence, sentence structure,
26

context, graphics). These could easily be modified to encourage exploration in STEM (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). There is an over emphasis on fiction within the materials provided. Attention to difficult texts that are non-fiction or informational is somewhat randomly dispersed through the curriculum with more emphasis in the grades five and six CCS Pacing Guides. (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009) The majority of the non-fiction references were located in the teacher materials under the cross-curricular notes (Beck et al. 2008). The instructional materials and CCS Pacing Guides show adequate examples of the opportunity for students to apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and non-print texts (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). There was limited emphasis on the students ability to conduct research on issues and interests by generating ideas and questions, and by posing problems. The CCS Pacing Guides indicated that students should gather, evaluate, and synthesize data from a variety of sources (e.g., print and non- print texts, artifacts, people) to communicate their discoveries in ways that suit their purpose and audience. The focus of most activities included in the guides related to this standard emphasized information, not necessarily data. Explicit connections to the interpretation of data in other areas (math, science, social studies) were not evident in the materials provided (Beck et al. 2008). Technology connections, when included in many of the guides, are often loosely connected to objectives. There was no evidence of a specific set of spiraled skills students were to develop across the grades from the materials provided (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). A survey from kindergarten through grade six reveals that the majority of assessments are of the knowledge/comprehension type, according to Blooms Taxonomy. Virtually all of the tests sampled from kindergarten through grade five were of this type, while a little more than half of the grade materials focused on comprehension. Sampling included only those activities suggested by the CCS Pacing Guides and did not include optional extension/enrichment activities. Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation assessment examples are the least frequent type of assessment in the sample. Performances focusing on application in real world contexts are found in only three instances of the kindergarten through grade five materials provided (Beck et al. 2008). While auditors recognize that this is a small sample, to the extent that it typifies work found at these grade spans in Reading, the comparatively heavy emphasis on knowledge and comprehension is inconsistent with CCS goals for increasing the rigor of instruction and is disproportionate to the relative emphasis placed on these types of cognition in the objectives. (Further validation of this observation could be obtained by collecting and analyzing a larger sample of student artifacts from across the feeder system.) The focus among assessments collected in kindergarten and grade one is predominantly on general Reading Processes. Emphasis on Reading Process is highest in kindergarten and lowest at grade four, with a decrease seen at each successive grade, with the exception of grade five (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The CCS Pacing Guides and text materials give the least amount of emphasis to Comprehension of Informational Text. It was found most frequently among samples from grade four and infrequently, if at all, among other grade levels (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009). The emphasis on Writing is lowest at grades two and three, highest at grades four and five, and not observed among the assessments collected for kindergarten (Columbus City Schools LACES Pacing Calendar 2009).

27
Reading: Content Comparison

The content comparison for Reading was conducted as an analysis between the emphasis of content as evidenced by the CCS Pacing Guides and classroom instructional materials, compared to pedagogical practices and endorsed by reform documents and professional organizations representing Reading and Literacy. Among reform documents consulted were the current State English Language Arts Standards, the newly adopted Common Core Standards, National Capital Resource Center, Ohio Resource Center (ORC), and the Ohio STEM Learning Network. Applying the design qualities for twenty first century learners, Reading programs should produce students who, even if they do not have complete control of the grammar or an extensive lexicon, can fend for themselves in communication situations. In the case of Reading, this means producing students who can use Reading strategies to maximize their comprehension of text, identify relevant and non- relevant information, and tolerate less than word-by-word comprehension (Jacobs et al. 2009). The following standards are the summaries for Reading program characteristics published by National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read and emphasize STEM design qualities (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000, Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009): Development of students' awareness of the reading process and Reading strategies by asking students to think and talk about how they read in their native language. Allowances for students to practice the full repertoire of Reading strategies by using authentic Reading tasks that are coordinated across curricular areas. Encouragement of students to read (and have an authentic purpose for reading) by giving students some choice of Reading material. Work with Reading tasks in classes by demonstrating to students the strategies that will work best for the Reading purpose and the type of text. Metacognitive demonstrations of how and why students should use the strategies improve the overall understanding of the purpose for Reading. The program should have students practice Reading strategies in class and ask them to practice outside of class in their Reading assignments. They encourage students to be conscious of what they're doing while they complete Reading assignments. Encouragement of students to evaluate their comprehension and self-report their use of strategies. The Reading program should build comprehension checks into in-class and out-of-class Reading assignments, and periodically review how and when to use particular strategies. Encouragement of the development of Reading skills and the use of Reading strategies by using the target language to convey instructions and course-related information in written form: other content areas, homework assignments, test content. Raising students' awareness of Reading as a skill that requires active engagement, and by explicitly teaching Reading strategies, instructors help their students develop both the ability and the confidence to handle communication situations they may encounter beyond the classroom. In this way they give their students the foundation for communicative competence in the new language.
Reading: Achievement Audit
Since 2006, the Linden feeder pattern schools have generally underperformed their peers across the district and the state on the Ohio Achievement Assessments in Reading. Hamilton and South Mifflin Elementary Schools are designated in School Improvement status regarding AYP data and are currently listed in Academic Emergency. Of particular note, Hamilton Elementary was 19 percentage
28
points below the district average in grade five for the 2008-2009 time frames. This is countered by a rebound of performance in grade six when, from 2008-2009, students performed at or slightly below the district averages. The Value Added Measures in 2008-2009 reveal that Hamilton failed to make adequate annual gain in Reading in grades three and four, correlating to the longitudinal performance data. This may indicate a systems implementation problem in grades four and five that is addressed in the instructional practice of grade six. This trend substantiates the analysis of pacing and text materials that found an overemphasis on Reading process at knowledge and comprehension cognitive levels in grades four and five. In contrast, the Ohio Achievement Test Item Analysis emphasizes assessments in application and analysis in grades four and five. This incongruity between content pacing emphasis and assessment may, in part, account for the low test scores. STEM-focused instruction may assist in the transition in critical thinking skills, however without further data study, these correlations are limited. South Mifflin and Linden Elementary Schools experienced a similar dip in grade five performance and then rebound in grade six Reading during the 2008-2009 school year. Windsor Elementary is in Academic Watch and was designated as school improvement regarding AYP. For Reading, Windsor Elementary averaged 13 percentage points below the district in 2008-2009. However, there is a distinct performance difference from the other elementary feeder schools, in grade five Reading, the students at Windsor outperformed the district average by 7.7 percentage points. This is the only school in the feeder pattern for which the grade five Reading performances improved over that of the district. With the same materials and curriculum guides, this performance improvement indicates that there must be a delivery difference in the instructional practice of grade five. More study should be conducted through observation and examination of student artifacts to determine the cause of this anomaly for potential replication across the feeder pattern. Windsor Elementary also met or exceeded its value added targets for Reading during the same time frame. The quarterly assessment data from 2009-2010 listed below further indicate a deficiency in student Reading achievement (Table 4). Instructional practices must be examined to better develop student fluency and comprehension.

Table 4
Reading - Percent of Students Proficient on 2009-10 Quarterly Assessments Hamilton Linden S Mifflin PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 03/05/10 Gr3 Read: Q3 Proficient 50.80% 19.80% 38.20% Not Proficient 49.20% 80.20% 61.80% 03/05/10 Gr4 Read: Q3 Proficient 14.30% 20.50% 2.30% Not Proficient 85.70% 79.50% 97.70% 03/05/10 Gr5 Read: Q3 Proficient 10.20% 26.10% 4.90% Not Proficient 89.80% 73.90% 95.10% 03/05/10 Gr6 Read: Q3 Proficient 17.80% 28.30% 20.70% Not Proficient 82.20% 71.70% 79.30% 12/11/09 Gr3 Read: Q2 Proficient 30.30% 19.70% 27.70% Not Proficient 69.70% 80.30% 72.30% 12/11/09 Gr4 Read: Q2 Proficient 14.00% 25.70% 7.70% Not Proficient 86.00% 74.30% 92.30% 12/11/09 Gr5 Read: Q2 Proficient 29.50% 31.10% 26.70% Not Proficient 70.50% 68.90% 73.30% 12/11/09 Gr6 Read: Q2 Proficient 21.40% 20.80% 21.40% Not Proficient 78.60% 79.20% 78.60% 09/28/09 Gr4 Read: Q1 Proficient 21.30% 18.10% 4.90% Not Proficient 78.70% 81.90% 95.10% 09/28/09 Gr5 Read: Q1 Proficient 39.00% 10.00% 21.30% Not Proficient 61.00% 90.00% 78.70% 09/28/09 Gr6 Read: Q1 Proficient 25.00% 22.20% 16.70% Not Proficient 75.00% 77.80% 83.30%
29
Windsor PK-6 37.80% 62.20% 7.00% 93.00% 12.80% 87.20% 20.00% 80.00% 25.00% 75.00% 23.10% 76.90% 3.00% 97.00% 36.00% 64.00% 10.80% 89.20% 17.60% 82.40% 25.00% 75.00%
Reading and Language Arts: Opportunities for STEM

The curriculum materials and CCS Pacing Guides provided for this study adequately address the state benchmarks, but have not produced the kinds of results that would enable performances that meet or exceed the expectations of the Ohio Report Card or Columbus City School goals. The implementation of the following recommendations through a STEM strategy should encourage the improved engagement and performance of children in this feeder pattern. Integrate Reading Strategies Across all Content Areas Integration is a primary component of effective Reading programs. Instruction in Reading strategies is not an add-on, but rather an integral part of the use of Reading activities in the science, social studies, and mathematics classroom. Instructors can help their students become effective readers by teaching them how to use strategies before, during, and after reading consistently across the content areas. The more regular the demonstration and emphasis of the use of the Reading strategy, the more regularly the opportunity will exist for students to select the strategies on their own. Provide Authentic Materials and Context for Reading For students to develop communicative competence in Reading, classroom and homework Reading activities must resemble (or be) real-life Reading tasks that involve meaningful communication. They must be authentic in three ways: 1. The Reading material must be authentic: It must be the kind of material that students will need and want to be able to read when traveling, studying abroad, or using the language in other
30

contexts outside the classroom. a. When selecting texts for student assignments, remember that the difficulty of a Reading text is less a function of the language, and more a function of the conceptual difficulty and the task(s) that students are expected to complete. Simplifying a text by changing the language often removes natural redundancy and makes the organization somewhat difficult for students to predict. This actually makes a text more difficult to read than if the original were used. b. Rather than simplifying a text by changing its language, make it more approachable by eliciting students' existing knowledge in pre-reading discussion, reviewing new vocabulary before reading, and asking students to perform tasks that are within their competence, such as skimming to get the main idea or scanning for specific information, before they begin intensive reading. 2. The Reading purpose must be authentic: Students must be reading for reasons that make sense and have relevance to them. "Because the teacher assigned it" is not an authentic reason for reading a text. a. To identify relevant Reading purposes, ask students how they plan to use the language they are learning and what topics they are interested in reading and learning about. Give them opportunities to choose their Reading assignments, and encourage them to use the library, the Internet, and foreign language newsstands and bookstores to find other things they would like to read. 3. The Reading approach must be authentic: Students should read the text in a way that matches the Reading purpose, the type of text, and the way people normally read. This means that reading aloud will take place only in situations where it would take place outside the classroom, such as reading for pleasure. The majority of students' Reading should be done silently. Instructional reading material should be expanded beyond that of the text series, incorporating texts, especially non-fiction material, that relate to other content areas. Within the text series, reading strategies are thoroughly addressed; however the texts do not establish a purpose for reading, which would help students realize the importance of reading strategies and skills in all content areas. Incorporate higher-level thinking opportunities into the reading curriculum, which can be accomplished through the development of transdisciplinary projects. Extension activities should not be optional. Provide more opportunities for student inquiry and ownership of learning by allowing student to research issues that are important to them. Increase the amount of time spent on non-fiction reading, especially in grades five and six. Early exposure to nonfiction and informational texts may be the best preparation for the increase in academic rigor that students will encounter in the intermediate grades.

31
VII. Summary of Columbus City Schools Improvement Plans

Reviewers examined the four elementary schools 2011-Early Planning Period School Improvement Plans (SIPs) to determine areas already designated for improvement by the staff at CCS and check for alignment with the findings of this audit. There are three general premises that all of the feeder schools used as foundational pieces: 1. A district wide commitment to high quality education for all students, 2. A district and school commitment to develop student and teacher support programs, and 3. Each schools commitment to show evidence of newly implemented strategies and policies, From these foundational pieces each school built a plan. All schools identified the need for academic improvement in the areas of Reading and Math, with a primary emphasis on literacy. Each school plan also articulated the need for improvement in the areas of student matriculation, student attendance, student behavior, and parental involvement. Each SIP also identified ongoing strategies for community engagement, outreach, and parental involvement. All SIPs specifically mentioned the need for improvement in the twenty first century skills of critical thinking, higher order tasks, and the ability to effectively communicate learning through short answers and extended responses. Thus, the need for improvement is well understood by all the Linden feeder schools. The translation between need and implementation strategies however generally tends toward surface-level or band-aid approaches in the SIPs. Root cause analysis and systematic or holistic solutions for innovative improvement are not widespread. Non-systematic Approach: Examples of non-systematic approach are evident in that each school used Reading and Math assessment data as well as attendance and behavior data to craft their SIP. However, consideration of other assessment data, such as the quarterly and OAA data for Science and Social Studies, is not readily apparent. As STEM feeder pattern schools, the need for content integration is critical; however none of the four schools indicated this as a goal or strategy for improving student achievement. None of the plans have goals for the areas of science and social studies even though the grade five Ohio Achievement Assessment scores clearly indicate d eficiencies in these content areas. Integration of Content, Pedagogy and Performance: Also not readily apparent in the Improvement Plans is the nexus between the content, pedagogy, and common vision for student performance. The assessment of improvement is addressed through the articulated role of the leader in each building for monitoring purposes, but there is no evidence of activities designed to collectively design alternate pathways to innovation. If this is not a part of the system, any solutions have little chance of sustainability. Only one school mentioned the need to improve instructional methodology, in terms of inquiry and student ownership. Hamilton Elementary acknowledged that the majority of classes are teacher centered and dependent on worksheets. The Hamilton Plan identified the need to create more relevant and engaging learning opportunities for students, which, in turn, would result in a positive correlation with student behaviors.
32
Professional Development: Although one of the foundational pieces of the SIP involves support for teachers and students, the plans lack specifics for assisting principals in their roles as educational leaders. Only Linden Elementary acknowledged the importance of common planning time and teacher collaboration. There is also a lack of focus on teacher professional development. As STEM schools, teachers need to be comfortable with inquiry and project based learning, and afforded the opportunity to develop and enhance these skills throughout the school year. Convergence of Resources and Plan: Evidence of the convergence of resources in support of innovative solutions is not evident through the materials provided. However, participation with the OSLN indicates that this is a direction of movement for this feeder pattern.
VIII. The SENCER Assessment of STEM Readiness Through Curricular Materials

The transition of the feeder pattern schools to STEM project-based learning was the primary goal of the audit followed by determining necessary steps to best streamline the feeder patterns access to become transdisciplinary, project-based learning sites that foster critical and creative thinking. One of the tools used in analyzing the CCS practices, evidenced by content CCS Pacing Guides, instructional materials, and school improvement plans was the Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) STEM rubric (SENCER 2010). SENCER is an NSF-funded project whose mission is to: (1) interest more students in STEM learning, (2) encourage students to connect STEM learning in transdisciplinary environments, (3) strengthen student understanding of science, and (4) improve student capacity for responsible work and citizenship (SENCER 2010). Since this rubric was created with public funds, it is an open source tool that can be used publicly to ascertain readiness and level of transition of any program, project, or course. In spring of 2010, SENCER published a revised rubric defining what makes a course or curricular project a STEM course. The rubric examines the demonstrated presence or absence of components associated with STEM. The readiness scale evaluates a given project or course against eleven criteria: 1. Relevance 2. Context 3. Content 4. Instructional strategies to learning objectives 5. Instructional strategies to knowledge production 6. Instructional strategies to future engagement 7. Application of knowledge gained 8. Assessment for continuous learning 9. Assessment for student outcomes 10. Promotion of transdisciplinary learning 11. Incorporation of 21st century skills
33
The project or course is then gauged as to whether the specific criteria is: Not observed The element was not observed in the material reviewed Basic The review showed evidence of the presence of the element Advanced The review showed evidence of the presence of the element at a level that would promote advanced understanding of STEM Transformative The review showed evidence that was so advanced so as to be transformative according to the application of the rubric The reviewers used the SENCER rubric to compare the overall curriculum materials of Columbus City Schools, based on the Pacing Guides and textbooks, to STEM readiness. The highlighted blocks represent the level of overall CCS readiness for the specific criteria (Table 5). Table 5
Criteria

Not Observed
The item was not observed in the material reviewed
Basic
Advanced
Transformative
Fully achieves institutional goals for learning at the course level Promotes contextualized knowledge Demonstrates STEM connections to civic issues
Addresses multiple learning goals Advances the institutions civic mission Engages students in specific interdisciplinary activities and learning
Promotes and enables knowledge transfer Increases probability that students will use scientific knowledge or thinking in other situations or problems
Identifying Interests and Motives: Establishing the Basis for Choosing the Curricular Focus/Foci
Not Evidenced
Civic issues/problem-based opportunities in the curriculum are identified Civic issues/problem-based discussions, activities, and projects are dependent upon the teacher selection, interest, and access to understanding of PBL
Routinely develops an inventory of student interests and assets to be used in the course Routinely employs formal and informal assessment strategies to determine interest in the course and course topics Curriculum is organized so that selected civic phenomena serve as the master narrative for the course Curriculum encourages learners to connect specific scientific and civic narrative elements to other questions and issues
Actively engages students, faculty colleagues, relevant community, and other assets in planning course format, delivery, and content
The Context: Cataloging the Elements of the Complex Problems/Issues to Be Taught
Not Evidenced
Frequent evidence of selected problem contexts to aid in the achievement of learning goals Shows the connection of learning in the discipline at times to context outside of the instruction/school
Advances understanding of the connection between STEM content with civic phenomena Advances an institutional public service mission and/or impacts a matter of civic consequence or identified public need in a way that is especially noteworthy
34

Criteria
The Content: Choosing STEM or Other Transdisciplinary Goals to be Taught
Not Observed
Not Evidenced
Basic
Provides core disciplinary content expected of curriculum by the Ohio Department of Education
Advanced
Leads students to be interested in pursuing more sophisticated (or higher level) learning within the discipline (increases students intellectual stretch) Learning goals are integrated with explicitly stated, broader STEM learning objectives Learning goals are integrated with explicitly identified, broader institutional learning outcomes Learning goals are linked to students goals for personal and career development
Transformative
Mirrors and reflects contemporary, interdisciplinary intellectual challenges in the discipline, including connections to other disciplines
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Learning Objectives
Not Evidenced
Clear, transparent learning objectives are communicated to the students
Instructor and students collaborate in developing learning goals Linkage of curricular goals to goals of other related or complementary courses is made explicit Individual student learning goals are explicitly taken into account in establishing curricular objectives
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Instructional Strategies
Not Evidenced
Instructor provided with a variety of pedagogical techniques Based upon choice, instructor matches pedagogical approach to student needs
Engagement with learning is demonstrated in practice, performance, and/or portfolio Instructor uses assessment findings to validate and/or modify pedagogical techniques Undergraduate research in the course is linked to a civic or community need (e.g., through community- based research or academically-based service learning)
Assessment findings lead dynamically to invention and use of new pedagogical strategies
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Knowledge Production
Not Evidenced
Curriculum deployment includes some form of basic authentic, undergraduate research
Research results strengthen existing knowledge base and are made available for others to use (especially to community stakeholders, if applicable) Results of research efforts are maintained in a way that makes use of prior work and expansion of research possible

35
Criteria
Pedagogy: Matching Instructional Strategy to the Curricular Goals Through Preparation for Future Engagement and Responsibility
Not Observed
Not Evidenced
Basic
Curriculum develops skills that are useful to students in multiple courses or fields
Advanced
Pedagogies and experiences in courses are tailored to students and help them meet specific civic or workforce needs/challenges
Transformative
New pedagogies emerge from efforts to address civic or workforce needs
Action: Answering the Question Now That You Know Something, What Can You Do About It?
Not Evidenced
Identifies opportunities for putting knowledge in action, provides opportunities for rehearsing the application of knowledge within the context of the course
Students are empowered to make decisions about the civic actions they wish to take Provides opportunity or structure for students to engage in some form of public education pertinent to STEM and Problem- Based Learning Employs frequent assessments with feedback to students at both individual and group levels Uses assessments as teaching tools Instructor is responsive to assessment results in adjusting course materials, delivery, and content; assessments are stepping stones, not milestones Employs assessments that are directly and appropriately tied to particular pedagogical strategies Promotes instructor self- assessment
Curriculum provides opportunities for students to design their own actions in response to new learning
Assessment: Learning for Continuous Improvement
Not Evidenced
Measures effectiveness of content delivery through state tests, short cycled assessments, and formative assessments Assessment methods are consistent with state benchmark systems
Assessment is used as a tool for promoting and ensuring student achievement Assessments inform differentiated delivery of instruction and utilization of materials and resources, matching students needs and capacities
Assessment: Student Learning Outcomes
Not Evidenced
Uses methods that encourage students self-assessment (meta-cognitive reflection) Employs continuous formative assessment to permit adaptations in instruction
Demonstrates transferability of learning to other situations Assesses how the learning in this course affects learning in other courses
36

Criteria
Promoting Transdisciplinary Learning
Not Observed
Not Evidenced
Basic
Connections to other disciplines as sources of knowledge valuable to understanding the subject matter of the course are made explicit
Advanced
Intersections among disciplines are organized to show connectedness and encourage collaborations Assignments and other activities demonstrate interactions between science and social science, science with other sciences and math, science and other pre- professional and humanities programs
Transformative
Curriculum introduces and engages students with an advanced multidisciplinary problem of project Sequence of courses (learning community or similar strategy) is used to organize learning both across the curriculum in any given semester or year, but throughout the curriculum over several years Recognition of interdisciplinary focus is formalized in a certificate program or other symbol of accomplishment Builds curriculum around the development of these skills in parallel with other learning objectives Provides students with opportunities to demonstrate how they are preparing themselves to continue to develop twenty first century skills
Incorporating and Achieving Twenty First Century Skills
Not Evidenced
Identifies twenty first century skills in curriculum materials and indicates where they will be incorporated
Explicitly includes lessons in developing skills and opportunities to practice skills in the course or program At least one curricular outcome is a portfolio demonstrating skills and learning

37
IX. Comparison of Findings with 2009 CCS Turn Around Report

The 2009 CCS Turn Around Report (Garber et al. 2009) enumerated specific transformative characteristics that the Columbus City Schools need to create sustainable transformation. The report also cites the type of leadership, intellectual freedom, and environments that will promote positive change. In order to embrace and sustain instructional change, staff and administrators need to fully understand and embrace four important educational elements. These are: Strong instructional strategies, Developmentally appropriate practices, New National Core Standards, and Twenty First Century skills. Leaders need to be empowered to create learning environments where staff and students thrive. School administrators need to be instructional leaders and establish a clear vision for student and staff performance. Leaders need the autonomy to make decisions that best meet the needs of their clientele. Part of establishing a healthy, productive learning environment is understanding the current climate, morale, culture, and perceptions of the school in order to begin addressing issues and working towards change. Garbers report focused on stakeholders (teachers, administrators, parents, and support staff) perceptions of student barriers to academic success at the middle school level. The results from various focus groups revealed numerous similarities between their perceptions of academic barriers and this audits examination of the written curriculum. Teachers and non-teaching support staff, as well as principals and vice-principals who participated in the focus groups, indicated the following instructional barriers to change: The curriculum is overwhelming and attempts to cover too much material too quickly. There is not time for content exploration or in-depth learning (Garber et al. 2009:7). The curriculum is a one size fits all approach. It doesnt allow for tailoring content or pace to accommodate students prior knowledge or ability levels. The pace does not allow for varied instructional approaches (projects, experiential learning, guest speakers) (Garber et al. 2009:7). The curriculum, as designed, does not allow for block scheduling nor promotes team teaching or integration (Garber et al. 2009:7). The curriculum and CCS Pacing Guides are perceived as mandates and not recommendations, meaning teachers do not have time to re-teach concepts or spend more time on concepts of particular interest to students. (Garber et al. 2009:9). Instruction focuses on teaching to the test instead of on helping students think critically, develop and extend meaning, and learn value (Garber et al. 2009:9). Instruction and morale suffers when teachers and students are reassigned after the October headcount (Garber et al. 2009:9). Technology is not distributed equitably across the district and is not up to date, or adequate (Garber et al. 2009:12). Unmotivated students do not see the relevance of education or consider it critical to success in life. This leads to a disinterest in school, lack of motivation, and lack respect (Garber et al. 2009:11).
38
From the results of these focus groups came a number of recommendations. From the CCS Turn Around Report, the following recommendations most closely align with this audits recommendations for instructional redesign transformation. Repackage the curriculum to allow more time for in-depth learning and critical thinking (Garber et al. 2009:7). Allow buildings to deviate from a one size fits all curriculum and adapt instruction to meet the needs of their students (Garber et al. 2009:ii). Allow greater flexibility in scheduling to accommodate interdisciplinary learning, common team planning, and intervention (Garber et al. 2009:ii). Develop integrated, problem-based units that promote inquiry, are relevant to students lives and their communities to increase student engagement and motivation (Garber et al. 2009:10). Provide teachers with the training necessary to deliver instruction in a way that best meet the needs of students (Garber et al. 2009:10). Increase the availability of technology in the schools and provide teachers with the flexibility and training necessary to best utilize these tools (Garber et al. 2009:12). Provide principals with training to be instructional leaders, establish a clear vision, and set high expectations for students and staff (Garber et al. 2009:18).
X. Recommendations
Listed below is a series of recommendations for short and long-term implementation of STEM-based learning in order to transform the Linden Feeder pattern into a high performing, well integrated, model system for other school feeder patterns to follow. It is important to note that the CCS curriculum is comprehensive in scope and includes all or the majority of content needed by the school to provide excellent preparation to every student in STEM. It is also important to note that each school has the staff to enact change. The key components of successful and sustainable change lie in the following areas: The district leadership, Individual school leadership, A holistic or systematic approach to STEM transformation, Intellectual freedom for the instructional strategies, Integrated curricula across all content areas, Commitment to rigor, and Commitment to success. Leadership, adaptability, and commitment will enable successful and sustainable STEM transformation. STEM feeder schools require a solid foundation to be established in critical and creative thinking, collaboration, and communication. Students need to realize the process of learning is just as important as the end product. They have to know to acquire, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information. In order for the foundation to be established, the following recommendations are noted:
39
Short Term: Autonomy: Columbus City Schools has a vast amount of instructional resources available. Give teachers more autonomy to select which resources best meet the needs of their students and determine the pace of instruction based upon student readiness. Professional Development: Help teachers understand how to modify current lessons and instructional practices to promote more student ownership of learning and create lessons and activities that are more inquiry-based activities. o Devote district professional development release time to teacher training in the areas of content and pedagogy (inquiry, problem based learning, formative assessments, standards based grading). o Utilize district resources/personnel to support teachers with the desired instructional change. Design Principles Instructional Strategies: Introduce and use the technological design process in kindergarten through grade six. Post this in all classrooms and constantly refer to it during the learning process in all content areas. Have students self-assess where they are in the design cycle during different phases of the learning process. Coordinated Projects: Determine a series of coordinated design challenges to engage students in the design process and help develop problem solving and collaboration skills. Teamwork: Have students work in groups weekly to solve problems utilizing the design process. Have students keep a scientific journal that is used in all content areas to keep track of data, research, vocabulary, questions, reflections, etc. Planning Time and Integrated Assessments: Grade level teams should have common planning where they constantly monitor student progress, plan integrated lessons and projects. Performance-based Assessments: Develop more performance-based assessments that require application of content rather than memorization. o Conduct an assessment audit to determine alignment between what is written, taught, and tested. Look at the cognitive level of the questions in comparison to state expectations for those skills and content. Examine the quality of the multiple choice item distracters to be sure all choices are equally viable. o Have students write daily in all content areas to articulate their learning. New School Concept: Expand the curriculum beyond the school walls, utilizing the vast resources of the community and nearby businesses. Long Term: Transdisciplinary Approach: Implement true transdisciplinary lessons to reinforce content and skills and increase the rigor and relevancy of the learning. Students need to see the connectivity between what they are learning and not view content as silos of information. Use authentic contexts for the development of units. Alignment between Content and Assessment: Alignment of the written, taught, and tested curriculum is essential; students must be taught that on which they are tested. Embedding a wide variety of assessment strategies into classroom instruction will prepare students for the many types of evaluations they will meet. The processes for assessing student achievement must be broad enough to include all forms of evaluations that students will experience from commercially designed tests to real life situations. Pacing Guide: Use formative assessments to monitor student progress and determine the pace of the lessons, rather letting the CCS Pacing Guides determine the course. These should be interdisciplinary in design and should enable the teacher to become much more efficient while personalizing the educational program for more students.
40

Technology: Integrate technology into the curriculum. It should not be viewed as an add-on, but as an essential component of learning (how participants acquire and share information). Professional Development: On-going, focused professional development is key. Simply giving teachers a CCS Pacing Guides or curriculum guide is not sufficient. If teachers dont know how to effectively use the guides, or how to best meet the instructional needs of the student, optimal learning will not take place. Teachers need to utilize district professional release days to continue this work and stay the course, year after year.

41
XI. Bibliography
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1994. Basarab, Nicolescu. La Transdisciplinairite. Lexington: Watersign Press, 1996. Basarab, Nicolescu. The Transdisciplinary Evolution of the University Condition for Sustainable Development. Bangkok: International Congress of the Association of Universities, 1997. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Blast Off. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Breaking New Ground. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Dive Right In. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Make Your Mark. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Reach for the Stars. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Ride the Edge. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Rolling Along. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Spring Forward. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Twists and Turns. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Watch This. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Winning Catch. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008. Beck, Isabel L., Roger C. Farr, and Dorothy S. Strickland. Story Town: Zoom Along. New York: Hartcourt, Inc., 2008.
42
Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 2. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 3. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 4. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bell, Michael J., Michael A. DiSpezio, Marjorie Frank, Gerald H. Krockover, Joyce C. McLeod, Barbara ten Brink, Carol J. Valenta, and Bsrry A. Van Deman. Science. Vol. 5. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2006. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 2. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 4. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Bond, Judy, Rene Boyer-Alexander, Marget Campbelle-Holman, Marilyn Copeland Davison, Robert De Frece, Mary Goetze, Doug Goodkin, Besty M Henderson, Michael Jothen, Carol King, Vincent P. Lawrence, Nancy L.T. Miller, Ivy Rawlins, and Susan Snyder. Share the Music. Vol. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company, 2000. Boyd, Candy Dawson, Geneva Gay, Rita Geiger, James B. Kracht, Valerie Ooka Pang, C. Frederick Risinger, and Sara Miranda Sanchez. Communities. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Charles, Randall I., Janet H. Caldwell, Mary Cavanagh, Dinah Chacellor, Juanita V. Copley, Warren D. Crown, Francis Fennell, Alma B. Ramirez, Kay B. Sammons, Jane F. Schielack, William Tae, and John A. Van de Walle. Envision Math Ohio 1. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Charles, Randall I., Janet H. Caldwell, Mary Cavanagh, Dinah Chacellor, Juanita V. Copley, Warren D. Crown, Francis Fennell, Alma B. Ramirez, Kay B. Sammons, Jane F. Schielack, William Tae, and John A. Van de Walle. Envision Math Ohio 2. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.
43
Charles, Randall I., Janet H. Caldwell, Mary Cavanagh, Dinah Chacellor, Juanita V. Copley, Warren D. Crown, Francis Fennell, Alma B. Ramirez, Kay B. Sammons, Jane F. Schielack, William Tae, and John A. Van de Walle. Envision Math Ohio K. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Charles, Randall I., Warren Crown, and Francis Fennell. Mathematics. Vol. 3. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004. Charles, Randall I., Warren Crown, and Francis Fennell. Mathematics. Vol. 4. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004. Charles, Randall I., Warren Crown, and Francis Fennell. Mathematics. Vol. 5. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2004. Christensen, Barbara J., Patricia Rae Clayton, Catherin Collins, Camiele Papagianis, and Tom Shessler. Scott Foresman Social Studies Ohio. Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Columbus City Schools. LACES Curriculum Calendar. 2009. Columbus City Schools. Science Pacing Guides, Kindergarten Through Grade Six. 2009. Columbus City Schools. Social Studies Pacing Guides, Kindergarten Through Grade Six. 2009. Columbus City Schools. Social Studies Curriculum Guide, Grade Six. 2010. Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Donald Cronkite, Jan Jenner, Linda Cronin Jones, and Marylin Lisowski. Life Science. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Daniel, Vesta A.H., Lee Hanson, Kristen Pederson Marstaller, and Susana R. Monteverde. Art Express. Vol. 3. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1998. Daniel, Vesta A.H., Lee Hanson, Kristen Pederson Marstaller, and Susana R. Monteverde. Art Express. Vol. 4. San Francisco: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1998. Garber, Roberta F., Gary Timko, Kerry Beckwith, Jung Kim, David Norris, and Alicia Jackson. Columbus City Schools Turnaround Research. Columbus: Community Research Partners, 2009. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, and Ann Johnson. Designing Curriculum for the 21st Century. Alexandria: ASCD, 2009. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, and Michael L. LeVasseur. World Studies: Eastern Hemisphere. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, and Michael L. LeVasseur. World Studies: Western Hemisphere. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2008. Larson, Ron, Laurie Boswell, Timothy Kanold, and Lee Stiff. Math: Course 1. Evanston: McDougal Littell, 2004.
44
Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 3. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 4. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 5. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Meeks, Linda, and Philip Heit. Totally Awesome Health. Vol. 6. Blacklick: Meek Heit Publishing Company, 1999. Mortenson, Greg, and David Oliver Relin. Three Cups of Tea. New York: Penguin Group, 2006. National Center for History in the Schools. http://www.nchs.ss.ucla.edu (accessed July 22, 2010). National Council for the Social Studies. http://www.socialstudies.org (accessed July 10, 2010). National Council for the Social Studies. 2008 Position Statement: Curriculum Guides for Social Studies Teaching and Learning. http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/curriculumguidelines (accessed July 28, 2010). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. http://www.nctm.org (accessed July 28, 2010). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence- Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. National Research Council. Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards (draft). http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html (accessed July 20, 2010). National Science Teachers Association. Position Statement. http://www.nsta.org/about/positions.aspx (accessed July 20, 2010). Nehm, R.H., and I. Schonfeld. The future of natural selection knowledge measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47, no. 3 (2010): 358-362. Ohio Department of Education. Social Studies Revised Academic Content Standards. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1 706&ContentID=76598&Content=88263 (accessed July 25, 2010). Ohio Department of Education. Inquiry Primer. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=1 705&ContentID=63298&Content=79756 (accessed July 20, 2010).
45
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Curriculum and Instruction: A 21st Century Skills Implementation Guide. Tucson: Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009. Rutherford, James, and Andrew Ahlgren. Science for All Americans. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989. Schmitt, Conrad J. Como te va? Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2007. Schmidt, William H., Curtis C. McKnight, Richard T. Houang, and HsingChi Wang. Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum and Learning. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2001. Schneps, M.H., and P.M. Sadler. A Private Universe: Minds of Our Own. DVD Program. Program 2: Lessons from Thin Air. Cambridge: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 1997. Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibility. http://www.sencer.net (accessed July 22, 2010).
46

XIII. Appendices
APPENDIX A SCIENCE CONTENT MATRIX
Life Sciences A1 A2 C3 C4 B5 B6 A1 B2 B3 A4 B5 A1 B2 B3 C4 A5 B6 B7 B8 B9 A1 B2 B3 C4 C5 C6 A1 B2 B3 C4 A5 B1 B2 B3 C4 C5 C6 A1 A2 A3 B4 B5 B6 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x GP3 x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Physical Sciences A1 A2 A3 B4 B5 A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 B6 C7 C8 C9 B1 C2 B3 C1 C2 C3 C4 A1 A2 B3 B4 D5 D1 D2 E3 E4 F5 F6 F7 A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 B6 B7 B8 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x Grade 3 Grade 4 x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x x Grade 6 GP3 x x x x GP4 Earth and Space A1 B2 C3 C4 C5 D1 D2 B3 A1 A2 A3 C4 C5 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 B8 B9 B10 A1 A2 A3 A4 C5 C6 D1 D2 D3 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 x x x x x x Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 GP3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP4

B7 C8 7A1 7C2 7C3 7D4 7D5 7C6 7B8 8B1 8B2 8B3 8D4 8D5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
47

APPENDIX B SCIENCE GLIS EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED

Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Total % # GLIs 26 37 35 32 33 34 34 231 100 # Not Addressed 6 0 10 0 0 1 4 21 9 # Addressed Once 17 36 18 32 19 22 23 167 72 # Addressed Two or More Times 3 1 7 0 14 11 7 43 19 Scientific Ways of Knowing 4 4 0 0
Earth & Space Sciences 5 0 5 0
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences Grade K 5 0 5 0 Grade 1 9 0 9 0 Grade 2 3 0 3 0
Science & Technology 3 2 1 0
Scientific Literacy
# GLIs # Not Addressed # Addressed Once # Addressed Two or More Times
6 0 3 3
10 1 9 0
3 0 3 0
5 0 4 1
8 0 8 0
9 0 9 0
3 0 3 0
5 0 5 0
9 1 1 7
4 0 4 0
10 5 5 0
4 4 0 0
48


Grade 3 4 0 4 0 Grade 4 5 0 5 0 Grade 5 7 0 7 0 Grade 6 NA NA NA NA
6 0 6 0
6 0 6 0
5 0 5 0
6 0 6 0
5 0 5 0
10 0 10 0
5 0 2 3
3 0 0 3
6 0 1 5
4 0 1 3
6 0 6 0
6 0 6 0
3 0 1 2
6 0 0 6
6 1 2 3
NA NA NA NA
20 0 15 5
5 0 5 0
4 0 2 2
5 4 1 0
APPENDIX C SCIENCE PROCESS STANDARDS AUDIT

Scientific Inquiry A1 A2 B3 B4 C5 C6 B7 C8 C9 B10 A1 A2 B3 C4 C5 B6 C7 C8 C9 A1 A2 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 GP3 GP4 Science and Technology A1 A2 B3 A1 B2 A3 A4 A5 B6 B7 B8 A1 A2 A3 B4 A1 A2 A3 B4 B5 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x Grade 1 x Grade 2 x x x x Grade 3 GP3 x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x Scientific Ways of Knowing A1 A2 B3 C4 A1 A2 C3 A1 C2 B3 C4 B1 C2 D3 D4 D5 A1 C2 B3 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K Grade 1 x x x Grade 2 Grade 3 x x Grade 4 x x x x x GP3 x GP4 x x x

A3 B4 C5 C6 B7 B8 C9 C10 A1 B2 B3 C4 B5 C6 A1 B2 C3 C4 C5 C6 A1 B2 B3 C4 C5 C6 A1 A2 B3 B4 x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x A1 A2 B3 A1 B2 B3 A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 Grade 4 x x x x x x Grade 5 x Grade 6 C4 x x x x x x x x x x x x A1 B2 B3 B4 C5 D6 A1 A2 C3 C4 C5 x Grade 5 x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x
49

APPENDIX D SOCIAL STUDIES CONTENT MATRIX

Geography A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 B6 C7 A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 B6 B7 A1 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 Grade K x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x Skills Methods A1 B2 B3 C4 D5 A1 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 Grade K x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x Grade 2 x History A1 B2 B3 D4 D5 A1 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 Grade K x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x
B2
B3 B4 C5 D6 A1 A2
B2
B3 C4 C5 D6 A1 A2
B3
B4
B3
C4
50


A2 A3 B4 C5 C6 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B6 C7 D8 A1 A2 A3 A4 B5 B6 B7 C8 C9 D10 A1 A2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 C8 C9 D10 A1 A2 B3 B4 C5 C6 C7 D8 D9 x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x C5 C6 A1 A2 Grade 3 x x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x C5 C6 D7 A1 Grade 3 x x x Grade 4 Grade 5 x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
B3
B4 C5 D6 A1 A2 A3 A4
A2
B3 A4 A1 B2 B3 C4 C5
B5
B6 B7 B8 C9 D10 A1 A2 A3 B4
C6
A1 B2 B3 B4 B5
C6
A1 A2

x x x x x
B5
B6 B7 C8 D9 A1 B2 B3 B4 C5
B3
B4 D5

x x x x
C6
D7

People in Societies A1 B2 A1 B2 B3 B4 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x Grade 1 x GP3 x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x Citizenship A1 B2 B3 B4 A1 B2 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x x Grade 1 x x GP3 x x x GP4 x

A1 B2 B3 B4 A1 B2 B3 A1 B2 B3 A1 B2 B3 B4 B5 A1 A2 B3 Grade 2 x x x Grade 3 x x x x x Grade 4 x x x Grade 5 x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x B3 B4 B5 A1 B2 B3 A1 A2 B3 A1 B2 B3 B4 A1 B2 B3 A1 B2 x x x Grade 2 x Grade 3 x x x x Grade 4 x Grade 5 x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
51

Economics A1 A2 B3 A1 B2 C3 A1 B2 B3 B4 C5 A1 B2 B3 B4 C5 C6 C7 A1 A2 B3 C4 C5 C6 A1 A2 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 Grade K x x x x Grade 1 x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x Government A1 B2 C3 A1 A2 B3 C4 C5 A1 A2 B3 B4 B5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A1 A2 B3 B4 A1 A2 B3 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 GP3 GP4 Grade K x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x x x
52


B3 B4 C5 C6 C7 A1 A2 B3 B4 B5 C6 x x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x Grade 6
A1 A2 A3 C4
x x x x
APPENDIX E MATHEMATICS CONTENT MATRIX

Grade K Grade 1 Number Sense Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade K Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 GP1 2,3,4,5 12,15,16,17 1,2 1,2a,2b,2c,3,12,8,9,10,11 2,3,9,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,10,11,12,13 1,3,2,4,5,6 1,2,3,4,5,6 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,5 1,2 GLIs Addressed by Grading Period GP2 GP3 1,7, Estimation, Counting, Reading 10,6,8,2,3, Fractions and Writing Numbers 10,11,12,5b,5c,9 6,9,10,11,12,5 5,6,2d,7,4,13 6,4,7,9,11,12,13,14 7,8,9,5 2,3 4 1,2,4,5,6 2,3,4,1,5,6 1,7,3,4,6,5 1,2,3 6,7,8 2,1 8 1,2,4,8,3,5,7 3,4,5a,6,7,8 3,4,7,8 15 6,4,7,9,11,12,13,14 Integers, 6 2,3, Time II 7,3 2,3,4,1,5,6 2 7,8 6,7,8 7,8,9,10,11 7,8 6,7,8 7,8,9,10,11 1,2,3,4,5 7,4,5,6 1,2,3,7,9,10 1,2,3,4,5 GP4 9,11,12,13 Computation II, III,13,14 13 14 Fractions, Computation IV Fractions, Decimals and Percents, 11,12, Proportionality 1,4,5 1,2,6,3,5,7 Time 5,6 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,2,3,4,5 1,5,3 1,2,3,4,5,6 1 4 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
Measurement
Data Analysis and Probability
Geometry and Spatial Sense
Patterns, Functions, and Algebra

APPENDIX F READING CONTENT MATRIX
Reading Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Acquisition of Vocabulary 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 4 x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x GP3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Phonemic Awareness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6
53
GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x GP3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
54


9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x x Grade 5 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Reading Applications: Informational and Technical 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x x Grade 1 x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x Grade 4 GP3 x x x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x Reading Applications: Literary 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GLIs Addressed GP1 GP2 Grade K x x x x Grade 1 x x x x x x x x x x Grade 2 x x x x x x x x Grade 3 x x x x x x x x GP3 x x x x x x x x x x x x x GP4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Grade 4 x x x x x x x x Grade 5 x x x x x x x x x Grade 6 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
55
56


APPENDIX G OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SCHOOL REPORT CARDS FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN SCHOOLS 1. HAMILTON STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

57
58


59
60


61
62


2. LINDEN STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
63
64


65
66


67
68


69
70


3. SOUTH MIFFLIN STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

71
72


73
74


75
76


4. WINDSOR STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
77
78


79
80


81
82


83
84


APPENDIX H COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN SCHOOLS 1. HAMILTON STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

85
Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
86

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Hamilton STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan

87
88


89
90


91
92


93
94


95
96


2. LINDEN STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
97
98

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN Linden STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan

99
Linden STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan
100 STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN 101












3. SOUTH MIFFLIN STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

South Mifflin STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan











4. WINDSOR STEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Windsor STEM Academy PK-6 School Improvement Plan














Linden Feeder Pattern STEM Audit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Linden Feeder Pattern STEM Audit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Math,

Assessment Team Assessment Team

A PAST Foundation Publication A PAST Foundation Publication

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Table of Contents Table of Contents

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Tables Tables Table of Contents

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

B. Working Model for the Curricular Audit Framework Overview

STEM Oppor- tunihes

Figure 1. Assessment Framework Pyramid

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

C. The Design Process

Figure 2. The Design Principles Cycle

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Figure 4: Twenty First Century Skills connected to learning. (Courtesy of P21)

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

III. Science Audit by David Haury

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Science: Content Comparison

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Science: Achievement Audit

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Science: Opportunities for STEM-Science

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

IV. Social Studies by Dee Martindale

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Social Studies: Content Comparison

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Social Studies: Achievement Audit

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Social Studies - Percent of Students Proficient on 2009-10 Quarterly Assessments

Social Studies: Opportunities for STEM

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

V. Mathematics by Marcy Raymond

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Mathematics: Content Comparison

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Mathematics: Achievement Audit

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Mathematics: Opportunities for STEM

Reading and Language Arts: Content Audit

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Reading: Content Comparison

Reading: Achievement Audit

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

Reading and Language Arts: Opportunities for STEM

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

VII. Summary of Columbus City Schools Improvement Plans

STEM AUDIT FOR LINDEN FEEDER PATTERN

VIII. The SENCER Assessment of STEM Readiness Through Curricular Materials