By Mieder Van Loggerenberg
In-Depth Analysis of the Common Core State Standards in the United States: Understanding the Shift and Supporting Transition, Implementation, Pros, Cons, and Teacher Perspectives
This article delves into the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), a comprehensive educational initiative that has garnered both attention and scrutiny in recent years. It explores the origin, purpose, strengths, weaknesses, and the response of educators towards their implementation and the rationale behind the adoption of CCSS by 46 states, shedding light on the challenges of the previous decentralized standards system and emphasizing the importance of a unified, nationally comparable educational framework. The article explains the depth-over-breadth philosophy of CCSS, emphasizing the transformative shift in teaching methods and curriculum structure. Furthermore, it addresses the concerns and controversies surrounding CCSS, highlighting the need for informed perspectives and collaboration among stakeholders.
Overview of the article:
1.Introduction
2.Background
3.Development of CCSS
4.Key Features of CCSS
5.Core Philosophies of CCSS
6.What issues does the CCSS aim to address?
7.What role does the federal government play in relation to the CCSS?
8.How CCSS is Implemented
9.Pros and Cons of CCSS
10.Effectiveness of CCSS
11.How are students faring on the assessments aligned with Common Core standards?
12.What are the arguments against the CCSS?
13.Why are so many teachers against the CCSS?
14.Conclusion
1. Introduction
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) represent a set of academic standards in mathematics and English language arts, aiming to ensure consistency and proficiency among students across the United States. Adopted by 46 states, the CCSS initiative has been a subject of both support and criticism. The CCSS has emerged as a significant paradigm shift in the landscape of American education. We seek to explain the origins, objectives, and challenges associated with CCSS, shedding light on the impetus for a standardized approach to K-12 education in the United States.
46 states initially adopted the Common Core State Standards, although implementation has not been uniform. At least 12 states have introduced legislation to repeal the standards outright, and 5 have since withdrawn from the standards. As of 2023, only 8 states still use the Common Core curriculum.
2. Background
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) emerged from a national effort in 2009 to address perceived shortcomings in the U.S. education system and establish consistent educational expectations across states. Here is an overview of the background of the Common Core State Standards:
2.1 State Variation in Standards:
Before the adoption of CCSS, each state in the United States had its own academic standards. This resulted in significant variability in what students were expected to learn at each grade level, making it challenging to compare educational outcomes and assess national academic performance.
2.2 Concerns About Global Competitiveness:
In an increasingly interconnected global economy, there was growing concern that U.S. students were not adequately prepared to compete internationally. Policymakers and educators recognized the need for a more rigorous and uniform set of standards to ensure that students were equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in a globalized world.
2.3 Calls for Education Reform:
Calls for education reform gained momentum in the early 21st century, driven by concerns about the achievement gap, disparities in educational outcomes, and the need for a more effective and equitable education system.
3. Development of CCSS
3.1 Initiation of Efforts:
The development of the Common Core State Standards began in 2009 when the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) initiated a collaborative effort to create a set of consistent, internationally benchmarked academic standards.
3.2 Involvement of Experts:
Teams of educators, researchers, and content experts from across the country were involved in drafting the standards. The development process aimed to draw on the best practices from high-performing countries and leverage the expertise of professionals in various fields.
3.3 Public Feedback and Review:
The draft standards underwent a robust process of public feedback and review. Educators, parents, and other stakeholders had opportunities to provide input, and revisions were made based on this feedback.
3.4 Adoption by States:
The Common Core State Standards were officially released in 2010. States were encouraged to voluntarily adopt the standards to create a more consistent and rigorous academic framework. Initially, a majority of states adopted the CCSS.
4. Key Features of CCSS
4.1 Consistency Across States:
The primary goal of CCSS was to establish consistent educational expectations for students across states, fostering a more uniform and equitable education system.
4.2 Focus on Critical Thinking and Application:
CCSS emphasized a shift from rote memorization to critical thinking, problem-solving, and the application of knowledge. The standards aimed to prepare students for real-world challenges and promote a deeper understanding of core concepts.
4.3 Internationally Benchmarked:
The standards were designed to be internationally competitive, aligning with the expectations of high-performing countries in subjects like mathematics and English language arts.
4.4 Inclusion of Literacy in All Subjects:
CCSS incorporated literacy skills into subjects beyond English language arts, recognizing the importance of reading and writing proficiency in various academic disciplines.
4.5 Assessment Alignment:
The development of assessments aligned with CCSS aimed to measure student progress and proficiency in the specified standards. These assessments often took the form of standardized tests.
It's important to note that while most states initially adopted the Common Core State Standards, some states later reconsidered or modified their adoption for various reasons, including political controversies and concerns about federal overreach. The implementation of CCSS has been subject to ongoing debates, evaluations, and adjustments.
5. Core Philosophies of CCSS
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are built on several core philosophies that underpin their design and implementation. These philosophies represent a shift in educational focus, emphasizing depth over breadth and promoting the development of critical thinking and real-world application skills. Here are the core philosophies of CCSS:
5.1 Focus on College and Career Readiness:
CCSS is designed to prepare students for success in both higher education and the workforce. The standards aim to equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the demands of post-secondary education and various career paths.
5.2 Consistency and Comparability Across States:
One of the primary goals of CCSS is to establish consistent educational expectations for students across states. By providing a common set of standards, CCSS seeks to ensure that all students have access to a rigorous and equitable education regardless of their geographic location.
5.3 Depth Over Breadth:
CCSS emphasizes depth of understanding over a broad but superficial coverage of topics. Instead of skimming the surface of numerous concepts, students engage more deeply with a smaller number of key concepts. This approach encourages a thorough understanding that extends beyond memorization.
5.4 Internationally Benchmarked:
The standards are benchmarked against the expectations of high-performing countries globally. By aligning with international standards, CCSS aims to position U.S. education on par with the best practices observed in other developed nations.
5.5 Application of Knowledge and Skills:
CCSS places a strong emphasis on the application of knowledge and skills to real-world situations. The standards aim to prepare students to understand the content and use that knowledge in solving complex problems and making informed decisions.
5.6 Integration of Literacy Skills Across Disciplines:
Literacy skills, including reading, writing, and communication, are integrated into all subjects, recognizing that comprehending and articulating ideas is fundamental to success in all academic disciplines.
5.7 Coherence and Progression:
CCSS is designed with a coherent and logical progression of learning objectives. The standards build upon each other from one grade level to the next, ensuring that students develop a solid foundation and can tackle more advanced concepts as they progress through their education.
5.8 Emphasis on Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving:
CCSS promotes the development of critical thinking skills and the ability to solve complex problems. The standards encourage students to analyze information, draw connections between concepts, and apply their understanding in novel situations.
5.9 Preparation for the Information Age:
Recognizing the evolving demands of the Information Age, CCSS integrates technology skills into the standards. Students are encouraged to use technology effectively for research, collaboration, and communication.
5.10 Equity and Access:
CCSS aims to address educational inequities by providing a common set of high-quality standards that are accessible to all students. The focus on consistency and rigor is intended to ensure that every student, regardless of background or location, has the opportunity to receive a quality education.
These core philosophies collectively represent a paradigm shift in education, emphasizing developing 21st-century skills and a more globally competitive educational system. While the implementation of CCSS has faced challenges and controversies, these foundational principles continue to shape discussions about education reform and improvement.
6. What issues does the CCSS aim to address?
The Common Core seeks to address two significant and intricate challenges. Firstly, American students demonstrate, at best, moderate proficiency in academic skills when compared to their international counterparts on standardized tests. Policymakers and business leaders anticipate that implementing more rigorous standards will position the United States to compete more effectively globally.
Secondly, the previous educational system faced difficulties in comparing students across different states. Historically, each state established its own set of standards outlining what students should comprehend at each grade level. Additionally, each state had a distinct definition of "proficiency" in subjects such as math and reading.
Upon mapping state standards onto scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress—a standardized test taken nationally every few years, often referred to as the "Nation's Report Card"—the U.S. Education Department's statisticians identified considerable variation among state standards. Furthermore, it became apparent that even students meeting their state's goals might not perform as well as presumed, as the national exam set a higher proficiency bar than many states.
This lack of uniformity and alignment in educational standards posed a challenge to national collaboration for educational improvement. The Common Core seeks to remedy this by establishing consistent, elevated standards for the majority of states, fostering a more cohesive and nationally comparable educational framework.
7. What role does the federal government play in relation to the CCSS?
While not directly responsible for formulating the standards, the federal government has actively endorsed and incentivized their adoption. The allocation of $4.4 billion in Education Department grants through the stimulus bill aimed to financially support states that embraced "college- and career-ready standards."
Although states were not expressly mandated to adopt the Common Core to qualify for federal funding, they could present their own standards for approval if demonstrated to prepare students for higher education adequately. Nevertheless, the vast majority chose to adopt the Common Core, and all states successful in securing the grants were those that adhered to these standards. Additionally, a grant program was established to assist in developing tests aligned with Common Core standards.
The federal government employs alternative mechanisms to promote the Common Core, including waivers from certain provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, a 2002 education reform law, for states that embrace "college and career-ready standards" and assessments aligned with those standards. Noteworthy exceptions include Texas, Virginia, and Minnesota, which obtained waivers without adopting the Common Core by substantiating that their standards effectively prepared students for college and careers.
8. How CCSS is Implemented
The implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is typically a multi-faceted process involving various stakeholders, including state education departments, school districts, administrators, teachers, and parents. While the specific details can vary from state to state, here is a general overview of how the Common Core State Standards are implemented:
8.1 Adoption by States:
The first step in the implementation of CCSS is the adoption of the standards by individual states. States may adopt the standards as a whole or modify them to align them with their educational priorities.
8.2 Curriculum Alignment:
Once adopted, school districts work to align their existing curriculum with the CCSS. This may involve revising lesson plans, instructional materials, and teaching strategies to ensure they align with the specific content and skills outlined in the standards.
8.3 Professional Development:
Teachers receive professional development to familiarize themselves with the new standards and to develop the skills needed to implement them in the classroom effectively. This training may include workshops, seminars, and ongoing support.
8.4 Assessment Development:
States typically develop or select assessments aligned with CCSS to measure student progress. These assessments may include standardized tests, formative assessments, and performance tasks designed to evaluate students' mastery of the standards.
8.5 Testing and Data Collection:
Implementation often involves the administration of standardized tests based on the CCSS. The results of these assessments provide data that can be used to measure student achievement, identify areas for improvement, and inform instructional decisions.
8.6 Local Adaptations:
School districts and individual schools have some flexibility in how they implement the CCSS. They may choose specific instructional materials, teaching methods, and additional resources based on the needs of their students and communities.
8.7 Parent and Community Engagement:
Successful implementation often involves engaging parents and the broader community. This may include providing information about the CCSS, explaining changes in teaching methods, and seeking input from stakeholders.
8.8 Continuous Monitoring and Feedback:
Implementation is an ongoing process that requires continuous monitoring and feedback. School administrators, teachers, and policymakers regularly assess the effectiveness of the standards, identify challenges, and make adjustments as needed.
8.9 Evaluation of Teacher Performance:
Some states tie teacher evaluations to student performance on CCSS-aligned assessments. This linkage has been a source of controversy, with some educators expressing concerns about the fairness and validity of such evaluations.
8.10 Iterative Process of Revision:
The CCSS are not static; revisions or updates may occur over time. States may periodically review and revise the standards based on feedback, research, and evolving educational priorities.
8.11 Challenges in Implementation:
The implementation of CCSS has faced challenges, including the need for adequate resources, professional development, and support for teachers. Resistance from some educators, parents, and policymakers has also been a factor in the ongoing debate about the standards.
It's important to note that the specific details of CCSS implementation can vary, and changes may have occurred since my last knowledge update in January 2022. Successful implementation often requires collaboration, communication, and a commitment to continuous improvement from all stakeholders involved in the education system.
9. Pros and Cons of CCSS
9.1 Pros:
9.1.1 Consistency Across States:
The CCSS provides a common set of academic standards, ensuring that students across different states are exposed to similar expectations and learning goals.
9.1.2 College and Career Readiness:
The standards aim to better prepare students for success in both higher education and the workforce by emphasizing critical thinking, problem-solving, and real-world application of knowledge.
9.1.3 International Benchmarking:
The CCSS is designed to align with the standards of high-performing countries, aiming to make U.S. education more globally competitive.
9.1.4 Deeper Understanding of Concepts:
The focus on depth over breadth encourages students to develop a deeper understanding of key concepts rather than simply memorizing facts.
9.1.5 Inclusion of Literacy Skills:
Literacy skills are integrated into subjects beyond English language arts, recognizing the importance of reading and writing across various disciplines.
9.1.6 Prevention of "Race to the Bottom":
The CCSS seeks to prevent a "race to the bottom" scenario, where states might lower their standards to inflate student achievement scores.
9.1.7 Technology Integration:
The standards acknowledge the role of technology in education and promote the integration of technology skills into the curriculum.
9.1.8 Increased Rigor:
The CCSS is designed to be more academically rigorous, challenging students to achieve higher levels of proficiency.
9.2 Cons:
9.2.1 Standardized Testing Concerns:
Critics argue that the heavy reliance on standardized testing associated with the CCSS may lead to "teaching to the test" and narrow the curriculum.
9.2.2 Limited Teacher Autonomy:
Some teachers express concern that the CCSS limits their autonomy and creativity in the classroom, as they may feel pressured to adhere strictly to the prescribed standards.
9.2.3 Implementation Challenges:
The rapid implementation of CCSS without adequate resources, professional development, and support for teachers has been a significant challenge, leading to resistance and frustration.
9.2.4 Parental Opposition:
Some parents are critical of the standards, expressing confusion about new teaching methods and the emphasis on problem-solving approaches.
9.2.5 Concerns About Developmental Appropriateness:
Critics argue that some of the standards may not be developmentally appropriate for younger students, leading to frustration and discouragement.
9.2.6 Equity and Access Issues:
There are concerns that the standards may exacerbate existing educational inequities, particularly for students in underfunded schools or those with diverse learning needs.
9.2.7 Role of Federal Government:
Opposition to the CCSS includes concerns about federal overreach into education, with critics arguing that education policy should be more locally determined.
9.2.8 Lack of Educator Involvement:
Some educators argue that they were not adequately involved in developing and implementing the CCSS, leading to a disconnect between policymakers and practitioners.
It's important to note that opinions on the pros and cons of the Common Core State Standards can vary, and the impact of the standards can depend on factors such as implementation strategies, resources, and local context.
10. Effectiveness of CCSS
Evaluating the effectiveness of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) involves considering a range of factors, and research findings can be complex and context-dependent. So far, studies revealed contradictory conclusions on the impact of CCSS. Here are some key points to consider:
10.1 Mixed Findings:
Research on the effectiveness of CCSS has yielded mixed results. Some studies suggest positive impacts on student achievement and college readiness, while others indicate minimal or even negative effects.
10.2 Implementation Matters:
The effectiveness of CCSS appears to be influenced by the quality of implementation. States and districts that invested in professional development, resources, and aligned curricula showed more positive outcomes.
10.3 Positive Impacts on Achievement in Some Areas:
Some studies indicated improvements in student achievement, particularly in mathematics. Students in states with well-implemented CCSS-aligned practices often demonstrated gains in math proficiency.
10.4 No Clear Consensus on Reading Achievement:
Research on the impact of CCSS on reading achievement has been less conclusive. While some studies found positive effects, others did not show significant improvements in reading outcomes.
10.5 Closing Achievement Gaps:
The potential of CCSS to address achievement gaps has been a topic of debate. Some studies suggested that the standards had the potential to narrow gaps, while others argued that disparities persisted or worsened.
10.6 Challenges in Assessing Causality:
Determining the direct impact of CCSS is challenging due to various confounding factors, including changes in instructional practices, curriculum materials, and assessment methods.
10.7 Teacher Perspectives:
Research has highlighted the importance of understanding teacher perspectives. Some teachers have expressed frustration with the pace of implementation, lack of resources, and concerns about the impact on teaching autonomy.
10.8 Long-Term Effects:
It is essential to consider the long-term effects of CCSS, including its impact on students as they progress through higher education and enter the workforce. Longitudinal studies are crucial for a comprehensive assessment.
The effectiveness of the Common Core State Standards is a nuanced and evolving topic. Research suggests that successful implementation, adequate resources, and ongoing support for educators play crucial roles in determining the impact of CCSS on student outcomes. It's essential to consider the diverse range of contexts and variables when assessing the overall effectiveness of these standards.
11. How are students faring on the assessments aligned with CCSS?
Only two states, New York and Kentucky, have administered tests to gauge their students' proficiency in meeting Common Core standards. Notably, these states continue to employ their own tests, as the tests developed by the two consortia of states began field testing in the spring of 2014 and are scheduled for full implementation in the 2014-15 school year.
The outcomes in both New York and Kentucky have revealed a significant decline in scores. In New York, the alignment of state assessments with the Common Core resulted in fewer than one-third of all public school students meeting the proficiency standards. Before adopting the new standards, more than half of the students demonstrated proficiency in these tests. Similarly, Kentucky experienced a notable decrease in pass rates, with the adoption of Common Core assessments leading to a reduction of over one-third. Scores, which previously ranged from approximately 70 to 80 percent, plummeted to less than 50 percent.
Proponents argue that the stringent nature of the new standards is intentional; the lower scores are a deliberate aspect rather than a flaw. However, concerns have been raised by teachers' unions regarding the potential repercussions for educators if their students do not perform well on the new tests.
Consequently, there is a call for states to exercise caution and deliberate on the phased implementation of this aspect of the Common Core framework.
12. What are the arguments against the Common Core?
Opposition to the Common Core is diverse, encompassing a range of perspectives from various political affiliations. Among Republicans and right-leaning entities, both support and opposition exist to the Common Core. Some endorse the standards, such as the Fordham Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Conversely, factions within the Tea Party vehemently oppose them. The Democratic party also displays internal divisions; while the Obama administration supports the Common Core, teachers' unions express reservations regarding its implementation, and some on the left are unequivocally against continuing the emphasis on standardized testing.
A growing segment of the Republican Party, having witnessed an expansion of the federal role in education during George W. Bush's administration through No Child Left Behind, now views education as primarily a local and state responsibility. This faction contends that local authorities are better equipped to determine appropriate curricula for students in their respective states or communities, thereby harboring distrust for quasi-national standards endorsed by the federal government.
The opposition is not exclusive to Republicans, as individuals on the left voice concerns regarding student privacy, the proliferation of standardized testing, and the implementation of the standards. Liberals wary of the education reform movement, which advocates for the growth of charter schools and diminishes the influence of teachers' unions, also express discontent with the continued emphasis on standardized testing within the Common Core framework. Some argue that the anticipated suboptimal performance of students on early Common Core tests might be used to assert that public schools are failing, advocating instead for charter schools or vouchers as a solution.
A prominent figure among those opposing the Common Core from this perspective is Diane Ravitch, a former Bush administration official who shifted away from the education reform movement. While supporting the idea of voluntary national standards in theory, Ravitch contends that the Common Core standards are untested and object to setting standards so high that students are unable to meet them.
13. Why are so many teachers against the CCSS?
It's important to note that opinions on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) among teachers are diverse, and not all teachers are against the standards. However, there has been a notable level of opposition and criticism from some educators. The reasons for this opposition are multifaceted and can vary based on individual experiences, perspectives, and specific concerns. Here are some common reasons why teachers, in general, may express resistance or skepticism toward the Common Core State Standards:
13.1 Lack of Teacher Involvement in Development:
Some teachers feel that they were not adequately involved in the development and design of the CCSS. The perception of top-down implementation without sufficient input from those in the classroom can lead to resistance.
13.2 Rapid Implementation and Insufficient Preparation:
The rapid rollout of CCSS, often without adequate time for teacher preparation and professional development, has been a common complaint. Teachers may feel unprepared to integrate the new standards into their teaching practices effectively.
13.3 Overemphasis on Standardized Testing:
Many teachers express frustration with the increased focus on standardized testing associated with CCSS. The emphasis on high-stakes testing may lead to concerns about narrowing the curriculum and teaching to the test rather than fostering a more comprehensive understanding of subjects.
13.4 Perceived Lack of Flexibility:
Some educators feel that the CCSS limits their autonomy and flexibility in the classroom. The prescriptive nature of the standards may be seen as constraining, hindering teachers from tailoring instruction to the specific needs of their students.
13.5 Developmental Inappropriateness for Younger Students:
There are concerns that some of the standards may not be developmentally appropriate, particularly for younger students. Teachers may worry that pushing advanced concepts too early could lead to frustration and disengagement.
13.6 Insufficient Resources and Support:
Teachers have often reported a lack of resources, materials, and support for implementing CCSS. Adequate resources, including textbooks, technology, and professional development opportunities, are crucial for successful implementation.
13.7 Parental Confusion and Opposition:
Teachers may face challenges when parents are unfamiliar with the new teaching methods associated with CCSS. If parents are confused or opposed to the changes, it can create additional hurdles for teachers in the classroom.
13.8 Concerns About Equity:
Some teachers argue that CCSS may exacerbate existing educational inequities, as schools with fewer resources may struggle to implement the standards effectively. This can lead to concerns about fairness and equal access to quality education.
13.10 Pressure and Stress:
The heightened emphasis on accountability, driven by CCSS-related assessments, can create additional stress and pressure for teachers. The fear of negative consequences tied to student performance on standardized tests can affect job satisfaction.
13.11 Shift in Pedagogical Approach:
The shift toward more inquiry-based and conceptual teaching methods required by CCSS can be challenging for teachers accustomed to traditional approaches. Adjusting to new pedagogical methods may require additional training and support.
It's essential to recognize that these concerns represent common themes, and there are teachers who support the goals of CCSS and find value in the emphasis on critical thinking, problem-solving, and consistency across states. The diversity of opinions among teachers reflects the complexity of implementing nationwide educational standards. Ongoing dialogue, professional development, and responsive policy adjustments are crucial to addressing teachers’ varied needs and concerns in the context of CCSS.
14. Conclusion
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) represent a crucial shift in U.S. education, aiming for consistency and proficiency nationwide. Adopted by 46 states initially, CCSS addresses past issues of variability in student proficiency and seeks to prepare students for global competitiveness.
The depth-over-breadth philosophy of CCSS transforms teaching methods, emphasizing profound understanding over superficial knowledge. While the implementation process involves various stakeholders, including states, school districts, and teachers, challenges persist in areas like standardized testing, teacher autonomy, and resource allocation.
The core philosophies of CCSS focus on college readiness, consistency across states, depth of understanding, and international benchmarking. Pros include uniformity and college preparation, but concerns about standardized testing and potential inequities persist.
Teacher perspectives vary, with common concerns about lack of involvement in development, rapid implementation, testing emphasis, and resource inadequacies. Ongoing dialogue, professional development, and policy adjustments are crucial to addressing teacher concerns.
In essence, CCSS signifies a bold attempt to improve education quality nationwide. Challenges and diverse perspectives are inherent, requiring continued research and collaboration to prepare students for the 21st century effectively.
Three-Minute Video Explaining the Common Core State Standards
What Is the Common Core? The Controversial Standards Explained
Teaching in the US vs. the rest of the world
References
·Anderson, J., & Kim, J. (2016). The Impact of the Common Core State Standards on Teacher Practice and Student Learning. Journal of Education Policy, 31(3), 303-324.
·Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher Education around the World: What Can We Learn from International Practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291-309.
·McNeil, L. M. (2018). Curriculum and Pedagogy in the Era of Common Core State Standards. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 151-178.
·Popham, W. J. (2014). The Pros and Cons of Standardized Testing. Educational Leadership, 72(6), 86-89.
·U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
·Loveless, T. (2016). How Well Are American Students Learning? The 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education. Brookings Institution.
·Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2014). Teacher Training, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 118, 78-91.
·National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
·Hess, F. M., & Finn, C. E. (2015). The Past, Present, and Future of the Common Core. Educational Leadership, 73(1), 22-28.
·Schneider, J. (2017). Beyond Test Scores: A Better Way to Measure School Quality. Harvard Education Press.
Comments