Download Report

KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name INED 8760
Department Inclusive Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Ed.S. and Ed.D. in Special Education; Ed.S. and Ed.D. in Elementary
and Early Childhood; Education Ed.S. and Ed.D. in Middle Grades Education; and EDS and
EDD in Secondary Education
Proposed Effective Date Summer 2013
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Harriet J. Bessette
Faculty Member
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
_____
Date
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Department Chair
Date
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
President
Date
1|Page
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
___
Course Prefix and Number
___
Course Title
___
Class Hours
____Laboratory Hours_______Credit Hours________
Prerequisites
___
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number ____________INED 8760______________________
Course Title Curriculum Development for English Language Learners and
Students with Exceptionalities ____________
Class Hours 3 Laboratory Hours 0
Credit Hours
3
Prerequisites Admission to Graduate Study in Education
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course prepares professional educators to examine the relationship between
the research base and applied practice especially as they relate to diverse learners
(academically and/or culturally and linguistically). Candidates will examine the
characteristics and needs of English language learners and students with
exceptionalities, explore evidence-based practices for specific populations,
employ a curriculum decision-making process that aligns with the Georgia
Performance Standards and the Common Core, and translates to improved
pedagogy and student achievement, and critically analyze existing curriculum
guidelines as they relate to traditionally marginalized learners.
III.
Justification
This course is a newly created course to include in our redesigned programs recently
approved by the USGBOR and GaPSC. The program was originally the EDS &EDD in
Teacher Leadership with concentrations in 5 different areas. The USGBOR approved our
request to create separate majors from the original concentrations in order to meet the
new PSC requirements that degrees completed by teachers be in their certification area
Hence, we renamed our program accordingly. The feedback we received from our P-12
partners, current graduate students and faculty indicated that teachers in schools today
needed more in depth knowledge of the ways in which students with exceptionalities and
English Language Learners learn.
These programs have been conceptualized and designed to embody learner-centered and
learner-focused principles and outcomes as central to the learning process. At the heart of
these programs is the belief that all students can learn when the learner is at the
pedagogical core. Recent emphasis in education has been on diverse learners who have
historically been marginalized within educational settings and who experience poor
academic outcomes and often hostile educational environments. This includes students
whose first language is not English, as well as, students identified with or at-risk of
identification for disabilities. In order to accomplish this it is necessary to develop
2|Page
teachers who can effectively teach students who are diverse linguistically, culturally, and
in their abilities; collaborate with other departments to expand their candidates' abilities
to offer effective instruction to all students; share expertise, individually and collectively,
in effective inclusion of ALL students; advocate for the development of inclusive
practices across all levels, as well as for learners and their families. The purpose of this
course is to develop professional educators able to design and implement curricula
utilizing an asset-based, critical pedagogical framework that emphasizes inclusive
practices and builds upon students’ capabilities and funds of knowledge. This includes an
understanding of cognitive, contextual, and socio-cultural factors that influence learning.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Harriet J. Bessette, Ph.D.
Texts: 1. Artiles, A.J, & Ortiz, A.A. (2002). English Language Learners with
Special Education Needs: Identification, Assessment, and
Instruction. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Co., Inc.
2. Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Ramirez, R. (Eds.). (2008). Diverse
learners in mainstream classroom: Strategies for supporting all
students across content areas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
3. Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Contemporary
special education research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on
critical instructional issues. Rahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Prerequisites: Admission to Graduate Study in Education
Objectives:
-See page 3 of Syllabus which is attached
Instructional Method
- Course will consist of a combination of discussion, debate and dialog
using primarily a constructivist approach. Experiential and applicationbased format with numerous video, text & shared readings as supplements
to the required texts. Critical Friends analyses, whole-class
presentations, simulations and professional development opportunities
will also be utilized, including technologically-rich approaches such as
utilization of RSS feeds.
Method of Evaluation
- Instructor, self and peer evaluation. Variety of assignments. See
Syllabus Attached
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
No new funding is required for this course. The course is a new course but is part of a
redesign of an existing program.
3|Page
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
(1-2 course sections per year of existing faculty line)
TOTAL
No new funding
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth None. This course is a part of an existing program which
has been redesigned.
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
with Exceptionalities
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
INED (Special Education)
8760
Curriculum Development/ELL & Students
3-0-3
Summer 2013
Regular
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
4|Page
VII Attach Syllabus
See next page
I.
COURSE NUMBER:
INED 8760
COURSE TITLE:
Curriculum Development for English Language Learners and
Students with Exceptionalities
COLLEGE OR SCHOOL:
Bagwell College of Education
SEMESTER/TERM & YEAR: Summer 2013
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
III.
CLASS MEETINGS:
IV.
REQUIRED TEXTS:
OFFICE:
Artiles, A.J, & Ortiz, A.A. (2002). English Language Learners with Special Education Needs:
Identification, Assessment, and Instruction. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Co., Inc.
Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Contemporary special education research:
Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues. Rahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Freeman, Y. S., Freeman, D. E., & Ramirez, R. (Eds.). (2008). Diverse learners in mainstream
classroom: Strategies for supporting all students across content areas. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
ADDITIONAL READINGS: Assigned as appropriate
V.
CATALOG DESCRIPTION: INED 8760. 3-0-3. Prerequisite: Admission to graduate study
in education.
5|Page
Curriculum Development for English Language Learners and Students with
Exceptionalities prepares professional educators to examine the relationship between the
research base and applied practice especially as they relate to diverse learners
(academically and/or culturally and linguistically). Candidates will examine the
characteristics and needs of English learners and students with exceptionalities, explore
evidence-based practices for specific populations, employ a curriculum decision-making
process that aligns with the Georgia Performance Standards and the Common Core and
translates to improved pedagogy and student achievement, and critically analyze existing
curriculum guidelines as they relate to traditionally marginalized learners.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE
Recent emphasis in education has been on diverse learners who have historically been
marginalized within educational settings and who experience poor academic outcomes and
often hostile educational environments. This includes students whose first language is not
English, as well as, students identified with or at-risk of identification for disabilities. In
order to accomplish this it is necessary to develop teachers who can effectively teach
students who are diverse linguistically, culturally, and in their abilities; collaborate with
other departments to expand their candidates' abilities to offer effective instruction to all
students; share expertise, individually and collectively, in effective inclusion of ALL
students; advocate for the development of inclusive practices across all levels, as well as
for learners and their families. The purpose of this course is to develop professional
educators able to design and implement curricula utilizing an asset-based, critical
pedagogical framework that emphasizes inclusive practices and builds upon students’
capabilities and funds of knowledge. This includes an understanding of cognitive,
contextual, and socio-cultural factors that influence learning.
VII.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK & RELATED STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership
“The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership” is the
basis for all of Kennesaw State University’s teacher education programs. Working from a solid
content background, the teacher as facilitator demonstrates proficient and flexible use of
different ways of teaching to actively engage students in learning. Teachers as facilitators are
well versed in the characteristics of students of different ages, abilities and cultural backgrounds.
They are skilled in integrating technology into instruction and create an environment in which
students can be successful and want to learn. Teachers as facilitators know when and how to
assess learning by means of various forms of traditional and authentic assessments. They are
well prepared for successful careers in teaching and are expected to act in a professional manner
in all circumstances with colleagues, parents, community members and their own students. As a
professional educator, the teacher facilitator values collaboration and seeks opportunities to work
with other professionals and community members to improve the educational experiences for
children and youth. This course contributes to the candidates’ understanding of their developing
role as a professional facilitator by supporting their educational growth as they learn to
effectively teach students.
6|Page
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process,
the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing
effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
phases, teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming
Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that
expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
Diversity Statement
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of diverse
learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of evidence-based
differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within
multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes
of multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for
every student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender,
geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic
status.
Students with Disabilities
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons
defined as disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities
within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must
visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required. Please be aware there are
other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of
the multicultural variables outlined above.
Field Experiences
Graduate Field Experiences: As an applied program, the assignments you complete within your
coursework will bridge theory to practice, expressly connecting research to practice through
applied experiences.
Technology
7|Page
Technology Standards & Use: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the professional educator preparation program, and all candidates must be
able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use
instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of
productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local net and Internet, and be able to design
multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources. Candidates in this course will be
expected to apply the use of educational technology for professional development and to
improve student outcomes. Candidates will have access to the ERIC CD-ROM database, TRAC
and the Educational Technology Center. Library research required in this course is supported by
the Galileo system. Desire 2 Learn is a tool available to use for use and will be the primary
mode of communication, especially in case of weather-related notices regarding class. All course
materials will be posted on Desire 2 Learn.
VIII.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Bagwell College of Education and the Professional Teacher Education Unit graduate faculty
are strongly committed to the concept of professional educator preparation as a developmental
and collaborative process. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare
professional educators who are capable of and have the disposition to ensure equitable
educational opportunities and outcomes for all learners and who are leaders in the profession,
assuming a variety of leadership roles. Candidates in this course are expected to perform at the
Advanced Proficiencies levels as delineated by the Candidate Performance Indicator. For the
purposes of this syllabus, course goals and objectives are first outlined on the Advanced
Proficiencies and then cross-referenced to standards common to national accreditation agencies.
1. Candidates will demonstrate an in-depth and divergent understanding of and ability
to apply evidence-based and research-supported strategies as each relates to
understanding the diverse needs of all learners as well as the cultural and linguistic
contexts of learning.
2. Candidates will demonstrate an in-depth and divergent understanding of learner
characteristics coupled with evidence-based instructional approaches that enhance
access to the general education curriculum and Common Core principles.
3. Candidates will critically evaluate existing curriculum that has been adopted by their
school district through the lens of diverse learners.
4. Candidates will use evidence-based practices to guide and support a curricular
initiative in their local context that focuses on diverse learners (academically and
culturally and linguistically) by analyzing pedagogy and thinking reflectively on the
role of a professional educator.
8|Page
5. Candidates will facilitate a professional development workshop for other professional
educators on a topic supported by evidence-based practices that allow their peers to
apply what they have learned in their practice.
EDD Performance Outcome
Course
Objective
Knowledge, Skills
Dispositions
(Advanced CPI)
Activities,
Coursework,
Assignments
& Key
Assessment
6. Candidates will demonstrate on-going commitment to professional development and
learning across the lifespan.
All course objectives are aligned with Ed.D. Performance Outcomes and meet Standard I
(Elements A through G), Standard IV (diversity), and the Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
which comprise the critical understandings that undergird the PTEU’s Conceptual Framework.
A chart depicting this alignment is presented below:
9|Page
Candidates will
demonstrate an
in-depth and
divergent
understanding of
and ability to
apply evidence1. Candidates foster a
based and
responsive, learner-centered
researcheducational environment
supported
that promotes collaboration
strategies as
and democratic participation
each relates to
for student learning and may
understanding
include co-teaching.
the diverse
needs of all
learners as well
as the cultural
and linguistic
contexts of
learning.
2. Candidates demonstrate
Candidates will
pedagogical approaches
use evidencewhich incorporate
based practices
contextual,
to guide and
theoretical/conceptual, and
support a
practical influences on the
curricular
learner and learning.
initiative in their
local context
that focuses on
diverse learners
(academically
and culturally
and
linguistically)
by analyzing
pedagogy and
thinking
reflectively on
the role of a
professional
educator.
Candidates will
3. Candidates advance
demonstrate an
teaching and learning
in-depth and
through the innovative use
divergent
of technology based on
understanding of
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
2.3 (K;S)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
2.6 (K;S)
Action Plan
Proposal;
1.2 (K;S)
1.3 (K;S)
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 - 2.6 (K;S;D)
Critical
Analysis of
Adopted
Curriculum;
Professional
Development
Workshop
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
Workshop
1.2 (K;S)
2.1 – 2.6 (K;S;D)
2.4 (K;S)
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
10 | P a g e
sound educational theory
and knowledge of the
learner.
4. Candidates demonstrate indepth foundational
knowledge of content-based
research, scholarship, and
socio-political influences in
the teaching field and use
this knowledge to analyze
and interpret problems and
implement solutions within
their profession.
5. Candidates demonstrate and
apply various types of
assessment to inform the
learner’s ability to analyze,
monitor, and improve their
learning as well as interpret
and use of data to inform
their own pedagogical
effectiveness.
6. Candidates engage in
scholarly, applied research
to advance knowledge of
teaching, the learner, and/or
learning.
learner
characteristics
coupled with
evidence-based
instructional
approaches that
enhance access
to the general
education
curriculum and
Common Core
principles.
Candidates will
critically
evaluate existing
curriculum that
has been
adopted by their
school district
through the lens
of diverse
learners.
Candidates will
facilitate a
professional
development
workshop for
other
professional
educators on a
topic supported
by evidencebased practices
that allow their
peers to apply
what they
(candidates)have
learned in their
practice.
Candidates will
demonstrate an
in-depth and
divergent
understanding of
Workshop
1.1 (K)
1.2 (K;S)
3.1 (K;D)
3.2 (K;D)
3.3 (D)
3.4 (D)
3.5 (D)
Action Plan
Proposal;
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
3.2 (K;D)
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
Workshop
Professional
Development
Workshop
3.2 (K;D)
3.5 (D)
Research
Synthesis on
EvidenceBased
Practices;
11 | P a g e
and ability to
apply evidencebased and
researchsupported
strategies as
each relates to
understanding
the diverse
needs of all
learners as well
as the cultural
and linguistic
contexts of
learning.
7. Candidates reflect on their
Candidates will 3.2 (K;D)
professional, scholarly
facilitate a
practice, and analyze the
professional
ways in which they have
development
changed in their thinking,
workshop for
beliefs, or behaviors toward other
improved learner-centered
professional
practices.
educators on a
topic supported
by evidencebased practices
that allow their
peers to apply
what they have
learned in their
practice.
Candidates will 1.1 – 1.4 (K;S;D)
8. Candidates support
demonstrate an
1.2 2.1 – 2.6 (K;S;D)
academic and linguistic
in-depth and
needs of the learner,
divergent
enhance cultural
understanding of
understandings, and increase learner
global awareness of all
characteristics
students.
coupled with
evidence-based
instructional
approaches that
enhance access
to the general
education
curriculum and
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
Workshop
Critical
Analysis of
Adopted
Curriculum;
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
Workshop
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
Workshop
12 | P a g e
9. Candidates demonstrate
professional dispositions,
fluency of academic
language in a variety of
contexts, and ethical
practice expected of an
engaged scholarpractitioner.
IX.
Common Core
principles.
Candidates will
demonstrate ongoing
commitment to
professional
development
and learning
across the
lifespan.
1.4(K;D)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
3.1 – 3.5 (K;D)
Action Plan
Proposal;
Professional
Development
Workshop
COURSE ASSIGNMENT EVALUATION
The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares experts teachers and leaders who understand
their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these
understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a
result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the requirements of this course, the student will be
evaluated:
Course Requirement
Research Synthesis on Evidence-Based Practices
Critical Analysis of Adopted Curriculum
Action Plan Proposal
Professional Development Workshop
Points
100
100
100
100
TOTAL
400
13 | P a g e
X.
ASSIGNMENTS
1. Research Synthesis on Evidence-Based Practices for English Language Learners and
Students with Exceptionalities
As professional educators, it is important to have a foundational understanding of evidencebased/research-supported practices for English learners as well as students with exceptionalities
in order to be a good consumer of educational research and an effective instructional leader. This
includes purposeful implementation that ensures positive student learning outcomes. This
assignment will challenge candidates’ ability to understand what constitutes evidencebased/research-supported practices; when they should be employed and with whom; and, how to
evaluate the effectiveness of said practices based upon the literature.
Instructions:
•
Prepare at minimum a 25-page, double spaced document synthesizing the status of
evidence-based practices within a specific content area. It is expected that this
manuscript will conform to APA formatting (6th edition), rules of grammar, formal
register, and standards commensurate with doctoral level work.
2. Critical Analysis of Adopted Curriculum
Nationwide, districts adopt specific curriculum to use within a school system. Professional
educators play an integral role in ensuring the dissemination and implementation of the adopted
curriculum from which no teacher is expected to deviate. Oftentimes, however, these adoptions
are not constructed from a critical standpoint taking into account the specific needs of diverse
learners. Given the increasing diversity of our student population both academically and
culturally and linguistically, it is necessary to engage in a critical analysis of adopted curriculum
that can inform curricular improvement and relevance and at the same time, analyze curricula for
alignment with Common Core State Standards.
Instructions:
• Prepare a minimum 15-page document detailing a critical analysis of the adopted
curriculum for a specific content area or level within your district. You will be
required to identify the strengths of the adopted curriculum (e.g., curriculum guides),
problematize the curricular content within the scope of Common Core State
Standards, and provide a set of recommendations connected to course content to
illustrate how the curriculum can be refined, enhanced, and used by all learners, with
a focus on English language learners and students with exceptionalities. A rubric will
be provided that details the parameters of this assignment.
3.
Action Plan Proposal:
Professional educators are responsible for working collaboratively to problem-solve endemic
issues and concerns related to curriculum development. Further, they are expected to deeply
understand and utilize evidence-based practices to guide and support curricular initiatives in their
14 | P a g e
local context, most often derived from school improvement plans. An area of need that arises
consistently is the lack of focus on diverse learners (academically and culturally and
linguistically) particularly as it relates to the role of a professional educator.
Instructions:
•
4.
•
Candidates are to videotape themselves leading a 30-45 minute courageous
conversation with colleagues from their school related to closing the achievement gap
in their school. The conversation must address data (either standardized or classroom
based) of students who represent at least one of the underperforming populations in
their schools, e.g. students with exceptionalities (e.g., students who are gifted,
students with disabilities, or students identified as twice-exceptional) or ELs. The
conversation must also result in an action plan related to the data.
•
The student will conduct this conversation within their school setting, then present
to the class, at which time the class with serve as critical friends and provide
feedback to the student on the plan.
•
NOTE: Video may be developed over several hours, but spliced to required time
limit. Projects will be evaluated on a rubric. The action plan should reflect a real
problem and derive from a real school improvement item. Action plan must be
supported by research.
•
This product will consist of two parts: (1) a situation for the class to diagnose; and,
(2) an analysis of the problem set from the team's point of view. It is expected that the
problem set will include:
o A needs assessment i.e., why is this an area of concern?
o An analysis of current policy (if present) or situation
o A proposed solution (based on research)
o A discussion of the fit between proposed solution and school’s mission
and vision statements
o An outline of the steps to be implemented to assure institutionalization of
the curricular innovation
o An outline of proposed level of involvement and contributions of the
school community
o An outline of how the implemented solution will be assessed and how
assessment results will be utilized to make adjustments (i.e., how will you
know if it worked?)
o Discussion of impact on the school improvement plan and how the
solution is connected to improving curricula for diverse learners.
Electronic format (Power point) is encouraged. The team must prepare enough paper
copies of the case to be handed out to each member of the cohort prior to discussion and
post it electronically at least 1-2 days in advance of the presentation.
Professional Development Workshop
15 | P a g e
Professional Educators assume formal and informal leadership positions within their
school/district settings. They frequently provide support and mentoring to colleagues in the area
of diverse learners within inclusive settings. There are increased expectations for the use of
evidence-based/research supported instructional approaches to ensure increased academic
outcomes for all learners and continued need to address the opportunity gap evidenced by
disparate outcomes for English language learners and students with exceptionalities. Candidates
are urged to focus on a marginalized or under-served student population not previously explored
in assignments 1 or 3.
Instructions:
XI.
•
For this assignment, you will work with a small group to develop a three-hour
professional development workshop on a curriculum topic supported by evidence-based
practices that allow your peers to apply what they have learned in their practice. For
example, your workshop may focus on helping teachers and teacher leaders develop
appropriate curriculum for students who are English language learners by increasing their
understanding of second language acquisition, linguistics, WIDA language proficiency
levels, WIDA tools (Can Dos, MPIs) and research-based pedagogy, e.g, SIOP. You will
likely collaborate with experts in the field as well as comprehensively engage in research
on this topic.
•
The curriculum topic chosen must reflect real-world teaching experience with students
who are English language learners, learners with disabilities, or English language
learners with disabilities. As your capstone project for this course, you will be required
to deliver an excerpt of your workshop (i.e., 45 minutes) live to your classroom peers or
as a videotape from a live presentation done outside of KSU. A rubric will be provided
which outlines the specific components of a Professional Development Workshop.
EVALUATION & GRADING
Numeric Scale
A = 92-100%
368-400
B = 84-91%
336-364
C = 75-83%
300-332
F = 74%
or lower
XII.
<296
ATTENDANCE POLICY
Students are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants and in the learning
process. Active Participation requires that candidates come to class prepared and participate in
class discussions and activities by sharing his/her ideas within both large and small groups, as
well as respectfully listening to the ideas of others. Class attendance is essential for participation
16 | P a g e
in development of a multi-disciplinary perspective. Class activities will include a variety of
instructional methods requiring the participation of all students. Students have many experiences
and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. It is also expected that students
will read the syllabus to determine what assignments are due and when. Questions will be
answered in class regarding assignments, but it is the candidate’s responsibility to be sure (s) he
has the information necessary to complete required assignments. Each absence will result in a
letter grade drop. We are a community of learners and as such, when one of us absent, we are all
diminished. Make every effort to be in class for each meeting. Contact instructor if you must be
absent.
General Guidelines and Standards for Written Assignments
1. All individual assignments must be typed, single spaced, with 1” margins on both
sides so we can provide you with feedback.
2. Be sure to maintain confidentiality of student, settings, and teachers. All identifying
names and information should be omitted from your written work and discussions.
Any report containing confidential information will not be graded.
3. Late assignments are unacceptable without making prior arrangements with us.
4. We will be looking for quality writing not quantity. Eliminate jargon and hyperbole
and focus on clearly stating your point.
Examine the language you use within your assignments. Please remember to remove the focus
on a person’s behavior or disability by stating the person first, i.e., “a person with a disability” is
preferable to “a disabled person.” This does not apply to English Language Learners (ELLs) or
gifted students.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of
Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student
Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions
regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials,
misrepresentation/ falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal,
retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities
and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic
misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary
Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a
grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of
Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The student is reminded to consult the KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's policy. Any
strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be
dealt with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, students
in the graduate program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional
Code of Ethics for Educators (http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and
17 | P a g e
the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with
Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
Academic Honesty Statement
The KSU Graduate Catalog states “KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their
academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Any work that students present in
fulfillment of program or course requirements should reflect their own efforts, achieved without
giving or receiving any unauthorized assistance. Any student who is found to have violated these
expectations will be subject to disciplinary action.”
Disruptive Behavior
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the
learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of
others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
(See Campus Policies and Procedures in the KSU Graduate Catalog).
Professionalism
Students will adhere to the highest professional standards in the ways they conduct themselves.
Human Dignity
The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a learning
environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the KSU Graduate
Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is
there for your consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and
the letter of that policy.
XIII.
COURSE OUTLINE
This schedule is subject to change commensurate with time allotments to best meet the needs of
the candidates as a whole.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TOPIC
Community Building/Introductions/Overview of Course
Cognitive, contextual, and socio-cultural factors that influence learning
Curriculum practices and enhancing access to the Common Core principles
Characteristics of working with English language learners and students with
exceptionalities
Evidence-based practices: What are they and how do they inform what we do?
Curriculum practices and the marginalization of English language learners and students
with exceptionalities
Analyzing equitable curriculum practices for English language learners and students with
exceptionalities
Designing and implementing curricula utilizing an asset-based, critical pedagogical
framework
Assessing evidence-based instructional approaches in inclusive environments
18 | P a g e
10
11
12
13
14
15
Action Plan Presentations & Critical Friends Analyses
Action Plan Presentations & Critical Friends Analyses
Action Plan Presentations & Critical Friends Analyses
Exploring curriculum topics supported by evidence-based practices
Professional Workshop Presentations
Professional Workshop Presentations
Additional Readings
Adams, M., Bell, L., & Griffin, P. (1997). Teaching for diversity and social justice: A
sourcebook. Cambridge, MA: Routledge.
Adesope, O., Lavin, T. Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2011). Pedagogical strategies for
teaching literacy to ESL immigrant students: A meta-analysis. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 629-652. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.2010.020
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students
with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anzul, M., Evans, J., King, R., & Tellier-Robinson, D. (2001). Moving beyond a deficit
perspective with qualitative research methods. The Council for Exceptional Children,
67(2), 235-249.
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Apple, M., & Beane, J. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Artiles, A., Harris-Murri, N., & Rostenburg, D. (2006). Inclusion as social justice: Critical notes
on discourses, assumptions, and the road ahead. Theory Into Practice, 45(3), 260-268.
Astin, A. W. (1982). Excellence and equity in American education. Paper presented at a meeting
of the National Commission of Excellence in Education, Washington, D.C.
Bamburg, J. (1994). Raising expectations to improve student learning. Oak Brook, IL: North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED378290).
19 | P a g e
Barr, S., Eslami, Z., & Joshi, R. (2012). Core strategies to support English language learners. The
Educational Forum, 76, 105-117. doi: 10.1080/00131725.2012.628196
Bergman, D. (2011). Synergistic strategies: Science for ELLs is science for all. Science Scope,
40-44.
Brophy, J. (1988). Research on teacher effects: Uses and abuses. The Elementary School
Journal. 89(1), 3-21.
Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (2006). Teaching language arts, math & science to students with
significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, R., &
Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’
alternate assessments performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 28, 165–181.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M.
(2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for
students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The
Journal of Special Education, 41, 2–16.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Carrier, J. G. (1990). Special education and the explanation of pupil performance. Disability.
Handicap and Society, 5, 211-225.
Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 3(3), 257-268.
Christensen, C. (1996). Disabled, handicapped or disordered: “What’s in a name?”. In C.
Christensen & F. Rixvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and justice (pp.
63-77). Buckingham, England, UK: Open University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher
education New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. Paper
prepared for the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New
York, NY.
20 | P a g e
Copeland, S., Huaqing Qi, C., Park, M., & De Valenzuela, J. (2006). Examining educational
equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special
education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 425-441.
Cotton, K. (1998). Expectations and student outcomes. School Improvement Research Series,
Close-Up #7.
Cotton, K. (2001). Expectations and student outcomes. Retrieved from
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu7.htm.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19,
121-129.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting success for
language minority students. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework, 3-49. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center,
California State University.
Cummins, J. (2003). Basic interpersonal communicative skills and cognitive academic language
proficiency: BICS and CALP. Retrieved from http:/iteachilearn.org/
cummins/bicscalp.html
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
De Valenzuela, J. S., Copeland, S. R., Huaqing Qi, C., & Park, M. (2006). Examining
educational equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students
in special education. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 425-441.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. Boston, MA: D. C. Health & Co.
Dyson, A. (2001). Special needs education as the way to equity: An alternative approach?
Support for Learning, 16(3), 99-104.
21 | P a g e
Unknown
Field Code Changed
Echevarria, J. (2008). Instruction for English language learners. New York, NY:
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
www.mhpdonline.com/mhpd_assets/instructionforELL.pdf
Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Canges, R., & Francis, D. (2011). Using the SIOP model to
promote the acquisition of language and science concepts with English learners.
Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 334-351.
Echevarria, J., Richards-Tutor, C., Chinn, V., & Ratleff, P. (2011). Did they get it?: The role of
fidelity in teaching English learners. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 54(6),
425-434. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.6.4
Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2011). The SIOP model: A professional development framework for
a comprehensive school intervention. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/pdfs/professional-development-framework.pdf
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2013). Making content comprehensible for non-native
speakers of English: The SIOP model. The International Journal of Learning, 14(11), 4149.
Echevarria, J., Short, D., & Powers, K. (2006). School reform and standards-based education: A
model for English-language learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 195210.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2013). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Education Week. (2012). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP): English
Language Learners. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/englishlanguage-learners/
22 | P a g e
Eisenman, L. (2007). Self-determination interventions: Building a foundation for school
completion. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 2-8.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 94-142, § 612, 20 USC 1400 (1975).
Erickson, K., Hanser, G., Hatch, P., Sanders, E. (2009). Research-based practices for creating
access to the general curriculum in reading and literacy for students with significant
intellectual disabilities. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Literacy and Disability Studies,
University of North Carolina.
Fairbairn, S., & Jones-Vo, S. (2010). Differentiating instruction and assessment for English
language learners: A guide for K-12 teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
Ferretti, R. P., & Eisenman, L. T. (2010). Commentary: Delivering educational services that
meet the needs of all. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 378-384.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing Company.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Francis, D., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Effective practices for English language learners in the
middle grades: Introduction to the special issue of Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 289-296. doi:
10.1080/19345740903217664
Friend, J., Most, R., & McCrary, K. (2009). The impact of a professional development program
to improve urban middle-level English language learner achievement. Middlge Grade
Research Journal, 4(1), 53-75.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2002). Including students with special needs: A practical guide
for classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2006). Including students with special needs: A practical guide
for classroom teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
23 | P a g e
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does – and does
not – say. American Educator, 8-44.
Goodlad, J. (2004). A place called school. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Goodlad, J. & Oakes, J. (1988). We must offer equal access to knowledge. Educational
Leadership, 45, 16-22.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Harry, B., & Klinger, J. (2007). Discarding the deficit model. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 1621.
Holdheide, L., Goe, L., Croft, A., & Reschly, D. (2010). Challenges in evaluating special
education teachers and English language learner specialists. National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality Brief, July 2010. Washington, DC.
Hollins, E. R. (1996). Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society. Routledge.
Hudalla, J. (2005). Transforming my curriculum, transforming my classroom: Paulo Freire,
James Banks, and social justice in a middle school classroom. EdChange and the
Multicultural Pavilion. Retrieved June 20, 2010, from
http://www.EdChange.org/multicultural.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments for 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17 (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004).
Janzen, J. (2008). Teaching English language learners in the content areas. Review of
Educational Research, 78(4), 1010-1038.
Jones, P. (2010). My peers have also been an inspiration for me: Developing online learning
opportunities to support teacher engagement with inclusive pedagogy for students
with severe/profound intellectual developmental disabilities. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 14 (7), 681–696.
24 | P a g e
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Arreaga-Mayer, C., Wills, H., Longstaff, J., Culpepper,
J., & Walton, C. (2007). Use of evidence-based, small-group reading instruction for
English language learners in elementary grades: Secondary-tier intervention. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 30, 153-168.
Lane, K., Pierson, M., & Givner, C. (2003). Teacher expectations of student behavior: which
skills do elementary and secondary teachers deem necessary for success in the
classroom? Education & Treatment of Children, 26(4), 413-430.
Lee, S., Amos, B., Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y., Shogren, K., Theoharis, R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2006).
Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the general
curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education
and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3), 199–212.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond separate education: Quality education for all.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., & Buntix, W. H. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition,
classification, and systems of supports (10th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Association on Mental Retardation.
Lumsden, L. (1997). Expectations for students. ERIC Digest, (116). Retrieved from ERIC
database. (ED409609)
McGrew, K., & Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities: Is the cup
half-empty or half-full? Can the cup flow over? Synthesis Report, 55. Retrieved from
ERIC database. (ED518644)
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278.
25 | P a g e
Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophesy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
Milner IV, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational
practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693-718.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nolet, V. & McLaughlin, M. J. (2005). Accessing the general curriculum: including students
with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (1999). Teaching to change the world. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
Publishers.
Ogle, D., & Correa-Kovtun, A. (2010). Supporting English-language learners and struggling
readers in content literacy with the “Partner Reading and Content, Too” routine. The
Reading Teacher, 63(7), 532-542. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.7.1
Omotani, B. J., & Omotani, L. (1996). Expect the best: How your teachers can help all children
learn. The Executive Educator, 18(8), 27, 31.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for
student access (ERIC/OSEP topical brief). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.
Pacheco, M. (2010). English-language leaners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationship
between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45(3), 292-317.
Parkay, F., Hass, G., & Anctil, E. (2010). Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing
quality educational programs (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Pawan, F. (2008). Content-area teachers and scaffolding instruction for English language
learners. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1450-1462. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.003
Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (2011). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K12 teachers (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
26 | P a g e
Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Epstein, M. H., & Smith, T E. C. (1989). Comprehensive
curriculum for students with mild handicaps. Focus on Exceptional Children, 21(8),
1-12.
Reimer, A. (2005). Equity in public education. Manitoba Association of School Superintendents,
2(1), 1-6.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program
effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19(4), 572-594.
doi: 10.1177/0895904805278067
Ryndak, D. L., Margaret, A. M., Orlando, A. M, & Delano, M. (2008). Access to the general
curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students
with extensive support needs. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 33(4), 199-213.
Scanlan, M., & López, F. (2012). ¡Vamos! How school leaders promote equity and excellence
for bilingual students. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 583-625. doi:
10.1177/0013161X11436270
Samway, K., & McKeon, D. (2007). Myths and realities: Best practices for English language
learners (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schiro, M. (2008). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2005). Teacher skills to support English language learners.
Educational Leadership, 62, 8-13.
Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, C. (2011). Research on academic literacy
development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3),
363-380.
27 | P a g e
Smith, P. (2007). Have we made any progress? Including students with intellectual disabilities in
regular education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(5),
297-309.
Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M., Bashinski, S.,& Bovaird, J. (2007). Classroom variables and access
to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(1),
101-120.
Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Stefanich, G., & Alper, S. (1996). Learning in inclusive
classrooms: What about the curriculum? In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.),
Inclusion: A guide for educators (pp. 209-219). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Deciding to teach them all. Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6-11.
Trent, S., Artiles, A., & Englert, C. (1998). From deficit thinking to social constructivism: A
review of theory, research, and practice in special education. Review of Research in
Education, 23, 277-307.
Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking. Bristol, PA: The Falmer Press, Taylor and
Francis Inc.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32. doi:
10.1177/0022487102053001003
Wehmeyer, M. J. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum
for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31, 322-326.
Wehmeyer, M. J., Lance, D., & Bashinski, S. (2002) Promoting access to the general curriculum
for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(3), 223-234.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general education
curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making
model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 36(4), 327-342.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general
curriculum of middle-school students with mental retardation: An observational
study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262–272.
28 | P a g e
Wehmeyer, M.L., Sands, D.J., Knowlton, H. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2002). Teaching students
with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Westwood, P. (2003). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs:
Strategies for the regular classroom (4th ed. ). New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA). (2011). Standards and instruction.
Retrieved from http://www.wida.us/standards
Yell, M. (2006). The law and special education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ; Pearson
Additional Resources
The National Center for Culturally Responsive
Educational Systems
The Equity Alliance at ASU
Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and
Excellence
http://www.nccrest.org/
http://www.equityallianceatasu.org/
http://crede.berkeley.edu/
29 | P a g e