KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2013)
Course Number/Program Name INED 8800
Department Inclusive Education
Degree Title (if applicable)Ed.S/Ed.D. in Special Education
Proposed Effective Date Summer 2014
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
Sections to be Completed
X New Course Proposal
II, III, IV, V, VII
Course Title Change
I, II, III
Course Number Change
I, II, III
Course Credit Change
I, II, III
Course Prerequisite Change
I, II, III
Course Description Change
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:
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Patricia McHatton
Faculty Member
Not Approved
Not Approved
Karen Kuhel
Department Curriculum Committee
_____
Date
Date
Patricia McHatton
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
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
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 8800______________________________
Course Title __ Science, Data, and Equitable Education Practice ______
Class Hours
_3___Laboratory Hours___0____CreditHours__3______
Prerequisites Admission to the Ed.S/Ed.D or Instructor/Program Coordinator Approval
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course will further candidates’ understandings of national, state, and local data
systems. As a result of this course students will: 1) access, analyze, and critique data
patterns at multiple levels including student outcome data; 2) design appropriate program
evaluation; 3) analyze and critique issues of diversity within special/education data sets;
and 4) develop a personal sense of individual research interests and commitment to
pursuing relevant and meaningful research in special education.
III.
Justification
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) increased emphasis on accountability and data-based decision
making. A primary component of NCLB was the collection and disaggregation of data
addressing participation in and performance by diverse learners including students with
disabilities. Developing expertise in accessing, analyzing, and critiquing data sets at
multiple levels (i.e., international, national, state, district, school, specific student groups)
is essential for individuals working with students with disabilities. Candidates will also
gain knowledge and skills in program evaluation including generating hypotheses,
developing goal-setting guidelines, identifying interventions, and defining evaluation
methods leading to improved student outcomes.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Dr. Patricia Alvarez McHatton
Text:
Johnson, R. S. & La Salle, R. A. (2010). Data Strategies to Uncover and
Eliminate Hidden Inequities: the Wallpaper Effect. Thousand Oakes,
CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J., & Lasley II, T. J. (2009). Handbook of Data-Based Decision
Making in Education. New York: Routledge
Prerequisites:
Objectives:
1.Candidate will identify, critically examine, and debate issues in the
field of special education
2.Access, analyze, and critique data patterns at multiple levels including
student outcome data
3.Identify and explore technology tools to support data analysis and
management;
4.Examine issues of equity in education
5.Develop a data-based action plan to ensure equity in education
6.Candidate will critically reflect on his/her epistemologies and how they
shape individual responses to course content
Instructional Method
Face-to-face, hybrid, or online as appropriate
Method of Evaluation
Regular
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
This course replaces an existing course. No funds are needed beyond library resources. I have
included $1000 for library resources to purchase books and support journal subscriptions.
Resource
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Amount
$500
$500
$1000
This course replaces an existing course. No funds are needed beyond library resources
($1000) to purchase books and support journal subscriptions.
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
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
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
INED
8800
Science, Data & Equity
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
3-0-3
Summer 2014
R
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
_____________________________________________
___
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
(*Last day to withdraw w/o academic penalty: )
I.
COURSE NUMBER: INED 8800
COURSE TITLE: Science, Data, and Equitable Education Practice
COLLEGE OR SCHOOL:
SEMESTER/TERM & YEAR:
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
OFFICE:
III.
CLASS MEETINGS:
IV.
TEXTS:
Required
Johnson, R. S. & La Salle, R. A. (2010). Data Strategies to Uncover and Eliminate Hidden
Inequities: the Wallpaper Effect. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin Press.
Kowalski, T. J., & Lasley II, T. J. (2009). Handbook of Data-Based Decision Making in
Education. New York: Routledge
Galileo password:
V. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course will further candidates’ understandings of national, state, and local data systems. As a
result of this course students will: 1) access, analyze, and critique data patterns at multiple levels
including student outcome data; 2) design appropriate program evaluation; 3) analyze and critique
issues of diversity within special/education data sets; and 4) develop a personal sense of
individual research interests and commitment to pursuing relevant and meaningful research in
special education.
Pre-requisites:
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE
Since the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) there has been increased emphasis on accountability and data-based decision
making. A primary component of NCLB was the collection and disaggregation of data addressing
participation in and performance by diverse learners including students with disabilities. Further,
teacher evaluation and Educator Preparation Programs are increasingly tied to student
performance; thus, developing expertise in accessing, analyzing, and critiqueing data sets at
multiple levels (i.e., international, national, state, district, school, specific student groups) is
essential for individuals working toward leadership positions. This course provides candidates
with this knowledge and skills and provides opportunities to develop an understanding of
program evaluation including generating hypotheses, developing goal-setting guidelines,
identifying interventions, and defining evaluation methods leading to improved student outcomes.
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY’S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Our vision as a nationally recognized Educator Preparation Program (EPP) is to remain at the
forefront of educator preparation. Informed by responsive engagement in collaborative
partnerships, we advance educational excellence through innovative teaching in an ever-changing
global and digital learning environment. Our mission is to prepare educators to improve student
learning within a collaborative teaching and learning community through innovative teaching,
purposeful research, and engaged service. The essence of our vision and mission is captured in
the theme Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership which
was adopted in 2002 to express concisely the fundamental approach to educator preparation at
KSU.
The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers, teacher
leaders and school leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels
of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom
instruction, and to enhance the structures that support all learning. To that end, the EPP fosters
the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to
proficient to expert and leader. Within the EPP conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a
process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational
leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of
learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the
EPP recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university
and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with
professionals in the university, local communities, public and private schools and school districts,
parents and other professional partners, the EPP meets the ultimate goal of bringing all of
Georgia’s students to high levels of learning.
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.
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students learning English continues to develop
rapidly. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, content-based instruction, and
L1/L2 approaches to teaching and learning. The field draws on research literature in the areas
of second language acquisition, bilingualism and cognition, L1/L2 literacy, and social justice.
EPP Diversity Statement
The KSU Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) believes all learners are entitled to equitable
educational opportunities. To that end, programs within the EPP consist of curricula, field
experiences, and clinical practice that promote candidates’ development of knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions related to diversity identified in the unit’s conceptual framework,
including the local community, Georgia, the nation, and the world. Curricula and applied
experiences are based on well-developed knowledge foundations for, and conceptualizations of,
diversity and inclusion so that candidates can apply them effectively in schools. Candidates learn
to contextualize teaching and draw effectively on representations from the students’ own
experiences and cultures. They learn to collaborate and engage with families in ways that value
the resources, understandings, and knowledge that students bring from their home lives,
communities and cultures as assets to enrich learning opportunities. Candidates maintain high
expectations for all students (including English learners, students with exceptionalities and other
historically marginalized and underrepresented students), and support student success through
research-based culturally, linguistically, and socially relevant pedagogies and curricula.
Technology
Technology Standards & Use: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the master teacher 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, feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, and use various software. Library research required in this
course is supported by the Galileo system. D2L is a tool available to use for distance learning
and will also be the primary mode of communication, especially in case of weather related
notices regarding class. Course materials will be posted on D2L two to three weeks before they
are discussed in class.
Theoretical Framework for the Ed.D. & Ed.S. in Teaching Field Majors
Conceptual
Theoretical
Contextual
Learner
Practice
Informed pedagogical approaches arise from teachers’ critical understandings of
Theoretical/Conceptual, Contextual, and Practical/Applied influences on the learner. The belief
that all students can learn when the learner is the pedagogical core—promoted by Weimer
(2002)—is the foundation of this program. Within this learner-centered conceptual framework,
learners are embodied as P-16 students, pre-service candidates, teachers, teacher-leaders, and
school and district leaders and administrators, all of whom engage in a coherent, learner-centered
approach (Copland & Knapp, 2006). According to Lambert and McCombs (2000) and Alexander
and Murphy (2000), the confluence of Practical, Contextual, and Conceptual Critical
Understandings forms a lens for understanding Learner-Centered Psychological Principles.Within
the Education and Research Core and the Teaching Field Pedagogy core courses, the candidates
are introduced to key theories/concepts which are then examined according to the context of their
teaching situation addressing issues of grade level, diversity, and school type. The assessments of
the key theories/concepts in the courses, including formal and informal, are practical, which
means the candidates apply the theories/concepts in a practical situation, such as a 7th grade
science classroom.
VII. POLICIES:
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Every KSU student 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.
ATTENDANCE POLICY
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalogue. Regular
attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the candidate is responsible for obtaining
all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings (face-toface, synchronous, and asynchronous) is stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. As
a community of learners we are diminished if any one of us is absent. Not all material covered
will be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of
your absence. Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class participation/attendance
points (see KSU Graduate Catalog).
CANDIDATE EXPECTATIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION:
It is expected that candidates not only attend classes online and/or in person (face-to-face)
depending on the delivery mode of the class, but also contribute to discussion boards thoroughly
prepared. “Thoroughly prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and
in writing state the definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues,
and procedures in relation to previous information presented in class, online, or in previous readings;
and apply the information from the readings to problems. It also implies the candidate has reviewed
information from the previous class meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the
candidate should prepare questions to discuss in class. In addition, group members can ask
candidates who are not contributing equally to the development of the presentation to be removed
from their group.
Various cooperative learning group activities - in class and online - will enable candidates to
apply new skills and knowledge. Each candidate has something unique to contribute to the class
experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members. For full credit, candidates must
demonstrate professionalism by:
a) Participating fully in collaborative group work and focus groups
b) Practicing active listening during presentations
c) Refraining from working on other assignments during class presentations (or
checking email)
All assignments must be submitted on or before the class meeting on the assigned due date. All
grading will be done as objectively as possible. Rubrics will be provided for class presentations,
postings, facilitation, and projects. In case of qualitative assessment, evaluation will be based on
instructor judgment. Points will be cumulative and final course grades will be based on the
percent of total points earned (i.e., A = 100 - 90%, B = 89 - 80%, etc.).
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.
Candidates should refer to the University Catalog to review this policy.
HUMAN RELATIONS
The University has formulated a policy on human relations that is intended to provide a learning
environment that recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the University 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.
VIII. COURSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this course are consistent
with the EPP Advanced Proficiencies, EDD/EDS program standards, and SPED EDD/EDS
program standards.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Candidate will identify, critically examine, and debate issues in the field of special
education
Access, analyze, and critique data patterns at multiple levels including student
outcome data
Identify and explore technology tools to support data analysis and management;
Examine issues of equity in education
Develop a data-based action plan to ensure equity in education
Candidate will critically reflect on his/her epistemologies and how they shape
individual responses to course content
EDD Performance
Outcome
1. Candidates foster a
responsive, learnercentered educational
environment that
promotes
collaboration and
democratic
participation for
student learning and
may include coteaching.
2. Candidates
demonstrate
pedagogical
approaches which
incorporate
contextual,
theoretical/conceptual
, and practical
influences on the
learner and learning.
3. Candidates advance
teaching and learning
through the
innovative use of
technology based on
sound educational
theory and knowledge
of the learner.
4. Candidates
demonstrate in-depth
foundational
knowledge of
content-based
SPED EDD/EDS
Objectives
Course Objective
Candidates apply a
critical lens to
collaboration among
key stakeholders to
promote equitable
practices within
culturally responsive
and sustaining
educational contexts
leading to improved
outcomes for all
learners.
Knowledge,
Skills
Dispositions
(Advanced
CPI)
Activities,
Coursework,
Assignments & Key
Assessment
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
2.3 (K;S)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
2.6 (K;S)
2) Access, analyze,
and critique data
patterns at multiple
levels including
student outcome
data
1.2 (K;S)
1.3 (K;S)
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 - 2.6
(K;S;D)
Critiques of Readings
Class Discussions
Key Assessment
1.2 (K;S)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
2.4 (K;S)
Candidates
demonstrate an
understanding of how
historical legacies,
legislation, and
4) Examine issues
of equity in
education
5) Develop a data-
1.1 (K)
1.2 (K;S)
3.1 (K;D)
3.2 (K;D)
3.3 (D)
Key Assessment
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 data
to inform their own
pedagogical
effectiveness.
6. Candidates engage in
scholarly, applied
research to advance
knowledge of
teaching, the learner,
and/or learning.
litigation have served
to both include and
segregate students
with disabilities and
utilize this knowledge
to serve as change
agents within
educational and
community settings.
based action plan
to ensure equity in
education
3.4 (D)
3.5 (D)
Critique of Readings
Class Discussions
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
3.2 (K;D)
Candidates engage in
inquiry based learning
as both consumer and
producer of research.
Drawing from
theoretical and
conceptual
frameworks in
educational research
they apply these
theories to their
practice and develop
alternative critical
pedagogies to provide
socially just schooling
for all students.
3) Identify and
explore technology
tools to support
data analysis and
management;
7. Candidates reflect on
their professional,
scholarly practice,
and analyze the ways
in which they have
changed in their
thinking, beliefs, or
behaviors toward
improved learnercentered practices.
Candidates are
knowledgeable of
critical issues within
the field of
special/education and
engage in critical
reflection, which
involves taking an
inquiry stance, relating
theory to practice,
stating an argument
and supporting it with
evidence, making
comparisons and
evaluating their own
positionalities and
epistemologies.
6) Candidate will
critically reflect
on his/her
epistemologies
and how they
shape individual
responses to
course content
8. Candidates support
academic and
linguistic needs of the
learner, enhance
Candidates move
beyond a culturally
responsive framework
by adopting a reflexive
3.2 (K;D)
3.5 (D)
Key Assessment
5) Develop a databased action plan
to ensure equity
in education
3.2 (K;D)
Critique Readings
Key Assessment
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
cultural
understandings, and
increase global
awareness of all
students.
9. Candidates
demonstrate
professional
dispositions, fluency
of academic language
in a variety of
contexts, , and ethical
practice expected of
an engaged scholarpractitioner.
10.
multicultural approach
that validates and
sustains the cultural
identity of learners.
1.
Candidate will
identify,
critically
examine, and
debate issues
in the field of
special
education
1.4(K;D)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
3.1 – 3.5
(K;D)
Critiques
Class Discussions
Candidates employ a
critical lens to
dismantle, reconfigure,
and construct
equitable educational
institutions by
identifying and
challenging power and
ideology in teaching
practices, curricular
materials, and
education reform
efforts.
IX. COURSE REQUIREMENTS & ASSIGNMENTS
Assessments will be determined by instructor.
X. Evaluation and Grading:
A = 90 – 100%
B = 80 – 89%
C = 70 – 79%
D = 60 – 69%
Late Work: No make-up work or extra credit will be given. Assignments are due on the
specified date and will not be accepted past the due date.
NOTE: All written work should reflect careful organization of material and the high
standards of investigation associated with doctoral-level studies. All work
submitted must follow APA 6th Edition format.
XI. COURSE OUTLINE:
Tentative course schedule (subject to change with notice). NOTE: Course topics are based on
current trends and issues in special / education and thus will be revised as necessary to keep
the course current.
Class Session
1.
Topic
Welcome
Activity: Getting to know each other
Seminar introduction
Syllabus Review
A look at the Readings
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Contextualizing evidence-based decision making
Theoretical and practical perspectives
The Politics of Data (Henig)
Scientific Research in Education (Lather)
Building support for data-based decisions
Exploring data sets
Technology to Support Data Collection(Edyburn)
Mining Data
Building support for data-based decisions
Principal leadership and school improvement
Building support for data-based decisions
Teacher use of data (Jenning; Marsh)
Data as a means to engage families (Harvard Family Research Project; Taveras,
Douwes, & Johnson)
Data-based applications (Education Week)
Making critical choices
Technology to support data-based decisions
Data-based applications (Marzano; Weiss)
Making critical choices
Technology to support data-based decisions
Program Evaluation Approaches
Higher Education and Teacher Performance (Rennert-Ariev)
Cultural Considerations within Special Education Research and Program
Evaluation
9.
Practical Guidelines for Planning and Implementing Evaluations
10.
11.
The need for other data: uncovering inequities
The need for other data: peeling the wallpaper off everyday inequities
Implications for diverse learners
Impact of non-academic indicators on student achievement
Changing the current normal: ensuring equity
Presentations
Presentations
12.
13.
14.
15.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, A. E., Thomas, R. A., Kimerling, J., & Leko, C. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation:
What every special education teacher should know. Teaching Exceptional Children,
45(5), 60-68.
Education Week. (2011). Spotlight on data-driven decision making. June 30, 2011.
Edyburn, D. L. (1999). The electronic scholar: Enhancing research productivity with
technology. Merrill.
Fitzpatric, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative
approaches and practical guidelines.
Gersten, R., Schiller, E. P., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2000). Contemporary special education
research: Syntheses of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harvard Family Research Project. (2013). Tips for administrators, teachers, and families: How to
share data effectively. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Henig, J. R. (2012). The politics of data use. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development, Teachers’ Ability to Use Data to Inform Instruction:
Challenges and Supports, Washington, D.C., 2011.
Jennings, J. L. (2012). The effects of accountability system design on Teachers’ use of test score
data. Teachers College Record, 114(11). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID
Number: 16810.
Lather, P. (2004). Scientific research in education: A critical perspective. Journal of Curriculum
and Supervision, 20(1), 14-30).
Marsh, J. A. (2012) Interventions promoting educator’s use of data: Research insights and gaps.
Teachers College Record, 114(11). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number:
16805.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Applying the research on instruction: An
idea whose time has come. In classroom Instruction that Works: Research-Based
Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement (p. 1-12)
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). State Education Reforms (SER). Available at
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/?newsflash=true
National Forum on Education Statistics. (2010). Forum Guide to Data Ethics (NFES 2010–801).
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2013). Research services available from
http://research.studentclearinghouse.org/
Rennert-Ariev, P. (2008). The hidden curriculum of performance based teacher education.
Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105-138. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID
Number 14561
Roderick, M. (2012) Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis. Teachers College Record, 114(11).
Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16815.
Rumrill, Jr., P. D., Cook, B. G., & Wiley, A. L. (2011). Special education: Designs, methods, and
applications. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishing.
Taveras, B., Douwes, C., & Johnson, K. (2013). New visions for public schools: Using data to
engage parents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2011).
Teachers’ Ability to Use Data to Inform Instruction: Challenges and Supports.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2007).
Teachers’ Use of Student Data Management Systems to Improve Instruction.
Washington, D.C.
Weiss, J. A. (2012). Data for improvement, data for accountability. Teachers College Record,
114(11). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16813