A Look at Two Influencing Theories in Education:
“Core Knowledge” of E.D. Hirsch and
“Accelerated School Project” of Henry Levin
Lynne M. Bailey
EDU 35
Fall 2002
Prof. Ross
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
2.
Core Knowledge .......................................................................................... 2
3.
Accelerated Schools Project ....................................................................... 5
4.
Additional Discussion Points ....................................................................... 7
5.
Bibliography ...............................................................................................13
6.
Appendix ....................................................................................................16
(ii)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
A Look at Two Influencing Theories in Education:
“Core Knowledge” of E.D. Hirsch and
“Accelerated School Project” of Henry Levin
1. Introduction
Debate over schooling is nothing new1, but especially in the last decade we have
witnessed an unprecedented rise in the development and implementation of educational
programs seeking to improve learning processes and student performance. This includes a shift
towards whole-school reform and the establishment of comprehensive programs propelled by
the particular founder’s idea of how an ideal learning environment should be structured and
influenced by differing educational and psychological learning theories and practices. This paper
will review the philosophies and programs of E. D. Hirsch and Henry M. Levin, founders of the
Core Knowledge and Accelerated Schools programs, respectively. Both of these initiatives are
driven, at least in part, by the desire to improve education in under-served, at-risk school
populations. The availability of U.S. government education policy and funding2 has propelled
the implementation of these and other models across the country.
1
“The Story of Public Education”, History Page
2
Fashola & Slavin, p. 1
(1)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
2. Core Knowledge
The educational reform movement, Core Knowledge, is traditional
by nature and is based on content, not process. It seeks to ensure a solid
and fair elementary education for all students by using a grade-by-grade specific, shared core
curriculum to help children establish strong foundations of knowledge. The content of this core
curriculum is outlined in two books – the Core Knowledge Preschool Sequence and the Core
Knowledge Sequence, K-8- and states explicitly what students should learn at each grade level.
Exact figures about its usage vary depending upon the source, but there appears to be about
1,000 schools in the United States are participating in school model3.
In 1986 E. D. Hirsch, Jr. established the non-profit Core Knowledge Foundation. His
philosophies are best expressed in his books, principally “Cultural Literacy: What Every
American Needs to Know” (1987) and “The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them”
(1996). In an earlier book, “Philosophy of Composition,” we find the essential kernel of his
thinking – “the reason students wrote such poor essays was not that they lacked competency in
writing skills, but that they lacked the background knowledge assumed by questions. They
couldn’t answer a test question about the Civil War because they didn’t recognize the names
Grant and Lee.” 4 The basic tenet of Core Knowledge therefore, is this fact-filled curriculum.
The center of the model is the Core Knowledge Sequence, a “spiral” of specific information
which builds towards broader and deeper knowledge, one where first graders would know the
story of the 13 colonies and older students more of the whys and wherefores. This principle
applies to all subject areas – English, mathematics, science, music and visual arts. Hirsch argues
3
Core Knowledge web site, “Frequently Asked Questions,”
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/about/FAQ/information.htm#1
4
Traub, “Better By Design,” p. 31
(2)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
that in a democracy, general knowledge should be a primary goal of education, that knowledge is
the great social equalizer. It provides a foundation for competency, and regardless of race, class,
or ethnicity, paves the way for a more just society. 5
Central to the philosophy is that knowledge begets more knowledge. We learn by
building on what we already know. Hirsch claims “there is a consensus in cognitive psychology
that it takes knowledge to gain knowledge,” and points to research conducted by Prof. George A.
Miller, Herbert A. Simon and Jill Larkin, Betty Hard and Todd Risley (“Meaningful
Differences”), Thomas Landauer and D. Lubinski and L.G. Humphreys. This research highlights
that vocabulary in particular is a reflection of knowledge. It is estimated that you need to
already know 95% of the words in what you read or hear to comprehend the information.
Therefore, the child with the better vocabulary will naturally learn more than another child with
a weaker vocabulary. 6 By using a Core Knowledge curriculum, the disadvantaged child will
have the opportunity to catch up to the advantaged child. This extensive curriculum (see
appendix for an outline of study for grades 6-8 on page 24) started with a list made by Hirsch
and his colleagues of what literate Americans do know and was part of his book, “Cultural
Literacy”. 7 The Core Knowledge Sequence has evolved and now represents the result of research
into the content and structure of the highest performing elementary school systems around the
world. Efforts have been made to refine the curriculum by wide-ranging consensus-building
among diverse groups and experts from the Core Knowledge Foundation's advisory board on
multicultural traditions. At a national conference in 1990, twenty-four working groups
hammered out a draft sequence. Further fine-tuning was accomplished during a year of
implementation at Three Oaks Elementary in Ft. Myers, Florida and as more schools adopt
5
Hirsch “Why General Knowledge Should Be a Goal of Education in a Democracy”
6
Hirsch, “You Can Always Look It Up—Or Can You?”
7
Traub, “Better By Design”, p. 32
(3)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Core Knowledge, the Foundation claims to seek out their suggestions based on their
experiences to update the Sequence.8
Hirsch is especially critical of the progressive movement in education. In his book, “The
Schools We Need and Why We Don't Have Them,” Hirsch concludes that "educational
progressivism is a sure means of preserving the social status quo" and that educational
conservatism offers the "only means whereby children from disadvantaged homes can secure
the knowledge and skills that will enable them to improve their condition." It is impossible to
expect higher achievement in specialized areas unless youngsters learn such basic skills as
reading, writing and math. It is his contention that educational progressivism has stunted this
realization of basic skills because it puts other issues, such as self-esteem and the "joy of
discovery", first.9
Hirsch does not, however, advocate a particular style of pedagogy and many studentcentered activities, the cornerstone of progressive ideologies, are employed by the various
schools subscribing to his theory. The difference is, of course, that the topics covered are not
chosen by the students, and the activities are very much coordinated and guided by the teacher.
He also does not condemn direct, teacher-led instruction or memorization of the multiplication
tables.
As there are schools implementing the Core Knowledge model, it is appropriate to ask
about results. Some research has been done to assess the success of the model, but more needs
to be done. Indications are, however, that the students from Core Knowledge schools are doing
better on standardized tests. Anecdotally, there is much enthusiasm for the model, and teachers
are free to use a variety of techniques to teach the curriculum, and do—everything from
cooperative learning to lectures.
8
Core Knowledge web site, “Who Decided What's in th Sequence?”
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/about/index.htm#WHO
9
Thomas B. Ford Foundation web site “Other Education Issues – Curriculum and Content”,
http://www.edexcellence.net/otherissues.html
(4)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
3. Accelerated Schools Project
The Accelerated Schools Project (ASP), championed by Henry Levin, stemmed from his
analysis of school reform literature: that virtually all programs for
disadvantaged children were remedial in nature and that children so
designated remained in basically remedial programs for their entire
school career. His program rejects that thinking entirely, and places
all children in an enriched learning atmosphere. Levin claims we should expect just as much
from these children as we do from any others. In a 1992 interview Levin stated that when “you
start with their [children’s] strengths and build on those strengths, you’re challenged to come up
with enrichment for their gifts and talents.” “I don’t like term ‘at risk’. As soon as you think of
kids in need of repair, what you do is repair.” 10 The remedial process precipitates a cycle of
lower expectations, lower achievement and often emphasizes repetition and basic skills,
ignoring more progressive teaching techniques.11 Perhaps drawing directly on Howard Gardner’s
philosophies, every child is treated as a gifted child.
Eclipsed in size only by the Success for All program, ASP has been adopted in over 1,300
elementary schools12. The program began in 1986 when Levin, along with graduate students
from Stamford University, enrolled two schools in the San Francisco Bay13 area to start putting
his philosophy into practice. A whole-school model evolved coupling a strict plan for school
governance with enriched and “powerful” learning. The three essential principles are: 1) unity of
purpose, 2) empowerment with responsibility and 3) building on strengths.
Levin strongly believes that to change the classroom, the whole school structure has to
change as well, from the top down, to a more democratic, consensus building model. His
10
“Accelerated Schools Project,” Teacher Magazine
11
Traub, “Better By Design” p. 13
12
Viadero, “As Levin Steps Back..”
13
“Accelerated Schools Project,” Teacher Magazine
(5)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
program requires that the school community works together to transform its school. As a group,
teachers, parents, administrators and students work together to examine the way learning and
teaching take place, then develop a shared understanding, or school vision, to encompass the
kinds of educational experiences it wants its students to have and decides how best to address
these goals. A school will not be accepted into the program unless at least 90 percent of fulltime staff and school community representatives are willing participants. The term "big wheels"
refers to this formal processes of becoming an accelerated schools: taking stock, forging a vision,
setting priorities, forming governance structures, and using the Inquiry Process to bring about
institutional changes by the collaborative efforts of the whole school community.14
The ASP is a continuing effort to align the vision with reality. Cadres (committees) are
formed from the entire school community and use a systematic problem-solving process,
“Inquiry”. Members work together to find the best possible solutions to challenge areas they
have identified. These challenges often address the what, how, and context of students' learning.
For example, the Curriculum Cadre in a California school was looking at why the current
reading program was not working well. Together they defined the problem more closely, tested
their hypothesis, and concluded that there was little connection between reading and language
arts across grade levels and that left students disengaged. An action plan was developed, focused
on using the performing arts to strengthen language arts and reading. This approach could draw
on different student learning styles and build upon their strengths and interests. Working with
this idea, the school then hired a performing artist to work with teachers and the school's artistin-residence to integrate what students are learning in the classroom with the arts.15 This
process is central to the ASP concept: a democratic, participatory structure that is committed
and empowered to bring about their shared vision.
14
Accelerated Schools Program web site, “Frameworks for Learning and Instruction” at
http://www.acceleratedschools.net/main_pow.htm
15
Accelerated Schools Program web site, “Frameworks for Learning and Instruction”
(6)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
But even as Levin defined the school structure, he did not initially dictate pedagogical
technique. He went on to coin the term “powerful learning” which he felt the new school climate
fostered. Though there is no direct corollary from democratic structure to constructivist
learning, he believes that this is a natural outgrowth. Once the climate of teamwork is
established in the school, innovative teaching practices can be widely implemented. Levin cites
five qualities of powerful learning. It is authentic, interactive, learner-centered, inclusive and
continuous or open-ended. He favors an interdisciplinary curriculum and sees powerful learning
as an environment that integrates curriculum, teaching and context for the student learning
experience.16
In practice, it does appear that most schools adopt a constructivist approach. There is a
reading program developed by ASP, the Accelerated Reading Renaissance program, which runs
through the third grade. Other than that, however, powerful learning is up to the individual
schools and teachers. 17
What about results? Levin himself did not see his program as a quick fix, but rather a 30year project.18 Indeed initial results were mixed. This past year, however, the Manpower
Demonstration Research Corp. completed a study of Accelerated Schools that shows a definite
pay-off over a longer period of time. The main objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of
the ASP approach in a small sample of schools that had launched the reform early in its
development and served at-risk students. The study is based on eight years of test data from
third graders in eight schools across the country that initiated the program in the early 1990’s.
The results are encouraging. Students showed marked improvement five years into the program.
This was a small study and these schools did not institute any widespread curriculum or
pedagogical changes until at least the third year. The biggest gains came from the schools that
16
Traub, “Better By Design,” p. 14
17
i.b.i.d. p. 16
18
“Accelerated Schools,” Teacher Magazine
(7)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
had the lowest average test scores before adopting the ASP model. Average test scores increased
7 to 8% in reading and math.19
As might be expected, the ASP model is evolving. The findings suggest that current
efforts to speed up the implementation of curriculum and instructional changes are a wise
decision. More technical assistance is also available and there is a concerted effort to illustrate
power learning techniques and get them in the classroom sooner. Defining the school, it’s
objectives, assessing its strengths and weaknesses, listening to all stakeholders in the process,
are key elements in the Accelerated School process. Applying the constructivist method in the
classroom is what brings it to life and enriches the learning experiences for all students.
4. Additional Discussion Points
The concepts that Hirsh espouses are antithetical in many ways to the pivotal ideologies
of the progressive movements. The progressives propose student-directed and initiated learning,
learning by discovery and directly relating to student experiences. Standards may be adjusted
according to a learner’s differences and there is an emphasis on in-depth project work, rather
than acquiring a broad-based knowledge base. Students are assessed on portfolios of individual
and group work, grades are downplayed, teachers act as facilitators and curriculum embraces a
range of issues encompassing a balance of academic and social concerns. The focus in Social
Studies is on diversity, multi-culturalism and may neglect historical and geographical facts. Is
the pendulum swinging back the other way?
In 1960 Jerome Bruner hypothesized that “any subject can be taught effectively in some
intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development.”20 Ergo, we should not
postpone the introduction of important subjects on grounds that they may be too difficult for the
child to learn. Elements of any subject can be taught in some form and even fundamental
19
Bloom, et. al., Executive Summary pp. 1-4
20
Bruner, p. 33
(8)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
principles of the sciences can be simple and intuitive. The matter can be revisited at a later age,
in depth and with a higher level of comprehension. Paiget’s Stages of Development can guide us
in the manner of presenting information, so that it can be best discerned by the child learner.21
Schools have many social responsibilities as well and it is hard to imagine in an urban
school there is enough time in the day to accommodate a curriculum as wide ranging as the one
Core Knowledge espouses, but I like the idea very much. I do think that there should be a
common curriculum and specific knowledge goals for our students. Whatever goals we have for
our students, most require a structure to achieve them. It should not be a guessing game of
ambiguous standards – why not specify some of the concrete information we wish our children
to know? Yes, of course, we want them also to become critical thinkers and problem solvers, but
without a foundation of common knowledge, they are at a disadvantage in expression,
comparisons, spontaneous and relevant discourse, and will undoubtedly have more difficulty in
researching new information on any given subject if it is all foreign to them.
Actually, there is no reason a Core Knowledge curriculum cannot be adopted by an
Accelerated School or integrated with other initiatives. Indeed, implementation will always
vary, and some programs offer a wide latitude for doing so. It is no secret that an interested,
motivated student is going to learn more and than one who is not. The Accelerated School
Project is very compelling as well, and if not an influencer, than certainly an early reflector of
much greater inclusion in today’s schools and progressive pedagogy. His model also actively
includes the whole community to govern the schools. This is a trend tat is percolating through
many schools. Levin also seems to embraces the theory of Multiple Intelligences advanced by
Gardner—his initial impetus to treat at-risk students as gifted learners reflects that. There is
finally some evidence that corroborates progressive methods with better achievement,
particularly when coupled with curriculum changes.
21
i.b.i.d. p 34
(9)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
As off-the-shelf school models, these two programs are relatively inexpensive compared
to others, and there is ample room for local customization, but implementing their basic
learning theories need not require a formal
signing up. A School Practices Survey by the
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation found that,
at least in the state of Ohio, the majority of
schools practiced neither traditional nor
progressive exclusively. They occupied the
middle ground.22 The ongoing influence of
progressive models is well reflected, as is the
continuing hue and cry of “back-to-basics”.
Both Levin and Hirsch have been at the forefront in advancing these ideologies and their impact
is keenly felt. There may only be a couple thousand schools using their programs formally, but
many more organizations are embracing specific standards, all the while trying to implement
constructive teaching techniques to engage and motivate the learner.
Do these programs make a difference? Certainly The Accelerated School at the corner of
Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and Main Street, Los Angeles, has made an enormous
difference to its neighborhood. Operating as a charter school in one of the most underserved
inner-city communities in the country, it was named Time Magazine’s 2001 Elementary School
of the Year One of the nation's "most accomplished K-12 institutions"… TAS was chosen for
having "found the most promising approaches to the most pressing challenges in education."23
PS 20 in New York City is one school that implements a Core Knowledge curriculum. Social
Studies is used as a way to scaffold knowledge, using chronologies and location to build
students’ understanding of the world. Parents applaud the curriculum whereby students are
22
Traditional Schools, Progressive Schools
23
“TAS An Introduction.” The Accelerated School (Los Angeles) web site.
(10)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
getting a multicultural and interdisciplinary view of the world. Though Core Knowledge
programs have yet to prove that Hirsch’s theory that children will master higher level thinking
skills through a content rich curriculum, some studies have shown significant gains in reading
and math in the early levels and almost all studies have concluded that Core Knowledge studies
perform better on content knowledge tests.24
Maybe it’s too early to tell just how much of a difference they make and there are many
variables to account for, but recent studies are very encouraging. These models are new and
“experimental” Let’s keep in mind, though, that “The mere act of consciously devising a
curriculum, and then of connecting that curriculum to explicit expectations, is almost bound to
bring improvement—whatever the curriculum, and whatever the expectations. Then there is the
galvanizing effect that comes from starting over, at least once teachers and administrators
recover from the shock of the new. Indeed, the mere fact of paying concerted attention may
make a mediocre school better. And this may help explain studies like those in Memphis which
show, in effect, that everything works—up to a point.”25 There seems to be a consensus that too
many of our schools are failing, and that as a nation we have especially failed those children
from disadvantaged neighborhoods. Government policies are at least making the effort to fulfill
the spirit of public education, that there be equal opportunity for learning for everyone. How we
can do this most effectively is still undecided, and there is no reason to expect that “most
effective” for one child will be the same for every child. But, as Hirsh notes, “Our responsibility
as educators is to define the knowledge our students need and – through a lively variety of
pedagogical techniques – to help them master it.”26
The debate continues, and with more government funding available demanding
empirical data, it will collected and analyzed. There are several difficulties inherent in such
24
Traub, “Success for Some,” p. 31
25
Traub, “Better By Design,” p. 4
26
Hirsch, “You Can Always Look It Up—Or Can You?
(11)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
studies. A constant barrage of standardized testing consumes valuable teaching/learning time
and resources. Off-the-shelf models will be implemented differently. It may take a greater
number of years to fully incorporate and evaluate the effectiveness of the varying approaches.
Schools may find that a combination of models is what works best and legislators are impatient
for results.
The biggest gains have been seen in the most poorly served areas, but results in the
general student population are more mixed. I applaud the attention that is trickling down to the
at-risk school population, and I have to concur that any committed, sustainable, well-funded
effort is bound to show results among those children with the most to gain. I cannot fathom that
a one-size-fits-all approach will ultimately be most successful. It is more likely that a thoughtful
amalgamation with regional nuances will prevail, and will live side-by-side with a significant
number of alternative learning environments. This is not at all bad, for ultimately it provides
worthwhile choices for many students. Just as there are multiple intelligences, there are
multiple learning styles and our children may be best served by matching their style to the right
school. Ultimately, it’s what children do as adults that is the final test of a good education.
(12)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
5. Bibliography
“Accelerated Schools (K – 8)” The Catalog of School Reform Models NW Regional Educational
Laboratory and NCCSR The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform,
December 2001. December 4, 2002 at:
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/ModelDetails.asp?ModelID=1
Accelerated Schools Project web site. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~wwwasp/index.htm
“Accelerated Schools Project.” Teacher Magazine. May 1992. December 2, 2002 at
http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/tm_printstory.cfm?slug=8school9.h03
“Accelerated Schools Project” EdSource Online. 2000. December 2, 2002 at
http://www.edsource.org/edu_refmod_mod_accelerated.cfm
Bloom, Rock, Ham, Melton, O’Brien, Doolittle and Kagehiro. Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation November, 2001. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.mdrc.org/Reports2001/AcceleratedSchools/AccSchools-ExSum.htm
Bruner, Jerome S. “The Process of Education”. New York: Vintage Books, 1963.
Chandler, Louis, “Traditional School, Progressive School: Do Parents Have a Choice?” The
Thomas B Fordham Foundation (1999). December 4, 2002 at
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/tsps/tsps.htm
“Core Knowledge (K – 8)” The Catalog of School Reform Models NW Regional Educational
Laboratory and NCCSR The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform,
December 2001. December 4, 2002 at:
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/ModelDetails.asp?ModelID=11
Fashola, Olatokunbo S. and Slavin, Robert E. “Schoolwide Reform Models: What Works?” Phi
Delta Kappa International Articles, 1998. December 2, 2001 at
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/ksla9801.htm
(13)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Hirsch, E. D. Jr., “Challenging the Intellectual Monopoly” From “The Schools We Need and Why
We Don't Have Them” 1996. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/about/articles/Challengingmonopoly.htm
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. “Breadth Versus Depth: A Premature Polarity” Common Knowledge, Volume
14, Number 4, 2001. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.coreknhttp://www.edweek.com/ew/vol18/30priv.h18owledge.org/CKproto2/about/articles/breadthvsdepth.htm
Hirsch, E. D., Jr., “Why General Knowledge Should Be a Goal of Education in a Democracy”
Common Knowledge, Volume 11, # 1/2, Winter/Spring 1998. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/about/articles/whyGeneralCK.htm
Hirsch, E.D., Jr. “You Can Always Look It Up—Or Can You? Common Knowledge, Volume 13,
#2/3, Spring/Summer 2000. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.coreknowledge.org/CKproto2/about/articles/lookItUp.htm
Keller, Bess. “Levin To Launch Privatization Center at Columbia.” Education Week on the Web.
1999. December 2, 2002 at http://www.edweek.com/ew/vol-18/30priv.h18
Olson, Lynn. “Researchers Rate Whole-School Reform Models.” Education Week on the Web.
1999. December 2, 2002 at http://www.edweek.com/ew/vol-18/23air.h18
The Accelerated School (TAS, Los Angeles) web site. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.accelerated.org/03_main/menu.htm
“The Story of American Public Education” PBS (2001): Roots in History. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/roots_in_history/testing.html based on
“School: The Story of American Public Education.” Documentary. Stone Lantern Films,
KCET 2001.
Thomas B. Ford Foundation web site. December 4, 2002 at http://www.edexcellence.net
“Traditional Schools, Progressive Schools: Do Parents Have a Choice.” The Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation. December 1, 2002 at http://edexcellence.net/library/tsps/tsps.htm
(14)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Traub, James. “Better by Design? A Consumer’s Guide to Schoolwide Reform.” The Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation (1999). December 1, 2002 at
http://www.edexcellence.net/library/bbd/better_by_design.html
Traub, James. “Success for Some.” The New York Times Education Life. November 10, 2002.
Viadero, Debra. “As Levin Steps Back, Accelerated Schools Takes Stock.” Education Week on
the Web. Vol. 19, number 7, page 5. December 4, 2002 at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=07accel.h19
Viadero, Debra. “Study Shows Test Gains In 'Accelerated Schools'”. Education Week on the
Web. January 9, 2002. Vol. 21, number 16, page 6. December 9, 2002 at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=16accel.h21
Viadero, Debra. “Who's In, Who's Out.” Education Week on the Web. January 20, 1999. Vol.
18, number 19, page 1, 12-13. December 2, 2002 at http://www.edweek.com/ew/vol18/19obey.h18
(15)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
6. Appendix
The Catalog of School Reform Models NW Regional Educational Laboratory
NCCSR The National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform
Accelerated Schools (K - 8)
Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98 | Re-accepted 11/1/01 | Description Updated 12/1/01
Type of Model
Founder
Current Service
Provider
Year Established
# of Schools Served
(9/1/01)
Level
Primary Goal
Main Features
Impact on
Instruction
Impact on
Organization/Staffi
ng
Impact on Schedule
Subject-Area
Programs Provided
by Developer
Parental
Involvement
Technology
Materials
entire-school
Henry Levin, Stanford University
National Center for Accelerated Schools Project at the University of Connecticut,
and various regional centers
1986
1,300
K-8
provide all students with enriched instruction based on entire school
community’s vision of learning
gifted-and-talented instruction for all students through "powerful learning"
participatory process for whole-school transformation three guiding principles
(unity of purpose, empowerment plus responsibility, and building on strengths)
teachers adapt instructional practices usually reserved for gifted-and-talented
children for all students
governance structure that empowers the whole school community to make key
decisions based on the Inquiry Process
depends on collective decisions of staff
no
parent and community involvement is built into participatory governance
structure
depends on collective decisions of staff
Accelerated Schools Resource Guide plus a field guide for each training
component
Origin/Scope
The accelerated schools approach, developed by Henry Levin of Stanford University, was first
implemented in 1986 in two San Francisco Bay Area elementary schools. The Accelerated Schools Project
has now reached over 1,300 schools.
General Approach
Many schools serve students in at-risk situations by remediating them, which all too often
involves less challenging curricula and lowered expectations. Accelerated schools take the opposite
approach: they offer enriched curricula and instructional programs (the kind traditionally reserved for
gifted-and-talented children) to all students. Members of the school community work together to
(16)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
transform every classroom into a “powerful learning” environment, where students and teachers are
encouraged to think creatively, explore their interests, and achieve at high levels.
No single feature makes a school accelerated. Rather, each school community uses the
accelerated schools process and philosophy to determine its own vision and collaboratively work to
achieve its goals. The philosophy is based on three democratic principles: unity of purpose,
empowerment coupled with responsibility, and building on strengths.
Transformation into an accelerated school begins with the entire school community examining its
present situation through a process called taking stock. The school community then forges a shared
vision of what it wants the school to be. By comparing the vision to its present situation, the school
community identifies priority challenge areas. Then it sets out to address those areas, working through
an accelerated schools governance structure and analyzing problems through an Inquiry Process. The
Inquiry Process is a systematic method that helps school communities clearly understand problems, find
and implement solutions, and assess results.
Results
Two early small-scale evaluations yielded initial evidence of improved achievement, school
climate, and parent and community involvement in accelerated schools. A 1993 evaluation comparing an
accelerated school in Texas to a control school revealed that over a two-year period, fifth grade SRA
scores in reading, language arts, and mathematics at the accelerated school climbed considerably. Over
the same period, the scores of a control school declined (McCarthy & Still, 1993). In the other study,
Metropolitan Achievement Test grade-equivalent reading scores at an accelerated school improved more
than scores in a control school in four of five grades, although the results for language scores were mixed
(Knight & Stallings, 1995).
More recent studies involving larger numbers of elementary schools have also demonstrated
gains for accelerated schools relative to comparison schools. In an independent study of eight different
reform models in Memphis, the Accelerated Schools Project was one of three models that demonstrated
statistically significant or nearly significant growth across all subjects on the TVAAS (Tennessee ValueAdded Assessment System) compared with control schools. In reading, the Accelerated Schools Project
showed the highest gain of any model across the three years of the study (Ross, Wang, Sanders, Wright,
& Stringfield, 1999). Unpublished data from 34 elementary schools in Ohio that implemented the
Accelerated Schools Project in 1997 or before reveal that accelerated schools on average showed greater
gains from 1997 to 1999 in fourth- and sixth-grade reading and mathematics on the Ohio Proficiency Test
than the districts in which they were located. For schools starting their fifth year or beyond in 1997, the
advantages were much larger. For example, 12% more students in these accelerated schools scored
proficient or advanced on the sixth-grade reading test in 1999 than in 1997, compared to a 3% decline
for district schools (Report for Ohio Center, 1999).
Researchers from the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) recently
completed a five-year study of eight accelerated schools. They used third-grade reading and mathematics
scores from the three years prior to implementation to predict what scores would have been during the
following five years with no intervention. They then compared these predictions with actual scores to see
if the accelerated schools approach had any impact. They found little or no impact on test scores during
the first three years of implementation (when the focus was on reforming school structure and
governance), then a gradual increase in scores during the fourth and fifth years (when substantial
changes in curriculum and instruction were taking place). Average scores in the fifth year exceeded
predicted scores by seven percentile points in reading and eight in mathematics, a statistically significant
amount (Bloom et al., 2001).
schools.
To date, no studies have analyzed the impact of the Accelerated Schools Project on middle
(17)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Implementation Assistance






Project Capacity: The National Center for the Accelerated Schools Project is located at the
University of Connecticut. There are also 12 regional centers across the country based in
universities and state departments of education. Across the national and regional centers, the
Accelerated Schools Project employs 62 full-time and 27 part-time staff.
Faculty Buy-In: 90% of the school community (all teaching and non-teaching staff plus a
representative sample of other school community members including parents and district
personnel) must agree to transform the school into an accelerated school. Students are also
involved in age-appropriate discussions during the buy-in process.
Initial Training: For each accelerated school, the National Center or a regional center trains a
five-member team comprising the principal, a designated coach (often from the district office), a
school staff member who will serve as an internal facilitator, and two other school staff members.
Training for this team involves an intensive five-day summer workshop, two subsequent two-day
sessions on Inquiry and Powerful Learning, and ongoing mentoring by a center staff member.
The coach provides two days of training for the entire school staff just before the school year
begins.
Follow-Up Coaching: During the first year of implementation, the coach provides the
equivalent of at least four additional days of training for all staff. Coaches also spend 25% of
their time (generally at least one day per week) supporting the school. In the early stages, the
coach is more of a trainer, introducing the process and guiding school community members
through the first steps of implementation. In later stages, the coach helps schools evaluate how
well the model is working, assists in overcoming challenges, and continually reinforces the
accelerated schools philosophy to keep momentum alive. Additionally, an Accelerated Schools
Project staff member visits the school three times. During the second and third years of
implementation, the five-member school team receives a total of nine more days of training.
Networking: The National Center and regional centers host an annual national conference and
regional conferences, publish newsletters, support Web sites, and maintain a listserv connecting
teachers, coaches, and centers via e-mail. Networking opportunities also enable accelerated
school communities to interact with each other on a regular basis.
Implementation Review: Continual self-evaluation is part of the process in accelerated
schools. To help schools gather information, the National Center has developed a comprehensive
assessment tool called The Tools for Assessing School Progress.
Costs
The Accelerated Schools Project (National Center and regional centers) charges approximately
$45,000 per year for a Basic Partnership Agreement (minimum three-year commitment). This fee varies
from state to state depending on subsidies and grants provided to the local regional center. The
agreement includes, in the first year:
 training of a five-member team including the coach, the principal, and three school staff
members (excluding travel expenses)
 training materials, including five copies of the Accelerated Schools Resource Guide
 three site visits by a project staff member
 technical assistance by phone, fax, and e-mail
 monthly networking opportunities
 year-end retreat
 a subscription to newsletters and the project's electronic network
In addition, schools and/or districts must provide release time for the entire teaching staff for two
days of initial training and the equivalent of four days of additional training during the first year. They
must also schedule weekly meeting time amounting to about 36 hours per year and cover 25% of the
full-time salary and benefits of the coach (estimated at $12,000-$20,000 for a coach external to the
school).
(18)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Over the next two years schools receive targeted professional development in key components of
the model, on-going technical assistance, monthly networking opportunities, and one site visit by a
project staff member. Schools may contract with a center for additional site visits and other services as
needed.
State Standards and Accountability
The Accelerated Schools Project empowers school communities to determine their own priorities
for improvement. If the school community determines that aligning instruction with state standards and
assessments is a priority area, then community members address that area by working through the
accelerated schools governance structure and Inquiry Process.
Student Populations
As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an opportunity to apply to be
highlighted for its efforts in serving selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To qualify for a category, a model had to
demonstrate (a) that it included special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population, and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number of schools serving that
population.
The Accelerated Schools Project is highlighted in all five categories. It was designed primarily to
serve schools with high proportions of students in at-risk situations. Hundreds of rural and urban schools
with large concentrations of high poverty students have become accelerated schools. The model provides
a process for addressing the unique needs of each school, often resulting in special efforts such as
tutoring, after-school programs, or connections with social service organizations. Training includes
strategies for instruction and curriculum development within the context of multicultural classrooms. The
accelerated schools governance model joins special and regular education teachers together in teams,
where they work toward the integration of special and regular education students.
Special Considerations
The accelerated schools process can be a challenging one. Teachers and administrators must be
willing to relinquish hierarchical decision-making structures, work together, and expend considerable time
and energy to transform a traditional school into an accelerated school. Founder Henry Levin estimates
that this process can take three to five years. During this time, it is crucial to maintain regular meeting
time and active coaching at the school site.
Selected Evaluations
Developer/Implementer
Knight, S. L., & Stallings, J. A. (1995). The implementation of the accelerated school model in an urban
elementary school. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs
in America's elementary schools (pp. 236-251). New York: Teachers College Press.
McCarthy, J., & Still, S. (1993). Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School. In J. Murphy & P. Hallinger
(Eds.), Restructuring schooling: Learning from ongoing efforts (pp. 63-83). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Segal, T. (1999). [Report for Ohio center]. Unpublished raw data.
Independent Researchers
Bloom, H. S., Ham, S., Melton, L., & O’Brien, J., with Doolittle, F. C., & Kagehiro, S. (2001). Evaluating
the Accelerated Schools Approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in
eight elementary schools. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Ross, S. M., Wang, L. W., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., & Stringfield, S. (1999). Two- and three-year
achievement results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for restructuring schools in
Memphis. Memphis: Center for Research in Educational Policy.
(19)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Core Knowledge (K - 8)
Accepted for Inclusion 2/1/98 | Re-accepted 11/1/01 | Description Updated 8/1/02
Type of Model
Founder
Current Service
Provider
Year Established
# of Schools Served
(5/1/02)
Level
Primary Goal
entire-school
E. D. Hirsch, Jr.
Core Knowledge Foundation
1986
600
K - 8 (a separate preschool program is available)
to help students establish a strong foundation of vocabulary and skills to build
knowledge and understanding
Main Features
sequential program of specific topics for each grade in all subjects
structured program to build vocabulary and skills to improve literacy
Impact on Instruction instructional methods to teach core topics are designed by individual
teachers/schools; teachers are expected to teach all of the topics in the Core
Knowledge Sequence at the specified grade levels
Impact on
full participation by all staff members is required
Organization/Staffing
Impact on Schedule
common planning time is required; implementation requires full school
participation for a minimum of three years
Subject-Area
yes, in all subjects
Programs Provided by
Developer
Parental Involvement schools are expected to involve parents in planning and resource
development
Technology
none required
Materials
detailed curricular materials provided and/or identified from other sources;
schools are required to purchase specific textbooks, testing materials, and
lesson plans
Origin/Scope
The Core Knowledge Foundation is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization
founded in 1986 by E. D. Hirsch, Jr. The foundation’s essential program, a core curriculum entitled the
Core Knowledge® Sequence, was first implemented in 1990. By May 2002, it was being used in over 600
schools.
General Approach
Core Knowledge focuses on teaching a common core of concepts, vocabulary, skills, and
knowledge that characterize a “culturally literate” and educated individual. The purpose of the approach
is to increase students’ receptive and productive vocabulary, increase comprehension, and help build a
general knowledge base, thus increasing academic performance.
Core Knowledge is based on the principle that the grasp of a specific and shared body of
knowledge will help students establish strong foundations for higher levels of learning. Developed
through research examining national and local core curricula and through consultation with education
professionals in each subject area, the Core Knowledge Sequence provides a model of specific content
guidelines for students in the preschool, elementary, and middle school grades. It offers a progression of
detailed grade-by-grade topics in language arts, mathematics, science, history, geography, music, and
(20)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
fine arts, so that students build on knowledge from pre-kindergarten through grade eight. Instructional
strategies are modeled for teachers, but the selection of strategies is left to the discretion of teachers.
The Core Knowledge Sequence typically comprises 50 percent of a school’s curriculum; the other
50 percent allows schools to meet state and local requirements not included in the Sequence. Schools are
expected to incorporate structured, research-based reading and mathematics programs along with the
Core Knowledge Sequence. The Sequence is detailed in the Core Knowledge Sequence Content
Guidelines for Preschool through Grade Eight and illustrated in a series of books entitled What Your
(First-, Second-, etc.) Grader Needs to Know.
Parental involvement and consensus-building contribute to the success of the Core Knowledge
Sequence. Parents are expected to be involved in obtaining resources, planning activities, and developing
a schoolwide plan. The schoolwide plan aligns the Core Knowledge content with district and state
requirements and assessments and includes strategies for successful implementation.
Results
A three-year study (1995-98) conducted by independent researchers at Johns Hopkins University
compared student achievement at four Core Knowledge schools and four control schools (Stringfield,
Datnow, Borman, & Rachuba, 1999). Researchers followed two cohorts of students in the schools, one
from first to third grade, the other from third to fifth grade. They found that the Core Knowledge and
control cohorts made similar gains in reading and mathematics on the CTBS and other norm-referenced
tests. However, when Core Knowledge schools where less than 50 percent of teachers were
implementing the sequence were excluded, the performance of the Core Knowledge students at the
remaining schools was higher than that of control students in both subjects, particularly in the third-tofifth grade cohort. On tests created by the researchers specifically to measure achievement of Core
Knowledge subjects, the Core Knowledge cohorts performed considerably better than control schools.
Additionally, teachers at Core Knowledge schools reported that the model led to enhanced curricular
coherence, increased teacher collaboration, and enriched classroom experiences for students.
Another group of Johns Hopkins researchers examined implementation and student achievement
from 1994 to 1999 at five Core Knowledge and five control schools in Maryland (Mac Iver, Stringfield, &
McHugh, 2000). Problems in continuity of the sample prevented the researchers from calculating average
five-year gains. They did calculate three-year gains, reporting that the first-to-third grade cohort at
control schools gained 6.4 NCEs on the CTBS reading comprehension subtest, compared with 4.8 NCEs at
Core Knowledge schools. However, when the lowest implementing Core Knowledge school was excluded
from the analysis, the Core Knowledge cohort at the remaining four schools outgained their control
school counterparts (8.1 versus 4.2 NCEs).
A district official in Oklahoma City, where over 30 elementary schools have implemented the Core
Knowledge curriculum, wrote a dissertation examining the academic achievement of Core Knowledge
students (Taylor, 2000). The author compared ITBS scores of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in
29 Core Knowledge classrooms across the district (classrooms where teachers were deemed to be fully
implementing the model) to scores of non-Core Knowledge students who were matched on six variables:
grade, pre-test score, gender, ethnicity, free lunch eligibility, and special education eligibility. From 1998
to 1999, the Core Knowledge students outscored the control students on seven of eight subtests, with
statistically significant advantages in reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and social studies. The
author also examined fifth-grade scores in reading and social studies on the 2000 Oklahoma CriterionReferenced Text for a smaller set of students. She found statistically significant advantages for the Core
Knowledge students on three of four reading objectives and six of eight social studies objectives, with
large effect sizes (0.5 or higher) in many cases.
Additional studies have demonstrated promising trends in test scores at a variety of Core
Knowledge schools. For example, at Hawthorne Elementary School in Texas, an inner-city school with a
large Hispanic population and a 96 percent free/reduced-price lunch rate, a district evaluator examined
1994 and 1995 Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) scores for grades three through five
(Schubnell, 1996). She found that fifth-graders scored considerably higher than third-graders in reading
(21)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
and mathematics in both years, suggesting a cumulative effect for the program. Also, Hawthorne fourthgraders who took the test in 1994 and again as fifth-graders in 1995 showed a gain of 4.8 Texas
Learning Index units in reading, compared to a 0.7 unit gain districtwide. There were no significant
differences in mathematics scores.
Implementation Assistance






Project Capacity: The Core Knowledge foundation is headquartered in Charlottesville, Virginia.
There are cadres of trainers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota,
Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Training
is provided at the school site.
Faculty Buy-In: The school or school district must obtain the commitment of at least 80
percent of the teachers who will be involved in the implementation. Implementation requires full
school participation for a minimum of three years. Teachers are expected to teach all of the
topics in the Core Knowledge Sequence at the specified grade levels.
Initial Training: Initial training involves five days (which may be consecutive or not) of
intensive on-site training for all teachers and administrators. The training includes an overview of
Core Knowledge; development of a schoolwide plan; alignment of Core Knowledge topics with
state and district standards and assessments; advice on obtaining resources and parent
involvement; and lesson planning. In addition, a two-day Core Knowledge Leadership training is
required for principals and school-based Core Coordinators.
Follow-Up Coaching: Two days of follow-up training are provided for Core Coordinators in
coaching, observing, and providing feedback. Three two-day follow-up visits conducted by Core
Knowledge consultants are required each year for CSRD schools during their first three years of
implementation. In addition, a variety of workshops to assist with implementation analysis are
offered. Also available are summer workshops that focus on collaborative planning, lessonwriting, and integrating the Core Knowledge Sequence with local curricular guidelines.
Networking: Core Knowledge supports a Web site, publishes a quarterly newsletter, and hosts
a national conference each spring.
Implementation Review: After receiving documentation that includes a copy of the school’s
yearlong plan, sample lesson plans, and a letter of commitment from the school indicating the
Core Knowledge Sequence is being implemented by at least 80 percent of the teaching staff, the
school is recognized as an official Core Knowledge school.
Costs
Schools are required to commit to the implementation of Core Knowledge for a minimum of three
years. The cost is determined by the number of staff members and students. For a school with 25
teachers and 500 students, estimated costs would be $36,000 for year one, $32,000 for year two, and
$32,000 for year three. These fees cover the following services and materials:
 Leadership training for the principal and Core Knowledge coordinator (two days per year)
 Professional development training conducted on-site by Core Knowledge consultants (five days
per year)
 Site visits by Core Knowledge consultants (three two-day visits per year)
 School Kit
 Core Knowledge training materials for teachers (new materials each year)
In addition to the estimated costs, schools are required to:
 Purchase the Pearson Learning/Core Knowledge history and geography textbooks (grades K-6);
 Allocate a minimum of $1,000 per teacher for Core Knowledge-related materials per year;
 Allocate a minimum of $8 per student in grades 1-5 for administration and scoring of TASA’s Core
Knowledge Curriculum Referenced Tests; and
 Purchase the Baltimore Curriculum Project lesson plans.
State Standards and Accountability
On-site training includes assistance in helping teachers review and align state standards and
assessments with the topics included in the Core Knowledge Sequence. A yearlong plan is developed that
(22)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
organizes the state standards and content into the months of the year. This ensures that content and
skills are taught prior to testing, and it creates a pacing structure that helps in planning lessons. Sample
state alignments for various states are posted on the Core Knowledge Web site.
Student Populations
As part of the catalog Web site search mechanism, each model had an opportunity to apply to be
highlighted for its efforts in serving selected student populations. The five categories were urban, rural,
high poverty, English language learners, and special education. To qualify for a category, a model had to
demonstrate (a) that it included special training, materials, or components focusing on that student
population, and (b) that it had been implemented in a substantial number of schools serving that
population. Core Knowledge did not apply to be highlighted in any categories. However, it has been
implemented across the U.S. in a wide variety of urban and rural settings with diverse student
populations.
Special Considerations
Teachers must be willing to implement the Core Knowledge Sequence for three years and to
develop and implement a sequential program of skills instruction in the areas of reading and
mathematics. The school must develop a schoolwide planning document that contains the Core
Knowledge topics and district/state standards.
Selected Evaluations
Developer/Implementer
Taylor, G. L. (2000). Core Knowledge: Its impact on the curricular and instructional practices of
teachers and on student learning in an urban school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova
Southeastern University.
Independent Researchers
Mac Iver, M. A., Stringfield, S., & McHugh, B. (2000). Core Knowledge curriculum: Five-year
analysis of implementation and effects in five Maryland schools. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University,
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR).
Schubnell, G. (1996). Hawthorne Elementary School: The evaluator’s perspective. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(1), 33-40.
Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Borman, G., & Rachuba, L. (1999). National evaluation of Core
Knowledge sequence implementation: Final report. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social
Organization of Schools.
(23)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
Core Knowledge at a Glance: Major Topic Headings, 6-8 ©1999 Core Knowledge® Foundation.
Sixth Grade
Seventh Grade
Eighth Grade
I. Writing, Grammar, and Usage
I. Writing, Grammar and Usage
II. Poetry
II. Poetry
III. Fiction and Drama (Stories;
III. Fiction, Nonfiction, and Drama III. Fiction, Nonfiction, and Drama
Shakespeare; Classical Myths)
IV. Foreign Phrases Commonly Used IV. Foreign Phrases Commonly
IV. Sayings and Phrases
in English
Used in English
History and World
World
World
Geography I. World Geography (Spatial Sense; I. America Becomes a World Power I. Decline of European Colonialism
Deserts)
II. World War I, “The Great War”
II. Cold War
II. Lasting Ideas from Ancient
III. Russian Revolution
III. Civil Rights Movement
Civilizations (Judaism, Christianity; IV. America from the Twenties to
IV. Vietnam War and the Rose of
Greece and Rome)
the New Deal
Social Activism
III. Enlightenment
V. World War II
V. Middle East and Oil Politics
IV. French Revolution
VI. Geography of the United States VI. End of the Cold War:
V. Romanticism
Expansion of Democracy and
VI. Industrialism, Capitalism, and
Continuing Challenges
Socialism
VII. Civics: The Constitution –
VI. Latin American Independence
Principles and Structure of
Movements
American Democracy
American
VIII. Geography of Canada and
Mexico
I. Immigration, Industrialization, and
Urbanization
II. Reform
Visual Arts I. Art History: Periods and Schools I. Art History: Periods and Schools I. Art History: Periods and Schools
(Classical; Gothic; Renaissance;
(Impressionism; Post(Painting Since World War II;
Baroque; Rococo; Neoclassical;
Impressionism; Expressionism and Photography; 20th-Century
Romantic; Realism)
Abstraction; Modern American
Sculpture)
Painting)
II. Architecture Since the Industrial
Revolution
Music
I. Elements of Music
I. Elements of Music
I. Elements of Music
II. Classical Music: From Baroque to II. Classical Music (Romantics and II. Non-Western Music
Romantic (Bach, Handel, Haydn,
Nationalists (Brahms, Berlioz, Liszt, III. Classical Music: Nationalists
Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert,
Wagner, Dvorak, Grieg,
and Moderns (Sibelius, Bartok,
Chopin, Schumann)
Tchaikovsky)
Rodrigo, Copland, Debussy,
III. American Musical Traditions
Stravinsky)
(Blues and Jazz)
IV. Vocal Music (Opera; American
Musical Theater)
Mathematics I. Numbers and Number Sense
I. Pre-Algebra (Properties of the
I. Algebra (Properties of the Real
Real Numbers; Polynomial
Numbers; Relations, Functions,
II. Ratio and Percent
Arithmetic; Equivalent Equations
and Graphs; Linear Equations and
III. Computation
and Inequalities; Integer
Functions; Arithmetic of Rational
IV. Measurement
Exponents)
Expression; Quadratic Equations
V. Geometry
and Functions)
II.
Geometry
(Three-Dimensional
VI. Probability and Statistics
Objects;
Angle
Pairs;
Triangles;
II.
Geometry (Analytic Geometry;
VII. Pre-Algebra
Measurement)
Introduction to Trigonometry;
Triangles and Proofs)
III. Probability and Statistics
Science
I. Plate Tectonics
I. Atomic Structure
I. Physics
II. Oceans
II. Chemical Bonds and Reactions II. Electricity and Magnetism
III. Astronomy: Gravity, Stars, and III. Cell Division and Genetics
III. Electromagnetic Radiation and
Galaxies
Light
IV. History of the Earth and Life
IV. Energy, Heat, and Energy
Forms
IV. Sound Waves
Transfer
V. Evolution
V. Chemistry of Food and
V. Human Body (Lymphatic an
Respiration
VI. Science Biographies
Immune Systems)
VI. Science Biographies
VI. Science Biographies
Language
I. Writing, Grammar, and Usage
Art/English II. Poetry
(24)
L. Bailey
Fall 2002
EDU 35
Prof. Ross
(25)