A COMPLETE EDUCATION

s we ask states to raise their standards to prepare their students for college and the 

workplace, we will also be asking more from students, families, teachers, principals, and 

every level of the educational system. To make higher standards meaningful, we must ensure 

that states, districts, schools, and teachers have the resources and assistance they need to 

help students reach these standards, such as instructional supports, high-quality professional 

development, and teaching and learning materials aligned with those standards. This means a 

new investment in improving teaching and learning in all content areas—from literacy to 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, to history, civics, foreign languages, the 

arts, financial literacy, environmental education, and other subjects—and in providing 

accelerated learning opportunities to more students to make postsecondary success more 

attainable.

A

OUR APPROACH

►Strengthening instruction in literacy and in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics, aligned with improved standards that build toward college- and careerreadiness.

►Supporting teachers and students in teaching and learning to more rigorous standards 

that prepare students for college and a career.

►Improving access to a well-rounded education for students in high-need schools.

►Expanding access to college coursework and other accelerated learning opportunities 

for students in high-need schools.
This page intentionally left blank.
LITERACY

OUR APPROACH

 Comprehensive PreK–12 approach. Replaces several, fragmented literacy programs with one 

competitive grant program to support states in carrying out a comprehensive, PreK–12 state literacy 

strategy to strengthen literacy instruction, align the use of resources, and support implementation of 

college and career ready standards. 

 Targeted to high-need districts. States subgrant funds to high-need districts to implement highquality evidence-based literacy instruction; districts have flexibility to target funds on the grade 

spans where local need and potential impact on student learning is greatest.

 Evidence-based. Reflects current evidence on effective literacy instruction, including research 

showing the importance of oral language, broad vocabulary and background knowledge, active 

reading-comprehension strategies, and strong writing skills and motivation to read and write, while 

allowing opportunity for innovation.

 Supports capacity-building for all states. Reserves 5 percent of funds for competitive capacitybuilding grants for SEAs that do not receive a literacy grant.

Far too many students, particularly minority 

and economically disadvantaged children, 

are not developing the ability to read and 

comprehend grade-level text in elementary 

and secondary school. Without these 

foundational skills, they are not prepared for 

success in secondary school and beyond. In 

2009, the most recent National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP) reading 

assessment, 49 percent of fourth-grade students 

who were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 

read below the Basic level, compared with only 

21 percent of fourth-graders not eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch; in fourth grade, 53 

percent of Black students and 52 percent of

Hispanic students read below the Basic level, 

compared with 23 percent of White fourth-grade 

students (data disaggregated by race only 

includes public school students). Reading 

achievement of fourth-graders has improved 

since 1992. In 1992, 38 percent of fourthgraders scored below the Basic level, compared 

with 33 percent in 2009. But there has been no 

improvement in student reading achievement for 

eighth-graders compared to 2002; 25 percent of 

eighth-graders scored below the Basic level in 

2002 and 2009 (NCES, 2010). 

While eighth-grade NAEP writing scores were 

higher in 2002 than in 1998 and higher in 2007 

than in 2002, and twelfth-grade scores were 

higher in 2007 than in 1998, there remain gaps 

between students eligible and not eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch, along with gaps between 

White and Black students and between White 

and Hispanic students. In 2007, when the most 

recent NAEP writing assessment was 

administered, 20 percent of eighth-graders who 

were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch 

scored below the Basic level, compared with 

7 percent among students who were not eligible.1

Similarly, the percentage of twelfth-graders 

scoring below the Basic level for Black and 

1 All differences reported are significant at the 0.05 level with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. The 
Hispanic students is 31 and 29 percent, 

respectively, compared with 14 percent among 

White students. The figures reported for twelfthgrade students do not reflect the low achievement 

of those students who have already dropped out 

of school (NCES, 2007).

Data on the literacy demands in college and 

the workforce demonstrate that student 

literacy levels are insufficient to meet our 

national needs or to equip students for 

success. Among high school graduates in the 

class of 2003–04, 20 percent reported that they 

took remedial coursework in reading, while 26 

percent received remedial writing instruction 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2010). This is of 

particular concern given that assignment to 

remedial reading in college is associated with 

additional remediation and a lower likelihood of 

degree completion (Wirt et al., 2004). 

Workforce data also show that students do not 

have the literacy skills employers are seeking. In 

2005, roughly 40 percent of employers indicated 

they are dissatisfied with high school graduates’ 

ability to read and understand complicated 

materials, think analytically, and solve real-world 

problems (Peter D. Hart Research 

Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, 2005). 

Poor academic skills are consistently linked with 

higher dropout rates, entrance into the juvenile 

justice system, and unemployment. One-third of 

all juvenile offenders read below the fourth-grade 

level (Center on Crime, Communities and 

Culture, 1997; Snowling et al., 2000). 

International comparisons show that U.S. 

students’ literacy skills are lower than those of the 

top-ranked countries. On the international 

Program for International Student Assessment 

(PISA), which assesses 15-year-olds, the U.S. 

average score in reading literacy was not 

measurably different from the Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and Development 

average in 2000 or 2003, nor was there any 

measurable change in the U.S. reading literacy 

score from 2000 to 2003 (Lemke et al., 2004). 

Narrowly focused literacy programs do not 

fully reflect the instructional practices that 

research suggests are critical to ensure that 

students develop the reading comprehension 

skills they need for the advanced texts they 

will encounter in middle and high school

(Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent 

Literacy, 2010). Evidence shows that phonemic 

awareness and the ability to decode are essential 

building blocks of literacy, but they must be 

accompanied from the earliest ages by oral 

language development, activities to enrich 

vocabulary and background knowledge, and 

access to print of all sorts—from well-stocked 

classroom libraries to calendars, schedules, signs, 

and directions (Snow et al., 1998; Neuman and 

Roskos, 2005; Neuman and Celano 2001; 

Neuman, 2001; National Institute of Child 

Health and Human Development, 2000; Vaughn 

and Linan-Thompson, 2004; Simmons and 

Kameenui, 1998; Hart and Risley, 1995; Beck et 

al., 2002). 

A report of the National Academy of Sciences 

found that to prepare students to read grade-level 

texts, students often need to learn active 

comprehension strategies, including critical 

thinking skills (Snow et al., 1998; Gambrell et al.,

2007). Research documents a link between 

critical thinking skills and increased student 

achievement in the classroom. Studies of NAEP 

test scores found that teaching critical thinking is 

term ―significant‖ is not intended to imply a judgment about the absolute magnitude or the educational relevance of 

the differences. It is intended to identify statistically dependable population differences to help inform dialogue 

among policymakers, educators, and the public.
The Contribution of a Statewide Effort for Strengthening Literacy: The Alabama Reading Initiative 

State of Alabama and Buckhorn High School, New Market, Alabama

In 1998, Alabama launched the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) with the goal that every Alabama K–12 

student would read at grade level. The ARI began with the state department of education conducting tenday summer sessions to train educators to identify students who struggle with reading and to help these 

students read at grade level; to prevent reading difficulties by teaching K–3 students exceptionally well; 

and to expand the reading power of grade-level readers. 

The ARI has been evaluated annually using a broad array of indices to assess its implementation and 

impact. The 2009 evaluation showed that ARI schools made greater gains than non-ARI schools for both 

minority and high-poverty students, and increased the percentage of their students who reached the 

proficient level by 11 percentage points—from 59 percent to 70 percent on the Stanford Achievement Test, 

Tenth Edition (SAT-10), in third grade.

In 2007, the average scale score on the NAEP test of reading for fourth-grade students in Alabama was 

220, higher than their average score in 2005 (217) or in 1992 (213) (Lee, Grigg, and Donahue, 2007). The 

gains that were made in fourth-grade reading on the NAEP in 2007 were the largest ever made in the 

history of the NAEP and those gains were sustained in 2009.

Because Buckhorn High School had persistently low reading performance on state assessments throughout 

the 1990s, the school became part of the ARI in 1999. The school administered reading-level inventories to 

all students and found that 40 percent of students were reading two or more grade levels below. While the 

stark data were sobering, Buckhorn, led by its principal, committed to transforming the traditional focus on 

what teachers teach to one that is driven by what students learn. In 2003, just 4 years after whole school 

reform, every Buckhorn senior passed the Alabama High School Graduation Exam. Since then, the 

percentage of Buckhorn students passing has ranged between 98 and 100 percent.

(National Association of State Boards of Education, 2006, Moscovitch, 2004; RMC, 2007; Alliance for 

Excellent Education, 2005)

associated with higher test scores (Wenglinsky, 

2004; Wenglinsky, 2003; Wenglinsky, 2002; 

Wenglinsky 2000).

Motivation and engagement are also 

important components of reading 

instruction. Motivation is strongly related to 

reading achievement (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000, 

Gambrell, 2001; Pressley, 2002; Stipek, 2002a). 

At least one quasi-experiment showed that when 

the motivational practices of using content goals, 

student autonomy support, hands-on activities, 

interesting texts, and collaboration were 

combined in long-term classroom instruction, 

motivation increased in comparison to traditional 

instruction (Guthrie et al., 2000). 

Research shows that engagement also is strongly 

related to reading achievement. Readers who are 

more highly engaged showed higher achievement 

than less-engaged readers (Guthrie, 2008; Guthrie 

et al., 2004). Engaged readers can overcome 

obstacles to achievement and become agents of 

their own reading growth (Guthrie et al., 2001). 

Stipek (2002b) found that reading engagement of 

third-grade students (attentiveness, involvement, 

enthusiasm for reading tasks in the classroom) 

was significantly correlated with the teacher 

posing conceptual problems, using meaningful 

texts for instruction, and promoting active 

collaboration about text meaning. Similarly, 

Taylor et al. (2000) observed that students’ time 

spent engaged in reading tasks in the classroom 

was correlated with ratings of the extent to which 

the teacher provided small-group instruction and 

effective scaffolding for difficult cognitive 

reading strategies.

Effective reading instruction should be 
coordinated with writing instruction and 

practice, as writing is both a measure of 

comprehension and a tool for learning across 

content areas in later elementary and 

secondary grades (National Governors 

Association, 2005; Gram and Perin, 2007). When 

students use writing as a means to reflect on their 

use of comprehension strategies, their acquisition 

of those strategies improves (Commander and 

Smith, 1996; El-Hindi, 1997; McCrindle and 

Christensen, 1995). Similarly, writing in response 

to reading can foster reflective thinking and 

critical thinking (Tierney and Shanahan, 1991; 

Egawa, 2000). 

While investments in early literacy are 

essential, literacy instruction cannot end after 

third grade. State testing data reveal a marked 

decline in the reading and writing skills of 

adolescent learners. Good early literacy 

instruction does not inoculate students against 

academic struggles or failure later. Beyond third 

grade, students must decipher complex passages, 

synthesize information at a higher level, and form 

independent conclusions based on evidence. 

Students also must develop special skills and 

strategies for reading text in different content 

areas (such as English, science, mathematics, and 

history)—and move from ―learning to read‖ to 

―reading to learn‖ (Snow and Biancarosa, 2003; 

Snow et al., 2004). School systems are now 

struggling to ensure that promising early 

performance and gains in reading achievement do 

not dissipate as students move through the 

middle grades without additional support for 

improving reading and writing skills (Carnegie 

Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 

A Local School District’s Contribution to Academic Literacy Development

Union City, New Jersey

Union City school district is located across the Hudson River from New York City. Most residents are 

Spanish-speaking immigrants from the Caribbean and Central America. In the 2007–08 school year, this 

urban district served more than 12,000 students in its two high schools, one middle school, eight 

elementary schools, and one early childhood school. Forty-two percent of them were English learners (ELs). 

More than 90 percent of all the district’s students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in 2004–05. 

The Union City school district made a commitment to academic literacy development for all its students. 

However, the large percentage of ELs in the district meant addressing the needs of its adolescent ELs headon. In 1989, the district was under a state mandate to reform its education services within five years due to 

repeated poor performance on state assessments. Drawing from best practices and state flexibility, a 

reform committee composed of 11 teachers and three administrators set forth a plan to promote academic 

literacy for all students. Two beliefs were articulated: ―Every student is college-bound‖ and ―No student is 

unteachable.‖ This plan involved five key areas of reform—professional development, curriculum, 

technology, leadership, and community. The district’s approach is a Pre-Kindergarten through twelfth grade 

plan to move students up through the grades with eased transitions and monitoring of low achievers across 

school levels. 

From 1990 to 1995, the district implemented the plan incrementally, first in kindergarten through third 

grade, then the intermediate grades, then middle school, and finally high school. These reform efforts paid 

off; by the late 1990s Union City was one of the top-performing urban districts in New Jersey. The district 

has maintained many of the reforms set in place in the early 1990s and has added additional practices to 

serve the student population. Union City’s core policies address the following areas: assessment and 

targeted support, programs for adolescent ELs, easing transitions, teacher certification, professional 

development, data analysis, and dedicated and strategic use of fiscal resources.

(Adapted from Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy, 2010, and Short and Fitzsimmons, 

2007)
2010).

A coherent, statewide literacy strategy can 

accelerate districts’ and schools’ efforts to 

make real change in literacy achievement for 

all students. Too many states do not have a 

systematic approach to policies and practices to 

support PreK–12 literacy achievement (National 

Association of State Boards of Education & 

Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006). 

Improvements have been made more commonly 

at the margins, with scattered sites served by a 

disparate collection of programs (National 

Association of State Boards of Education, 2006). 

However, some states, such as Alabama, have 

taken a system-wide approach to ensuring 

students have the literacy skills needed for 

success.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alliance for Excellent Education (July 2005). Case Study: Buckhorn High School. Washington, D.C.: 

Author. 

Beck, Isabel, Margaret McKeown, and Linda Kucan (2002). Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary 

Instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://www.guilford.com/cgibin/cartscript.cgi?page=pr/beck8.htm&dir=edu/lit&cart_id=861528.22346. 

Carnegie Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy (2010). Time to Act: An Agenda for Advancing 

Adolescent Literacy for College and Career Success. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Center on Crime, Communities and Culture (1997). Education as Crime Prevention. Occasional Paper 

Series No. 2. New York: Author.

Commander, Nanette, and Brenda Smith (1996). Learning logs: A tool for cognitive monitoring. Journal 

of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39(6):446–453.

Egawa, Kathy (2000). Writing for multiple purposes. In Joanne Hindley Salch and Marianne Marino 

(eds.), School Talk, 5(3).

El-Hindi, Amelia (1997). Connecting reading and writing: College learners’ metacognitive awareness. 

Journal of Developmental Education, 27( 2):10–19.

Gambrell, Linda (2001). What we know about motivation to read. In Rona Flippo (ed.), Reading 

Researchers in Search of Common Ground. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association. 

Gambrell, Linda, Lesley Morrow, and Michael Pressley (eds.) (2007). Best Practices in Literacy Instruction. New 

York: Guilford Press.

Graham, Steve, and Dolores Perin (2007). Writing Next: Effective Strategies to Improve Writing of Adolescents in 

Middle and High Schools—A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for 

Excellent Education.

Guthrie, John (ed.) (2008). Engaging Adolescents in Reading. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.

Guthrie, John, William Schafer, and Chun-Wei Huang (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and 

balanced reading instruction for reading achievement and engagement: A policy analysis of state 

NAEP in Maryland. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3):145–162.

Guthrie, John, Allan Wigfield, and Kathleen Perencevich (ed.) (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: 

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guthrie, John, Allan Wigfield, and Clare Von Secker (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on 

motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2):331–341.

Hart, Betty, and Todd Risley (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American 

Children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Lemke, Mariann, Anindita Sen, Erin Pahlke, Lisette Partelow, David Miller, Trevor Williams, David 

Kastberg, and Leslie Jocelyn (2004). International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and 
Problem Solving: PISA 2003 Results From the U.S. Perspective (NCES 2005–003). Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

McCrindle, Andrea, and Carol Christensen (1995). The impact of learning journals on metacognitive and 

cognitive processes and learning performance. Learning and Instruction, 5:167–185.

Moscovitch, Edward (2004). Evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative. Prepared for the Alabama State 

Department of Education (Cape Ann Economics).

National Association of State Boards of Education & Alliance for Excellent Education (2006). Reading at 

Risk: State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy. Alexandria, Va: NASBE Study Group on Middle 

and High School Literacy. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2010, February). 2002 Educational Longitudinal Study: Second 

Follow-up, 2006, previously unpublished tabulations. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/201458.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics (2007). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education 

Statistics. Retrieved from http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/w0012.asp and 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2008468_4.pdf.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. 

Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its 

Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C.: National Institutes 

of Health.

Neuman, Susan (2001). The role of knowledge in early literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 36: 468–475.

Neuman, Susan, and Donna Celano (2001). Access to print in low- and middle-income communities: An 

ecological study of 4 neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36:8–26.

Neuman, Susan, and Kathleen Roskos (2005). Whatever happened to developmentally appropriate practice 

in early literacy? Beyond the Journal: Young Children on the Web. Retrieved from 

http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200507/02Neuman.pdf. 

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (2005). Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s Guide to 

Adolescent Literacy. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association.

Peter D. Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies (2005). Rising to the Challenge: Are High School 

Graduates Prepared for College and Work? Washington, D.C.: Achieve, Inc. Retrieved from 

http://www.achieve.org/files/pollreport_0.pdf. 

Pressley, M. (2002). Motivation and literacy. Reading Instruction That Works: The Case of Balanced Teaching. 

New York: Guilford Press.

RMC (2007). Alabama: How Reading First Helps a State Make the Grade. Portsmouth, N.H.: Author. 

Retrieved from https://docs.alsde.edu/documents/50/AlabamaHow%20Reading%20First%20Helps%20A%20State%20Make%20The%20Grade.pdf.
Short, Deborah, and Shannon Fitzsimmons (2007). Double the Work: Language Acquisition and Academic Literacy 

for Adolescent English Language Learners. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics. 

Simmons, Deborah, and Edward Kameenui (1998). What Reading Research Tells Us about Children with Diverse 

Learning Needs: Bases and Basics. The LEA Series on Special Education and Disability. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates.

Snow, Catherine, and Gina Biancarosa (2003). Adolescent Literacy and the Achievement Gap: What Do We

Know and Where Do We Go From Here? New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Snow, Catherine, Susan Burns, and Peg Griffen (eds.) (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. 

Committee on the prevention of reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National 

Research Council Press.

Snow, Catherine, Barbara Foorman, Michael Kamil, Melissa Roderick, and Robert Schwartz (2004). Project 

Memorandum: Issues in the Field of Adolescent Literacy: Information and Recommendations for the Carnegie Advisory 

Council on Reading to Learn, Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 

Snowling, Margaret, John Adams, Claudine Bowyer-Crane, and Vanessa Tobin (2000). Levels of literacy 

among juvenile offenders; the incidence of specific reading difficulties. Criminal Behaviour and Mental 

Health, 10(4):229–241.

Stipek, Deborah (2002a). Motivation to Learn: Integrating Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stipek, Deborah (2002b). Good instruction is motivating. In Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne Eccles (eds.), 

Development of Achievement Motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Taylor, Barbara, P. David Pearson, Kathleen Clark, and Sharon Walpole (2000). Effective schools and 

accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. 

Elementary School Journal, 101:121–165.

Tierney, Robert, and Timothy Shanahan (1991). Research on the reading–writing relationship: Interactions, 

transactions, and outcomes. In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson 

(eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 3:246–280. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman. 

Vaughn, Sharon, and Sylvia Linan-Thompson (2004). Reading: Effective Instructional Activities for Elementary 

Students. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD.

Wenglinsky, Harold (2004). Facts or critical skills: What NAEP results say. Educational Leadership, 61(1): 

32–35. 

Wenglinsky, Harold (2003). Using large-scale research to gauge the impact of instructional practices on 

student reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(19). 

Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n19/.

Wenglinsky, Harold (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student 

academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12).

Wenglinsky, Harold (2000). How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back Into Discussions of Teacher Quality. 

Princeton, N.J.: The Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.
Wigfield, Allan, and Jacquelynne Eccles (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. 

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25:68-81.

Wirt, John, Susan Choy, Patrick Rooney, Stephen Provasnik, Anindita Sen, and Richard Tobin (2004). The 

Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 
This page intentionally left blank.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATH

OUR APPROACH

► Comprehensive PreK–12 approach. Competitive grant program to support states in carrying 

out a comprehensive PreK–12 state STEM strategy to strengthen STEM instruction, align the 

use of resources, and support the implementation of college- and career-ready standards.

► Targeted to high-need districts. States subgrant funds to high-need districts to implement 

high-quality evidence-based literacy instruction; districts have flexibility to target funds on the 

grade spans where local need and potential impact on student learning is greatest.

► Emphasis on innovation and technology. Enables states and districts to apply ―outside-thebox‖ thinking to create solutions that will lead to results for students.

► Supports capacity-building for all states. Reserves 5 percent of funds for competitive 

capacity-building grants for SEAs that do not receive a STEM grant.

People’s Republic of China (607), Singapore 

(599), Chinese Taipei (576), Japan (568), 

Kazakhstan (549), Russian Federation (544), 

England (541), and Latvia (537). Scores from the 

Netherlands (535), Lithuania (530), Germany 

(525) and Denmark (523) were not measurably 

different from the U.S. average score. U.S. 

eighth-graders, with an average scale score of 

508, achieved at measurably lower levels than 

their counterparts from five other education 

systems—Chinese Taipei (598), Republic of

Korea (597), Singapore (593), Hong Kong SAR 

(572), and Japan (570)—and were similar to 

Hungary (517), England (513), Russian 

Federation (512), Lithuania (506) and the Czech 

Republic (504) (Gonzales et al., 2008).

The proportion of students achieving at the 

Basic level or above on the NAEP 

mathematics exam is increasing, but 

achievement gaps remain. In 2009, 30 percent 

of low-income fourth-graders scored below the 

Basic level, in contrast with 18 percent of all 

fourth-graders. The gap among eighth-graders 

was wider, with 43 percent of low-income 

students not reaching the Basic level compared 

with 27 percent of all students (NCES, 2010). 

In the 21st century, graduating from high 

school prepared for postsecondary education 

and careers in the new economy means 

having a solid grounding in mathematics, 

science, and technology. Learning these 

subjects is no longer only for future scientists 

and engineers; the subjects are essential 

preparation for all students. Despite an overall 

increase in postsecondary education enrollment 

for over a decade, the percentage of STEM 

graduates has declined (GAO, 2006). From 

among U.S. postsecondary institutions, 16 

percent of undergraduate degrees are awarded in 

STEM-related fields. By comparison, China 

awards 52 percent of undergraduate degrees in 

the STEM fields, Japan awards 64 percent, and 

South Korea awards 41 percent (Phillips, 2007).

While average U.S. performance on the 2007 

Trends in International Mathematics and 

Science Study (TIMSS) was above the 

average for all countries, the results lagged 

behind some countries in Asia and Europe.

In the fourth grade, eight education systems had 

average scores statistically significantly greater 

than those of U.S. students (529): Hong 

Kong—Special Administrative Region of the 
Despite overall improvements in mathematics, 

gaps among White and minority students also 

remain. In 2009, 91 percent of White fourthgraders scored at or above the Basic level, in 

contrast with 64 percent of Black students and 

71 percent of Hispanic students. Gaps widened

in the eighth grade, with 83 percent of White 

students, 50 percent of Black students, and 57 

percent of Hispanics scoring at the Basic level or 

above.

Similar gaps remain in science achievement. In 

2005, 52 percent of low-income fourth-graders 

and 63 percent of low-income eighth-graders 

scored below the Basic level, compared with 32 

percent of all fourth-graders and 41 percent of all 

eighth-grade students. On the same assessment, 

82 percent of White fourth-graders met or 

exceeded the Basic standard, in contrast to 38 

percent of Black and 45 percent of Hispanics. In

the eighth grade, 74 percent of White students 

met or exceeded the Basic level, in contrast to 28 

percent of Black students and 35 percent of 

Hispanics (NCES, 2006).

There have been increases in the number of 

STEM credits that high school students 

earn, but gaps among racial and ethnic 

groups, and students in urban, suburban, 

and rural communities remain. Successfully 

completing advanced STEM courses correlates 

highly with access to college, graduation from 

college, and earning in the top quartile of income 

from employment. Indeed, students who 

complete Algebra II are more than twice as likely 

to graduate from college as their peers with less 

preparation in mathematics (Adelman, 2006). 

Moreover, among African-American and 

Hispanic students who complete Algebra II, ―the 

differences in college graduation rates versus the 

student population in general are half as large as 

the differences for students who do not 

complete Algebra II‖ (National Mathematics 

Advisory Panel, 2008). Similarly, suburban 

graduates earned more credits in advanced 

mathematics and science than did their rural or 

urban counterparts (Laird et al., 2009). In 

addition, other research shows there is 

differential access to advanced mathematics 

courses in high schools by student race and 

poverty (Long et al., 2009). Students in families 

earning more than $75,000 in 2001 earned 3.6 

high school course credits in mathematics and 

3.4 in science. By comparison, students from 

families with incomes of $35,000 or lower earned 

3.4 credits in mathematics and 2.9 in science 

(Chen et al., 2010). 

Teacher content knowledge in mathematics 

and science is important. This is particularly 

true at the high school level, where students with 

teachers who have subject-specific training in 

mathematics perform better than students of 

teachers without such training (Goldhaber and 

Brewer, 2000). Furthermore, teacher content 

State-Level K–16 Systemwide Partnership 

Ohio STEM Learning Network

The Ohio STEM Learning Network is a publicprivate partnership designed to connect and 

develop state and regional initiatives involving 

higher education, K–12, and business 

partnerships focused on amplifying and 

accelerating innovations and promising practices 

in STEM education. The main aim of the network 

is to advance STEM literacy for all students and to 

double the number of students pursuing STEM 

academic majors and careers by 2015. 

The work of the Ohio STEM Learning Network, 

includes teacher and principal development; 

public policy research and engagement; technical 

assistance focused on support to STEM school 

start-ups and K–8 programs of excellence; and 

the connections between economic development 

and the production of STEM talent. As of January 

2010, the network has supported initiatives 

serving over 100,000 students, and it has 

generated seven times more in private and public 

investments than the initial state funding 

allocations (http://osln.org).
knowledge among math teachers was found to be 

a ―predictor of student gains‖ (Hill et al., 2005); 

the same study suggested that improving content 

knowledge of mathematics teachers in lowincome schools might help close the achievement 

gap on NAEP scores. Several studies have found 

that mathematics teachers of low-income and 

minority students have less content expertise than 

other teachers (Loeb and Reininger, 2004; Hill 

and Lubienski, 2007). The Education Trust 

reported in 2002 that 70 percent of middle-grade 

mathematics classes in high-poverty and highminority schools are taught by a teacher who 

lacked a college major or minor in a mathematics 

related field (Jerald, 2002).

Content experience varies among high school 

science faculty, who may not have a degree in 

the subject they are assigned to teach. In 

2003–04, 87 percent of teachers assigned to teach 

science held a major in science. But only one-half 

assigned to teach chemistry hold a major in the 

field (Morton et al., 2008).

National leaders in the STEM field have 

identified two major priorities: ensuring 

coherence in STEM learning and a supply of 

well-prepared and highly effective teachers.

The National Science Board’s National Action 

Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the 

U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

STEM Innovation in Schools 

Manor New Tech High School, Manor, Texas and New Tech Network, Napa, California

Manor New Tech High School opened in 2007, with the mission of educating students with the technology 

skills necessary for college and employment in the 21st century. Applications are accepted from all 

students of the Manor Independent School District. Just over 200 students were admitted through a blind 

lottery for the 2008–09 school year. Combining state funds with donations from local technology 

companies and foundations, the school strives to employ classroom technology to improve STEM 

education. The one-to-one student to computer ratio enables students to learn through interactive and 

creative presentations. Students practice selecting and using appropriate technology in research and 

communication projects modeled on college assignments or real-life work situations. The school’s 

curriculum replaces traditional electives with two years of engineering courses. Manor New Technology High 

School also requires that all students complete 12 college credit hours, by graduation, offered through dual 

enrollment with a local institution of higher education and a senior internship.

Manor participates in the New Tech Network, which works with 41 schools in nine states to support schools 

to “rethink teaching and learning, empowering students to become the creators, leaders, and producers of 

tomorrow” (http://newtechnetwork.org). Industry-school partnerships are integral to the New Tech model. 

These partnerships focus on career awareness and professional skills, professional development focused 

on project-based learning, principal autonomy in hiring staff, and a unique environment separate from other 

school models. 

An independent evaluation of the Manor New Tech High School (Gourgey, Asiabanpour and Crawford, 

2009; Fenimore, 2009) found that in its second school year, the students at Manor New Tech High School 

were achieving at a greater rate than those at traditional high schools. A significantly higher percentage of 

Manor students passed the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills than did the district average, 

including 21 percent higher in mathematics and 26 percent higher in science. Between 2007 and 2008, 

there was an increase of 23 percent in the number of students passing the science assessment (Gourgey, 

Asiabanpour, and Crawford, 2009).

(http://www.newtechnetwork.org/pdfs/ManorNewTechCaseStudy.pdf, http://newtechnetwork.org)
Mathematics Education System (2007) 

recommends that vertical alignment in STEM 

education, across all levels in the education 

system (kindergarten through postsecondary) be 

carried out in a coherent way and that student 

performance be guided assessments aligned with 

standards and enhanced support for STEM 

teachers (National Science Board, 2007). 

Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences’ 

2007 publication, Taking Science to School: 

Teaching and Learning in Grades K–8, 

emphasizes the importance of a systemic focus 

on curriculum, assessment, instruction, and 

professional development aligned to rigorous 

standards in order to improve STEM teaching 

and achievement (Duschl et al., 2007).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, Clifford. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/index.html.

Chen, Xianglei, Joanna Wu, and Shayna Tasoff (2010). Academic Preparation for College in the High School 

Senior Class of 2003–04 (NCES 2010–169). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 23, 2010, 

from http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2010169.

Duschl, Richard, Heidi Schweingruber, and Andrew Shouse (eds.) (2007). Taking Science to School. Teaching 

and Learning in Grades K–8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Goldhaber, Dan, and Dominic Brewer (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher

certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2):129–145.

Gonzales, Patrick, Trevor Williams, Leslie Jocelyn, Stephen Roey, David Kastberg, and Summer Brenwald 

(2008). Highlights From TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade 

Students in an International Context (NCES 2009–001). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved April 

23, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009001.

Government Accountability Office (2006). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Trends and the Role 

of Federal Programs (GAO-06-702T). Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06702t.pdf.

Gourgey, Hannah, Bahram Asiabanpour, and Richard Crawford (2009). Manor New Tech High School: 

Promising Practices for Comprehensive High Schools. Austin, Tex.: E 3 Alliance. Retrieved April 23, 2010, 

from http://thsp.org/kr/One.aspx?objectId=7372871&contextId=274698&lastCat=415132.

Hill, Heather, and Sarah Lubienski (2007). Teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching and school 

context: A study of California teachers. Educational Policy, 21(5):747–768.

Hill, H., B. Rowan, and D. Ball (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on 

student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42:271–406.

Jerald, Craig (2002). All Talk, No Action: Putting an End to Out-of-Field Teaching. Washington, D.C.: The 

Education Trust.

Laird, Jennifer, Martha Alt, and Joanna Wu (2009). STEM Coursetaking Among High School Graduates, 

1990–2005. MPR Research Brief. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www.mprinc.com/products/pdf/STEM_Coursetaking_Brief.pdf.

Loeb, Susanna, and Michelle Reininger (2004). Public Policy and Teacher Labor Markets. Lansing: Michigan 

State University, Education Policy Center. Retrieved April 23, 2010, from 

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true

&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED485592&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED4

85592.

Long, Mark, Patrice Iatarola, and Dylan Conger (2009). Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level 

math: The role of high school courses. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1):1-33.

Morton, Beth, Michael Hurwitz, Gregory Strizek, Pia Peltola, and Greg Orlofsky (2008). Education and 

Certification Qualifications of Departmentalized Public High School-Level Teachers of Core Subjects: Evidence From 

the 2003–04 Schools and Staffing Survey (NCES 2008–338). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2008). Foundations for Success: The National Mathematics Advisory Panel 

Final Report, 2008. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009. Data retrieved 

from http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/.

National Center for Education Statistics (2006). The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005. Data retrieved from 

http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2005/.

National Science Board (2007). A National Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics Education System (NSB–07–114). Washington, D.C.: National Science 

Foundation.

Ohio STEM Learning Network. http://osln.org/.

Phillips, Gary (2007). Chance Favors the Prepared Mind: Mathematics and Science Indicators for Comparing States and 

Nations. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from 

http://www.air.org/publications/documents/phillips.chance.favors.the.prepared.mind.pdf . 
A WELL-ROUNDED EDUCATION

OUR APPROACH

► Broad view of well-rounded education. Support states and districts in developing promising 

instructional practices or expanding strong instructional practices in arts, foreign languages, 

history and civics, financial literacy, environmental education, and other subjects.

► Larger, flexible grant program. Replaces several narrowly targeted grant programs with larger 

funding stream that will support all aspects of a well-rounded education.

► Data-driven and accountable. Grantees can implement a proven program or test the 

effectiveness of a promising innovation.

does not support thoughtful and coordinated 

planning at the state and local levels. A 

comprehensive authority with a focus on college 

readiness – through the consolidation of seven 

programs1 – will contribute to effective planning 

and implementation of federal resources in 

supporting students’ success. 

Consolidating multiple content-specific 

programs into a more flexible authority 

allows inclusion of new content areas, such 

as financial literacy and environmental 

education. For example, high-quality financial 

literacy programs that include curricula aligned 

with high-quality curricula, trained teachers, 

parental involvement, and rigorous assessment 

can provide students with the skills and 

knowledge they need to make informed financial 

decisions, and to succeed in college and beyond. 

Helping students see the value of a financial 

investment in postsecondary education, for 

example, can encourage them to prepare 

academically, and motivate their families to save 

for college and apply for financial aid that will 

not result in high levels of debt (McCormick, 

2008).

Many have raised the concern that foreign 

languages, history, the arts, and other 

content areas get insufficient attention, due 

in part to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 

which focuses accountability requirements on 

reading and mathematics (von Zastrow and Janc, 

2004). 

One strategy for ensuring a well-rounded 

education is the integration of instruction in 

English-language arts and mathematics with 

other subject areas that are not currently 

covered by accountability testing, 

particularly social studies and the arts

(Gunzenhauser, 2003; Manzo, 2005; Meyer, 

2005; Pinzur, 2004; Rabkin and Redmond, 2005; 

Vogler, 2003; von Zastrow and Janc, 2004). In 

this approach, content from science, social 

studies, foreign languages, or the arts is used 

during the instruction of mathematics, reading, 

or writing. For example, reading instruction 

might use text concerning a topic in history; 

mathematics instruction could include content 

about values of time and rhythm in music (Fiske, 

1999; von Zastrow and Janc, 2004). 

The number of small, content-focused 

programs in current law is inefficient and 

1 Programs are Teaching American History, Excellence in Economic Education, Arts in Education, Foreign 

Language Assistance, Academics for American History and Civics, Close-up Fellowships, and Civic Education.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fiske, Edward (ed.). (1999). Champions of Change: The Impact of the Arts on Learning. Washington, D.C.: The 

Education Partnership.

Gunzenhauser, Michael (2003). High-stakes testing and the default philosophy of education. Theory Into 

Practice, 42(1):51–58.

Manzo, Kathleen (2005, March 16). Social studies losing out to reading, math. Education Week. 

Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/03/16/27social.h24.html.

McCormick, Martha (2008). The Effectiveness of Youth Financial Education: A Review of the Literature. 

Washington, D.C.: New America Foundation. Retrieved from 

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/effectiveness_youth_financial_education.

Meyer, Lori (2005). The complete curriculum: Ensuring a place for the arts in America’s schools. Art 

Education Policy Review, 106(3):35–39.

Pinzur, Matthew (2004, December 26). Basics bumping the extras at schools. The Miami Herald. 

Retrieved from http://www.maimi.com/mld/miamiherald/living/education/10499688.html.

Rabkin, Nick, and Robin Redmond (2005, April 13). Arts education: Not all is created equal. Education 

Week. Retrieved April 20, 2005, from 

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/04/13/31rabkin.h24.html.

Vogler, Kenneth (2003). Where does social studies fit in a high-stakes testing environment? The Social 

Studies, 94(5):207–211.

Von Zastrow, Claus, and Helen Janc (2004). Academic Atrophy: The Condition of the Liberal Arts in America’s 

Public Schools. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education.
COLLEGE PATHWAYS AND ACCELERATED LEARNING

OUR APPROACH

► Increased access to accelerated opportunities for low-income students. Increasing access 

to accelerated opportunities for low-income students of all ages, including college-level 

coursework for high school students and gifted and talented programs for elementary and 

middle school students.

► Flexible, comprehensive approach. Replaces several narrowly targeted programs focused on 

preparing students for college, improving high schools, or gifted and talented education with a 

more flexible program to meet local needs.

► AP test access. Continuing support for improving access to AP tests for low-income students.

population is far lower (8 percent and 15

percent, respectively) (College Board, 2010). 

Increases in the participation of low-income 

students on the AP exam are notable, with 19

percent taking the exam in 2009 compared with 

14 in 2004 (College Board, 2010).

Early-college high schools and dual 

enrollment programs are a promising 

strategy for preparing low-income students 

for postsecondary enrollment and success.

Within the last decade, hundreds of early-college 

high schools have been established. Notable is 

the Jobs for the Future’s Early College High 

School Initiative, through which 13 initiative 

partners have started or redesigned over 200 

schools in 24 states. By 2008-09, 96 of the 201 

early-college high schools had expanded to all 

grades, enrolling close to 42,000 students, over 

one-half of whom were economically 

disadvantaged; and almost one-half had a 

graduating class. Early outcomes find that 

increasing numbers of early-college high school 

students (most recently 92 percent) are 

graduating and enrolling in four-year colleges 

(Nodine, 2009). Additionally, 40 percent of 2008 

early-college high school graduates earned more 

than one year of college credit while enrolled at 

the early-college high school (Nodine, 2009), 

contributing to a greater likelihood that they will 

Research consistently shows that the 

academic intensity of courses taken during 

high school is a significant predictor of 

postsecondary success (Adelman, 2006; 

Warburton et al., 2001). Among first-generation 

college students, rigorous academic preparation 

is particularly significant in narrowing the gap in 

postsecondary success (Adelman, 2006). 

However, Hispanic students are less likely to 

attend secondary schools offering trigonometry 

or calculus than are White or Asian students. 

Likewise, students from the lowest 

socioeconomic quintile are less likely to attend 

high schools offering mathematics courses 

beyond Algebra II than their more affluent peers 

(Adelman, 2006).

The gaps in access to, and achievement on, 

Advanced Placement courses and exams 

among low-income and minority students, 

and their peers are narrowing, but 

improvements are needed. In 2009, 16 percent 

of public high school students enrolled in an AP 

course and earned a mastery score of 3 or higher, 

up from 13 percent in 2004. While the 

representation of Hispanic students taking AP 

exams in 2009 is fairly representative of the 

population (16 percent and 16 percent, 

respectively), the proportion of AfricanAmerican examinees relative to the student 
A Statewide Systemic Effort to Support High Schools in Preparing Students for Postsecondary and 

Career Success 

North Carolina New Schools Project

Created in 2003 by the Office of the Governor and the Education Cabinet, the North Carolina New Schools 

Project is a nonprofit statewide effort to support the planning and initial work of early-college and 

redesigned high schools. Both of these models provide students with a college preparatory course of 

study. Guiding the work of the North Carolina New Schools Project is the belief that (1) “high schools 

capable of graduating all students ready for college, careers and life can succeed in every corner of North 

Carolina regardless of local constraints,” and (2) “work with like-minded individuals and groups [can] build 

an unmistakable demand for innovation in an ever-growing group of North Carolina high schools” (North 

Carolina New Schools Project, 2010).

Targeted at lower-income students whose parents never attended college, “Learn and Earn” early-college 

high schools offer coursework to earn a high school diploma along with two years of transferable college 

credit or an associate degree, at sites located on two- and four-year college campuses. As a result of this 

effort, North Carolina is among the nation’s leading states in establishing early-college high schools (North 

Carolina New Schools Project, 2010).

A recent New York Times article regarding North Carolina’s early-college high schools (Lewin, 2010) 

reports that, last year, half of North Carolina’s early-college high schools had no dropouts, in contrast with 

a 62 percent high school completion rate nationwide. The article also noted that North Carolina’s earlycollege graduates earn slightly better grades in college courses than their older classmates.

earn a college degree. 

Gaps between high-achieving low-income 

students and their more affluent peers begin 

widening in the elementary grades and 

persist through high school. By fifth grade, 

only 56 percent of lower-income students, 

previously identified as high achieving, maintain 

their status. By comparison, 69 percent of 

higher-income students do. Additionally, firstgraders from higher-income families are twice as 

likely as their lower-income peers to rise to the 

top academic quartile by the fifth grade (Wyner 

et al., 2007). By college, 59 percent of lowerincome high-achieving students will earn a 

bachelor’s degree, in contrast with 77 percent of 

their higher-income peers (Wyner et al., 2007).

Enhancing the Use of Technology to Support Effective Teaching and Learning for a Complete 

Education

Effective use of technology can accelerate efforts to ensure that all students master literacy, STEM, and 

other areas of a rich curriculum (Baker et al., 2006). Advanced technology-based tools and resources, 

such as primary source documents and real data make resources available at any time, providing 

students with engaging, enriched and personalized learning experiences that increase opportunities to 

develop critical thinking and complex problem-solving strategies, to deepen their learning across all 

content areas, and to learn in ways that are most relevant to them (Bransford et al., 2006; Dede, 2009; 

National Research Council, 2000). Supporting teachers in using technology to enhance their instruction 

through the creation of collaborative learning opportunities (Fishman, 2007) and assisting students in 

addressing their individual interests and needs in their access to, and understanding of, a range of highquality content is critical to the effective use of instructional technology (Rose and Meyer, 2002). Another 

important element in the use of instructional technology includes the access to free high-quality 

educational content offered through the Internet (Smith, 2009), as well as podcasts, digital libraries, 

simulations, textbooks, games, and courses (Collins and Halverson, 2009; Jenkins, 2009).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/index.html.

Baker, D., J. Fouts, C. Gratama, J. Clay, and S. Scott (2006). Digital learning commons: High school seniors 

online course taking patterns in Washington State. Seattle, WA: Fouts & Associates. Retrieved from 

http://www.learningcommons.org.

Bransford, J., B. Barron, R. Pea, A. Meltzoff, P. Kuhl, P. Bell, R. Stevens, D. Schwartz, N. Vye, B. 

Reeves, J. Roschelle, and N. Sabelli (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary 

science of learning. In K. Sawyer (ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (19-34). New York, 

NY: Cambridge University Press.

College Board (2010). Sixth annual AP report to the nation. New York, NY: Author.

Collins, A. & R. Halverson (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and 

schooling in America. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323 (66-69).

Fishman, B. (2007). Fostering community knowledge sharing using ubiquitous records of practice. In 

R. Goldman, R.D. Pea, Bl. Barron, and S.J. Derry (eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 495-506). 

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. 

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lewin, T. (2010, February 8). For students at risk, early college proves a draw. The New York Times. 

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/education/08school.html?em.

National Research Council (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school (Expanded 

edition). J.D. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking (eds.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies 

Press.

Nodine, T. (2009, October). Innovations in college readiness: How early college high schools are preparing students 

underrepresented in higher education for college success. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. Retrieved from 

http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/Innovations_in College Readiness_PDFVersion _102909.pdf.

North Carolina New Schools Project (2010). Retrieved from http://newschoolsproject.org.

Rose, D.H., and A. Meyer (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for Learning. 

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Smith, M.S. (2009). Opening education. Science 323(89).

Warburton, E., R. Bugarin, and A. Nunez (2001). Bridging the gap. Academic preparation and postsecondary 

success of first-generation students. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001153 - 22k 

- 2001-06-26.

Wyner, J.S., J.M. Bridgeland & J.J. Diulio (2007). Achievementrap: How America is failing millions of highachieving children from lower-income families. Landsdowne, VA: Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved 

from http://wwwjkcforg/newsknowledge

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, Clifford (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through College. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/index.html.

Baker, Duane, Jeffrey Fouts, Candace Gratama, Joan Clay, and Steve Scott (2006). Digital Learning 

Commons: High School Seniors Online Course Taking Patterns in Washington State. Seattle: Fouts & 

Associates. Retrieved from http://www.learningcommons.org.

Bransford, John, Brigid Barron, Roy Pea, Andrew Meltzoff, Pat Kuhl, Phil Bell, Reed Stevens, Daniel

Schwartz, Nancy Vye, Byron Reeves, Jeremy Roschelle, and Nora Sabelli (2006). Foundations 

and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In R. Keith Sawyer (ed.), 

Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

College Board (2010). Sixth Annual AP Report to the Nation. New York: Author.

Collins, Allan, and Richard Halverson (2009). Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital 

Revolution and Schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dede, Chris (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323(5910):66–69.

Fishman, Barry (2007). Fostering community knowledge sharing using ubiquitous records of practice. 

In Ricki Goldman, Roy Pea, Brigid Barron, and Sharon Derry (eds.), Video Research in the 

Learning Sciences. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jenkins, Henry (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. 

Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Lewin, Tamar (2010, February 8). For students at risk, early college proves a draw. The New York Times. 

Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/education/08school.html?em.

National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Mind, Brain, Experience, and School (expanded 

edition), J.D. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking (eds.). Washington, D.C.: National 

Academies Press.

Nodine, Thad (2009). Innovations in College Readiness: How Early College High Schools Are Preparing Students 

Underrepresented in Higher Education for College Success. Boston: Jobs for the Future. Retrieved 

from http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/Innovations_in College Readiness_PDFVersion 

_102909.pdf.

North Carolina New Schools Project (2010). Retrieved from http://newschoolsproject.org.

Rose, David, and Anne Meyer (2002). Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. 

Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Smith, Marshall (2009). Opening education. Science, 323(5910):89–93.

Warburton, Edward, Rosio Bugarin, and Anne-Marie Nunez (2001). Bridging the Gap: Academic 

Preparation and Postsecondary Success of First-Generation Students (NCES 2001–153). Washington, 
This page intentionally left blank.

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Retrieved from 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001153.

Wyner, Joshua, John Bridgeland, and John Diulio (2007). Achievementrap: How America is Failing Millions of 

High-Achieving Children From Lower-Income Families. Landsdowne, Va.: Jack Kent Cooke 

Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.jkcf.org/news-knowledge.