Opening the Common Core: How to Bring All Students to College and Career Readiness

Books

Carol Corbett Burris & Delia T. Garrity

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Dedication

    Dedicated to the teachers of the Rockville Centre Public Schools who have opened academic doors for all children through their firm belief in equity and excellence, and to those courageous New York principals who have resisted reducing the work of all teachers to the sum of student test scores.

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Foreword

    Twenty-five years ago, two prominent reports urged policymakers to move toward educator professionalization (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986). Students, these reports reasoned, “are better served by teachers who are prepared to make responsible decisions and then given the authority to do so” (Darling-Hammond & Wise, 1992, p. 1359). By the mid-1990s, however, it was clear that state and national policy was heading in the opposite direction. Assessments were put in place to measure students’ progress toward meeting newly instituted performance standards aligned to curriculum standards. The rationale for the carefully aligned standards-based reforms was sound—no longer would schools suffer with conflicting, disorganized mandates for change. No longer would some schools set much lower standards than others.

    But among the unintended, undesirable consequences that have arisen from these reforms has been a double whammy for educators—less discretion coupled with more responsibility. That is, the standards-based reform movement has resulted in a vicious and untoward blaming of teachers and principals for outcomes that they cannot fully control. Further, it has pushed those educators to maintain a laser-like focus on the measured outcomes and on the tests themselves—narrowing curriculum and teaching to the tests—all in order to achieve a set of goals that often feel only tangentially related to the reasons why the they entered the profession.

    While these trends show few signs of fading, educators can take heart in this new book from Carol Burris and Delia Garrity. Even during a time when policy has been dominated by standards and testing policies, they helped lead their district—Rockville Centre, in Long Island, New York—toward teaching and learning grounded in the development of teachers as knowledgeable, trusted professionals. The results of their efforts are well documented—a remarkable increase in both excellence and equity. Despite the cacophony of mandates and sanctions, they have focused on what really matters—providing all students with excellent and challenging learning experiences that are deep, meaningful, preparatory, and not driven by testing.

    Burris and Garrity note at the book's outset the ongoing adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) throughout the nation. In fact, they embrace these standards. Because they do so, the book serves as a crucial missing element to the CCSS, guiding policymakers on how to move from the standards toward practices shown to increase learning and thus move students closer to meeting those standards. Similarly, the details illustrated throughout the book provide educators with corresponding tools—ways to move forward in a standards-based policy context.

    This book provides a pathway for the CCSS to be something more than the same old same old for educators. Maybe, if we are wise and careful this time, the path does not necessarily have to lead to the well worn and cruel “just do it, no excuses” condemnations. Perhaps teachers and principals can thrive as professionals, with students reaping the learning rewards.

    Burris and Garrity, in this new book, explain what it will take to do it. They help unpack the standards and describe, through examples and lessons, how to give all students more enriched learning experiences that will better prepare them for the 21st century. They wisely caution that the old drill and skill practices that are often resorted to by pressured teachers with struggling students are not the most effective ways to improve learning. The authors share research on the effectiveness of an accelerated approach, and they give the reader strategies on implementation. Indeed, they provide throughout the book practical suggestions that teachers can use with their most vulnerable students to make sure that those students are included and not relegated to the sidelines of education. The spirit of their first book, Detracking for Excellence and Equity, can be found throughout this second work, especially in the chapter that focuses specifically on equity.

    For the past eight years, I have been blessed with the opportunity to study Rockville Centre's reforms and to work with Carol Burris on that research. I have seen the dedication of Burris, Garrity, Superintendent William Johnson, and their instructional staff. I have seen that dedication pay off as the district's large achievement gap has narrowed tremendously, with overall achievement rising and Burris's high school gaining repeated recognition as one of the best in the nation. Challenging, engaging, supported learning is not a secret formula; the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine (2004), among many others, have explained these essential elements in detail. But what Burris, Garrity, and others in Rockville Centre have done is take that formula and make it part of their—and their students’—daily lives. This book explains how they did this and how others can do the same.

    This is an overwhelming time for our nation's teachers, as they feel the brunt of national and state policies motivated by callous political agendas. Burris and Garrity give teachers and school leaders practical, useful tools grounded in experience and in research. The tools are offered as a way for educators to implement change in a way that reminds us all of what reform should really be about, in the words of John Dewey (1879), “that education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform” (p. 79). And a lot of what it takes is improving learning opportunities through improved, more equitable, and more supported schools.

    Professor KevinG.WelnerDirector, National Education Policy Center, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder

    Preface

    The Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association, 2010) represent a dramatic shift in beliefs about the purposes of American schooling. If all students are to achieve the Common Core State Standards, schools must thoughtfully and thoroughly reexamine and change curriculum, instruction, and school structures. This book provides concrete suggestions to help schools achieve this goal.

    This book provides a comprehensive approach that integrates the standards of the Core with strategies that ensure that equity is front and center as schools and teachers engage in Core implementation. The authors provide practical strategies that teachers can use based on four essential principles—acceleration, critical thinking, equity, and support (ACES)—in order to transform instruction to meet the requirements of the new standards. These strategies are applied and developed in model lessons linked to Common Core and Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) standards.

    This book is designed to serve as a guide to K–12 educators, both teachers and school leaders, who wish to redesign learning experiences so that all of their students, including their English language learners and students with disabilities, will not be left behind as they seek to bring all students to college and career readiness.

    Acknowledgments

    Corwin gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following reviewers:

    Michele Badovinac, Director

    AVID Region 6

    San Joaquin County Office of Education

    Stockton, CA

    Damon Douglas, Math and ELA Curriculum Specialist

    Northampton, MA

    Cathy French, Mathematics Coordinator

    Hazelwood School District

    Florissant, MO

    Michael Horton, AVID Administrator

    Riverside County Office of Education

    Riverside, CA

    Jeff Ronneberg, Superintendent

    Spring Lake Park, MN

    Debbie Zacarian, Director

    Center for English Language Education and Center for Advancing Student Achievement at the Collaborative for Educational Services

    Northampton, MA

    About the Authors

    Carol Corbett Burris has served as principal of South Side High School in the Rockville Centre School District in New York since 2000. Prior to becoming a principal, she was a teacher at both the middle and high school level. She received her doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University, and her dissertation, which studied her district's detracking reform in math, received the 2003 National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Middle Level Dissertation of the Year Award. In 2010, she was named the New York State Outstanding Educator by School Administrators Association of New York State.

    She is the coauthor, with Delia Garrity, of Detracking for Excellence and Equity. Articles that she has authored or coauthored have appeared in Educational Leadership, The Kappan, the American Educational Research Journal, The Teachers College Record, Theory Into Practice, The School Administrator, the American School Board Journal, and EdWeek. A chapter on closing the achievement gap, which she coauthored with Kevin Welner, appeared in Lessons in Integration: Realizing the Promise of Racial Diversity in America's Schools, a volume edited by the Harvard Civil Rights Project. She can be reached at burriscarol@gmail.com.

    Delia T. Garrity was a public school educator for thirty-seven years, serving as a math teacher, teacher of the gifted, mathematics department chairperson, curriculum supervisor, assistant principal, and assistant superintendent. During her tenure as assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction in Rockville Centre School District, New York, she provided the leadership in opening academic doors to all students and designed a comprehensive professional learning model for teachers and administrators. As assistant principal of South Side Middle School in Rockville Centre, Delia facilitated the school's transformation from a tracked system to one that offers an honors curriculum in heterogeneous classes for all students. She received the New York State Middle School Assistant Principal of the Year Award in 1996. She has taught graduate courses on mathematics education at Long Island University and is a guest lecturer at Teachers College, Columbia University. She is a national educational consultant and presenter who works with educators to create equitable, heterogeneous classrooms where each student, including special education students, English language learners, and gifted students receive the same high quality, rich education. She coauthored Detracking for Excellence and Equity with Carol C. Burris and authored or coauthored articles in American School Board Journal, The School Administrator, and The Arithmetic Teacher. Delia can be reached at dtgarrity@gmail.com.

  • Resource: Curriculum Template

    References

    Achieve and the Education Trust. (2008). Making college and career readiness the mission for high schools: A guide for state policymakers. Retrieved from http://www.txccrs.org/downloads/Achieve_MakingCCRtheMission.pdf
    Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor's degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/index.html
    Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Six key strategies for teachers of English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/SixKeyStrategies.pdf
    Ames, M. (2010). What happens to students once they're in college. Newsleader, 57(5), 6.
    Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D.R. (eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York: Longman.
    Barton, M.L., & Heidema, C. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics (
    2nd ed.
    ). Aurora, CO: McREL.
    Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M.L. (1998). Teaching reading in the content areas: If not me, then who? (
    2nd ed.
    ) Aurora, CO: McREL.
    Bloom, B.S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation comment 1(2). The Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Programs: The University of California at Los Angeles.
    Bloom, B.S. (ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.
    Bloom, H.S., Ham, S., Melton, L., & O'Brient, J. (2001). Evaluating the accelerated schools approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
    Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R.M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77.http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.1.7
    Braddock, J.H., II, & Dawkins, M.P. (1993). Ability grouping, aspirations, and attainment: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 324–336.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2295468
    Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    Brown, J.E., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for response to intervention with English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.niusileadscape.org/docs/FINAL_PRODUCTS/LearningCarousel/Framework_for_RTI_with_ELLs.pdf
    Burstein, L. (1993). Studying learning, growth and instruction cross nationally: Lessons learned in why and why not engage in cross-national studies. The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
    Burris, C.C., & Garrity, D.T. (2009). Equity and excellence. The American School Board Journal, 196(1), 29–31.
    Burris, C.C., & Garrity, D.T. (2008). Detracking for excellence and equity. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Burris, C.C., Heubert, J., & Levin, H. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 103–134.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312043001105
    Burris, C.C., Heubert, J., & Levin, H. (2004). Math acceleration for all. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 68–71.
    Burris, C.C., & Welner, K.G. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 594–598.
    Burris, C.C., Welner, K., Wiley, E., & Murphy, J. (2008). Accountability, rigor, and detracking: Achievement effects of embracing a challenging curriculum as a universal good for all students. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 571–607.
    Calderon, M., & Minaya-Rowe, L. (2011). Preventing long-term ELs: Transforming schools to meet core standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Calkins, L. (2011). A curricular plan for the reading workshop, grade 2. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.
    Chokshi, S., & Fernandez, C. (2005). Reaping the systemic benefits of lesson study: Insights for the U.S. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 674–680.
    Clark, C., & Fifer, N. (1999). Poetry in six dimensions: 20th century voices. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
    Clark, K.F., & Graves, M.F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(11), 570–580.http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.6.6
    College Board. (2009). Facts for education advocates: International comparisons. Retrieved from http://connection-collegeboard.com/09jan/advocacy_facts.html
    Conley, D.T. (2003). Understanding university success: A report from standards for success. Eugene, OR: Center for Educational Policy Research.
    Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How American's commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A.E. (1992). Teacher professionalism. In M.Alkin (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (
    6th ed.
    ), (Vol. 1), (pp. 1359–1366). New York, NY: Macmillan.
    Dewey, J. (1879). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54, 77–80.
    Diaz-Rico, L.T., & Weed, K.Z. (2002). The crosscultural language and academic development handbook (
    2nd ed.
    ). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    Dillon, S. (2009, October, 8). Study finds a high rate of imprisonment among dropouts. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html
    Echevarria, J., & Hasbrouck, J. (2009). Response to intervention and English learners. Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/create/resources/pubs/CREATEBrief_ResponsetoIntervention.pdf
    Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 (5), 393–405.
    Finnan, C., & Swanson, J.D. (2000). Accelerating the learning of all students. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    FinnanC., St. John, E.P., McCarthy, J., & Slovacek, S.P. (1996). Accelerated schools in action: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Finnish National Board of Education. (2004). Background for Finnish PISA success. Retrieved from http://www.edu.fi/english/page.asp?path=500,571,36263
    Freeman, Y.S., & Freeman, D.E. (2009). Academic language for English language learners and struggling readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    Garrity, D. (2004). Detracking with vigilance. School Administrator, 61(7), 24–27.
    Garrity, D.T., & Burris, C.C. (2007). Personalized learning in detracked classrooms. School Administrator, 64(8), 10–16.
    George, P. (1992). How to untrack your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Handerwork, P., Tognatta, N., Coley, R., & Gittomer, D. (2008). Access to success: Patterns of advanced placement participation in US high schools. Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PIC-ACCESS.pdf
    Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
    Haynes, J., & Zacarian, D. (2010). Teaching English language learners across the content areas. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Heubert, J.P. (2002). First do no harm: How the misuse of promotion and graduation tests hurts our neediest students. Educational Leadership, 60(4), 26–31.
    Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
    Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Hurwitz, J. (1987). Class clown. New York, NY: Scholastic.
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA). (2004). Public Law 108–446.
    Jitendra, A.K., Griffin, C.C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., & Kaduvettoor, A. (2007). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 115–127.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.115
    Joosse, B. (1991). Mama, do you love me?San Francisco, CA: Chronicle.
    Kain, P. (1998). How to do a close reading. Retrieved from http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CloseReading.html
    Khadaroo, S.T. (2011). Civil rights survey: 3,000 US high schools don't have math beyond Algebra 1. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0630/Civil-rights-survey-3-000-US-high-schools-don-t-have-math-beyond-Algebra-I
    Kifer, E., Wolfe, R.G., & Schmidt, W.H. (1993). Understanding patterns of student growth. In L.Burstein (ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp. 101–127). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
    Kliebard, H.M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893–1958 (
    2nd ed.
    ). New York, NY: Routledge.
    Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41(4), 212–218.
    Levin, H.M. (1988). Accelerated schools for at-risk students (Report No. 142). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.
    Levin, HenryM. (1987). New schools for the disadvantaged. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Lab. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED310176.pdf
    Lucas, S.R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    MathCamp, Inc. (2009). Of taxes and tips - Bar model. Retrieved from http://mathcamp.com/display.php?Page=1
    MathCamp, Inc. (2006). WINK sheet shell. Retrieved from http://mathcamp.com/display.php?Page=16
    MathCamp, Inc. (2005). The box method of multiplying binomials. Retrieved from http://mathcamp.com/display.php?Page=13
    Mayer, R.E. (2002). Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Mayer, R.E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition (
    2nd ed.
    ). New York, NY: Freeman.
    Mellard, D.F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner's guide to implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Mickelson, R. (2001). Subverting Swann: First- and second-generation segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215–252.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038002215
    National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards initiatives: Preparing America's students for college and career. Retrieved from http://www.corestand-ards.org/
    National Research Council. (1991). In the mind's eye: Enhancing human performance. DanielDruckman and RobertA.Bjork (eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (
    2nd ed.
    ). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
    Obama, B. (2011, January 25). The state of the union address. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2011-full-transcript/story?id=12759395
    OECD. (2009). Trends in tertiary graduation and entry rates. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=1710423/cl=20/nw=1/rpsv/factbook2009/09/01/02/index.htm
    Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/deseg06.php
    Ovando, C., Collier, V., & Combs, M. (2003). Bilingual and ESL classrooms: Teaching multicultural contexts (
    3rd ed.
    ). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
    Peterson, J.M. (1989). Remediation is no remedy. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 24–25.
    Pintrich, P.R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice 41(4), 219–225.
    Polacco, P. (2001). The keeping quilt. St. Louis, MO: Turtleback Books.
    Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R.Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher 40(3), 103–116.
    Pugalee, D.K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for the connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236–245.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18026.x
    Raths, J. (2002). Improving instruction. Theory into Practice 41(4), 233–237.
    Rea, D.M., & Mercuri, S.P. (2006). Research-based strategies for English language learners: How to reach goals and meet standards, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    Reis, S.M. (n.d.). Research that supports using the schoolwide enrichment model and extensions of gifted education pedagogy to meet the needs of all students. Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/sem/semresearch.html
    Reis, S.M., Gentry, M., & Maxfield, L.R. (1998). The application of enrichment clusters to teachers’ classroom practices. Journal for Education of the Gifted, 21, 310–324.
    Robb, L. (2006). Teaching reading. New York, NY: Scholastic.
    Robb, L. (2003). Teaching reading in social studies, science, and math. New York, NY: Scholastic.
    Robb, L. (2000). Teaching reading in the middle school. New York, NY: Scholastic.
    Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406–412.http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10374770
    Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.
    Slavin, R., & Braddock, J., III. (1993). Ability grouping: On the wrong track. College Board Review, 168, 11–17.
    Snodgrass, W.D. (1987). After Experience taught me …. Selected poems 1957–1987. New York, NY: Soho.
    Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap—Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.
    Sullivan, D., & O'Neil, M.A. (1980). This is us! Great graphs for kids. Arithmetic Teacher, 28(1), 14–18.
    Thompson, C.J. (2009) Preparation, practice and performance: An empirical examination of the impact of standards based instruction on secondary students’ math and science achievement. Research in Education, 81, 53–62.
    Useem, E.L. (1992). Middle schools and math groups: Parents’ involvement in children's placement. Sociology of Education, 65, 263–279.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2112770
    Vaughn, S. (2011). Response to intervention and English learners. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/diversity/englishlanguagelearners
    Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C.Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York, NY: Macmillan.
    Welner, K.G. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with educational equity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    White, P., Gamoran, A., Porter, A.C., & Smithson, J. (1996). Upgrading the high school math curriculum: Math course-taking patterns in seven high schools in California and New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 285–307.
    Zweirs, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Corwin a SAGE Company

    The Corwin logo—a raven striding across an open book—represents the union of courage and learning. Corwin is committed to improving education for all learners by publishing books and other professional development resources for those serving the field of PreK-12 education. By providing practical, hands-on materials, Corwin continues to carry out the promise of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website