Assessment for Learning and Development in K-3A RepoRt by .docx

Assessment for Learning
and Development in K-3
A RepoRt by the K-3 NoRth cARoLiNA AssessmeNt thiNK
tANK
2013
NC Assessment for Learning and Development | 3
ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING
ANd dEVELOPMENT IN k-3
In response to a mandate by the North Carolina State
Legislature and the requirements of the Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge Grant, NC Superintendent June Atkinson
convened the K-3 Assessment Think Tank which included
NC school teachers, parents, scholars representing seven
NC universities, and additional stakeholders. The group was
charged with proposing a plan to improve early elementary
school learning and instruction through more efficient and
effective use of student-centered assessments. Over a nine-
month period, the Think Tank reviewed scientific findings
and best practices and solicited input from a wide array of
stakeholders, including a survey of over 2,500 NC teachers
and consultation from over 60 state and national scholars and
education leaders. This report summarizes the Think Tank’s
findings, its proposal for an innovative process to improve
learning, and its recommendations for next steps.

BAckGROuNd
From kindergarten entry through third grade, the early
elementary school years represent a pivotal period in
educational development. Achievement gaps that grow
during the years prior to kindergarten are either solidified or
eliminated during the primary grades of elementary school
(Graves, 2006; Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzes, 2004). Education
policy must increase its emphasis on student learning during
this critical period in a way that recognizes each child’s
developmental needs.
In order to optimize student learning, teachers need to utilize
a formative assessment process that identifies strengths
and areas for growth for each student in five domains of
learning. This process is already used by master teachers
and has been shown to improve learning outcomes (Black
& William, 1998; William & Thompson, 2007). This process of
assessment for learning and development must attend to the
whole child, including the child’s culture, family, health, and
early childhood experiences. This assessment should be an
integral part of the instruction and learning process.
Input from North Carolina teachers indicates that they are
willing and able to implement a formative assessment process,
provided they are given resources to strengthen, support, and
guide them. The implementation plan must include professional
development, coaching, and support from leadership.
PROPOSAL FOR ASSESSMENT FOR
LEARNING ANd dEVELOPMENT IN k-3
The Think Tank proposes a formative assessment process that
engages teachers and students with input from parents and
families, school support staff, early childhood programs, and

health care providers. This assessment process will incorporate
multiple forms of evidence, such as observations, student
work samples, conversations, and embedded instructional
tasks. It is intended to be ongoing and an integral part of
the instructional and learning process that teachers and
students use to guide teaching and learning. It will be based
on claims about student learning in five inter-related domains
of learning included in North Carolina’s definition of school
readiness (Ready for School Goal Team, 2000): Approaches
to Learning, Cognitive Development, Emotional-Social
Development, Health and Physical Development, Language
Development and Communication.
REcOMMENdATIONS ANd NEXT STEPS
The Think Tank anticipates that the formative assessment
process will lead to improved learning for all children
provided the following recommendations are implemented:
1. A Design Team should be established to craft learning
progressions, performance descriptors, assessment
targets, and assessment means to transform the Think
Tank’s claims into an assessment that will be a usable
instructional and learning resource. The Design Team
shall meet with the Think Tank in September 2014 for
an update on progress.
2. Design a pilot process that includes a representative
sample of students from schools across diverse
regions of the state to ensure that it will be accessible
to and valid and appropriate for the greatest number
of children.
3. Devise strategies to ensure that major stakeholders,
including parents, teachers, administrators, health care
providers, and early childhood leaders, are an integral

part of the design and implementation process.
4. Utilize technology to support the assessment process
and to facilitate data collection and utilization.
5. Work collaboratively with LEAs to plan and deliver
professional development that is consistent with
research; this should include demonstration,
practice, feedback, coaching, and ongoing support.
executive summary
North carolina has long been a leader in education innovation
and is poised to lead in early elementary
school reform through a new plan to develop and implement a
developmentally appropriate formative
assessment process for kindergarten through third grade.
4 | NC Assessment for Learning and Development
Professional development will be critical, not only
for teachers, but also for administrators, curriculum
specialist, coaches, and others who support teachers
in the formative assessment process.
6. Provide both human and technical resources that are
sufficient to strengthen, support, and guide teachers
and students as they collaborate in the formative
assessment process.
7. Following a validation pilot, implement the assessment
process statewide in a carefully sequenced manner
that ensures sufficient monitoring and supervision to
ensure quality and fidelity in the process.

8. Design the K-3 formative assessment to achieve its
purpose – to inform teaching and learning on a daily
basis. It will not be designed for accountability or high-
stakes purposes, nor will it be a valid means of evaluating
teachers or schools or for accountability purposes.
9. Devise systems and structures to ensure iterative
improvement cycles that increase the usability and
effectiveness of the formative assessment process in
the future.
cLAIMS
The Think Tank proposes the following claims, or learning
goals, as the foundation for the formative assessment process:
Approaches to Learning
1. Students can effectively solve problems by defining
goals, describing steps, and evaluating alternative
strategies in both academic and social interactions.
2. Students can maintain focus and persevere to
accomplish collaborative and individual tasks whether
those tasks are chosen by them, or assigned to them.
3. Students can demonstrate curiosity by seeking
opportunities – whether independently or in collabora-
tion with peers and teachers – to extend their knowledge.
cognitive development
1. Students can use content-independent abilities and
strategies as well as content-specific skills, processes, and
approaches to solve problems and acquire information.

2. Students can make connections to prior learning,
construct knowledge, and demonstrate their
understanding using multiple modes of expression.
3. Students can come to understand themselves as
learners and acquire dispositions (attitudes, beliefs,
and values) that support their academic engagement.
Emotional-Social development
1. Students can identify and communicate about
emotions in themselves and others.
2. Students can talk about and use strategies to regulate
responses to their own emotions.
3. Students can form and sustain healthy relationships
with adults and peers.
4. Students can use appropriate social skills to interact
with adults and peers in school.
Health & Physical development
1. Students can demonstrate conceptual knowledge
to support healthy behaviors and the reduction of
health risks.
2. Students can develop skills that contribute to healthy
behaviors and reduction of health risks.
3. Students can demonstrate competencies in motor
skills and movement patterns.
Language development & communication
1. Students can use and continue to develop effective

listening and communication skills (e.g. verbal and
non-verbal) for a range of purposes, audiences, and
settings/contexts in increasingly complex ways.
2. Students can acquire and integrate vocabulary,
concepts, and the structure of language in
increasingly complex ways.
3. Students can acquire the foundational skills for
reading and integrate these skills for comprehending
increasingly complex texts.
4. Students can acquire the written communication skills
that empower students to express their ideas, opinions,
and knowledge for a range of purposes and audiences.
cONcLuSION
Understanding what children know and are able to do is critical
to teachers’ efforts to plan instruction that meets the needs of
all
children. The Think Tank strongly encourages the Department
of Public Instruction to design an assessment process for use
in kindergarten through third grade that utilizes strategies
appropriate for young children and occurs in the context of
instruction and learning. This provides the best opportunity for
children to demonstrate what they know and are able to do and
to help each child reach challenging and achievable goals that
contribute to his/her ongoing development and learning.
RATIONALE

North Carolina is a national leader in early education programs.
Its heralded Pre-K program is the most recent in a long history
of innovation. North Carolina has also led with secondary
school
programs and 3-12 evaluation efforts, such as Early College
and the ABCs. Now, more than ever, a major focus of education
must turn to the early years of elementary school (kindergarten
through grade 3) when children are poised to begin a trajectory
toward success in school and life. A growing body of research
has shown that providing a strong foundation during the Pre-K
– Grade 3 years reduces the achievement gap between children
from low-income households and those from middle-class
households (Graves, 2006; Reynolds, Ou, & Topitzes, 2004).
Furthermore, children develop higher levels of academic
achievement when programs are guided by a Pre-K –
Grade 3 philosophy and provide continuity and consistency
of learning experiences and expectations (Graves, 2006). The
early elementary school years are, therefore, a crucial period
in children’s educational development. Preparing children to
master critical content in secondary schools and graduate as
globally competitive students requires starting from the very
beginning of formal schooling. Programs serving children
from Pre-K – Grade 3 must ensure children acquire a strong
foundation by addressing the needs of the whole child in
this age group in ways that are culturally, linguistically, and
developmentally appropriate.
Thus, with a shared understanding that the success of the
education system depends on a solid foundation during these
early years, North Carolina is once again poised to lead through
innovation. With authorization from the North Carolina General
Assembly and financial support from the Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge grant, the North Carolina Department of
Public Instruction’s Office of Early Learning is developing a
formative assessment process for K-3.

ASSESSMENT IN NORTH cAROLINA
The North Carolina State Board of Education and Department of
Public Instruction has, as one of its priorities, the development
of a comprehensive K-3 assessment system that informs
instruction and supports students’ academic success by
identifying the needs of each child. This report speaks to one
component of a comprehensive assessment system, formative
assessment, which has been shown to have a powerful impact
on student learning (Marzano, 2006). Teachers’ use of formative
assessment has been shown to increase student engagement
and produce some of the largest gains in learning ever reported
for education interventions, with the most significant gains
found among low achieving students (Black & William, 1998;
William & Thompson, 2007).
In response to the scientific findings, North Carolina’s K-3
assessment will be formative in nature – designed to inform
learning and drive daily instruction. It will align with the
Department of Public Instruction’s definition of formative
assessment: “a process used by teachers and students
during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing
teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of
intended instructional outcomes” (McManus, 2008, p.3). The
assessment will provide teachers with resources that will help
them understand the progression of learning in five areas of
development. In addition, it will provide teachers with ways
to gather and analyze evidence to identify where each child is
on the learning progression in relation to instructional goals.
The K-3 formative assessment process will provide multiple
ways for children to demonstrate understanding by collecting
evidence gathered through daily observations, conversations,
work samples, and tasks embedded in instruction. This
evidence will be used by teachers and students to guide
learning and teaching.

The K-3 formative assessment process will begin at
kindergarten entry. This kindergarten entry assessment
will be the first administration of the broader K-3 formative
assessment process and occur within the first sixty days of
enrollment. The data gathered at entry into kindergarten will
be used to generate a Child Profile and entered into the state’s
longitudinal data system.
assessment for Learning
and deveLopment in k-3
The proposed K-3 formative assessment must be distinguished
from summative assessment. While summative student
assessment is important for accountability, the purpose of
high-stakes standardized testing is specific to measuring
student achievement and informing teacher and program
evaluation. Therefore, the data produced from summative
assessments do not fit the purpose of informing day-to-
day instructional decision-making. In contrast, the primary
purpose of formative assessment is to provide information
that can be used as feedback for teachers and students
to guide teaching and learning. Formative assessment
strengthens, supports, and guides effective learning and
teaching in real time. The K-3 formative assessment will
not produce the kind of data used for high-stakes decision-
making. Therefore, it will not be used for accountability
purposes to evaluate the effectiveness of schools, K-3 teachers,
or early childhood programs.
EMPHASIzING THE WHOLE cHILd

Although scholars, educators, and policy leaders sometimes
parse reports about students into separate silos that address
literacy, mathematics, and other subjects, children learn
and develop as whole beings. A child’s approach to learning
affects that child’s physical well-being, which is necessary
for language and cognitive learning and social-emotional
development, which reciprocally affect that child’s evolving
approach to learning (Dweck, 2006). Thus, progress in
one domain does not occur in isolation; it influences the
development in other domains (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).
The benefits of a more holistic perspective can extend beyond
content areas and developmental domains and apply to
culture, race, gender, and ethnicity as well. All aspects of a
child’s learning and development are important to lifelong
success, and when fully developed, support children for the
current and future challenges and opportunities of our global
world (ASCD, 2012).
Given the integrated nature of development and learning
across domains, supporting children in all domains more
adequately promotes increased positive outcomes in student
achievement. Therefore, the five inter-related domains of
learning included in North Carolina’s definition of school
readiness (Ready for School Goal Team, 2000) should constitute
the focus of education during the early elementary school years
and will serve as the organizing structure for the K-3 formative
assessment process. These five domains include the following:
1. Approaches to Learning
2. Cognitive Development
3. Emotional-Social Development
4. Health and Physical Development

5. Language Development and Communication
In addition, the content of the K-3 formative assessment will
be aligned with both North Carolina Foundations for Early
Learning and Development, and the Standard Course of Study
(Common Core State Standards and North Carolina Essential
Standards). Although it will not address every standard, it will
assess the most essential knowledge, abilities, and approaches
toward learning.
PARTNERING WITH FAMILIES
When families are actively involved in their children’s
education,
children develop a more positive attitude toward school and
perform better academically; these benefits are consistent across
all income and education levels, as well as cultural backgrounds
(Allen & Tracey, 2004). When families feel good about the
relationship with their children’s school(s), they have improved
attitudes toward education and are more likely to hold higher
expectations for their children which can lead to improved child
outcomes (Fan & Chen, 1999). However, the extent to which
families become actively engaged with their child’s school
relies more on the actions of teachers than on the particular
characteristics of families including: race, ethnicity, education,
family education, or marital status (Epstein, 1996). Finding
ways
to reach out and connect with families, caregivers, and other
adults important in the life of a child gives teachers and schools
the opportunity to learn about the child, his/her family, and
the community in which the child resides. Such information

enables teachers to better plan educational experiences that are
appropriate for the child. When school personnel actively reach
out to families and caregivers, welcome them to the school,
honor their contributions, and connect with them through the
children, relationships between families and school staff are
strengthened (Iruka & Barbarin, 2009; Mapp, 2003).
Acknowledging the role parents play as their child’s first
and most consistent teacher, the K-3 formative assessment
process will be designed to enable parents to contribute to
the assessment process and share the knowledge they have
about their child with the teacher. This feature will enhance the
relationship between teachers and families, promote two-way
communication, and strengthen home–school partnerships.
ASSESSMENT dEVELOPMENT
As a first step in the process of developing the K-3 formative
assessment process, State Superintendent Dr. June Atkinson
convened a group of education leaders, teachers, parents,
and child development scholars to serve on a Think Tank
responsible for providing a vision for this endeavor. The Think
Tank worked from January to October of 2013 and sought
input from key stakeholders throughout the process by
surveying over 2,500 teachers and inviting over 60 external
reviewers to scrutinize their work.
Dr. Atkinson charged this group to consider which aspects
of the five domains of development and learning were most
important to address during the early elementary years. The
Think Tank developed claims – broad goals that identify the
knowledge, abilities, and approaches toward learning that are
most essential for children to develop during kindergarten
through third grade. These claims will be used to guide the
development process and frame the areas that are addressed
in the formative assessment. The next section of this report

contains the claims for student learning as developed by
the Think Tank. A rationale, informed by current research,
describes the importance of the learning and development
embedded within each of the claims.
INTEGRATEd NATuRE OF TEAcHING,
LEARNING, ANd ASSESSMENT
In an effort to improve student achievement, assessment
systems continue to be a national and state focus. Although
important for a variety of purposes, assessments that are
most prevalent in schools today are administered within
specified time during which teaching stops to accommodate
assessment. As a result, assessment in general is often
viewed by the classroom teacher as something separate
from – or in addition to – teaching, serving a goal other
than informing daily instruction and learning. However,
when a formative assessment process is implemented well,
it supports a teacher’s ability to use assessment as a process
of inquiry and action (Heritage, 2013) during instruction.
The teacher is able to uncover a student’s understanding in
the midst of teaching and work with the student to make
decisions that inform the appropriate next steps in his/her
learning in the moment. This places the focus on identifying
students’ strengths and differentiating instruction to support
growth and improvement. Attending to a student’s current
understandings and skill level during instruction allows a
teacher to scaffold learning within the student’s Zone of
Proximal Development by providing timely descriptive
feedback that will help a student make adjustments to his/
her learning strategies (Popham, 2008). As a result, the
teacher and students work together in an effort to close the
gap between students’ current understanding and the desired
goals (McManus, 2008). In this way, the formative assessment

process actively engages the students in their learning rather
than them simply being passive recipients of instruction.
Thus, the goal of the proposed K-3 formative assessment
process
is to enrich students’ learning and development during teaching
and learning. It will be designed to focus on identifying
students’
strengths, while providing teachers and students with a variety
of evidence (e.g., observations, dialogues, work samples) in five
domains of learning and development that will allow teachers
to make daily adjustments in instruction and students to make
adjustments in their learning strategies. Together – within
an environment that builds trust, respects differences, and
encourages transparency – the teacher and student form a
dynamic team engaged in a process of learning.
dEFINITION
The Approaches to Learning domain addresses how children
learn and includes children’s attitudes toward, and interest
in, learning. It reflects behaviors and skills such as curiosity,
planning, flexibility, motivation, focus, and persistence.
The claims regarding Approaches to Learning involve skills
that make it possible for children to learn and to steward their
own development. These skills are crucial to the achievement
of almost all the instructional objectives laid out in the North
Carolina Standard Course of Study. Because these skills are so
broad, it would be inappropriate to link any single claim in this
section to any single learning standard; instead, these claims,
taken together, can be understood as addressing fundamental

conditions underlying the standards.
The skills, capacities, behaviors, and tendencies that compose
a student’s approach to learning are critical to success in
school. New research indicates that these characteristics are
not fixed when a child enters kindergarten; they are built
through quality instruction and shaped by a student’s daily
experiences in and out of school.
OVERALL RATIONALE
There is empirical evidence linking the capacities and skills in
our
claims to performance in specific subject areas, including the
domains enumerated in the standard course of study. Together,
these capacities and skills encompass a student’s approach to
learning, which Hyson (2008) has described as the behaviors,
tendencies, or typical patterns that children use in learning
situations. This includes their intrinsic motivation to learn,
interest and joy in learning, engagement, persistence, planning,
ability to focus and control attention, flexible problem solving,
inventiveness, and tolerance for frustration. Each of these relate
to the following capacities – metacognition, executive
functions,
self-regulation, and creativity.
1. Metacognition refers to a student’s ability to understand
and reflect upon the process by which he or she learns.
2. Executive functions are the processes a person uses to
coordinate his/her cognitive resources in pursuit of a goal.
3. Self-regulation is closely related to executive
functioning and describes a student’s ability to master
his/her own behaviors and tendencies.

4. Creativity involves bringing concepts from many
different areas together, in a free-flowing way, in an
effort to see if they can be combined to generate
a novel idea while simultaneously narrowing
possibilities down and adjusting ideas until the
student has one that is plausibly appropriate.
Students need to exercise their capacities for executive
functions
and self-regulation in order to filter the stimuli they encounter
in
a busy classroom. Those who have trouble identifying important
information or ignoring distractions have difficulties in complex
classroom settings (McClelland et al., 2007).
Students use their working memory skills. Working memory is
an
executive function that involves holding information in mind
and manipulating it to select and hold relevant information
(as one does, for example, when adding a pair of two-digit
numbers without using a pencil) so that they can understand,
process, and act upon what they are meant to learn at school
(Blair & Razza 2007, McClelland, et al., 2007). They use
working
memory for learning in subject areas by holding information in
mind, rehearsing and manipulating it, and then consolidating it
with other concepts they have learned.
They exert inhibitory control. Inhibitory control is an executive
function that involves overriding an impulse to do something
counterproductive as when they clean up materials before
starting another project, raise their hand before talking, and
wait their turn before participating during group activities.
Strong capacities for executive functions and self-regulation are
consistent statistical predictors of good performance in school

(Blair & Razza, 2007; Duncan et al., 2007). Students observed
by
teachers to be strong on these dimensions early in the Pre-K-
Grade 3 period performed better and learned more in reading
and math throughout elementary school (Fantuzzo, Perry, &
McDermott, 2004; Hair, Halle, Terry-Humen, Lavelle &
Calkins,
2006; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006; Blair & Razza,
2007;
McClelland et al., 2007; Li-Grining, Votruba-Drzal,
Maldonado-
Carreño, & Haas, 2010; Farris, Burke Lefever, Borkowski, &
Whitman, 2013). When researchers conducted an experiment
using teaching tools that specifically strengthened executive
functioning capacity, they saw improvement not only in
students’
executive functioning but also their math performance (Holmes,
Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009; Raver et al., 2011). Many
attention
and behavior problems that interfere with students’ ability to
learn are related to a diminished capacity for executive
functions,
self-regulation, or metacognition (Kreppner, O’Connor, &
Rutter,
2001; Vuontela et al., 2013).
Curiosity is an important element of the learning process that
may be defined as a positive emotional- motivational system
associated with the recognition, pursuit, and self-regulation of
novel and challenging opportunities (Kashdan, Rose, &
Fincham,
2004). Curiosity sparks proactive, intentional behaviors
to stimuli (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004) and must be
considered when promoting desired behaviors including self-
regulation, problem solving, and perseverance.

approaches to Learning
Metacognitive development is the process wherein a person
learns about how he or she learns. For example, when a
student figures out, or is taught, that when it comes to
learning a new word, trying to use it properly in a sentence
is a better strategy than simply reading its dictionary entry
over and over again, that student has gained a metacognitive
skill. Metacognitive skills are closely related to all of these
behaviors, tendencies, and outcomes (Cross & Paris, 1988;
Nelson & Narens, 1990; Schraw, 1998). Decades ago, scholars
believed that children did not begin to develop substantial
metacognitive capacity until near the end of the K-3 period.
Now, there is mounting evidence to contradict that belief.
Psychologists have observed children as young as six years
beginning to articulate an appraisal of their own approach to
problem-solving (Whitebread et al., 2009).
Furthermore, it is important to note that all of these capacities
and skills are related to success far beyond the K- 3 period.
Metacognitive skills are related to the ability to continue
learning new skills and concepts into adulthood (Bjork,
Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013). Diminished capacities for
executive
functions and self- regulation predict a host of negative
outcomes including substance abuse, problem gambling,
low-quality interpersonal relationships, and crime (Colvert et
al.,
2008; Moffitt et al., 2011; de Ridder et al. 2012; Diamond,
2013).
Finally, we emphasize the substantial empirical evidence that
all
of these skills can be taught. In a randomized experiment, Adele

Diamond and others (2007) found that curriculum changes
were sufficient to improve preschoolers’ executive functioning
capacities; similar results have been observed at the other end
of
the K-3 period (Holmes, Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009).
Curriculum
adjustments have also been observed to improve metacognitive
skills during the K-3 period (Cross & Paris, 1988).
cLAIM 1 – Students can effectively solve problems by
defining goals, describing steps, and evaluating alternative
strategies in both academic and social interactions.
Example
An example of evidence in favor of this claim might be
revealed in a student’s approach to building a self-supporting
structure from blocks. A student who had mastered the skills
encompassed in this claim would be able to describe (using
pictures, spoken, or written language), before he/she began
building, what the final structure would look like and how
he/she would use blocks of various sizes or shapes in order
to accomplish the task. Along the way, the student would be
able to identify whether his/her original plan was likely to lead
to the structure he/she had originally envisioned, and if not,
then he/she would be able to readjust the plan as necessary.
With older children, the same example would apply in the
context of using other instructional manipulatives, such as
Lego Robotics.
Rationale
This claim refers to students’ capacity to form and pursue
goals and is closely related to the concepts of creativity and
executive functions. Executive functions are the processes
a person uses to coordinate his/her cognitive resources in
pursuit of a goal. An important learning tool across subject
areas is the ability to decompose a problem into component

steps, to keep track of progress through those steps, and to
reassess and adapt along the way as necessary. This capacity
to develop and carry out a sequential plan of action in pursuit
of an explicit goal comprises executive functioning skills that
are fundamental to learning and to academic achievement
and social skills (Zelazo, Carlson, & Kesek, 2008).
Approaches to Learning | 9
cLAIM 2 – Students can maintain focus and persevere
to accomplish collaborative and individual tasks whether
those tasks are chosen by them or assigned to them.
Example
Evidence in favor of this claim might be observed during
whole group or small group time for a student who has
little interest in the group’s activity. In such a situation, a
student might feel a persistent temptation to engage in
other activities. A teacher might offer a student options for
behaviors to channel that temptation while discouraging
other behaviors (e.g., the student might be allowed to pace or
fidget and be discouraged from disturbing his/her neighbors).
A student who had mastered the skills encompassed in
this claim would be able to stay engaged in the group’s
undertaking. Sometimes, students may face the same kind of
temptation when encountering adversity accomplishing a task
of their own devising (e.g., a project they start proves more
challenging than they had anticipated and they are tempted
to abandon it) and when they are pursuing tasks assigned
to them (e.g., a lesson does not immediately capture their
interest and they are tempted not to invest themselves in it).
In these types of situations, in order to be effective stewards of

their own development, students need to be able to marshal
the cognitive and emotional resources necessary to stay
engaged despite the countervailing urge.
Rationale
This claim refers to students’ ability to master their own
behavior and is related to the concepts of self-regulation and
inhibition. Students’ capacities to overcome temptation and to
persevere are critical to their own learning and to maintaining
an effective classroom environment. Self-regulation has been
shown to be one of the best predictors of academic and social
skills in preschool and elementary school (Blair & Razza, 2007;
Duncan et al., 2007; Fantuzzo, Perry, & McDermott, 2004;
Farris
et al., 2013; Hair et al., 2006; Li-Grining et al., 2010;
McClelland,
Acock, & Morrison, 2006; McClelland et al., 2007; Moffitt et
al., 2011), and improved self-regulation skills demonstrated
accompanying gains in academic and social skills.(Holmes,
Gathercole, & Dunning, 2009, Raver et al., 2011).
cLAIM 3 – Students can demonstrate curiosity by seeking
opportunities – whether independently or in collaboration
with peers and teachers – to extend their knowledge.
Example
An example of evidence in favor of this claim might be
reflected in a student who dovetails assignments or activities
in order to build on a principle or theme he/she finds
interesting. An example would be choosing a self-selected
activity that involves caring for a flowering plant, after
developing an interest in the botany of angiosperms from
a science lesson. Another example is a student intrigued by
a story about ants and grasshoppers, and on his/her own or
at the suggestion of a teacher, extends that interest either
by using a magnifying glass to observe these insects on

the playground, requesting books related to this topic, or
searching online to learn more about the insects. This kind of
outcome could result from the initiative of the student or in
response to prompting from a teacher.
Rationale
In addition to its explicit reference to curiosity, this claim
also refers to the concept of creativity. Creativity involves a
combination of divergent and convergent thinking. When
thinking divergently, a student will try to bring concepts from
many different areas together, in a free-flowing way, in an
effort to see if they can be combined to generate a novel
idea. Simultaneously, however, the student must also be
ready to think convergently by narrowing down possibilities
and adjusting ideas until he/she has one that is plausibly
appropriate. Distinct from creativity is curiosity which refers to
a student’s openness to recognizing and engaging with new
and challenging opportunities. Most important, this claim
captures the general capacity of students to take a leading
role in their own learning. Curiosity is important, because it
motivates proactive and intentional learning behaviors which,
in turn, results in the increased acquisition of academic and
social skills (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham 2004).
Cognitive | 11
dEFINITION
The Cognitive Development domain focuses on children’s
ability to acquire, organize, and use information in increasingly
complex ways. In their search for understanding and meaning,
young children play an active role in their own cognitive
development. They begin to explain, organize, construct, and
predict. These skills lay the cognitive foundation children need

to both explore and understand increasingly sophisticated
concepts and the world in which they live. They learn to apply
prior knowledge to new experiences and use this information
to refine their understanding of concepts as well as form new
understanding.
OVERALL RATIONALE
Children’s cognitive capabilities provide the foundation for
learning that occurs in school and in life. These cognitive skills
– including regulating attention, remembering, reasoning,
and problem-solving – enable children to understand new
information and apply it to new situations. Research indicates
that strong cognitive skills positively affect educational
outcomes (Raver, 2012; Evans & Rosenbaum, 2008; Duckworth
& Seligman, 2005). Moreover, the continuing development of
cognitive skills, as necessary for on-going academic mastery,
depends upon active engagement in developmentally-
appropriate education.
cLAIM 1 – Students can use content-independent abilities
and strategies as well as content-specific skills, processes,
and approaches to solve problems and acquire information.
As students apply these concepts, content-independent abilities
are basic cognitive functions that are important for success
in a broad array of tasks. These include the abilities to engage
in tasks over a period of time, remember information long
enough to complete an activity, process incoming information,
inhibit responses to distractions, change their minds, multitask,
categorize, and recognize and extend patterns. In the scientific
and clinical literatures, these content-independent abilities are
collectively referred to as executive functions, or more
generally,
as fluid-cognition (Diamond, 2013).

These content-independent abilities and strategies stand
in contrast to content-specific skills, processes, and approaches
acquired in the service of learning in specific content areas
such as mathematics, language arts, science, social studies,
physical education, and the arts. Examples of these skills,
processes, and approaches include the following: connecting
the experience of characters in a story to students’ own lives,
drawing facial expressions to represent emotions in art, using
a standard system of measurement, learning to observe
the natural world, and learning to compare primary and
secondary sources. Although initially a focus of instruction
in a particular discipline, with practice and especially in the
context of an integrated curriculum, many of these behaviors
are generalized and can be used in a broad array of settings.
Rationale
It is well established that children exhibit substantial gains in
the acquisition of content-independent skills throughout the
early and middle childhood periods (Best & Miller, 2010;
Garon,
Bryson, & Smith, 2008). Not only do children demonstrate
increased ability levels across this period (as evidenced by both
increased accuracy and response speed in executive function
tasks), but they also demonstrate a re-organization of content-
independent abilities such that rudimentary skills that were
relatively undifferentiated during the preschool period begin
to fractionate in middle childhood to resemble the structure,
though not necessarily the function, of the skills observed
during
adulthood (Shing, Lindenberger, Diamond, Li, & Davidson,
2010).
The re-organization and optimization of fundamental abilities
(e.g., inhibitory control, attention shifting) in early childhood
facilitate the emergence of higher-order abilities including
planning and problem solving (McCormack & Atance, 2011).

Coincident with the development of content-independent skills
and abilities is the acquisition of content-specific skills,
processes,
and approaches that result from students’ graduated exposure
to age-graded academic curricular content. The acquisition of
content-independent and content-specific skills across early
and middle childhood represent dynamic, mutually reinforcing
processes that collectively provide children with the foundation
to learn how to learn.
The co-emergence of content-independent and content-
specific skills and abilities both result from and further promote
brain development, which undergoes rapid developmental
change from the prenatal period throughout childhood and
into adulthood (Giedd et al., 1999; Shaw et al., 2006). Given the
protracted course of development of the prefrontal cortex and
prefrontally-mediated circuitry, which is strongly implicated in
the acquisition and refinement of content-independent skills
and abilities (Kane & Engle, 2002), formal schooling likely
serves
as a major basis for shaping critical aspects of brain growth.
Indeed, the nature of the classroom environment in which
children are embedded is of fundamental importance for the
development of these skills.
A growing evidence base has also documented the
importance of content-dependent and especially content-
independent skills for predicting a myriad of long-term
outcomes including social, educational, occupational,
physical and mental health, and well-being outcomes
(Heckman, 2007; Mischel et al., 2011; Moffitt et al., 2011).
cognitive deveLopment

There is also evidence that content-independent abilities
are more powerful predictors of educational outcomes than
is intelligence (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). Moreover,
content-independent and dependent skills are increasingly
understood to be mechanisms through which early risk
factors (poverty, being a racial minority) exert their effects on
educational and occupational outcomes (Evans & Rosenbaum,
2008; Raver, 2012).
cLAIM 2 – Students can make connections to prior
learning, construct knowledge, and demonstrate their
understanding using multiple modes of expression.
From the perspective of the field of cognitive development,
the construction of knowledge is understood to be an active
and personal process that goes beyond the information given
and involves the integration and interpretation of new
information within the context of existing understanding. The
new understandings that result from this process may include
inaccuracies and misinterpretations that teachers should
address in subsequent instruction. Further, when appropriate,
students are able to communicate what they have learned
using multiple modes of expression (e.g., through modeling,
writing, drawing, or speaking).
Rationale
Making progress in terms of the acquisition of knowledge in
each of the areas of the curriculum is seen as an active process
in which the learner – no matter what the mode of instruction
– builds on what is already known by making linkages between
new information and prior understanding, as obtained both
inside and outside of the classroom. Indeed, longstanding
tenets of the cognitive developmental literature include the
understanding that what is already known exerts a strong

influence on what can be learned and is more important for task
performance than age (Bjorklund, 1985; Chi, 1978; Chi, Glaser,
&
Farr, 1988; Ornstein & Naus, 1985).
Prior knowledge has been shown to impact all aspects of
information processing – from monitoring and attending to
key features of the environment, to encoding and storing
information, to combining isolated bits of information into
well-structured systems of knowledge in memory, to making
inferences that enable learners to go beyond that which has
been specified explicitly, and to retrieving what has been
learned so that the information can be used effectively in a
variety of tasks. What is already known thus can be seen as
having a positive impact on children’s learning and academic
performance. As Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000)
point out, much has been learned about the flexible use
of structured knowledge by contrasting the performance
of experts and novices in particular domains. Importantly,
the knowledge systems of experts are highly organized,
interconnected systems that: (a) enable deep understanding,
(b) support meaningful transfer, and (c) require little
attentional effort (see, e.g., Chi et al., 1988). However, it
must also be noted that under some conditions knowledge
structures can have a negative impact on performance,
as when memory fades and misremembering is based on
knowledge-driven expectations (Greenhoot, 2000; Ornstein
et al., 1998) or when inferences lead to faulty knowledge
representations (as in science) that interfere with subsequent
learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Stein,
Hernandez,
& Anggoro, 2010).
Given the importance of knowledge structures for learning
and school success, it must be emphasized that their growth

and elaboration result in great part from children’s own active
information processing. Indeed, at every point in development,
the acquisition of knowledge is a constructive process that
results from each learner’s individual interpretation and
subsequent processing of information experienced both
formally during classroom instruction and informally during
everyday experiences (Piaget, 1983; Bransford et al., 2000).
Over the course of the early elementary school years, children’s
knowledge becomes more extensive, better elaborated,
and increasingly well structured (Chi & Ceci, 1987). With the
development of organized knowledge systems and parallel
growth in executive function (Zelazo, Carlson, & Kesek, 2008)
and speed of information processing (e.g., Kail & Ferrer, 2007),
children become better able to apply what they know in the
service of cognitive tasks, including those that are important for
classroom learning such as memory and study skills (Ornstein &
Light, 2011). Hand in hand with this growth is the development
of children’s metacognitive understanding of the demands of
cognitive tasks and of linkages between their own actions (e.g.,
focused attention and strategy use) that impact success in these
endeavors (Schneider & Pressley, 1997).
Although prior knowledge generally increases with age and
supports improved performance on a range of tasks, it is also
likely that this growth is accompanied by errors that come to
be incorporated into the knowledge systems of older children
(Mestre, 1994). On the one hand, incorrect information may be
acquired on the basis of interactions with peers, exposure to
the media, or instruction that may on occasion be superficial
or incorrect (see, e.g., Principe & Schindewolf, 2012). On the
other hand, errors in understanding may be endogenous in
that they can arise from faulty inferences that are supported
by the enhanced information processing skills of older children
(Brainerd & Reyna, 2012). Because continued cognitive
growth is determined to a large extent by already established
conceptual structures, errors that are incorporated into these

structures may thus impose limits on understanding and need
to be corrected for a more complete grasp of the material
and its implications (Mestre, 1994). Such modification – i.e.,
continued learning – occurs when the student comes to realize
the inconsistencies and gaps in his/her understanding. This
awareness is often guided by the questions and prompts of
the skilled teacher who probes for understanding during the
course of developmentally appropriate instruction. This skilled
teacher may also provide demonstrations that are designed to
focus the learner’s attention on inconsistencies and limitations
in personal understanding that must be resolved for continued
learning and mastery of the content (Stein et al., 2011).
In identifying the present state of a learner’s understanding –
so as to provide a context for continued learning – effective
teachers have traditionally relied on an informal process of
formative assessment. In the context of such an assessment
process, much is to be gained by encouraging the use of
multiple modes of expression such as the use of modeling,
drawing, writing, and speaking within the classroom. These
techniques may not only serve to illuminate the limits of
children’s understanding, but they may also be valuable in
identifying their skills in applying information across contexts,
thus allowing the teacher to observe the extent to which
they are able to reach higher order levels of understanding
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Shrager & Carver, 2012).
cLAIM 3 – Students can come to understand themselves
as learners and acquire dispositions (attitudes, beliefs, and
values) that support their academic engagement.
Students go beyond the mastery of content information as

specified in the curriculum by coming to view themselves as
inquisitive learners and to understand that their success in
school arises to a large extent from their own efforts. The
positive attitudes toward learning that they develop, along
with a growing appreciation of their membership in a learning
community, serve to support involvement in learning in
the present and the future. Academic engagement includes
not only on-task behavior and compliance with teachers’
directives, but it also includes self-directed efforts at discovery
and learning.
Rationale
The knowledge systems that students construct during
the early elementary school years include representations
of their own abilities as learners both in and out of school.
These representations – sometimes described as academic
self-concepts (Kurtz-Costes & Schneider, 1994; Song & Hattie,
1984) – reflect children’s understanding of their own academic
strengths and weaknesses. Children’s assumptions about the
nature of intelligence and their expectations regarding the
potency of their own efforts as learners are also reflected in
these developing academic self-concepts.
The predominant current perspective on motivation (Dweck,
1999; Yeager & Dweck, 2012) indicates that students come
to see intelligence as either fixed (“I’m just no good in math”)
or malleable (“I’ll get better at it if I keep working”). Further,
they come to attribute their relative successes and failures to
their own efforts or to uncontrollable, unstable factors such
as luck or task difficulty. These attributions are important
because they influence children’s developing attitudes and
values about learning, including the extent to which they
may choose to be persistent in their academic engagement,
especially when confronting difficult challenges or failing to
meet their goals. Such persistence results in more time on

task, which in turn supports subsequent achievement.
Student engagement is vital for successful learning in the here
and now and for the continuing development of children’s
beliefs, values, and attitudes about learning. In this regard,
the early elementary school years are vital for the growth of
personal attributions that support continued success in school
and, moreover, life-long learning (Wigfield, Cambria, & Eccles,
2012). Data for these personal attributions often include
teachers’ verbal and nonverbal feedback as well as the results
of more formal assessments. Formative evaluation provides
the opportunity for teachers to determine students’ emerging
conceptualizations of their own capacities and to foster the
development of effort attributions that are viewed as most
adaptive for continuing success in school.
dEFINITION
The Emotional-Social Development domain includes children’s
feelings about themselves and also addresses their ability to
relate to others. Learning to manage and express emotions
is also a part of this domain. Children’s development in this
domain affects their development in every other domain. For
instance, children who develop a positive sense of self are more
likely to try new things and work toward reaching goals. They
tend to accept new challenges and feel more confident about
their ability to handle problems or difficulties that may arise.
OVERALL RATIONALE
It is the essential task of teachers of young children to support
their children’s social and emotional development. Without

attention to this important aspect of development, children’s
success cannot be optimized. Simply stated, healthy emotional
development and positive relationships are the foundation
to children’s ability to explore materials and actively engage
in learning, and student-student relationships are critical in
fostering students’ commitment to school and promoting
academic success (Blum & Libbey, 2004; Hamre & Pianta,
2006;
Hawkins, Smith, & Catalano, 2004; Jennings & Greenberg,
2009).
The time and effort teachers put into creating a classroom
community centered on caring and mutual respect pay
dividends far beyond the initial investment (Hamre & Pianta,
2001; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004).
Social development that promotes learning occurs in
environments where teachers intentionally support positive
interactions. Classrooms facilitated by skillful educators can
provide a place for children to identify and communicate
about emotions in themselves and others, verbalize and use
strategies to regulate responses to their own emotions, form
and sustain healthy relationships, and use appropriate skills to
interact with adults and peers. This means that teachers must
work consistently to establish positive, prosocial environments
characterized by mutually reciprocated relationships,
respect, and cooperative work. Children’s social-emotional
development influences all other areas of development.
Cognitive, motor, and language development are all greatly
affected by how a child feels about his/herself and how he/
she is able to express ideas and emotions. Although there
are a number of components that contribute to social and
emotional health, the four claims for this domain are both
developmentally appropriate for K-3 children and are in the
purview of classroom and school goals.
When thinking about emotional-social goals, it is important to

view children’s development as a cultural process (Gutierrez
& Rogoff, 2003) which depends upon understanding how
processes, such as positive relationships, develop in different
cultural contexts. Schools need to reframe their approaches
to recognize and take advantage of children’s socio-cultural
contexts. Educators too often find themselves unprepared for
the
diversity they are seeing in their classrooms at a time when it is
no
longer accepted that schooling will “work” mainly for middle-
class
and white students (Camburn & Han, 2011; Wildhagen, 2012).
Cultural responsivity means supporting teachers to become
effective at examining academic and social curriculum for bias
and relevance to students’ lives. It means helping teachers
develop their ability to use research-based practices that are
linked to success for vulnerable children. It is vital to reshape
schools in ways that are responsive, rather than counter to the
strengths of the children who attend. This means giving far
more than token nods to culture and language. It is important
to consistently contribute to knowledge of the strengths and
values of diverse children and integrate them into curriculum
and
instructional approaches. One of the most consistent and robust
findings is that teachers working in high-poverty schools who
both exhibit warmth and hold high expectations for all students
in their classroom have students who are more academically
successful (Werner, 1996). These efforts can help make school a
place where the worlds of home and school are in concert and
the
task of negotiating them for students is not too great.
cLAIM 1 – Students can identify and communicate about
emotions in themselves and others.

Rationale
Children’s ability to identify different emotions in themselves
and others is a first step toward developing emotional
competence (Denham, et al, 2003). Children who can
recognize and communicate about their own emotions, and
also emotions other people express, are more likely to be able
to manage their own emotions. These children also seem to
benefit in other ways. Children who are able to identify and
express their emotions often have better relationships with
children in their classroom and have better social skills with
peers, both of which are important competencies for success
in school (Arsenio, Cooperman, & Lover, 2000; Fine, Izard,
Mostow, Trentacosta, & Ackerman, 2003; Mostow, Izard, Fine,
& Trentacosta, 2002). Furthermore, knowledge of emotions is
positively related to teacher ratings of academic competence
in middle childhood (Izard et al., 2001); perhaps because
children who have greater knowledge of emotions are also
better able to pay attention to emotions and to academic
tasks (Trentacosta, Izard, Mostow, & Fine, 2006). Identifying
and managing one’s emotions is, therefore, essential to
personal well-being and happiness and helps children get
along better with other people. Emotional competence may
also benefit children by setting the stage so they can learn
academic skills and knowledge more easily.
emotionaL-sociaL deveLopment
Emotional-Social Development | 15
cLAIM 2 – Students can talk about and use strategies to
regulate responses to their own emotions.
Rationale
Self-regulation is defined by Blair and Diamond (2008) as

the volitional behavioral and cognitive processes through
which people maintain levels of motivational, cognitive, and
emotional arousal that facilitate positive adaptation and
adjustment, as reflected in high levels of productivity and
achievement as well as positive relationships and a positive
sense of self. It is what allows young children to remain
focused and persistent as they meet the daily challenges
in a rigorous classroom. Self-regulation is self-directed
action intended to alter subsequent behavior, guide future
responses, and change the probability of a future event or
consequence (Barkley, 2012). The ability to self-regulate serves
as an asset for children allowing them to attend more fully
to instruction in the classroom. Children with greater self-
regulation in kindergarten are more skilled in reading and
math in later grades (McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006).
Emotional regulation, or the ability to control one’s emotions,
is
also related to children’s success in school (Denham, 2006;
Howse,
Calkins, Anastopoulos, Keane, & Shelton, 2003; Zins,
Bloodworth,
Weissberg, & Walberg, 2007). Children who have difficulty
managing frustration or maintaining a positive attitude may
also have difficulty with tasks that are important for academic
learning, such as focusing attention, planning and finishing
tasks,
and regulating other behaviors that are important for academic
learning (Blair, 2002). Children who are better able to control
their own emotions also often have better relationships with
peers, another important aspect of success in school (Denham,
et al, 2003). Children whose interests are nurtured, who are
given opportunities to make choices, and who are not unduly
controlled working to develop self-regulation are poised to
succeed in school (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010).

Children who do not self-regulate are in danger of entering a
negative feedback loop (Blair & Diamond, 2008) where their
inability to control their emotions results in poor experiences
and sets them up for continuing problems. Children form
patterns early in their school careers that tend to be stable
and difficult to change over the course of their schooling
(Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1993), and researchers report
that children’s patterns of engagement and achievement
formed during the first three years of school may impact their
ongoing success in school (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Alexander
et al. (1997) found that once students’ patterns are established,
their ideas about school and self take shape, subsequently
fueling others to make judgments on their competence and
character. It is far more difficult for a student to become re-
engaged in school when early school experiences are negative
(Alexander et al., 1997). Children’s negative perceptions of
their own competence and attitudes become stronger and
harder to reverse as they progress through school (Valeski &
Stipek, 2001).
cLAIM 3 – Students can form and sustain healthy
relationships with adults and peers.
Rationale
Healthy relationships are characterized by mutual respect,
open and effective communication, and positive regard for
each other. Schools cannot accomplish their academic goals
without focusing on the fundamental needs of students to
engage in reciprocal caring relationships with teachers and
peers (Noddings, 1992). Children and adults alike need to be
understood, received, respected, and known. Caring is a way

of being in relationships; it is not a set of specific behaviors
and cannot be achieved by a formula or recipe. Good teaching
begins with the establishment of trusting relationships that
develop caring in students. To build their own capacity for
caring, children need to both experience care and receive
guidance and support in caring for others. Children who
are motivated and connected to others in the early years
of schooling are much more likely to establish positive
trajectories of development in both social and academic
domains (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008).
Relationships with Adults
Positive teacher-child relationships are the foundation that
allows children to explore classrooms and actively engage in
learning opportunities. Emotional quality of the classroom,
including warmth of adult child interactions and adults’ ability
to respond to children in a sensitive and individualized manner,
is a consistent predictor of both reading and math skills (Pianta,
Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008). Children who
experience close relationships demonstrate higher academic
achievement, fewer disciplinary infractions, and fewer school
suspensions through 8th grade (Hamre & Pianta, 2001).
Children
showed the largest gains in social skills and largest decreases
in behavior problems when the teachers reported warmer
relationships with children (Howes et al., 2008).
When children engage in episodes of disruptive behavior,
teachers can respond by escalating or deescalating the
behaviors (Howes & Ritchie, 2002). The emotional climate
of classrooms resulting, in part, by how teachers respond to
such situations can moderate the risks for early school failure
(Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Pianta et al., 2008; Howes et al., 2008).
At-risk children who were placed in classrooms with low
emotional support were particularly vulnerable for developing
conflictual teacher-child relationships (Hamre & Pianta, 2005).

Furthermore, teachers may have biases that can interfere with
children’s abilities to form positive teacher-child relationships,
particularly when the teachers’ racial backgrounds are
different from that of the child (Downey & Pribesh, 2004).
Therefore, teachers must be aware of their own interactions
with children to facilitate children’s ability to form positive
relationships with adults.
While teachers who focus on content delivery to the detriment
of establishing close, personal relationships with their students
may deliver more content per day, their students fail to
remember and adequately understand this information, thus
defeating the purpose of such a strong content focus. The time
and effort teachers put into creating a classroom community
centered on caring and mutual respect pays dividends far
beyond the initial investment (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta &
Stuhlman, 2004).
Relationships with Peers
Development results from the interaction between a child and
his/her environment. Children do better when the environment
provides opportunities to practice developmental tasks in the
context of emotional and social support (Pianta & Walsh, 1996).
According to Johnson (1981), “Experiences with peers are not a
superficial luxury to be enjoyed during lunch and after school.
Constructive student-student relationships are a necessity for
maximal achievement, socialization, and healthy development”
(p. 5). Results from over 600 research studies that have
investigated learning in cooperative, competitive, and
individualist
goal structures have indicated students learn more, are more
highly motivated to learn, enjoy learning more, feel more
positive
towards the subject being studied, have increased positive
regard for their teachers, and are more accepting of one another

when they work together with peers as opposed to working
competitively or individually (Johnson & Johnson, 2013).
cLAIM 4 – Students can use appropriate social skills to
interact with adults and peers in school.
Rationale
Social skills are behaviors and knowledge that facilitate a
child’s ability to interact effectively with others including the
knowledge of and ability to behave in ways that are consistent
with commonly accepted rules and norms for interacting with
others. When children work together, they have the opportunity
to learn how to interact effectively with each other. They come
to
realize that others also have a sense of what they want and how
they want to do things that may differ from their own
(Gallagher
& Sylvester 2009). They have the opportunity to work through
options with one another, problem-solve, and begin to engage in
compromise. As children work together: their strengths emerge,
they become known for their specialized contributions, and they
come to recognize strengths offered by others.
Collaboration is becoming an increasingly important life skill
for
young learners and is essential for language, cognitive, social,
and
emotional development. When children work with their peers on
projects, center tasks, and learning activities; they must practice
social skills that require empathy, perspective taking, sharing,
conflict-negotiation, persuasion, and diplomacy (Bernard,
1991).
Collaboration also serves an important role in the development
of self-concept and self-esteem as children: learn about
themselves through the eyes of others, engage in self-reflection,
imitate desirable characteristics and behaviors, and experience

success (Tsay & Brady, 2010; Slavin, 1990). Additionally, time
for
collaboration provides opportunity for more capable peers to
scaffold the learning of less capable peers while simultaneously
reinforcing their own knowledge through the process of
articulating their thinking (Fawcett & Garton, 2005).
Structuring
learning activities in such a way provides an efficient means for
teachers to support young learners as they gain and practice new
knowledge and skills in all developmental domains.
Health and Physical Development | 17
dEFINITION
The domain of Health and Physical Development focuses on
physical growth and motor development, sound nutritional
choices, self-care, and health/safety practices. This domain
is the foundation for the future health and well-being of
all children. Good physical health and motor development
supports children’s learning and plays a part in their ability to
be successful in almost any type of activity.
OVERALL RATIONALE
Physical growth, motor development, and heath are central to
children’s learning and are fundamental to a lifelong, healthy,
and active lifestyle. Health programs can reduce the prevalence
of health risk behaviors among young people and have a
positive effect on academic performance (Basch, 2010). In
addition, regular physical activity has been shown to result in
the prevention of many health risks (Ball & McCargar, 2003).
The
claims regarding Health & Physical Development encompass

the conceptual knowledge needed for supporting healthy
behaviors and the application of skills in authentic situations.
cLAIM 1 – Students can demonstrate conceptual knowledge
to support healthy behaviors and the reduction of health risks.
Rationale
A key goal of the health and physical domain is to help students
adopt and maintain healthy behaviors. Understanding
basic health concepts and functional health knowledge
contributes to the development of health literacy and serves
as the foundation for the development of health-enhancing
behaviors (Joint Committee on National Health Education
Standards, 2007). Health literacy is defined as the degree to
which an individual has the capacity to obtain, communicate,
process, and understand basic health information and services
to make appropriate health decisions (Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, 2010). It is important to begin the
development of understanding and accessing key health
information and concepts at an early age. Researchers report
that 9 out of 10 adults have difficulty using health information
that is commonly available through a variety of sources
(Kutner, Grenber, Jin, & Paulsen, 2006). If children and adults
do not have a clear understanding of health information,
they are less likely to appropriately seek help when needed,
utilize available and accessible prevention measures, and
appropriately manage chronic diseases (Rudd, Anderson,
Oppenheimer, & Nath, 2007).
Understanding basic health concepts and functional health
knowledge goes beyond memorization of health facts and
body systems; it is the kind of health knowledge that can be
used to organize principles and classify, analyze, generalize,
and
organize health information. These concepts can be applied

to a variety of health-based decisions and actions. Health
education programs can contribute directly to a student’s
ability to successfully adopt and practice behaviors that protect
and promote health and avoid or reduce health risk (Joint
Committee on National Health Education Standards, 2007).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identifies the
following as priority adolescent risk behaviors that contribute
to the leading causes of death and disability among youth
and adults: alcohol and other drug use, injury and violence
(including suicide), tobacco use, poor nutrition, inadequate
physical activity, and sexual risk behaviors (CDC, 2013).
heaLth and physicaL deveLopment
cLAIM 2 – Students can develop skills that contribute to
healthy behaviors and reduction of health risks.
Rationale
While Claim 1 focuses on knowledge, Claim 2 focuses on
behavior. The National Health Education Standards define
health skills as accessing information and resources, decision
making, goal setting, advocacy, interpersonal communication
skills, and analyzing influences.
Health education has evolved from a primarily knowledge-
based approach to a combination of concepts and skills-based
approach to an instructional design and focused assessment.
Effective instruction in health education goes beyond basic
knowledge and provides opportunities for students to analyze
social influences, attitudes, values and norms, and skills
that influence health-related behaviors (CDC, 2013). Claim 2
focuses specifically on the development of these health skills.

Instruction and assessment in health education should allow
students to apply skills in authentic situations that allow for
modeling, practicing, and feedback (CDC, 2013). This practice
and feedback approach, in a safe environment, allows for the
development and refinement of these skills and provides a
foundation and sense of confidence for future use.
cLAIM 3 – Students can demonstrate competencies in
motor skills and movement patterns.
Rationale
Claim 3 focuses on competencies (abilities to independently
and safely participate in movement skills and to maintain a
level of continuity in those skills that would make participation
enjoyable) in motor skills and movement patterns. Fundamental
motor skills are the building blocks of physical literacy. Skills
include basic gross motor movements (e.g., throwing, kicking,
running, jumping, hopping, and catching) and fine motor
movements (e.g., small object manipulation and use of small
writing tools). Movement patterns involve applying motor skills
and the ability to use motor skills in combination with one
another. To be physically literate includes the ability to move
with poise and confidence across a wide range of activities
(Mandingo, Francis, & Lodewyk, 2009). Motor skills needed to
produce various movement patterns take years to develop
and require specific experiences and instruction. Children
who leave elementary school without a strong foundation of
motor skills are left behind in the same way that children are
left
behind when they leave without the prerequisite language or
mathematical skills (Clark, 2007).
Fundamental motor skills are an important stepping stone
in motor development and lifelong physical activity. In
the elementary grades, foundational motor skills enhance
children’s social, cognitive, and physical development and

increase the likelihood of continued interest and participation
in physical activity (NASPE, 2001). Fundamental motor skills
are precursors to context-specific and skillful movement,
where children must acquire competency in these skills and
apply them in different contexts such as sports or lifetime
fitness activities (Clark & Metcalfe, 2002). Extensive scientific
evidence demonstrates that regular physical activity promotes
growth and development in youth and has multiple benefits
for physical, mental, and cognitive health (National Research
Council, 2013).
Motor skill development plays an integral role in the early
years when growth, development, and learning frequently
center on play and the physical activity associated with it
(Williams & Monsma, 2006). Motor skills are also important
determinates of our ability to participate in our culture.
Participation in structured physical activities and sport
provides youth opportunities to actively participate in their
culture and meet their personal needs for challenge, self-
expression, social interaction, and enjoyment (Barton, Fordyce,
& Kirby, 1999).
Student success in developing fundamental motor skills varies
from student to student and development is age related,
not age dependent. Teaching of fundamental skills must be
developmentally appropriate and sensitive to individual needs
and abilities (Mandingo, Francis, & Lodewyk, 2009). Children
need time to develop more advanced movement patterns,
especially in the fundamental or building block skills; without
this base, competency in more complex, sport-related versions
of these motor patterns will be difficult (NASPE, 1995).
Competency in a variety of motor skills and movement
patterns is an important component in being physically active
and becoming a lifelong mover. Physical activity is related to
lower body fat, greater muscular strength, stronger bones,

and improvements in cardio vascular and metabolic health,
as well as to improvements in mental health by reducing and
preventing conditions, such as anxiety and depression, and
enhancing self-esteem (National Research Council, 2013).
Schools play a vital role in providing the environment and
opportunities for children to develop these valuable skills.
Language Development and Communication | 19
dEFINITION
The Language Development and Communication domain
focuses on the foundational skills that children acquire
and use in early elementary school and which continue to
develop throughout their schooling. These skills include
speaking, listening, reading, and writing. This domain
encompasses nonverbal and verbal language skills used in
understanding language and speaking effectively with others
as well as important emergent literacy skills in early reading
and writing. This domain provides an integrated approach
for understanding and supporting language and literacy
development in young children.
OVERALL RATIONALE
The importance of acquiring and developing language and
communication competencies is evident for future success
in school and in society. The development of these early
competencies is essential to later learning (Snow, Burns, &
Griffin, 1998), can predict future school achievement (National
Reading Panel, 2000), and is fundamental to future success
in both school and life (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp,
2004). The claims encompassed within this domain designate
integrated foundational skills that provide the basis for

children to acquire, apply, and continue to develop language
and communicative abilities in increasingly complex ways and
across the contexts of home, school, and community.
There are two important contextual implications for the
Language Development and Communication domain.
First is the notion of multiple settings – home, school, and
community – as an inclusive context for the acquisition and
continued development of language and communication.
It is important to consider this triad of settings as the
context in which children demonstrate understanding and
application of knowledge and skills. Bronfenbrenner (2009)
described multiple settings as nested Russian dolls – each
inside the next with the innermost doll representing the
developing person – then the home, school, and community.
Furthermore, Bronfenbrenner (2009) reported that when
we limit our observation and attention to one setting, for
example school, we risk underestimating children’s strengths
and capacities. Therefore, this domain focuses on the broader
context of home, school, and community and the necessary
interconnection between these settings as we support
children in connecting the language and communication used in
the home and community with the language and communication
required for success in school.
The second contextual implication for this domain is that
children acquire and develop speaking, listening, reading, and
writing in increasingly complex ways. This model of growth and
development can be conceived by thinking of an expanding
balloon. Beginning with a breath of knowledge (or a puff of
air),
the balloon expands in all directions simultaneously up, out, and
around three-dimensionally as knowledge grows rather than in
a linear one-dimensional fashion. This three-dimensional
growth

model is referred to throughout the claims when describing
the ways children acquire and continue to develop speaking,
listening, reading, and writing skills.
cLAIM 1 – Students can use and continue to develop
effective listening and communication skills (e.g. verbal
and non-verbal) for a range of purposes, audiences, and
settings/contexts in increasingly complex ways.
Rationale
Children need to be able to listen carefully to a variety of
language genres, including extended discourse (multiple
sentences within a dialogue and narrative with adults and
peers), and then children need to be able to communicate
in ways that are understandable to both adults and children.
These combined skills are foundational for later learning and
literacy at home and at school (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
As most children enter school, these skills are well established
within their home and community and must be adapted for the
context of school. For some children this transition is relatively
easy, particularly if they come from an environment where
communication patterns are aligned with the communication
patterns expected in school.
However, some children come to school with rich language at
home and in the community that may not be as aligned with
the context of school (Heath, 1983; Vernon-Feagans, 1996).
For instance, some communities value dynamic, overlapping
communication, where multiple speakers speak or jump into
the conversation at the same time. Yet, school conventions
require children to wait their turn, speak one-at-a-time, and
often communicate directly to the teacher or adult. Children
who do not have extensive practice with such turn-taking
routines will benefit from explicit instruction in listening
and communicating in order to learn and understand the
conventions of school.

For example, low-income children, rural children, English
language learners as well as children who speak African
American
English in the home, all come to school ready to learn and have
acquired complex vocabulary and narrative skills; however,
these
skills may not transfer to the school context (Vernon-Feagans,
1996). As a result, these children often exhibit lower vocabulary
and communication skills relative to their peers from homes
where language is more closely aligned with the language
required for success in school. This academic vocabulary gap is
linked to lower performance in reading and other areas (August,
Language deveLopment & communication
Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005), not because these children
possess
poorer listening or communication skills, but rather because
they have yet to acquire and master the conventions of listening
and communicating in school. Children also benefit from some
instruction that recognizes their “home” communication patterns
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and use these patterns as a resource
for learning new concepts and skills within the context of the
Standard Course of Study across subject areas.
Children’s listening and communication skills also include the
comprehension and production of nonverbal communicative
skills (e.g., eye gaze, gestures). Children’s nonverbal
communication, often coupled with verbal communication,
conveys substantive information about their thoughts that are
not

expressed in speech alone (Goldin-Meadow & Sandhofer, 1999).
For example, while explaining a math equation on the board,
a child may answer the question incorrectly through spoken
language, yet demonstrate that they understand the concept
through the hand gestures they produce, such as indicating
balance and that both sides are equal (Goldin‐Meadow, Cook,
& Mitchell, 2009). In addition to their ability to communicate
nonverbally, children must also be able to understand and
appropriately respond to others’ nonverbal communication.
A child who follows the point or eye gaze of another person is
demonstrating that they understand the communicative intent
of the speaker (Behne, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2005;
Palmquist
& Jaswal, 2012). This important skill provides valuable insight
into children’s ability to successfully navigate communicative
interactions and master the language and communication
conventions required for success in school.
In sum, all children need to listen carefully to the details of
instruction in the classroom and increasingly be able to ask
and answer questions. In particular, children must be able
to recognize when they do not understand and find ways to
both verbally and nonverbally gain access to the information
they need to learn. School should provide the opportunity
for all children to communicate at length and complexly with
diverse children and adults in a supportive way that provides
scaffolding for both listening and communicating.
cLAIM 2 – Students can acquire and integrate vocabulary,
concepts, and the structure of language in increasingly
complex ways.
Rationale
Children’s ability to communicate and understand language is
driven largely by their understanding of words and concepts
and how to use them within the structure of language. They

must be able to acquire and continue to develop, through
their experiences, an understanding of words and concepts
and know how words can be grouped together to both
comprehend and effectively communicate meaning. In a
school setting, successful communication and meaningful
comprehension is dependent upon students’ ability to access
the vocabulary or language used by their teachers and peers
and in curricular materials across disciplines.
In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) concluded that
vocabulary acquisition and development should be among
the top priorities for all students, particularly throughout
elementary school (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In a similar
report, the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (2004) concluded that enlarging a child’s
vocabulary, both oral and print, is an important part of reading
development (Bornstein et al., 2004). Vocabulary is a predictor
of future reading achievement (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1997) and being able to both identify and understand words
contributes to overall reading comprehension. In addition
to these major findings, researchers have surmised, across
areas of study, that children’s learning is dependent upon
their understanding of words and concepts (Durham, Farkas,
Hammer, Tomblin, & Catts, 2007; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, &
Stevenson, 2004).
Opportunities for school success increase as students learn the
meaning of words, how to pronounce and use words in academic
settings, and how to recognize and comprehend words in
text. This metalinguistic ability, to think about and make word
choices, develops as early as age three and continues throughout
schooling (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Vocabulary assessment and instruction are critically important.
Children learn vocabulary incidentally in their homes and at
school. However, in the context of school, research has shown

that vocabulary instruction is often fragmented between
content areas (White & Kim, 2009). The National Reading Panel
(NRP, 2000) states that vocabulary building in young children
is
most effective when they are exposed to purposeful vocabulary
instruction that incorporates active engagement beyond
definitional knowledge as well as repeated and frequent
exposures to terms and concepts across various contexts. These
research-based methods have shown that children, whether
having initial small or large vocabularies, are able to acquire
new words at about the same rate (Biemiller, 2003).
In the case of English language learners, for example,
vocabulary development in English and in their home
language appears to lag behind when compared to
monolingual norms (Bialystok, Luk, Peets, & Yang, 2009).
However, given enough time and purposeful instruction in
the vocabulary needed in school, English language learners
can catch up to monolinguals (Hammer, Lawrence, & Miccio,
2008). Thus, providing word-learning instruction for all
students across academic domains increases successful
vocabulary development and related school performance.
However, simply drilling students on vocabulary is not
enough to result in a deep understanding of words (Stahl &
Fairbanks, 1986). The National Research Council recommends
that young children learn language structure and vocabulary
in an integrated rather than isolated fashion through adult-
child shared book reading experiences, activities that direct
attention to the phonological structure of spoken words, and
activities that highlight the relationship between print and
speech (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In addition, vocabulary
experts suggest that wide reading of a variety of texts,
purposeful teaching of words and word learning strategies,

Language Development and Communication | 21
and strategies to enhance students’ consciousness of words
improve learning (Felman & Kinsella, 2005).
“Vocabulary is not an end in itself. A rich vocabulary makes
the skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing easier
to perform” (Nation, 1994, pg. viii). Students who acquire
and possess a large vocabulary are often able to think more
deeply, express themselves more clearly, and learn new
concepts more readily. Thus, vocabulary learning should be
viewed as a natural and lifelong process (Bintz, 2011).
By assessing and monitoring children’s early understanding
of word meanings, teachers and schools can help all students
achieve similar levels of language and reading comprehension
and take steps toward improving overall academic
performance (Biemiller, 2003).
cLAIM 3 – Students can acquire the foundational skills
for reading and integrate these skills for comprehending
increasingly complex texts.
Rationale
Students in grades K-3 are building and honing the capacities
necessary to become literate individuals. The acquisition of
literacy involves the development of reading skills and of
concepts about the nature of literacy, i.e. what it means to be
literate (Chall, 1983). In order to develop literate capacities,
students must learn to orchestrate foundational reading skills
and understand what it means to be literate in a variety of
settings, including school. This requires an expanded notion
of literacy as students enter the world of schooling and
experience school literacy for the first time. Depending upon
how closely their home and prior literacy experiences align
with school literacy, this transition varies, yet all children
will experience some adjustment from home to school in

language and literacy development (Heath, 1983).
The ability to comprehend a wide range of increasingly
complex texts is central to acquiring the capacities of a literate
individual. According to Torgesen (1998), “adequate reading
comprehension is the most important ultimate outcome of
effective instruction in reading” (p.33). Learning to read is a
complex process that requires young children to acquire and
continue to develop automaticity with foundational skills – print
concepts, phonological awareness, phonics, word recognition,
and fluency, as well as language processes that together
build their capacity to comprehend a variety of written texts
(National Early Literacy Panel, 2009; National Reading Panel,
2000). One does not precede or preclude the other; integrated
learning increases and affects the acquisition of both reading
foundational skills and comprehension skills (Clay, 1991).
Successful readers can integrate the sound, visual, and meaning
systems of language to monitor comprehension and repair
misunderstandings and apply their understandings to a range
of increasingly complex texts in a variety of settings.
Reading skill is acquired in a relatively predictable way by most
children who have experiences prior to entering school that
align closely with school literacy (Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998).
Although all children come to school ready and eager to learn,
some children can face delays in reading when their language
and experiences prior to school are not as closely aligned
with language and literacy experiences required for success in
school. Most reading problems faced by today’s adolescents
and adults are the result of problems that might have been
avoided or resolved in their early childhood years and/or a
result
of less than optimal classroom instruction (Torgesen, 1998).
The

National Research Council estimated that if children received
exposure and systematic opportunities to develop foundational
language, reading, and related skills during early schooling,
only
about five percent might experience serious reading difficulty
later in school (Snow et al., 1998). It is imperative that steps be
taken early to identify children’s strengths and challenges in
reading so that they can overcome obstacles during the primary
grades. Making sure that all children can attain their potential
in early reading is essential for later learning. Reading failure
in
the early grades is the greatest predictor of both later failure in
school and school dropout (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Students in North Carolina, who are ready for college and
career,
can, as they progress through school, independently read and
comprehend texts of increasing complexity, at high levels of
proficiency, and at a rapid rate. As children receive instruction
that is geared to their skill level and they have adequate
practice
and access to increasingly complex literature and informational
text,
they acquire the ability to comprehend increasingly complex
reading material that will result in continued learning across
home, school, and community.
cLAIM 4 – Students can acquire the written communication
skills that empower students to express their ideas, opinions,
and knowledge for a range of purposes and audiences.
Rationale

In everyday contexts, we use writing for advocacy, writing
letters, social media, lists, and job applications, among many
other purposes. In school, children are expected to write essays,
stories, letters, responses to questions, and more. Children,
including children in grades K-3, use writing to think, to
problem-solve in mathematics, or plan a science experiment,
for example. In addition, writing itself is a cognitive process
that
enables children to explore and to articulate their thoughts,
ideas, opinions, and knowledge. As Dyson (2002) suggests,
it is also an inherently social process in which the children
progressively “differentiate and manipulate the elements of the
written system (e.g. letters and words) in order to engage with,
and manipulate, the social worlds” (p. 126).
Developmentally, oral language precedes writing. Speech guides
children’s use of symbolic tools even before they begin using
alphabetic writing (Vygotsky, 1978). As children acquire oral
language they begin to understand the symbolic relationship
between oral and written language. Initially, very young
children’s
early written productions often are not intended to represent a
particular word. For example, children might complete a page
with squiggly lines just to imitate the act of writing.
Subsequently, children come to represent meaning by
varying the number and variety of letters depending on
the characteristics of the symbolic relationship (Ferreiro &
Teberosky, 1979; Levin & Tolchinsky, 1989). For example,
children might write an approximation of the word “snake” with
more letters than an approximation of “ant” because a snake is
longer than an ant. Gradually, children start to understand the
correspondence between the length of words and phrases and
the marks on the paper. At first, this correspondence is global
and slowly becomes more articulated between the parts of
what the child attempts to read and the parts of the written

text (Tolchinsky, 2006). Children begin to attend to “the basic
alphabetic principal [which] requires an awareness that spoken
language can be analyzed into strings of separate words,
and words in turn, into sequences of syllables and phonemes
within syllables” (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 15). During
this process, the development of reading and writing proceed
together, each informing the other.
Simultaneously, children acquire knowledge of written genres.
From a young age, they demonstrate approximations of
appropriate written language genres (Donovan & Smolkin,
2006), such as storybooks (Sulzby, 1985) and informational
genres (Donovan, 2001; Kamberelis, 1999). Recent work by
Donovan and Smolkin (2011) outlines the development
trajectory of elementary students’ information writing which
begins with labeling and progresses to information reporting
that uses evidence. In addition to paying attention to different
genres, children also need to consider the content and goals
of what they will write, the audience, the spelling of words,
and their handwriting or keyboarding control. Thus, writing
requires an orchestration of different tasks and abilities
which puts heavy cognitive processing demands on children
(McCutchen, 2006).
Since the cognitive processes involved in writing are socially
constructed, they manifest in different ways depending
on the writing goals and tasks. Children from different
communities may participate differently in writing activities
in their homes and communities. Hence, children will arrive
at school with different strengths and needs, and therefore
their developmental process can take different forms (Heath,
1996, 1983; Heath, 2012; Rogoff, 2003). For example, English
language learners draw from skills and knowledge learned
in their first and second language when writing (Gort,
2012). Heath (1996, 1983) found that children from different

communities bring different strengths to the writing process
and Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti (2005) observed that students
draw from different funds of knowledge as they learn to write.
Because the development of writing is interrelated with other
areas of development, assessment of students’ writing has
the potential to inform understanding of other dimensions of
children’s lives. For example, for some children, reading their
own writing precedes reading conventional texts. Writing
samples can give teachers important information regarding
children’s reading skills such as phonological awareness,
knowledge of print, and alphabet knowledge (Vernon &
Ferreiro, 1999). Writing about their own social and emotional
experiences can provide teachers insights about children’s
socio-emotional well-being (Dyson, 2001). The fine motor and
hand-eye-ear coordination skills necessary for writing are an
important area of physical development. Problem-solving
involved in writing relates to cognitive development. As a
result, writing as a means for assessment should never be
considered in isolation from other developmental domains.
“Learning to read and write is critical to a child’s success in
school and later in life. One of the best predictors of whether
a child will function competently in school and go on to
contribute actively in our increasingly literate society is the
level to which the child progresses in reading and writing”
(Neuman et al., 2004, p. 1). As children write for every day,
school, and subject- or task-specific purposes, they learn
to express ideas, experiences, interests, and emotions and
simultaneously have opportunities to learn the conventions of
the written language and to practice the orchestration of the
different demands required in the writing process.
Next Steps and Conclusion | 23

The plan for developing and implementing the K-3 formative
assessment process includes three phases. The Think Tank’s
report represents the first stage of outlining a vision for this
endeavor and establishing claims about the knowledge,
abilities, and approaches toward learning that are most
essential for children to develop during kindergarten
through third grade. In the second phase, an Assessment
Design Team will translate the vision into an assessment
process, through designing, piloting, feedback, and multiple
iterations in schools across North Carolina. In the third phase,
an Implementation Design Team will plan for scaling up the
K-3 formative assessment process across North Carolina in a
manner that is sustainable. The work will not conclude at that
point, however. The K-3 formative assessment process will
be continuously improved in future years based on feedback
from teachers, parents, students, and other stakeholders.
Stakeholder engagement is crucial to the success of this
endeavor. Therefore, numerous strategies will be intentionally
designed to gather stakeholder input that will inform and
guide implementation. For example, an advisory group of
teachers and administrators will be convened, teacher surveys
distributed, and focus group sessions held with teachers,
administrators, families, and other community stakeholders.
The success of the K-3 formative assessment is dependent on
a number of factors. In order for this formative assessment
process to improve educational opportunities for children,
schools must be ready and resourced to provide opportunities
for each individual child. Schools will best support children’s
development and learning when staffed with teachers and
administrators who understand child development and the
ways in which young children learn. Children will thrive in
classrooms with teachers who:

1. understand that every child is unique;
2. base instructional decisions on what is developmentally,
culturally, and linguistically appropriate; and
3. adapt educational experiences to the ages,
experiences, interests, and abilities of individual
children within the classroom.
Designing learning opportunities that appropriately challenge
children in the early grades also requires that administrators
and teachers are knowledgeable about assessment strategies
appropriate for young children. Assessment that occurs in the
context of instruction and learning and uses evidence gathered
from a variety of sources (e.g., work samples, conversations,
observations) is consistent with recommended practices and
provides the best opportunity for children to demonstrate
what they know and are able to do (NRC, 2008). Understanding
what children know and are able to do enables teachers to plan
instruction that meets children where they are, as individuals
and as a group, and helps each child reach challenging
and achievable goals that contribute to his/her ongoing
development and learning.
next steps
concLusion
Ea
rl
y
Le

ar
n
in
g
a
n
d
d
ev
el
op
m
en
t S
ta
n
d
ar
d
s Nc STANdARd cOuRSE OF STudy
A
rt
s

EL
A
En
g
lis
h
a
s
a
Se
co
n
d
L
an
g
u
ag
e
G
u
id
an

ce
H
ea
lt
h
fu
l L
iv
in
g
M
at
h
Sc
ie
n
ce
So
ci
al
S
tu
d

ie
s
A
p
p
ro
ac
h
es
to
L
ea
rn
in
g
*
c
LA
IM
1
Students can effectively solve =problems by defining goals,
describing steps, and
evaluating alternative strategies in both academic and social
interactions.
X X X X X X X X X

c
LA
IM
2
Students can maintain focus and persevere to accomplish
collaborative and
individual tasks whether those tasks are chosen by them, or
assigned to them.
X X X X X X X X X
c
LA
IM
3
Students can demonstrate curiosity by seeking opportunities –
whether independently
or in collaboration with peers and teachers – to extend their
knowledge.
X X X X X X X X X
c
o
g
n
it
iv

e*
c
LA
IM
1
Students use content-independent abilities and strategies and
content-specific
skills, processes, and approaches to solve problems and acquire
information.
X X X X X X X X X
c
LA
IM
2
Students make connections to prior learning, construct
knowledge, and
demonstrate their understanding using multiple modes of
expression.
X X X X X X X X X
c
LA
IM
3
Students come to understand themselves as learners and acquire
dispositions

(attitudes, beliefs, and values) that support their academic
engagement.
X X X X X X X X X
Em
o
ti
o
n
al
-S
o
ci
al cL
A
IM
1
Students can effectively solve problems by defining goals,
articulating steps,
and evaluating alternative strategies in both academic and social
interactions.
X X X
c
LA
IM

2
Students can maintain focus and persevere to accomplish
collaborative
and individual tasks whether or not those tasks are voluntary.
X X X
c
LA
IM
3
Students can demonstrate curiosity by seeking opportunities –
whether independently
or in collaboration with peers and teachers – to extend their
knowledge.
X X X
H
ea
lt
h
&
P
h
ys
ic
al cL

A
IM
1
Students can demonstrate conceptual knowledge to support
healthy behaviors
and the reduction of health risks.
X X X
c
LA
IM
2
Students develop skills that contribute to healthy behaviors and
reduction
of health risks.
X X
c
LA
IM
3
Students can demonstrate competencies in motor skills and
movement patterns. X X
La
n
g

u
ag
e
&
c
o
m
m
u
n
ic
at
io
n
c
LA
IM
1 Students can use and continue to develop effective listening
and communication
skills (e.g. verbal and non-verbal) for a range of purposes,
audiences, and settings/
contexts (like home, school, and community) in increasingly
complex ways.
X X X

c
LA
IM
2
Students can acquire and integrate vocabulary, concepts, and
the structure
of language in increasingly complex ways in home, school, and
community.
X X X
c
LA
IM
3
Students can acquire the foundational skills for reading and
integrate these skills
for comprehending increasingly complex texts in home, school,
and community.
X X X
c
LA
IM
4 Students can acquire the written communication skills that
empower students
to express their ideas, opinions, and knowledge for a range of
purposes and
audiences including home, school, and community.

X X X
* Given the foundational nature of these claims, each claim
involves fundamental skills and capacities relevant to all
learning standards.
standards aLignment
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Dauber, S.L. (1993). First
grade
classroom behavior: Its short- and long-term consequences for
school
performance. Child Development, 64, 801-814.
Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Horsey, C. S. (1997). From
first grade
forward: Early foundations of high school dropouts. Sociology
of
Education, 70, 87-107.
Allen, S. F., & Tracy, E. M. (2004). Revitalizing the role of
home visiting
by school social workers. Children & Schools, 26(4), 197–208.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwolh, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A
taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy of
educational objectives. New York: Logman.
Arsenio, W. F., Cooperman, S., & Lover, A. (2000). Affective
predictors
of preschoolers’ aggression and peer acceptance. Developmental

Psychology, 36,438-448.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
(2012).
Making the case for educating the whole child. Retrieved from:
http://
www.wholechildeducation.org/assets/content/mx-resources/
WholeChild-MakingTheCase.pdf
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The
critical role
of vocabulary development for English language learners.
Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(1), 50-57.
Ball, G. D. C., & McCargar, L. J. (2003). Childhood obesity in
Canada:
A review of prevalence estimates and risk factors for
cardiovascular
diseases and Type 2 Diabetes. Canadian Journal of Applied
Physiology,
28(1), 117-140.
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive functions: What they are, how
they work,
and why they evolved. New York: Guilford Press.
Barton, G.V., Fordyce, K., & Kirby, K. (1999). The importance
of the
development of motor skills to children. Teaching Elementary
Physical
Education, 10(4), 9-11.
Basch C. E. (2010). Healthier students are better learners: A
missing
link in school reforms to close the achievement gap. Equity

Matters:
Research Review No. 6. New York: Columbia University.
Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2005).
One‐year‐olds
comprehend the communicative intentions behind gestures in a
hiding game. Developmental Science, 8(6), 492-499.
Berk, L. E. (2006). Looking at kindergarten children. In D.
Gullo (Ed.),
K today: Teaching and learning in the kindergarten year (pp.
11-25).
Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
Bernard, B. (1991). The case for peers. The Peer Facilitator
Quarterly, 8,
20-27.
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective
on executive function. Child Development, 81, 1641-1660. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC30588277
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2009).
Receptive vocabulary
differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 1-7.
Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: Needed if more children are
to read
well. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 323-335.
Bintz, W. P. (2011). Teaching vocabulary across the curriculum.
Middle

School Journal, 32(4), 44-53.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated
learning:
Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of
Psychology 64(1):
417-444.
Bjorklund, D. F. (1985). The role of conceptual knowledge in
the
development of organization in children’s memory. In C. J.
Brainerd &
M. Pressley (Eds.), Basic processes in memory development:
Progress in
cognitive develoment research (pp. 103-142). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Black, P. J., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box:
Raising standards
through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-48.
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and
emotion in
a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at
school
entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in
prevention and
intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of
preventing
school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 899-911.
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control,
executive
function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and

literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2): 647-
663.
Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). Wingspread declaration
on school
connections. Journal of School Health, 74, 233–234.
Bornstein, M. H., Cote, L. R., Maital, S., Painter, K., Park, S.
Y., Pascual, L., &
Vyt, A. (2004). Cross-linguistic analysis of vocabulary in young
children:
Spanish, Dutch, French, Hebrew, Italian, Korean, and American
English.
Child Development, 75(4), 1115-1139.
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2012). Reliability of children’s
testimony
in the era of developmental reversals. Developmental Review,
32, 224-
267. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.008
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2000).
How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:
National
Academy Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Camburn, E.M., & Han, S.W. (2011). Two decades of
generalizable
evidence on U.S. instruction from national surveys. Teachers
College
Record, 113(3), 561-610.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Youth risk
behavior
surveillance system. Retrieved from:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/
yrbs/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013).
Characteristics
for effective health education. Retrieved from:
http://www.cdc.gov/
healthyyouth/sher/characteristics/
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Chi, M.T.H. (1978). Knowledge structures and memory
development.
In R.S. Siegler (Ed.), Children’s thinking: What develops?
(pp.73-96).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chi, M.T.H., & Ceci, S.J. (1987). Content knowledge: Its role,
representation,
and restructuring in memory development. In H.W. Reese (Ed.),
Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 20, 91-142).
Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.). (1988). The
nature of expertise.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
citations
Citations | 25

Clark, J. (2007). On the problem of motor skill development
(2007
Alliance Scholar Lecture). Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and
Dance, 78(5), 39-45.
Clark, J.E., & Metcalfe, J.S. (2002). The mountain of motor
development:
A metaphor. In J. E. Clark & J. H. Humphrey (Eds.) Motor
Development:
Research and Reviews (Vol. 2, 163-190). Reston, VA: National
Association of Sport and Physical Education.
Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner
control.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Colvert, E., Rutter, M., Kreppner, J., Beckett, C., Castle, J.,
Groothues, C.,
Hawkins, A., Stevens, S., & Sonuga-barke, E.J. (2008). Do
theory of mind
and executive function deficits underlie the adverse outcomes
associated
with profound early deprivation? Findings from the English and
Romanian
Adoptees Study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(7),
1057-1068.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally
appropriate
practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth
through

age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S.G. (1988). Developmental and
instructional
analyses of children’s metacognition and reading
comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology 80(2), 131-142.
Cunningham, A. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading
acquisition
and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later.
Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-944.
de Ridder, D.T.D., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok,
F.M., &
Baumeister, R.F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-
analysis of
how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors.
Personality
and Social Psychology Review 16(1), 76-99.
Denham, S. A. (2006). Social‐emotional competence as support
for
school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it? Early
Education and
Development, Special Issue: Measurement of School Readiness,
17, 57‐89.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer,
K., Auerbach-
Major, S., & Queenan, P. (2003). Preschool emotional
competence:
Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238-
256.
Denham, S. A., Mason, T., Kochanoff, A., Neal, K., & Hamada,

H. (2003).
Emotional development. In Dawn Cavalieri, (Ed.). International
Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family Relationships, Second
Edition. New
York: Macmillan.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of
Psychology
64(1), 135-168.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W.S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007).
Preschool
program improves cognitive control. Science, 318(5855), 1387-
1388.
Donovan, C. A. (2001). Children’s development and control of
written
story and informational genres: Insights from one elementary
school.
Research in the Teaching of English, 394-447.
Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2006). Children’s
understanding of genre
and writing development. Handbook of Writing Research, 131-
143.
Donovan, C. A., & Smolkin, L. B. (2011). Supporting
informational
writing in the elementary grades. Reading Teacher, 64(6), 406-
416.
doi:10.1598/RT.64.6.2
Downey, D.B., & Pribesh, S. (2004). When race matters:
Teachers’
evaluations of students’ classroom behavior. Sociology of
Education, 77,

267-282.
Duckworth, A. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-discipline
outdoes
IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents.
Psychological
Science, 16, 939-944. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01641.x
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C.J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K.,
Huston, A.C.,
Klebanov, P., Pagani, L.S., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-
Gunn, J.,
Sexton, H., Duckworth, K., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness
and later
achievement. Developmental Psychology 43(6), 1428-1446.
Durham, R. E., Farkas, G., Hammer, C. S., Bruce Tomblin, J., &
Catts,
H. W. (2007). Kindergarten oral language skill: A key variable
in the
intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status.
Research in
Social Stratification and Mobility, 25(4), 294-305.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation,
personality,
and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dyson, A. H. (2001). Where are the childhoods in childhood
literacy?
An exploration in outer (school) space. Journal of Early
Childhood
Literacy, 1(1), 9-39.

Dyson, A. H. (2002) Writing and children’s symbolic
repertoires:
Development unhinged. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson,
(Eds.),
Handbook of early literacy research (pp.126-141). New York,
NY: The
Guilford Press.
Epstein, J. L. (1996). Advances in family, community, and
school
partnerships. Community Education Journal, 23(3), 10–15.
Evans, G. W., & Rosenbaum, J. (2008). Self-regulation and the
income-
achievement gap. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 504-
514.
Fantuzzo, J., Perry, M.A., & McDermott, P. (2004). Preschool
approaches
to learning and their relationship to other relevant classroom
competencies for low-income children. School Psychology
Quarterly
19(3), 212-230.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (1999). Parental involvement and students’
academic
achievement: A meta-analysis. Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, National Center for Education Statistics.
Farris, J., Burke Lefever, J.E., Borkowski, J.G., & Whitman,
T.L. (2013). Two
are better than one: The joint influence of maternal
preparedness for
parenting and children’s self-esteem on academic achievement
and
adjustment. Early Education & Development 24(3), 346-365.

Fawcett, L.M., & Garton, A.F. (2005). The effect of peer
collaboration
on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of
Educational
Psychology, 75, 157-169.
Feldman, K., & Kinsella, K. (2005). Narrowing the language
gap: The case
for explicit vocabulary instruction. Scholastic.
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1979). Los procesos de escritura
en el
desarrollo del niño. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.
Fine, S. E., Izard, C. E., Mostow, A. J., Trentacosta, C. J., &
Ackerman, B.
P. (2003). First grade emotion knowledge as a predictor of fifth
grade
self-reported internalizing behaviors in children from
economically-
disadvantaged families. Development and Psychopathology, 15,
331-342.
Gallagher K.C., & Sylvester, P. R. (2009). Supporting peer
relationships
in early education. In O.A. Barbarin & B.H. Wasik (Eds.),
Handbook of
child development and early education research to practice (pp.
223-46).
NY: Guilford Press.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive
function in
preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework.
Psychological

Bulletin, 134, 31-60. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X.,
Liu, H.,
Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T., Evans, A. C., & Rapoport, J. L.(1999).
Brain
development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal
MRI
study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861- 863. doi:10.1038/13158
Goldin‐Meadow, S., Cook, S.W., & Mitchell, Z.A. (2009).
Gesturing gives
children ideas about math. Psychological Science, 20, 267-272.
Goldin‐Meadow, S., & Sandhofer, C. M. (1999). Gestures
convey
substantive information about a child’s thoughts to ordinary
listeners.
Developmental Science, 2(1), 67-74.
Citations | 27
Gort, M. (2012) Evaluation and revision processes of young
bilinguals
in a dual language program. In E. B. Bauer & M. Gort (Eds.),
Early literacy
development: Exploring young learners’ use of their linguistic
resources
(pp.90-110). Florence, KY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Graves, B. (2006). PK-3: What is it and how do we know it
works? FCD
Policy Brief: Advancing PK-3, (4). Retrieved from: http://fcd-
us.org/

resources/pk-3-what-it-and-how-do-we-know-it-works
Greenhoot, A. F. (2000). Remembering and understanding: The
effects
of changes in underlying knowledge on children’s recollections.
Child
Development, 71, 1309–1328. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00230
Gutiérrez, K.D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of
learning: Individual
traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5),
19-25.
Hair, E. C., Halle, T., Terry-Humen, E., Lavelle, B., & Calkins,
J. (2006).
Children’s school readiness in the ECLS-K: Predictions to
academic,
health, and social outcomes in first grade. Early Childhood
Research
Quarterly 21(4): 431-454.
Hammer, C. S., Lawrence, F. R., & Miccio, A. W. (2008).
Exposure to
English before and after entry into Head Start: Bilingual
children’s
receptive language growth in Spanish and English. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 30-56.
Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early teacher-child
relationships and
the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through eighth
grade.
Child Development, 72(2), 625-638.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and
emotional

support in the first-grade classroom make a difference for
children at
risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949- 967.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student‐teacher
relationships as
a source of support and risk in schools. In G. G. Bear & K. M.
Minke
(Eds.) Children’s needs III: development, prevention, and
intervention (pp.
59‐71). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Heckman, J. J. (2007). The economics, technology, and
neuroscience
of human capability formation. Proceedings of the National
Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 13250-13255.
Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Social
development
and social and emotional learning. In J.E. Zins, R.P. Weissberg,
Wang,
M.C., & Walberg, H.J. (Eds.), Building academic success on
social and
emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp.135-150).
New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Heath, S.B. (1996, 1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and
work in
communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Heath, S.B. (2012). Words at work and at play: Three decades
in family

and community life. New York, NY: Cambridge University.
Heritage, M. (2013). Formative assessment in practice: A
process of
inquiry and action. Boston: Harvard Education Press.
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S.E., & Dunning, D.L. (2009). Adaptive
training
leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in
children.
Developmental Science 12(4), F9-F15.
Howes, C., Burchinal, M. R., Pianta, R. C., Bryant, D., Early,
D., Clifford,
R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s pre-
academic
achievement in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood
Research
Quarterly, 23, 27–50.
Howes, C., & Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust: Connecting
teachers and
learners in the early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Howse, R. B., Calkins, S. D., Anastopoulos, A. D., Keane, S. P.,
& Shelton,
T. L. (2003). Regulatory contributors to children’s kindergarten
achievement. Early Education and Development, 14,101-119.
Hyson, M. (2008). Enthusiastic and engaged learners:
Approaches to learning
in the early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Iruka, I. U., & Barbarin, O. (2009). African American

children’s early learning
and development: Examining parenting, schools, and
neighborhood. In
H. A. Neville, B. M. Tynes, & S. O. Utsey (Eds.), Handbook of
African American
Psychology (pp. 175–184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Izard, C, Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., &
Youngstrom,
E. (2001). Emotion knowledge as a predictor of social behavior
and
academic competence in children at risk. Psychological Science,
12, 18-23.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in
learning
activities: It’s not autonomy support or structure, but autonomy
support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102,
588-600.
Jennings, P.A., & Greenberg, M.T. (2009). The prosocial
classroom:
Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student
and
classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1),
491-525.
Johnson, D.W. (1981). Student-student interaction: The
neglected
variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10(1), 5-10.
Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (2013). Research matters – to
the science
teacher: Encouraging student/student interaction. National
Association
for Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved from:

http://www.narst.
org/publications/research/encourage2.cfm
Joint Committee on National Health Education Standards.
(2006).
National health education standards: Achieving excellence (2nd
Edition).
Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society & Centers for Disease
Control
and Prevention.
Kail, R. V., & Ferrer, E. (2007). Processing speed in childhood
and
adolescence: Longitudinal models for examining developmental
change. Child Development, 78, 1760-1770.
http://www.jstor.org/
stable/4620736
Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning:
Children
writing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the
Teaching of
English, 33, 403-460.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal
cortex in
working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general
fluid
intelligence: An individual-differences perspective.
Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 9, 637-671. doi: 10.3758/BF03196323.
http://libres.
uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Kane_Role_2002.pdf
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. (2004). Curiosity and
exploration:

Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth
opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment 82(3): 291-
305.
Kreppner, J., O’Connor, T., & Rutter, M. (2001). Can
inattention/
overactivity be an institutional deprivation syndrome? Journal
of
Abnormal Child Psychology 29(6): 513-528.
Kurtz-Costes, B. E., & Schneider, W. (1994). Self-concept,
attributional
beliefs, & school achievement: A longitudinal analysis.
Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 199-216.
doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1017
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin,Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The
health literacy
of America’s adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment
of
Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Levin, I., & Tolchinsky, L. (1989). Becoming literate:
Referential and
phonetic strategies in early reading and writing. International
Journal
of Behavioral Development, 12(3), 369-384.
Lewis, V. K., & Shaha, S. H. (2003). Maximizing learning and
attitudinal
gains through integrated curricula. Education, 123(3), 537-547.
Li-Grining, C. P., Votruba-Drzal, E., Maldonado-Carreño, C., &

Haas, K.
(2010). Children’s early approaches to learning and academic
trajectories
through fifth grade. Developmental Psychology 46(5), 1062-
1077.
Mandingo, J., Francis, N., Lodewyk, K., & Lopez, R. (2009).
Position paper:
Physical literacy for educators. Physical & Health Education:
Canada.
http://www.phecanada.ca/sites/default/files/pl_position_paper.p
dff
Mapp, K. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and
how they
are engaged in their children’s
learning. The School Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64.
Retrieved from:
http://www.adi.org/journal/SS03/Mapp%2035-64.pdff
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessments and grading that
work.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The
impact of
kindergarten learning-related social skills on academic
trajectories at
the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 21,

471–490.
McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C.E., Connor, C.M., Farris, C.L.,
Jewkes,
A.M., & Morrison, F.J. (2007). Links between behavioral
regulation and
preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills.
Developmental
Psychology 43(4): 947-959.
McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C.E., Wanless, S.B., & Murray,
A. (2007).
Executive function, behavioral self-regulation, and social-
emotional
competence. In O. N. Saracho and B. Spodek (Eds.),
Contemporary
perspectives on social learning in early childhood education
(pp. 83-107).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
McCormack, T., & Atance, C. M. (2011). Planning in young
children:
A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 31, 1-31.
doi:10.1016/j.
dr.2011.02.002 http://www.psych.qub.ac.uk/Publications/
McCormack/McCormackDevRev2011.pdf
McManus, S. (2008). Attributes of effective formative
assessment.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Mestre, J. P. (1994). Cognitive aspects of learning and teaching
science.
In S. J. Fitzsimmons & L. C. Kerpelman (Eds.), Teacher
enhancement for
elementary and secondary science and mathematics: Status,

issues, and
problems (pp. 3-1 – 3-53). Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation.
Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I.
H., Jonides, J.,
Kross, E., Teslovich, T., Wilson, N., Zayas, V., & Shoda, Y.
(2011). ‘Willpower’
over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation. Social
Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 6, 252-256. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq081
McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of
children’s writing. Handbook of writing research, 8, 115-130.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox,
R.J.,
Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B.W., Ross, S.,
Sears,
M.R., Thomson, W.M., & Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of
childhood self-
control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings
of the
National Academy of Sciences 108(7), 2693-2698.
Mostow, A. J., Izard, C. E., Fine, S., & Trentacosta, C. J.
(2002). Modeling
emotional, cognitive, and behavioral predictors of peer
acceptance.
Child Development, 73, 1775–1787.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004).
Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as
foundations
of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal
study.

Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665-680.
Nation, I.S.P. (Ed.). (1994). New ways in teaching vocabulary.
Alexandria,
VA: TESOL International Association.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (1995).
Position
Statement: Looking at physical education from a developmental
perspective: a guide to teaching. Reston, VA: Author.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2001).
Position
Statement: Physical education is critical to a complete
education. Reston,
VA: Author.
National Early Literacy Panel (2009). Developing early literacy:
Report
of the National Early Literacy Panel (A scientific synthesis of
early literacy
development and implications for intervention). Jessup, MD:
National
Institute for Literacy and National Center for Family Literacy.
Retrieved
from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health
&
Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read:
An
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature
on reading
and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
subgroups.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, National Institutes of Health.
National Research Council (2013). Educating the student body:
Taking
physical activity and physical education to school. Washington,
DC:
The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2008). Early childhood assessment:
Why,
what, and how. C. E. Snow & S. B. Van Hemel (Eds.).
Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical
framework
and new findings. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and
motivation (Vol. 26, pp. 125-173). Elsevier, Inc., Academic
Press.
Neuman, S. B., Copple, C., & Bredekamp, B. (2004). Learning
to read
and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young
children:
A joint position statement of the International Reading
Association
(IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Accessed: http://www-
tc.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/rdla155/pdfs/
c2s2_5devapprop.pdf
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An
alternative
approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2009).
Healthful
living education essential standards K-9. Raleigh, NC: NCDPI.
Ornstein, P. A., & Light, L. L. (2011). Memory development
across
the life span. In W. F. Overton & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), The
handbook of
life-span development (Vol. 1: Cognition, biology, and
methods, pp. 259-
305). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ornstein, P.A., & Naus, M.J. (1985). Effects of the knowledge
base
on children’s memory strategies. In H.W. Reese (Ed.),
Advances in
child development and behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 113-148).
Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Ornstein, P.A., Merritt, K.A., Baker-Ward, L., Furtado, E.,
Gordon, B.N., &
Principe, G. (1998). Children’s knowledge, expectation, and
long-term
retention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 387-405. doi:
10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0720(199808)12:4<387::AID-ACP574>3.0.CO;2-5
Palmquist, C. M., & Jaswal, V. K. (2012). Preschoolers expect
pointers
(even ignorant ones) to be knowledgeable. Psychological
Science, 23,
230-231.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-

148, §2702,
124 Stat. 119, 318-319 (2010). Retrieved from:
http://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
Piaget, J. (1983). Piaget’s theory. In W. Kessen (Ed.), & P. H.
Mussen
(Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. I: History,
theory, and
methods (pp. 103-128). New York: Wiley.
Pianta, R.C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison,
F. (2008).
Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in
elementary
school. American Education Research Journal, 45(2), 365–397.
Pianta, R., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B.K. (2008). Classroom
Assessment
Scoring System. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Pianta, R.C., & Stuhlman, M.W. (2004). Teacher-child
relationships and
children’s success in the first years of school. School
Psychology Review,
33(3), 444-458.
Pianta, R.C., & Walsh, D.J. (1996). High-risk children in
schools:
Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria,
VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Principe, G. F., & Schindewolf, E. (2012). Natural
conversations as a
source of false memories in children: Implications for the
testimony of
young witnesses. Developmental Review, 32, 205-223. doi:
10.1016/j.
dr.2012.06.003
Raver, C. C. (2012). Low-income children’s self-regulation in
the
classroom: Scientific inquiry for social change. American
Psychologist,
67, 681-689. doi: 10.1037/a0030085
Raver, C. C., Jones, S.M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., &
Pressler, E. (2011).
CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills:
Self-
regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development,
82(1), 362-378.
Ready for School Goal Team. (2000). School readiness in North
Carolina:
Strategies for defining, measuring, and promoting success for
all children.
Greensboro, NC: SERVE.
Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S., & Topitzes, J. (2004). Paths of effects
of early
childhood intervention on educational attainment and
delinquency:
A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Child
Development, 75(5), 1299-1328.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rudd, R. E., Anderson, J. E., Oppenheimer, S., & Nath, C.
(2007). Health
literacy: An update of public health and medical literature. In J.
P.
Comings, B. Garner, & C. Smith. (Eds.), Review of adult
learning and
literacy (Vol. 7, pp. 175–204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schneider, W., & Pressley, M. (1997). Memory development
between two
and twenty. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness.
Instructional Science 26(1-2), 113-125.
Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R.,
Gogtay, N.,
Evans, A., Rapport, J., & Giedd, J. (2006). Intellectual ability
and cortical
development in children and adolescents, Nature, 440(7084),
676-679.
doi:10.1038/nature04513
Shing, Y. L., Lindenberger, U., Diamond, A., Li, S. C., &
Davidson, M. C.
(2010). Memory maintenance and inhibitory control
differentiate from
early childhood to adolescence. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 35,
679-697.

Shrager, J., & Carver, S. (Eds.) (2012). The journey from child
to scientist:
Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998).
Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Song, I., & Hattie, J. (1984). Relationships between self-
concept and
achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 365-372.
doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1269
South Carolina Physical Education Assessment Program (2007).
Elementary school physical education program assessment
manual (2nd
ed.). Columbia, SC: Author.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of
vocabulary
instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of
educational
research, 56(1), 72-110.
Stein, N. L., Hernandez, M. W., & Anggoro, F. K. (2011). A
theory of
coherence and complex learning in the physical sciences: What
works
(and what doesn’t). In N. L. Stein & S. Raudenbush (Eds.),
Developmental

cognitive science goes to school (pp. 87-112). New York:
Routledge.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite
storybooks: A
developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4 ), 458-
481.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life:
Teaching,
learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge,
Cambridgeshire:
Cambridge University Press.
Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. American
Educator,
22, 32-41.
Trentacosta, C.J., Izard, C.E., Mostow, A.J., & Fine, S.E.
(2006). Children’s
emotional competence and attentional competence in early
elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 148-170.
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study of cooperative
learning and
communication pedagogy; Does working in teams make a
difference?
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-
89.
Valeski, T. N., & Stipek, D. (2001). Young children’s feelings
about
school. Child Development, 73, 1198-2013.
Vernon-Feagans, L. (1996). Children’s talk in communities and
classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Vernon, S. A., & Ferreiro, E. (1999). Writing development: A
neglected
variable in the consideration of phonological awareness.
Harvard
Educational Review, 69(4), 395-416.
Vuontela, V., Carlson, S., Troberg, A.M., Fontell, T., Simola,
P., Saarinen, S.,
& Aronen, E. (2013). Working memory, attention, inhibition,
and their
relation to adaptive functioning and behavioral/emotional
symptoms
in school-aged children. Child Psychiatry & Human
Development 44(1),
105-122.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1978). Mind in society: The development
of higher
mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Werner, E. (1996). How kids become resilient: Observations
and
cautions. Resiliency in action, 1(1), 18-28.
Wildhagen, T. (2012). How teachers and schools contribute to
racial
differences in the realization of academic potential. Teachers
College
Record, 114(7), 1-27.
White, C. E., & Kim, J. S. (2009). Putting the pieces of the
puzzle together:
How systematic vocabulary instruction and expanded learning
time can
address the literacy gap. Washington: Center for American

Progress.
White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of
reading
vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word
meaning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 281-290.
Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D., Sangster, C., Grau,
V., Bingham,
S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of
two
observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-
regulated
learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning 4(1),
63-85.
Wigfield, A., Cambria, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Motivation in
education.
In R. M. Ryan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human
motivation (pp.
463-478). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment
with
instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer
(Ed.),
The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp.
53-84).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Williams, H., & Monsma, E.V. (2006). Assessment of gross
motor
development. In B.A. Bracken & R.J. Nagle (Eds.).
Psychoeducational
assessment of preschool children, 4th Edition, (pp. 397-433).
Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote
resilience:
When students believe that personal characteristics can be
developed.
Educational Psychologist, 47, 302-314.
Zelazo, P. D., Carlson, S. M., & Kesek, A. (2008). The
development of
executive function in childhood. In C. A. Nelson & M. Luciana
(Eds.),
Handbook of developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed.,
pp. 553-
574). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zins, J. E, Bloodworth, M.R., Weissberg, R. P, & Walberg, H.J.
(2007). The
scientific base linking social and emotional learning to school
success.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17, 191-
210.
Citations | 29
Kenneth A. Dodge, Ph.D. – Think Tank Co-Chair | Professor,
Public
Policy and Psychology & Neuroscience | Director, Center for
Child and
Family Policy | Duke Sanford School of Public Policy
John Pruette, M.Ed. – Think Tank Co-Chair | Executive

Director,
Office of Early Learning | NC Department of Public
Instruction
Lynne Baker-Ward, Ph.D. – Professor & Associate Department
Head,
Department of Psychology | Director, Graduate Program |
North
Carolina State University
Patricia Bricker, Ed.D. – Associate Professor, School of
Teaching and
Learning, Western Carolina University
Margaret Burchinal, Ph.D. – Senior Scientist and Director, Data
Management & Analysis Center | Frank Porter Graham Child
Development Institute | University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill
Jane Costello, Ph.D. – Health & Physical Development
Subcommittee Chair | Professor, Psychiatry & Behavioral
Sciences |
Associate Director for Research, Center for Child & Family
Policy |
Co-Director, Center for Developmental Epidemiology | Duke
University
Kristen Cuthrell, Ed.D. – Assistant Professor, Department of
Elementary
Education and Middle Grades Education | East Carolina
University
Mary Kay Delaney, Ph.D. – Associate Professor, Education |
Chair,
Department of Education | Meredith College

Helen Egger, M.D. – Associate Professor, Psychiatry &
Behavioral
Sciences | Chief, Division of Child and Family Mental Health
and
Developmental Neuroscience | Duke University Medical
Center
Cristina Gillanders, Ph.D. – Scientist, Frank Porter Graham
Child
Hill
Carolyn Guthrie, M.A. | Director, K-3 Literacy Division | NC
Department of Public Instruction
Amar Hamoudi, Ph.D. – Approaches to Learning Subcommittee
Chair | Assistant Professor, Public Policy & Economics |
Duke Sanford
School of Public Policy
Stephanie Little, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, Health & Human
Performance | Department of Nutrition, Health, & Human
Performance | Meredith College
Kelly L. Maxwell, Ph.D. – Senior Program Area Director, Early
Childhood Research | Child Trends
Deborah Nelson, Ph.D. – Consultant, Race-to-the-Top Early
Learning
Challenge Grant
Marilyn Ornstein, B.A. – Retired Teacher, Pre-Kindergarten –
3rd Grade |
Consultant, Duke School for Children
Peter Ornstein, Ph.D. – Cognitive Development Subcommittee

Chair |
Professor, Department of Psychology | Director, Graduate
Program in
Developmental Psychology | University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
Sharon A. Ritchie, Ed.D. – Emotional-Social Development
Subcommittee Chair | Senior Scientist, Frank Porter Graham
Child
Hill
Terry Rose, Ed.D. – Assistant Professor, School of Teaching
and
Learning | Assistant Department Head, School of Teaching and
Learning | Western Carolina University
Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D. – Associate Professor, Human
Development & Family Studies | School of Human and
Environmental
Studies | University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Natasha Spellman, Ed.D. – Assistant Professor, School of
Education &
Psychology | Elizabeth City State University
Lynne Vernon-Feagans, Ph.D. – Language Development &
Communication Subcommittee Chair | Fellow, Frank Porter
Graham
Child Development Institute | Professor, Early Childhood,
Intervention
& Literacy | Program Coordinator, Graduate Program in Early
Childhood,
Intervention, & Literacy | University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill

Michele Wallen, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, Department of
Health Education and Promotion | College of Health and
Human
Performance | East Carolina University
Makeba Wilbourn, Ph.D. – Assistant Professor, Psychology and
Neuroscience | Duke University
Michael Willoughby, Ph.D. – Senior Scientist & Statistician,
Frank
Porter Graham Child Development Institute | University of
North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
Adam Zolotor, M.D. – Vice President, NC Institute of Medicine
|
Assistant Professor, Department of Family Medicine |
University of
North Carolina School of Medicine
think tank members
Donna Breitenstein, Ed.D. – Health & Physical Development
Expert
Reviewer | Professor, Health Education | Coordinator, Health
Educa-
tion Program | Reich College of Education | Director, North
Carolina
School of Health Training Center | Appalachian State
University
Bridget Hamre, Ph.D. – Emotional-Social Development Expert
Reviewer | Associate Professor and Associate Director, Center
for
Advanced Study of Teaching & Learning | Curry School of
Education |

University of Virginia
Frederick Morrison, Ph.D. – Cognitive Development Expert
Reviewer | Professor, School of Education | Professor,
Department
of Psychology | Combined Program in Education &
Psychology |
University of Michigan
Kathleen Roskos, Ph.D. – Language Development &
Communication
Expert Reviewer | Professor, Department of Education and
Allied
Studies | John Carroll University
Margaret Sheridan, Ph.D. – Approaches to Learning Expert
Reviewer |
Research Associate, Developmental Medicine | Associate
Professor of
Pediatrics | Boston Children’s Hospital
Tom Schultz, Ph.D. – Project Director, Early Childhood
Initiatives |
Council of Chief State School Officers
Iheoma Iruka, Ph.D. – Scientist, Frank Porter Graham Child
Hill
Sharon Palsha, Ph.D. – Associate Professor, Early Childhood
Education |
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
nationaL expert reviewers

State Expert Reviewers | 31
Anna Carter – President, Child Care Services Association
Clair Greer – Consultant, Severe Intellectual Disabilities,
Autism, & Multiple Disabilities | NC Department of Public
Instruction
Caroline Hexdall – Consultant, School Psychology | NC
Lynn Loeser – Consultant, Learning Disabled/ADHD | NC
Lisa McIntosh – Consultant, K-5 English/Language Arts | NC
Heather Reynolds – Consultant, Positive Behavior Intervention
& Support | NC Department of Public Instruction
Sneha Shah-Coltrane – Director, Gifted Education & Advanced
Programs | NC Department of Public Instruction
Althea Taylor – District Transformation Coach | NC
Nadja Trez – Consultant, English as a Second Language | NC
Rowan-SaliSbuRy School SyStem
Alesia Burnette – Elementary & Title I Director
Christopher Smith – Principal
April Weaver – 3rd Grade Teacher
Lea Anne Thomas – Principal
Laura Jane Hunter – Kindergarten Teacher

Richmond county SchoolS
Debbie Wrenn – Principal
Wendy Jordan – Principal
Dawn Terry – Principal
Joyce McRae – Principal
Angela Watkins – Principal
Julian Carter – Principal
Joann Taylor – Kindergarten Teacher
Lora Lea Martin – Kindergarten Teacher
Charlene Vallance – 2nd Grade Teacher
Jackie Huggins – 2nd Grade Teacher
Amy Tadlock – AIG Teacher
Kim LeBerth – AIG Teacher
beRtie county SchoolS
Kristy Bracy – 1st Grade Teacher
Penny Price – 2nd Grade Teacher
Nicole Hayes – Instructional Coach
Mona Gilliam – Principal
maRtin county SchoolS
Susan Peele – Curriculum & Instruction Director
Susan Whitehurst – Kindergarten Teacher
Lizabeth Tiger – 1st Grade Teacher
Renee Griffin – 2nd Grade Teacher
Lori Dozier – 2nd Grade Teacher
Tammy Hayes – 3rd Grade Teacher
Serena Paschal – Principal
hickoRy Public SchoolS
Elizabeth Rollins – Pre-K Teacher
Cori Newman – Kindergarten Teacher
Hope Wike – Kindergarten Teacher
Stephanie Ashely – 1st Grade Teacher
Stacey Hoke – 1st Grade Teacher

Meredith Clay – 2nd Grade Teacher
Kim Heckler – 2nd Grade Teacher
Anna Gilbert – 3rd Grade Teacher
Melissa Park – 3rd Grade Teacher
wake county Public School SyStem
David Copperwheat – 3rd Grade Teacher
Jamie Gray – First Grade Teacher
Tommy Hager – P.E Teacher
Julie Zenkle – P.E. Teacher
Julie Scott – Assistant Principal
Brandon Mize – Instructional Resource Teacher
Stacy Bigham – K-5 Literacy
Cindy Seder – Assistant Principal
new hanoveR county School
Katie Griswold – Kindergarten Teacher
Muffy Smyth – Counselor
Kristi Harper – 2nd Grade Teacher
Paul Slovik – Assistant Principal
Kristine Branch – Intensive Behavior Support Teacher
aSheville city SchoolS
Meg Sanford – Kindergarten Teacher
Susan McMillan – Kindergarten Teacher
Juanita Mitchiner – 2nd Grade Teacher
Teah Hartman – 2nd Grade Teacher
Holly Gregg – 3rd Grade Teacher
Anne Hardy – District Coach
Ruafika Cobb – Assistant Principal
chaPel hill - caRRboRo city SchoolS
Carolyn Walker – Instructional Coach
Pat Hawkins – Intervention Specialist
Sharla Coleman – 2nd grade Teacher
Courtney Sears – 2nd grade Teacher

state expert reviewers
Cindy Bagwell, Ed.D. – RTT-ELC Project Administrator
Erika Beattie, M.Ed. – Region 6 RTT-ELC Education
Consultant
Nancy Costello, M.Ed. – Region 8 RTT-ELC Education
Consultant
Cindy Dewey, Ph.D. – Region 5 RTT-ELC Education Consultant
Darlene Germano, M.Ed. – Region 3 RTT-ELC Education
Consultant
Jami Graham, M.S.A. – Region 4 RTT-ELC Education
Consultant
Jody Koon, M.S. – Early Education Consultant
Karen Lounsbury, M.Ed. – Region 7 RTT-ELC Education
Consultant
Amy Scrinzi, Ed.D. – RTT-ELC Lead Consultant
Leslie Simmons, M.Ed. – Region 2 RTT-ELC Education
Consultant
Dan Tetreault, M.Ed. – RTT-ELC Lead Consultant
Catherine Woodall, M.Ed. – Region 1 RTT-ELC Education

Consultant
Christina Christopoulos, PhD. – Research Scholar
Mark Muenchau – M.P.P. Candidate
Jeff Quinn, M.P.H. – Research Analyst
Carol Ripple, Ph.D. – Senior Research Scientist
Katie Rosenbalm, Ph.D. – Research Scholar
ncdpi k-3 assessment staff
duke center for chiLd
& famiLy poLicy staff
Notes | 33
notes
notes

Assessment for Learning and Development in K-3A RepoRt by .docx

Assessment for Learning and Development in K-3A RepoRt by .docx

More Related Content

Similar to Assessment for Learning and Development in K-3A RepoRt by .docx (20)

More from galerussel59292 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessment for Learning and Development in K-3A RepoRt by .docx