Copyright © 1996 by Charlotte Danielson.
In 1987, Educational Testing Service (ETS) began a large-scale project to provide a framework for state and local agencies to use for making teacher licensing decisions. The resulting program is called The PRAXIS Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers®. Many states use PRAXIS I: Computer-Based Academic Skills Assessment and PRAXIS II: Subject Assessments to grant an initial teaching license. PRAXIS III: Classroom Performance Assessments is for use in assessing actual teaching skills and classroom performance.
I worked with ETS to help prepare and validate the criteria for PRAXIS III. The criteria were based on formal analyses of important tasks required of beginning teachers; reviews of research; analyses of state regulations for teacher licensing; and extensive field work that included pilot testing the criteria and assessment process (Dwyer and Villegas 1993; Dwyer 1994; Rosenfeld, Freeberg, and Bukatko 1992; Rosenfeld, Reynolds, and Bukatko 1992; Rosenfeld, Wilder, and Bukatko 1992).
My particular responsibility in the development of PRAXIS III was to design the training program for assessors. Because the PRAXIS system is used to license beginning teachers, assessors for PRAXIS III must be able to make professionally and legally defensible judgments. Indeed, throughout the pilot and field testing of both the instrument and the training program, the rates of interrater agreement were high.
As valuable as PRAXIS III is for states in the licensing of qualified teachers, I came to see its usefulness as extending far beyond that limited role. In training hundreds of assessors to use the PRAXIS III framework for assessing the teaching of novices, I witnessed the quality of the participants' conversation. It became clear that in their daily lives, educators have (or make) little opportunity to discuss good teaching. As participants watched videotapes and read scenarios of teaching during the assessor training, they had to determine how what they observed represented the application of the various criteria in different contexts. For example, they noticed that a kindergarten teacher's actions to help students extend their thinking were quite different from those employed by a chemistry teacher. And yet, both teachers might be extending their students' thinking; so both sets of action constituted examples of a particular criterion in different contexts.
As educators (particularly teachers) watched and discussed the videotapes with one another, they also engaged in side conversations or reflection about their own teaching. That is, they saw a teacher's action that they could adopt or adapt to their own setting. They heard a teacher phrase a question such that it provoked deep thinking by students—and they might determine to try something similar. Hence, as teachers went through the training program, they interacted with the activities on several different levels. On the surface, of course, they were preparing to become certified assessors, which meant that they had to pass a proficiency test. On a deeper level, they were finding that the conversations themselves were helpful and that their own practice would be changed as a result.
Because of its impact on their own teaching, many PRAXIS III assessors reported that the experience of training was some of the most powerful professional development they had ever participated in. It gave them a structured opportunity to discuss teaching with colleagues in a concrete and research-based setting. Such opportunities are indeed rare in our schools. A participant's statement expresses the thinking of many: "By participating in the PRAXIS III training, I have focused more on my own teaching. I have become more thoughtful in my teaching and more concerned that my instructional activities fulfill my goals." I, too, was changed by the experience. I developed a profound appreciation for the power of structured conversation to enrich the professional lives of teachers.
To restrict such conversations to those who serve as PRAXIS III assessors in states that choose to use that framework for licensing beginning teachers appeared to be too narrow an application. What about teachers in every state? What about those who already have their license? What about those who supervise student teachers or mentor beginning teachers? Wouldn't all those relationships and experiences be enriched by a comprehensive framework for teaching?
This line of thinking resulted in Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. The framework is based on the PRAXIS III criteria, augmented to apply to experienced as well as to novice teachers and used for purposes beyond the licensing of beginning teachers. It is a framework that will, I hope, enrich the professional lives of those who choose to use it.
Other work also influenced the development of the framework: documents from the standards committees of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS); work at the University of Wisconsin (Newmann, Secada, and Wehlage 1995); Michael Scriven's (1994) conceptions of teacher duties; and recent research on the pedagogical implications of constructivist learning. The framework has been subjected to a further intensive review by ETS colleagues: Carol Dwyer, Ruth Hummel, and Alice Sims-Gunzenhauser. The research foundation for the framework is provided in the Appendix.
The framework for teaching described in this book identifies those aspects of a teacher's responsibilities that have been documented through empirical studies and theoretical research as promoting improved student learning. Although not the only possible framework, these responsibilities seek to define what teachers should know and be able to do in the exercise of their profession.
In this framework, the complex activity of teaching is divided into 22 components clustered into four domains of teaching responsibility: planning and preparation (Domain 1), classroom environment (Domain 2), instruction (Domain 3), and professional responsibilities (Domain 4). Each component defines a distinct aspect of a domain; two to five elements describe a specific feature of a component. For example, Domain 2, "The Classroom Environment," contains five components. Component 2a is "Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport," which consists of two elements: "Teacher interaction with students" and "Student interaction." This component applies in some manner to all settings. But while teachers at all levels and in all subjects establish rapport with and convey respect for their students, they do so in different ways. Figure 1.1 summarizes the components and their elements; Chapter 6 describes them in detail.
|
Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1a: Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students
Component 1c: Selecting Instructional Goals
Component 1d: Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources
Component 1e: Designing Coherent Instruction
Component 1f: Assessing Student Learning
|
Domain 2: The Classroom Environment Component 2a: Creating an Environment of Respect and Rapport
Component 2b: Establishing a Culture for Learning
Component 2c: Managing Classroom Procedures
Component 2d: Managing Student Behavior
Component 2e: Organizing Physical Space
|
|
Domain 3: Instruction Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately
Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques
Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students
Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness
|
Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Component 4a: Reflecting on Teaching
Component 4b: Maintaining Accurate Records
Component 4c: Communicating with Families
Component 4d: Contributing to the School and District
Component 4e: Growing and Developing Professionally
Component 4f: Showing Professionalism
|
Although the components are distinct, they are, of course, related to one another. A teacher's planning and preparation affect instruction, and all these are affected by the reflection on practice that accompanies a unit and lesson. In addition, many features of teaching, such as the appropriate use of technology or a concern for equity, do not each constitute a single component but rather apply to them all. Chapter 3 identifies those common themes that apply to many of the components.
| The components of professional practice are a comprehensive
framework reflecting the many different aspects of teaching. |
A framework for professional practice is not unique to education. Indeed, other professions—medicine, accounting, and architecture among many others—have well-established definitions of expertise and procedures to certify novice and advanced practitioners. Such procedures are the public's guarantee that the members of a profession hold themselves and their colleagues to the highest standards. Similarly, a framework of professional practice for teaching is useful not only to practicing educators but also to the larger community, because it conveys that educators, like other professionals, hold themselves to the highest standards.
A framework for professional practice can be used for a wide range of purposes, from meeting novices' needs to enhancing veterans' skills. Because teaching is complex, it is helpful to have a road map through the territory, structured around a shared understanding of teaching. Novice teachers, of necessity, are concerned with day-to-day survival; experienced teachers want to improve their effectiveness and help their colleagues do so as well; highly accomplished teachers want to move toward advanced certification and serve as a resource to less-experienced colleagues.
The complexity of teaching is well recognized; a teacher makes over 3,000 nontrivial decisions daily. It is useful to think of teaching as similar to not one but several other professions, combining the skills of business management, human relations, and theater arts:
Business managers set goals for groups of subordinates and try to lead them toward accomplishing the goals. Such managers must allocate time and other scarce resources as they balance task and socioemotional considerations. They distribute rewards and sanctions to those in their charge. Similarly, teachers must motivate students to engage in learning; set goals and subgoals; manage time and other resources; and be accountable for the results.
Human relations work involves understanding the dynamics of a large group of individuals, each with a complex set of needs and desires. A teacher must also consider the range of individual personalities and take advantage of any opportunities for motivating students. In addition, a teacher must be able to connect with diverse students and establish relationships of caring and concern.
Theater arts include many types of professionals, such as director, stage manager, actor, set designer, and even playwright. Teachers must be the equivalent of all the theater arts components. And although a director can, for example, delegate responsibility for props and sets, a teacher must manage all materials. Moreover, teachers may have to follow a script they do not particularly like, and the "audience" is frequently not attending voluntarily.
Other metaphors come to mind. Teachers have been likened to orchestra conductors, gardeners, engineers, and artists. Indeed, depending on which aspect of the job one is considering, any of these references may be appropriate. Many metaphors include students, such as Theodore Sizer's "student as worker; teacher as coach." These metaphors remind us of the intellectual and emotional demands of teaching and the many, sometimes competing, aspects of the job.
But even more demanding than its complexity is the level of stress that teaching generates. Planning for the productive activity of 30 or more individuals (some of them present reluctantly) and successfully executing those plans, all within the context of multiple (and sometimes conflicting) demands from the school, district, community, and state, leave many teachers—particularly novices—buffeted, confused, or discouraged. The physical demands of the job are daunting, requiring enormous stamina. Most teachers leave school exhausted at the end of the day, knowing that their students will return the next day rested and ready for more. "Will I be ready?" teachers ask themselves. "Can I be ready? What will we do all day? How will I engage my students so that I can maintain control and they will learn something significant?"
A framework for professional practice offers the profession a means of communicating about excellence. Educators have learned the value of a common vocabulary to describe teaching. Because of Madeline Hunter's work, most educators know what is meant by "anticipatory set," "input and modeling," and "teaching for transfer." Now, as our understanding of teaching expands, we need a vocabulary that is correspondingly rich, one that reflects the realities of a classroom where students are engaged in constructing meaning. Such a framework is valuable for veterans as well as novices as they all strive to enhance their skills in this complex environment.
It is through serious, professional conversations about the components comprising the framework that the components are validated for any particular setting. As educators study the components and consider them within individual contexts, they can determine which components and elements are applicable and which are not. This process is critical to both enriching the professional lives of educators and to ensuring that the components used in a given setting actually do apply there. Only educators in that setting can make those determinations.
| By providing an agreed-upon framework for excellence, a framework
for professional practice serves to structure conversations among educators about exemplary practice. A uniform framework allows those conversations to guide novices as well as to enhance the performance of veterans. |
A framework for professional practice has many distinct though related uses. These are described briefly here and in greater detail in Chapter 5.
Most professions designate a period of apprenticeship for a novice practitioner. Doctors work as interns and residents before assuming complete responsibility for patients. Attorneys work as clerks for experienced lawyers or judges, and then join a firm or an agency where they practice with attorneys experienced in the different specialty areas. Social workers employed in public agencies work under supervision before they earn a license to practice on their own.
But teachers, from the moment they are awarded their first license, are considered full members of the profession. The responsibilities of a first-year teacher are just as complex (in some situations,more so) as those of a 20-year veteran. In very few locations do teachers have an experience equivalent to the internship of a doctor or social worker; they are plunged immediately into the full responsibilities of a teacher. Some solutions, such as professional development schools that include a full-year internship, are growing in popularity. They are still rare, however, partly because of their high cost.
Given the complexity of teaching, a map of the territory is invaluable to novices, providing them with a pathway to excellence. If the map is used well and shared by mentors, it can help make the experience of becoming an accomplished professional a rewarding one.
A framework for professional practice offers the teaching profession the same definition long afforded other professions. A framework answers the questions, "What does an effective teacher know?" "What does an accomplished teacher do in the performance of her duties?" A framework is useful for all members of the profession, from those just entering, to veterans who may have lost enthusiasm for their work, to master teachers who are trying to convey their wisdom to others. Thus far, educators have lacked an agreed-upon structure that reflects new understandings of teaching and learning and offers a context for describing and discussing excellence. They rarely devote precious time to professional dialogue and sharing techniques. A framework for professional practice can provide the structure for such discussions and an opportunity for genuine professionalism.
When novice teachers meet with their mentors or when experienced teachers consult with their coaches or supervisors, they need a framework to determine which aspect of teaching requires their attention. They must decide which part of all the complex elements of instruction reflected in any lesson to concentrate on. A framework for professional practice can provide such a structure.
Without a framework, the structure is reduced to something the mentor, coach, or supervisor has in her head, and thus reflects the personal beliefs that individual holds about teaching, regardless of whether these have ever been made explicit. Many teachers have had the experience of conducting what they thought was a brilliant lesson only to have a principal react negatively because, for example, students were talking to one another. The teacher and the principal did not share a common understanding of what represented effective teaching.
With a framework of professional practice in hand, however, participants can conduct conversations about where to focus improvement efforts within the context of shared definitions and values. These conversations can focus on means, not ends, and they can be conducted in an environment of professional respect.
An important step to enhancing the stature of educators in the family of professions is defining clearly what constitutes excellence in teaching. As long as practitioners present teaching as a mysterious art form without well-defined duties and competencies, the larger community will regard it with some mistrust. For example, many in the general public do not understand the need for teachers to attend courses and workshops: "They went to college, didn't they?" The clarity that a framework for teaching provides, including a component entitled "Growing and Developing Professionally" (Component 4e), can situate such activities squarely within the responsibilities of teaching.
| A framework for professional practice has important uses in the service of teaching and learning. These uses demonstrate the framework's power to elevate professional conversations that characterize the interaction of exemplary teachers everywhere. |
Even though educators have not yet fully exploited the use of a framework to structure dialogue about teaching, the concept of a framework for professional practice derives from a long and highly respectable tradition.
The origin of identified components of professional practice lies in a combination of Madeline Hunter's work and research in process-product and cognitive science. Hunter was one of the first educators to argue persuasively that teaching is not only an art but also a science; some demonstrable practices are clearly more effective than others. This idea was also the message of process-product research, which sought to establish relationships among certain teaching practices and enhanced student achievement, as measured by standardized tests (Wittrock 1986). The optimistic title of a book by Gage is instructive: The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching (Gage 1977). Identifying effective practices (and, in the case of Hunter, promulgating them) became the research focus in teaching during the 1970s and 1980s. Wittrock (1986) contributed to the collective knowledge base of educators by publishing the series Handbook of Research on Teaching.
Exactly how to use the results of this research became the next challenge for educators. On a statewide basis, Georgia took the lead and used the research to create a performance assessment system that awarded a permanent license to teach in the state. Other states (particularly in the Southeast) followed suit, with systems that were modeled on Georgia's and yet had their own distinctive features. By 1990, state performance assessment systems were in place in North Carolina, Florida, and Connecticut, with others proposed (but never implemented) in Kansas and Louisiana. By 1994, New York had started using a performance assessment system for licensure, and many different versions were piloted in California.
The earliest systems tended to identify specific teaching behaviors (e.g., writing learning objectives on the board) supposedly derived from the research on effective teaching, and to rate teachers on their demonstration of these practices. The later systems, particularly in Connecticut, adopted a more complex view of teaching and considered the quality of a teacher's judgment. For example, a Connecticut competency states that teachers should be able to "formulate meaningful questions about the subject matter." All state systems rely on the decisions that assessors make; the assessors, therefore, must be trained and certified to make both professional and legally defensible judgments in their assessments of teaching.
The performance assessment tradition was continued by Educational Testing Service in 1987, when it announced that it was creating a "new generation" of teacher licensing tests. Called The PRAXIS Series: Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers, the new assessments are intended to replace the widely used National Teacher Examination (NTE). The final phase of The PRAXIS Series is PRAXIS III: Classroom Performance Assessments. PRAXIS III uses the performance assessment of new teachers in their classrooms as part of the process to grant a permanent license. Trained and certified assessors conduct classroom observations and semistructured interviews with first- and second-year teachers. A nonlicensing outgrowth of PRAXIS III: Classroom Performance Assessments, called Pathwise, is now available for teacher training institutions and school districts.
Nationally prominent organizations have proposed sets of standards primarily for student teachers. For example, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) developed standards to be compatible with those of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). This combination has served as the foundation of standard-setting efforts in about 20 states. A correlation of the framework offered here and the INTASC standards is shown in Figure 1.2. Similarly, the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) and the National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) have both proposed standards for beginning teacher competencies. The standards are intended to guide colleges in the design or redesign of teacher education programs.
| INTASC Standard | Description of Teacher Performance | Framework Component | Description of Teacher Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principle 1 | Understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structure of the disciplines taught; creates learning experiences to make them meaningful to students. |
1a 1e 3c |
Demonstrates knowledge of content and pedagogy. Designs coherent instruction. Engages students in learning. |
| Principle 2 | Understands how children learn and develop; provides learning opportunities that support their development. |
1b 1c 1f 3b 3c |
Demonstrates knowledge of students. Selects instructional goals. Assesses student learning. Uses questioning and discussion techniques. Engages students in learning. |
| Principle 3 | Understands how students differ in their approaches to learning; creates instructional opportunities adapted to diverse learners. |
1b 1e 2a 2b 3b to 3e |
Demonstrates knowledge of students. Designs coherent instruction. Creates an environment of respect and rapport. Establishes a culture for learning. Instruction Domain. |
| Principle 4 | Understands and uses variety of instructional strategies. |
1d 1e 3b to 3e |
Demonstrates knowledge of resources. Designs coherent instruction. Instruction Domain. |
| Principle 5 | Creates a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction,, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. |
1e 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 3c |
Designs coherent instruction. Creates an environment of respect and rapport. Establishes a culture for learning. Manages classroom procedures. Manages student behavior. Organizes physical space. Engages students in learning. |
| Principle 6 | Uses knowledge of communication techniques to foster active inquiry, collaboration, and supportive interaction. |
2a 3a 3b 3c |
Creates an environment of respect and rapport. Communicates clearly and accurately. Uses questioning and discussion techniques. Engages students in learning. |
| Principle 7 | Plans instruction based on knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals. |
1a to 1e 3c 3e |
Planning and Preparation Domain. Engages students in learning. Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness. |
| Principle 8 | Understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies. |
1b 1f 3d 3e 4a 4b 4c |
Demonstrates knowledge of students. Assesses student learning. Provides feedback to students. Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness. Reflects on teaching. Maintains accurate records. Communicates with families. |
| Principle 9 | Reflects on teaching. |
4a 4d 4e |
Reflects on teaching. Contributes to the school and district. Grows and develops professionally. |
| Principle 10 | Fosters relationships with colleagues, parents, and agencies in the larger community. |
1d 4c 4d 4f |
Demonstrates knowledge of resources. Communicates with families. Contributes to the school and district. Shows professionalism. |
The latest player on the standards scene is NBPTS. It was created in 1988 following the publication of the report A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. NBPTS was formed to offer teachers the equivalent of advanced board certification in medicine. Just as a medical doctor earns an initial license to practice medicine and then passes a test for board certification in, for example, pediatrics, the theory of the national board is that teachers should be able to earn advanced certification in any of the subject matter areas or levels, for example, early childhood or high school mathematics. NBPTS plans to offer over 30 separate certificates to teachers on a voluntary basis.
The movement towards a framework for teaching has had, of course, parallel developments in student learning and assessment. Many states have embarked on a program of performance assessment of student learning in ways that better reflect the complex learning they intend for their students and that more authentically represent the application of school knowledge. Now used in Maryland, Vermont, Kentucky, and elsewhere, and under development in North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington State, these systems involve establishing curriculum frameworks and standards, benchmarks of student performance at different levels, and performance assessments aligned to these benchmarks. They also frequently engage teachers as trained assessors to evaluate student work.
The use of frameworks, whether to define and describe exemplary student performance, or to define and describe excellence in teaching, has produced powerful side effects. Even though the original purpose was to show accountability, practitioners themselves have enjoyed enormous benefits.
It has long been recognized that articulating clear standards for student learning, illustrated by examples of exemplary student work, enhances the quality of that work and students' sense of purpose. Teachers have discovered that when they are clear to students about criteria to evaluate a science project, for example, students are far more focused, and the resulting projects are of higher quality than without the criteria. Furthermore, students who might have believed that high grades were beyond their reach now see clearly how to achieve the grades.
The same phenomenon is at work with a framework for teaching. When teachers are beginning their careers, the challenge of becoming a skilled practitioner is daunting. Teaching is so complex and its various components so intertwined that many novices feel overwhelmed. A framework for teaching offers a structure to assess a teacher's practice and to organize improvement efforts. In addition, to implement teacher mentoring and licensing systems or to certify teachers under NBPTS, many educators must be trained as mentors or assessors. During such training, practitioners must think seriously about teaching, learn to recognize the various components in different contexts, and as a consequence, reflect deeply on their own practice. This reflection, conducted in a professional and supportive environment and in the service of another purpose (becoming a mentor or certified assessor), is an enriching experience. Practitioners report that the experience is their first opportunity in many years to discuss teaching seriously—in its complex entirety—with respected colleagues.
Using performance assessment presents many challenges, whether the goal is to evaluate teachers for licensure or to evaluate student learning for state accountability. We need to understand what these challenges are because they are relevant to the ways this framework can, and should, be used.
How do educators know that a given framework is valid, that it incorporates what is important about teaching? Educators can choose from many frameworks to use for discussion. The one they select must reflect their own assumptions and beliefs about teaching and learning. The framework for professional practice presented here is based on one developed from a solid research base (see Appendix); it also reflects important assumptions and beliefs (see Chapter 2). If these are convincing to educators, they will probably find that the framework provides useful guidance.
But we should also remember that for school and district use (as distinct from state use to license beginning teachers), the validity of a framework derives from the professional conversations that accompany its introduction into a school or district. Each component will be manifested differently in different contexts—8th graders, after all, are very different from kindergartners—and some components or elements may not apply in some settings. Validation of this type can only occur at the local level in the collegial environment that accompanies professional conversation.
Many large-scale assessment systems have found that with adequate training, independent assessors can make comparable judgments about, for example, a student's writing or the way a teacher conducts a class. Such systems have shown high levels of interrater agreement, which is considered critical to demonstrate the reliability of the system. This is principally a training issue; for individuals to make similar independent judgments, they must operate from a common vision and similar definitions of the evaluation criteria.
Of course, reliability can be increased by focusing on trivial, "low-inference" criteria. For example, if a criterion relates to whether a teacher writes the lesson objectives on the board, independent observers can easily agree on whether the teacher has done it. For more substantive criteria, such as the skilled use of questioning and discussion strategies (Component 3b), informed, independent observers can reasonably disagree to some extent.
Reliability is essential in a high-stakes environment. If an individual's teaching license depends on the results of several classroom observations, the assessors' judgments must be reliable. But if a frame- work for teaching is used within a school or district primarily for mentoring and coaching, with support and professional dialogue as the principal purpose, then interrater agreement is less critical.
Cost is another challenge. State licensing systems, NBPTS, and the state student assessment systems are all accompanied by a high price tag for development and, more important, operation. All features are expensive, from training assessors, to conducting assessments (for state licensing systems) or scoring sessions (for NBPTS and student assessment systems), to designing and implementing the information management systems. Sometimes cost has led to cancelling or scaling back systems.
Schools or districts using a framework for professional practice do not face the difficulty of high cost encountered by large-scale state or national systems. To make use of a framework for teaching, all participants must become familiar with the system and must incorporate its use with beginning or veteran teachers. These are functions that most schools or districts would implement as part of their mentoring, coaching, and professional development programs. In other words, using the framework for professional practice need not require an additional commitment of funds; it can simply improve the quality of a school or district's existing programs for improvement and renewal.
| The components of professional practice are part of a long
tradition of applying standards to both student learning and the complex role of teaching. Despite challenges, the benefits, particularly for school and district use, are enormous. |
Charlotte Danielson is an education consultant in Princeton, New Jersey. She has taught at all levels, from kindergarten through college; worked as a consultant on curriculum planning, performance assessment, and professional development for numerous schools and districts in the United States and overseas; and designed materials and training programs for ASCD, ETS, and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. She is the author of Enhancing Student Achievement (2002) and the coauthor with Tom McGreal of Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice (2000), and can be reached by e-mail at charlotte_danielson@hotmail.com.
|
About ASCD | Education
News | Reading Room | Training
Opportunities | Special Programs |