FinalDraft

Running head: LET K-2 STUDENTS PLAY 1
Let K-2 Students Play: Achievement of the Standards Requires a Foundation in Play-Based
Curriculum
Jessica Sullivan
Concordia University, St. Paul
ED 590 Conducting Research & Completing the Capstone, Cohort M2329
Dr. Kelly Sadlovsky
Samantha Schack, M.A.
June 16, 2016

LET K-2 STUDENTS PLAY 2
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………....4
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………….……………………...5
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………….……………………...5
Research Questions…………………………………………………….……………………...7
Scope of the Research……………………………………………….………………………...7
Importance of the Study……………………………………………….……………………....8
Summary…………………………………………………….………………..…………….....8
Connection to Grand Tour Question.……………………………………………………...9
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………….………………10
Legislation……………………….………………..………………………………………….10
No Child Left Behind……………………….………………..…………………………..10
Every Student Succeeds Act……………………….………………..…………………...11
Missing Link……………………….………………..……………………………………….14
Building the Foundation……………………….………………..…………………………...14
Cognitive……………………….………………..……………………………………….16
Social……………………….………………..…………………………………………...18
Emotional……………………….………………..……………………………………....19
Physical……………………….………………..………………………………………...20
Play-Based Curriculum……………………….………………..…………………………….21
Theory……………………….…………………………………………………………...21
Application……………….……………………………....................................................24
Chapter 3: Summary……………………………………………………………………………..28

Summary of the Main Points of the Literature Review……………………………………...28
Importance of the Topic……………………………………………………………………...29
Review of the Proposed Problem…………………………………………………………….30
Chapter 4: Discussion and Application…………………………………………………………..32
Application…………………………………………………………………………………...32
Insights Gained from the Research…………………………………………………………..33
Recommendation for Future Research……………………………………………………….34
References………………………………………………………………………………………..36

Abstract
The current ideal of American education is that all students must meet the state-mandated
academic standards so that students can become functioning members of society. This ideal is
demonstrated in the titles of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the most recent legislation,
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). NCLB and ESSA set the same standards for all, which has
led to uniform teaching, even though each student has different learning needs. NCLB and ESSA
also target only one aspect of a student: academics. The methods used to implement the
standards are not producing the desired results. Thus, another way of implementing the standards
is needed, a way that will create the foundation for all future success. The foundation for future
success is created during kindergarten through second grade and must focus on the four
developmental domains. The four domains are the cognitive domain, the social domain, the
emotional domain, and the physical domain. The four domains are targeted in the play-based
curriculum of early childhood education, which is based upon the theories of cognitive and social
psychologists. The successful implementation of a play-based curriculum in kindergarten
through second grade will enable students to meet the standards from kindergarten through 12th
grade and will provide students with the skills necessary to be a functioning member of society.
Keywords: achievement, executive function, Every Student Succeeds Act, play-based
curriculum, standardized tests

Chapter 1: Introduction
One ideal of American society, which has filtered down into our education system, is
achievement. Based on current legislation, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA), achievement in education is defined as meeting a set of standards in each
grade level, starting in kindergarten (Every Student Succeeds Act [ESSA], 2015; U.S.
Department of Education Office of the Secretary [ED], 2001). NCLB and ESSA give little
acknowledgement to early childhood education (birth to age 8. The way the legislation ensures
the achievement of the standards is through the use of standardized tests (ESSA, 2015). Teachers
have only been trained to get students to score at an acceptable level by teaching to the test,
which limits teachers’ ability to respond to the individual needs of the students. Teachers can
target the four developmental domains through the use of a play-based curriculum, which has
already been developed (Belinda, 2012; Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Bodrova & Leong, 2007;
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011; Gartrell, 2004; Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010; Helm, Beneke, & Steinheimer, 2007).
Definition of Terms
Before discussing the implementation of a play-based curriculum into kindergarten
through second grade (K-2) settings, the writer must define several terms to ensure the complete
understanding of the argument. Achievement is often synonymous with success. Use of the word
achievement can also signify a person showed ability superior to others through the use of skills
or means not typically used (“Achievement”, n.d.). For this paper, achievement does not require
superior abilities, nor is achievement synonymous with success. Therefore, achievement is
defined as the ability of a student to demonstrate proficiency on learning standards. Although
achievement is not defined as success, achievement is necessary for success in this argument.

The second term that must be defined is play-based curriculum. To those unfamiliar with
the term, the use of play suggests recess and after school clubs where students were allowed to
do whatever interested them, with no control from the teacher or other adults. The absence of
authoritative mandate or oversight implies that learning is not taking place, which is an
inaccurate assumption. Despite what the name implies, play-based curriculum is defined as an
approach to learning that recognizes the unique way in which young children learn by
implementing research-based practices that target all four developmental domains (National
Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2009). Students are allowed to play
and explore their own interests in a structured environment created by the teacher. The teacher
creates a structured environment by providing materials, opportunities, and experiences which
will enhance student’s learning. Further discussion of what a play-based environment looks like
will be presented in the literature review.
A key element of play-based curriculum is scaffolding, which is the next term that will be
defined. Scaffolding is part of Vygotsky's theory called the zone of proximal development
(Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010; Helm et al., 2007). The zone of proximal
development is the amount of support necessary for a student to accomplish a task, which ranges
from independent, the student requires no support, to frustration, and the student cannot
accomplish the task even with support (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010;
Helm et al., 2007). Scaffolding therefore is the support the teacher provides which enables the
student to accomplish the task.
The final terms that will be defined are the four developmental domains: the cognitive
domain, the social domain, the emotional domain, and the physical domain (NAEYC, 2009). The
cognitive domain not only includes the academic content, but also includes skills such as

executive function, critical thinking, attention, and memory (Center on the Developing Child at
Harvard University, 2011). The social domain involves interpersonal skills, language, and
communication, while the emotional domain includes the skills of regulation and self-awareness
or self-concept. Some theories combine the social and emotional domains into the social-
emotional domain, which retains all the skills as if the social and emotional domains were
separated (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). Finally, the physical domain deals with gross motor
skills and fine motor skills. In all four developmental domains the opportunity to explore through
play is evident.
ResearchQuestion
Past and current legislation relies on specific standards and standardized tests to improve
achievement, yet students are still not making adequate progress toward meeting the standards
(ED, 2001; ESSA, 2015). Thus, a new solution, which does not require changing the laws, needs
to be found, a solution which recognizes that success requires a solid structure built on a firm
foundation. The foundation starts in early childhood education, continues through second grade
and requires a play-based curriculum. Play-based curriculum provides a classroom structure in
which students can develop skills in the four developmental domains, which will help students
better meet the standards (Belinda, 2012; Gartrell, 2004; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010; Helm et
al., 2007). This argument will be structured around the research question: “How does the
integration of a play-based curriculum, which uses scaffolding, centers, and themes, into the
current K-2 educational environment provide a more solid structure for future success?” The
answer affects not only the current learning environment of K-2 students, but also the students’
future success and eventual impact on American society.
Scope of the Research

The research demonstrates that teachers can meet all the state mandated learning
standards, while also developing the social, emotional, and physical needs of students through
the use of a play-based curriculum in K-2 classrooms. NCLB, the 15 year old legislation, is the
legislation which governed K-12 public school functioning (ED, 2001). ESSA now governs K-12
public school functioning and mandates the use of standards at all levels K-12, but does not
mandate standardized tests until third grade (ED, 2001; ESSA, 2015). Therefore, K-2 teachers do
not need to focus on preparing students for standardized tests, which means K-2 teachers can
focus on the four developmental domains. Thus, the focus will be on K-2 and how K-2 teachers
can implement the standards through play-based curriculum, which helps students to better meet
the standards.
Importance of the Study
Students need to be well prepared for life as a citizen who needs skills in all four
developmental domains. Examples of skills within the four developmental domains include
communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and problem solving. The skills of filling in
blanks and answering test questions are not skills in any of the four developmental domains.
Filling in blanks and answering test questions are skills citizens use, but only for a few purposes.
Therefore, the focus of education should be on providing students with experiences which help
develop skills in all four developmental domains, which enables students to better meet the
standards. The classroom provides a safe environment in which the four developmental domains
can be developed and where students can then practice and hone these skills to ensure students
meet the standards and are well prepared to enter life as a citizen.
Summary

The current idea in American education is that achievement means passing a standardized
test, which will enable students to become functioning members of society upon graduation. The
current environment in K-2 classrooms is preparing students to pass a standardized test, but is
not preparing students to become functioning members of society. There is, however, a
classroom environment which would prepare students to meet the academic standards and
become a functioning member of society. The environment that prepares students to meet the
standards and become a functioning member of society is the play-based curriculum of early
childhood education. Play-based curriculum satisfies these conditions because play-based
curriculum targets the four developmental domains, creating the foundation necessary for all
future learning.
Changing the structure of today’s K-2 classrooms to incorporate all four areas of
development will also influence the grand tour question: “In light of early childhood theories,
philosophies, and current research in the field regarding best practice, what is the future of
programming and practice in early education?” (Sadlovsky, 2016, p. 11). Since the current
legislation does not require a specific way of teaching, play-based curriculum, which has been
effective in early childhood centers, should also be introduced to the K-2 setting. Play-based
curriculum is recognized in early childhood education as a research-based, developmentally
appropriate practice that provides a better structure and foundation for future success. Therefore,
play-based curriculum must be implemented in K-2 classrooms.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
Those involved in education and even those not involved in education are familiar with
standards, standardized tests, and achievement. Many are also familiar with how the media
portrays the contents of NCLB and will become familiar with the contents of ESSA in a similar
way. In contrast, few are familiar with play-based curriculum and the four developmental
domains. The following literature review will provide information on what is actually required of
schools, and therefore students, according to NCLB and ESSA. The argument will then be that
play-based curriculum in K-2 helps students to meet the standards and prepares students to be
functioning members of society better than the current teacher-centered environment.
Legislation
Elementary and secondary school systems were under the control of state and local
government until 1965 when the federal government gained more control through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Since 1965, the federal government has
attempted to update their control to reflect the changing nature of education and the needs of
society. The first major change, after 1965, came in 2001, when President Bush signed NCLB
into law. Most people would agree that the standards and standardized tests introduced in NCLB
were necessary. Most would also agree that those who cannot meet the standards need to be
provided with extra help to meet those standards. The formal education system of America must
be updated regularly, especially when the desired outcomes are not being realized, so that
students are prepared to compete in the world economy. These ideals are what guided President
Bush to create NCLB.
No Child Left Behind. Updates to ESEA started with NCLB in 2001, which attempted
to increase standards by giving the federal government more control in keeping schools

accountable for students’ scores on standardized tests. The areas in which the government gained
control fall under four categories within NCLB. According to a testimony by Rod Paige, the four
categories are “closing the achievement gap, empowering parents with choices, expanding
flexibility and reducing bureaucracy, and supporting improvement in key areas” (as cited in
Sullivan, 2014, p. 3). A form of accountability had to be implemented as a way to ensure the four
categories were being addressed. Standardized tests were determined as the appropriate measure
of accountability.
Increasing accountability to close the achievement gap appears to fulfill the front page
statement of NCLB which says “[t]he federal role in education is not to serve the system. It is to
serve the children” (ED, 2001, p. 1). However, what is actually occurring in classrooms
demonstrates that NCLB is not fulfilling the mandates. All students are expected to learn and
demonstrate learning in the exact same way, even though all students have different, individual
needs. A teacher knows that each student needs something different and needs individual
attention, but the teacher also realizes there is not enough time to teach what is needed. Even if
the teacher did manage to accomplish the dual task of differentiation in a timely matter and teach
all the standards, the student’s abilities are solely judged based on a standardized test. Teachers
know that standardized test results are only part of authentic assessment. The boundaries, which
have been created by schools, limit the teacher’s abilities to use other, more effective, authentic
ways of demonstrating student learning.
Every Student Succeeds Act. Sixteen years after the implementation of NCLB, the
desired outcomes of student learning are still not visible, which is why the ESSA was signed by
President Obama. Obama and congressional leaders recognized the weaknesses of NCLB and
attempted to fix the weaknesses in NCLB by giving more control back to the states. ESSA fixed

the weaknesses by allowing states to determine which approved standards to adopt and which
approved standardized test to use, instead of the federal government dictating to the entire
country (Klein, 2016).
While these standardized tests are required under ESSA, the current usage of
standardized tests is not mandated (ESSA, 2015). Currently, students in K-12 take a standardized
test once, or multiple times, a year in reading or language arts and mathematics. Some of these
students also take standardized tests in science. The emphasis that has been placed on passing
standardized tests has forced teachers in K-12 to teach to the test because teaching to the test is
seen as the only way to ensure that students pass. However, according to ESSA, standardized
tests are not required to occur every year and therefore teachers should not have to teach to the
test. The first requirement for standardized testing under ESSA applies to reading or language
arts and math and can be found in section 1111.b.2.B.v.I (ESSA, 2015). Section 1111.b.2.B.v.I
states that students are only required to take a standardized test in reading or language arts and
math once a year in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 9 through 12 (ESSA, 2015).
Therefore, students in K-2 are not required to take a reading, language arts or mathematics
standardized test. Section 1111.b.2.B.v.II of ESSA states that students are only required to take a
science standardized test once in grades 3 through 5, once in grades 6 through 9, and once in
grades 10 through 12 (ESSA, 2015). Therefore, students in K-2 are not required to take a science
standardized test. According to ESSA, “in the case of any other subject chosen by the State,
[standardized tests will] be administered at the discretion of the State” (ESSA, 2015,
1111.b.2.B.v.III). Therefore, standardized tests in social studies would only occur because the
state decided it was necessary. Thus, according to the federal government, students in K-2 are
not required to take any standardized tests.

Students in K-2 are taking standardized tests, even though the law does not require K-2
students to take standardized tests. ESSA states that “the same academic assessments used to
measure the achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students in the
State” (ESSA, 2015, 1111.b.2.B.i.I). Without reading the clauses that follow, which define
exactly which grades should be taking which standardized tests, section 1111.b.2.B.i.I above can
be interpreted to mean that all students, K-12, must take standardized tests in all subjects (ESSA,
2015). However, section 1111.b.2.B.i.I should be read in conjunction with the clauses that define
which grades should be taking which standardized tests. When read in conjunction, these clauses
are interpreted to mean that all students in the state, in the grades where standardized tests are
mandated, must take the same standardized test (ESSA, 2015). Thus, the federal government still
does not require K-2 students to take any standardized tests.
Finally, according to ESSA, assessment of students should include the use of “multiple
up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-
order thinking skills… in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks”
(ESSA, 2015, 1111.b.2.B.vi). Assessments which measure higher-order thinking skills are not
present in K-12, but according to the law, higher-order assessments should be present. Using the
same interpretation of section 1111.b.2.B.i.I from above, based on the law, higher-order
assessments should only be required in the grades and subjects which are mandated in sections
1111.b.2.B.v.I, 1111.b.2.B.v.II, and 1111.b.2.B.v.III (ESSA, 2015). However, early childhood
education research has demonstrated that higher-order assessments, such as portfolios and
projects, are developmentally appropriate for K-2 students and therefore would be a good
measure of academic progress in K-2 (Helm, Beneke, & Steinheimer, 2007). Higher-order

assessments are not mandated for K-2, but K-2 teachers should implement higher-order
assessments as a way to measure student progress.
Missing Link
Despite the newer legislation, students are still not meeting the standards because the
only major change to the current legislation was to give states more choice. Thus, the real
problem remains. The problem is not that the standards are unattainable or unrealistic; rather the
problem is the way in which the standards are being reached. Teachers and students feel pressure
to perform well or lose funding because of the legislation and teachers cannot see any other
options. Teachers and students alike are doing the best that can be done with the situations,
curriculums, and expectations that are being required. Therefore, while the changes were
necessary, the changes continue to be made through ineffective means. Sixteen years have gone
by between legislative updates and the results still are not visible, which means there needs to be
a completely new solution.
Early childhood education can provide the solution; a solution which changes the
implementation of the standards, not the content of the standards. There needs to be a radical
restructuring to the United States education system and the solution must come from those
experienced in teaching, who know what the real issues are, not from the federal government or
from any government agency. The root of the problem, which is not addressed by any of the
changes from NCLB to ESSA, is that students lack a solid foundation in development, which is
the missing link. Building a solid foundation in development begins in early childhood, from
birth through second grade. Therefore, if legislators, teachers, and parents want to see results, K-
2 must be considered part of early childhood education and must be taught as such.
Building the Foundation

Builders are not expected to start building the roof, then put in the walls, and finish by
laying the foundation because building from the top down would result in a building that is not
structurally sound and is on the verge of collapse. The builder would not even be able to finish
the project. To be structurally sound and useful, a building must have a solid foundation. When a
solid foundation is in place, the builder can then add the other necessary components. The same
is true for students and their ability to meet the standards. Students need to have a solid
foundation in development before being required to meet the standards, the walls and the roof.
Current legislation and practices, however, expect students to build the roof and the walls,
academic content and knowledge, before having a solid foundation in the four developmental
domains. Thus, students are not meeting the standards as expected and a collapse of the system is
evident.
Moving K-2 to early childhood education would enable teachers to use developmentally
appropriate practices, which would ensure that students have the proper foundation and skills
necessary to achieve the desired results in K-2 and in the future. Students need a solid and sound
foundation in development before trying to build the walls and the roof of academic content and
knowledge. In early childhood education, the foundation is created through cognitive, social,
emotional, and physical skills, also known as the four developmental domains. The four
developmental domains serve as the four corners of the foundation on which all other success
rests. Each domain contains specific skills, although some skills also apply to more than one
domain. For example, language and problem solving skills are part of the cognitive domain and
the social domain. The skills which overlap provide further support and structure to the
foundation, tightly bonding the foundation walls together.

Cognitive. Cognitive skills are the first cornerstone of the foundation. Typically,
academics are the skills within the cognitive domain. Academics are not the only skills within
the cognitive domain as there are many skills below the surface that are necessary to meet the
standards. The skills below the surface are similar to the air traffic controller of a busy
international airport with multiple runways and terminals and therefore dozens of arrivals,
departures, and planes to manage constantly (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard
University, 2011). The air traffic controller is solely responsible for managing the planes. If the
air traffic controller did not do their job, the airport would be chaotic. Mental processes are the
air traffic controller because mental processes control and manage the behavior and actions of
people. The consequences would not be positive if the air traffic controller stopped working for
even a second or two. The same negative consequences are true for students who have not
developed executive function because the focus of school was solely on academics.
Scientists have termed the underlying mental processes as executive function. Copple
defines executive function more specifically as the “managing and orchestration of many
cognitive functions” (as cited in Belinda, 2012, p. 1), which have frequently been grouped into
the three dimensions of working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive or mental flexibility
(Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011). The three dimensions include
skills such as “solving problems, focusing (attending), remembering, planning, gaining self-
control, reflecting, and reacting appropriately” (Belinda, 2012, p. 1). Scientists who study
executive function consider executive function to be the “biological foundation of school
readiness” (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011, p. 4) because executive
function “supports the process (i.e., the how) of learning… that enables [students] to effectively
and efficiently master the content (i.e., the what) of learning” (Center on the Developing Child at

Harvard University, 2011, p. 5). Thus, the process of learning and the skills developed while
using executive function are more important than the content students are learning. Students with
executive function know how to learn, enabling those students to continue to learn for the rest of
their life, which should be the real goal of American education.
Scientists in brain research and development have also determined the importance of
executive function skills, as well as the importance of daily opportunities to use executive
function (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011). Support must be
provided in order for executive function to develop because brain circuitry is being physically
created. Physically developing brain circuitry is accomplished through environments
“characterized by adult-child relationships (both within and outside the home) that guide children
from complete dependence on adult support to gradual assumption of the ‘executive’ role for
themselves” (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011, p. 6). The behavioral
sciences also recognize the importance of gradually decreasing support as a way to help develop
the cognitive skills of young students. The process of gradually decreasing support is called
scaffolding, which can also be defined as helping a student function at a higher level than that
student can function independently (Bodrova & Leong, 2007). The difference between where a
student can function independently and where that same student can function with support is
referred to as the zone of proximal development (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Heidemann & Hewitt,
2010; Helm et al., 2007). Vygotsky chose the word zone because development should be
conceived of as a continuum, rather than a specific point on a scale (Helm et al., 2007).
Scaffolding is a tool teachers use to purposely and strategically interact with a student to
bring the student’s working to a higher level (Belinda, 2012) and is a tool used in an environment
that supports the development of executive function. Another tool, which is similar to

scaffolding, is mediators. Mediators are physical objects, pictures or actions that remind students
of what task to do or how to do that task (Belinda, 2012). A third tool that develops executive
function is to provide opportunities for students to work, talk, and think out loud (Belinda, 2012;
Bodrova & Leong, 2003). One of the purposes of building language skills is to plan and reflect
on ideas (Belinda, 2012), which is another tool a teacher can employ to foster executive function
in students. The current environment in K-2, where students sit quietly and are expected to work
independently, uses few, if any, of the tools which develop executive function.
Social. The development of executive function in the cognitive domain requires the use
of language, “the instrument of shared understanding” (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010, p. 11).
Language is the basis for interacting with others and sets the second corner of the foundation, the
social domain, in place. Researchers agree that language will naturally develop, but language
development is enhanced in an environment where language is used meaningfully (Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010; Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp, 2000). Meaningful language interaction does not
have to be between an adult and a child. Meaningful language interaction can be a simple
conversation with a peer who has more developed language skills. Language skills follow the
same pattern as cognitive skills in that language also develops along a continuum (Neuman et al.,
2000). Language development can only occur if students are allowed to experiment with and use
language, which will not occur if in a teacher-centered classroom where the teacher spends most
of the time talking.
Language can include any set of pictures, drawings, gestures, symbols, or movements
with an ascribed meaning (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010; Tabors, 2008). According to Gartrell
(2004), nonverbal communications often communicate more about what is occurring in a
student’s life than the student’s verbal communications do. Students who have low language

abilities typically demonstrate more problem behaviors (Bulotsky-Shearer, Bell, Romero, &
Carter, 2012), especially if the student’s problems stem from something which is “beyond the
child’s ability to cope with and understand” (Gartrell, 2004, p. 12). The teacher’s job, therefore,
is to interpret the student’s uses of language and assist the student in learning appropriate ways
of communicating feelings or frustrations (Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser, 2002; Gartrell, 2004).
Emotional. The third corner of the foundation is the emotional domain. The connection
between language and being able to express feelings or frustrations is why the social and
emotional domains can be combined to form the social-emotional domain. For this argument
though, the social and emotional domains remain separate because both are of equal importance.
The emotional domain is separated into the regulation of feelings, thoughts, and actions, and the
expression of those thoughts, feelings, and actions (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). The emotional
domain is centered on students becoming self-controlled and self-disciplined through the
guidance of the teacher (Gartrell, 2004).
The emotional domain is necessary because society expects members to regulate and
control their emotions, which is what allows an individual to function correctly and properly
within society. Schools provide a safe environment where students can learn and practice social
skills, before students are required to use those social skills independently. Thus, students must
develop socially acceptable skills before finishing school and entering society. The issue is that
the emotional domain is not being taught, especially in K-2. Providing students the opportunity
to practice social skills in a safe environment is similar to Dewey’s (1909) analogy of teaching
someone to swim. Teaching someone to swim in the water is much more effective than teaching
someone to swim on land and then throwing that person in the water, hoping that person will be
able to swim (Dewey, 1909). If society expects members to “swim”, or regulate and express

emotions appropriately, then students must be allowed to practice “swimming” while in school.
Another benefit of students being able to practice regulating emotions in the classroom is that
teachers and other students can provide feedback, which helps students learn self-control and
regulation.
Physical. The final piece of the foundation is the physical domain. Most schools have PE
class and recess, which are times when students can use the physical domain. PE class and recess
are starting to be removed from the schedule because schools believe that recess time could be
better spent on studying for the standardized tests (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2010). By
shortening recess, the teacher has a few more minutes to guide the students on how to take a
standardized test or work one-on-one with a student who is struggling. What proponents of
shortening recess do not realize is that by shortening recess, there is actually a two-fold negative
effect. The first negative effect deals with students’ ability to focus. Young students have a lot of
energy. By shortening play time, energy is pent up instead of spent, which hinders the students’
focus back in the classroom. A recent survey of 1,951 principals, two-thirds of the principals
surveyed stated that students were more attentive and focused after recess (Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, 2010). Students were more attentive in class because students were able to
use up their extra energy at recess. Students can now focus on learning in class instead of
mismanaging their extra energy, which quite frequently results in behavior reprimands.
The second negative effect of reducing recess time is that students are not developing
gross motor skills and fine motor skills. Play is invaluable in helping young students build and
fine-tune the muscles used in motor skills. Gross motor skills are skills which require students to
use either one or more large muscle groups at a time. Gross motor skills include running,
jumping, climbing, and throwing, and gross motor skills can help students develop muscle

strength, muscle coordination, balance, and spatial awareness (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010).
Muscle strength and coordination are required for tasks such as sitting in a chair or sitting on the
floor. Thus, students without muscle strength and coordination have to focus on holding their
body up, instead of focusing attentively on what the teacher is saying. Fine motor skills, which
include writing, cutting, and hand-eye coordination, assist students in similar ways (Heidemann
& Hewitt, 2010). A student who lacks fine motor skills might have trouble holding a pencil,
which means writing will be difficult. Therefore, the student will quite likely refuse to write.
Teachers who do not recognize the underlying problem, the student lacks fine motor skills, might
attribute the student’s reluctance to not understanding or failure to comply, which complicates
the situation by not solving the problem, therefore, hindering actual learning.
Play-Based Curriculum
Reviewing the skills within the four developmental domains reveals that academics,
while being one of the domains, is not the end goal of education. When academics is made the
sole focus of education, growth and progress toward meeting the standards is impeded. The
problem is not that there are academic expectations; the problem is the tendency to focus only on
the academic expectations and not the other developmental skills. Thus, the question needs to be
asked: How would the educational environment, in which all four domains are equally
developed, look? Would it be possible? The answer, as early childhood educators know, is play-
based curriculum.
Theory. Play-based curriculum is based on a variety of theories, which all value play and
which all have the same end result of creating a solid foundation on which future learning can be
built. The difference is found in the terms used and the path of development which is believed to
occur. The theories are divided into two main categories of thought: the psychodynamic theories

and the cognitive theories (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). The psychodynamic theories believe
that children use play as a way to express fears, frustrations, and negative feelings (Heidemann
& Hewitt, 2010). Thus, play is the outlet in which students can deal with emotions and feelings
that are too big to verbally express. Thus, parents and teachers need to observe each student at
play to help determine what emotions and feelings each student is experiencing.
There are three cognitive theories based on the works of Piaget, Bruner, and Vygotsky.
Piaget is known for his distinct stages in play that reflect the understanding of a student
(Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). Piaget’s distinct, age related (McLeod, 2008), stages are the
sensorimotor stage, the preoperational stage, the concrete operational stage, and the formal
operational stage (Huitt & Hummel, 2003). Egocentric thought is a characteristic of the first few
stages because students are focused on their own wants and needs. As students progress through
Piaget’s stages, play increases students’ ability to think and reason abstractly, which decreases
their egocentric thinking (Huitt & Hummel, 2003). Bruner, however, views play as a way for
children to experiment in social situations without “any real-life consequences” (Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010, p. 7). Bruner’s theory does have stages, but unlike Piaget, the stages are
“integrated and only loosely sequential [because the stages] ‘translate’ into each other”
(McLeod, 2008, p. 1). Bruner’s stages are the enactive stage, defined by muscle memory; the
iconic stage, defined by images; and the symbolic stage, defined by language (McLeod, 2008).
Bruner’s theory is also different from Piaget’s theory because of Bruner’s emphasis on the
environment and the use of scaffolding. Lev Vygotsky, the author of the third cognitive theory,
also emphasizes the importance of scaffolding (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010), but is different
from Bruner’s theory because of the zone of proximal development.

Although variety exists in the psychodynamic and cognitive theories, there are some
common elements of play-based curriculum. The first common element is a child-centered focus,
which structures the classroom to allow students to explore different themes in their own way, at
their own pace, and at their own ability level. A child-centered classroom is structured differently
than the traditional teacher-centered classroom where the teacher is at the front giving directions,
and making choices for the students. In a teacher-centered classroom, the role of learning is on
the teacher. In comparison, in a child-centered classroom, the teacher’s role is to provide
activities and materials that promote play by engaging and maintaining the student’s attention for
an extended period of time. The focus of learning is now on the student. The teacher is left to
observe, assess, and coach students in a more meaningful one-on-one approach (Bodrova &
Leong, 2003).
Meaningful one-on-one time is the second common element of play-based curriculum
and occurs in two ways. First, more one-on-one time naturally occurs when students interact with
the teacher, because the teacher can focus on the individual needs of students (Bodrova & Leong,
2003). The teacher also does not have to continue refocusing the students at other centers
because those students are actively engaged in individual learning. Thus, the time spent one-on-
one is more productive. Using time more productively also allows for shorter interaction times
and thus the teacher can meet with more of the students (Bodrova & Leong, 2003). The second
way that more meaningful one-on-one interaction occurs is through scaffolding the students’
play. Instead of taking a student out of play to work on a skill, the teacher enters the play
situation and tries to encourage the student to use a certain skill (Helm et al., 2007). Teachers can
encourage students to use a certain skill by “questioning, demonstrating, and modeling”

(Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010, p. 6). If modeled correctly and frequently over time, the student
will be able to perform that skill independently, requiring the teacher to scaffold a different skill.
Application. The psychodynamic and cognitive theories and terms translate into practical
applications within the classroom environment. Before the specifics of the environment can be
addressed, two elements must be present: having enough time and having enough space
(Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). There is debate about how long enough
time is, as some say that 50 to 60 minutes is necessary (Bodrova & Leong, 2003). Others, like
Johnson, Christie, and Wardle, say that only 30 to 40 minutes is necessary (as cited in
Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). The purpose of having an extended period of play time is so that
students have time to create the setting, decide on roles, and work out conflicts, while still having
enough time to engage in and extend play (Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Heidemann & Hewitt,
2010). Therefore, teachers should plan a minimum of at least 30 minutes for play, twice a day,
but still recognize the need to be flexible and extend the time if students are still actively
engaged in a play sequence.
Classroom environments must also provide students with enough space to play. Unlike
the element of time, the element of space does not have specific parameters because the amount
of space depends upon several factors. Teachers must consider how many students are going to
use the area based on the theme and how many roles can be made from that theme (Bodrova &
Leong, 2003). Smaller spaces can cause fights and problems, but having a space that is too large
might encourage rough play that would be more appropriate in an outdoor setting (Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010). Teachers can help students know where and how big the play area is by using
shelves, cabinets, boxes, or tables to define the space (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). Teachers
also need to remember that students can use the outdoors as a space to play (Heidemann &

Hewitt, 2010). Finally, when considering how to structure the space in a classroom, teachers
need to ensure that all the materials are visible and easily accessible when students enter a play
area (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010).
Once the time and space elements are present, the next step is to structure the allotted
lesson around a theme. Themes can be taken from a variety of real-life scenarios: community
jobs or events or from student interests, inquiries, or books. In K-2, the themes might also be
taken from the science and social studies standards. There are two different ways in which
themes can be structured in a classroom environment. The first classroom environment has
centers around the room, which allow students to explore the theme through all the modalities
(Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). With firemen as the theme, students might read books about being
a firefighter at the reading center. At the writing center, students can write about what was
learned, write a letter to a firefighter, or write about being a firefighter. Students could identify
which ladder the fireman needs to reach the burning building or determine how many buckets of
water the fireman needs to put out the fire as math practice. The dramatic play center would
allow students to dress-up like a fireman and act out different scenarios that a fireman might
encounter. By including books, writing materials, and non-realistic props in the dramatic play
center, students could further expand on the topic and create their own scenarios using their
imagination (Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010).
The second environment is based on design thinking and constructivism, which starts
with a topic that students seem to be interested in (IDEO, 2012; Helm et al., 2007). The whole
class then participates in creating the chosen theme throughout the entire classroom (Bodrova &
Leong, 2007; Helm et al., 2007). While students are working, teachers also need to remember the
importance of highlighting the roles that people play in the setting (Bodrova & Leong, 2003).

The examples for implementing play-based curriculum using design thinking are only limited by
the imagination of the students and what the teacher will allow students to do. Examples of
themes include turning the classroom into a restaurant, a zoo, a movie theater, a house, or an
airport.
Although there is much variation in the themes, and therefore what the end products will
look like, there is a common process that should be followed. There should be a planning stage, a
creating stage, an implementation stage, and a reflection stage (Bodrova & Leong, 2003;
Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Helm et al., 2007). During the planning stage, the theme, along with
the key components, such as people, supplies, and structures, needs to be identified and a list of
materials needs to be created (Bodrova & Leong, 2003). Planning the theme requires skills such
as critical thinking to identify the components; writing to make a list; drawing to make a sketch;
and communication for sharing and agreeing on ideas. The creating stage is next and is when
students start building their design, which should also include revising and making changes as
necessary (IDEO, 2012). The creating stage begins with the skills of critical thinking, writing,
and communication, but adds skills such as reading the lists and sketches; fine and gross motor
movements to put materials together; and content knowledge for measuring and adding details.
The third stage is that of implementation which is when students are able to test out what
has been created. Parents (Helm et al., 2007) or other classes could be invited to observe or
tinker with the creation. The students could also play with the creation. Implementing the
creation mostly requires the skill of communication, but could also require reading, writing, and
content knowledge, especially if the visitors ask questions about what students learned. Finally,
students must reflect on the whole process and what could be improved for next time, as well as
what was learned in the process (Helm et al., 2007). Reflection requires critical thinking skills

such as metacognition, organization, and self-awareness, as well as writing to document
students’ ideas.

Chapter 3: Summary
Play-based curriculum is a method of teaching that allows the students to have input into
the content being learned and how the content is learned. Students are allowed to create their
own understandings and work in a way that meets their needs, while still meeting the standards.
The standards are met because the teacher has the responsibility to make observations and then
scaffold what the students are doing to meet the standards (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010; Helm et
al., 2007). Using play-based curriculum to structure a classroom requires a different way of
thinking and planning, but the result is success for all students. Implementing a curriculum that is
child-centered and uses scaffolding also allows students to practice and gain skills in the four
developmental domains, which serve as the foundation for future learning and success.
Summary of the Main Points of the Literature Review
The only requirement for K-2, under NCLB and ESSA, is that academic standards must
be used to guide teaching because despite popular belief, standardized testing is not a
requirement, in any subject, until third grade (ED, 2001; ESSA, 2015). Therefore, K-2 teachers
do not need to focus their instruction on preparing students to pass the standardized tests. K-2
teachers’ instruction can instead focus on providing students with a solid foundation in the four
developmental domains, which will prepare students for the upcoming standardized tests and for
the students’ role as a member of society (Belinda, 2012; Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Bodrova &
Leong, 2007; Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011; Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010; Helm et al., 2007; NAEYC, 2009). The lack of recognition of the four
developmental domains, not the standards, is the issue and needs to be addressed on a public
level.

Early childhood education recognizes that the four developmental domains should guide
teaching in K-2 and that the developmental domains serve as the foundation on which students
can structure all future learning. The cognitive domain provides students with the executive
function skills necessary to carry out tasks in all the other domains (Belinda, 2012; Center on the
Developing Child at Harvard University, 2011). The social and emotional domains are necessary
for helping students learn to collaborate and regulate their emotions (Bulotsky-Shearer et al.,
2012; Gartrell, 2004; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). The physical domain threads through the
other three domains because the physical domain provides students with the motor skills
necessary to carry out tasks, such as holding a pencil and sitting in a chair.
Play-based curriculum provides a classroom structure which supports all four
developmental domains. Play-based curriculum is based on the work of several cognitive and
psychodynamic theorists, including Vygotsky, Bruner, and Piaget (Bodrova & Leong, 2007;
Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010; Helm et al., 2007). The structure of the environment may vary
depending upon which theory is used, but the content of the teaching will be based on a theme.
The first environment uses different centers throughout the room where students can interact
with different materials in different ways, usually targeting an academic skill. The second
environment allows the class to create a project based on a topic of interest. Although there are
two different ways of structuring the environment, there are two shared characteristics. The first
characteristic is that the environment is child-centered, which means that students are allowed to
explore topics of interest in their own way and at their own pace. The second characteristic is
that the teacher is responsible for working with students at whatever level the student is working
at and guiding that student to meet the standards.
Importance of the Topic

The purpose of education is to prepare students to become part of society, which requires
high standards and a way to demonstrate mastery of those standards. As Jean Piaget stated “The
principal goal of education in the schools should be creating men and women who are capable of
doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have done; men and women who
are creative, inventive and discoverers, who can be critical and verify, and not accept, everything
they are offered” (“Critical Thinking Quote”, 2013, p. 1). Being creative and inventive requires
skills which are not academic in nature. Students cannot be expected to learn non-academic skills
without practice and the classroom provides the appropriate setting in which students can
practice non-academic skills. With the emphasis being placed on academics though, non-
academic skills are not being taught or practiced. Therefore, an appropriate solution must be
found and implemented.
Review of the Proposed Problem
NCLB was passed because of the need for high standards in education, so that students
can become functioning members of society. The problem is that with the introduction of NCLB,
the typical K-2 classroom began to look like this: students are sitting in chairs at tables, in neat
rows, with a pencil in hand and a worksheet on the table. Small students dangled their feet, not
even touching the floor. The worksheets are all exactly the same photocopy, which means that
the teacher just taught the same lesson to all students, regardless of whether all students already
understood the lesson’s objectives or not (Larson, 2007). Frequently, the same teacher can be
found sitting at a kidney-shaped table with a small group of students working on a reading skill,
again by having the students fill out a worksheet (Afflerbach et al., 2011). Neither curriculum
provided resources or materials which allow students to explore and create their own meanings

and understandings about the topics. The content is solely based on what the teacher decides
should be learned (Afflerbach et al., 2011; Larson, 2007).
The teacher knows that each student is unique and has individual needs. However, the
mandate to teach all of the standards, have students perform well on standardized testing, and
deal with a set number of students, along with the fact that all these expectations must be
accomplished in a small amount of actual teaching time, causes the teacher to feel as if she does
not have much choice but to use what she has been given. She might recognize the need to also
teach social, emotional, and physical skills, but she has not been provided with a way in which to
teach social, emotional, and physical skills without diminishing the importance of academics.
Therefore, the alleged problem is found in the concept that today’s students in K-2 are not
receiving proper instruction in the four developmental domains on which all other success is
built (Belinda, 2012; Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Center on the Developing Child at Harvard
University, 2011; Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010).

Chapter 4: Discussion and Application
A change in the expectations is not the necessary fix; what is necessary is a change in the
environment where the expectations are cultivated. Changing the structure of the classroom
environment requires understanding John Dewey’s (1909) statement that separating learning and
doing has created a separation between instruction and character building. There is however, a
way that exists that would heed Dewey’s (1909) warning, allowing the teacher to meet all the
district-wide expectations and all the individual needs of the students through the use of play-
based curriculum. A new mindset must occur on a number of levels. First, K-2 should be
recognized by the government as part of early childhood education, instead of elementary
education. Secondly, making K-2 part of early childhood education would require a reshaping of
the teacher’s mindset because play-based curriculum, which changes the path used to reach the
expectations, would be used. Without the reshaping of these simple, but fundamental mindsets,
K-2 is doomed to stagnate.
Application
When K-2 is part of early childhood education and play-based curriculum is being
implemented, a revisit to the K-2 classroom would show a noticeable difference: three, maybe
four, students are sitting in chairs at desks. On the desks, instead of identical worksheets, there
are different kinds of paper, scissors, glue, crayons, colored pencils, and markers (Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010; Neuman et al., 2000). Student movement is fluid and is connected to choice, which
means that students can choose to be at a specific center or activity and the students can choose
when to leave. Around the room, several students are gathered around a box filled with flour,
digging and sifting the flour through their fingers. In another center, some students are sitting on
the carpet quietly reading and discussing the story. While at another center, some students are

putting on dress-up clothes and pretending to be firefighters (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010). The
teacher is sitting at an easel with a student who is painting a picture.
To the untrained eye, the classroom above could not be an academically successful K-2
classroom because all the activities appear to be fun and games. A classroom that allows students
to guide the learning has piqued the interest of students, challenging students to explore and
experience the world in ways students have not had the opportunity to do before. The trained
early childhood educator can see that a child-centered classroom is alive with learning that
applies to more than just getting students to pass a standardized test (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010;
Helm et al., 2007; Neuman et al., 2000). The students at the tables, with all the craft supplies, are
learning that the purpose of writing is to communicate. These same students are also practicing
writing the alphabet, sounding out words by blending sounds, and collaborating (Heidemann &
Hewitt, 2010; Neuman et al., 2000). The students gathered around the box are not just digging in
and playing with flour. The cognitive purpose of the activity is to find sight words hidden in the
flour and when a student finds a word, he or she must read the word. Digging in the flour also
improves the students’ fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination and allows students to
experience a world of textures, which is the physical purpose of the activity. All of these
activities look like just fun and games but through their play, students are building on the
structures of the four developmental domains in ways that worksheets cannot. The list is endless
for the academic content that K-2 students can learn through play, as well as all the other
developmental skills that K-2 students can learn (Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010).
Insights Gained from the Research
The research has shown, as in the example above, that students would be able to better
meet the academic standards if play-based curriculum was implemented in K-2 classrooms. Play-

based curriculum provides a classroom structure that allows teachers to incorporate the four
developmental domains, which include academics. The developmental domains help prepare
students to pass the standardized test, but more importantly, the developmental domains help
prepare students to become functioning members of society. Therefore, the conclusion is that the
way of implementing the standards and standardized tests needs to change. The change in
implementation of the standards needs to occur in K-2 classrooms because standardized tests are
not required in those grades.
Recommendation for Future Research
To measure the impact of using play-based curriculum in K-2 classrooms, short-term
longitudinal studies should be conducted. The studies should follow students from kindergarten
through fourth grade to compare the type of kindergarten environment to achievement on the
standardized tests. Fourth grade should be used because students will have taken the standardized
test once in third grade and will therefore be familiar with how the standardized test works,
ensuring that the results are measuring student achievement, not test-taking ability. These studies
would provide feedback on the effects that play-based curriculum has on achievement.
With the focus on standardized testing and data, there is a gap in qualitative studies of
students’ development. Thus, more studies need to be conducted that use an assessment tool
which measures all four developmental domains, especially in K-2. These tools already exist in
early childhood education, so tools would not need to be created. These qualitative assessments
would provide a way to measure the foundation that is necessary for the achievement desired on
standardized tests. Ideally, the studies would be conducted by a variety of different groups, such
as those with a K-12 background versus those from an early childhood education background.

More longitudinal research also needs to be conducted comparing the current K-2
environment and the play-based K-2 environment. These studies need to follow students from
kindergarten to their expected entrance into the workforce and possibly for a year or two after.
‘Expected entrance’ should be calculated using the typical number of years in grades K-12, plus
4 years for the typical number of years in postsecondary education. Success should be based on
several different assessments. While in K-12 education, student success should be measured by
the standardized tests. While in university, student success should be measured using factors
such as grades, staying in school, and changing majors. Upon entering the workforce, a survey
should be conducted with questions about the quality of the student’s life, including their job,
where the student lives, and with whom the student lives. The students in these studies could be
taken from the short-term studies mentioned above.

References
achievement. (n.d.). Dictionary.com nabridged. Retrieved June 09, 2016 from Dictionary.com
website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/achievement
Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame'enui, E., … Wixson, K.
(2011). Reading street common core. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from
http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PS1gC9
Belinda, C. (2012). Executive function: Under the broad umbrella of thinking and learning. Penn
State Better Kid Care Program.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2003). Chopsticks and counting chips: Do play and foundational
skills need to compete for the teacher’s attention in an early childhood classroom? Young
Children, 58(3), 12-19.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Bulotsky-Shearer, R. J., Bell, E. R., Romero, S. L., & Carter, R. M. (2012). Preschool interactive
peer play mediates problem behavior and learning for low-income children. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 53-65. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2011.09.003
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2011). Building the brain’s “air traffic
control” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function:
Working Paper No. 11. http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu
Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002). Improving the social communication skills of at-
risk preschool children in a play context. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
22(1), p. 3-13.
Critical thinking quote: Jean Piaget - ProCon.org. (2013, July 23). Retrieved June 06, 2016, from
http://www.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005370

Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Every Student Succeeds Act, S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015).
Gartrell, D. (2004). The power of guidance: Teaching social-emotional skills in early childhood
classrooms. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/Delmar Learning.
Heidemann, S., & Hewitt, D. (2010). Play: The pathway from theory to practice. St. Paul, MN:
Redleaf Press.
Helm, J. H., Beneke, S., & Steinheimer, K. (2007). Windows on learning: Documenting young
children’s work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Educational psychology interactive: Cognitive development.
Retrieved June 09, 2016, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/
Piaget.html
IDEO. (2012). Design thinking for educators.
Klein, A. (2016, March 31). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Retrieved
May 14, 2016, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/
Larson, N. (2007). Saxon math™. Retrieved May 22, 2016, from http://www.hmhco.com/shop/
education-curriculum/math/saxon-math#features-complete-k12-math-solutions
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Bruner. Retrieved June 2, 2016, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/
bruner.html
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8.
Washington D.C.
“No child left behind”: A blueprint for education reform before the House Budget Committee.
(2001) (testimony of Rod Paige). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED452569

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (2010). The state of play: Gallup survey of principals on
school recess.
Sadlovsky, K. (2016). Conducting research and completing the capstone [syllabus]. Department
of Education, Concordia University- St. Paul, St. Paul, MN.
Sullivan, J. (2014). Play-based curriculum: New definition for the 21st century curriculum.
Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University, St. Paul.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Secretary. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED447608

FinalDraft

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FinalDraft

Similar to FinalDraft (20)

FinalDraft