Spirit-baptism : a biblical investigation PDF
Preview Spirit-baptism : a biblical investigation
ee us i s are trd. Plea ke eaert ge bry ins Report on Draft 4 of the Standards Paall s. ent ed ting filesetbeen acci al typhave ginay National Research Council he oriors m Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education m terr International Technology Education Association (ITEA) Standards Review Committee k, not froographic October 28, 1999 op oy er bme t p ao ps original ed, and he ain m tret oe ed frat bnnot ea es crer, c L filwev Mo Xh m g, ed fromattin en recomposg-specific forn. eno the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi National Academy Press About this to the origiuse the pri ee us ii s are trd. Plea es. Page breakally insertedent NboTpcoefrhOo rmtischsT me earId erCeceupnoE rodtme:srr s tTamt ahwhhipaaetnptst ep rwfbeorre ooivrlemjeleen sdac pt srtbhoes tyeivnhs istNate ihttbwa heilts eeeiN od tifhn RnoieansrC lt s itd’Athusureb actR jifareoteed cnfppeto o omiornrrmftyt mt Rw ohbaefeiyks vr S eiiirnnce ecgiwdpeh ion tvoChrcistedoee wusmnp,a ua mftlsbohs i lreacti tpsthNehhpoeeears.iodt eriTv onrsheen pfedpaeo olpcbr r Aiuyttahr clatpe hascoide ross emeodGm uiopovnyfeved tretoe hsrafneni sscE i p enpinensgogr d sasiBsenpnipoeedbeeac lwnrertiid dnvia tegeonhns,fd t ra ta etrhnnogeedd va e Nritntedhesaw ecuft hio rIoinenrsn i satctathopialta pluRpt re troetexohps pvoeerei fiadra rreMtetcipe shc eoeb adrC,ant ii locdnmaiui nndaencec ecae.cti n.sTlo, d rihwn decsah rtmnioittcisueceemta iwmlobnieetarhmls- ting filesetbeen acci stroetap pnordrotat:redcst fthoBero oinnbntjeieegc rtBiitvryui tnoykf, hethoverids dte,e nDlcibeee,p raaanrttdimv reee npstpr ooocfn esSsicvsi.e eWnneceses ,w tMois ahtht hteo as tnthudad nTyk ec cthhhaenr gofoelol. lgToywh Eein drgeu vciniaedtwiiov ncid,o uDmaemlps eafnrottrms teahnnetdi r o dpfr aaGrfteti comilpoaagntiuicosanclr iSinpc tti herenem creeasvi,ni Ce cwaol niofffoi drthneiinsatial al typhave SSthaatreo Un nBivruesriscit, yT, eScahnn oBleorgnya rEddinuocation Program, Virginia Tech University originmay SPeatmer F Hlo.Rrmavaenn, ,K Mreiisssloeur rBi oBrogt aFnloicraml aGna Crdoennstruction Company, Scarsdale, New York he ors BTherotm Ka.sW Wairtisg, hDt,e Cpaernttmere nfot ro Ifm Mpalethmeemnatitnicgs T, Techhen Oolhoigoy S Etadteu cUantiiovne,r Dsiteypartment of Industry and Technology, Ball State University m terr While the individuals listed above have provided constructive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the ok, not fropographic fSmeinunecpanelpd ocFaorottinu oftnnoedsnr atte thoxiiofps n rtpe.hrsioss ejredec pti now rttah rsie sps rtreso pveoindrttei rader lbey y twh tohitsehe N tohafe tti ahouen tamhlo eSrmicnibegen crcsoe mo Ffmo tuhitnet edceao tamionmnd i(ttuhtenee di nearsn tgditr udatoniot n nno.ot. n EeSceI-s9s6ar2i6ly8 0re9f)l.e Actn tyh eo pviineiwosn so,f f tihned iNngasti,o onra rl eSccoim-- er bome ty © 1999 the National Academy of Sciences p ao ps original ed, and he ain m tret oe ed frat bnnot ea es crer, c L filwev Mo Xh m g, ed fromattin en recomposg-specific forn. eno the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us iii s are trd. Plea ke eaert ge bry ins Paall s. ent ed ting filesetbeen acci al typhave ginay orim he ors m terr The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished k, not froographic stCecochhnongloarelrossg se yin nag na1dg8 e6tod3 ,ti hnthe sierc Aiuescneat idffoeirc m tahyne d gh eeannsge ari anmle waenreidlnfagatr ere e.t shUeaapt rorcneh qt,hu deier aedusi ctihato tteroid tay td oov fti hstheee ft hucehrt ahfreetderrae nrgacrlae ng otoefv dse ctroine mint cebeny ta tonhnde op er bome ty scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. p ao ps The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy original ed, and othfe S sceileenccteiosn, aosf a i tpsa mraelmlelb oerrgs,a snhizaaritniogn w oift ho uthtset aNnadtiinogn aeln Agicnaedeersm. yIt oisf Sauctioennocemso tuhse irne siptso andsmibiinliitsyt rfaotrio and vanisdi nign he ain the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at m tret meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of oe ed frat bnnot engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. ea The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the es crer, c services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to L filwev the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of XMho Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, m g, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute ed fromattin of Medicine. een recomposng-specific foron. TtaAhdhceve abi dNsreioanmatgdiyo tc,nh otaehml ef mRe Cdeueosneruiaatnylr c cgoihofl vshCceaoirsenu nbmnceceeci nlao tnwm.d aFe stu e tonchrhcegnt aipoonrlinoiznigencydgi pw biaynilt htaoh ctpehc eeNor rAaadttciiaonandngcea eaml gAwyeci’nstah cdp yegu mreopnfyo e bsoreoafs tlS h opc ftoi heflnueiccr Ntiehesaes ti rdniion e1gnt9e ak1rlnm 6Ao itwcnoa leaeddsde sgbmoeyc y aita nhotdeef the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version StIrwhencwsesip etwsienct.ccuinteetianvest t eiaoiolfnyfind c,M a oatlfh-ne aetddh c iNeeac ndaiNngteiaeimont.ni eioDaeenlsrr aA.i.on lB crgRagr ceudosecemmea mryMc uho. n fAC iEtloinbeugesn.irc ntTiselh .ea erni Cndg oD uinrn. c pWirlo iivlsl iiadadimnmg iA nse.i srWtveiruceeldfs ajtoorei nt hctlehy ag bioryvm ebaronntmh a Aenndct a,v dtiheceme piceuhsba laiinrcmd, aatnhnde, epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us iv s are trd. Plea ke eaert ge bry ins International Technology Education Association (ITEA) Standards Review Committee Paall s. ent William A.Wulf (Chair), National Academy of Engineering ed ting filesetbeen acci KREloasrdaig nGe Bra rBomrygibrhee, ,eB ,T iBhoaiPoyhleoargr mSiccaahclo eSouclt iioecnfa lcE eTnseg Ccinhuenreorirlcionugglyu, mDC eaSnrtttumedro yIu,n tCsht oiCtluootrleal,ed Mgoe aSdpirsionng,s W, Cioscloornasdino al typhave James Rutherford, American Association for the Advancement of Science ginay orim he ors m terr k, not froographic op oy er bme t p ao ps original ed, and he ain m tret oe ed frat bnnot ea es crer, c L filwev Mo Xh m g, ed fromattin en recomposg-specific forn. eno the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us 1 s are trd. Plea eakerte I. OVERVIEW ge bry ins This is the first report of the National Research Council’s (NRC) Standards Review Committee (SRC), Paall whose charge it is to review and make recommendations on the content standards for technology education being s. ent developed by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA). The standards describe what students ed ting filesetbeen acci pinr oKc–eTs 1sh2,i s ss uhrmeopumoldrat r kignzieovswe st ah nead c bboreime afmb lhietit settoeo ’rdsyo r reoevfl iaetthweed otIofT EtdeArcah fnts ot3aln oodgfay r.tdhse psrtoajnedcat,r ddse, sacnridb epsr otvhied eNs RdCet aciolemd moibttseeer vraetvioienws, al typhave conclTuhsieo ncso,m anmdi trteeceo mwomuelndd alitkioe ntso r enloatteed tthoe dsrearfito 4u,s tnhees sm oosf t preucrepnots ev earnsido ni.ntegrity that staff at ITEA and the ginay Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) exhibited during the time the NRC has been involved in the orim he ors standards project. On many occasions, ITEA and TfAAP were asked to consider substantive changes in the m terr organization or content of the standards. Despite the sometimes daunting task of addressing the committee’s k, not froographic cpcooronmdcmuercinetms ,t ehsnett a bftfoe s attht peb oovstishsii boolnreg oaffin ntiaezlca htdinoooncluso mgexiecpnartl.e lsTisteherdea cacy oc.monmtiinttueael cwoimllminegnndess sI TtoE tAak aen wd hTaftAevAePr sftoerp st hweierr eo pnteimceisssmar ya ntdo op oy er bme t apo II. HISTORY OF THE STANDARDS ps original ed, and the sTtuhdey T oefc htneoclhongoyl ofgoyr Aacllr oAsms etrhiec acnos uPnrtoryje. ctF (uTnfdAedA Pb)y w tahse foNramtieodn ably SITciEeAnc eto Fporouvniddaet iao nf oarmnda l tshteru cNtuatrieo nfoarl he ain Aeronautics and Space Administration, the project’s purpose is to promote technological literacy in grades K–12. m tret Public release of the standards document is slated to take place in early April 2000 at ITEA’s annual meeting in ed froeat be annot Sdeavlte LlPoahpkames eeC nIit t,oy af. n tFdho eal lsposrweosjisenmcgt e,p nfurt obsmltiac naOdticaotrondb soe.fr t1h9e9 c4o tnot eSnetp stteamndbaerrd 1s9, 9IT6,E rAes purlotepdo sine st htoe pduevbelilcoapt iporno Tgreacmhn, oplroogfye sfsoiro nAalll es crer, c Americans: A Rationale and Structure for the Study of Technology. This document defined the need for L filwev standards for the study of technology and showed how such content may be delivered by technology education Mo programs. Originally, Phase II was to run from October 1996 to March 1999, when the standards were to be Xh m g, publicly released. During the first two years of Phase II, the standards underwent three revisions. Altogether, ed fromattin mmoairle- inth raenv i4e,w00, 0o npleinoep lree vrieevwie, waendd itnhpe udt oact ufmieeldn th aenardi npgrso vairdoeudn dc othmem Uennitt etdh rSotuagtehs .a A vmaroientgy thoof sme einanvso,l vinedc luind itnhge en recomposg-specific forn. iPCnhodamespeme IniItd treeeenv.t i eo(Twf ht hwee e ccroeu mrtrhmeen istt tiNexe Rm Creo mcstobemer rmsa piotpfte eteah rerse Nvaiate twiAo,np paprleo Anvdicdiaxed deAm.)y Tofh eE nNgiAnEee rcinogm Tmeicttheneo, leosgtya bElidsuhceadt iopnri oSrt atnod aarndds eno the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us 2 s are trd. Plea eakerte input to ITEA on the first three drafts of the standards and plans to review the final draft of the standards on ge bry ins behalIfn o lfa trhgee Amceaadseumrey b.ecause of the seriousness of the concerns about Draft 3 raised by key review groups and s. Paallent individual reviewers, ITEA and the TfAAP concluded that the standards required additional revision. To that ed end, ITEA and TfAAP enlisted the expertise of the NRC Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering ting filesetbeen acci maEddadutihcteiaomtinoaantli cre(sCv. iSIeTMwE.EAE a),s kwedh ifcohr ahnads wa astr aacwka rrdeecdo rsdu popfl edmeevnetlaolp fiunngd iendgu cfraotimon NalS Fst ainn dMaradrsc hi n1 9K99– 1to2 csacrireyn coeu t atnhde al typhave ginay III. THE NRC COMMITTEE REVIEW PROCESS orim he ors m terr A. Framework Development Committee k, not froographic carefuPlr ilooro kto a tth teh eN oRvCer aclol mormgiatnteizea rteiovnie owf Dofr atfhte 3 s otafn tdhaer dstsa, nNdaRrCds adnodc uITmEeAnt . aTgore tehdi si te nwdo aunldd wbei thu stehfeu la gtore teamkee nat op oy of ITEA, on February 3, 1999, NRC convened a Framework Development Committee (FDC). The six-member er bme t committee included individuals serving on the NAE standards review group as well as technology education p paso professionals involved in the drafting of the ITEA standards. (The framework committee roster appears at original ed, and AppeBndasixe dB o.)n input received at this meeting, TfAAP refined the framework for the standards and, on February he ain 24, sent this modified organizational scheme to the FDC for comment. All FDC members responded to the m tret proposed framework, and in some cases, proposed modifications to it. TfAAP further refined the framework ed froeat be annot tMhraoyu T2g1hh– ea 2df2idn,i at1il9o 9vn9earl. s(iinTothnee roa ffcr tatimhoene swf rwoamirtkhe awtphoper eckao rwms aamst iApttrpeeeps.eenndteixd Cfo.)r discussion at the first meeting of the NRC SRC on es crer, c L filwev B. SRC Review of Framework Document Mo Xh m g, The NRC Standards Review Committee met for the first time on May 21–22 in Washington, D.C. At the ed fromattin mapepertoinpgri,a tethnee ssc oomf mthiett eseta nrdevariedws ewdi ththine eparcohp oosf etdh e sftaivned aorvdesr afrrcahminegw ocarkte, gopraiyeisn. gI n paadrtdiictuiolanr toa ttceonmtimoni ttetoe atnhde en recomposg-specific forn. staff, TfAAP and ITEA representaCti.v SesR aCtt eRnedveide wth eo fm Dereatifntg 4. of the Standards eno the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version rWsetaveniledtywTa,rh edSersas ..nS ”TdR (eoACr s a ,l miiLdse ti aitot osff) oorrew vtnihe ewa sessere csnosanmmdee nstit m,a ntehd e Aa cfufogimluiasmtti io2tnt4es–e a 2sp5op, leiacalirstseo da t i ncA oWpmpmaesnehdniintxsg Dtoon.n) , t ShDeev .Cestr.aa, nl tdorae rvrdieesv wifereworsm D( T1roa3fy t“e t,4 eH cohofne iptchfalel, epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us 3 s are trd. Plea eakerte attended the meeting in person, and three (Cheek, Montgomery, Stein) participated by telephone. Also attending ge bry ins aWs acrnoenrs)u. l(tTanhtess ew tehrree et hdriede nooft pthaert icfoipuart ei nind ivthide ucalloss epdr esveisosuiosnly, druerminogv ewdh ifcrho mth et hceo mcommitmteiet’tes er e(cCoumsmtere,n dLaoteiopnps, s. Paallent were formulated.) All four of the former committee members supplied written comments on selected chapters of ed Draft 4. In total, the committee received written comments on Draft 4 of the standards from 17 individuals. ting filesetbeen acci t(oC oITpEiTeAhs e o afcn oadml lT m1f7Ait AtceoPem’ swm rheeencnot stm haemr eNe snRudpCapt irloieenpdso raott n rA eDvpipreaewfnt dp4irx oo Ecf e.t)shse w satasn cdoamrdpsl eatreed .part of this report and were transmitted al typhave ginay D. SRC Review of Draft 5 of the Standards orim he ors The expected final meeting of the SRC is scheduled for November 15, 1999, in Washington, D.C. At this m terr meeting, the committee will compare the changes recommended in its report with the actual content of Draft 5. k, not froographic Tcohme mcoitmteme’ist taeses ewssilml ethnet no fc tohme pdoesger eae tloet twerh ircehp TorftA tAhaPt rdeesspcornibdeesd tthoe t hseta cnodmarmdsit treeev’ise rwe cpormocmeesns daantido npsr.esents the op oy er bme t IV. RESULTS OF SRC REVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK AND DRAFT 3 p ao ps original ed, and tvhaer iestTtyahn oedf a SrreRdvsCi e’thws eeMmrsas yeal bvmoeueste. tDSintragaff ftf o3ac.tu TsefdA AonP thales op rroepvoiseewde dfr afmore wthoer kc ofmorm thitete set atnhde arradnsg aen do ft hceo nacpeprrnosp rriaaitseende sbsy oaf he ain With respect to the proposed framework, the committee approved of the five chapter categories as being om te ret suitable major organizers for the standards. With respect to the standards, the committee reviewed each one and ed frat bnnot mTfaAdAe Ps,u gthgee smtiaojnosr fcoorn ccelranrisf yaibnogu tt hDer alaftn g3u faeglle ininto af invue mbbroear do afr ethase man. dA rcecfolercdti nign ptuot firnofmor ma avtiaornie tpyr eosfe snoteudrc ebsy, ea es crer, c iinncdliuvdidinuga lsth. eT hNeA fiEv eT aercehanso olof gcyo nSctearnnd raerldast eR teov tiheew s tCanodmamrdi’tstee, TfAAP’s own outside advisory panel, and many L filwev Mo Xh (cid:127) organizers and framework, m g, ed fromattin (cid:127)(cid:127) warrtiitciunlga tsitoynl ea,cross the K–12 spectrum, en recomposg-specific forn. (A(cid:127)(cid:127) sfeuoxmrpmrmeasats.reyd o df itfhfeer ceonmcems ibtteetew’es eMn ateyc 2h1n–o2lo2g dyi sacnuds steiocnh naoplpoegayr se daut cAaptipoenn, dainxd F.) the original work has beation of and other typesettinding styles, for attributioauthoritative version a—s wwaeIsln lh atihsge hi tlcsyo rmpeosmpsioittintveseee.’ stTo vh tiehe eiwm c, poTrmofAvmeAemnPet’sns tprsreosvpiodnesde btoy tohteh esru rgegveisetwio ngsr omupads ea nbdy itnhdei vciodmuamlsit—teea sa rt etfhlee cMteday i nm Deeratifnt g4, epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us 4 s are trd. Plea eakerte introduced in Draft 4 are substantial and greatly improve the odds that the standards will be a useful tool for ge bry ins encouTrhaeg inngo ttaebclhen oimlopgriocavle lmiteenratsc yi ninc lgurdaed etsh Ke –a1d2o.ption of a new organizational framework, the considerable s. Paallent refinement of the language of the individual standards, greater attention to articulation among the grade bands, ed and marked improvement in the document’s readability throughout. TfAAP and ITEA are to be commended for ting filesetbeen acci sthueb ssteTarnhioteiu aslclnoyem srsem dwiutitctehee wthnheoi ctnehus m thtbheeyart u onTfdf AbereAtnoPcoh kmc thhaoersk tesa .s nkTo hoti fs t roies vsfiuoseilnl oigsw Dr ertvahifest i 3tce odom fi tnmh etiht tseet eac’nosd maarmddvsit.itceee ’sre rgeacrodminmg etnhdea tnioenesd fotor al typhave revising Draft 4. (See V, below.) ginay orim he ors V. RESULTS OF THE SRC REVIEW OF DRAFT 4 OF THE STANDARDS m terr Despite the great strides made between Draft 3 and Draft 4, the SRC believes there are a number of aspects ok, not fropographic somtfaa ntdhdeea trhsdtesas.ned iamrdpsr otvheamt wenotusl idn bDernaeffti t5 fwroimll satrdodnitgiloyn ainl filmuepnrcoev ethmee nnat.t uTreh eo fe xthteen cto tmo mwihttieceh’ sT ffiAnaAl Pa sasnesds mITeEnAt o hf athvee oy er bme t Based on its review of Draft 4, the committee makes 13 recommendations in 6 broad areas. No apo prioritization is implied by the ordering of the recommendations. The committee hopes (and expects) that TfAAP ps original ed, and wtoi ldlo aA sdo dm.reasjso ariltly o fo fit st hree ccoommmmeintdteaet’iso nrse cwoimthm eeqnudaal tvioignos r,d orarw p roovni daen da raeraes oinn albalreg ee xmpleaansautiroen c wonhsyi sitte cnht owositehs nthoet he ain comments received from the 13 technical reviewers. Recommendations 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8 reflect the committee’s om te ret own judgments and concerns and are a product of committee discussion, in open and closed session, at each of ed frat bnnot itthse tdwiosc museseiotinn gfsro. mTh teh ec opmubmliecn tpso frrtioomns t hoef ttheceh Aniucgaul srte mvieeewtienrgs awnedr ea ng ievleenc ttroo nTicfA fAileP caotn tthaein Ainugg tuhset mtraenesticnrgip at nodf ea es crer, c in earFlyin Salelpyt,e mthbee rc o1m99m9,i trteeesp encottievse ltyh.at in the afternoon of August 25, it made a series of chapter-specific L filwev suggestions. The committee strongly encourages TfAAP to review those suggestions with an eye toward making Mo Xh changes consistent with the thrust of the broader recommendations spelled out below. m g, ed fromattin A. Benchmarks en recomposg-specific forn. dsoemveelTwohpheea dtc gobemyn merTiatfltA.e eIAn bPteh. liisBe vseeennsc shetmh, atahtr ekbyse nspecrrhvomev iatdorek ds enpseclcareiybs seaa arvyni dtae “ll uarbnooplraeac tikino” n et hdoeu fcs taatthnioedn aasrltd assn.t daTanhrddiass r,ud nsw pshaucicckhhin gabs yi s t hdeosessseeign nbti eaialn rigef the original work has beation of and other typesettinding styles, for attributioauthoritative version t“htrea ninsltaetned”e tdh ea sutdainednacredss fionrto t mhee asntainngdfaurld sm, aptearritaiclsu lfaorrl yte accuhrreircsu alunmd staundde ntetsx.tbook developers, are to effectively epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri ee us 5 s are trd. Plea eakerte The committee has three specific concerns with the benchmarks in Draft 4. ge bry ins benchFmirastr,k sin ( ocvoemr p6a0r0is)o ins ewxictehs sthivee .m Tohdee scto m(amndit taepep broelpireivaetes) t hneu mstrbeenrg othf ostfa tnhdea srdtasn d(2a1rd),s tihs es icgunrirfeicnat nntluym dbileur teodf s. Paallent by having so many benchmarks. Some of the benchmarks seem not to provide any useful elaboration of the ed standards, others are repetitive, still others are elaborations more related to teaching than to the concepts to be ting filal typesethave been acci undeRwRrseaotcmrokoopimnidnmg.g e tonim daapcthliioieensv e#t h1tah: ti sS tihrgeend iuaficmctaioonuntnl,y tc oarenndsdiu dcceeor mtthhpeel enxnoiuttmyio bnoe fro fko n“fr oabwmelnepcdinhggme” a srtphkeesc bitfheirenodcu hgimnh a rtekhlseim fbrinoeamntci ohlonmw aoerrkr stc ooi nmucpbrpeineaars teigsor nai.dn e Isna. ginay developmentally appropriate way from the lower to higher grades. With ramping, learning goals specified in orim benchmarks for the lower grades apply also to the higher grades but do not need to be restated. Also, consider the he ors following questions for determining the need for a benchmark: m terr k, not froographic (cid:127)(cid:127)(cid:127) IIDss oiiett snf uoitnn dcroeapmneveteinytti avtlhe et oo cf a oocrthrheieecrvt ibanmegn octhuhenm ts aotrafkn csdo?anrcde’sp tlueaalr nininfogr gmoaatliso?n? op per bome ty (cid:127)(cid:127) IIss iitt ianrttiecnudleadte tdo wdietvhe tlhoep bgeenncehraml atrekcsh nino ltohgei gcaral dlietse rbaeclyo w(a sa nodp paobsoevde ?to technical proficiency)? ao ps original ed, and inappSroecporinadte, . aIlnth onueagrhl yl easlsl struuceh icna sDesr,a ftth e4 pthroabnl eimn Disr athfta t3 ,t hseo mbeen cohfm tharek sb eanimch mtoaor khsi grhe,m iani nte drmevse olofp smtuednetanltlsy’ he ain expected cognitive abilities. Examples of inappropriately targeted benchmarks include “Everyone uses m tret technology” (Standard 4, Grades K–2), “Assess previously ignored solutions, perhaps with modifications, as oe ed frat bnnot pteocshsnibolleo gcihcaoli cdeesv” el(oSptamnednatr”d (1S1ta, nGdarradd e1s3 ,9 –G1r2a)d,e sa n6d– 8“)E. vTahluisa tme itsrmenadtcsh abnedt wmeoenn ittohre poouttecnotmiael s csopnesceiqfiueedn cbeys thoef es creer, ca bencRhmecaormkms eanndda tsitound e#n2t: aMbialkitey smuraey t hleea dbe tnoc hinmaaprpkrso (parnida tethlye tcaorrgreestepdon cduinrrgi csutalan daanrdd) i nasretr uacptpiroonparila mte attoe rciaolgsn.itive L filwev abilities of the intended grade-level age group. Mo Xh Third, the standards document provides no clear rationale for the benchmarks, particularly as they relate to m g, ed fromattin couf rtrheen td othciunmkienngt awbiollu nt ohto pwe rpceeoivpele t hlee airmn.p oTrhtaen ccoem amndit tceeen tirsa lc opnucrperonseed o tfh tahte w biethnochumt saurckhs, aonr ewxiplll acnhaotoiosne , tore faodceurss en recomposg-specific forn. otoennc hcanelrolt laotihgnei cb aeblne lcnihtcemhramacraykr.sk sw haislseo icginaoterdin gw oitthh eresa.c Ihn tshtaen cdoamrdm ibteteine’gs vtrieeawte, dth ea se ffeescsteinvteinale stso o ft hthe e gsotaanl doarfd sa cdheipeevnindgs eno the original work has bation of and other typesettiding styles, for attributiauthoritative version epresentaks, hean as the digital rord breblicatio e: This new e lengths, won of this pu PDF filnal; linnt versi About this to the origiuse the pri
The list of books you might like
