Standards Review Working Principles

Standards Review Working Principles

Through this comprehensive standards review initiative, we wil= l:

1. Include three levels of standards:=

&m= iddot;     Student learning standards (content);

     =     These standards will detail what students will be exp= ected to learn. <= /p>

&m= iddot;     Teacher knowledge standards; and

These standards will paral= lel the student standards. They will specify the knowledge that teachers should have to enable students to reach each learning standard.

&m= iddot;    System infrastructure standards.

These standards will speci= fy those elements that are beyond the control of students and teachers, for example, access to technology, books, and other materials. These standards would also specify professional development for teachers and administrators.=

2.      Develop a single set of standards for each content

     area.

Some students may need dif= ferent levels of support or scaffolding to achieve the learning outcomes (e.g., struggling learners, English language learners, students with disabilities)= . A single set of standards will ensure that expectations for all students are = the same. Although these standard= s will specify that all students should work to achieve the same levels of proficiency; they will also acknowledge the need to provide differential instruction for different populations.&nbs= p; Different levels of resources may also be required for some students= to achieve the specified levels.

If all students are expected to become proficient in English Language Literacy, a set of standards to which all students should =      aspire must be created. Reaching those standards may require different instructional techniques at different developmental levels. For English Language Learners who are literate in their first language,             there is substantial transfer between that first literacy and a second literacy in English. Instruction should capitalize on the transfer rather than assuming that students have no knowledge of literacy skills. For ELLs= who are not literate in their first language, it may be effective to conduct literacy instruction in the native language first, then capitalize on that cluster of skills. If literacy instruction is to be conducted solely = in English, care must be taken to ensure that the students have sufficient Eng= lish Language proficiency to benefit from that instruction. The nature of = the instruction will vary as a function of the developmental level of students = and the native language of those students. The instructional support need= ed to become skilled in literacy will focus on a single set of goals, but will change across contexts. These variations should be reflected in curricular documents, not in standards.

3.    Infuse basic and academic literacy throughout all the

      content areas.

Currently the standards/performance indicators do not acknowledge differences in literacy across disciplines. It has be= come apparent in recent work that there are substantial differences in reading skills across disciplines. Co= ntent area assessments do not assess the ability to read in different content are= as. These assessments minimize literacy demands, focusing instead on content knowledge. There is a need to assess the degr= ee to which students are able to read content area materials in order to determine whether they are or can become independent learners in the disciplines. Assessments that focus on literacy= need to include the full range of text genres.

The 2009 Reading Framework = for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, uses the following range of genres:

Literary text

Story

Literary nonfiction (such as narrative essays, speeches, and autobiographies or biographies)

Poetry

Information text

Exposition

Argumentation and persuasive text

Document and procedural materials

            Source: Salinger, T., Kamil, M. L., Kapinu= s, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2005) Development of a new framework for= the NAEP reading assessment. In B. Maloch, J. V., Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. = M. Fairbanks, & J. Worthy (Eds.), <= /span>54^d Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 334-349). Oak Creek, W= I: National Reading Conference.

4.      = Infuse cult= ural aspects of literacy throughout all the

      content ar= eas as appropriate.

Literacy is heavily influe= nced by culture. The ability to recognize cultural influences and negotiate them is a critical literacy ski= ll and       &nb= sp;    should be recognized in the standards and on assessments of those standards. The responsibility of every learne= r is to seek and learn about diverse perspectives. Cultural aspects of literacy shoul= d be infused into curricula development and instruction.

5.      = Infuse real= life application skills throughout all the

      content ar= eas.

Infusing real life applica= tion skills throughout all the content areas&nbs= p;          will address the need for students to have the necessary skills to enter the wor= kforce and/or pursue post secondary education.&nb= sp; In addition, students will be gain viable citizenship skills. The va= lue of enabling students to understand the connection between their studies in all content areas and real life application of skills and knowledge cannot be overstated. This infusion mus= t also be reflected through curricula development and instruction.

6.      = Develop measurable standards.

Standards should be measur= able, observable, or demonstrable, although this does not mean that paper and pen= cil forms of assessments are the only options.= For every standard there should be some way of assessing it. If there are no ways to measure, observe, or have students demonstrate mastery of a standard, it should not = be included. This is related to = the issue of whether all standards will be assessed. While there might not be a one-to-= one alignment between assessments and standards, it is the case that all standa= rds will be assessed, at least implicitly.&nbs= p; For example, if a student can demonstrate comprehension of plot, it = also means that that student is demonstrating the mastery of word identification, etc.

7. Review PreK-12 standards within the context of a

     seamless P-16 continuum.

The basic intent of this s= et of standards is to provide students with the necessary skills to succeed when = they enter schools and to provide them with the ability to choose any path they = wish to when they graduate high school. Thus, the standards have to account for the skills that students need before they enter school as well as the skills they will need when they ent= er the work force or pursue post secondary education.

8.      = Integrate technology throughout all the content

     areas.

The influence of technolog= y has extended to the types of texts (multimedia) as well as the uses of those texts. While “new liter= acy” requires an even higher degree of “old literacy,” there are new skills that are required. To = this end, one proposal is to add to the standards, two new categories, PRESENTING and VIEWING. PRESENTING involves selecting, synthesizing, and organizing information to convey a message. Conversely, VIEWING is the obverse of presenting. VIEWING involves comprehending, critically examining, and making use of the information in a presentation.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> These are not limited to technolog= y, but technology has changed the ways in which information has been presented and viewed. The most obvious vari= able is the inclusion of multimedia elements in documents. For other ways in which technology= has affected literacy, one needs to look no further than search for information= on the internet.