Development/Revision Planning

Planning kicks off the Development/Revision process. It is at this substage that timelines for the process are developed and/or refined, taking specific reasoning for standards review and revision into consideration. The timelines will allow stakeholders to be in the loop on expected progress, and keep designated committees accountable and moving forward.

Guidance

  • Working within an existing schedule for standards review/revision: In many cases, states will have a timeline for the development/revision of standards (Education Commission of the States (ECS) State Standard-Setting Processes in Brief). These general timelines indicate for which content area(s) and grade level(s) standards will be developed and/or reviewed, and drive the planning process. Carefully consider the general schedule ahead of the development/revision process to ensure that the timeline set out is feasible and practical given the current climate. Items to be considered include:
    • Financial considerations
    • Staffing needs and availability
    • State-specific climate surrounding standards review/revision
  • Undertaking standards review/revision outside of or in absence of an existing schedule: If the state is undertaking a standards review/revision in the absence of or outside of a pre-existing schedule, consider the reasons for undertaking the process as well as other initiatives the state is undertaking that could impact a successful standards revision process. These items may include:
  • After deciding to initiate the initial standards review/revision process based on a pre-existing schedule or based on other criteria, consider whether the standards slated for review will undergo revision, or if new standards will be created from scratch. (State Standards Adoption and The 2014 Music Standards) Criteria for consideration include:
    • Structure of the current standards, and if this structure best serves students (add in research about which is best?) (e.g., grade-by-grade vs. grade-band, differences in content proficiencies/domains) (Adopt, Adapt or Curriculum Map)
    • How the current standards were developed, and if the development process is reflective of current best practices and/or what is best in order to meet state needs. For example, NGSS was created through collaboration between scientific and educational research communities to first create their framework, and then went through a state-led process where stakeholders developed the actual standards grounded in the framework (Next Generation Science Standards FAQs - Standards Development Process)
  • Creation of a timeline for a full standards review/revision process, including initial implementation, scale-up, full implementation, and maintenance/refinement stages.
    • After deciding to initiate the initial standards review/revision process and whether to revise or rebuild standards from the ground up, a multi-year timeline outlining the full scope of the standards review/revision process must be created. States may factor in many considerations when creating these timelines, and maintaining flexibility as the process moves through stages will be important. Some key considerations when creating a timeline may include:
      • How long will the review/revision itself take, including conducting an independent third-party alignment study?
      • What is an appropriate timeline for the alignment of curriculum, assessments, and professional development to the new standards? (American Federation of Teachers - Setting Strong Standards)
      • What updated curricular materials will need to be provided? Can current materials be supplemented, or will new materials best serve stakeholder needs?
      • What is the plan for new resources/resource adoption cycle and assessments (CSAI Standards Implementation Framework)? 
      • What is the timeline for transitioning to new standards and aligned curriculum/assessments?
      • What is the communications plan to share information across stakeholder groups? 

 

Resources


 

State Examples