1 / 18

Enhancing PA Academic Standards: A Comprehensive Review

This joint project between the PA State Board of Education and the Capital Area Intermediate Unit focuses on evaluating and revising academic standards in various subjects, ensuring clarity, relevance, and rigor. The mission includes conducting a thorough review process in three phases involving surveys, advisory teams, and public hearings. Key documents and evaluative criteria inform the recommendations to clarify, align, and enhance the standards. Survey results highlight the significant impact of standards on curriculum development, instruction, and assessment. The process timeline outlines virtual meetings, workshops, and drafts leading to final recommendations to the State Board of Education.

maddy
Download Presentation

Enhancing PA Academic Standards: A Comprehensive Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revising the PA Academic Standards  A Joint Project Between The PA State Board of Education and The Capital Area Intermediate Unit Mark M. Hennes, CAIU Special Projects

  2. Project Overview “Every 3 years, the Board will review the State academic standards and State assessments … to determine if they are appropriate, clear, specific and challenging, and will make revisions as necessary … .” 22 Pa. Code, para 4.12 (i)

  3. Revising the standards; not rewriting them Ensuring standards closely align to Assessment Anchors. Focusing on content standards - not content lists, performance standards, or competencies Mission and Vision Conduct a review of the standards by:

  4. 3 Phase Process • Statewide, online survey • Advisory teams recommend changes to State Board of Eduation • State Board of Education holds Public Hearings

  5. RWSL Math Science Social Studies Science & Technology History Environment & Ecology Civics & Government Economics Geography Advisory Teams May – Sep 2008 Jan – May 2008

  6. Key Documents for Review • Survey results from PA educators • Independent evaluations of standards conducted over past several years. • Notable research on standards and benchmarks • Critical analysis of the clarity, rigor and relevance of current standards • Standards developed by professional organizations (e.g., NCTE, NCTM) • Standards identified as exemplary from states across the nation

  7. Standards Evaluative Criteria • Are statements clear and sharply defined? • Are they essential, knowledge-based statements? • Is wording consistent with parallel structure? • Is there an appropriate progression of rigor from grade to grade? • Are statements understandable and written in terms understood by both teachers and parents? • Are we able to assess the degree of mastery? • Can they be taught and learned in the context of the classroom?

  8. Standards Evaluative Criteria (Cont.) • Are statements logically consistent and holding together as a credible whole? • Does this standard crosswalk to an Anchor? • Is this standard identified in the survey as in need of revision? • Is there a key concept missing in this standard? • Is this illustrative example necessary? • How does this standard compare to nationally recognized standards?

  9. Highlights of Recommendations • Clarify intent and focus of each standard • Delete activities & methods • Align standards horizontally and vertically • Embed and spiral rigor through select examples • Introduced ‘knowledge strand’ (Math) • Glossary terms in boldface

  10. Questions?

  11. Summary “Tough, but very important work” – Dr. Jerry Zahorchak

  12. Survey Says … All Respondents said the Standards Always or Frequently: • Guide Curriculum Development (87%) • Guide Textbook Selection (78%) • Guide Classroom Instruction (83%) • Guide Assessment of Student Learning (83%)

  13. Survey Says … Of the Teacher Respondents: • 88% were Very Knowledgeable or Had Read Standards In-depth • 86% felt the Standards influenced classroom instruction design • 67% felt the Standards were written appropriately for their grade • 64% felt the Standards were written clearly for their grade • 57% felt the Standards were specific for their grade • 81% felt the Standards were challenging for their grade

  14. R/W/S/L and Math Advisory Timeline January/February 2008 • Virtual meetings to initiate team activities (readings, review of state survey, initial critique of standards) • Online team forums • Workshop in Harrisburg • First draft of initial recommendations

  15. R/W/S/L and Math Advisory Timeline March/April/May 2008 • Initial draft circulated for comment • Teams consider comments • Final draft by end of May to SBE

  16. Science & Social Studies Advisory Timeline May/June 2008 • Virtual meetings with teams to initiate team activities (readings, review of state survey, initial critique of standards) • Online team forums • Workshop in Harrisburg • First draft of initial recommendations

  17. Science & Social Studies Advisory Timeline July/August/September 2008 • Initial draft circulated for comment • Teams consider comments • Final draft by end of September to SBE

  18. Standard Statement Knowledge Statement Illustrative Example

More Related