Development of Academic Standards in Nevada

2013

When it comes to education, Nevada’s reputation as a low‐performing state in no way reflects a shortage of reforms. The politics of high‐stakes accountability characteristic of federal education policy since the 1980s has resulted in much reform, but “small change” in terms of funding and improved outcomes in the Silver State. This brief examines the history of Nevada education reform and why Nevada must reform its approach to improving schools by turning its attention from unfunded mandates to adequate and equitable investments in education. It concludes with a discussion of how Nevada policymakers and educational leaders can move beyond small change to transform the educational trajectory of a state that is uniquely positioned for educational and

Curriculum change is a key educational process that can boost the innovative capacity of the education institution. This paper sought to investigate factors that guide curriculum change in secondary education in Zimbabwe. It was prompted by continuous changes in the curriculum of education institutions which include primary, secondary schools universities, polytechnical colleges and teachers' colleges. Key terms will be defined.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2009

State content standards are the backbone of the standards-based reform movement. Content standards provide teachers with a set of guidelines for what students are expected to know and be able to do, defining the intended curriculum. And although the current 50-state system of education gives each state the task of setting content standards, there has been little empirical investigation of the similarities and differences among state content standards. This analysis uses the content analysis procedures of the Council of Chief State School Officers/State Collaboratives on Assessment and State Standards to consider whether there exists a de facto national curriculum as defined in state content standards. Data from English/language arts and reading (ELAR), science, and mathematics for Grades 4, 8, and K–8 are used. Results suggest considerable variability among states in the content of content standards, particularly in individual grades, but also for the aggregated standards. Further a...

Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE, 2018

I n this chapter, curriculum is defined so that readers can have a shared understanding of this key term. Next, we examine approaches to curriculum that schools use to address standards and high-stakes testing as a way to discuss the interrelationships of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards. I suggest why these approaches may not work over the long term and propose a model demonstrating how the balanced curriculum integrates curriculum, instruction, assessment, and standards.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2016

This paper introduces the questions and approaches of a five-nation cross-cultural study of state-based curriculum-making discussed in this issue of JCS. The paper reviews the two decade-long interest of many nations in state-based curriculum-making and presents a framework for thinking about state-based curriculum-making as a tool of educational governance. Few undertakings of departments of education and of governments mobilize as many people, lead to so many controversies and public debates in various bodies, school publications and media-and tie up so many resources-as the development and revision of the curricula … Committees are appointed, innumerable meetings called, consultation processes organized, tests scheduled and administered. It commonly takes years from the initiation of such an undertaking to the final introduction of a curriculum-and some curricula barely reach the point of formal adoption before their next revision. (Bähr et al., 2000, p. 3)

California Agriculture, 2000

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2016

This paper introduces the questions and approaches of a five-nation cross-cultural study of state-based curriculum-making discussed in this issue of JCS. The paper reviews the two decade-long interest of many nations in state-based curriculum-making and presents a framework for thinking about state-based curriculum-making as a tool of educational governance. Few undertakings of departments of education and of governments mobilize as many people, lead to so many controversies and public debates in various bodies, school publications and media-and tie up so many resources-as the development and revision of the curricula … Committees are appointed, innumerable meetings called, consultation processes organized, tests scheduled and administered. It commonly takes years from the initiation of such an undertaking to the final introduction of a curriculum-and some curricula barely reach the point of formal adoption before their next revision. (Bähr et al., 2000, p. 3)

2018

THE STATE OF STATE STANDARDS POST-COMMON CORE 9 3 If possible, take the next step by precisely addressing specific limitations of the CCSS-ELA and CCSS-M. In addition to adopting the improvements identified above, some states should consider taking the next step by addressing some of the other weaknesses our reviewers identify-especially if doing so involves making wellconceived additions, rather than disturbing the delicate internal logic of the existing standards. Specifically, states that feel confident in their ability to manage this process should take the following steps: a Develop disciplinary literacy standards for Speaking and Listening, and for Language, and further develop the disciplinary literacy aspect of the ELA standards for grades 6-12. Each discipline uses language in particular ways to create, disseminate, and evaluate knowledge. So it's important that students develop an understanding of these differences. As noted in our updated review, however, the Literacy Standards in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (i.e., the Common Core's "disciplinary literacy" standards) could be strengthened, especially in grades 6-12. Most obviously, states could develop specific standards in Speaking and Listening, and in Language, since both of these domains are omitted entirely from the current disciplinary literacy standards. b Define the differences in expectations between 9 th and 10 th grade and between 11 th and 12 th grade in ELA. At the high school level, the CCSS-ELA standards are divided into two-year grade bands (9-10 and 11-12) "to allow schools, districts, and states flexibility in high school course design." However, reviewers found that this lack of specificity resulted in redundancies across grade levels, making it difficult for teachers to know which standards to cover in which grade, or how the rigor of individual standards ought to increase from one grade to the next. Consequently, states should consider creating grade-specific English language arts standards for high school such that each grade has specific expectations. c Articulate clear pathways in high school math that are explicitly aligned with specific post-secondary and labor market outcomes.

2013

Following the National Education Summit in 2000, the National Governors Association and the Council for Chief State School Officers proposed the Common Core State Standards for mathematics and English language arts. The rationale is to provide a consistent core curriculum for all schools in the United States. Each state has opportunity to contribute to the rigor, clarity, and specificity of the standards. Incentives for states to implement the national curriculum are identified in the Blueprint for ESEA, a federal initiative to implement education reforms. Policy makers and educators agree that achievement gaps between students in the U.S. and other higher performing countries must be closed. In addition, our children must be prepared for college classrooms and globally competitive careers. This chapter provides the history of standards-based education reform, the pros and cons of a nationally standardized curriculum, and current progress in implementation of Common Core State Standards.

2016

This paper identifies and discusses important school mathematics curriculum controversies in the United States of America, over the past 60 years. The first controversy considered here was the “New Math” , and the last is the Common Core State Standard for Mathematics. It summarizes the debates, the main actors, and their viewpoints. The second part of the paper investigates theoretical or research-based evidence related to the controversies. Finally, the last part of this paper investigates short-term and longer-term effects of movements with respect ro intended, implemented, and attained curricula

2017

This study examines CPS teachers' and administrators' experiences preparing to teach the new ELA and math standards and is the first in a series of reports that examines implementation of the CCSS in CPS. Subsequent studies will focus on students' instructional experiences and how learning outcomes have changed since the implementation of the new standards. District announces plan to implement an extended school day the following school year. CPS-CTU Joint Teacher Committe begins to design and plan for implementation of new evaluation system, Recognizing Educators Advancing Chicago Students (REACH). 2012-2013 Department of Literacy launches professional development for ELA teachers. Participation optional for networks. Department of Mathematics launches professional development for teachers in grades six through twelve. Participation optional for networks. District implements an extended school day. CPS begins implementing REACH in all schools for non-tenured teachers only. 2013-2014 K-12 teachers begin teaching ELA standards. Math professional development mandatory for K-12 teachers. Implementation of REACH begins for all (tenured and non-tenured) teachers. 2014-2015 K-12 teachers begin teaching math standards. Schools are able to purchase CCSS-aligned instructional materials from districtapproved list. 2015-2016 Math and ELA professional development becomes optional for all networks. this first year, although most networks chose to participate. Beginning in 2013-14, the first year of full implementation for the ELA standards, participation in professional development was mandatory for all networks. As of 2015-16, networks could choose whether to participate in district-sponsored professional development or provide their own professional learning opportunities (see Figure 1 for timeline). 7 The early adopter schools also developed assessment and instructional activities aligned to the new ELA standards. Grade-level teams at each early adopter school spent the 2012-13 school year developing curricular units, which included a curriculum map, a unit plan, and corresponding texts to be used in the classroom. Once the units were developed, they were made

Achieve Inc, 2012

We are at one of those rare, maybe once-in-a-lifetime moments. After 30 years of fits and starts, true transformational reform in education is not only possible but also entirely within our grasp. In the last few years, we have seen a number of significant shifts occur: College and career readiness for all students is the new national norm, the majority of states have adopted internationally benchmarked K-12 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in mathematics and English, and most states are participating in a Race to the Top assessment consortium. The nation has, by and large, coalesced around a common-and rigorous-set of expectations and goals that will put all students on a trajectory to graduate from high school ready for college, careers and citizenship. As remarkable as the effort has been to get to this point, the true transformation will occur only if these goals are put into practice and fully implemented for the benefit of every student, in every classroom, in every state. Can it be done? Much of the answer to that question rests squarely with you, the state and district leaders charged with making the CCSS a reality in schools and classrooms. Leading change within a school district or state education agency takes hard, sustained effort. No greater task confronts state and district leaders today than preparing students to meet the new expectations. Trying financial circumstances and stretched capacity only compound the degree of difficulty. Yet the work is critical. The ability of students to reach their full potential-and by extension, our nation's ability to compete and lead-depends on your ability to take full advantage of this moment in time. By adopting the CCSS, your state has taken a critical first step forward. You now have a clear road map-anchored in college and career readiness and internationally benchmarked-for what students in your state must know and be able to do to succeed. With this road map comes the chance to fundamentally rethink your system, including long-held notions about educator training, professional development and instructional materials-not to mention the transition from where you are today to where you hope to be by the time the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessments are given. You will face a choice in the days ahead: The transition to new standards and related tests can be done in the way it has always been done, or the CCSS can be at the heart of more aggressive instructional reform efforts. What would this look like? Rethinking instructional reform means deliberately building on good practice in leading districts while injecting urgency and capacity into struggling districts. It means understanding how to get aligned instructional materials in the hands of the right teachers at the right time and how to ensure professional development design reflects best practices and accurately targets student needs. And it means being relentlessly curious about the impact of your implementation efforts, so nothing will surprise you once students sit down to take their first PARCC assessment. Our two organizations are committed to helping you succeed. We have combined Achieve's content knowledge with the U.S. Education Delivery Institute's implementation expertise in performance management. The result is the Common Core Implementation Workbook, which can help you organize for the transition to the CCSS. The workbook contains a framework for how to put all the relevant policies in place and offers sample timelines, relevant best practices, implementation advice and critical exercises to guide this important effort. We hope that the workbook, in addition to the related state team gatherings and webinars, will help your team take maximum advantage of this moment in history. We look forward to helping you succeed.

The United States is one of many countries currently undergoing significant changes in educational institutions, particularly in K-12 settings. Most pronounced among these is the impact of unprecedented demographic changes on the curriculum and instruction provided in U.S. schools. Four other factors are also influencing curriculum and instruction including 1) policy changes, 2) emerging new technologies, 3) globalization, and 4) the refugee and immigration issue. Each of these areas provides challenges for both school settings and teacher educators. These challenges and the obstacles they create must be examined and specific recommendations must be developed for teachers, teacher educators, and policymakers to assist in meeting each challenge. Among these recommendations, research shows that: 1) schools must change the structures, culture, and programs of curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of a diverse student body, 2) researchers in higher education institutions must focus their work to help the federal government, state leaders, and school districts decide upon the most appropriate reforms and changes to curriculum and instruction in school settings, 3) more resources from a variety of sources must be invested in technology-use training so teachers can better prepare students to use technology, especially in the context of new assessments, 4) educators should define and advance an agenda that prepares youth for global citizenship, and 5) the core values of educators must include respect, integrity, commitment and excellence, the promotion of diversity and gender equity, choice, and dignity for all students.