Chapter 3

Developing Standards to Enhance Learner Achievement

Developing a set of quality content standards can be the most
challenging and rewarding part of a state's education reform initiative.
The standards have to set high expectations for all---learners
developing basic literacy and numeracy skills, learners with
disabilities, learners acquiring English language skills, or learners
studying for a high school credential and entry into postsecondary
education and employment. The standards have to capture the range of
skills and knowledge that adult learners need to carry out multiple
responsibilities as members of families, communities, and the workforce.

It is challenging to articulate content standards clearly for the wide
range of program types and learners served within the adult education
system. Members of the writing team will have to draft standards and
outline indicators at each level for adult basic education (ABE), adult
secondary education (ASE), and English language acquisition (ELA). The
development process is also rewarding, as the writing team develops the
core components of an educational improvement model. The arrows in
exhibit 3.1 show how assessment, curriculum and instruction, and content
standards have to be aligned and integrated so that educators and
learners reach higher outcomes.

Exhibit 3.1. *Model for Standards-Based Education*

![](media/image1.png){width="2.8694444444444445in" height="2.84375in"}

Chapter 3 provides basic guidance for developing standards to strengthen
learner achievement. It starts with suggestions for organizing the
writing team and orienting its members to the processes and decisions
made by the coordinating committee (as outlined in chapter 2) so the
team can create a realistic work plan to move forward. This chapter also
outlines what should be included in an action plan for the writing team
and the process for drafting the standards.

Whether adapting or developing new standards, start with a critical
review of existing standards documents to explore the range of
possibilities for state content standards. Chapter 3 provides tools and
strategies for the writing team to compare documents and review the
quality of standards. The examples and exhibits used throughout the
chapter are designed to help team members make decisions about the key
features of content standards. This chapter also provides suggestions to
help the team members make decisions about outlining a framework and
approach to organizing the standards and indicators. Throughout the
development process, the writing team will need to consider how well
curriculum, instruction, and assessment align with the content
standards.

The chapter concludes with a checklist to help identify the features
that make the full standards document comprehensible and easy to use.

# Organize and Orient the Writing Team

The writing team drafts and develops the standards for each content
area.[^1] Team membership can range from five to fifteen individuals.
The individual selected as team leader will coordinate the writing
process, including (1) orienting the team, (2) planning and drafting of
standards, (3) making revisions based on reviewers' feedback, and (4)
finalizing the full standards document. Ideally, the team leader is
someone who also serves on the coordinating committee. Overlap with at
least one or two members from the coordinating committee will help
ensure that the writing team understands the factors and decisions made
previously that have an impact on the development of standards.

Bringing together the right team is essential for standards development.
Look for individuals with expertise in the content area(s) and
experience in the adult education classroom. Team members should have an
understanding of adult learning from multiple perspectives---those of
employers, educators, learners, and community leaders. Team members
should also have in-depth knowledge of the state or their local
communities. Ideally, the writing team will include individuals who have
worked in various capacities and at different instructional levels so
they can contribute more broadly to creating a document that effectively
serves multiple programs throughout the state. For example, if the
state's adult education delivery system includes colleges, community- or
faith-based organizations, and literacy councils, choose practitioners
from those various programs to be on the standards writing team.
Similarly, look for team members who have experience in workforce
development. (See Appendix C, Tools and Templates, for a generic
standards team application and a sample application from Indiana.)

The coordinating committee may have already identified a process to
select members for the writing team (see chapter 2). As the committee
recruits potential team members, consider contacting many people, so
everyone has a chance to learn about the scope of work, the timelines,
and the challenges before making the decision to join a writing team.
Team members should be aware of the iterative nature of standards
development work before committing to a writing team.

## Orient the Writing Team![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8451388888888889in" height="0.6673611111111111in"}

Orientation is the opportunity for the team to take ownership of the
writing process. Find a convenient location and a nice workspace, and
offer refreshments. Invite a respected leader to welcome the team, set a
positive tone for the standards initiative, and create a sense of
community. The team leader can guide the writers in developing a set of
norms for working as a team and for keeping the writers focused on their
charge---developing adult education content standards that

-   reflect the needs of adult learners, research, and effective
    practice;

-   guide curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and

-   lead to improved learner outcomes.

Developing standards is a process that should be professionally
enriching so that members stay on board and maintain their motivation.
Team members will need background information on standards-based
education before they begin to review existing standards, write drafts,
provide feedback to others, crosswalk standards for alignment, and make
revisions based on the review findings. The process may not be easy, and
controversy may emerge because team members bring diverse perspectives.
![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.8451388888888889in"
height="0.5722222222222222in"}

Team diversity will help ensure that the standards and indicators are
appropriate for all learners. Team members need to represent different
populations and geographic regions (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural),
and they often come from programs with different levels of experience
and different access to resources. Everyone on the team needs to
recognize that disagreements are inevitable, as the writers bring
different perspectives on teaching and learning. They may not
immediately agree on matters of content, level of difficulty,
presentation, and degree of detail. They may disagree on how well their
instruction and assessment practices align with the content standards,
and they may fear the change that results from a shift to
standards-based education. Negotiating through the conflicts and working
toward consensus may take time, but the result will be a better set of
standards that can be supported by everyone who participated in the
process.

Strategies to help keep the team moving forward include the following:

-   Negotiate the tasks, responsibilities, and realistic timelines in a
    development plan.![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8451388888888889in"
    height="0.6673611111111111in"}

-   Promote standards as a professional development project (e.g.,
    provide opportunities for team members to be "in the spotlight" at
    state, regional, and local events; arrange credit for professional
    development or credentials; and note the value of being published).

-   Encourage the use of electronic technologies for document sharing so
    that team members can work from a distance, communicate frequently,
    and develop new skills.

-   Recognize time and financial needs by offering paid release time,
    providing substitute coverage, and paying for travel.

-   Recognize individual strengths and promote team cohesion.

As the team works through different stages and works toward agreement,
the members will be strengthening their capacities as educators.
Encourage team members to talk with other practitioners about the
standards and their work and to gather feedback from peers. Ideally,
some writing team members will participate in the review of the draft
standards (see chapter 4) and in provision of professional development
for implementation (see chapter 5).

## Develop an Action Plan for the Writing Team

Keep the state's vision statement and strategic plan in mind when
developing an action plan that will guide the work of the writing team.
The development process is not always linear, nor is it something that
the state can initiate without extensive planning. The coordinating
committee may have made recommendations that will structure the work of
the writing team with regard to content and process. For example,
consider the following recommendations for content and process:

**Content**![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

-   what stakeholders think learners should know and be able to do
    within a specific content area

**Process**

-   federal and state initiatives, policies, and plans that will
    influence the standards initiative

-   timelines

-   resource availability

-   decisions to adapt existing standards or develop new ones

Exhibit 3.2 illustrates the key steps for developing state content
standards.

Exhibit 3.2. *Steps for Developing Content Standards*

Drafting standards and indicators is a lengthy process that might take
up to a year or more. Some states have been successful in drafting
standards and indicators by meeting intensely for one or two weeks
during instructional breaks, while other states have held monthly team
meetings followed by individual or small teams writing one level or one
skill (e.g., beginning basic ABE or ELA listening). Writing teams in
Virginia and Missouri have used Web-based platforms for drafting
standards and indicators. In other states, team members use e-mail
extensively for sharing their drafts.

# Review Existing Standards

The coordinating committee may have conducted a preliminary review of
standards and made recommendations to adapt or develop standards. The
writing team needs to build on the coordinating committee's review with
a more extensive review of existing standards. Many of the national,
K--12, high school completion, and adult education content standards
were developed through processes that included extensive input by
stakeholders and expert consultants. Existing standards documents can be
valuable resources for the writing team. Review national and state
standards to get a sense of the variety, depth, and quality of different
documents. ![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.575in"}

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sample National Standards and Education Models                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Equipped for the Future (EFF)                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   American Diploma Project (ADP)                                    |
|                                                                       |
| -   Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS)      |
|                                                                       |
| -   Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS)             |
|                                                                       |
| -   National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)                |
|                                                                       |
| -   National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading     |
|     Association (NCTE/IRA)                                            |
|                                                                       |
| -   Teachers of English to Speaker of Other Languages (TESOL)         |
|                                                                       |
| Types of State Standards                                              |
|                                                                       |
| -   Pre-K--12 standards                                               |
|                                                                       |
| -   State adult education content standards                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Other practitioners from local programs---teachers and instructional
leaders---can also participate in the review of existing standards*.*
This more inclusive approach might take longer, but it will help promote
buy-in among local program staff from the beginning of the initiative.
Reviewers should look at each set of standards with a critical eye to
assess how effectively they meet the criteria for quality standards and
contexts for learners served within the state's adult education delivery
system. ![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.575in"}

Using common criteria will help generate discussion among team members
and help the state make informed decisions that will shape the standards
to be developed or adapted. Criteria checklists not only help focus the
reviews, but also become part of the "archive" of information used for
making decisions. Exhibit 3.3 describes the essential features to
consider when reviewing different documents.

**Exhibit 3.3. *Criteria for Quality Standards***

Consider the criteria and look for specific qualities when reviewing
standards documents.

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Criteria     | Description                                           |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Rigorous     | Rigorous standards contain the essential concepts,    |
|              | skills, and sophisticated learning that will allow    |
|              | learners to meet the demands of the 21st century.     |
|              |                                                       |
|              | *Look for*                                            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   higher order skills, and                          |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   high expectations for all learners.               |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Specific     | To guide instruction and the development of           |
|              | curriculum and assessment, the standards must provide |
|              | a strong sense of what learners and teachers are      |
|              | expected to do.                                       |
|              |                                                       |
|              | *Look for*                                            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   sufficient contextual detail, and                 |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   enough specificity to assure a common             |
|              |     understanding of the expectations at each level.  |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| C            | A comprehensive set of standards reflects current     |
| omprehensive | research and a balanced focus on the knowledge and    |
| and Coherent | skills essential to the content area.                 |
|              |                                                       |
|              | *Look for*                                            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   a clear progression of skills with increasing     |
|              |     levels of difficulty, and                         |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   gaps or missing skills and strategies.            |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Clear and    | For content standards to be meaningful to learners,   |
| Intelligible | teachers, and the general public, they have to be     |
|              | clearly written.                                      |
|              |                                                       |
|              | *Look for*                                            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   straightforward messages about what learners      |
|              |     should know and be able to do, and                |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   language that is free of jargon and bias.         |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Measurable   | Content standards have to communicate the same        |
|              | message to multiple readers about what learners know  |
|              | and are able to do.                                   |
|              |                                                       |
|              | *Look for*                                            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   sufficient details to provide clear expectations  |
|              |     at different levels, and                          |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   indicators that can be measured.                  |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Manageable   | Manageability refers to both the quantity and         |
|              | presentation of the standards.                        |
|              |                                                       |
|              | *Look for*                                            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   a realistic number of standards and indictors to  |
|              |     teach and learn within the time constraints of    |
|              |     the adult education system, and                   |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   documents organized in user-friendly format for   |
|              |     all stakeholders.                                 |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

*Source:* Adapted from American Federation of Teachers 2003, Council of
Chief State School Officers 2004, Doyle and Pimentel 1999, and
StandardsWork n.d.

As individuals and groups review different documents, ask them to
consider the following
questions:![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.575in"}![](media/image6.wmf){width="1.8444444444444446in"
height="0.6666666666666666in"}

1.  *How well do the standards meet the suggested criteria for quality
    standards? How well do they meet the diverse needs within the
    state?*

Review the standards in terms of their rigor, specificity,
comprehensiveness, clarity, measurability, and manageability. Some
members of the committee might argue that standards should be more
broadly stated to allow for different curriculum designs and diverse
teaching approaches. Other members might argue that broad standards are
subject to multiple interpretations and are, therefore, difficult to
assess. Both sides have a point. Teams need to strike the right balance.
(See exhibit 3.3 and Criteria for Reviewing Content Standards in
Appendix C, Tools and Templates.)

2.  *What guiding principles were used to develop the standards? And how
    well do the standards align with the state's approach to teaching
    and learning?*

Standards are usually developed with some fundamental beliefs and
assumptions about teaching and learning. The approach a state endorses
influences how the content standards are developed and organized. For
example, some programs may be more familiar with an *academic* or
*skills-based* approach, whereas other programs may be comfortable with
a *life skills* approach or a *participatory, learner-centered*
approach. The approach selected by the state will have a direct impact
on how the standards will be developed and aligned with curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.

3.  *How are the standards organized and presented? What features would
    the writing team like to incorporate in the state standards
    document?*

Early in the process, the state needs to make decisions about how to
organize the content standards and the full document. Most states strive
for consistency across content areas by using the same guiding
principles, definitions, terminology, and category headings for each
subject area. Reviewers should look for other features in existing sets
of standards that will help create a user-friendly document for programs
statewide. For example, documents might include glossaries, curriculum
and assessment strategies, and learner profiles or vignettes that show
how educators have integrated the standards within their practice. State
and national associations also offer supplementary support materials and
links on their Web sites.

The Practice and Application section at the end of this chapter begins
with an activity that helps the team members identify the criteria to
use as they prepare to draft quality standards. The second activity
provides an opportunity to explore the standards from two states to
identify how they are similar and how they are different.

## Crosswalk Standards

Crosswalking---also known as content mapping---is a strategy the writing
team can use to review standards. Crosswalks can be used to compare the
content of two documents in a side-by-side table or to compare several
documents in a matrix. Crosswalks show connections between documents or
systems for the purpose of further discussion and exploration. For this
reason, simple crosswalks can be used for identifying the suitability of
existing standards for adaptation. Crosswalks can also be used to
compare content standards to curriculum, assessment content, or external
certification
standards.![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

Crosswalking will take time, but when adapting standards the process can
help the writing team begin to

-   identify items that require only minor adaptations for adult
    contexts,

-   identify significant gaps that need to be addressed and skills that
    can be eliminated within adult education contexts, and

-   prioritize standards and indicators.

The CASAS National Consortium Content Standards Project developed a
crosswalk to illustrate how adult reading standards can be developed
across National Reporting System (NRS) educational functioning levels
for ABE, ASE, and ESL, as shown in exhibit 3.4.

Crosswalks can be made more sophisticated by adding criteria to assess
how well assessments or curricula align with the content standards.
Exhibit 3.5 shows how Massachusetts used a crosswalk to assess how
effectively a standardized ESL test aligned with the learning standards.

Exhibit 3.4. *CASAS Crosswalk for Reading Comprehension Skills (January
2005 Version)*

The crosswalk below illustrates sample reading comprehension standards
by NRS Educational Functioning Levels for ESL, ABE, and ASE.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 44%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 2%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
<col style="width: 3%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th><p><strong>READING SAMPLE</strong></p>
<p><strong>Basic skill content standards with level correlations for
ESL, ABE, and ASE</strong></p></th>
<th></th>
<th colspan="7"><strong>ESL</strong></th>
<th></th>
<th colspan="4"><strong>ABE</strong></th>
<th></th>
<th colspan="2"><strong>ASE</strong></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th></th>
<th></th>
<th>1</th>
<th>2</th>
<th>2a</th>
<th>3</th>
<th>4</th>
<th>5</th>
<th>6</th>
<th></th>
<th>1</th>
<th>2</th>
<th>3</th>
<th>4</th>
<th></th>
<th>5</th>
<th>6</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>R3 General reading comprehension</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>R3.2</strong> Read basic sight words (e.g., <em>exit,</em>
simple words such as <em>the</em>, <em>is</em>)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>R3.9</strong> Read and understand simple texts on familiar
topics (e.g., short narratives, basic consumer materials)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>R3.13</strong> Read and understand moderately complex texts
(e.g., general informational materials, common workplace materials)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><strong>R3.17</strong> Use contextual clues to interpret text (e.g.,
signal words, <em>but</em>, <em>first, … then</em>,
<em>unfortunately</em>)</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>R3.18</strong> Interpret figurative and idiomatic meanings
of words in context.</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Exhibit 3.5. *Massachusetts Crosswalk to Determine Skills Measured on
Standardized ESL Tests*

The exhibit below is a sample crosswalk showing the alignment of the
Massachusetts learning standards with items from the Basic English
Skills Test (BEST).

**Key:\
W** = test item measures the standard WELL\
**M** = test item measures the standard MODERATELY WELL\
**I** = test item measures the standard INDIRECTLY (i.e., test item is
intended to measure something else, but in so doing, measures this
learning standard as well)

+-------+-------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| S     | STANDARD          | BEST Core Section\                      |
| TRAND |                   | Sample Listening and Speaking           |
|       | *Second language  |                                         |
|       | learners will     |                                         |
|       | demonstrate the   |                                         |
|       | ability to ...*   |                                         |
+-------+-------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Spe   | Express           | 17 W                                    |
| aking | themselves orally |                                         |
| and   | in English in a   | 8 "social" (#1--7, 11)\                 |
| List  | variety of        | 6 "self expressive" (#8, 12, 39, 41,    |
| ening | contexts for      | 44)\                                    |
|       | social,           | 3 "functional" (#17, 2, 24)             |
|       | functional and    |                                         |
|       | self-expressive   |                                         |
|       | purposes          |                                         |
+-------+-------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|       | Use strategies to | **1 W** (#43), **1 M** (#18)            |
|       | clarify           |                                         |
|       | understanding     |                                         |
+-------+-------------------+-----------------------------------------+

*Source:* Massachusetts Department of Education 2001.

# Adapt or Develop Content Standards

The recommendations from the coordinating committee and the findings
from the review of existing materials will help the team make decisions
about its approach to standards development.

Standards do not have to be developed from scratch, as there are good
models to guide the state. The writing team may be charged with adapting
K--12 standards or an existing set of adult education standards. And
adapting another set of standards may be a more efficient approach.
Start by reviewing the potential standards and identifying how well the
standards and indicators reflect the knowledge and skills that
stakeholders have identified as necessary for adults in the state.

**Adapting K--12 state standards.** Several states have successfully
adapted K--12 standards by using the same organizing structure and
format and then fine-tuning the language and examples used in the
standards. In Louisiana, state adult education staff and the writing
team emulated the K--12 standards, where appropriate, to adapt standards
to reflect the needs of adult learners in the state. The adapted
standards were reviewed by the Council of Chief State School Officers
and shared in public sessions before they were submitted for approval by
the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

If adapting K--12 standards, the team can use the characteristics of
quality standards to focus on revising the language, contexts, and
levels as necessary for adult education. Remember that K--12 standards
are developed for use with full-time students who attend school over a
span of years. Adult education programs will have to prioritize the
essential standards for each ABE and ESL level, and they may decide to
create a set of standards that focus more on skills development than on
content knowledge as required in many K--12 standards. However, it is
important for adult education standards to cover both content knowledge
and skills, especially for learners preparing to take the General
Educational Development (GED) test, which requires knowledge in science,
mathematics, and social studies.

**Adapting K--12 national standards.** Standards developed by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Council of
Teachers of English/International Reading Association, or Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages, for example, were developed as
models to be adapted for use at the state level (NCTM 2000; NCTE and IRA
1996; TESOL 1997). These standards represent a broad consensus of what
is important for learners to know and be able to do within a specific
content area, so they can guide adult educators in outlining the content
of a particular discipline. Some of the national standards are broadly
stated or provide examples that are very K--12 centered, so state teams
need to use a critical eye when adapting these standards for adult
education programs. ![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

Other national models, including the Secretary's Commission on Achieving
Necessary Skills (SCANS) and the more recent American Diploma Project
(ADP), focus on the knowledge and skills that high school learners need
for entry into employment, postsecondary education, and training (U.S.
Department of Labor 1991; American Diploma Project n.d.). ADP and SCANS
models include many of the same skills that adults need, so these
documents can be informative for adapting standards that will prepare
adult learners for success in the workforce and for entry into
postsecondary education and training.
![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

**Adapting existing adult education content standards.** Several states
have reviewed existing state and national adult education content
standards and decided that the existing documents are sufficiently
similar to the needs identified by their learners and other
stakeholders. Both the EFF and the CASAS models were developed
specifically for adult learners. The EFF standards (published in 2000)
focus on the knowledge and skills adults need to carry out their roles
successfully as parents and family members, citizens and community
members, and workers. Ohio adopted the EFF model in 2001, and writing
teams developed benchmarks for reading, mathematics, writing, and
English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) at the six NRS
educational functioning levels. The CASAS National Consortium Content
Standards Project (2005) has developed basic skills standards that can
be integrated within a competency-based approach.

**Developing new standards.** If the state decides to develop its own
adult education content standards, the writing team can use models from
other states and the criteria for quality standards to guide the team.
Start by creating a vision and a shared understanding for the standards
and by using the information gathered from stakeholder groups to outline
the skills and strategies learners need for success (as described in
chapter 2).\
![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

# Outline a Framework for the Standards

Early in the process, each state needs to make decisions about how the
standards will be organized. Strive for consistency across content areas
by using the same guiding principles, definitions, terminology, and
category headings. Using a similar framework across content areas will
help keep the writing team focused when drafting the standards. If
adapting K--12 standards, the state may specify that adult educators use
the same framework, categories, and terminology. Or the writing team
might choose to adapt a framework used in another national or state
document. Regardless of approach, the information gleaned from the
previous reviews can help the team members determine how best to
organize their adult education standards.

The writing team in Massachusetts made a conscious decision to use the
terminology from the K--12 curriculum frameworks and to organize the
learning standards by levels and by strands. The writing team was
responsible for drafting the expectations and enabling knowledge and
skills as well as identifying the real-life contexts for learners to
apply their skills.

Exhibit 3.6 shows how the Massachusetts ABE Mathematics and Numeracy
Curriculum Framework is organized.

Exhibit 3.6. *Massachusetts ABE Mathematics and Numeracy Curriculum
Framework*

**Key to reading the Massachusetts framework:\
Top line:** Learning standard\
**Left column:** Expectations for each level\
**Middle column:** Enabling knowledge and skills\
**Right column:** Examples where learners apply their knowledge and
skills

+----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| *Level 2: Beginning  |                        |                      |
| Adult Basic          |                        |                      |
| Education            |                        |                      |
| Mathematics\         |                        |                      |
| Strand: Statistics   |                        |                      |
| and Probability*     |                        |                      |
+----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| Learning Standard:   |                        |                      |
| Read and Interpret   |                        |                      |
| Data Representations |                        |                      |
+----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| *At this level, an   | *Enabling knowledge    | *Examples where      |
| adult will be        | and skills:*           | adults use the       |
| expected to:*        |                        | knowledge and        |
|                      |                        | skills:*             |
+----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| Identify graphs in   | Demonstrate an         | Reading newspapers   |
| available resources  | understanding that a   | and magazines        |
|                      | graph is a visual      |                      |
|                      | representation         |                      |
+----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| Extract simple       | Demonstrate an         | Using yellow pages   |
| information from a   | understanding that     |                      |
| list or table        | tables are arranged in | Checking an item     |
|                      | rows and columns;      | against a stock list |
|                      | lists can be ordered   |                      |
|                      | differently            |                      |
+----------------------+------------------------+----------------------+

*Source:* Massachusetts Department of Education 2001.

Writing teams may want to review other frameworks to identify what will
work best for the state. One of the first tasks will be deciding how to
categorize the standards and indicators and how to design a logical
framework. The following table outlines the reading categories used by
CASAS.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  CASAS Reading Skill Categories

  R1. Applying principles of phonics

  R2. Recognizing word structure

  R3. General reading comprehension

  R4. Interpreting text in format

  R5. Using reference materials

  R6. Using reading strategies

  R7. Using reading and thinking skills

  R8. Academic-oriented skills

  R9. Literary analysis
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another model, from West Virginia, does not use the terms standards and
indicators in the state framework, but the system does include
instructional goals and objectives (IGOs) for all programs across the
state. The ABE reading IGOs are organized into four areas: phonemic
awareness/word analysis, vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. Each
IGO has an alphanumeric code related to proficiency descriptors and
checklists for classroom assessment. The chart that follows illustrates
how the IGOs were coded for monitoring learner progress and includes a
box for instructors to note the date on which the learner has
demonstrated each skill.

+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| West Virginia                                          | Date &      |
|                                                        | Initial     |
| ABE Reading---Beginning Literacy                       |             |
|                                                        |             |
| R.1 Phonemic Awareness/Word Analysis                   |             |
+========================================================+=============+
| 1.1.1 Recognize the concepts of print (left to right,  |             |
| top to bottom, front to back, return sweep).           |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.2 Recognize upper- and lower-case manuscript       |             |
| letters of the alphabet and their sounds.              |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.3 Identify words with the same consonants/sounds   |             |
| in initial word positions (e.g., *car, cow, cat*).     |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.4 Manipulate initial sounds to recognize, create,  |             |
| and use rhyming words (e.g., *may, say, ray*).         |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.5 Identify single consonants/sounds in initial,    |             |
| medial, and final word positions.                      |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.6 Identify short and long vowels and their sounds. |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.7 Use short vowel sounds to decode one-syllable    |             |
| words.                                                 |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.8 Identify "r-controlled" vowel sounds (e.g., *ur, |             |
| ar, ir*).                                              |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.9 Identify two-letter consonant blends in initial  |             |
| and final word positions (e.g., *br-, sp-, cl-, -nd,   |             |
| -sk*) and use these to decode one-syllable words.      |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+
| 1.1.10 Identify two-letter consonant digraphs in       |             |
| initial and final word positions (e.g., *ch, sh, th,   |             |
| wh*) and use these to decode one syllable words.       |             |
+--------------------------------------------------------+-------------+

*Source:* West Virginia Department of Education 2001.

Finally, two different state frameworks for ELA reading standards and
indicators are shown in exhibit 3.7. Note how Arizona started with a
broad standard statement and then developed *indicators* and specific
*proficiency standards*. Maryland, in contrast, started with a general
*proficiency descriptor for each level,* followed by specific language
skills. Although the presentations are different, the actual skills
included in both sets of standards are quite similar.

There is no single way to design a framework for standards. Some states
will use existing models, and others will create adaptations or new
models. The Practice and Application section at the end of this chapter
provides an opportunity for team members to brainstorm ideas for
determining how to organize and format their standards (#3).

Exhibit 3.7. *Comparing ELA Reading Standards from Two States*

Note how Arizona's ELAA II and Maryland's Intermediate Reading levels
are organized differently, but they both include similar skills for low
intermediate ESL.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Arizona ELAA\                     | Maryland ESOL\                    |
| (English Language Acquisition for | (English for Speakers of Other    |
| Adults)                           | Languages)                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *ELAA II*                         | *Intermediate Reading*            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Standard:**                     | **Proficiency Descriptor (at      |
|                                   | entry):**                         |
| The adult English learner         |                                   |
| comprehends and communicates in   | Learners can read simple          |
| written and spoken English for a  | materials in familiar contexts.   |
| variety of purposes.              | Learners can comprehend sentences |
|                                   | and paragraphs when vocabulary is |
|                                   | controlled.                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Sample Indicators:**            | **Sample Skill Standards:**       |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Reads the vocabulary related  | -   Apply simple context clues to |
|     to the functions in this and  |     determine meaning of new      |
|     all previous levels (Note:    |     words.                        |
|     functions are clearly         |                                   |
|     stated).                      | -   Recognize most standard words |
|                                   |     on a personal information     |
| -   Reads simplified materials    |     form (e.g., employment        |
|     for information.              |     history, education,           |
|                                   |     references).                  |
| -   Readily reads with young      |                                   |
|     children.                     | -   Locate a word, number, or     |
|                                   |     item in alphabetical or       |
|                                   |     numerical order (e.g., phone  |
|                                   |     book, dictionary, directory,  |
|                                   |     index).                       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Comprehend simple and         |
|                                   |     compound sentences in         |
|                                   |     authentic materials (e.g.,    |
|                                   |     brochures, job                |
|                                   |     announcements).               |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | -   Identify the main idea,       |
|                                   |     chronological order, and      |
|                                   |     simple transitions in texts   |
|                                   |     on familiar subjects.         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Met Proficiency Standard:**     |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| 1\. Uses dictionary to find       |                                   |
| meaning or spelling of a word.    |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| 2\. Often identifies base words   |                                   |
| that comprise compound words and  |                                   |
| contractions.                     |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| 3\. Reads short (5--7 sentences), |                                   |
| simple stories on familiar topics |                                   |
| and responds to factual           |                                   |
| comprehension questions.          |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

*Source:* Arizona Department of Education 2004 and Maryland Adult
Literacy Resource Center at UMBC 2003.

# Draft Standards

Some fundamental questions need to be answered before the writing team
begins to draft standards. Should the standards be general, broad
statements that become specific through indicators? Or should the
standards themselves be specific and measurable? There is no single
correct answer. Many national and state content standards start with
general statements that represent broader concepts and then use
indicators for specific skills and levels. Keeping the standards general
gives local programs more flexibility for curriculum
development.![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.575in"}

As discussed previously, one way to decide what to include is to start
with a research or literature review in the content area. Another way is
to consult with subject matter experts and practitioners in the field.
An approach that combines research, expert opinion, and practitioner
wisdom will ultimately lead to standards and indicators that are valid
and accepted by practitioners.

A word of caution: When educators brainstorm what learners should know
and be able to do, they often create massive lists. When there are too
many standards or indicators, learners cannot possibly meet them all.
The writing team needs to determine what it is reasonable to hold
learners accountable to learn and what it is reasonable to hold teachers
accountable to teach.

**Prioritizing.** Another approach for making decisions about what to
include (Popham 2001) is for individual team members to first prioritize
the standards on a simple scale such as the
following:![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.575in"}

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Potential         Not absolutely    Desirable         Essential
  standard          necessary                           

  1.1                                                   

  1.2                                                   
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

Later, the team convenes to compare the ratings for each standard.
Standards generally rated *not absolutely necessary* are eliminated*,*
and those generally rated *essential* are kept*.* The team can set "cut
points" for the standards rated differently in each column, and then
discuss them individually. For example, the team can rank the desirable
standards again on a continuum from *most important* to *least
important*. Ranking might reveal that standards originally rated as
desirable may not be necessary, whereas other standards rated as
desirable may really be essential for determining learner progress.

The same set of steps would be used to prioritize and rank indicators at
each level:

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Indicators        Not absolutely    Desirable         Essential
                    necessary                           

  1.2.1                                                 

  1.2.2                                                 

  1.2.3                                                 
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

A state might decide to include many indicators, but only hold learners
accountable for demonstrating mastery of indicators that are marked
"required" and can be measured through standardized tests. Another
strategy is to hold learners accountable for demonstrating mastery of a
specified number of indicators within a level. As learners progress,
they may be held accountable for more indicators per level. Teachers and
learners would maintain the flexibility to negotiate which specific
indicators will help individual learners meet their goals and learning
plans.

**Showing the progression of skills across levels.** Some state
documents use broad, generally stated content standards followed by
indicators or benchmarks to exemplify the expectations for each level.
As learners move from level to level, the expectations become
progressively more complex. Ohio, for example, adopted the EFF standards
and then developed benchmarks in reading, mathematics, writing, and ESOL
on a performance continuum. The following outline shows how Ohio's ESOL
Speaking Benchmarks become progressively more difficult:\
![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------
  Ohio        Sample Benchmarks for ESOL Speaking

  Levels      *Communicate using ...*

  1           basic, emergency, and survival words, memorized phrases,
              and basic sentences

  2           simple phrases and sentences with simple vocabulary

  3           sentences on simple topics

  4           information on topics from various sources

  5           simple information on complex topics

  6           information from various sources on complex topics
  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------

*Source:* Ohio Department of Education n.d. (ESOL).

Developing the continuum of skills is not always an easy process. One
strategy for leveling skills and knowledge is *backward mapping* (Doyle
and Pimentel 1999). In backward mapping, the team starts with the
highest level of what an advanced ABE, ASE, or ELA learner needs to know
and be able to do within a content area. Once the advanced level is
outlined, the team works backwards to map out a logical sequence of
indicators for the intermediate level. Then the team maps backward from
the intermediate to beginner level.

Most states have level indicators---NRS level descriptors or their own
state levels, for example---but a few states have consciously decided
not to include levels because there is no consensus in the state or
because practitioners believe skills develop on a continuum that does
not necessarily correspond to instructional levels. In states that have
not assigned levels, a concern exists that inexperienced instructors may
require more guidance to determine the level of complexity for
instructional materials and tasks. Without clear "level" expectations,
it is extremely difficult to fairly and accurately monitor progress and
determine advancement.

**Reviewing the drafts internally.** As the team is drafting the content
standards, it might also want to review the drafts continually within
the team. Internal reviews can be informal discussions or they can be
written and shared electronically.

The writing team might go through the discussion and feedback process
several times. Early in the drafting process, members may also want to
share initial drafts with the coordinating committee to be assured they
agree with the committee's recommendations. For each round of draft and
internal review, team members should

-   keep the criteria for quality standards on hand,

-   look for consistency within each level, and

-   consider the progression of knowledge and skills from level to
    level.

Internal reviewers can ask clarification questions and make suggestions
that will lead to stronger standards. For example, reviewers might note
language that is unclear or an indicator they consider to be biased.
Team members might also suggest ways to contextualize the standards so
that they are more specific and measurable. Reviewers should look for
standards that include higher order skills and that focus on knowledge
and skills rather than learning processes. And team members will want to
ensure that the draft standards and indicators capture the essential
skills and show a clear progression from level to
level.![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

During this internal team review, some standards might be added,
eliminated, or moved to another level. Reviewers should state their
comments and suggestions as clearly as possible. Feedback is then
returned to the writers to make revisions that will strengthen the
standards. Ideally, team members will work together to decide how to
incorporate the feedback and suggestions. Exhibit 3.8 shows three draft
standards, discussion notes from other team members, and the revisions
that were made based on the feedback.

The writing team does not need to develop *all* the standards and
indicators before seeking feedback from peers. Teachers on the writing
team can informally share ideas within their programs to get more ideas
and to clarify difficult choices, such as level appropriateness and the
specificity for adult contexts. However, do not circulate the drafts
widely and leave them open to criticism before they have been reviewed
and revised within the team.

Exhibit 3.8. *Revising Standards and Indicators within the Team*

Team members reviewed first drafts and provided feedback, which was
incorporated in the revisions.

+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Adult Secondary       |                      |                       |
| Education Level       |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| First draft          | Discussion and\      | Revision              |
|                       | feedback            |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Select and read books | *Neither specific    | Select three texts    |
| by contemporary       | nor rigorous*.       | drawn from the "state |
| American authors.     |                      | GED" reading list,    |
|                       | \(a\) Will the       | and compare the       |
|                       | learners select      | authors' main         |
|                       | books representing   | messages and the      |
|                       | different genres and | relevance of the      |
|                       | writing styles, and  | texts within          |
|                       | at the right level   | contemporary life.    |
|                       | of difficulty?       |                       |
|                       |                      |                       |
|                       | \(b\) Specify how we |                       |
|                       | will know they read  |                       |
|                       | and understand the   |                       |
|                       | books.               |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Beginner Level        |                      |                       |
| Mathematics           |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| First draft          | Discussion and\      | Revision              |
|                       | feedback            |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Use operations and    | *Not measurable.*    | Calculate tips, sales |
| number sense to       |                      | tax, commissions, and |
| compute and solve     | \(a\) What           | percentage increases  |
| problems.             | operations and       | and decreases.        |
|                       | computations are     |                       |
|                       | required?            |                       |
|                       |                      |                       |
|                       | \(b\) To be          |                       |
|                       | measurable, we would |                       |
|                       | need to see a sample |                       |
|                       | problem.             |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Low Intermediate ELA  |                      |                       |
| Writing               |                      |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| First draft          | Discussion and\      | Revision              |
|                       | feedback            |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Write short           | *Not specific.*      | Write about personal  |
| paragraphs on         |                      | experiences with a    |
| familiar topics.      | \(a\) What is short? | clear focus, ideas in |
|                       |                      | sensible order, and   |
|                       | \(b\) Statement is   | sufficient supporting |
|                       | too abstract and     | detail.               |
|                       | open to multiple     |                       |
|                       | interpretations.     |                       |
+-----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

The process of (1) drafting, (2) reviewing, and (3) revising is likely
to be repeated several times within the team. After the writing team has
finished its internal reviews and revisions, the standards will go
through several external reviews to ensure that they are valid and can
be implemented across the various program types in the state. Chapter 4
provides more information about the external review process. Depending
on the type of recommendations and corresponding revisions, another
round of reviews might be necessary before the coordinating committee
accepts the standards and submits the document to the state for
adoption.

# Align Assessments and Curriculum with Standards![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.575in"}

The standards and indicators are only one part of an integrated model
for standards-based program improvement. They can be well developed and
powerful, but they cannot lead to change without other changes within
the adult education system. As part of the development process, the
writing team also needs to consider how the assessments will align with
the content standards and how current curricula and instructional
practices can be aligned with the high expectations generated by the
standards.

## Assessment![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.6770833333333334in"}

A comprehensive approach to assessment, which includes a range of
assessment instruments, with both nationally standardized tests and
alternative or authentic assessments, is designed to meet (1) the need
for external accountability and reporting and (2) the need for teachers
and learners to monitor progress and plan instruction (Ananda 2000). The
following section provides general information on two types of
assessment for adult programs: standardized tests and progress
monitoring.

**Standardized tests** are important for comparing student data across
programs within a state and across the nation. They allow for a
comparison of a student's performance with the performance of other
students. States use standardized test scores to determine level
advancement for the NRS. States also use comparison data for making
decisions related to program improvement, identifying promising
practices in the field, planning professional development, and, more
recently, determining performance-based funding.[^2]

When the tests and standards are aligned, the information from
standardized tests is valuable. However, when assessments and outcomes
are not aligned with the standards and curricula, the data that are
reported and compared may not provide a full, fair, and accurate
assessment of how well students and programs are performing.

To find out whether standardized tests align with the state standards,
the state may create a crosswalk table to compare the standards with
test items to identify where there is similarity or disparity. The
following table shows a sample crosswalk that Ohio's adult education
staff used to determine whether the Test of Adult Basic Education
(TABE), Forms 9 and 10, included items corresponding to Ohio's reading
benchmarks.

Abbreviated Sample Reading Standards and TABE 9\
and 10![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Level 2: Beginning ABE              TABE Survey Plus, 
                                      Level E           

                                      Form 9            Form 10

  2.2.3. Use decoding skills ... to   1                 
  read.                                                 

  2.2.6. Use context clues ... to     2, 10, 17, 22, 23 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9,
  read texts.                                           18
  ----------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------

*Source:* Ohio Department of Education n.d. (TABE).

Note that the TABE Level E test was not designed for beginning level
readers and, therefore, includes only one item that focuses on basic
decoding skills.

Comparison tables might reveal gaps in the tests or gaps in the
standards. For example, staff in Arizona realized that their draft ELA
writing standards did not include punctuation, so they added a standard
that had been previously overlooked by the writing team. When
crosswalking the tests and standards, consider the following questions:

-   To what extent does the test address the range of knowledge and
    skills in the content standards?

-   What is included in the test, but is not included in the state
    standards?

-   What standards are not measured by the test?

Keep in mind that standardized tests only sample student performance, so
the state may have standards that are not measured by state-approved
tests. In adult education, standardized tests are often given after 60+
hours, at the end of a term, or when learners "exit" the program. Thus,
test results may not always be available to use in a timely manner to
help students learn better while they are still in class.

**Progress monitoring** helps teachers and learners make better
decisions about the type of instruction that will work best for a given
student or class (National Center on Student Progress Monitoring).
Regular monitoring allows learners to see their progress in meeting
standards. Furthermore, if learners are making progress on the
standards, they should also be making gains on standardized tests that
measure skill proficiency.

Several state adult education programs have designed comprehensive,
integrated assessment systems with standardized tests for accountability
and locally developed assessments for monitoring progress. For example,
Arizona has created proficiency standards for the standards at each
level so teachers can gauge learners' progress and determine when
learners are ready for the standardized tests. Ohio has a uniform
portfolio assessment system for teachers to document learners' progress
on the standards throughout an instructional cycle.

## Curriculum and Instruction![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.575in"}

Earlier in this chapter, crosswalks were suggested for reviewing and
comparing existing standards to identify similarities and gaps in the
documents. An alignment crosswalk can help the writing team assess the
extent to which the current curricula and instructional materials align
with the draft content standards. The writing team can use the same
process to crosswalk current curriculum content, textbooks, teacher-made
activities, and resources with the draft content standards. When
crosswalking curricula and standards, consider the following questions:

-   How well does the current curriculum address the knowledge and
    skills described in the standards?

-   What changes could be made in the draft content standards and
    indicators to address any content or skill gaps? To address
    discrepancies with the levels?

-   How can curriculum be adapted or developed to address the new
    standards?

Exhibit 3.9 is a sample tool that can be used to identify what
curriculum and resources currently exist and what new curriculum and
supporting resources may be necessary.

Considering the alignment of curriculum during the development and
internal review of the draft standards will provide useful information
for the field test review (see chapter 4). The findings of a curriculum
crosswalk can also help identify resources and professional development
that local program staff will need to prepare for implementation (see
chapter 5).

# Prepare the Full Standards Document

State agencies often have publication guidelines that must be followed
as well as formats that are recommended for all standards within the
state. Sometimes, adult education offices will use the same title that
is used in the K--12 system (e.g., *Curriculum Framework* or *Resource
Guide*). Other states simply use *Adult Education Content Standards*.
Regardless of the name, the writing team needs to identify the features
that will make the standards document easy to use.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="7.15in"
height="4.090277777777778in"}*Exhibit 3.9. Worksheet for Assessing the
Alignment of Existing Curriculum* with Draft Content Standards

+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Standard             | Curriculum                                    |
|                      |                                               |
|                      | (e.g., course content, published workbooks,\  |
|                      | teacher-made activities)                      |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2.7: Learners use    | Reading workbook (pp. 16--20)                 |
| decoding skills to   |                                               |
| read.                | RL1 learning activities #2--5                 |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2.8: Learners use    |                                               |
| comprehension        |                                               |
| strategies.          |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| 2.9: Learners        |                                               |
| identify the main    |                                               |
| idea of text.        |                                               |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------+

Take time to brainstorm what instructors would like to find in a
standards document. Would readers want to know how the standards were
developed and who worked on the team(s)? Do they want to see sample
curricula or lessons? Do they want more information on teaching literacy
or teaching mathematics? Do they want sample assessments? Even when the
team cannot include everything instructors want, the requests will be
helpful for identifying professional development and technical
assistance needs in the field.
![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

The standards will be used by less experienced instructors as well as
those who have been working with adult learners for many years. Most
likely, instructors will have a wide range of skills and knowledge in
their subject areas. Keep their distinct perspectives and needs in mind
when designing documents, and remember they will *all* need professional
development for implementing standards-based education. How does the
state bring standards to life for teachers and learners? Several states
have created extensive resources to help local programs fully shift to a
standards-based practice. The Massachusetts *ESL Curriculum Framework*
links learner profiles and teacher vignettes with classroom practice,
and Arizona's *ELAA Standards* offers sample activities for each level.
Both New York's *Resource Guide* and Ohio's *Standards and Benchmarks*
include suggestions for ongoing, classroom assessment.

Exhibit 3.10 provides a list of potential sections to consider including
during the final design of the standards document. The presentation of
the standards and the extent to which the document is user friendly are
extremely important. Document design research shows that presentation is
an important factor in usability. Documents in which users have to flip
between sections can be confusing and frustrating. Always keep the user
in mind!

Exhibit 3.10. *Components of a Standards Document*

Use this checklist to identify what to include in the state standards
document. Check with the state office to identify what must be included
and how the document should be formatted (e.g., font size and layout
that are accessible for people with disabilities).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Check All That Apply                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| □ Introduction to document                                            |
|                                                                       |
| □ List of contributors                                                |
|                                                                       |
| □ Process for developing the content standards document               |
|                                                                       |
| □ Approach that guided development of the standards                   |
|                                                                       |
| □ Definitions of terms                                                |
|                                                                       |
| □ Definitions or descriptions of levels                               |
|                                                                       |
| □ Description of how content standards are organized (by strands,     |
| topics, themes, skill areas, etc.)                                    |
|                                                                       |
| □ Content standards                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| □ Indicators or benchmarks that show progression of skills across     |
| levels                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| □ Numbers or codes to facilitate crosswalking standards and           |
| indicators with other documents                                       |
|                                                                       |
| □ Performance standards                                               |
|                                                                       |
| □ Guidance for alignment with assessments (e.g., assessments for      |
| monitoring within the classroom and for accountability reporting)     |
|                                                                       |
| □ Guidance for alignment with curriculum and instruction (e.g.,       |
| sample curriculum or sample lessons)                                  |
|                                                                       |
| □ Learner profiles and teacher stories                                |
|                                                                       |
| □ Font and layout made accessible for people with disabilities        |
|                                                                       |
| □ Final presentation: print and/or Web-based? (If on Web, in PDF or   |
| HTML?)\                                                               |
| ADA compliance?                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# Practice and Application

1\. During the review of standards, have team members select two or
three standards and indicators that they find to be particularly strong.
When the writing team convenes, post the quality standards and identify
what makes them strong. Do certain features or expressions indicate
quality? Use the quality features the team has discovered as a guide for
adapting or drafting state standards.

2\. Visit the Adult Education Content Standards Warehouse
(<http://www.adultedcontentstandards.ed.gov/>). Compare two sets of
reading standards. Find two similarities and two differences in the
approach taken by the sponsor or state.

3\. Discuss the sample framework provided in exhibit 3.6. Share ideas
about the organization of the state documents reviewed by the team.
Brainstorm ideas for organizing the standards, indicators, and levels
for your state.

# References

American Diploma Project, an initiative of Achieve, Inc., the Education
Trust, and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. n.d. *Achieve initiatives:
American diploma project.* <http://www.achieve.org/node/604> (accessed
December 2007).

American Federation of Teachers. 2003. *Setting strong standards*
(Educational Issues Department No. 39-0175). Washington, DC: American
Federation of Teachers. [http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/\
teachers/settingstrong.pdf](http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/settingstrong.pdf)
(accessed December 2007).

Ananda, S. 2000. *Equipped for the Future assessment report: How
instructors can support adult learners through performance-based
assessments* (ERIC No. ED 443999)*.* Washington, DC: National Institute
for Literacy. <http://eff.cls.utk.edu/PDF/ananda_eff.pdf> (accessed
December 2007).

Arizona Department of Education. Adult Education Services. 2004.
*English language acquisition for adults (ELAA) standards.*
<http://www.ade.state.az.us/adult-ed/adult_ed_standards.asp> (accessed
December 2007).

CASAS National Consortium. 2005. *Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment
System (CASAS).* <http://casas.org/casasnewweb/index.cfm> (accessed
December 2007).

Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). 1993. *Developing
content standards: Creating a process for change.* Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania, CPRE (including Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey; University of Wisconsin--Madison; Harvard
University; Stanford University; University of Michigan).

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2004. *Criteria for
judging the quality of content standards.*
[http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/\
crjudge.html](http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/standardsassessment/crjudge.html)
(accessed December 2007).

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). 2003. *State content
standards: A 50-state resource*. Washington, DC: CCSSO.
[http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/\
StateContentStandards.pdf](http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/StateContentStandards.pdf)
(accessed December 2007).

Doyle, D., and S. Pimentel. 1999. *Raising the standard: An eight-step
guide for schools and communities*. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Equipped for the Future. n.d. *Special collection---Content standards.*
<http://eff.cls.utk.edu/resources/home.htm> (accessed December 2007).

Maryland Adult Literacy Resource Center at UMBC. 2003. *Adult ESOL
content standards*. [http://www.umbc.edu/alrc/\
ESOLCS405.pdf](http://www.umbc.edu/alrc/ESOLCS405.pdf) (accessed
December 2007).

Massachusetts Department of Education. Adult and Community Learning
Services. 2001. *Massachusetts adult basic education curriculum
frameworks for mathematics and numeracy.*
<http://www.doe.mass.edu/acls/frameworks> (accessed December 2007).

Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. n.d. *Content
knowledge: 4th edition standards & benchmarks.*
<http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks> (accessed December 2007).

National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. 2003.
Curriculum development. *Focus on Basics,* 6 (C).
<http://www.ncsall.net/index.php?id=153> (accessed December 2007).

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring.
[http://www.studentprogress.org](http://www.studentprogress.org/)
(accessed December 2007).

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and International
Reading Association (IRA). 1996. *Standards for the English language
arts.* Urbana, IL: NCTE.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 2000. *Principles
and standards for school mathematics*. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Ohio Department of Education. Office of Career-Technical and Adult
Education. n.d. *Adult basic and literacy education: ESOL standards
(2005).*
[http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=966&Content=13171](http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=966&Content=13171 )
(accessed December 2007).

Ohio Department of Education. Office of Career-Technical and Adult
Education. n.d. *TABE 9&10 to Ohio Adult Basic and Literacy Education:
Standards and Benchmarks.*
[http://literacy.kent.edu/opas/2004/TABECorrelationtoABLE\
Standards.pdf](http://literacy.kent.edu/opas/2004/TABECorrelationtoABLEStandards.pdf)
(accessed December 2007).

Popham, W. J. 2001. Whittling wish-list standards down to reality.
*Education Digest,* 66 (7): 8. <http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/eddigest>
(accessed December 2007).

Sandrock, P. 1997. *State standards: Connecting a national vision to
local implementation* (ACTFL Professional Issues Report: White Paper).
Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
[http://www.actfl.org/files/\
public/winter1997STstan.pdf](http://www.actfl.org/files/public/winter1997STstan.pdf)
(accessed December 2007).

StandardsWork. n.d. *The StandardsWork criteria for judging standards.*
<http://goalline.org/StandardsWork/Criteria.html> (accessed December
2007).

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). 1997. *ESL
standards for pre-K--12 students*. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, Inc.
[http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/\
seccss.asp?CID=95&DID=1565](http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/seccss.asp?CID=95&DID=1565)
(accessed December 2007).

U.S. Department of Labor. Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary
Skills (SCANS). 1991. *What work requires of schools* (Publication no.
ED 332 054). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

West Virginia Department of Education. 2001. *Essential IGO verification
guidelines.* Charleston, WV: West Virginia Department of Education.
<http://wvabe.org/essential_igos.htm> (accessed December 2007).

[^1]: To develop standards in different content areas, the state may
    have more than one team. For simplicity, this guide will use the
    singular "team," although a state may have more than one writing
    team.

[^2]: Note: Federal funding to the states is based on a complex formula
    and is not solely based on performance.