Chapter 2

Setting the Stage for the Standards-Based Initiative

Although impetus for development of content standards comes from a
variety of sources---federal and state education leaders and policy
makers, local program administrators, the general public, and the
business community---the state adult education agency plays a critical
role in moving the standards initiative forward. The state agency lays
the foundation needed to support the standards initiative and integrate
standards within the larger adult education system. Standards-based
education must be an integral part of the adult education system and the
state's continuous program improvement plan.

Chapter 2 discusses the role of the state in laying a solid foundation
to promote change. The foundation comprises a number of building blocks
that will support a standards-based system, including (1) a vision to
motivate the field to work toward a common goal, (2) a strategic plan
that articulates the vision, (3) coherent and coordinated policies and
procedures that foster a systemic approach to continuous improvement
through standards-based education, (4) financial resources that support
the initiative, (5) staff to lead the initiative and to develop, review,
align, and implement standards, and (6) a mechanism---requests for
proposals (RFPs) and grant applications---to communicate to local
programs the state's expectations and policies for standards-based
education.

This chapter also outlines an approach to organizing and coordinating
the state's efforts to develop and implement content standards through
the creation of a coordinating committee. The chapter focuses on the
coordinating committee's role in identifying priorities for content
standards among key stakeholders and in conducting a preliminary review
of research on standards-based education and existing adult education
content standards. The coordinating committee provides leadership and
guidance throughout the standards development process and---with
assistance of the state agency liaison---develops an action plan for the
initiative and procedures for recruiting stakeholders to participate in
the process.

# Use a Systemic Model for Standards-Based Education

Transitioning to standards-based education requires change. State
agencies need to plan how they can move forward with the initiative and
make standards-based education an integral part of the adult education
system. Exhibit 2.1 introduces a model for transitioning to
standards-based education by (1) establishing a foundation for
standards-based education; (2) exploring sources of influence that
affect the initiative; (3) aligning curriculum, instruction, and
assessment with content standards; and (4) supporting the implementation
by offering professional development, monitoring local programs, and
evaluating the changes resulting from the initiative.

State adult education offices are uniquely positioned to provide the
leadership and resources that will lead to systemic program improvement
and higher learner outcomes. The model is built on the following key
steps.

**Establish the foundation for standards-based education.** The state
should facilitate the change process by laying a foundation for
standards-based education that articulates a vision with supporting
policies and procedures that specifies what needs to be done to
implement standards-based education. The vision is articulated through
state and strategic plans. The state needs to identify and secure
funding for the initiative as well as identify staff at the state and
local levels to plan, develop, and review the standards. Before any
local program can begin using the standards, the state office has to
articulate the state's expectations and policies clearly in the RFPs and
grant applications that are released for local program providers. These
expectations and policies should be articulated in a formal agreement
with local programs that specifies what they must do to implement
standards-based education.

**Explore sources of influence that affect the initiative.** Partners
and external factors will influence how the state plans, develops,
reviews, and implements an integrated standards-based system. The state
will need to gather and review information about the state standards
policies, workforce expectations, higher education requirements, and
existing standards. In addition, the state will need to consult with the
general public, experts, and adult education stakeholders. It is
important to keep these stakeholders and sources in mind throughout the
standards development and alignment processes.

Exhibit 2.1. *Standards-Based Education Model*

This model illustrates a systemic approach to continuous improvement
through standards-based education.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.496527777777778in"
height="7.449305555555555in"}

**Align curriculum, instruction, and assessment with content
standards.** The model uses interlocking circles to illustrate the
integration of the three components. The state needs to work
collaboratively with partners to draft and develop standards that
reflect what learners need to know and be able to do and that reflect
research and evidence-based practice in the content areas. Local
programs develop curricula and instructional plans aligned with the
standards. Assessments---both standardized and classroom-based---will
measure learners' attainment of the standards. At the intersection of
the standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment are learners and
educators. As the key stakeholders, they are represented in the center
of this model that is designed to lead to higher learner outcomes.

**Support the implementation.** Developing standards is only the
beginning of the process. Once standards are developed, the state needs
to support professional development at the state, regional, and local
levels. The state needs to monitor local implementation to assess how
well local programs are using the standards to guide curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. Throughout the cycle of change, the state
needs to evaluate the effectiveness of the standards system, update the
strategic plan continually, and consult with influential program
partners.

This chapter discusses the state's role in laying the foundation for
change and assessing the influences that affect the development of
standards. Remaining chapters in this guide will discuss the other
components of the model.

# Lay the Foundation for Standards-Based Education

A strong foundation for standards-based education entails creating a
vision for program reform and improvement that is operationalized
through state and strategic plans. Policies and procedures must then be
in place to support standards-based education. Transitioning to
standards-based education will have cost implications, and the state
will need to secure and allocate funding for the initiative. In
addition, developing, reviewing, and implementing standards involve
people. The state should identify staff at the state and local levels
who can participate in the initiative as members of a committee to
coordinate the standards effort and as members of standards writing and
review teams.

As the state undertakes this work, it must consider the broad context in
which adult education currently operates. The state agency or designated
committee should take the lead in consulting and gathering information
from stakeholders, experts, and the general public. In addition, the
state should take into account other factors such as policy mandates,
higher education requirements, or expectations for success in the
workforce as it designs its standards-based system.
![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

This foundation should support the integration of standards-based
education within the adult education system. As states move forward,
they need to consider the following questions:

-   How will content standards be incorporated within the state plan
    that is submitted to the Office of Vocational and Adult Education?

-   How will content standards be integrated within the RFP and grant
    application process for local programs?

-   What mandates will the state put in place related to curriculum and
    assessment?

-   What is the state's role in professional development, and what
    changes might be needed?

-   How will the implementation of the content standards be monitored
    and evaluated? What tools and data collection procedures will be
    needed to upgrade current practices at the state and local levels?

-   How can the state align the activities it currently supports with
    what it needs to do to support implementation of standards-based
    education? How can the state leverage funds from other sources to
    support the initiative?

These questions are addressed throughout this guide. The following
sections discuss the key components for laying a strong foundation for
standards-based education at the state level.

## Create a Vision and a Strategic Plan

Before the state can move forward with the initiative, it should create
a vision for standards-based education. The vision expresses core values
and guiding principles. Effective visions are compelling and exciting
and motivate stakeholders to embrace standards-based education as a
benefit to all learners. The vision should drive improvements to all
aspects of the adult education system---instructional services,
professional development, monitoring, and accountability---and be
integrated within the state's policies and procedures. In this way, all
stakeholders will be held responsible for moving toward the vision.

The state's vision may include the following core values:

-   Adult education contributes to the community by enabling adult
    learners to succeed in their roles as family members, community
    members, workers, and lifelong learners.

-   Content standards affect all aspects of adult education.

-   Standards-based education improves learner outcomes.

-   Content standards drive curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

-   Research-based practices support adult learning.

-   Highly qualified instructors who are knowledgeable about content
    area and instructional approaches are at the core of the
    standards-based system.

-   Local programs are accountable for implementing standards-based
    education.

A strong leader can promote the vision and motivate state and local
staff to work toward a common goal---the integration of standards-based
education within all aspects of the adult education system. The state
director and other key staff members must clearly communicate the vision
so that all stakeholders see the value of standards-based education. The
state director may do this in the state plan and through policy briefs,
a strategic plan, and town meetings with stakeholders across the state.
The vision must become part of the adult education agenda and be viewed
as a way of strengthening program quality and improving learner
outcomes.

The strategic plan articulates the vision by outlining the broad
direction the state will take to move toward its vision. The plan drives
the policies and procedures to integrate standards within the state's
adult education delivery system, including funding decisions, grant
award processes, and programs monitoring. The strategic plan focuses on

-   assessing the capacity and resources of the state to fully implement
    standards-based education;

-   gathering stakeholder support for standards-based education;

-   outlining a process for developing, reviewing, and implementing
    standards;

-   providing professional development and other supports necessary to
    implement standards-based education across all programs; and

-   monitoring and evaluating local programs.

The strategic plan is a living document that guides the state's
development and implementation of standards and should be revised as the
standards initiative moves forward.

## Develop Policies and Procedures to Support Standards-Based Education

Policies developed by the state often include rules on how the state
will allocate and spend money and other resources. Policies define the
course of action that the state and local programs will take to
implement standards-based education. A coherent, coordinated system of
standards requires policies and procedures that align with stakeholder
expectations and support all components of the initiative. For example,
a state may want to establish policies or regulations that stipulate
when local programs must begin using the standards and the extent to
which state and local funds will support implementation of the content
standards.

These policies create the infrastructure of standards-based education
and should reflect the content of the state's strategic plan. In
addition, the policies should reflect legislative actions and other
state policies and mandates related to content standards. The policies
also should reflect the needs identified by stakeholders within the
adult education community.

Policies should reinforce the state's vision, focus on priorities, and
send a clear message about how standards-based education can be
sustained---and must be couched in the context of the state policy
landscape. To gain a realistic appraisal of the broader state policies
related to education, state staff should examine current legislative
actions, agency policies, and the state plan for adult education. State
actions may have already defined some of the policies for standards
development and implementation and thereby set the parameters for an
adult education standards-based initiative. For example, the state may
have mandated standards-based education with deadlines for development
for all educational levels. The state's department of education or
department of labor may have other mandates for content standards that
will frame the standards initiative policies. For example, the
department of education may have determined content standards priorities
or whether adult education standards must be aligned with K--12,
postsecondary, or business and industry standards.

State policies and procedures should build capacity at the state and
local program levels to translate challenging standards into effective
instruction and improved learner outcomes. This may be accomplished by
providing financial incentives to local programs and by restructuring
financial systems to support standards-based education. Policies for
building capacity also may address the following considerations:

-   **Recruitment, hiring, and retention of instructional staff.**
    Policies may relate to setting staff qualifications or competencies
    or acknowledging instructors whose learners show significant
    improvement. ![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
    height="0.575in"}

-   **Professional development.** Policies may involve developing
    professional development standards, using research-based approaches
    and materials, providing paid time or release time for professional
    development, creating an infrastructure to support programs and
    instructors in aligning curriculum and assessment with standards,
    and linking professional development to content areas.

-   **Curriculum and instructional services.** Policies may involve
    promoting curriculum frameworks in content areas and creating
    resource banks of curricula and other instructional materials to
    facilitate the transition to standards-based education; or providing
    sufficient opportunities to learn through more intensive instruction
    and managing enrollment.

-   **Student assessment.** Policies may involve implementing ongoing
    learner assessments aligned with content standards and statewide
    assessments linked to standards.

-   **Accountability systems.** Policies may involve allocating
    resources according to program improvement plans and rewarding local
    programs based on their performance.

-   **Learner persistence and transition to employment or higher
    education.** Policies may involve redesigning the instructional
    delivery and support systems and collaborating with other agencies
    and stakeholders.

The transition to standards-based reform has cost implications. The next
section discusses the financial resources that the state will need to
draw upon for its standards initiative.

## Secure Funding and Allocate Resources to Support Standards-Based Education

An essential element in planning for standards-based education is
considering both short- and long-term expenses. Knowing potential costs
will enable the state to establish priorities and make decisions about
how to approach the standards initiative. For example, cost
considerations will help the state determine whether it will be able to
develop standards in one or more content areas, hire external experts,
field test the standards, and provide professional development for
implementing the standards within each region of the state. Knowing the
costs will also help the state allocate resources to support the
standards initiative.

The state also needs to consider staff resources and identify
individuals who will lead the standards initiative, facilitate teams and
committees to draft and review the content standards, and support
implementation. The state must include in the budget the costs
associated with staff participation in the standards effort.

### Costs Related to the Standards Initiative

It is important to consider short-term costs for developing and
reviewing standards as well as future costs related to the state's
professional development, instructional delivery, monitoring, and
accountability systems.

The state, for example, will have upfront costs for planning,
developing, and reviewing the standards. It will need to provide support
for the following developmental costs:

-   travel expenses for state employees and members of committees or
    teams to participate in the development of content standards

-   fees for content standards consultants or facilitators

-   stipends for part-time staff participating on the development team
    or review committees

-   costs associated with initial focus groups, interviews, and surveys
    across the state to gather information and later to review the draft
    standards

-   costs related to field testing the standards in local programs

-   the cost of technology to enhance distance communication capacity

-   the cost of professional development to enhance content knowledge of
    the team members and other program staff involved in the process

In addition, the state will need to plan for costs associated with local
capacity building to implement the standards. The state will want to
ensure that local administrators and instructional leaders have the
knowledge, skills, and abilities to take leadership roles during the
transition and can garner stakeholder and staff support for
implementation of the content standards. The state will need to offer a
range of professional development opportunities at the state, regional,
and local levels for (1) instructional staff to strengthen subject-area
knowledge and develop standards-based curriculum and assessments and (2)
administrators to implement the standards.

The state will also need to consider the costs related to implementation
and monitoring of standards. A state might provide financial incentives
to local programs as they transition to standards-based education. New
curriculum and instructional resources might be needed at state,
regional, and local levels. Finally, the state will need to update its
processes and procedures for monitoring local program implementation of
the standards as well as for collecting and analyzing data to evaluate
the effectiveness of the standards.

It is best for the state to identify costs at the beginning of the
process so that it can thoughtfully prepare to support the standards
initiative. To help states think about cost issues, Appendix C, Tools
and Templates, includes a sample budget worksheet for the first year of
the initiative that identifies potential expenses involved in the
process.

### Financial Resources to Support Standards-Based Education 

As the state considers the costs for implementing standards-based
education, it should identify potential resources that could support the
initiative. The state can look to multiple funding streams to support
standards-based education. The challenge is to think creatively about
how to identify and use the funds to develop the standards and build
program capacity to implement standards over the long term.

**State leadership funds** from the 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Basic State Grants can be used to support one or more of the following
leadership activities: professional development, technical assistance,
technology assistance, literacy resource centers, monitoring, state
incentives, curriculum development, activities of statewide
significance, support services, linkages with workforce investment, or
postsecondary linkages (WIA, Section 223).

**Incentive award money,** awarded to states that exceed their WIA Title
I and Title II performance standards, can be used at the governor's
discretion to design a statewide standards-based initiative for learners
being served by Title I and Title II programs. Local Workforce
Investment Boards (LWIBs) can leverage their resources to develop
content standards for employment, basic and life skills, and continuing
education. LWIB partners can contribute to the costs for professional
development and assessment across agencies to create a seamless system.
Partners can offer support services to learners, such as child care,
transportation, or counseling related to employment, training, and
postsecondary education. When content standards and expectations are
aligned across programs, learners have multiple opportunities for
learning that can lead to higher outcomes in adult education, workforce
education, and postsecondary training (WIA, Section 503).

**Other state and local monies** may include funding streams such as
special initiative grants and private or foundation funds. Local
programs can contribute to the state maintenance of effort through cost
sharing (e.g., salary support, paid professional development, and
technology support or classroom space). These funds allow local programs
to put systems in place for strengthening instruction, support services,
and assessment practices.

**Local grant awards** through state RFPs also can be used for local
standards-based professional development and curriculum development
activities, as well as for restructuring program delivery to engage
learners and promote transition to postsecondary education and
employment.

**In-kind contributions** also can support the standards initiative. For
example, institutions of higher education may be willing to provide
individuals who have content expertise to help facilitate the process,
or the institutions may be a source for student teachers who can provide
release time for regular instructors who are serving on teams. Local
businesses may be able to provide technology support for the development
of workforce standards. Community- and faith-based organizations may be
able to provide physical space for focus groups, help review the
standards for their constituents, or be part of the field test. (See
chapter 4.)

To support local implementation of the standards, the state may want to
provide financial incentives to local programs through grant awards or a
combination of sources to (1) help them transition to standards-based
education and (2) reward them for successfully implementing content
standards and improving learner outcomes. For example, some states use
incentive award and state leadership monies for statewide initiatives,
such as curriculum development, online learning, assessment, and
increasing high school completion outcomes.

The state may want to think of ways to promote learner persistence so
that learners can stay engaged with learning and meet the standards.
This might mean allocating funds for support services or strengthening
coordination with other agencies to support learners' educational gains
and to promote the learner's transition to employment and postsecondary
education or training.

Essentially, state leadership funds, incentive award money, grant
awards, and in-kind contributions can be used to support the following
undertakings: ![](media/image4.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

-   professional development for instructors that is closely linked with
    the content students will be learning

-   incentives to local programs to support locally funded professional
    development activities based on the standards

-   electronic-based resources for local program implementation of
    content standards

-   technical assistance to local programs in implementing curriculum
    and assessment aligned with content standards

-   professional development for state staff to monitor and evaluate how
    programs are implementing content standards

    Just as financial resources may need to be reallocated to support
    the standards initiative, human resources also will have to be
    reallocated. The next section discusses the roles and
    responsibilities of state and local staff in moving toward
    standards-based education.

## Allocate Human Resources to Support Standards-Based Education

Developing, reviewing, and implementing content standards is labor
intensive and will involve individuals at both the state and local
program levels. Therefore, as the state plans its initiative, it should
identify the various activities that need to be conducted and think
about the types of individuals that can play various leadership roles.

At the state level, program managers and professional development
providers are needed to communicate the state's vision for
standards-based education and maintain the state perspective throughout
the process. If the state department of education or the agency's board
needs to sign off on the standards, keep their perspectives in mind
throughout the process to ward off difficulties down the road.
![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8451388888888889in"
height="0.6673611111111111in"}

State program managers can take leadership roles on the coordinating
committee and on writing teams, and they can serve as liaisons between
the state office and teams involved in the standards development
process. State managers and professional development providers
disseminate information about the standards and help local programs
implement the standards. They also can help identify local programs and
staff to draft, review, and field test the standards.

Local program administrators, instructional specialists, coordinators,
and practitioners play a hands-on role in developing and implementing
the standards. They can serve on standards writing or review teams and
may even field test the standards. Decisions that administrators make at
the local level will affect the success of the standards implementation
efforts. Instructional specialists, coordinators, and practitioners are
front-line users of the standards and will need to have a solid
understanding of standards-based education.

The state may also want to consider the use of external consultants to
assist in developing and implementing standards. These individuals bring
expertise and experience that may be necessary for facilitating the
standards development process and helping the state agency and other
staff reach consensus on various issues related to standards. External
consultants may lend credibility to the standards effort and help move
the effort forward. Exhibit 2.2 shows the roles individuals may play in
implementing standards-based education.

The state should consider its human resource needs, starting with the
early planning stages of the standards initiative and continuing through
statewide implementation. Individual roles will change as the initiative
moves forward. It is important to remember that the standards initiative
will take time. Keep in mind that state managers often wear multiple
hats and divide their time across several projects, and adult education
practitioners are often part-time educators who may have other
responsibilities. Consider the kind of support individuals may need to
carry out their roles.

Exhibit 2.2. *Planning for the Use of Human Resources*

This exhibit identifies the types of individuals that will be needed for
implementing standards-based education and includes examples of the
roles they will play in the initiative.

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Individual   | Sample Roles in the Standards Initiative              |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| State agency | -   Develop policies and procedures for implementing  |
| staff        |     standards-based education                         |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Serve on or lead standards committees or teams    |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Assess capacity of the adult education system to  |
|              |     implement standards-based education               |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Develop and design standards documents            |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Identify field test sites for standards           |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Provide technical assistance to local programs    |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Review grant applications and budgets to see how  |
|              |     local programs are addressing standards           |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Monitor local programs to assess implementation   |
|              |     of standards                                      |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Professional | -   Serve on standards committees or teams            |
| development  |                                                       |
| staff        | -   Conduct needs assessment and analyze data for     |
|              |     professional development on standards             |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Develop training modules related to               |
|              |     standards-based education                         |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Plan, deliver, and evaluate professional          |
|              |     development                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Local        | -   Serve on standards committees or teams            |
| program      |                                                       |
| ad           | -   Set vision for instructional quality and          |
| ministrators |     strategic plan for implementing standards at the  |
|              |     local level                                       |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Recruit staff and promote professional            |
|              |     development focused on standards                  |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Allocate resources and materials to support       |
|              |     standards                                         |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Assess how well standards have been integrated    |
|              |     within the local program                          |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| I            | -   Serve on standards committees or teams            |
| nstructional |                                                       |
| specialists, | -   Develop standards-based curriculum and identify   |
| c            |     resources                                         |
| oordinators, |                                                       |
| and          | -   Provide instruction that supports standards-based |
| p            |     education                                         |
| ractitioners |                                                       |
|              | -   Develop assessments and monitor student progress  |
|              |     in meeting standards                              |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| External     | -   Facilitate meetings of standards committees or    |
| consultants  |     teams                                             |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Review draft standards for specific purposes      |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Identify proficiency indicators for standards and |
|              |     corresponding assessments                         |
|              |                                                       |
|              | -   Conduct alignment and measurement reviews         |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

## Develop RFPs and Grant Applications

The state RFP process is the way in which the state communicates its
policies in concrete terms. RFPs must articulate the state's
expectations for standards-based education. Some states mandate that all
programs implement the standards simultaneously. Other states start with
a field test and then provide incentives for local programs to gradually
phase in standards-based education.

The RFP must provide guidelines so that local programs can adequately
prepare their continuous improvement plans in response to state
mandates. Applications should require that eligible local providers
demonstrate an understanding of the full range of activities for
integrating content standards within their programs. Requests for
applications may require local programs to address the following
factors:

-   developing program improvement plans linked to learner achievement

-   hiring personnel who can support standards-based education and
    provide the requisite professional development

-   providing curricula and other instructional materials to support
    content standards

-   structuring program and instructional delivery to foster student
    persistence

-   working with higher education and business and labor communities to
    support transition into postsecondary education, training, or
    employment

-   developing a monitoring system to determine how well the program is
    aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the content
    standards

-   preparing a budget that will provide sufficient support for
    professional and resource development to implement content standards

Title II of the WIA identified 12 factors that the state agency must
take into account in awarding grants or contracts to local providers.
The state agency should request that local programs address factors such
as education outcome measures based on content standards, provide
sufficient intensity of services and effective instructional practices
to meet the standards, and assure adequate coordination and qualified
staff (WIA, Section 231(e)).

# Establish Committees and Processes for Developing, Reviewing, and Implementing Standards

Standards-based education is a major undertaking and will require the
state to establish procedures for planning the initiative and for
developing, reviewing, and implementing standards. The state will need
to establish structures and processes for moving the initiative forward.
Individuals involved in the standards development effort need to know
what is expected of them to ensure that work goes smoothly, resources
are used wisely, and efforts are not duplicated. State agencies are
responsible for setting the process in motion.

Many states that have already developed standards established different
committees or teams to be responsible for various aspects of the work.
Organizing the development and review processes around a system of
committees or teams ensures broad participation and allows the state to
draw on individuals who have different sets of expertise and experience.

A state might consider organizing an *advisory committee* with leaders
from various stakeholder groups who have enough influence to help
mobilize resources and set a positive tone for the standards initiative.
An advisory committee does not need to be involved in the hands-on
planning and development, but the committee members can offer guidance
and perspective. Their advice is essential for creating standards that
represent the diverse needs in the state. They should be involved early
in the process and may need to meet only once during each of the key
phases.![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

The *coordinating committee* usually takes the lead in providing overall
guidance for the planning and development of standards and making
recommendations to the state agency. Another key group, *the writing
team,* actually adapts or drafts the standards. More than one writing
team may be needed if the state chooses to develop standards in several
content areas. The writing team is also charged with making sure that
curriculum, instruction, and assessment can be aligned with the content
standards. Exhibit 2.3 outlines an organizing structure with multiple
teams and committees and identifies the charge of each group.

Exhibit 2.3. *Teams Involved in the Standards Initiative*

This exhibit outlines the various types of committees and teams along
with their "charge" or overall responsibilities. The third column
provides suggestions for membership.

+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| C             | Charge               | Membership                   |
| ommittee/Team |                      |                              |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| Advisory      | To provide overall   | -   Leaders among adult      |
| committee     | guidance to the      |     education stakeholder    |
|               | standards-based      |     groups                   |
|               | initiative           |                              |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| Coordinating  | To provide           | -   State adult education    |
| committee     | leadership and       |     managers                 |
|               | guidance throughout  |                              |
|               | the development and  | -   Professional development |
|               | implementation       |                              |
|               | processes; and to    | -   Lead teachers,           |
|               | make recommendations |     curriculum and           |
|               | to the state         |     instructional            |
|               |                      |     specialists, or content  |
|               |                      |     specialists              |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   Local program            |
|               |                      |     administrators           |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| Writing       | To research and      | -   Instructors              |
| team(s)       | adapt or write the   |                              |
|               | content standards    | -   Content specialists      |
|               | and indicators       |                              |
|               |                      | -   Professional development |
|               |                      |     staff                    |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| Validity      | To conduct reviews   | -   Content specialists      |
| review        | of draft standards   |                              |
| team(s)       | to ensure that       | -   Adult learners           |
|               | standards represent  |                              |
|               | the most valuable    | -   Program managers (state  |
|               | knowledge, skills,   |     and local levels)        |
|               | and abilities to     |                              |
|               | succeed in their     | -   Instructors, tutors,     |
|               | adult roles; and to  |     instructional            |
|               | provide feedback to  |     specialists              |
|               | developers. Teams or |                              |
|               | individuals may      | -   Business community       |
|               | review for content   |     representatives          |
|               | validity, bias, and  |                              |
|               | measurability.       | -   Higher education         |
|               |                      |     representatives          |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| Alignment     | To conduct alignment | Depending on focus of        |
| team(s)       | reviews and identify | alignment:                   |
|               | resources for        |                              |
|               | aligning curriculum  | -   Content specialists      |
|               | and assessment with  |                              |
|               | the content          | -   K--12 standards          |
|               | standards            |     developers               |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   Curriculum specialists   |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   Measurement specialists  |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   Instructors, tutors,     |
|               |                      |     instructional            |
|               |                      |     specialists              |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   Professional development |
|               |                      |     staff                    |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+
| Field test    | To field test        | -   Instructors              |
| participants  | standards to assess  |                              |
|               | validity and         | -   Local program            |
|               | implementation of    |     administrators           |
|               | standards            |                              |
|               |                      | -   Professional development |
|               |                      |     staff                    |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   Field test coordinator   |
|               |                      |     (may be outside          |
|               |                      |     consultant)              |
|               |                      |                              |
|               |                      | -   State program managers   |
+---------------+----------------------+------------------------------+

The draft standards will go through a review process that includes
feedback from a broad range of stakeholders. A state may establish
multiple *review teams* for different types of reviews (see chapter 4).
Reviews help the state build consensus around the standards and help
determine whether the standards are rigorous, accurate, and appropriate
to the needs of adult learners. Review teams share their findings with
the writing team for further refinement before the content standards are
submitted for state adoption. Upon approval, the state takes the lead in
working with professional development providers and local programs for
the implementation of the standards (see chapter 5).

From the outset, the state should consider establishing procedures and
processes for moving forward with the initiative. These procedures
include

-   appointing a committee to coordinate the development, review, and
    implementation of standards;
    and![](media/image5.wmf){width="1.8451388888888889in"
    height="0.6673611111111111in"}

-   documenting and archiving actions and decisions made during the
    standards development and implementation processes.

Planning, developing, reviewing, and implementing standards is a complex
process that occurs over time. Teams should document and archive all the
actions and decisions throughout the process. Multiple decisions will be
made, and as new information and ideas emerge, decisions will be
revisited. Before the coordinating committee or any team begins to make
decisions, it should designate someone to serve as an archivist to keep
accurate and timely records of decisions and processes. The archivist
may be a state manager who also serves as liaison to the state agency.

To avoid "hearsay" or disputes about what has been decided, the state
should set up a process to document and archive summaries or minutes
from meetings, draft documents, review materials and findings, and all
decisions that are made throughout the process.

In addition, it is important to document the processes, as these may be
replicated when the state decides to develop content standards in other
areas. Archives of decisions and supporting materials are essential,
particularly when staff turnover occurs. Records of the process will
help the state pass the baton to other committee
members.![](media/image6.wmf){width="1.832638888888889in"
height="0.6798611111111111in"}

The remaining sections of this chapter discuss each of these procedures
and provide an overview of the potential roles and responsibilities of
the coordinating committee.

## Form a Committee to Coordinate the Standards Initiative

Initiating standards-based education is a large effort involving a
number of different teams to write, review, and implement standards.
Therefore, it is important for the state agency to think about how to
coordinate the effort. One approach, used by many states, is to appoint
a standards coordinating committee, or some small group, to act on
behalf of the state agency and make recommendations to the agency based
on the committee's own work and the work of the other teams.

It is important to keep the coordinating committee to a manageable
size---about five to eight individuals---so that it can accomplish its
goals. Having a few individuals committed to the process over an
extended period of time is far better than having a large group whose
members may be pulled in many directions.

A good representative mix on the committee would include people in the
following positions:

-   **State adult education manager**---to serve as a liaison between
    the state office and the coordinating committee and to ensure that
    the state perspective is maintained. Consider soliciting one or two
    state-level managers, depending on resources available, to be
    committee members. Someone with measurement expertise is a
    plus.![](media/image6.wmf){width="1.832638888888889in"
    height="0.6798611111111111in"}

-   **Professional development coordinator**---to maintain the
    perspective of translating standards into practice. Consider at
    least one professional development coordinator at the state or
    regional level to focus on the professional development system and
    its role in transitioning to standards-based education.

-   **Lead teacher, curriculum and instructional specialist, or content
    specialist**---to provide a voice from the field for instructional
    purposes. Involving local practitioners from the beginning will help
    ensure that standards are developed with the needs of educators and
    learners in mind and will help practitioners understand how
    standards are integrated within the adult education program
    improvement, instructional services, and accountability systems.
    Seek individuals who might also have expertise with special
    populations served within the state adult education system.

-   **Local program administrator**---to provide a voice from the field
    with an administrative perspective. Consider one or two
    administrators from different types of adult education programs.

The state may want a state manager or specialist, or other state-funded
staff member (e.g., a person from the professional development or adult
learning resource center), to lead the coordinating committee.
Alternatively, the state may want to consider contracting an external
facilitator. This decision will depend on the resources available and
the criteria the state identifies for the leadership role.
![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.832638888888889in"
height="0.6798611111111111in"}

The coordinating committee leader will serve as a liaison to the state
agency in establishing guidelines for the development and implementation
processes. Ideally, the standards leader will have the following
knowledge, skills, and aptitudes:

-   knowledge about standards-based and adult education research and
    practice

-   skills in defining goals, leading teams, and coordinating large
    projects

-   ability to negotiate amidst controversy and to keep teams moving
    forward

Other members of the committee must also develop a full understanding of
standards-based education. They often will serve as spokespersons for
the standards efforts, making presentations to local program
administrators, professional development staff, and instructors. In
addition to presentation skills, look for committee members who have the
following knowledge, skills, and aptitudes:

-   knowledge of the target audiences for standards and how best to meet
    the needs of diverse audiences

-   analytical skills to interpret information gathered from the field
    and from research

-   knowledge of the state and local delivery systems and an
    understanding of how standards will affect these systems

Individuals on the coordinating committee must be able to allocate the
time and energy necessary to carry out their roles in each phase of the
standards development process. Because they are charged with leading the
effort on behalf of the state, the coordinating committee members need a
thorough orientation to the standards-based initiative and the state
context. ![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.832638888888889in"
height="0.6798611111111111in"}

Generally, orientation for this group may last for two to four days. The
state may choose either to have a state manager conduct the orientation
or to contract a consultant who knows standards-based education to
facilitate the orientation process. Exhibit 2.4 offers topics for
orienting the coordinating committee and other teams the state may
organize.

The coordinating committee is charged with providing leadership and
guidance throughout the standards initiative. Members gather and analyze
information to support decisions that will be made by the state, and
they work with the state agency to develop guidelines for the planning,
development, review, and implementation processes. The coordinating
committee determines the charge for the other committee(s) or team(s)
and sets guidelines for their specific tasks. The committee makes
recommendations to the state agency throughout the process on key
issues, such as whether to adopt or adapt existing standards or develop
their own set of standards.
![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.832638888888889in"
height="0.6798611111111111in"}

The tasks for the coordinating committee discussed in the next section
will help the standards-based initiative move forward. The committee's
work continues throughout the development and implementation processes.
These tasks will be further discussed in subsequent chapters.

Exhibit 2.4. *Orienting Committees and Teams*

This exhibit presents potential topics to consider when preparing state
teams to develop, review, and implement standards.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Given the diversity of the committee and team members, each group     |
| will require an orientation to learn its roles and responsibilities   |
| as well as understand the state's standards initiative. The time      |
| allocated for orientation may vary, depending on the team, the        |
| topics, the diversity of members, and state resources.                |
|                                                                       |
| Orientation provided by the state may include the following aspects:  |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Understanding the state perspective.** Participants may come    |
|     from local programs or a particular region within the state and   |
|     may have a different perspective on standards-based education. To |
|     work effectively as a committee, all members will need to         |
|     understand the initiative from a broader, state perspective,      |
|     including any parameters or non-negotiable issues (e.g., content  |
|     standards must reflect the K--12 standards).                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Establishing a common set of definitions and a common           |
|     language.** Chapter 1 provides a set of definitions for content   |
|     standards, indicators, and performance standards that state       |
|     committees may adopt or adapt. A shared understanding of          |
|     terminology will help ensure clear communication.                 |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Establishing norms for working together.** Working as a team    |
|     with tight deadlines and with members representing diverse        |
|     interests may be difficult at times. Before work begins,          |
|     coordinating committee members should develop a set of norms for  |
|     working together, including how decisions will be made in a       |
|     manner that will allow them to build consensus around issues that |
|     arise. For example, they may agree to (1) be mutually             |
|     accountable, (2) follow through on assignments, (3) agree to      |
|     disagree, and (4) be mutually respectful. These norms can be      |
|     shared with the other teams.                                      |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Determining frequency and methods of communication.** As        |
|     members think about the task ahead, they must determine the       |
|     frequency and length of meetings. The timeline may be dictated by |
|     the state timeline for developing standards. Members, for         |
|     example, may choose to meet once every four to six weeks over a   |
|     five-month period, with lessened frequency once key decisions are |
|     made. States also may choose to work electronically, using online |
|     communication systems. Committee and team members may alternate   |
|     face-to-face with online meetings or teleconferences.             |
|                                                                       |
| -   **Reviewing the change process.** Movement toward standards-based |
|     education takes time. Teams involved in the process will need to  |
|     recognize that change is a process, not an event, and involves    |
|     multiple levels within the education system. At each level,       |
|     individuals will need to understand how a new initiative affects  |
|     their roles and responsibilities, and they need time to buy into  |
|     this change.                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

##  Develop a Mission Statement

One of the first tasks of the coordinating committee is to develop a
mission statement that outlines the purposes and objectives of
standards-based education for all adult education programs. The mission
statement translates the more global vision set by the state into a
tangible, energizing goal that is challenging, yet achievable. The
mission statement is critical because it becomes the message that is
communicated to all stakeholders. It articulates the significance of
adult education to the community at large and helps garner support for
the initiative.![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

The mission statement sets a direction for the state's work, emphasizes
the value of standards-based education for adult learners, and inspires
commitment to the reform initiative. For example, a mission statement
may read:

Standards-based education serves adult learners by establishing high
expectations for quality and accountability, providing the basis for
curriculum and assessment, and ensuring that instruction provides the
skills and knowledge most valued for learners' success in all their
adult roles.

The mission statement should focus on challenging standards tied to
learner goals as well as the goals of the community. Given the multiple
voices on the coordinating committee, having an external facilitator may
be helpful in achieving consensus on the mission statement. Coming to
consensus on a mission statement will communicate what the committee and
the state want all adult learners to achieve. And if tensions surface
during the process, the committee and teams can always refer back to the
mission statement to refocus their efforts.

## Survey Key Stakeholders

Knowing perspectives of key stakeholders, where support lies, and what
issues may arise will help the coordinating committee and state teams
think strategically before developing standards. Effective
implementation of standards-based education requires support from all
stakeholders. Therefore, representatives from state agencies, local
programs, and the greater community must all be involved in the
standards development process.

Stakeholders bring varied expertise and represent different
constituencies. Engaging stakeholders from the start will help

-   build consensus for standards,

-   strengthen credibility in the community and build ownership of the
    standards,

-   build the knowledge base about what learners need to know and be
    able to do,

-   establish priorities,

-   identify human and financial resources, and

-   identify any tensions that may exist among groups within the state.
    ![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
    height="0.6638888888888889in"}

One of the key ways that stakeholders help is by participating in an
*environmental scan*---a process for obtaining information, thoughts,
and opinions from a wide range of people and programs. Stakeholders can
provide input that will help establish priorities for standards. Diverse
groups may have different conceptions of the purposes or definitions of
content standards, the skills and knowledge most valued for adult
learners, or the resources required to develop and implement standards.
It becomes essential, therefore, to gain a clear understanding of what
stakeholders expect from standards-based education and how they can
support the initiative. Exhibit 2.5 lists key stakeholders and describes
why each is important to the standards
initiative.![](media/image7.wmf){width="1.832638888888889in"
height="0.6798611111111111in"}

The environmental scan serves several other purposes as well. It enables
committee members to identify potential candidates for the state's
standards development and review teams as well as individuals who may be
recommended to the state as members of the advisory committee. The
environmental scan is also a first step in identifying the professional
development needs of practitioners and administrators.

Exhibit 2.5. *Key Stakeholders for an Environmental Scan*

This exhibit lists the stakeholder groups to include in an environmental
scan and the contributions each can make to this process.

  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
  Stakeholder Group        Contributions

  Adult learners           They know what knowledge and skills they have
                           and what they need to learn.

  Program managers and     They understand the state context and
  other state-level        perspective. The host agency will need to sign
  administrators (e.g., in off on the standards document, so keeping its
  departments of education perspective in mind throughout the process
  and labor)               will minimize later difficulties.

  Professional development They provide the content knowledge and a
  staff                    general understanding of standards-based
                           education for program improvement. They play
                           an essential role in implementation because
                           they are often the link from the state to the
                           field and can assist the state in
                           troubleshooting and identifying areas of need.

  K--12 standards          These individuals understand the process of
  developers               developing standards and what is expected of
                           high school graduates in core areas.

  Practitioners:           Front-line users can bring content standards
  instructors, tutors,     to life or they can ignore them and hope they
  instructional            go away. Specialists may have in-depth
  specialists, and         knowledge of the discipline, understand the
  coordinators             research that supports the discipline, and can
                           guide practitioners in understanding the
                           constructs of the discipline. Involve many
                           practitioners early, and make certain they
                           understand how content standards support
                           student learning and are integrated within the
                           adult education program improvement and
                           accountability systems.

  Local administrators     They are key to implementing content standards
                           because they have to make decisions regarding
                           professional development, program improvement,
                           accountability, and funding.

  Business community       They provide insight into the skills and
  (e.g., staff at the One  knowledge needed to succeed in the
  Stops or workforce       workplace---an important goal for many adult
  investment boards)       learners. They also may be able to provide
                           financial support for the development of
                           standards, particularly if the focus is on
                           workplace standards.

  Postsecondary education  Faculty and administrators at institutions of
  and training             higher education may have the content
                           expertise necessary for developing quality
                           standards. They also will know what students
                           need for transitioning into higher education.

  Community- and           They represent different constituencies and
  faith-based              interact with adult learners in a variety of
  organizations            ways. As members of the community, they can
                           play a key role in publicizing and rolling out
                           standards.
  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------

###  Develop Questions for an Environmental Scan![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.6638888888888889in"}

The coordinating committee must identify the information it will need to
make informed recommendations to the state about standards-based
education. Consider collecting information that addresses the following
questions:

-   What skills and knowledge are most valued for learners' success in
    the workplace? In the community? As family members? As lifelong
    learners?

-   What resources are needed to support standards-based education, and
    how can you help?

-   What challenges do you see in developing and implementing standards?

It is important to remember that not all questions can be answered by
all stakeholder groups. Adult learners, for example, will be able to
answer the question about what they believe are the skills and knowledge
that they need to succeed, but they probably cannot answer questions
about the challenges in implementing standards. Questions should be
customized for different groups. For example, an instructional
specialist might be asked, "What skills and knowledge are valued for
adult learners to succeed in their diverse roles?" A member of the
workforce investment board might be asked, "What skills and knowledge
are valued in hiring and advancing in today's labor market?"

Consider gathering information from several individuals within each
stakeholder group to ensure that multiple perspectives from each group
are heard. For example, gather information from practitioners and local
program administrators representing different parts of the state,
different types of programs, and differing availability of resources.
Similarly, contact members of the business community from different
business sectors and different geographical areas. Documenting
respondents by demographic and other characteristics will help when
analyzing responses.

The Practice and Application section at the end of the chapter provides
an opportunity for members of the coordinating committee to think about
the kinds of questions they may want to address with different
stakeholders in the environmental scan.

### Conduct an Environmental Scan

A number of strategies can be used to gather information from
stakeholders. Strategies include using focus groups, interviews, online
surveys, and document reviews. The choice depends on the state's
resources and the expertise available to develop data collection tools
and collect the data, as well as the ability of each stakeholder group
to spend time responding to requests for information and ideas. Consider
using a combination of activities to ensure reaching a broad
cross-section of stakeholders. Each strategy has advantages and
disadvantages. To identify the most applicable one, consider these
options: ![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

-   **Focus groups** allow the coordinating committee to gather in-depth
    information by probing for further information or asking for
    clarification of responses from individuals representing different
    stakeholder groups. Focus groups have the potential advantage of
    obtaining information from more people than can be obtained from
    one-on-one interviews. In addition, focus groups often generate
    other issues as respondents react to one another. The disadvantages
    include time conflicts that make it difficult to schedule
    participants and the need for skilled focus group leaders. (Appendix
    C, Tools and Templates, provides moderator guidelines for focus
    group discussions and a sample focus group protocol.)

-   **Interviews** allow the coordinating committee to gather in-depth
    information and probe for further information from individuals
    representing different stakeholder groups. Interviews enable
    respondents to be deliberate and to summarize their thoughts in
    their own words. The disadvantages of interviews are that they are
    labor and time intensive, even if conducted by telephone, and they
    may be difficult to schedule. Additionally, interviews provide for
    only a small sampling of stakeholder perspectives.
    ![](media/image8.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
    height="0.6770833333333334in"}

-   **Surveys** (hard-copy or online) can reach larger audiences than
    focus groups and interviews. Online surveys are often more effective
    than hard-copy surveys in reaching a large number of stakeholders
    and soliciting responses. Other advantages of online surveys are
    that they are cost effective, require little time, and solicit
    feedback from a large portion of the stakeholder population. The
    disadvantages of surveys are that the data collected through a
    survey are limited by the questions asked, the quality of survey
    design, and the structure of the survey. Online surveys are limited
    to stakeholders with access to computers.

-   **Document reviews,** of existing materials and publications
    authored by stakeholder groups (e.g., job postings, national
    standards, or publications from higher education admissions
    offices), allow the coordinating committee to gather information
    without requiring a commitment of time from these groups. The
    disadvantage is the limited availability of resources that may not
    be fully representative of the learners in adult education.

Exhibit 2.6. *Strategies for Conducting an Environmental Scan*

There are several ways to collect information from an environment, as
listed in this exhibit. Each strategy has advantages and disadvantages.

+---------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Strategy      | Advantages              | Disadvantages              |
+---------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Focus groups  | -   Allow collection of | -   May be difficult to    |
|               |     in-depth            |     schedule because of    |
|               |     information through |     participants' time     |
|               |     probing questions   |     commitments            |
|               |                         |                            |
|               | -   Generate additional | -   Require skilled focus  |
|               |     issues as           |     group leaders          |
|               |     respondents react   |                            |
|               |     to one another      |                            |
|               |                         |                            |
|               | -   Gather information  |                            |
|               |     from more people    |                            |
|               |     than one-on-one     |                            |
|               |     interviews          |                            |
+---------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Interviews    | -   Allow respondents   | -   Are labor intensive    |
|               |     to summarize their  |                            |
|               |     thoughts in their   | -   May be difficult to    |
|               |     own words           |     schedule because of    |
|               |                         |     participants' time     |
|               | -   Allow interviewers  |     commitments            |
|               |     to gather in-depth  |                            |
|               |     information through |                            |
|               |     probing questions   |                            |
+---------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Surveys       | -   Are cost effective  | -   Require special        |
|               |                         |     expertise to design a  |
|               | -   Require little time |     good survey            |
|               |     to complete         |                            |
|               |                         | -   Limit data collected   |
|               | -   Solicit feedback    |     to the survey          |
|               |     from a large        |     questions and the      |
|               |     portion of the      |     structure of the       |
|               |     stakeholder         |     survey                 |
|               |     population          |                            |
|               |                         | -   If online, limit       |
|               |                         |     responses to those who |
|               |                         |     have easy access to    |
|               |                         |     computers              |
+---------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
| Document      | -   Allow gathering of  | -   Limit data collected   |
| reviews       |     information without |     to the resources that  |
| (e.g., job    |     requiring a         |     can be located         |
| requirements, |     commitment of time  |                            |
| college       |     from the            | -   May not result in data |
| admission     |     stakeholder group   |     that are fully         |
| requirements) |                         |     representative of the  |
|               |                         |     group                  |
+---------------+-------------------------+----------------------------+

###  Analyze Results of the Environmental Scan

The purpose of the analysis is to establish priorities for content
standards and to ensure that the committee captures the valued skills
and knowledge necessary to succeed in a variety of adult roles. The
analysis also provides information on what resources are available for
the initiative and what challenges may be expected. Data analysis can
answer the following types of questions:

-   Are there similarities and differences within each stakeholder
    group?

-   Are there similarities and differences across stakeholder groups?

-   Do responses within each group differ by demographics such as
    location (e.g., urban, suburban, rural) or by program type (e.g.,
    family or workplace literacy, English language acquisition, or adult
    secondary education)?

Analyzing results is a two-step process. The analysis will help
determine whether individuals within each stakeholder group have similar
perspectives and whether perspectives across stakeholder groups are
similar. Different perspectives may have implications for developing and
implementing the standards.

-   **Analyze responses within each group.** A first step in the
    analysis is to look for trends and issues within each stakeholder
    group. Determine the frequency of each response to help identify
    commonalities. If the demographics within stakeholder groups vary,
    consider stratifying the responses. For example, if local program
    administrators from different types of programs (e.g., family
    literacy, workplace literacy, or adult secondary education) respond
    differently to questions, make note of the differences. Similarly,
    if instructors from rural and urban areas respond differently to
    questions, make sure to note the differences.

-   **Analyze responses across groups.** The purpose of this step is to
    determine, for example, if state-level program managers have the
    same priorities or concerns as local program managers or
    representatives of higher education.

## Review Research and Standards to Make Decisions![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.575in"}

During the planning phase, the coordinating committee will make
recommendations and decisions in a number of key areas that will
directly affect the development and alignment of standards in the state.
Before decisions can be made, the coordinating committee should

-   research standards-based education,

-   research the content areas, and

-   review existing content standards.

Resources should be gathered and a preliminary review conducted to
identify which resources are most useful for decision making at the
state level. The coordinating committee may want to consider having
members review different areas of research, summarize what they find,
and report back to the full committee. This will expedite the review
process.

### Research Standards-Based Education![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.575in"}

Before the coordinating committee reviews the literature, revisit the
definitions of content standards, indicators, and performance standards
in chapter 1 to ensure that all members are approaching the task with a
shared understanding of terms. Using a common language will facilitate
communication about standards. A review of the research will help
committee members understand the effect that content standards will have
on other systems in adult education, such as curriculum, instruction,
assessment, professional development, and local program monitoring and
accountability. The introduction to this chapter discussed other systems
at the state level that also will need to change to support effective
implementation of standards, especially professional development.

Much of the research on standards-based education comes from the K--12
system; that research, however, does provide relevant information on the
issues involved in standards development and implementation. For
example, consider exploring lessons learned in relation to

-   gaining stakeholder buy-in and building consensus around the
    standards,

-   fostering local program ownership of standards,

-   determining a manageable number of standards for learners at each
    level,

-   aligning assessments with standards,

-   aligning curriculum and instruction with standards,

-   building instructors' knowledge and skill, and

-   developing performance standards for program improvement and
    accountability.

### Research the Content Areas

The review and development of standards requires knowing what
researchers have identified as the key components and skills for each of
the disciplines---reading, mathematics, and English language acquisition
(ELA). To ensure that everyone is brought up to speed and that committee
members are all on the same page, review recent publications that
discuss these content areas. Such a review will help the committee
define the core components of each discipline and see how these
components relate to the needs of adult learners.
![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in" height="0.575in"}

Compare the information found in research to the information gathered
during the environmental scan. Consult with subject matter experts who
have worked in the K--12 system, teacher development, and adult
education. Identify similarities and differences to find trends in the
discipline that will help make decisions for developing content
standards for adults. In what ways do the state stakeholders and
researchers agree on what learners should know and be able to do in
content area "X"?

### Research Existing K--12 and Adult Education Standards

Consider conducting a preliminary review of existing national, state
K--12, and adult education content standards to determine whether to
adopt or adapt other standards or to begin developing new standards
within the state. All of the national standards, including K--12 and the
National Institute for Literacy's Equipped for the Future, were
developed through lengthy and rigorous processes with extensive input
from researchers, policy makers, administrative leaders, practitioners,
business and industry, higher education, and the general public.
Existing state adult education content standards also have had extensive
input from stakeholders. Standards from other countries, such as
England, Australia, and Canada, are also excellent resources.

The reference section at the end of this chapter and appendix D include
sample national and international content standards that the committee
can review. Later, the development team will need to conduct a more
thorough review of existing standards before the team actually begins to
adapt, develop, revise, or write new standards.
![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

The review of standards can be challenging, as standards developers
often

-   define standards differently,

-   base the standards on different approaches to teaching and learning,
    and

-   include different types of supporting materials within their
    standards document.

Academic and professional organizations involved in standards-based
education within the K--12 system have identified criteria for reviewing
and developing standards: rigor, specificity, clarity, measurability,
comprehensiveness, and manageability. More detailed information on the
characteristics of quality standards is provided in chapter 3 and
Appendix C, Tools and Templates. These criteria can be used to generate
discussion among coordinating committee members as they move through the
processes of

-   reviewing standards,

-   articulating what is important for learners in the state,

-   comparing how different standards meet the state's needs, and

-   helping the state make decisions that are based on the reviews.

## Make Recommendations to the State

On the basis of the findings of the environmental scan and the review of
the literature and existing content standards, the coordinating
committee can make recommendations to the state agency about how to
proceed with the standards-based initiative and where to focus its
efforts. Each recommendation should have supporting documentation in
case questions arise. Archiving decisions and processes will be helpful
in supporting these recommendations. The state manager on the committee
may draft the recommendations with support from other members, as
necessary. The state makes the final decision as to the approach for
developing standards.![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

A key recommendation that the coordinating committee must address is
whether to adapt existing standards or to have the state develop its own
set of standards from scratch. If resources are limited, the
coordinating committee might recommend adapting standards rather than
embarking on the much lengthier and more complicated process of
developing new standards. Whatever recommendation is made, effective
implementation of standards always requires a sense of ownership or
buy-in from the field.

After reviewing other models, consider whether the approach and
framework could be adapted to meet state and local needs. The committee
might identify standards with the "potential for adapting" and suggest
that practitioners field test them within their programs before making a
recommendation for the state. Issues related to field testing are
discussed in chapter 4.

## Develop an Action Plan

Once the reviews have been completed and priorities have been
established, the coordinating committee is responsible for (1) drafting
an action plan for the standards initiative and (2) monitoring progress
throughout the development, review, and implementation processes. The
action plan serves as a roadmap for the standards initiative. It also
allows the state to estimate the time needed for planning, developing,
reviewing, and implementing standards.
![](media/image8.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

Developing an action plan requires the coordinating committee to reflect
on where the state is in the process, what the committee wants to
accomplish, and how it will get there. Developing a plan encourages
taking stock of resources and thinking critically about how resources
can be used effectively to achieve goals. The action plan also helps to
anticipate potential challenges to reaching those goals and to
brainstorm solutions for addressing those challenges so that the process
will flow more smoothly.

The dynamics and the amount of time committee members can devote to the
task will help the committee decide whether the full committee should
work on the action plan or if a smaller subgroup can prepare a draft for
consensus within the group. The action plan is a living document and
should be reviewed and refined throughout the process. Teams involved in
writing, reviewing, and implementing standards should work with the
coordinating committee to update and refine the plan. It is a good idea
to maintain the plan electronically for the committee to have access to
the latest version and to make ongoing revisions.

The action plan has eight elements:

**Goals and objectives** are driven by state-level policies or mandates,
stakeholder needs, and research. They should succinctly define what the
state intends to
accomplish.![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

**Key action steps** outline how the state will meet the goals and
objectives. Key action steps might include

-   assessing multiple stakeholders to determine what learners should
    know and be able to do in mathematics;

-   researching essential mathematics skills and processes; and

-   reviewing mathematics standards from national groups,\
    K--12, and other adult education programs.

These larger tasks are then broken into smaller subtasks. For example,
assessing multiple stakeholders may include (1) identifying
stakeholders, (2) developing protocols for gathering information, (3)
conducting focus groups of stakeholders, and (4) analyzing information.

**Individuals** must be identified to take the lead in carrying out the
action steps to accomplish the goals and objectives. Taking time to
clarify who is responsible for each key action step will help move the
process forward and allow teams to monitor progress as well as to
support one another. Some individuals may be external consultants with
whom the state contracts.

**Timeframes** outline when each action will begin and end. Include
timeframes for subtasks as well as for the major tasks. It is also a
good idea to post timeframes at committee meetings so that everyone
engaged in the standards development and implementation processes knows
what is expected. ![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6638888888888889in"}

**Potential collaborators and resources** will provide an idea of who
can help in each step of the process and what resources are available or
need to be created. Potential collaborators may be members or
representatives of local community colleges, local unions, or workforce
investment boards. Many decisions and activities are made based on the
human and financial resources and supports available. Considering this
element helps the committee take stock of what is available and what is
required. ![](media/image8.wmf){width="1.7138888888888888in"
height="0.6305555555555555in"}

**Projected outcomes** indicate what you expect will happen as a result
of each step. This planning will help you monitor your action plan and
measure your progress.

**Facilitating conditions** are factors that are already available and
will help you to reach stated goals. For example, if your state has an
active P--16 Council (pre--K through postsecondary council), it might be
able to provide support in the development and implementation processes.

**Potential challenges and solutions to obstacles** should be identified
early so that contingency strategies can be prepared if difficulties are
encountered during the process.

Exhibit 2.7 provides a sample action planning tool and sample task.

Exhibit 2.7. *Sample Action Planning Tool*

![](media/image9.wmf){width="7.15625in"
height="4.944444444444445in"}Action plans help keep a committee or team
focused on the tasks, timelines, and resources. Below is a sample of an
action plan.

+--------+---------+----------+--------+---------+---------+--------+
| **O    |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| bjecti |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| ves:** |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| -      |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|    Put |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|     s  |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| ystems |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|     in |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|  place |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|     to |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|  begin |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|   deve |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| loping |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|    sta |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| ndards |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| -      |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| **Date |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| De     |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| velope |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| d/Upda |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| ted:** |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| *O     |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| ctober |         |          |        |         |         |        |
| 2005*  |         |          |        |         |         |        |
+--------+---------+----------+--------+---------+---------+--------+
| Key    | Persons | P        | Pro    | Pr      | Facil   | Chal   |
| action | resp    | otential | jected | ojected | itating | lenges |
| steps\ | onsible | colla    | ou     | t       | con     | and    |
| (with  |         | borators | tcomes | imefram | ditions | sol    |
| sub    |         | and      |        | e---(st |         | utions |
| tasks) |         | r        |        | art/end |         |        |
|        |         | esources |        | dates)  |         |        |
+--------+---------+----------+--------+---------+---------+--------+
| *R     | *Coord  | *Prof    | *15    | *       | *Expe   | *Chall |
| ecruit | inating | essional | pot    | October | rienced | enge:* |
| indiv  | com     | n        | ential | 1--N    | staff   |        |
| iduals | mittee* | etworks* | me     | ovember | in the  | *Time  |
| for    |         |          | mbers* | 30,     | state*  | commit |
| the    | *State  |          |        | 2005*   |         | -ments |
| w      | l       |          |        |         |         | of     |
| riting | iaison* |          |        |         |         | indivi |
| team*  |         |          |        |         |         | duals* |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | *Solu  |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | tion:* |
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | *Elec  |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | tronic |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | com    |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | muni-c |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | ation, |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | sti    |
|        |         |          |        |         |         | pends* |
+--------+---------+----------+--------+---------+---------+--------+
|        |         |          |        |         |         |        |
+--------+---------+----------+--------+---------+---------+--------+

## Recruit Team Members

As the coordinating committee develops the action plan and organizes the
work, it is important to develop a process for recruiting individuals to
participate on the teams that will be developing, reviewing, and
implementing standards. Several options are available.

Some states have used a competitive application process to identify
individuals for the standards writing team; other states have used an
open solicitation through newsletters, electronic mailing lists,
professional development events, and word of mouth. Indiana, for
example, developed a stakeholder information survey to inform the field
and gather names of individuals interested in participating in the
standards initiative. That state also developed application forms to
solicit participants for its steering committee and development teams.
See Appendix C, Tools and Templates, for the applications used by
Indiana and for a sample application template that may be modified for
use by any team or committee.

Both competitive and open application processes create an awareness of
the standards initiative and set up a professional development
opportunity for everyone, including those who are new to the state's
adult education program. However, open solicitations and competitions
take time and effort to organize.
![](media/image10.wmf){width="1.8395833333333333in"
height="0.6770833333333334in"}

Some states have existing task forces, committees, or work groups that
might take on standards development. An advantage of working with
established groups is that they usually have experience with larger,
complex tasks. In addition, the group members are often respected
leaders in the state. Disadvantages are that these groups may not be
fully representative of state programs and including them may preclude
others from participating. Another alternative is to draw from existing
task forces and solicit new members, gaining the benefits of both
approaches. This process is less time consuming than starting from
scratch and allows the state to hear new voices, expands ownership of
the standards, and draws on the expertise of members of other teams at
the same time.

Whichever approach the coordinating committee chooses, consider
establishing criteria for selecting team members. Consider individuals
with diverse perspectives who are willing to work toward a common goal.
Include a range of practitioners in the development effort to achieve
broad-based support for a set of standards viewed as legitimate. Reach
out to all available networks.

With an action plan in hand, the state is now ready to begin the process
of actually developing standards. Much of the information gathered by
the coordinating committee must be shared with the teams responsible for
the development and review of the standards. One or two members of the
coordinating committee should participate on the writing team. This
participation will ensure continuity as well as an understanding of
state policies and priorities, mission, goals, resources, and timeframe
for the standards initiative.

# Practice and Application

Consider the following activities to prepare for an environmental scan
in your state.

1\. Identify stakeholders in your state and draft general questions for
the environmental scan.

2\. Look at the stakeholders listed in exhibit 2.5. Identify two to
three people or agencies from each group whom you can contact for an
interview, survey, or focus group.

# References

Adult Education Content Standards Warehouse.
[http://www.adultedcontentstandards.ed.gov](http://www.adultedcontentstandards.ed.gov/).

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).

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

Kruidenier, J. 2002. *Research-based principles for adult basic
education reading instruction.* Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation. The Partnership for Reading, National Institute for
Literacy.
<http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/adult_ed>
(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.

National Reading Panel. 2000. *Teaching children to read: An
evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on
reading and its implications for reading instruction.* Washington, DC:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
<http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm> (accessed
December 2007).

National Research Council. 1999. *Testing, teaching, and learning: A
guide for states and school districts.* Ed. R. F. Elmore and R. Rothman,
Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment, Board on Testing and
Assessment, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stites, R. 1999. A user's guide to standards-based educational reform:
From theory to practice. *Focus on Basics,* 3 (C). Cambridge, MA:
National Center for the Study of Adult Literacy and Learning (NCSALL).
<http://www.ncsall.net/index.php?id=352> (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).

Workforce Investment Act, 1998. HR 1385, 105th Cong., Pub. L. No.
105-220.