• Note if review/revision is needed based on an existing standards review schedule (examples: Colorado Standards Revision Cycle Background Information, Nebraska Standards Revision, South Dakota Standards Revision and Adoption Timeline, Wyoming Content and Performance Standards Review).
• If your state does not have a standards review schedule, decide if a review is appropriate at this time (example: Wisconsin Academic Standards Review and Revision Checklist). Consider:
  • Context and impetus for review;
  • Upcoming assessment changes;
  • Concurrent initiatives that could be affected by revisions;
  • Resources, staff, and funding; and
  • Return on investment (example: New Hampshire Decision to Not Undergo New Science Standards Review).
• Decide whether to revise existing standards or create new ones from scratch. Consider:
  • If current standards structure best serves students; and
  • If current standards were developed using current best practices (example: Next Generation Science Standards).
• Create a budget for the standards review and revision process.
• Create a multiyear timeline outlining scope of review (examples: Arizona’s Academic Standards – Development Outline, California Department of Education Science Curriculum Framework Development Process). Consider:
  • Length of review, including independent alignment study;
  • Updates to existing or new curricular materials that will be needed;
  • Alignment of curriculum, assessments, professional evaluation, and professional development to new standards; and
  • When and how to communicate information to stakeholders.
• Create review committee(s). Consider:
  • Current state policies (e.g., appointment or selection by application);
  • Structure of committee(s), such as dividing by content area and/or grade level(s);
  • Ensuring an inclusive selection process that represents diverse perspectives;
  • Qualifications required to serve;
  • Clear communication of time commitment, responsibilities, and compensation;
  • Documentation of committee deliverables (example: Ohio Standards and Assessment Committees Report).
• Create and communicate background information to stakeholders (examples: Colorado Academic Standards Communications Toolkit, Louisiana Student Standards Review web page). Consider:
  • Tailor information to specific audiences—parents, educators, districts;
  • Unpack jargon and define terms; and
  • Publicize communication avenues and maintain consistency across all standards review/revision activities (example: Colorado Academic Standards Review and Revision website).
• Solicit stakeholder feedback via multiple avenues with clear deadlines. Consider:
  • Surveys, emailed and/or available on a public website (examples: Colorado Department of Education Academic Standards Stakeholder Survey Analysis, Arizona K–12 Standards Feedback Form);
  • In-person meetings (example: Idaho Content Standards Revisions Public Meetings web page); and
  • Agenda item for state board of education meeting.
• Conduct research and collect data pertinent to review/revision. Consider:
  • Commissioning of independent analysis of current standards;
  • Potential data sources: test scores, focus groups, stakeholder feedback (example: Ohio Standards and Assessment Committees Report); and
  • Benchmark/crosswalk standards with external references. (example: A Content Comparison Analysis of the Next Generation Science Standards and the Michigan Science Standards).
• Synthesize gathered information and write draft standards. Consider:
  • What is essential for students to learn;
  • How standards will be structured—grade by grade or grade-band clusters;
  • What the content domains will be;
  • Incorporating feedback from both field and community stakeholders;
  • Development of clear and consistent standards;
  • If standards guide instruction without dictating how skills/ideas should be taught;
  • If standards provide coherent framing rather than a laundry list;
  • If standards require students to apply content knowledge; and
  • Confirm that changes are justified based on trends in feedback data.
• Share working draft of new standards with stakeholders.
  • Request feedback and revise standards (and associated timelines) as necessary (example: Idaho Content Standards Revision Feedback Request website); and
  • Create crosswalk or comparison analysis between existing standards and new standards (examples: Georgia Summary of Changes for ELA Standards, Oregon Crosswalk of 2009 Oregon Science Standards to 2014 Oregon Science Standards).

• Achieve Common Core Implementation Workbook
• American Federation of Teachers: Setting Strong Standards
• Council of Chief State School Officers Common Core State Standards: Communications Toolkit
• Education Commission of the States: Standard-Setting Processes in Brief
• State Science Education Standards Comparison Tool
• The Role of Strategic Communications in the Transition to New Academic Standards and Assessments: Case Studies of Tennessee and Kentucky

Stage 1 of the standards review and/or revision process requires the appropriate governing bodies to consider the following: identify the need for a review/revision of current standards, create a timeline for the review/revision process and subsequent implementation plan, and engage with the larger community to begin building a review committee and soliciting feedback from the public. Stakeholder engagement and communication are crucial during the Development/Revision stage, as buy-in and support from all stakeholders will be necessary to ensure a smooth adoption and transition later on in the implementation stages. State Education Agencies (SEAs) should also be mindful of the impact that new standards may have on concurrent initiatives, including professional development activities, curriculum, and assessment.

Planning kicks off the Development/Revision process and may begin with the development or refinement of a timeline for the process. This timeline should account for the specific reasoning/rationale for the standards review/revision. A publicly available timeline will allow all stakeholder groups to be kept in the loop on expected progress, and keep designated committees accountable and moving forward.

States and/or districts may want to create or revise an over-arching vision for teaching and learning in collaboration with students, staff, parents, regional service agencies, institutions of postsecondary and higher education, business leaders, and community members. Doing so shows a commitment to the expectation that all students can achieve success, as well as outlines a set of explicit principles of learning and instructional design based on research.

In addition to a timeline for the standards review/revision process, a communications plan should also be developed. Communication within and across diverse stakeholder groups in this initial stage is paramount in order to convey why standards are important and clarify the specific system elements that are under revision. Effective and inclusive engagement of a broad range of stakeholders can help to garner buy-in and support for the new standards and supporting materials. The most common form of organized engagement for this type of work is the committee model.

Budgets, as well as any budgetary concerns and/or constraints, should also be addressed and documented during this initial planning stage. However, it is important to note that the plans developed prior to the actual work may need to be revisited and adjusted as the standards review/revision process moves forward.

After timelines, communication plans, and budgets have been established, designated individuals should undertake a careful and intentional research and data collection process. Collection methods and research gathering can be coordinated by the standards review committee(s) set up during stakeholder engagement activities. The amount and type(s) of data to collect may include research into best practices concerning standards format/content, benchmarking against other states’ standards, and/or conducting gap/needs analyses that may be specific to the local context. After analysis of the research and data collection components, the designated parties should be able to create and share a working draft of new standards that highlight all changes made.

Prior to moving forward with initial implementation, it is recommended that a series of checks are undertaken to ensure the newly revised standards reflect the best practices of research-based standards, as well as meet the goals and address the feedback submitted from diverse stakeholder groups. Depending upon the extent of revisions needed, it may be necessary to revise standards, and then provide another opportunity for data review and collection. The iterative nature of the process may impact the initial timelines and budgets that were created, and any changes necessitated from additional review/revision should be communicated in a timely and transparent manner.

The conclusion of the Development/Revision stage will be marked by the adoption of new/revised standards.

• Outline and communicate standards implementation schedule with stakeholder groups, including any revisions made as a result of Stage 1 activities (examples: California Common Core State Standards Systems Implementation Plan, Colorado Transitional Action Plan, Ohio Suggested Timeline for Transitioning to the Revised 2017 Learning Standards for Mathematics, Rhode Island Get Set! Information for Administrators). Consider:
  • At state level: Instructional materials and communication with publishers, assessment schedules (including time for item development and pilot testing), professional development, supports for struggling schools;
  • At district level: Development of guidance, use of current instructional materials with new standards, curriculum mapping; and
  • At school level: Professional development activities for teachers/administrators, development of new lessons.
• Engage with schools/districts to gather feedback on new standards, which can inform implementation guidance, professional development, and messaging. (example: Alaska Phase Placement Survey). Consider:
  • Exit surveys in professional development sessions;
  • Digital feedback forms; and
  • Other well-established means of communication.
• Disseminate information to community, including differences between new and old standards and implementation timelines, and solicit feedback via multiple avenues with clear deadlines (examples: Colorado Academic Standards Review and Revision, New York State Commissioner of Education and Standards Review Committee Members Describe the Standards Review Process – Video). Consider:
  • Posting on a public website;
  • Surveys, emailed and/or available on a public website;
  • In-person meetings (example: Oregon Parent Workshop Checklist);
  • Press releases; and
  • Agenda item(s) for state board of education meetings.
• Evaluate the impact of gaps in grade-level understanding from old to new standards, known as the one-year gap of understanding.
• Collect examples of high-quality lessons aligned to new standards.
• Evaluate potential impacts on statewide accountability systems.
• Analyze gaps in current instructional materials to see if supplemental materials are needed (examples: Louisiana Online Instructional Materials Review Resources and Curriculum Crosswalks, Oregon Adoption Criteria for Instructional Materials).
• Identify external professional development options to fill any needs identified through stakeholder engagement (example: Ohio Revised Standards and Model Curricula Targeted Professional Development).
• Circle back across revision committees to refine goals, standards, and implementation practices based on feedback as necessary.

• Common Core Implementation Workbook
• Communicating South Carolina’s Standards Review Process
• Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the Elementary School Leader
• Implementing the Common Core State Standards: The Role of the Secondary School Leader
• Learning Forward – Meet the Promise of Content Standards: The Principal
• Next Generation Science Standards District Implementation Indicators

Once a broad timeline has been established, plans for initial implementation at the state, district, and school levels should be communicated and put into action.

At the state level, State Education Agency (SEA) staff should work to carry out the following: cement deadlines and funding surrounding current instructional materials and future adoption of instructional materials, finalize assessment schedule(s), identify and schedule necessary professional development, develop supports for struggling schools, address any implications for teacher evaluation, and confirm expectations and timelines around progress monitoring. To support initial implementation at the district level, SEAs should develop guidance to help districts determine the degree of alignment of their current instructional materials and how and when to supplement these to bring them into alignment with the new standards. Curriculum mapping exercises should be conducted to support this effort and illustrate where gaps may exist. To support teachers and school-level administrators with the transition to the new standards and associated instructional materials and assessments, professional development opportunities should be planned and provided. Time and resources should also be devoted to the collaborative development of new lessons that address instructional shifts resulting from the new standards.

Communication during this stage should be informed by the state’s goals for stakeholder engagement. Considerations should be given to the cohesive rollout of the new/revised standards, professional development opportunities, and curriculum planning and associated instructional materials. It is especially important to communicate the initial implementation plan to classroom teachers clearly to ensure that classroom learning opportunities focus on the correct standards (old vs. new) according to transition plans. Communication and stakeholder engagement are closely linked, as effective engagement happens when timelines and expectations are communicated clearly and transparently. Well established protocols for two-way communication (from SEA/committee to stakeholders and from stakeholders to SEA/committee) allow for a streamlined process of collecting and synthesizing data that may inform further revisions to the new standards and/or provide valuable feedback around the initial implementation plan.

Most of the data collected, synthesized, and analyzed during this stage will come directly from stakeholder feedback. It is important to collect feedback on an ongoing basis throughout this stage and across diverse implementation activities. Insights from educators and other stakeholder groups about their experiences with initial implementation of the new standards can be helpful in developing further implementation guidance.

Analysis of data collected should inform the decision-making process, and may necessitate going backwards to refine goals and implementation practices to ensure success for the full standards review/revision process moving forward. The analysis and decision-making conducted should reflect the circular nature of this process, and may be informed through multiple rounds of data collection and analysis. Diverse stakeholder feedback should be used to inform decisions about the new/revised standards and concurrent initiatives (professional development, curriculum planning, instructional materials, assessments, etc.). Additionally, the application of feedback in subsequent revisions should be communicated back to stakeholders to reinforce the importance of their input.

• Monitor current progress and adjust implementation timeline as necessary.
• Conduct needs assessment to determine the required supports (e.g., time, resources, materials, training, etc.) for successful implementation and consider tiered support options.
• Develop a transition plan/schedule for statewide assessments and other accountability systems and support districts in revising district wide assessments.
• Continue to provide staff with professional learning opportunities.
• Develop infrastructure to support implementation across the state.
• Create a research-based vision for teaching and learning in collaboration with stakeholders that shows a commitment to the expectation that all students can achieve success.
• Create communication tools for districts and schools to use with local audiences (example: Illinois Teacher Voices Videos).
• Collaborate with practitioners, content organizations, and higher education institutions to identify gaps and translate the standards into underlying skills that can be understood by a wide audience.
• Develop and share tools and examples that clearly articulate the characteristics of successful academic performance that can be used to align and improve curricula (example: Colorado Transition Action Planning Guide).
• Continue to collect feedback from stakeholders.
• Implement communication plan to ensure system wide knowledge of changes.
• Identify mitigation strategies for possible negative effects of standards changes.
• Commission a validation study for new assessments, curriculum, and professional development.
• Conduct a satisfaction survey or evaluation of process and product and disseminate survey results to appropriate personnel (example: California Common Core State Standards Implementation Survey).
• Collect feedback on alignment between standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
• Monitor instructional practices for evidence of effective standards-based instruction, differentiation, and intentional planning to ensure benchmarks are reached for all students.
• Create tools to help districts and schools review data at each level (e.g., classroom, team, school, and district) to help refine instruction as needed.
• Complete an assessment item analysis to determine the extent to which items are aligned to the grade-level standards and benchmarks (example: Texas Independent Evaluation of the Validity and Reliability of STAAR Grades 3-8 Assessment Scores: Part 2).
• Continue to examine, discuss, and create a culture that supports standards-based education.
• Bring stakeholders together to analyze data collected and refine polices/procedures as needed. Consider evaluating:
  • Effectiveness of standards implementation;
  • Effectiveness of professional development at multiple levels (team, school, district); and
  • Resource allocation.

• Center on Standards, Alignment, Instruction, and Learning (C-SAIL)- Year 1 State Report: Massachusetts
• C-SAIL – Year 1 State Report: Ohio
• C-SAIL – Year 1 State Report: Texas
• Council of the Great City Schools Calendar of Questions
• Council of Chief State School Officers Whitepaper on Evaluating Alignment in Large-Scale Standards-Based Assessment Systems
• Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-based Assessment and Accountability System
• What Supports do Teachers Need to Help Students Meet Common Core State Standards for Mathematics?

This stage of the standards revision process focuses on the monitoring and adjustments needed at the district and/or school levels to successfully implement standards. It is important to remember that the developed implementation plan isn’t a rigid document, and should be updated when new information is uncovered. Given that this stage typically occurs at the onset of implementation, it is desirable to have a significant amount of resource flexibility and support that can be applied.

In the scale up stage, there is increased focus on analyzing content area standards at a deeper level to refine the developed training and resources supporting implementation. Districts and schools will want to establish or review their infrastructure to support implemented changes. A local needs assessment may need to be conducted to determine the required supports (time, resources, materials, training, etc.) for successful implementation of the standards. It is important to conduct active monitoring of progress with regards to initial implementation and adjust as needed so accurate timelines and budgets are maintained.

Districts and/or schools should continue communicating with students, families, and stakeholders about all changes according to the developed communication plan. Adjustments to timelines, events, assessment schedules, professional development offerings, and curriculum are all examples of topics that stakeholders will want the most current information on. If possible, collect local stakeholder feedback on proposed changes before implementing any changes. Adjusting the established communication plan based on feedback and results is critical as standards implementation progresses. It is especially vital for the district to communicate and introduce a clear transition plan to educators, parents, and other stakeholders to ensure that appropriate supports are in place regarding the phasing out of old standards and the phasing in/assessment of new standards.

Engage a wide variety of stakeholders in the adaptation of existing tools or the development and dissemination of new tools and evaluations, in order to help identify and select appropriate materials based on rigorous research-based practices that link to student learning, clearly define intended learner results, and demonstrate connections to effective learning strategies. Collaborate with practitioners, state content organizations, and institutions of higher education to identify gaps and translate the standards to help ensure a clear and common understanding and to determine the underlying skills in the standards. Consideration should also be given to continuing the provision of professional learning opportunities to help staff effectively support implementation of the standards and understand any shifts that may occur with assessments due to any changes in standards. Make sure teachers are aware of all professional development opportunities offered and why the content will improve student learning.

At the state level, collection and analysis of data regarding standards ensures adherence to Federal peer review requirements and can also generate documentation to address the requirements. One example of this type of collection/analysis would be to conduct an independent validation study for new assessments based on the revised standards. At all levels, continual collection and analysis of data throughout the implementation process can help ensure the needs of all stakeholders are being met and provides valuable input on the progress of implementation. Collected data can range from data on the effectiveness of professional development designed to support implementation, to review of feedback regarding emerging needs and opportunities. States and/or districts should bring stakeholders together to analyze the data collected. Doing so builds buy-in and creates “champions” for the potential changes.

• Monitor current progress and adjust implementation timeline as necessary.
• Continue to provide professional development opportunities.
• Provide clear accountability measures surrounding revised standards and support full implementation of statewide summative assessment.
• Use data for continuous improvement.
• Strengthen the infrastructure to support practice and organizational change.
• Monitor implementation across the state in all content areas and grades to identify areas of potential misalignment.
• Embed effective instructional practices in all programs and include differentiated instruction (example: Mississippi College- and Career-Readiness Standards Scaffolding Documents) .
• Develop feedback loops between state, regional, and local education agencies.
• Develop structures to vet and share best practices through a content repository.
• Provide ongoing, long-term stakeholder communication, training, and support in the critical elements of the standards.
• Offer timely information on research, design, security, management, reporting, implementation, administration, scoring, and new technology.
• Involve policymakers at the national, state, regional, and local levels so they can see firsthand the time and structures school and district staff require to support standards implementation (example: Maryland State Board of Education Agenda Item).
• Develop a statewide leadership network (example: New York Common Core Task Force).
• Identify emerging needs and opportunities and refine implementation strategies as needed.
• Continue to implement communication process when onboarding newly hired staff.
• Develop a continuum of evaluation for implementation rooted in how well students demonstrate academic growth.
• Create an ongoing comprehensive feedback system in collaboration with regional service agencies and higher education institutions with a focus on identifying and replicating exemplary schools and districts while supporting districts that need assistance.
• Bring together educators to review student work and see how the standards are being implemented in classrooms.
• Verify that the vision of a standards-based education system can be articulated by all relevant educators and stakeholders.
• Assess the extent to which the school community has embraced a culture of high expectations and whether standards are integral to all curriculum and instructional decisions.

• Feedback Loops for Common Core State Standards Implementation
• Next Generation Science Standards District Implementation Indicators
• Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-based Assessment and Accountability System
• Achieve the Core Instructional Practice Toolkit and Classroom Videos
• The Education Trust: Standards in Practice: Instructional Gap Analysis Strategy and Aligning Instruction with Standards and Assessment

During this stage there is a full implementation of the revised standards across the appropriate grades and content areas.

Assessments administered and materials utilized will reflect the full implementation of the new standards. During full implementation staff acquire competencies in how to implement content area standards with fidelity. There is a focus on deep knowledge of content area standards, seamless integration of instruction, cross-curricular planning, and active engagement in continued reflection and improvement of practice. There is also a focus on maintaining and refining systems as well as monitoring fidelity of intentional alignment of practices, policies, supports, and programs. The implementation plan and timeline should be front of mind while conducting monitoring of progress. Assessments, accountability systems, educator professional development, data collection, and other ongoing or new initiatives all may impact the overall timeline and/or budget. The potential impact must be weighed and evaluated.

States and districts should continue to provide staff with high-quality professional learning opportunities to help them effectively support implementation of the standards. Topics around embedding effective instructional practices, differentiated instruction, supporting full implementation of statewide summative assessment, and monitoring of progress with regards to implementation are all examples of areas where staff may need support and guidance. In addition, bringing together educators to share practices and review relevant student work builds capacity and knowledge around implementation of the standards at the classroom level. Another effective method for structured resource sharing is developing processes and procedures to collect, vet, and share best practices through a content repository.

Conduct ongoing stakeholder engagement and communication through established mediums and forums to support full implementation. Disseminate resources for stakeholders on a regular basis to communicate the newest information on expanding professional learning support, aligning curriculum and instruction, and developing assessments. Providing this information builds the capacity of educators and stakeholders to articulate the shared vision of the state’s and/or district’s standards-based education system.

Data collection and analysis is an ongoing process during full implementation. Collecting data throughout the implementation process can help ensure states and districts are meeting the needs of all stakeholders and can also provide valuable information on the progress of implementation. The creation of an ongoing and comprehensive feedback system, in collaboration with regional service agencies and institutions of higher education, allows for the identification and potential replication of practices and procedures in place at exemplary schools and districts, and may also identify schools and districts in need of additional supports and assistance. States and districts may also be able to identify emerging needs and opportunities to refine implementation strategies while also utilizing stakeholder feedback to inform actions. At this stage, the opportunity exists to begin reporting results while simultaneously updating the public on implementation progress and successes.

Careful data analysis of feedback collected across diverse stakeholder groups creates the potential to assess the extent to which the community has embraced a culture that has high expectations for adult and student learning and that standards are integral to all curriculum and instructional decisions.

• Monitor short- and long-term consequences of instruction and assessment based on new standards.
• Use improvement cycles to support continuous reflection and refinement.
• Monitor current research and best practices to inform teaching practice.
• Develop protocols for collecting and examining district data on an ongoing basis, including across all content areas and grades.
• Consistently communicate information surrounding new standards implementation with districts, schools, and teachers.
• Collect evidence of alignment between intended and enacted curriculum—for example, portfolios of lesson plans, syllabi, and student work projects. If not fully aligned, make a plan to procure, enhance, or supplement current instructional materials.
• Continue to consistently share information and data with stakeholders and meet regularly to make decisions that strengthen the system (example: Massachusetts Project Update: Next-Generation MCAS and the Review of the Learning Standards).
• Continue to conduct periodic satisfaction surveys or evaluations (example: Rubric to Review Oklahoma Standards).
• Develop a plan for and provide initial communication about the next cycle of the standards revision processes (example: Nebraska Standards Revision).
• Coordinate with higher education partners regarding enhancements needed for teacher preparation programs.
• Compile and analyze data for use in next round of standards revisions.
• Create a “lessons learned” document based on full evaluation of the standards revision and implementation process (example: New York Common Core Task Force Final Report).
• Monitor new initiatives and feedback processes to ensure they are aligned with new standards.
• Continually review and adjust data communication protocols to ensure that all stakeholders are engaged with data-driven decisions.

• Achieve CCSS Implementation Rubric and Self-Assessment Tool
• Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-based Assessment and Accountability System
• Southern Regional Education Board: Alignment of Instructional Materials to State Readiness Standards
• The Role of Strategic Communications in the Transition to New Academic Standards and Assessments: Case Studies of Tennessee and Kentucky

The maintenance and refinement stage should be ongoing until the next round of revisions occurs. This stage includes establishing structures to support continuous improvement surrounding implementation of new standards, including: ongoing, current, and timely adjustments, onboarding of new and transitioning teachers and administrators, and establishing processes/networks to address individual situations that may occur.

Through the vigilant monitoring of existing system supports, the identification and development of structures ensures that new practitioners, administrators, and leaders develop the competencies to successfully implement content area standards. It is important to note that while this stage is ongoing, it does require planning and reacting. Having a timeline in place that includes benchmarks and milestones ensures that appropriate progress is being made and creates opportunities to change course, if needed. Through the monitoring of short- and long-term consequences of instruction and assessment based on the new standards, states and districts can address smaller issues before they grow into larger, more problematic issues.

To support the meaningful implementation of content standards at a deep level, states should move forward with the work outlined in Stage 4 as well as plan to engage in activities that promote continuous improvement. Considerations should be made for both new and existing staff and educators (e.g., visible policies, appropriate training), changes to assessments and accountability systems to meet stakeholder needs, communication of research-based best pedagogical practices, as well as development of resources that support areas of weakness. States, districts, and schools should continue communicating internally and providing guidance around areas of need to staff, whether that is related to the use of available resources and supports or the use of data and feedback to make adjustments and improvements (e.g., instruction, stakeholder group composition, etc.). Utilizing these types of feedback loops at the state, district, and school levels allows for timely and appropriate responses to pressing needs.

An approach for continuing to keep stakeholders engaged is through the strategic use of data that targets areas of emphasis, which may include assessment data, data collected through evaluation of offered professional development, and access/use data related to provided resources. Following the developed communication plan will ensure consistent messaging and data sharing with stakeholders. States and/or districts will want to continue to meet with key stakeholders regularly to review data and make decisions that strengthen the system, as part of maintaining support for standards implementation. They will want to continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders and meet regularly to understand and support systemic implementation of standards and continue to conduct periodic satisfaction surveys/targeted evaluations.

As part of the maintenance stage of implementation, states can begin to build and/or revise data systems that will support ongoing implementation, which may include monitoring systems (e.g., alignment of implementation, alignment of curriculum, etc.). States may also need to create new data collections or produce new evidence based on Federal Peer Review results. If not previously done, districts should determine whether all materials and instruction in schools are aligned to new standards based on an independent third-party analysis as well as teacher-submitted data. If the determination is made that materials are not fully aligned, a plan should be created to procure new materials and/or enhance or supplement current materials. By developing and sharing reports containing information about evidence of alignment between intended and enacted curriculum with all stakeholders, states and/or districts can build on the repository of evidence of success.

The data that is collected and analyzed throughout the standards revision process will serve as a foundation as states and/or districts begin developing their plans for the next cycle of standards review and revision, updating existing materials based on lessons learned, and begin initial communication about standards revision processes. This is also an opportunity to reflect and communicate with higher education partners regarding enhancements needed for teacher preparation programs related to standards implementation.