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.

See the Development/Revision Overview section below for additional overview information.

Return to the Standards Review and Revision Toolkit Overview

Development/Revision Items to Consider:

• 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).