Thread started: Sep 19 2008, 5:51 PM EDT
Watch
1) Do you think we need to meet again to revisit the standards alignment issue between the CRS and the new, new high school standards, and if we do meet, how should we approach it? I’m asking because as you probably know and can see from the OSPI site, the standards are now presented by courses in two different formats—algebra I/geometry/algebra II and Integrated I/II/III—rather than as a holistic set of standards (the same standards are included in both formats but are re-packaged to reflect the different curricular offerings). Even in the earlier versions of the new standards the changes in the layout and organization of the actual standards made the alignment work difficult; this by-course presentation makes it even more challenging to do a full and thorough comparison both with the earlier editions of the high school standards as well as with the CRS. One could argue that we already know that there’s a solid amount of overlap between the two sets of standards and the reasons for the major disconnects—geometry and probability/statistics; what’s the value of drilling down further into more nuanced differences in content?
2) Whether we decide to re-address the alignment issue formally, there could be value in convening a meeting to discuss the implications of the major differences that we know exist—if there is substantial overlap between the CRS and the high school standards, and where differences exist in the content the high school standards tend to go beyond what is defined in the CRS, what’s the role of the CRS for high school teachers in general and TMP partnerships in particular as we think about Phase III?
Note: you can see the official versions of the new high school standards at the OSPI web site:
http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/Mathematics/RevisedStandards.aspx
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
