michigan academic standards

michigan academic standards

Analyzing the Evolution and Impact of Michigan Academic Standards

1. Introduction to Michigan Academic Standards

Michigan students are entering a rapidly changing society and workforce for the 21st century. To prepare them for this changing world, changes are required in the Michigan curriculum. The Academy of Science, Arts & Technology recommends a Michigan curriculum that is based on 4-6 content areas with standards, benchmarks, and content expectations in each area. These areas are to be supplemented by support structures in technology and research, assessments, and professional development. These changes will give Michigan students engaging, rigorous experiences that fully prepare them for a bright future. Governor Engler called today’s students “the new radicals.” They are the first generation of students to grow up in a world accessible through interactive telecommunications. Students have always used the tools of their culture and it is time for educators to incorporate these tools into new practices. These students need new skills to live in our global society.

At the same time, more jobs than ever require advanced skills and training. According to the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 85% of America’s fastest growing jobs and 20% of today’s jobs require advanced skills in science, mathematics, and technology. This workforce requires us to ensure that 100% of our students are learning basic skills to succeed in the labor market and/or post-secondary education. Most importantly, 100% of students in America deserve a high-quality education. In response, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor have made academic standards and a corresponding curriculum a top priority for their administration. Job 1 – the development of academic standards as the foundation of Michigan’s accountability system – is complete. This year, Michigan used the MEAP to begin measuring student progress toward high expectations. Once this system works to generate broad support, it will be time to conduct a reading-writing-arithmetic test of the costs and results of comprehensive reform. Defining where we are, where we are going, and how we track student progress provides the foundation for improved results.

2. Historical Development of Michigan Academic Standards

The secondary level of our educational system, and professional faculty within it, are involved in a major debate. This debate transcends our differences and divisions in Michigan and throughout the nation regarding proposed core curriculum, graduation requirement changes, their connection to school effectiveness, and the investment in school applied technology. The debate is about “standards” and “what it is that every student should know and be able to do in their education.” Unlike previous debates, the focus is not on one area such as what we ought to expect students to know about literature, mathematics, physical science, history, art, music, or physical education. There is now a growing consensus that the question for the first time in recent memory should be how can we expect students today to integrate their knowledge and skills among these subjects. Moreover, this broad debate does more than challenge the popular notion that “more is better” in education or that higher levels of individual performance and overall school success can be achieved through a “traditional” average approach of good teaching, rigorous coursework, assessment, and accountability.

The Michigan State Board of Education formally approved an Academic Standards Product in 1986 entitled “The Preparation of Michigan High School Students.” This state-level policy codified the work of the Michigan Association of Personnel Workers Academic Standards Committee, which had completed its efforts only a year earlier. The Committee represented a broad cross-cutting mix of educational interests, which included representatives from post-secondary, business, professional associations, education organizations, and teacher groups. Their report called for post-secondary and secondary collaborative establishment of what every high school-educated individual – vo-tech, college prep, or articulating occupational and academic preparation – should command in common knowledge and skills, and transformed that agreement into “General Curriculum,” a graduation requirement. The foundational evidence offered to support a uniform curriculum were scores of educational outcomes developed by educators, which de-emphasized time-on-task and grade level as indicators of knowledge and skill attainment. However, the emphasis of the state requirement was on the results that graduates should achieve in developing their knowledge and skills rather than in the process by which it would be accomplished. Local content requirements to ensure comprehensive development of the individual interests and goals, as well as their effective integration, remained the province of the local Board of Education.

3. Key Components and Domains of Michigan Academic Standards

The standards define the knowledge, concepts, and principles that students must acquire and be able to use proficiently at critical points in their educational development. The two most critical reforms that the standards seek to drive are: (1) a changed curriculum that emphasizes in-depth study so students have a strong understanding of the academic disciplines that are at the center of the standards and (2) changed organization of schools so that time and resources align with instruction of important content. To assist teachers, students, parents, and education leaders, the Michigan Academic Standards are divided into small, discrete educator-created units that contribute to a more detailed understanding of student proficiency. They are organized into six programs of study that are called “Domains.”

1. Competencies & Course Content. Represents the practical, “applied” knowledge and skills in a particular course or grade level such as Financial Literacy in Economics or Skills and Techniques in Physical Education. 2. Content Expectations, Grades K-8 Committee Reports (Grades K-8) and High School Content Expectations (Grades 9-12). Identifies class period length capabilities in Mathematics, English Language Arts, Science and Social Studies in grades K-8, and longer World-Class, less detailed capabilities at the high school level. Each Domain included in this guide serves as a discrete introduction to the course and lesson Content Expectations for a particular course or grade level. The guide is organized around the six Domains, and contains an explanation of each. The complete set of Michigan Academic Standards show the same competencies included, with the detailed indicators and objectives that further clarify what the students are expected to learn through their work in each Domain.

4. Assessment and Implementation of Michigan Academic Standards

Nationally, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires states to test students in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and to report the reading and mathematics proficiency of all tested students in grades 3-8. Michigan plans to assess progress of the Michigan Academic Standards using the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) for students in grades 3-8 and the Michigan Merit Exam (MME) for students in 11th grade. The MEAP measures student achievement of the Michigan Academic Standards in mathematics, science, social studies, and reading in 3rd-8th grades, and writing at grades 4 and 7. The MME is administered during 11th grade and measures student achievement of the Michigan Academic Standards in mathematics, science, social studies, reading, and writing, and includes a college readiness assessment. Results from the MEAP and MME will be used to determine whether schools met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for students in reading and mathematics.

Several assessments are available to measure student achievement and progress in addition to the MEAP and MME. The School Continuous Quality Improvement (SCQI) process is recommended for local use in eighth grade to demonstrate student/global performance expectations. Other assessment considerations include school improvement planning, professional development, instructional practices support, parental involvement and student support/promotion. Districts will also be expected to produce a district-wide assessment plan, as will be detailed in the case studies in chapter V.

5. Conclusion and Future Directions

Following the timeline of events connected to Michigan’s standards development and implementation process, this historical perspective has provided a context for understanding and analyzing the lessons learned from our connective activities. While the emphasis of the current research was at the national level of standards implementation, it enriched the broader understanding and utilization of state-level standards. Future investigations which examine the happens in the standards development and implementation process, including the careers of the individuals involved, and the constructed products such as state standards, are envisioned. Of particular interest is the linkage between local, state, and national perspectives on standards, including the analysis of standards diffusions and immersion. Successful policy pairs appear to occur when policy provisions are compatible with the environment where implementation occurs. The implementation research corroborates that successful policy pairs exist such as the findings which suggest that the mandate-type theory has utilities in explaining standards associations between testing and state standards.

Furthermore, the international perspective was often denied through the standards initiatives. This was in part due to the necessity to create standards that are not the equivalent standards of other nations, but standards that meet the specific educational requirements of the individual states and regions. While the initiative could have an international focus, it often did not due to the external pressure which the states faced. Dangers are inherent in local standards, since a major message should be that the United States society must be equipped for full participation in a world economy. Recognizing that not everyone has supported or believed in the potential of a standards movement, it is necessary to arouse interest in the potential benefits of urge expectations and mutual responsibilities between the many stakeholders involved in developing a common vision for the schooling of our young people to meet the challenges of the 21st century.