SEADAE+Meeting+with+Partners-+Reston,+VA


 * National Arts Standards 2.0 Planning Meeting**
 * November 12, 2010**
 * 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM**
 * MENC Headquarters,** **Washington****,** **DC**

Attending: SEADAE: Deb Hansen, Linda Lovins, Marcia McCaffrey, Lynn Tuttle, Cory Wilkerson, Project Manager EdTA - Jim Palmarini MENC - Scott Shuler, Michael Blakeslee NAEA - Deborah Reeve NDEO- Jane Bonbright, Susan McGreevy-Nichols The College Board - Nancy Rubino AATE - Lynne Kingsley AEP - Sandra Ruppert

Marcia McCaffrey (SEADAE) reviewed the agenda and the goals for the day and Deb Hansen (SEADAE) shared the history of the work this summer. She thanked AEP for being a voice to help us vette documents with their experience with CCSSO. She thanked Nancy Rubino from the College Board for offering to take on the research piece. She discussed the change in the name- initially we had begun with the name Common Core Standards in the Arts, however since this name was reserved for Common Core ELA and Math the work has been branded National Arts Standards 2.0.

Deborah Reeve of NAEA asked a clarifying question- when she attended a meeting in Annapolis the scope of the work seemed broader. She feels that her board has only signed on for the creation of National Arts Standards- is this the case. Deb Hansen agreed that this was the case.

Marcia: "There may be times when our larger scope of work will ask these partners again, however this work is about National Standards Arts 2.0."

1. National leader in curriculum. 2. Willing to endorse the project. 3. Willing to be accountable for the project. 4. Financial Stability - open books for audit - C3 or C4 5- National credibility 6. leverage advocacy 7. philosophically disposed to promoting balance for the whole child 8. ability to move the work forward 9. logical fit
 * Brainstorming: What makes a good fiscal agent?** (later broadened to management agent)

Scott Shuler cited some examples of qualities: PK-14 Research based Rooted in student work Internal benchmarks Educators in partnership with teaching artists and artists Curriculum trends Big Ideas Grade by grade Content progressions Evergreen
 * Qualities of Standards**

Discussion/commentary: - evergreen idea needs more definition/explanation - grade by grade or band level? Is it possible to have both with a searchable internet version you can sort by grade level, content, etc. - should we define grain size across disciplines? - with SEADAE at the table it is state involved... it is not simply content partners - audience should include the public – important to pull language out that is content specific but also speaks to a larger audience. - the work of framing will nail down some of these questions - SEADAE member buy in critical - SEADAE will survey their members

Examples of on-line standards to inform the concept of “evergreen” can be found at both the Pennsylvania and Florida department of Education websites. [] - PA SAS system uses the possibilities of the computer to provide a flexible method of working with standards (ex- you can choose between grade bands and grade levels) and offers the ability for teachers to interact and upload examples of resources and curriculum. Florida’s standards are based on understanding by design concepts and feature access points to make learning accessible to **//all//** learners.
 * “Evergreen” Standards**

- What might it look like on line? How might it update? - we are going for different audiences- there are teachers that are out there that still haven't adopted the standards - if we have standards that are changing too fast people won't buy in - “As a user .. and most of my work right now is writing curriculum, as a person who is actually teaching curriculum writing and using it with districts I see this as extremely valuable .” - In DE we developed standards 4 yrs ago and it wasn't until our legislature got involved and mandated ... in the arts it sort of provided a slice of curriculum pie.. it forced district to sort of sit down and map the curriculum...and the outcome for our teachers was "oh my goodness that's why we have standards"...” - Is there a difference between what is useful for a state and what is useful on a national level? - if there is something that is constantly under revision.. always shifting.. is it workable?” - What is the best role of the national standards?” - Perhaps National standards need to remain more stable than the state standards which needs to remain more stable than the local curriculum.” - at some point I think it will become evident when 3.0 will be required... it is going to be a real challenge and it will take time to get a certain portion of the population .. in line.. the point is we need to stick with one set of standards because it will take time....” - I think we are talking about something that remains relevant. - important need for National Standards to step forward and be the example to all states. - perhaps Evergreen resources, artifacts, stable standards? - teachers need to be heard...one of our goals is for people to be able to use these... .user generated content.” - speaking of users, one of the users can be students- to have students engaged with the website will make everything more engaging. - I've heard a couple of things- central repository for teachers, helping teachers get more comfortable with technology.... - perhaps a comprehensive fact finding mission .... a needs assessment is in order.. what do states need.. what are some of the other needs on the case of policy makers if standards are also to be a tool for shaping policy in the arts. - there is great value in looking at how the Common Core was developed

After the break the conversation continued around the purpose for national standards and possible outcomes. How do we engage teachers? How do we nurture a community of practice?” Purposes: A central repository for student work Engaging users through technology Nurture a community of practice Provide guidance to states for the development of state standards It is important for states to know there is a schedule for revisions - systematically update Inform policy and research Inform "opportunities to learn" Inform curriculum, instruction and assessment Inform AP higher level assessment Improve student learning and teaching practice teacher preparation - pre service and in service Outcomes: Provide guidance for published resources. Unify the art disciplines and arts ed field Collect student work. Discussion: the idea that standards are to legitimize the arts may be something that is more of an internal advocacy statement than a rationale that would have broad appeal. Discussion: we need to link the standards with the overarching things that people are about. Discussion: The scope piece needs not to be lost. ... in some ways it might even be a differentiation of standards... perhaps it is.. these are the fundamental arts learning for all students... and this is something if you want to go deeper into the arts.” Discussion: is there an implication for accountability tools?
 * Purpose for Standards**

Nancy Rubino of the College Board offered to take on the responsibilities of the underlying research. Nancy: “This has been really helpful in terms of understanding and defining our role at the College Board. I know we've told you we've agreed to take on some responsibilities in terms of research. I also want to reiterate that we are also definitely able to give help on our expertise on our experience working on standards and currently the Science standards that we are involved with. Also we have been planning a committee to discuss involvement.. to have some of our arts advisors help inform committees .. this is still a process.. a refinement in terms of our role. Regards to research, we have been thinking and planning about our role. The first thing we are doing is compiling information on international standards and benchmarks. We have begun that process and we plan to have a final report out to you by around the end of January. I actually wanted some feedback if that is the kind of time line that you are interested in. The other thing that we talked to Scott about was conducting a general review of child development and the arts.... we wanted to compile a document... we thought we might have that around early March. We also thought about performing a gap analysis of the existing standards versus the P21 skills.. identifying also or distilling sources of information about arts.” Marcia: “Thank you this is fabulous - it will inform the standards and the field as well.” Next small groups were formed. Persons present at the meeting could self select their small group and rotate through several choices for the next two hours. Small groups were: Research facilitated by Deb Hansen, Communications facilitated by Cory Wilkerson, filling in for Linda Lovins who was called to handle a last minute format need for her State Standards work.,
 * College Board and Research**


 * Afternoon Small Group Work**

Examine models of state standards. Also New Zealand, Scandinavian, etc. Do needs assessment from state level Performance standards- not only the process of developing the standards but process standards Fewer, higher and rigorous simple, elegant and clean research on teacher as facilitator research on existing repositories of student work - benchmarking important research on developmentally appropriate practices outreach to other content areas - allies would be well rounded subjects speak out survey from Project tomorrow - surveys students, educators and parents 53,000 surveys
 * Research Group Report Out** – Deb Hansen

need happy medium between vetting synthesis conceptual framework - Getty model- research what happened here research how standards link to P21 tiers important to unpack the work research around value systems in the school - teachers not only get evaluated by their principal but by their communities (festivals etc.) which unfortunately only test a narrow band- if we can somehow inculcate professional reward systems linked to standards - would it be possible to influence those systems to include a broader understanding reoccurring theme today is student work Jane: “Reverse the process - look at the student work and identify the standards that are in the student work- students and parents see the performance, start with the tape and identify what level of standards. Focus should be on the student and the learning.”
 * Discussion after Research Report Out:**

Internal and External Communications needs Internal communications will be mostly about the process External communications more formal, possibly need to be vetted Also need to consider Public Relations Public Relations will be a more formal process: write, vet, pass on to editor for polish Possible tools for communicating: dipity timeline, prezi, twitter feed, online twitter meeting Immediate: provide one page summary by Friday Nov 18th to all who attended the meeting 90 Days out: prepare prezi introducing project which could be placed on all websites and used with webinars begin Leadership Lens type communications between the partners share meeting minutes and summaries of meetings create the beginnings of an informal PR campaign with teasers on every organization’s website “it’s coming…” 180 Days out: establish quarterly reports find out how to be included in the online monthly arts chat (twitter) formal news print articles
 * Communications Group Report Out –** **Cory** **Wilkerson** **for Linda Lovins**

create a multimedia piece designed to raise public interest in new standards – it would be an interactive media piece based on the elemental table that shows dancers, musicians, actors, artists, as you move your mouse over it to publicize the concept that not only are arts elemental, but standards are the elements that build arts instruction Jim commented on the pr - noted that someone will have to serve as a point person
 * Brainstorming/Discussion:**

Establish a development committee First job is to clarify that message We have a working 2 pager - need to look at the players around the table and make certain we are clear about the players and the work Need to identify the big players who may or may not be arts but who help forward the goal of arts educators - we need many of these One of whom may take on the role of fiscal agency- Fiscal agency doesn't come first - substantial dollars come first Also talked about looking at a philanthropic partner Part of the work of the development committee is to vette this Must be clear fundraising for this project should not harm any organization Who else are you approaching - who might be interested in this Is it arts or arts and humanities? This is an opportunity to reach out and explore with SS, foreign language, as they do standards work how do we coordinate- do we coordinate a release, etc. Much more power in being arts and then arts alone Logic model as a starting point. (Image of logic model to come)
 * Funding Group Report Out – Lynn Tuttle**

Marcia noted that none of the concepts labeled were final. First group - went back to May 11th meeting and National Task force- Q- Was this really a national task force- they came together for a day - you didn't give them any tasks Oversight committee or managing partner? These are tiered levels of conversation- tiers levels of work Task Force Oversight or Managing Committee Standards working group Next conversation was about the Managing Partner (not fiscal agent) - central organizing body that includes the managing partner, SEADAE representation, project coordinator (employee of this managing partner) Managing partner would draw on internal staff and would have some ownership of the project - also responsible for fundraising - would give big picture of what is going on Noted that we need to get to that management piece as soon as possible. 1st group created a time line Important to communicate with national group that we brought together in May - we've made progress in 6 months - possible Google group - combination of WebEx, webinar, face to face - offer from Nancy to meet at College Board Possibly meet on Arts Advocacy Day - AEP Forums - identify time when folks are already together to leverage travel time
 * Organizational Structure Group Report Out – Marcia McCaffrey**

- summary of what we did today by the 18th - one new committee has been formed to look at funding - we will set up a Google group - SEADAE has a weekly Friday call - Circulate minutes on a Monday morning business - Give 5 days notice, as needed to invite this group to the meeting - IDEA: Try to get on weekly twitter discussion with Joan Webber - sometimes themed - preliminary draft of an action plan - need to identify a next meeting to come together looking at action plan- goal: December 15th meeting - webinar in the middle of Jan with this group - send current 2 page narrative to all attending the meeting
 * Action Items Going Forward:**