A couple of weeks ago Robert Kaplinsky posted about how future Math Standards writers might approach that monumental task. In parallel, I have been working with the new CASE framework from IMS Global that wants to redefine how we view and share academic competencies (standards) on the Internet. In addition, there are various ways to define relationships between standards both within and outside of the specified framework. This has huge implications as many states have slightly changed the wording of the standards so that it’s not immediately obvious, but their standards are still mostly following the original published CCSS. It is our dream that this tool and format will truly enable interoperability of ed-tech platforms and OER content.
Robert’s post struck a tone as you can see that I’ve talked about several times on my site how standards can and should be better. I created an example sample of framework on our Open Source framework management tool called OpenSALT that shows some of the relationships that I thought would be interesting to people with a few Common Core Mathematics standards:
-Shows the relationship of a Common Core standard to it’s Missouri ‘cousin’
– Showing progression type relationships (precedes)
– Showing all of the various association views (Is Related To and Exact Match of will be the most interesting lists for crosswalks)
– Exemplars for the Standar
openSALT is not for the general user, but for State Departments of Education as they publish their standards – we implore them to not use PDF but instead something like this which can be quickly and easily read by… everybody. Contact Joshua Marks at PCG Education for more information if you’re reading this.
For teachers and districts, it could however be a useful too to create unpacked standards and be able to publish/user them on internal system software (the unpacked standards could still retain a connection to the ‘parent’ official standard through the “IsPartOf” relationship).
It is hoped that the next writers of standards could, when writing the standards, build into them these relationships and extra metadata such as more examples. Currently, if you want to know about the standards themselves you go here, if you want to read about the progressions of the concepts here OR here, and for a cohesive map yet another website. Likewise, while some standards are clearly defined and demonstrable, others are quite vague on purpose… but that doesn’t help teachers trying to find the best content for their students.