Notes from C&I Staff Meeting

January 21, 2009

9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Topic: FAQs and Power Standards

I. Review of Norms
• Last meeting focus on Monitoring Airtime
o Decision made to use “thumbs-up” signal to indicate
agreement instead of restating
o Use parking lot to table tangential discussions
• Today’s focus on Clarifying Perspectives
o Suggested use of “time-out” hand signal to indicate that
you need someone to stop and define a term or acronym
used
o Asking a person to elaborate
o Focus on issue, not person

II. MMC FAQs – Common Themes

• Common headers to be added to FAQs based on existing
questions (no need to add questions just to have something
under a heading)
• Headers based on common themes identified by Ruth Anne:
o Background Info
o Seat Time
(defined as where a student learns and how much time it
takes to learn a specific set of content expectations)
o Integrated Course Sequence
(defined as intentionally meeting credit requirements by
teaching related expectations from multiple content areas
in specifically designed courses)
o Content-Specific Requirements
o Personal Curriculum Modifications (for students without an
IEP)
• Include AP questions in content area and “AP” section of FAQ
• Include questions regarding Integrated Sequence in content area
and “Earning Credit” section of FAQ
• Item put in parking lot: determining proficiency
• DEADLINE for FAQs: January 26, close of business

III. Power Standards Brainstorm Session

• What are power standards?
o Daggett – standards that are tested, needed by employers,
and connected to other areas
o 21st century skills (needed by employers, connected to
other areas)
o More “bang” for time and effort
o Criticism of grain-size found in expectations
• How are power standards currently used?
o Prioritizing time commitments
o Way to eliminate content
o Way of helping struggling students
o Way to organize content into big ideas
o Help teachers
o Address the issue of too many content expectations
o Address what is practicable under the PC
o Way to design assessments/measures of proficiency
o Not an issue in the arts – big issue in math, ELA
o Deepen teacher knowledge of content expectations
o Way to design instructional strategies around content
expectations (ISDs)
o Can be used well or poorly
• How does/might MDE connect with the work?
o Convene ISDs who are taking a lead in the work – give
them a forum and determine around what level we can
connect with that work
o Possible statement/stance by MDE to focus on instruction?
o Answers to FAQs
o Read a common Daggett piece – see what the research
says
• Pros and Cons
o Pro: improve instruction, design assessment, deepen
teacher understanding of content expectations
o Con: eliminate content, impression of “magic bullet”
o Pros specific to MDE: responsiveness to field needs –
“we’re listening”, opportunity to influence work
o Cons specific to MDE: who will do the work?, possible
misinterpretation of MDE involvement