Alaska
Curriculum Peer Review
Description and Guidance
1
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
II
III
Introduction
An Alaska school or district curriculum is an educational plan that defines the content to be
taught, the resources (e.g., textbooks, kits, atlases, resource guides, etc ) and instructional
methods to be used, and the assessment processes to be employed for documenting student
progress and achievement. Further a district curriculum must include a plan for staff
development. Overall, the district curriculum is aligned with Alaska Performance Standards and
Grade Level Expectations (GLEs) and allows for the collection of data to inform instruction.
Ideally the curriculum is coordinated across grade levels and content areas so that the goals and
objectives can be met.
Alignment of curriculum with the Alaska GLEs is an essential element of focus for districts
within the domain of curriculum and instruction. If the aligned curriculum is implemented with
fidelity in the classroom, student achievement can be addressed.
Purpose of Guidance
The Department of Education & Early Development (EED) issues this guidance to provide
districts with information to prepare for the department’s peer review, as designated by state
regulation 4 AAC 05.080 and enforced through regulation 4 AAC 06.840.
This guidance represents the department’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond
those required under applicable law and regulations.
District Curricular System
A district may include in its curricular system multiple approaches to its design.

A district’s curricular system may employ either a uniform set of materials districtwide or a
combination across schools. Districts using a combination of materials and resources must
address issues of comparability and equivalency. For example, a student attending one
elementary school must be able to continue progression toward the standards if moved into
another elementary school within the district using different materials.
2
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)

A district’s assessment system may be supplemented through the use of correspondence
course materials. These correspondence materials are approved by the Commissioner when
evidence of alignment occurs and comparability and equivalency to other district course
materials has been address.
The following indicators show alignment in addition to implementation within the district.
o Identifies the resources and materials to be used for each grade and content;
o Indicates the process for each content area within grade towards ensuring alignment with the
state's academic content standards and toward determining the revisit or review of each
within a timeframe for each school;
o Provides information regarding the progress of teachers relative to the staff development
required to implement resources and the curriculum;
o Establish criteria to ensure that materials and resources identified in the curriculum address
the cognitive complexity of the state's academic standards;
o Demonstrate that all materials can be differentiated to address the students who are currently
performing at far below proficient, below proficient, and advance; and
o Receive school board approval per regulation 4 AAC 05.080.
The Peer Review Process
To determine whether districts have met alignment requirements, EED will use an Alaska Peer
Review process involving experts and colleagues in the fields of standards and curriculum. The
review will evaluate districts’ curricular systems only against state regulations and requirements.
In other words, reviewers will examine characteristics of a district’s curricular system that will
be used to hold districts accountable under regulation 4 AAC 06.840 Consequences of not
demonstrating adequate yearly progress.
Furthermore, the Alaska peer review process will not directly examine a district’s local standards
or formative assessment instruments. Rather, it will examine evidence compiled and submitted
by each district that is intended to show that its curricular system meets state requirements. Such
evidence may include, but is not limited to, final aligned curriculum document, results from
alignment studies, adopted policies, and curriculum committee meeting minutes. Peer reviewers
will advise the department on whether a district’s curricular system meets a particular
requirement based on the totality of evidence submitted. Peer reviewers will also provide
constructive feedback to help districts strengthen their systems.
Role of Peer Reviewers
3
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
Using this Guidance as a framework, the peer reviewers will provide their expert professional
judgment, based on evidence supplied by the district, of the degree to which the district’s final
curricular system complies with the state requirements. Their evaluation of the final curricular
system will serve two purposes. First, the peer reviewers’ comments will be sent to the district as
a technical assistance tool to support improvements in the system. Second, the peer reviewers’
comments will inform the decision of the Department of Education & Early Development
regarding approval of each district curricular system.
Review Process
The Alaska Peer Review Teams are trained in advance of the review process. They are facilitated
through the review process and aligned in understanding of the Guidance.
The materials submitted to the department by the district are in electronic and hard copy format.
The evidence is then distributed by the department to each member of the Peer Review Team in
advance of a review meeting to allow for a thorough independent review based on the Guidance.
At the review meeting, the team of at least three peer reviewers discusses a district’s curricular
system, as represented by the evidence provided by the district and records their opinions.
Sufficient evidence must be provided to convince an experienced professional that the curricular
system is being implemented in a manner that meets state requirements.
This Guidance is a framework used to make a series of analytic judgments. Reviewers will
address each of the peer reviewer questions in the Guidance, evaluating the status of each
component of the system on the basis of the documentation provided by the district. A brief
statement of the degree to which the curricular system meets state requirements and the changes
needed, if any, summarizes this analytic examination of the system.
Review Teams
The Alaska Peer Review Team prepares a report based on its examination of the evidence
submitted by the district. In each team, one person will be designated team leader; this person is
responsible for seeing that peer notes are clear, complete, and delivered to EED staff at the end
of the review meeting. The peer reviewers are responsible for providing feedback to each district
that is informative and is consistent with professional standards and best practice. Generally, if
changes in a district curricular system are required in order to meet state requirements, peer
reviewers will present options rather than prescriptive instructions.
An EED staff person, assigned as a resource to each team, is responsible for assisting the review
team in obtaining adequate and appropriate information from the district prior to the review
4
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
meeting; contacting the district during the review meeting to obtain clarification or additional
information needed by the reviewers; securing resources needed to support the team during the
meeting; and accurately reporting the review team’s deliberations as EED determines the
district’s compliance status. Department staff may question, or even challenge, the peer
reviewers in order to promote clarity and consistency with the Guidance; they will not, however,
impose their views or require substantive changes in the peer reviewers’ report.
Districts are invited to submit evidence of compliance consistent with the peer review schedule
announced by the department.
District’s Role
To facilitate the peer review process, a district should organize its evidence with a brief narrative
response to each of the “peer reviewer questions” in the Guidance. The department has provided
a suggested submission model to help organize supporting documents that constitute evidence of
meeting the curriculum requirements. The district will be asked to designate staff who can be
contacted by phone during the review to provide clarification.
All final evidence will be submitted electronically and hard copy to the department.
Glossary of Terms
Comparability and equivalency
Cognitive complexity
Depth of Knowledge
5
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
Peer Review Curriculum Alignment Guidance
There is evidence that the curriculum is aligned, implemented, assessed, and used in conjunction with the local and Alaska State
Standards and grade-level expectations (GLEs)
1.0 School/district curriculum is aligned with Alaska
Standards and Grade Level Expectations (GLE)
Examples of Acceptable Evidence
1.1 A Process was used to identify appropriate resources and
materials available for each GLE.

Who were the stakeholders involved and how often
did they meet?
How did proficiency descriptors guide resource
selection?
How was research conducted to identify aligned,
evidence-based researched materials?
6
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
The alignment framework is
complete with identified
resources and materials
 Sign in sheets from stakeholders
who participated in
identification of
materials/resources
 Agenda from stakeholder
materials/resources
identification meeting
 Material inventory list with
copyright dates and counts of
distribution to each building
 Evidence-based research
supporting materials and
resources purchased and
identified (i.e., What Works
Clearinghouse)
Documented District Evidence

1.2 A process was used to ensure a broad range of depth of
knowledge (DOK) or cognitive complexity for each
resource assigned to a GLE.


Who were the stakeholders involved and how often
did they meet?
How did stakeholders assign/identify the cognitive
complexity (i.e., Blooms taxonomy descriptors
or Webb’s depth of knowledge levels) for each
GLE?
How did the stakeholder group determine a variety of
cognitive levels?
What assurances are in place that each grade level
shows progression in student understanding?



Agendas from curriculum
alignment meetings with
stakeholders
Sign in sheets from stakeholders
who participated in alignment
meetings
Training materials used with
curriculum alignment
participants to ensure common
understanding of cognitive
complexity
Cognitive complexity forms with
levels assigned
Curriculum includes cognitive
complexity for teacher reference

1.3 Assurances were made that all learners were considered
in the selection of resources and materials.
What considerations were made for students with
disabilities?
What considerations were made for English language
learners?
What considerations were made for advanced learners?




7
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
Stakeholders include specialists
working with subgroups
Materials are identified for RTI
Tiers II and III to meet students
who are currently performing
below proficient
Materials were identified for
differentiation
1.4 Gaps identified in the alignment process were addressed. 
How were gaps in the resources and materials section of
the curriculum determined?
What data was used to identify specific weaknesses in
student achievement within strands of GLEs?
How were materials selected to address gaps?



2.0 School/district curriculum has aligned
formative/summative assessments
2.1 Ongoing aligned classroom assessments document
student progress and achievement
How are formative assessments designed with multiple
strategies?
How are formative assessments providing instructional
feedback to students and teachers?
2.2 A support structure is in place to continue the process of
using aligned formative/summative assessments.
What is the process for collaboratively examining
student work for alignment to proficiency
8
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
First drafts of curriculum
identify gaps
Research-based information to
support new materials and
resources
Purchase order for new materials
for coverage of gaps
Student data where scores reveal
student weakness on specific
strands
Examples of Acceptable Evidence







Sample lessons where students
are involved in feedback
Framework includes assessment
strategies
Student led conferences
Inservice trainings which address
formative/summative
assessments
Framework includes assessment
strategies
Common rubrics and formative
assessments
RTI meeting minutes showing
Documented District Evidence
descriptors and GLEs?
assessment discussions
How are tools and strategies for formative/summative
assessments shared?
How are formative/summative assessments connected to
other school improvement initiatives?
2.3
3.0 School/district curriculum was adopted by local
governing body (regulation 4 AAC 05.080)
3.1 The curriculum contains a statement that the document is
used to guide for planning instructional strategies.
Does the audience for the statement point to teachers?
Does the statement express the purpose of the
curriculum?
3.2 the curriculum contains a statement of goals that the
curriculum is expected to accomplish
9
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
Examples of Acceptable Evidence



Board minutes
District policies
Public comment


Board minutes
District policies
Documented District Evidence




Public comment
Teacher evaluation
SBA data reviews
3.3 The curriculum must set out content that can reasonably
be expected to accomplish the goals


How does the curriculum support instruction in
preparation of the summative spring assessments?
School board policy
Pacing guides or curriculum
mapping

3.4 There is a review process to determine if the curriculum
is responsive to the learning needs of all students






How will the listed goals be measured?
Where do the goals reflect district philosophy?
How will data be used to determine the curriculum is
meeting the needs of all learners?
Who are the stakeholders involved in reviewing the
curriculum?
What assurances exist that all subgroups are represented
in the curriculum?
3.5 A schedule or plan to address each content area
undergoing review at least once every six years.
How does the timeline address grades K-10 in reading,
writing, and math?
10
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)
School board policy
Review plan
Board minutes
Data retreat agendas
Inservice training
Stakeholders include specialists
working with subgroups




School board policy
Timeline with targeted grades
and contents
How does the timeline address grades K-11 science?
4.0 Professional development in the curriculum domain
exists
Examples of Acceptable Evidence
4.1 A system is in place in which collaborative teams utilize
professional development opportunities

How are teachers prepared to use new curriculum
materials?
What assurances new teachers to the districts are
prepared to implement the curriculum with fidelity?
11
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)






Inservice schedule for school
year with targets for curriculum
Inservice professional
development plan
Teacher retreats
Collaborative meeting agenda
Evaluation tools
Survey results
Documented District Evidence
12
Alaska Peer Review Document (updated 11/5/09 2:45pm)