Learning Elevation Framework Part 1: Firm Learning Expectations

The First Layer of the EES Innovation Learning Elevation Framework: Firm Learning Expectations

In our previous blog, we explored why alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment is essential for improving student outcomes. We examined the fragmentation that occurs when these elements are treated as separate initiatives, rather than part of an interconnected system. 

Firm Learning Expectations serve as the foundation of the Learning Elevation Framework (LEF), ensuring that every student has access to high-quality, coherent instruction that leads to mastery of essential skills.

If we know that alignment is necessary for student success, the next logical question is: how do we establish Firm Learning Expectations in a way that guarantees all stakeholders are aware of what we want students to learn deeply in each grade level?

This article within the blog series on the LEF will take a deeper dive into how districts can effectively implement Firm Learning Expectations—ensuring that standards, curriculum, and instruction are not only aligned, but deeply understood and prioritized in a way that leads to sustainable improvement.

Why Setting Firm Learning Expectations Is More Than Just Standards Alignment

Many districts assume that because they have a curriculum map or pacing guide, they have Firm Learning Expectations in place. However, simply having a document that outlines standards is not enough. True Firm Learning Expectations require districts to go beyond basic alignment and create a system where learning expectations are clearly defined, deeply understood, and consistently reinforced.

One of the biggest challenges each district faces is ensuring that educators deeply understand the standards they are teaching. Too often, standards are presented as broad statements without explicit guidance on what mastery truly looks like. Without structured support to unpack and analyze these standards, teachers are left to interpret them on their own, leading to inconsistencies in how they are taught across classrooms and grade levels.

Additionally, prioritizing essential standards is critical. Not all standards carry the same weight, and if everything is treated as equally important, instructional time gets stretched too thin. Districts must help educators identify which standards are critical and require deeper instructional focus. Without this prioritization, students may experience inconsistencies in their learning that make it difficult to build a strong foundation for long-term success.

Another major obstacle is ensuring instruction is designed for mastery rather than just coverage. Pacing guides and curriculum maps often emphasize moving through content quickly, rather than allowing sufficient time for students to develop deep understanding. This results in students who may have been exposed to all the standards but have not internalized or mastered them at a level that allows for application and retention.

To address this, districts need to establish strong spiral practices that ensure students revisit standards multiple times throughout the year in different contexts. When students engage with essential concepts repeatedly, through varied instructional approaches, they build a more durable understanding that supports long-term mastery. A well-structured spiral approach allows students to strengthen connections between new and prior learning, ultimately improving their ability to apply knowledge in different situations.

Finally, curricular materials are not always aligned with the true intent of the standards. Many pre-packaged programs claim to meet state standards, yet gaps remain. When teachers are told to rely solely on these materials without critically evaluating them, they may unknowingly omit crucial concepts. Districts must take an active role in auditing curriculum, supplementing resources, and ensuring that every essential learning goal is addressed.

Without these additional layers of intentionality, instructional inconsistencies will persist, and students will continue to receive less than optimal learning experiences based on the individual interpretation of their teachers. Establishing Firm Learning Expectations is about more than just having a curriculum—it requires a systematic approach to ensuring that every student has access to rigorous, aligned, and meaningful learning experiences.

The Five Essential Areas of Firm Learning Expectations

To move beyond basic standards alignment, districts must focus on five critical areas that define Firm Learning Expectations: curriculum alignment, consistent pacing, deepening understanding of standards, resource alignment, and clarity of learning goals.

1. Curriculum alignment ensures that instructional goals are explicitly defined and structured to support student mastery. A strong curriculum map clearly outlines prioritized learning objectives, ensuring that essential standards drive instructional expectations. These maps must be built around ILEARN expectations, making certain that all students are working toward rigorous learning goals. Vertical and horizontal curriculum planning is essential to coherence, ensuring that learning progresses logically from one grade level to the next. Without intentional curriculum alignment, gaps and redundancies can occur, leading to inconsistent learning experiences and disparities in student preparedness.

2. Consistent pacing provides students with access to essential learning experiences throughout the school year. Pacing guides must be intentionally designed so that all essential content is covered before each ILEARN checkpoint, allowing for intervention and enrichment opportunities. A well-structured pacing model incorporates an assessment calendar that provides multiple checkpoints throughout the year, measuring student progress well before the administration of the summative ILEARN assessment. Additionally, collaborative planning time is necessary to allow teachers to adjust pacing, share instructional best practices, and respond to student needs in real time. Pacing should be flexible enough to accommodate necessary reteaching and deeper exploration of essential standards while still maintaining alignment to overall learning goals.

3. Deepening understanding of standards equips teachers with the knowledge they need to deliver high-quality instruction. It is not enough for teachers to know what standards they are required to teach; they must also deeply understand what mastery looks like. Structured sessions for unpacking essential standards clarify learning targets, prerequisite knowledge, and expected student outcomes. PLC discussions should focus on integrating essential standards into daily instruction and assessments, fostering alignment and rigor across classrooms. Proficiency scales, aligned to ILEARN performance levels, help teachers identify key skills within standards and plan differentiated instruction accordingly. When teachers have a firm grasp on the standards, they can provide more precise instruction that leads to higher levels of student success.

4. Resource alignment ensures that all curricular materials fully support the instructional priorities of the district. Audits of curricular resources must be conducted to identify gaps and misalignments with Indiana Academic Standards. Core instructional materials, supplemental digital tools, and intervention programs must be aligned not only to ILEARN standards but also to the specific assessment formats students will encounter. When curricular materials are not strategically stacked to support the full depth of essential standards, students may receive incomplete instruction, leaving them underprepared for assessments and real-world applications of their learning. To properly deliver what each child needs, intervention and enrichment resources must be embedded into the curriculum so that students at all proficiency levels have access to meaningful learning opportunities that address their individual needs.

5. Clarity of learning goals allows both educators and students to fully understand what success looks like. Teachers must receive targeted professional development that reinforces curriculum expectations and high-impact instructional practices. Learning goals should be clearly communicated to students through the use of rubrics and success criteria, which align to ILEARN proficiency descriptors. Instructional coaching and feedback cycles should focus on strategies that promote student mastery while maintaining consistency in instructional expectations across classrooms. When students have clarity on their learning goals, they take more ownership of their progress and are better equipped to engage deeply with the curriculum.

By focusing on these five essential areas, districts can move beyond simply listing standards in a curriculum document and create a true system of Firm Learning Expectations. This system ensures that students receive instruction that is aligned, intentional, and designed for mastery rather than mere exposure.

How We Know This Works

The impact of establishing Firm Learning Expectations is not theoretical—it is something we have seen firsthand in numerous districts across Indiana. Research further supports this approach, with John Hattie’s work emphasizing that teacher self-efficacy—teachers' belief in their ability to impact student learning—has a strong effect size of 0.63 on student achievement (EdWeek, 2016). Even more powerful is collective teacher efficacy, which Hattie identifies as the single most significant factor influencing student success, with an effect size of 1.57 (Donohoo, Hattie, & Eells, 2018). 

This reinforces the idea that when teachers have clarity, alignment, and support in their instructional decisions, student performance improves. We have seen the power of individual and collective teacher efficacy across many of our partner districts and the impact it plays for improved student outcomes is transformative.

District leaders consistently report that curriculum mapping, which was once seen as an administrative burden, has become one of the most valuable forms of professional development for their teachers. However, our experience working with districts has shown that the failure to build teacher capacity while providing a clear path for implementation limits the effectiveness of curriculum maps. When teachers do not receive adequate training and support in unpacking standards and aligning instruction, these maps remain underutilized and fail to drive meaningful change in classrooms.

In contrast, when districts engage in our structured curriculum mapping process, teachers consistently describe it as the best professional development they have ever had. The process creates clarity around learning expectations, providing educators with a roadmap they can immediately apply to their daily instructional decisions. 

Rather than working in isolation or feeling overwhelmed by broad state standards, teachers gain a shared understanding of essential learning priorities and how to ensure students reach mastery. This clarity leads to more intentional instruction, better student engagement, and improved outcomes over time.

Additionally, research supports what we have observed in practice. Studies on curriculum alignment and instructional coherence have shown that when schools provide a structured, standards-based approach to teaching, student performance improves significantly. According to the RAND Corporation, schools with strong instructional coherence and clear curriculum alignment see higher student achievement gains compared to those where instructional decisions are left to individual teacher interpretation (RAND Corporation, 2020). Furthermore, the National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET) emphasizes that ongoing professional development focused on standards-based instruction leads to more effective teaching practices and improved student learning outcomes (NIET, 2018).

Time and time again, we see that when districts commit to Firm Learning Expectations, students thrive. The key is intentionality—ensuring that alignment, pacing, teacher understanding, resources, and clear learning goals all work together to create a system that supports both educators and students.

References

Donohoo, J., Hattie, J., & Eells, R. (2018). The power of collective efficacy. Educational Leadership, 75(6), 40-44.

EdWeek. (2016). Does self-efficacy really matter? Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/education/opinion-does-self-efficacy-really-matter/2016/11

National Institute for Excellence in Teaching (NIET). (2018). Effective teaching strategies and professional development impact on student learning. Retrieved from https://www.niet.org/

RAND Corporation. (2020). The role of instructional coherence in improving student outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4398.html