Monthly Archives: December 2012

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-Based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 9: Grading

Posted on by
Reply

SBLAC 9: Grading

How does a person grade student achievement within a Standards-based Instruction system? We must keep in mind that if failure is not an option, then we must stop making it one. Think of the 18-point safety check a person might get from having his oil changed at a Firestone Service Station. Let’s say this person had sixteen of the eighteen points checked off but received a red X on two of the points. Does he/she drive off knowing that there is no brake fluid in the brake lines and that the battery shows insufficient charge to start the engine in freezing weather? The question becomes, “Do you feel lucky?” Is it a money issue? Is it a time issue? What would it take to stop you from doing something that in all likelihood will cause significant heartache down the road if it’s not addressed? If we don’t know something (like no brake fluid in the master cylinder) and smash our car into a toll booth on I-90 we might legitimately call this an accident. But what do you tell the victim’s family when you just left the service station where Joe, the car guy, told you that your car failed the 18-point safety check? “Well, I’m sorry, Mrs. Smith. He was feeling lucky.”

Once we establish our Critical Benchmark Skills List (CBSL) we must own it absolutely. We must be willing to do anything to ensure the students have demonstrated proficiency or mastery of the skills before they are set free upon the world. Not only that, but if one is a 9th grade teacher, what does he/she say to the 10th grade teacher when Harvey Schmirdlapp cannot perform tasks on the 9th grade CBSL? It is simply unacceptable to utter the phrase, “I taught it, he just didn’t learn it.” If we believe that all students can learn, can we assume that all teachers can teach? There is something obviously wrong with the formula. When the CBSL is selected it must be grade-level appropriate and it must be skill-level appropriate. We limit the skills we put on the CBSL so that we can ensure they are taught and learned to the level of the Tasks/Conditions/Standards (T/C/S) of Performance which we have created. We must own them outright. We must own them with passion. We must be sure that what we do in the classroom is directly related to these skills because the student’s future, as well as his/her grade, hangs in the balance.

As for grading, everyone should peruse Dr. Doug Reeves’ article, Leading to Change; Effective Grading Policies (See http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Effective-Grading-Practices.aspx. This is an article from Educational Leadership, February 2008, “Teaching Students to Think,” pp85-87.) . It cannot be emphasized enough that incorporating zeroes for missed assignments into a final semester grade is similar to emotional manslaughter which can kill a child’s motivation to continue struggling and learning when the hole seems to be getting deeper and deeper. We must be cognizant of the idea that zeroes and mistakes made along the way to proficiency and mastery are not failures. Reeves tells us that we must treat them as lessons learned on the way to success. A child can practice now or practice later, but as long as the Critical Benchmark Skill is mastered by the end of the semester, credit must be given. That’s the agreement.

When we accumulate a multitude of practice scores as we slog through the semester showing progress toward our goal, the average is merely an indication of potential success (or failure). This is all good information which can be used to motivate, inform, and target instruction. But after the 15- and 35-week progress reports go out, we must concentrate on our short final approach to the official semester grade. Whether a child met the T/C/S standard when the skill was introduced or whether he/she mastered the skill upon landing, if the entire CBSL has been assessed and all the tools are in the student’s tool kit, the student passes the class. Regardless of how brilliantly or how abysmally the student’s semester advanced, if he/she met the Task / Condition / Standard of the entire Critical Benchmark Skills List, this student will pass this class.

The reason we have progress reports and formative and interim assessments is to shed light on a student’s skills development and improvement as we progress through the year. We avoid “semester killers” by maintaining clear and constant vigilance of the CBSL and the skill mastery it represents. We cannot consider all of our eggs in one basket when in November we know that the main body has demonstrated proficiency on 15 of 18 Critical Benchmark Skills covered thus far and Harvey Schmirdlapp has but only six tools in his tool kit. Joe, the car guy, will tell us that Harvey needs to spend a little more time in the shop. But if Harvey works hard in December and over the Winter Break and meets the established T/C/S proficiencies, we cannot punish him for earlier failures on quizzes and missed homework. If he walks out the door at the end of January with all 20 tools in his tool kit, he is as good as gold.

Once we have determined the skills we will instruct, grading the Critical Benchmark Skills List becomes the most prominent aspect of the standards-based instruction (SBI) system. Assessing for mastery is a relatively simple process. However, when we incorporate SBI into an unyielding grading structure (such as that required by GradeBook®) things can get a little messy. The highly successful Kansas City, Kansas Benchmarking curriculum (KCK) for high school math was subjected to this type of system a few years ago which essentially negated one of its finest innovative qualities. Within KCK, students who had not met all of the benchmark standards of the semester were afforded an ‘I’ for “in progress” (or incomplete, as the case may be). Rigid grading systems cannot accommodate that kind of innovation. While it was marginally acceptable on a small-time basis for the mid-term grade, it was out of the question for semester grades. Therefore, within rigid systems students must master the entire CBSL by the end of the semester in order to be awarded the semester credit.

To be sure, the entire cumulative grading process which Dr. Reeves condemns so heartily (he calls it “toxic”), is the same system we have at Chicago Public Schools. But it is also true that the standards-based philosophy of Dr. Daggett is diametrically opposite to the published instructional frameworks(1) of CPS. And Dr. DuFour’s Professional Learning Community (See http://www.allthingsplc.info/pdf/articles/DuFourWhatIsAProfessionalLearningCommunity.pdf. This is Dr. DuFour’s 2004 article which appeared in Educational Leadership, May 2004, “What is a ‘Professional Learning Community?’,” pp6-11.) contains several premises which render it unworkable within a rigid, traditional grading system. We are running uphill. It is a situation which places teachers and administrators in an ethical dilemma every day of the school year.

So now what? So now we take the moral high ground. When the best minds in the nation tell us what we ought to be doing, well, we should seriously consider doing it. We must accept at some level that what we are doing “ain’t cuttin’ the mustard.” Average kids should perform at an average level. Our average kids, however, are performing at a level significantly below the state average. The average 11th grader in Chicago is performing at a pretty low level. And these are the students being targeted for intervention. But, the longer we cling to probationary and remedial type practices the more we fit into the mediocre mold. At mediocre schools, the education specialists can just as easily come to your building and train you to do the wrong thing but with greater precision.

For all intents and purposes, we have a high speed, information sharing, and internet accessible, gee-whiz typewriter. With all of its applications and reports, GradeBook® and other rigidly systematic grading systems really only do one thing at the classroom level. And they do it poorly. They take the old blue grade book and put it onto a computer. In and of itself, this is relatively benign, although quite honestly it is also no technical improvement. Teachers have less control, access and prerogative than ever before. The transfer to online grading systems merely allows others to peek at classroom attendance and grading records. The difficulty lies in the necessary formatting protocols which make district-wide access possible. The problems come into play when districts tell the teachers how to walk the grade book grading dog. Perhaps they do so necessarily but in the process create a cookie-cutter, one-over-the-world grading formula. And in the online default mode, these systems violate the principles of Reeves, DuFour, Marzano and Daggett, among others.

Traditional online grading practices which incorporate cumulative assignments will often not allow teachers to target Critical Benchmark Skills assessments without bringing previous work to bear. If one student achieves proficiency early on, that score cannot be calculated into his/her final grade without including that assessment into the calculations of every student in the class. But if everyone who took the assessment did not pass, those who came up short will have their “failure” included into the final tally as part of the same weighted average. This can be over-ridden by simply placing the new “passing” or “improved” grade over the benchmark assessment, but student toil in this area must be documented separately.

Switching from progress reporting to final grading is difficult. Adjusting the weighting formula is no solution because whatever grading scheme is in place at the end of cycle 1 (common terminology for the 10-week mid-term grade) will necessarily be used throughout cycle 2 (end of the first semester). This precludes using this application for progress reporting, which would include formative assessments, homework, and non-summative assignments, as well as using it for summative grading purposes.

Of course there is value in tracking cumulative progress throughout the 5-, 10-, and 15-week periods. These reports can tell us much about how a student’s progress is, well, progressing. Does he/she require intervention and/or other special attention? However at the end of the semester, all that really matters is whether or not a student has met the objectives of the course. How long it took him/her to get there is immaterial and can be prejudicial to the final grade. If a student receives a Go on each of the Critical Benchmark Skills on the CBSL, that is all we need to know for the final grade. The fact that he/she got sub-standard scores on four or five formative assessments should not matter in the least. And clearly a “slower” student should not be penalized for taking a little more time to get it right. Such a practice, on its face, is contrary to our educational philosophy of rigorous, differentiated instruction for diverse learners.

Classroom teachers should maintain a hard copy ledger of student performance just as in the Blue Grade Book style. Each quarter, the CBSL is identified along the top columnar headings (x axis) in column groups of three. The class roster is listed in row headings (y axis). As a student achieves requisite proficiency of a given Critical Benchmark Skill, the assessment date is recorded in the appropriate column within the student’s row. Each student must achieve three (occasionally two) proficiency Go’s per Critical Benchmark Skill in order to have achieved requisite mastery. The third column per Critical Benchmark Skill grouping is for teacher notes, scheduled retests and the like.

Instances where a student receives a No-Go on a Critical Benchmark Skill assessment are recorded within the online system as a “progress” item. It is noted here so that all who have access to the information can see that Harvey Schmirdlapp is having difficulty and, perhaps, requires intervention. The prejudicial aspect of traditional cumulative grading, however, makes this early failure a blemish on Harvey’s work record. Regardless of whether he can overcome this unsuccessful attempt, he will be punished at the end of the semester due to the cumulative weighted average method of computing grades. We should treat Harvey better than this.

The established grading scale for a school should be posted in the Student Handbook, the Staff Handbook and on the school website. How each course is arranged and weighted within this grading scale is essentially at the discretion of the teachers teaching the course. But three things must be clear. First, all teachers of a common course must use the same formula. Second, the weighting formula must be widely published and in the course syllabus. Lastly, the final semester grade must be a reflection of student proficiency within the Critical Benchmark Skills List created and agreed to by the teachers of a common course. Final grades are not and cannot be based upon homework, semester projects, subjective “class participation,” or assignments not directly associated as assessments of the CBSL.

Classroom failure cannot be matter of deliberate choice. We must listen to Joe, the car guy, when he identifies problems and we must get them corrected. Then, a student who successfully completes all skills within the CBSL shall, at a minimum, receive a score of 70. Regardless of possible cumulative averages which fall below the minimum average of 60% (in this case, 59% represents failure or “F”), a student meeting minimal attendance requirements and demonstrating mastery of the CBSL shall not fail any course. We must remember that traditional grading schemes include interim and formative practice and progress. But practice toward and unsuccessful attempts at demonstrating proficiency cannot and shall not be held against a child. When teachers establish the minimal standards for achieving proficiency based upon established T/C/S skills, students who achieve these published objectives cannot be punished for the road they took to get there. This is the essence of standards-based instruction.

1) See http://www.cps.k12.il.us/CurriculumResources/OHSP/curriculum.shtml#English. This page contains links to the core instructional frameworks of English, Math, Science and Social Studies and is still posted as of 11/19/2012. As you peruse them, try to find references to the College Readiness Standards. The freshman English themes, for example, are not skill-based but based upon “The quality of mercy,” “Alienation,” and etc. At the bottom of the page are some WorkKeys® posters. But how are these skills incorporated into the instructional frameworks? Throughout CPS the absolutely crucial WorkKeys® tasks (Day 2 of the PSAE) are relegated to “bell ringers.” Yet they make up a significant portion of the Meet/Exceeds formula. Not only is this a disservice, but the posters promote skill levels below what is needed to meet the state PSAE requirements!

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-Based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 7: Constructing the Curriculum Map

Posted on by
1

SBLAC 7: Constructing the Curriculum Map

Curriculum mapping is ubiquitous to public school education. But like standards-based instruction and the Rigor and Relevance Framework, much of the “ado” is noise. Curriculum mapping has become the incessant yammering of pedagogues and pseudo-reformists creating their “best practices” and how-to manuals. But in spite of all the noise pollution, curriculum maps are absolutely essential to serious instructional planning. They should be as important to a teacher as a flight plan is to a pilot. Curriculum maps are the single most important means of plotting the instructional course of the school. They tell us where we’re going and how we’re going to get there. They tell us what we need to do and what we don’t. They are both the starting point and the finish line. A teacher without a curriculum map is much worse than a driver without a street map (or a Garmin® GPS – street maps are so third grade). They plot your goals and your students’ objectives and keep you on track as a teacher.

In content-based curricula, curriculum maps are often used as pacing guides. Units of instruction which must be covered within a certain timeframe are often scheduled within a sequencing plan which is divided into semesters, quarters, 5-week blocks and one- and two- week blocks. This is the manner in which curriculum writers are then assured of fitting all of the “necessary” content into a school year. However, using a curriculum map as a pacing guide has two major flaws. The first flaw is that scheduling is predictive in nature. Once life and the other activities of the school get underway, our best plans are corrupted and must be adjusted. The second major flaw is that this practice utterly obviates differentiated instruction, relegating all students incapable of maintaining the pace to extracurricular and remedial tutoring. A third but less imperative flaw is the sin of omission. When school life blocks out critical lessons and when difficult units slow down the main body of students, pacing requirements disavow that fun part of teaching, known as student deep learning, and/or potentially very crucial lessons.

A SBLAC-based curriculum map tells us what we want to accomplish. We don’t fill it up with a textbook worth of content. We identify ten skills or knowledge standards of which an entire class will demonstrate proficiency (or mastery) within each ten-week period. At an average of one skill per week, students can incorporate a broader understanding and a deeper appreciation within a deliberate and conscious framework of instruction. When we select our relevant skills and knowledge from our established source documents, CRS, CCSS and ILS, we then create a structured plan designed around our instructional goals and those of our students. We want students to master and to demonstrate competency in the requisite, assessable skills and knowledge of the state exit exam (in Illinois, it’s the PSAE). We, therefore, must create an instructional plan which teaches them these skills and imparts the essential knowledge.

Building a curriculum map is where we get our first opportunity to “walk the dog.” We know that a high school English teacher had 73 ILS descriptors within the five ISBE former English Language Arts Goals (now replaced by CCSS ELA). Keeping in mind that there were 39 middle school descriptors and another 73 elementary descriptors (that meant a total of 185 descriptors), high school English teachers were required to teach to standard a massive amount of individual secondary skills for which where is often no sub-skill foundation coming in from grade school. The new CCSS ELA standards are no less voluminous. While ordinary content-based English I, II, and III courses cover a preponderance of literature, thirty seven descriptors were clearly not “covered” at all. Of the remaining thirty six skills, many assume a competency of elementary and middle school sub-skills which just does not existent. ILS 1.A.1.a for example asked students in early elementary school to “Apply word analysis skills to recognize new words.” Because it is obvious to high school English teachers everywhere that we are still trying to teach this skill to high school students, it is no wonder the mission of teaching to any real standard transcends our ability to manage it. Thus, we must determine, ourselves, how best to “walk the dog.”

Continuing with the English teacher’s dilemma, we must remember that the CRS contains 70 skill standards for English and 61 skill standards for reading. Of these 131 standards, some might be close representations of CCSS counterparts. Again, many are not. But all are being assessed in one form or another on the ACT. Incidentally, the writing portion of the ACT contains 62 additional assessable CRS standards (and CCSS identifies specific writing standards as well). The sheer magnitude of the task, ensuring competency of under-prepared children for the state exam is incredible. It is like trying to eat a whole elephant. It cannot be done! And this is just the English Language Arts part.

So, how does an English teacher teach 378 individual skills? It is probably obvious to most by now that he/she should not even try. But unlike most content-based curricula which simply ignore 75% of the standards and provide lip service to most of the remaining 94, a standards-based curriculum will attempt to instruct to proficiency all which has been assigned. But this is only possible with a K-12 aligned standards-based curriculum to which Chicago Public Schools, like most of the country, is currently not even close. So picking up the game in the third period (it’s a hockey thing), the high school teachers are left to salvage what critical skills are possible prior to the child’s most important assessment of his life, one whose score will remain with him on his high school transcript forever. And ignoring this for the first two years of high school and leaving it up the 11th grade English, math and science teachers is unconscionable.

So we concentrate on the CRS skills because they are fundamental to college success. College readiness programs, or a college preparatory high school, must do everything possible to give graduates the best chance to get a degree. Since we cannot be with them in college to give them extra credit, tutor them after class, or review their assignments and give them advice, we must load them up with the best mental development we can manage. We must teach them how to think and to use the basic and secondary skills we teach so that they may solve problems rationally, discuss issues intelligently, argue points succinctly, and make decisions based upon reason and ramification. They must be able to do all of this to a college-level standard. We can get our kids into college if they graduate and want to go. However, there is a formula for being successful in college which we owe them if they attend our schools.

I must interject at this point a common question regarding druthers. Complaints have arisen regarding our obsession with college. What if a student does not want to go to college? What if a student only wants to complete high school; why can’t that be enough? Well, I suppose that would be just fine. Graduating from high school is good. But then what? High school does many things: college preparation should be one of them. Since we cannot devote precious resources to non-mission essential tasks we must look closely to what our diplomas offer children in the way of preparing them for their futures as productive citizens and successful family members. The elephant is large. Our time is short.

So, in constructing our curriculum maps, we determine which skills at which levels must be addressed in a given year. There are natural associations with certain CRS skills and their complementary courses (or vice versa). Knowing that we cannot eat the entire package of skills in a single year, we must concentrate on the skills and skill levels most appropriate to the subject at hand. A rule of thumb tells us that freshmen should work primarily at mastering standards within skill levels 13-15 and 16-19. Sophomores ought to be able to demonstrate proficiency within skill levels 16-19 and some 20-23, but often only if they have been introduced to the CRS curriculum as freshmen. If the sophomores are new to standards-based instruction, they, too, should begin at the 13-15 and 16-19 skill levels. Juniors should operate within the 20-23 and 24-27 skill levels. Again, the sophomore preparatory caveat applies. Mastery of skill levels 28+ as course foci should be reserved for 11th grade honors, AP course work and students who have demonstrated skill mastery of the less complex tasks.

It must be remembered that by identifying skill levels as we do, we are not excluding higher, or even lower, level skills from being taught and/or reinforced within a particular course. By all means, much of what we do as teachers is to stretch (as in challenge) and review (as in spiraling) as we work with our basic subject(s). The particular point to be made is that we limit the range of skills and knowledge for which we hold ourselves and our students responsible. On the other hand, that which we identify must be mastered by each student absolutely. Do not expect a 14-year old child to grasp, own, and use a 24-level skill (even though some may be capable) without requisite sub-skill proficiency. Do, however, expect every 14-year old child in high school to grasp, own, and use a number of 13-15 and 16-19 level skills.

Each curriculum map is a common course document. Its creation, use and modification are necessarily a collaborative effort from all teachers teaching that particular course. We cannot abide by individual teachers teaching different standards in the same course. If the benchmark standards are not the same from one class to another, then we have different courses. This particular aspect of “dog walking,” i.e., the curriculum map, is a joint production of the teachers involved in teaching the course. Within SBLAC parameters, it is essentially up to them (or him/her) what constitutes the nucleus of the class work. Keep in mind that there can be no vertical alignment within a department or discipline if the next higher grade cannot depend on an established framework of student skills being learned to proficiency in the previous year(s).

As the school year is divided into eight five-week periods, so is the curriculum map. The teacher may identify an essential CRS skill for each of the five week periods. In this case, these skills will have preeminence throughout the five-week period. For teachers of the core subjects of English, math, and science, this should not be particularly difficult because all CRS skills coincide with the appropriate subject matter. Be mindful that Dr. Willard Daggett insists that in content-based curricula 33% of the content should be tossed even before he looks at it. And Dr. Richard DuFour reminds us that most teachers teach their personal interests, not the benchmarks for which the students are accountable. So, boil it down right now to eight major skills which will become the framework of the SBLAC benchmarks. This will become the Mission Essential Task List (METL) for the course. In fact, DuFour also recommends that department and discipline teams establish power standards which thread the instruction vertically and provide skills continuity throughout instruction.

Each quarter within the school year (10-week period) is special and really ought to have its individual theme. Themes in this case are not effervescent distractions of seasons, holidays, social commentary or the like. Themes in this case are skills which must be mastered by each individual student within a particular year-group and which cross disciplines and departments. The overriding motivation is that no one in the class is truly successful until everyone in the class has mastered the 10-week theme. When possible, this theme should encompass the entire grade level, not just a single course. The collaborative subtlety notwithstanding, in the child’s mind when two or more teachers are focusing on the same skill at the same time the relevance, value and appreciation are significantly increased. Selecting the theme is relatively simple. Of the two five-week primary skills identified above, which has preeminence? One skill fits perfectly into what the course is all about. When selecting the theme, consider that a child is not going to get much out of the courses for that quarter if he/she cannot master this particular skill, period.

Minimal proficiency is 80% of assessment attempts established by an individual course syllabus. An example of 80% proficiency is a multiple choice test which offers no less than five questions which require the application of a specific benchmark skill at a specific proficiency level. Proficiency can be determined if a child correctly answers four of the five questions. It should be obvious that if a child answered less than four of the five questions correctly, that would constitute less than 80% proficiency and, therefore, an unsuccessful assessment attempt. This is considered a No-Go. If a student cannot achieve a Go for each of the benchmark skills identified in the syllabus, the child shall not pass that particular class for that particular quarter.

Not all courses and, naturally, not all benchmark skills can be assessed via a multiple choice test. Writing, art, science lab work, foreign language speaking and listening require a variety of assessment techniques. Therefore, I cannot tell a teacher how to “walk the dog” when the benchmark skills must be individually assessed with a diverse arrangement of assessment methods. In this case, “walking the dog” means that an established and published means of assessment shall be implemented for each established benchmark skill which gives the student fair warning of what is being assessed, how it shall be assessed, and to what standard the 80% proficiency is to be determined. This is known as Task / Condition / Standard (T/C/S).
• Task. A task is a benchmark skill which is summarized into a performance measure. In order for a student to acquire, study, practice, and prepare for evaluation and assessment of the benchmark skill in question, the student must know what is expected. Tasks can be thought of through “I can” statements (or TSWBAT) and will have a corresponding CRS (or CCSS or ILS) skill identifier. Essentially the task identifies the action or process to be performed.
• Condition. The task condition refers to the tools (including prerequisite sub-skills), reference material (such as a textbook, notes or other resources), aids (perhaps a graphing calculator), cues and environmental arrangements under which the assessment takes place. The condition also refers to the methodology of assessment, be it essay, multiple choice, project and so on.
• Standard. The task standard describes how well and to what level the benchmark skill is to be performed. The task standard should be explained in terms of accuracy, completeness, speed and format. While 80% accuracy is a relatively easy mark on the wall in a multiple choice question configuration, the task conditions and task standards of benchmark skills associated with projects or writing assignments are significantly more complex. Grading rubrics become absolutely essential regarding the standard to which students are held accountable in demonstrating proficiency on writing assignments and projects. The CRS (or CCSS or ILS) skill level must be reiterated and highlighted in the task standard.

As has been stated, each quarter should have ten benchmarks. Whether one refers to these as “I can” statements, standards, or intermediate objectives, heretofore we will call them benchmark skills. These benchmark skills form the absolute minimum a child must master in order to get credit for learning enough in the class to receive credit. These benchmark skills must be relevant to the course work and form the focus of lesson planning.

We wish each quarter (10-week period) to include ten benchmark skills (a cutoff of 10 is clearly sufficient). Of these benchmark skills, two of them have already been identified (Meanings of Words and Interpretation of Data). The remaining eight benchmark skills are dependent on the two primary benchmark skills, paying particular attention to the quarterly theme. From where do the remaining benchmark skills come?
• For English and math they predominantly come from the CRS (no more than two from appropriate State descriptors). Eventually, as CCSS catches up, there we likely be a preponderance of CCSS ELA and math skills identified. For now, most elementary programs are not close to providing the necessary foundation for high school teachers to tackle 9-12 CCSS at face value.
• For science they will come mainly from CRS Science (with about 25% to 33% coming from appropriate State Goals, or ILS Goal 12, descriptors). Soon, next generation science standards will be published which promise to provide guidance for 9-12 science teachers. However, the same caveat applies as it will take time for elementary science programs to establish sufficient background to begin CCSS science at the 9-12 level.
• Social studies shall include a 50% mix of appropriate State Goal (ILS Goals 14-18) descriptors and CRS Reading and Science standards. Reading of non-fiction and expository writing is a bit of a bane on social studies teachers ability to teach students to manipulate texts in any critical way. CCSS has attempted to address this dilemma but there is no guide beyond CCSS, itself, and textbook publishers are slow to assist.
• Other non-core courses will contain at a minimum one CRS Reading standard (within Meaning of Words strand and identified as a Critical Benchmark Skill) and one CRS Science standard (within Interpretation of Data) per quarter. If these happen to be the CRS standards identified as the preeminent benchmark skills of each five-week period within a grade level (horizontal alignment) that is fine; but no more CRS skills are mandated. The remaining eight benchmark skills shall be derived from the appropriate State Goals and, at the discretion of the teacher(s), appropriate CRS standards.
• JROTC will also contain a minimum of one CRS Reading standard (within Meaning of Words strand and identified as a Critical Benchmark Skill explained below) and one CRS Science standard (preferably within Interpretation of Data) per quarter, but will derive its remaining benchmark skills from U.S. Army Cadet Command Program of Instruction for JROTC and State PE and SEL standards.

Once identified, each of the benchmark skills must be explained in a Task / Condition / Standard format for inclusion into the course syllabus. This group of tasks becomes the student’s Critical Benchmark Skills List (CBSL). The CBSL is like a student’s job book. In other words, it is a compilation of the skills needed to move forward. And while ten skills may not seem like a whole lot to ask of a child within an entire ten-week period, the reality for the child is that with seven classes the CBSL contains about 70 benchmark skills per quarter!

Naturally, having students demonstrate proficiency of 280 benchmark skills per year is still pretty spectacular. Imagine if we did not limit ourselves to ten or so benchmark skills and each teacher tried to “eat the whole elephant” of early and/or late high school State Goal descriptors (411 in Illinois) and the requisite set of CRS standards (367). If we were to consider the amount of elementary school standards of CCSS which are not “covered” (or obviously learned) and/or the similar State Goal descriptors we would be easily over a thousand specific skills with immeasurable contextual applications which we want our high school teachers to instruct. So, even without going into the elementary and middle school goals (which include the bulk of a 9th grade core teacher’s daily grind), by spring of their junior year, students are responsible for 778 individual skills. We have now established a format which allows us to teach and for students to learn an abundance of skills in a methodic, coordinated and organized manner.

Keep in mind, within the SBLAC system much of the CBSL is duplicated in other classes or even in the same class but within a different context. For example, the CRS Reading standard, “Recognize clear cause-effect relationships described within a single sentence in a passage” (SCC-ER 13-15), is a critical benchmark skill of both English I and World Studies. It should be clear to all trying to complete a course curriculum map that CRS standards are not exclusionary. This is why and how CRS standards are required across the curriculum as interdisciplinary benchmark skills. Students must get the message often and in a variety of contexts. Ray McNulty (former President of ASCD and former Senior Fellow at Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) tells us to forget about pure disciplines anyway because they don’t exist outside of the classroom. As a note, the CCSS ELA standards include reading and/or writing for science, social science and technology which should encourage interdisciplinary designs such as Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum.

Thus, curriculum mapping establishes our big plan. Our first and second quarter CBSL tasks become our first semester CBSL. We create a CBSL for the second semester in the same manner as in the first semester. Critical Benchmark Skills can be duplicated in more than one class as mentioned, and can even be repeated within the same class under certain circumstances. In a spiraling program of study we may require what is technically the same skill but implemented in a different context. For example, the CRS Science standard, “Select a single piece of data from a simple data presentation” (ID13-15), may require the student to manipulate numerical data when addressing acceleration and velocity, but may require the student to manipulate non-numerical color schemes when addressing astronomical data later in the year. Do not underestimate the student’s penchant for isolating tidbits of information. Recalling and utilizing the same skill in a different context is a metacognitive episode which strengthens the skill. The big picture tells us what the take-away skills are and how they are broken down into semesters, quarters, five-week periods and more or less weekly instructional activities.

Although written for courses and programs of study within established time periods, curriculum maps are not linear. In as much as they progress chronically through the year, they are cumulative. They accumulate skills. Of course there are the sub-skill prerequisites of each new skill, but curriculum maps should not be thought of as content built upon content. While a particular CRS-based benchmark skill may require a student to select a single piece of data from a simple data presentation at skill level 13-15 and at skill level 16-19 a student must select two or more pieces of data from a simple data presentation, the second skill need not immediately follow the first skill sequentially. In essence, when we introduce and develop the skill of selecting data, we need not (and should not) chase the skill all the way up the skill level continuum to 33-36. Introducing the skill and staying with it until the students have demonstrated proficiency at combining data from two or more complex data presentations at skill level 33-36 is unreasonable and counterproductive at the freshman level, particularly if they have not mastered the skill of reading the x and y axes of a simple data presentation when they enter high school. As well, it violates the principle outlined earlier which lays out relative skill levels based upon course grade levels. Essentially, keep all Critical Benchmark Skills basic in the early going until we are comfortable with what students are able to do with new knowledge.

Once the CBSL has been established within the curriculum map. The next task for the teacher is to formulate the assessment scheme. How will a teacher know that students have the skills firmly within their skills tool kit? We must resist the temptation to be begin lesson planning until after we have decided what constitutes proficiency of each standard and have determined how each skill will be assessed.

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-Based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 6: Crawl, Walk, Run

Posted on by
2

SBLAC 6: Crawl, Walk, Run

“Crawl, walk, run” is a training philosophy which tells us that before we can achieve proficiency we must develop and move through the new skill slowly. We must practice the new skill on a regular basis while gradually picking up the pace. Eventually we will be able to trot off into the sunset with the new skill mastered and then we are able to join others who have also mastered the skill. When we join the others we can be competitive if appropriate or we can become a valuable member of a team carrying an appropriate share of the burden, whatever that may be. But before we run, we should crawl through the steps to ensure we have them down pat; and we should practice our new skills. We should periodically review the steps once we’ve been walking a while and acknowledge them every so often even once we’ve begun to run.

The concept of getting from A to E without going through B, C, and D every time takes into account the “crawl, walk, run” philosophy with A to B to C to D to E as the crawling phase. The walking phase is, perhaps, A to C to E. Getting from A to E without going through B, C, and D is definitely running. But while this explanation implies that B, C and D are unnecessary when running, this is not the case. When running, B, C, and D go by so fast that they are simply no longer conscious thoughts. Consider the Theory of Relativity.

We can look at A, B, C, D, and E as steps or tasks needed to solve a problem (problem-solving) or to make a decision (decision-making) or to answer a question on a high-stakes standardized assessment (question-answering). Regardless of the application, A is almost always the same, “What is being asked?” A is about identifying the task at hand. A is the first thing. As Dr. Stephen Covey told us, “Put first things first.” One should not start working on a problem and then after some familiarization period with the dilemma ask oneself, “What am I doing?” Well, no. One needs to know before one begins the work what he/she is doing. “What is the problem I’m trying to solve?” “What decision am I making?” In the case of grade school students, “What is the high-stakes standardized assessment question asking?” We call it step A because it is the first letter of the alphabet. Put first things first.

Of course many students have a hard time landing safely on A. This whole discussion about A, B, C and whatever is pointless if a student cannot lock up A. Of particular difficulty for 9th graders (and 10th graders and 11th graders, etc.) are story problems. When a math problem is disguised as a passage which requires reading about four or five sentences, figuring out the task at hand can be a truly daunting experience. A combination of simple addition and subtraction problems woven into a vignette about Jamal’s new checking account can send kids reeling into the ozone. I have seen students working in groups unable to solve Jamal’s addition and subtraction problem because they could not figure out what was being asked. Just getting to A is sometimes a triumph in and of itself.

B is next. But Dr. Covey never said anything about putting second things second. B is necessary for crawling. Depending on the challenge, it could be necessary for walking as well. But one thing is for certain: if a person’s journey goes through B, this person is definitely not running. B identifies the skill which must be brought to bear. Once I know what is being asked (i.e., A), I must determine the action to take on my part (specifically, B in this case). As mentioned, this is a pivotal phase of problem-solving, decision-making, and question-answering. If a person does not consciously know what he/she is doing once he/she has ascertained the question, that person needs to cease work. If this person has completed A but does not know what to do about it, now is the time to rummage through the ol’ tool kit for some skills. B is the key.

If I asked, “Solve for n; 2 + 2 = n,” most of us can go from A to E pretty quickly. We know the answer is n = 4 simply by looking at the equation. There is no need for us to stop at B to determine that we have to use the skill of adding integers or whole numbers. We just do it. We run through the simple addition of two integers. However, if asked, “Solve for y; 13 (√49 / y7) x 8(exponent-0) = 169 / (18 – x) when x = 5,” we might give pause. A math teacher will perhaps run through this equation like a world-class sprinter responding that y = 1 much quicker than he/she can explain the seven or eight (simple) steps required to solve the problem. Others may need to remember a few steps or a rule or two and consciously pull them out of cold storage. To solve this equation we must subtract, divide (a couple times), multiply (a couple times) and calculate a square root (fun with radicals and exponents). We also need to know some basic symbology but that’s about it.

This meaningless equation could show up on a test for no other purpose than to determine if a child can perform a series of menial tasks. This is mostly arithmetic but it demonstrates the need for students to understand the question and identify the skills(s) which must be brought to bear. Which tool(s) must he/she pull from the tool kit? This is the value of B and it applies to all disciplines.

B can also stand for Brick Wall. Often, because we are experts in the subjects we teach and B is so intuitive to us as we move through our benchmarks, we lose sight of the conscious challenge our students face attempting to assimilate new skills. We must try to avoid judging a student’s motivation when he/she is not “getting it.” Imagine the myriad new skills and knowledge floating around inside a high school student’s head when he/she has seven different classes every day each vying for priority. As we attempt to hand a child a 2500-piece Craftsman® multi-purpose set of tools, we have to be cognizant of what actually fits into each high school student’s tool kit. This is particularly important to keep in mind when we consider that most ninth graders don’t even know they have a tool kit (and this may explain why they’re always asking to borrow your tools). It is also why we must be consciously selective of the benchmarks we ask them to master. Asking too much will disappoint us and frustrate them. And while we must not ask too little of them, building intellectual capacity cannot occur simply by introducing a plethora of new skills.

The value of the metacognitive activity within the brain lies in the brain’s capacity to create shortcuts to decision-making via a metacognitive transition. I’ve been told that synaptic contact of neural dendrites with other neurons informs the soma of a mental event. Whether this event has any meaning to the student is entirely relative to the student consciously knowing that the event occurred and has meaning. Yes, metacognition requires thinking. But once it becomes a conscious thought, it means that potentially the student will no longer have to sort through myriad processes to arrive at a given solution. A student can set up his/her own mental road network. As disturbing as this is to traditional math teachers, once a student “gets it,” he shouldn’t be required to go through B just to prove he knows what he is doing. This would be disrespectful of the student’s intelligence and contrary to the cognitive process (see James P. Byrnes, 2008; Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional Contexts, Allyn and Bacon; Chapter 10).

An example of metacognition in practice is similar to a chess player as he/she develops mastery. Suppose a chess player recognizes that his/her opponent has begun to implement a Sicilian defense. The chess player’s offensive strategy has immediately adapted to the ramifications once he/she acknowledges the opponent begin the setup. Adapting to the strategy and creating a shortcut to decision-making, the chess player has gone from A to E. He/she 1) knows and recognizes the opponent’s moves, 2) understands the connotations, and 3) responds in a premeditated manner. At once, the result is an automatic shift that is metacognitive in nature. Why can a chess master play 20 or more games simultaneously, winning every one without so much as a pregnant pause much less a comeback move? A chess master’s brain does not have to sort through all possible scenarios to determine a course of action. Decision-making is as efficient as a simple survey of the board. It is the same reason that an expert math teacher can breeze through a 75-minute, standards-based algebra assessment in little more than the time it takes to read the questions.

But the concrete operational Third Grade Brain is unable to circumvent the process. Incapable of moving directly from A to E, most of our students must necessarily go from A to B, from B to C, from C to D, and from D to E. We must teach them how to move more quickly. We must show them how to pick up the pace while at the same time acknowledging when they have mastered a step and no longer have to crawl through it every time. Crawling through life will not get them very far.

Unfortunately, the average high school teacher has even more to consider while contemplating the synaptic responses in a child’s brain. Students pick up interesting problem-solving processes throughout childhood which may not be readily explainable. While crawling through a newly introduced skill, teachers invariably discover that some of the students have internalized a completely different route from A to E. The initial reaction is to “correct” a student’s wrong-headed approach in favor of the “school solution.” Teachers want students to perform tasks just the way they’ve been taught to perform them (which is often how the teacher learned them). Whether through arrogance or a misplaced concern for proper procedure, some teachers may want to absolutely require students to get from A to E using B, C, and D. But if a student can get from A to E (with E being the skill mastery) by using G instead of B, C, and D, that should be acceptable. E is E. We have too many additional, more complex skills to work on without teachers demanding that students adhere to an individual teacher’s thought processes. If a child can solve problems using that skill, move on.

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-Based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 5: Incremental Cognizance

Posted on by
1

SBLAC 5: Incremental Cognizance

The benchmark curriculum is a type of standards-based curriculum. The SBLAC system (remember? Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum) is a type of benchmark curriculum. SBLAC assumes that higher order thinking is a product of intellectual capacity. Intellectual capacity is created and expanded through the accumulation of skills and knowledge stored in a person’s mind like a tool kit. Just as there is an infinite variety of tools based upon use, specialization, quality and the experience of the person using the tool, intellectual skills have infinite variety.

When we set out to establish a true standards-based curriculum such as SBLAC, we must first identify the skills and knowledge that will make up the benchmarks. What are the standards? Fortunately, we have two source documents which provide the pool from which to select the standards; CCSS and ACT’s CRS for core subjects and ISBE’s ILS for non-core subjects. Our chore is merely to determine which of them to benchmark and where to put them sequentially. For purposes of college readiness, nearly all of the CRS and much of the CCSS skills are relevant. With the exception of a few CCSS high school standards and late high school ILS descriptors much of the late grade school continuum is rather sporadic for a focused approach. The ELA reading and writing standards become esoteric in that they take off on tangents which, if not fully developed in earlier years, become new information rather than developmental skill building. It must be clear that both the CRS and the CCSS are progressive and sequential. Therefore, placement within a curriculum map must be carefully considered. Identification and placement of the targeted, benchmark skills are crucial.

For every skill taught in grade school, there is a set of sub-skills which must be mastered before the new skill – the benchmark, in this case – can be mastered. Once mastered, this benchmark becomes a sub-skill of the next level of skills and benchmarks. The progressive nature of skills and knowledge must be evident to the individual accumulating the skill (i.e., the student) in order to assimilate it into the skill set or tool kit. When teachers and students think of resources to assist in problem-solving, be it math or ELA, these mental skills are as valuable, if not more so, than dictionaries, graphing calculators, progression charts or rulers. Just as a tradesman has course and fine tools from which to choose, a problem solver needs a progressive set of intellectual skills which may be applied to a given situation. But the problem-solver must be aware that the skill exists, what it is used for, and when to apply it given the situation.

Often children are taught skills and have accumulated knowledge for which they have no known purpose or application. Just as often, a teacher becomes frustrated by a child who may have demonstrated mastery or proficiency of a skill previously but cannot bring the skill to bear when needed at a different time or within a different context. A child will claim to not know information or how to do something when the teacher knows absolutely that the child has successfully negotiated the same terrain earlier. What went wrong? Is this child just lazy?

A child can master a skill only if it is presented as a skill. More often than not, however, children learn tricks and tidbits that they perform on certain cues. This is a basic drawback of content-based instruction which relies on units of information. Remove the trained cue (attempt to apply a skill within a distinctly different context) and the trick is gone. Unaware that the trick has value outside of the initial context, without the original context the tidbit becomes trivia. Try to connect the dots with no numbering system. This is what happens to students who perform tricks in class to satisfy a short-term requirement from a specific teacher within a specific unit of study. The phenomenon is common in content-based curricula because topic-related units are taught followed by unit tests. There is no appreciation that a valuable skill, which has relevance in a multitude of applications, may be utilized by the child as a gift to be placed in his/her tool kit. Students (and, perhaps, the teacher) may be clueless that a valuable skill has been brought to bear in a problem-solving way.

There is a metacognitive transition which must occur for the child to claim ownership of the new skill. He/she must acknowledge the event. Children know that to master a new Wii® application a person must start slow and train the fingers and hands to make certain, often times unnatural, movements in association with a television screen in order to negotiate a new game. The more they play, the better they become. Eventually, they can show others how to negotiate particular aspects of the game because of their own mastery of the necessary skills. The relative value of such mastery notwithstanding, this is a metacognitive experience. The child (or adult) deliberately thinks about what mental and physical skills to bring to bear in order to solve problems and negotiate obstacles. Once mastery evolves into expertise, deliberate thought is not necessary to bring the basic skills to bear and the child (or adult) manipulates the challenges and obstacles with ease. At this point, the deliberate thought can be focused on improvement of skills and nuances of the game, itself. It is the same thought process which must be tapped into for the child to learn algebra or English grammar.

We can identify the skills and knowledge. But we seem to have significant difficulty both incorporating them into our classroom goals and objectives and developing strategies which encourage children to focus on the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful in life after high school. Why is it so difficult to focus on those tasks we have identified? Why can’t we train, instruct, assess, and develop the skills we want the students to master? Why do we spend so much time doing other things? Tangents! We spend a lot of our time and our children’s time with, well, drivel when we need to focus on the things that experts say are necessary for the children’s success in life after high school; and for what the state is paying us to teach, it seems pretty plain and simple.

The basic idea of SBLAC is that for students to progress beyond the Third Grade Brain they have to know that there is meaning and value to this whole education thing. They also must be shown how the progression works. They are not as smart as they think they are, but they are not dumb, either.

Regarding the need for metacognition, it may be possible that it is unnecessary for deep understanding and there could even be people, I imagine, capable of a certain level of complex communication and/or expert thinking without knowing it (please read The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, by Dr. Oliver Sacks). But these tasks of deep understanding, complex communication, and expert thinking have serious limitations when considered independent of conscious thought. To deeply understand something without knowing it is clearly the exception. To unwittingly engage in complex communication seems absurd. For the mind to conduct expert thinking unaware that it is taking place is an infinitesimally rare event.

Naturally brilliant people will use their minds to gather extensive knowledge. The experts are capable of being experts only in so much as they are aware of their expertise. Even so, technical expertise is only as valuable as its technical currency, which requires constant and continual updating and upgrading. Expert thinkers must be aware and conscious of their thought processes in order to be of value. Problem solving demands that the person or people solving the problem possess the potential skills and knowledge to do the work.

The idea that person can develop his/her mind is not at all unlike the athlete (or any person for that matter) developing muscles on the body. With or without a toned body, a person can go to the gym and “work out.” But an un-toned person can lift weights, do exercises, get tired and leave sweaty and will have accomplished little more that lifting weights, doing exercises, and getting tired and sweaty. If that was the purpose, then hallelujah. Themselves, these attributes do not assume a quality workout and likely do not portend a well-toned physique. While it may be doing work or even working out, it is random physical activity that likely risks injury and may or may not have value other than psychological.

The modern gym is equipped with weight machines which identify for the user which muscles or muscle group a particular activity is to utilize and strengthen/tone. The person doing the exercise must consciously be aware of which muscles he/she is using to perform the task and limit exertion to those muscles. To do otherwise risks injury because the direction, arc, hand and leg placement are specifically designed to work with a particular muscle or muscle group in a specific manner. It is particularly risky when one overloads the weight before he/she has control of his/her muscles. The mind will convince the body to get the weight moving through the repetitions but all the muscles of the body will pitch in to get the job done. Back and groin strains are a common result.

By consciously training the muscles, one can build targeted muscles and muscle groups and develop physical definition through a conscious, directed regimen of physical exercise. The mind is similarly developed. Unfortunately, however, we seat our students in the classroom and do not tell them what muscles we’re working on. To the child many classrooms are places where educational things happen like the gym, where sweaty things happen. Continuing with the weight machine metaphor, often we want to teach and learn more so we overload the weights (by increasing the “rigor”) we are using and the kids just give up. Equally as dangerous is when students cannot push the weight and we simply lighten the load, often to the point of no real work being accomplished, anyway.

The point here is the need for conscious recognition by the student that the work is being done for a specific purpose which has specific take-aways. The metacognitive acknowledgement demands that the student is aware of his/her own thought processes. The child must know the skill, the value of the skill, where it lies within the established skill bank, and what its purpose is in a variety of applications. Without these conscious attributes present during the instructional activity, learning is marginalized. We’re back to performing tricks or less.

The problem, of course, with performing tricks is that as an intellectual activity it is essentially mindless. While the activity being taught is, from the standpoint of the teacher, problem-solving, from the point of view of the student these tricks and activities are ethereal. They are not tied to real life regardless of how well the teacher may present the functional application of the material. Too few students appreciate the progressive nature of problem-solving and continually start back at the beginning of any individual task at hand. Unable to search their own knowledge for solutions and processes previously associated with a specific challenge they will “best guess” with a related trick or give up altogether (a la B, B, B, B . . .). Without an acknowledged tool kit students are helpless.

So forget the tricks. They are little more than random, fluffy educational activities designed to make us all feel good about ourselves and our students. Unless classroom activities are specifically focused on building the skill base, unless they are designed to put a tool in the tool kit or improve a tool already there, we are wasting precious time. Regarding the Rigor and Relevance Framework (See http://www.icle.net/rrr.html.), Christine LaRocco of the International Center for Leadership in Education tells us that we must keep relevance in front of rigor. Particularly when students are failing our expectation already, making instruction more difficult or complex is not a solution. We need to make our instruction relevant, first.

And be mindful that the skill base is built incrementally. Just as a person cannot walk into a gym one day and walk out with a perfectly toned body, a student’s tool kit cannot be filled up in a single semester. Most students are unaware that they even have a tool kit much less know that they have any tools to put in it. They must be made aware of the skills and knowledge that they possess. They must be enlightened as to the progressive nature of both CCSS and CRS. They must accept a realistic perception of their skill levels in the various disciplines before any meaningful progress can be made. Just as a person who goes to the gym to get fit, lose weight, or train for the marathon, students need a good diagnostic sense of where they are relative to the standards, good advice on where to set their goals, and a plan and tracking system to measure progress. Only then are they ready to begin filling up their tool kits.

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 4: Focus on the Mission

Posted on by
3

SBLAC 4: Focus on the Mission

Think for a moment about the reason for testing. We would not want doctors practicing medicine without first passing the medical boards. We would not want a lawyer to represent us if he/she had not passed the bar exam. As menial as it seems, in most states drivers must pass a notional drivers test and vision exam in order to drive our streets and highways. We test our food, our drugs, and our automobiles for minimal standards. When they don’t pass, they’re not released to the public. Educators who oppose standardized testing are similar to automobile executives who would sell you a car that did not run, as long as it made it all the way through the assembly line. It sounds absurd. It is absurd.

The idea behind the assessments is to first determine the skills and knowledge that you want your people to possess. This “high-stakes testing” junk is not an answer and never should have been presented as such. State assessments are not a solution to the problem; they merely identify the problem. The assessment, then, is just the means of determining whether an individual has mastered the relevant skills and knowledge. Although I am quite stymied as to why this concept is so outrageous to many people, I am equally confused as to how a system can go from kindergarten through 12th grade and so completely disregard these known and published standards.

Yes, the standards we discuss in this case are published and posted. They are assumed to be common knowledge throughout the K-12 system. Every educator I know tells me he/she is familiar with them. But regarding the ILS, the sad reality is that the vast majority of high school freshmen do not possess the late elementary skills and knowledge that would put them in a position to begin high school. Perhaps this is because Illinois Standard Achievement Test (ISAT) only tests Goals 1, 2, 6, and 7. As even willing high school faculty struggle to teach high school standards, the sheer enormity of the task often relegates standards-based instruction to mere lip service. Winking and nodding our way through both ILS and CRS has become a way of life as teachers continue to teach their specialized content while sporadically invoking a college readiness skill here and an Illinois learning standard there.

The frustration associated with test failure rates when we have supposedly been teaching the standards via our content can only be imagined. There is a universal concern that something is wrong with the process because when we do what the education wonks say to do, we should be getting better results. It must be the assessment. These are intelligent kids whose skills and knowledge are just not captured in a multiple choice test. These are capable children whose potential and creativity are just not measured by the high stakes testing offered via the NCLB solution. How can we quantify a child’s intellect with something as impersonal as a two-day multiple choice standardized high-stakes test?

Quite frankly, how else could we quantify a child’s intellect other than via a comprehensive standardized assessment? Irrespective of the voluminous arguments to the contrary, children who possess the skills pass the tests. Regardless of the myriad conflicting explanations of why a “smart” student does poorly on a standardized test, the bottom line is that he/she simply has not mastered the skills and knowledge being assessed; which begs the question, “What have we been teaching the students?”

Lessons which have little or nothing to do with specific, measurable testable skills are the enemy of the successful student. Recalling our first assumption, a content-based curriculum is not a standards-based curriculum. Students are assessed on skills competency, on their mastery of established and published standards. When we create classroom activities that children like in order to hold their attention, we are giving in to future underachievement. Watching movies when we should be reading, drawing pictures and pasting fancy coversheets when we should be writing and formatting, or reminding students of previously covered material when we should be requiring them to search their brains for answers and problem-solving solutions are examples of teachers as enablers of mediocre students.

Children eat up class work until third or fourth grade. When the work gets tougher, when students begin to build upon previously learned material, there is no way to make it easier or less than what it is. There is a huge difference between being taught something new and learning to manipulate a previously learned skill. If we try to teach fifth, sixth, and seventh grade skills using first, second, and third grade techniques, we may have covered the higher level content, but the students haven’t mastered higher level skills. Instead of using apples and oranges, we’re simply using Jonathans and Valencias. If the child does not know that we’re not using Granny Smith and Navel or Golden Delicious and Persian, he/she is not building on previously learned knowledge, but rather learning new stuff. If the lesson does not carefully and specifically explain the skills that take you from an apple to a Jonathan apple and as opposed to a Granny Smith or Golden Delicious apple, then we are missing the point. Then our instructional method is not standards-based or skills-based, but rather, osmosis-based. Being in a room where educational-type things happen is often confused for having been taught something.

No one benefits when we tell kids a bunch of stuff and hope they figure out why we bothered. In the example above, early on a child can discern an apple from an orange. But what makes an apple a Jonathan apple? If confronted with a Jonathan, a Granny Smith and a Golden Delicious, we might select a Jonathan as the red apple from the other two which are green. But what distinguishes a Granny Smith from a Golden Delicious? There are discerning skills at work which the child should consciously bring to bear on the problem. Memorizing pictures of various types of apples does not help the child use these discerning skills in any other example. Why, specifically, are they different? What are the closer relatives and what makes them more similar? What are some of the things that make close relatives different? Higher order thinking is not about piling on more information and memorizing more detailed pictures. It’s about evaluating and analyzing the problem for patterns and possible solutions using ever more sophisticated skills. Benjamin Bloom told us this fifty years ago and all we seem to have now is that lame pyramid everyone in education seems to revere but does not understand.

Merely being in a classroom when the material is presented will likely not produce high academic achievement. The value of the metacognitive experience cannot be overstated with regards to a student having any idea what he/she is doing. We cannot create a metacognitive transition without forcing a new skill. The reading, the writing, the remembering are the tools. They are the skills we are trying to master and hone. But the content is relative. Remembering is a skill. What we remember from school is less important than the fact that we can remember, that we have the ability (the skill) to go back into the brain and consciously pull out problem solving skills and knowledge on command. We often spend eight to twelve years playing various games with content but completely miss the point about a standards-based education, the Rigor and Relevance Framework, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Worse, we usually disregard completely the skills that we know will be assessed in the end.

If we do not teach to mastery the skills and tasks that a child is supposed to master as he/she progresses through childhood, there is no conceivable way we can jump to the end of the development continuum expecting significant success. This is essentially what we are doing and only about 50% of our children meet our standard, nationwide. We do it year after year and blast the test for telling us our children do not meet the standard. “The test is biased.” “The test is faulty.” “The test is an outrageous affront to our children and our educational system!”

The fact that only 52% of Illinois children meet/exceed the learning standards and the education system is not considered an abysmal failure is what is truly outrageous. When we know what tasks the children are responsible for and do not teach it, that is outrageous. If we focus on content and creativity while our children cannot read story problems in math and cannot decipher a simple data presentation using an x/y axis or cannot write a short essay using proper form and grammar, that is outrageous. To know that half of our young adults do not have the basic skills we expect from them after 13 years of education and continue to teach the same material in the same manner is to stick our heads in the sand and admit there is nothing we care to do about it. Now, that is outrageous.

So what can be done about the situation? Essentially the only way to prepare children for a skills-based assessment is with a skills-based curriculum. It would appear that true standards-based instruction from the first grade on would be the logical solution. It should include the early sub-skills of the later testable PSAE skills (both ILS and CRS). If such-and-such is being assessed, then it only stands to reason that we teach such-and-such. But we don’t. We teach this-and-that. Think about it. We teach this-and-that but we assess such-and-such. Why don’t we teach such-and-such? If we tested this-and-that, then we would be okay to teach this-and-that. It is a mindless contradiction that educators refuse to teach what they will ultimately assess and that they insist on testing that which has not been taught. Many elementary teachers and administrators insist they teach what is tested. But the problem with their argument is that by focusing so restrictively on a handful of reading and math standards assessed on the ISAT, the grand expanse of skills assessed on the PSAE are left without subskill mastery. To say the Common Core State Standards will now take care of that, my response is “Hogwash.” We’ve had standards before. We essentially ignored them. If we continue a content-based approach to CCSS, we will get ILS-like results.

Honest standards-based instruction assumes very little. Every task, every skill is composed of sub-skills which are, themselves, composed of sub-skills. It is absolutely essential that we ascertain a child’s understanding of the prerequisite sub-skills before we introduce a new skill. For example, we must be sure a child has mastered the skill of fraction conversion before we try to teach him/her about algebra. By assuming that a child has the basic skills and knowledge to begin algebra instruction we often find ourselves as de facto educational entertainers just making conversation. Trying to make sense out of concepts for which the students do not possess the requisite skills is a task of Herculean proportions. And our track record of success reflects the depth of the problem. Ninth grade algebra has the highest failure rate of any general education topic in high schools.

More than two thirds of Chicago children do not meet state standards at the end of the 11th grade. Consider that this percentage only reflects the number of children who are still in school at that point. It should be painfully obvious that what we’re doing is not working. Educators often violate their own principles just to get students to do something resembling academic effort. Some teachers may have students turn in papers with atrocious English grammar promising not to count off for it. They just want the children to turn something in. As a group, we often reward every minimal effort, regardless how miserable. Yet we wonder why, after eleven years of this, the students cannot meet the standard. Clearly, a line must be drawn.

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 3: The Third Grade Brain

Posted on by
1

SBLAC 3: But don’t get me started on the Third Grade Brain . . .

I had a conversation with Allan Goldin, President of Kinetic Learning, Inc., a couple of years ago. We were discussing the use of Power Reading in the freshman curriculum of the Air Force Academy High School. He mentioned that most people read using the same techniques they had mastered in grade school. Of course, he said, most of them who go on to post-secondary education and/or become avid readers have continually honed a variety of reading skills and increased both their speed and their ability to comprehend complex literature. The point, however, was that they are doing it with the techniques they learned in grade school. And without discussing the relative merits of Allan’s Power Reading program, the illustrative nature of the Third Grade Brain is clearly evident.

Take the typewriter for example. Or the slide rule. I don’t use a typewriter or a slide rule anymore. I still know how to use both and I could use either if I wanted or needed. But I don’t want to or need to use a typewriter, electric or manual, or use a slide rule, period. Such is a Third Grade Brain’s approach to reading. It’s a typewriter. As long as it accomplishes the mission to the standard we’ve set, who is to say that it is not sufficient? A good secretary in the 1960’s could knock out some pages of typewriter prose with amazing speed and accuracy. Advanced models in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s stored 15 to 30 lines of type, let you review and edit, and then whip it out like nothing you’d ever seen before. It was pretty phenomenal. But it was a Third Grade Brain. Soon after, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and the rest of the personal computing brain trust forced an evolutionary change that has made the typewriter all but obsolete. Computing innovations by IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Texas Instruments and others have sealed the deal on both the typewriter and the slide rule. This is a technological triumph.

But the Third Grade Brain is an evolutionary anomaly. A great many metacognitive processes begin to shut down at about the time the third grade graduate realizes that he/she has the capacity to survive the world. There is no immediate imperative. A third grade graduate now has the skills and knowledge to ensure his/her own existence. The house is built. Wittingly or unwittingly, the child now has a tool kit with a slotted screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a ¾ lb. hammer, and, if he/she has been paying attention, a Phillips-head screwdriver. To a Third Grade Brain, what else do you need? This child can wash and clothe him/herself, find a store, buy groceries, make change, cook a simple meal, adjust a thermostat or find a blanket, manipulate electrical appliances and read simple recipes and directions. Complete independence, to a third grade graduate. Yet they make you go to school day after day, week after week, year after year. For what? “I don’t care about Argentina.” “I don’t care about exponents and fraction conversion.” “I don’t care about conjunctions and subject-verb agreement.” “And I really don’t care about cell mitosis.”

In 1950, 60% of employed Americans were working in jobs considered unskilled labor(1). These were mostly factory and construction jobs. A trainable Third Grade Brain was adequate. By 2000, the percentage of unskilled labor workers in American was closer to 15% and has been dropping since (and now down to about 12% or less). The 45% differential has been largely assumed by skilled labor which requires a close approximation of a “meets/exceeds” high school graduate. The WorkKeys® test (day two of the Prairie State Achievement Examination) draws that line at a score of 5/5 for Reading for Information and Applied Mathematics, respectively. In Chicago, less than a third of the graduates meet that standard. Most high schools are currently below 30%. Graduates are accepted into college these days but have to take basic math and English classes just to enter a program of study. The Third Grade Brain has devastating effects on higher education.

The basic premise is that when one realizes that he/she can read, process basic mathematics and arithmetic, feed, clothe and wash him/herself, acquire food and shelter and basically get from point A to point B, of what necessity is further education? Piaget might refer to this level of thinking as Concrete Operational which begins to manifest itself in early elementary. The conversion to Formal Operational requires conceptual understanding which also requires both teaching and learning but of a different sort. Of course, most of us continue to become more learned. Aside from being legally mandated, it seems common sense to realize that there is much more to learn to have a chance at a satisfying life. But do not believe for a minute that every single person agrees with the government on this one. High schools across the country are filled with kids who cannot for the life of them figure out why they are being put through all this mental torture and they actively resist.

Much of the phenomenon lies in the motivation of the Third Grade Brain to go beyond what is essential to survival. Some come from survival-oriented environments wherein this mentality is prevalent. I have witnessed situations in Chicago where high school students are literally persecuted for learning. Good students have been bullied for no reason other than their desire to study and get ahead. There is also a basic laziness which stipulates that anything beyond minimal effort is over-exertion. Some children come from families which mistrust the school system and promote a sort of non-compliance for whatever reason. Rationale for the Third Grade Brain is plentiful. Suffice it to say that plenty of folks do not give a hoot about “book learnin’.”

The United States Department of Education Institute of Educational Sciences tells us that in 2007 a whopping 81% of 4th graders were at or above basic math achievement levels(2). Interestingly, only 70% of 8th graders were at or above basic math achievement levels. My own calculations indicate that only about 50% of U.S. high school graduates meet their states’ math standards. Nationwide, less students are meeting the standards in math and science in the 8th grade than were meeting the standards in the 4th grade. As a percentage, state-by-state, we lose about 10% of our students meeting the standards between the 4th and 8th grades. That relative loss in the percentage meeting the standards grows as children enter high school. This is the phenomenon of the Third Grade Brain.

The effects of the Third Grade Brain are indeed devastating for our nation’s productivity. If one believes that a high school education is important to our nation as a whole, consider that in 2008 we had over 224 million people 18 years of age and older, of which 192 million had graduated from high school(3). That leaves 32 million adults that we know have not graduated from high school. Of these, we know 11 million (more than a third) are walking around with a Third Grade Brain as they never made it out of grade school.

Please don’t fool yourself into believing that the high school dropouts are walking around with eighth grade brains. In fact, a significant proportion of high school graduates have not yet achieved that significant milestone. As we promote children for showing up in class and doing their homework (turning it in is often the same as doing it yourself, regardless of who actually does the homework) we give credit regardless of whether or not the child has a clue. To wit: only about 30% of Chicago high school juniors meet minimal state graduation standards and most dropouts have left by the 9th and 10th grades. If you think that the remaining 70% who have not met state standards by spring of the junior year pick up the pace in their senior year than you are a true optimist. And ask any 9th grade teacher in Chicago Public Schools if the rank and file freshmen are fully prepared for ninth grade work. The answer is cleary, “no.”

But getting back to the 32 million adults without high school diplomas, that’s a few million shy of the total population of Italy and about ten million more than the population of all of Scandinavia. These people, for all intents and purposes, are dropouts. More than a third of them never made it into high school much less graduated from high school. The number of folks who have graduated from high school but have not progressed beyond the Third Grade Brain can only be imagined. We can begin an estimate by examining the data relative to meeting/exceeding the state standards (for whichever state you choose), whether they’re officially published as graduation standards or whether they are NCLB standards established to show whether or not a state has any standards at all (or in the first place).

In Illinois there is the PSAE. This is the state self-imposed assessment metric to determine whether or not high school students are meeting the self-imposed learning standards. The two day test takes place in the spring of the junior year of high school. Statewide, only about 52% of the test takers meet the minimal standards(4). As mentioned earlier, in Chicago the rate is closer to 30%. But even the higher rate is an admission that nearly half of our young adults, our own high school graduates have not met our self-imposed minimal requirements. And of course, this does not include those who have given up already.

Thus, keeping in mind that most high school dropouts have left before they get a chance to take that test, the number of adults voting, driving our highways, owning our firearms and drinking in the bars, all with a third grade brain, is just a little disconcerting. Yet we want them to find increasingly technical problem-solving jobs to be productive citizens. If the Illinois meets/exceeds rate is similar across the country, of the 192 million high school graduates in the nation, about 95 million did not meet state requirements. Add to that the 32 million dropouts and suddenly in a nation with 224 million adults, 127 million of them probably cannot pass minimal state learning standards – an interesting extrapolation. It appears Jay Leno is right; we are a nation of fools.

There seems to be a lot of disinterest in our lack of intelligence. I am quite perplexed that when we are confronted with the results of standardized assessments, our knee-jerk response is to profess outrage at the test. The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) is a classic tale of institutional obviation when faced with organizational incompetence. The “high-stakes testing” smokescreen, either consciously or subconsciously, is a tool to divert attention from the basic truth: Our current educational system is incapable of educating all children to any type of instructional standard. Those who express contempt or disdain for the standardized testing of NCLB are mere apologists for mediocrity. Feeling good by not confronting our incompetence is an ostrich approach to problem-solving.

(1) See http://www.aces.edu/crd/workforce/publications/9-22-00-new-econ-defined.PDF, http://www.ceonetworkaustin.com/maxproductivity/March_2003.PDF,
and others.
(2) See http://nces.ed.gov/quicktables/result.asp?SrchKeyword=&topic=Elementary%2FSecondary&Year=2007.
(3) See http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2008/Table1-01.csv.
(4) See http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2009&code=1501629900795_e.pdf.

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 2: Standards-based Curricula

Posted on by
1

SBLAC 2. Standards-based Curricula

The basic curriculum is task-based regarding the individual skills and knowledge deemed necessary to be successful in college. However, it is project-based in the sense that all work should be inter-related across disciplines and structured so that various concepts are instructed and reinforced in all classes. The emphasis of project-based instruction is less a matter of hands-on, kinesthetic learning (which is good) than it is a matter of working with established skills and knowledge in a variety of contexts.

The need for project-based instruction stems from “lane blindness” which has become an absolute enemy of authentic instruction. “Lane blindness” is an unintended by-product of specialization which, as a result of sharp focus in one discipline, causes any other discipline to be rendered irrelevant. It establishes an order of things which tells students (and teachers, too) that math is math, science is science, English is English, and so on. Rules, methods and processes used in one discipline are unnecessary, if not irrelevant, in another, which, in turn, has its own set of rules, methods and processes.

When social studies teachers do not demand correct grammar in history essays, or when English teachers accommodate faulty research methods(1), they are guilty of lane blindness. It often occurs at the intra-disciplinary level, as well. When educators have high school students read social novels in English class which are written in “stream of consciousness” style we might feel we’re reaching out to their interests or we’re trying to “keep it real” for them. The problem here is that the 9th graders in the class have likely not mastered the complete sentence (something they will be tested on during the ACT/SAT) and yet we have them read stories that blatantly and deliberately disregard grammar rules. The assumption that these children will know the difference is academic arrogance plain and simple. These children by and large do not know the difference and their poor English scores prove it. Teachers, themselves, often write letters, emails, even handouts with poor English grammar and misspelled words. Yes, even English teachers.

But back to the point about social novels, we must ask ourselves the question: Are we trying to entertain the kids by simply giving them something that they might read? Are we then hoping they will learn to read simply by forcing a preponderance of material down their throat regardless of whether it is drivel or academically relevant? Or are we deliberately teaching them something relevant? I believe that in most cases it is the former.

I believe, also, that an English teacher can have students read their social studies lessons and their science lessons in a language arts class to deconstruct the writings in order to illuminate author’s purpose, subject, topic outline, theme, character development and comparison. Class work across the curriculum must be mutually supportive rather than exclusionary. Staying rigidly in our own lanes disallows our students the inter-disciplinary experiences necessary for authentic instruction. The curriculum, then, is the structure we use to fuse the various disciplines to the educational process. If the different elements of the curriculum are disparate and exclusionary, the educational experience will be fragmented and incomplete. It will be dissociative and counter-productive to higher order thinking, least of all capable of any true rigor.

A standards-based and standards-accountable curriculum requires the same rules, methods and processes to be required throughout the school and encompassing all disciplines and departments. Grammar and rhetoric, research standards, scientific inquiry, and even classroom management protocols must be uniformly taught and enforced throughout the building. A child’s education must be understandable to the child. If rules, methods and processes do not translate from classroom to classroom within the school, how in the world can we expect them to have any relevance to academic discipline much less off-campus experiences?

The standards, in Illinois in this case, come from two sources. The first source, the Illinois Learning Standards(2) (ILS), published in 1997 by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), presents a comprehensive catalogue of skills and knowledge considered necessary to master in order for the state to deem a child worthy of state graduation certification. Recently, ISBE adopted the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) of English Language Arts and Mathematics which supplant (replace) ILS Goals 1-10. Unfortunately, far less than a third of Chicago Public Schools (CPS) juniors currently meet the state standard.

The second source in Illinois, the College Readiness Standards(3) (CRS), brought to us by ACT, Inc., contains core skills and knowledge which extensive research has determined that high school graduates must have mastered in order to have a relative probability of success in college. The College Readiness Standards are the primary focus of many college preparatory programs. Of course, there are many factors which contribute to a college student’s success or lack thereof, but these skills and the knowledge they represent indicate preparation and baseline readiness for higher level academic work.

The national average ACT composite score is ≈20, perhaps marginally higher depending on the year as it seems to be creeping up. This is the minimal score a high school graduate would need to have an even chance of success in a moderately difficult college if he/she was to attempt a degree. The Chicago Public Schools average is approximately 17.3. And this being the average means that there are roughly as many students below this as there are above it. If you cut off the bottom at a score of 15, this still would not get an average score of 20, which is minimally acceptable for college-level work at most universities. Yet, there is much clamoring within the system that we must focus less on standards and more on creativity. Our children are generally incapable of college-level work already and only little better than one in four meets minimal state requirements. But instead of focusing on the things that our government, businesses and colleges say are necessary for success in college and in life after high school, many educators and politicians wish to focus on creative content and scholastic entertainment in hopes that through more fun stuff students will magically achieve competence of skills we’re not teaching.

Let us look at music. Music is not tested on the ACT or the PSAE (or the7th grade ISAT, for that matter). Although graduation requirements stipulate that all graduates must have successfully completed one year of music, exactly what they are supposed to do during that one year remains gloriously nebulous. We shall assume that the requirement stems from a desire to mandate some type of culture class within the district-wide curriculum. And knowledge of the Arts is important; please don’t take this the wrong way. Music offerings include courses which attempt to teach kids to sing or to play a musical instrument. But why this elementary level of basic rhythm and tone was given to the high school curriculum is anybody’s guess. Clapping out quarter notes has value but it belongs in elementary school. Secondary school should provide a cultural significance to the musical art form but virtually any music class (course number) checks the block. This is lip service.

When discussions come up about students entering high school but not being prepared for ninth grade class work such as algebra or biology (or physics), the conversation invariably touches on the schism created by the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) standards and the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE) standards. Having never taken or even seen an ISAT test, I have been nodding my head as the conversation moves on. Often this is a blame-laying interjection to which most agree and nod, like me, that this is life and there is nothing anyone in the room can do about it. Fortunately, the State of Illinois has agreed to incorporate CCSS and appropriate periodic assessments to better align elementary school focus and standards to that which is required in high school.

Having been told that ISAT and PSAE assess different skills and knowledge I understand the frustration. I have seen data showing that meeting the academic standards on the ISAT does not correlate to meeting the academic standards on the PSAE. Many notable and respected educators will gladly point out that there is a difference between what we ask of our grade school children (what we assess) and what they need to know and do in order to be successful in high school. Until recently I, too, waved off this anomaly as the state requiring us to do stupid things so that they can track achievement data for different sets of reports. The problem here is that the ISAT is taken throughout elementary school. These are, I presumed, formative assessments of cognitive development related to reading and math skills. They seemed to be viewed as some sort of mandated individual progress report, standardized so that all children are asked the same questions, and used to determine general academic development of the student, the school, and the district. This is not the least bit controversial on its face.

Disparity arises when we see 50% of students meeting the ISAT standards but only 23% of these same children meeting PSAE standards in the 11th grade(4). The immediate assumption is that we must be testing different skills. And as absurd as it sounds, it appears to be quite correct. But it is only correct when taken into the context of the ISBE ILS skills and knowledge as they progress through the sequences of ever more complicated tasks to arrive at the late high school descriptors.

Children are asked to do more with numbers in the sixth grade than they are in the third grade. Children are asked to convert fractions in the 7th and 8th grades – skills that are unheard of in the third grade (and not often mastered by the 9th grade). As well, high school students are expected to expand their knowledge and skill base and develop new skills along the various ILS sequences of Goals 1 through 30 (remember, CCSS replaced Goals 1-10). Yet pay particular attention to former ILS Goals 1, 2, 6, and 7 as these are the only translatable standards from ISAT to PSAE. But the PSAE covers Goals 1 through 13 (and only Goals 1 through 13). For additional insight, CRS covers none specifically and only loosely touches Goals 1, 2, 6-10, 11, 13 and parts of 5 and leaves 3, 4 and 14 through 30 completely alone.

The breakdown occurs because neither the students nor their teachers really know what the students are supposed to be doing. Perhaps some of the teachers do not really know what they (the teachers) are supposed to be doing, either. Without going into the psychology of why teachers go into elementary and secondary education in the first place, my experience shows that most teachers like and appreciate children, most like their subject(s), and most have a passion at some level for helping the students succeed. A proud student is a very satisfying feeling for a teacher. I know – I’ve been there. But how many proud students know what performance objectives have been achieved relative to the ILS or CRS? How many teachers know?

Most children are never told where they are going. Any parent who has ever taken a trip with a child knows that the predominant questions are about the trip itself. Are we there yet? When are we going to get there? I’m hungry, can we stop? How much further? Are we at least half way there yet? Kids (and teachers) have a right to know where they are going and when a particular journey is supposed to end. They should know what happens year by year without all of the abstract mumbo-jumbo about going to college and being successful. They need to know in the third grade where all these numbers games are leading and why it is important to pay attention to what is coming next. The vast majority of students and a goodly percentage of teachers have no clue throughout grades K-10 as to what is expected of 11th grade students on the PSAE. And all together too many never figure it out.

Like a farmer preparing his field, this is where the earth needs turning. We must stop teaching esoteric content and start (or return to) teaching standards, skills, and specific, identified skills and knowledge. We must stop preparing for tests and begin building known and acknowledged skills – skills that are built upon sub-skills. These new skills then become prerequisite and foundational sub-skills of new, more complex skills. Education is less about test taking and content cramming as it is about developing a skill base with which to process information so that we may solve the next more challenging endeavor.

Often it seems that grades and test scores have become an end in and of themselves. We measure students by grades and test scores. Children get high grades and low grades based on work within a content area within a larger content area. These grades may or may not have anything to do with established skills and knowledge relative to a year group beyond; “This is what we study in the fifth grade.” But grades, particularly high school grades, are often so subjective and relative to the teacher and the school that they are inconsequential as a measure of achievement outside of the particular classroom or the particular school. If the ACT only assesses 9½ goals of the ILS’s 30 goals and the entire PSAE only assesses 13 of 30, how can they be used as measures of student performance and of what is actually going on in the school? In a content-based curriculum, they cannot.

The soil must be tilled. Rather than teaching a content curriculum and merely identifying ILS and CRS skills and knowledge included in a lesson, we must begin with the ILS, Common Core and CRS skills and knowledge and only sparingly add content. Content should be introduced if it supports the known and acknowledged skills and knowledge. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how we can know what is to be assessed by the state and post-secondary institutions and disregard it so completely. This unimaginable defiance within education is truly heartbreaking when we consider the vast number of children relegated to low-paying, dead-end jobs and occupations because they were never taught the skills which employers, businessmen, college admissions officers and our own government tell us are absolutely essential to post-secondary success today.

(1) Use of proper research methodology is, in fact, included in the English portion of the Illinois Learning Standards, but the schema are located in the seldom referenced State Goal 5, Use the Language Arts to Acquire, Assess and Communicate Information. Interestingly, ILS Goals 1-10 have been replaced with Common Core State Standards of English Language Arts and Mathematics.
(2) See http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/Default.htm.
(3) See http://www.act.org/standard/.
(4) Chicago Public Schools, Office of Research. Evaluation and Accountability (REA) offers much in the way of achievement data both current and historical for the entire District 299. Unless noted otherwise, please assume that the data was derived via REA online from either the CPS Dashboard, https://cpsdashboard.cps.k12.il.us/Pages/default.aspx, or the REA web page, http://research.cps.k12.il.us/cps/accountweb/.

The Educators’ Guide to Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum – 1: Introduction to the skills-based learning and assessment curriculum

Posted on by
1

SBLAC 1. Introduction to the Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum

The following discourse was originally offered as a guidance for high school. The principles herein likely have much wider application. The purpose is to first explain the concept of the standards-based curriculum and to then propose a way to work it. But although the original purpose of the document, itself, was to help explain the metaphor of “walking the dog” as it applies to curriculum, it is specifically relevant regarding the standards-based curriculum. And confusing though this may seem already, “walking the dog” has a lot to do with classroom instruction and curriculum selection has a lot to do with how that dog is walked.

We shall begin with a few basic assumptions which make this whole “walking the dog” thing necessary in the first place. First of all, the vast majority of secondary teachers are taught subject matter expertise and instructional principles as they relate to classroom presentation. Lesson planning and curriculum development are tools with which to formalize the process of imparting topical information to an adolescent audience. The material which makes up the topical information is the course content. When the course content forms the basis of the curriculum, be it math, science, or any department designation, the resultant curriculum is necessarily a content-based curriculum. A content-based curriculum is not a standards-based curriculum.

Secondly, good teaching is an art. But teaching is only as good as the learning it produces. No one who fails a third or more of his or her students (except in perhaps an extreme case or two) can really claim to be a good teacher. Regardless of our desire to blame the student, the family, the system, society, or our insistence that we not “lower our standards,” the harsh facts of good teaching lie in the capacity of the students on the classroom roster to learn. There is a tendency to use the argument that teachers at select enrollment schools are only “good” because the students at select enrollment schools are smarter, brighter, or more highly motivated. At the same time a good teacher at an urban neighborhood school has much less to work with and teachers there should not be measured by the same yardstick. But this, too, is relative. Anyone who truly believes that “all students can learn” must also believe that teaching them is possible. However, understand that it will take a “good” teacher.

Classroom instruction, like walking the dog, is a very personal thing. Anyone who has ever walked a dog understands that while many dogs like routine in their walk, sometimes they like a little variety. Anyone who has ever walked a dog also understands that when we have all day we can take the dog for a long and leisurely walk, but when we are in a hurry, we need to get the job done and move on. Sometimes it’s sunny and warm; sometimes it’s rainy and cold. But the dog must be walked. If not, well, things happen that we needn’t go into. High school students, while not comparing them to dogs, like routine. But they also like variety. Sometimes the curriculum and school schedule allow a leisurely stroll through interesting or complicated content. Sometimes we must move through the material quickly due to pacing requirements and/or school schedules. Sometimes students behave and do as they’re told. Sometimes they are overcome with emotional stress and act as the hormonal adolescent thespians they are, or worse. Thus, whatever the curricular plan for the day, classroom instruction cannot be dictated.

To explain the metaphor we must first be aware of the concept behind it. For any expert (of course, levels of expertise notwithstanding) being micromanaged can be a most frustrating experience. Being told how to do something for which a person has been trained can lead to animosity and resentment, particularly if the person has been doing it for awhile. Assuming that teachers are certified we can be assured that teachers know the basics of teaching. But knowing the basics is a nominal place to start. This is most evident when querying educators about what to teach and how it is structured. When someone is highly skilled in a task and is told by an authority figure how to perform a task as if the task was new, irritation sets in. It’s as if the skilled expert is being condescended upon by a person who is not the one performing the task. A common urge is to tell the authority figure, “Don’t tell me how to walk a dog.” So as we begin this discourse we shall not condescend by explaining basics of classroom instruction. On the contrary, we are discussing the parameters within which we perform our task. This is about what to teach and how it is developed.

My final comment before delving into the structure of the skills-based learning and assessment curriculum refers to the vocabulary of standards-based instruction. Much the same way Dr. Willard Daggett’s Rigor and Relevance Framework has been misinterpreted, misrepresented, and re-defined, the standards-based curriculum, as a haggard cliché, has been misused, misunderstood, and often deliberately abused so as to sell an initiative, a textbook or a PD course. Therefore, for the purposes of this guide, I have renamed our standards-based curriculum. We shall call it Skills-based Learning and Assessment Curriculum (SBLAC).

The Media and Misunderstanding Standards-based Instruction

Posted on by
9

A significant amount of discussion has revolved and evolved around the concept of standards-based instruction (SBI). Discussants join the conversation from a variety of viewpoints, experiences and foundational understanding. The most unfortunate reality of the topic of SBI is that most of the contributions lack a fundamental appreciation for what it actually is. It has become as nebulous, and yet as ubiquitous, as “instructional rigor.” SBI, in many instances, has become nothing more than code for marketing of instructional design material and content-based textbooks which seem to want to assure teachers and school administrators that buying a particular product will increase students’ chances of scoring well on state mandated tests. More often than not, the materials and texts have little, if anything, to do with standards-based instruction.

The concept of standards-based instruction is much too complex to be given the short shrift of peripheral educational reform critics, instructional wonks, and purveyors of pedagogical claptrap. With the plethora of blogs, articles, websites and advertising devoted to SBI, precious little has anything to do standards-based instruction in any substantial way. Bandied about with indiscretion, SBI is as prevalent as Bloom’s Taxonomy but understood far less. Benjamin Bloom knew that educators who had never read the book or even comprehended it’s purpose were referencing the taxonomy pell-mell. It was popular. It was necessary for “intelligent” discussion of education and educational reform. It still is. But Bloom’s work is known more for its anecdotes than for the development of cognitive skills. There are critics and apologists, passionate educators and educational politicians staking their fortunes on one interpretation or another, none of whom may have ever opened a volume to know, for certain, just what Bloom and his colleagues were trying to accomplish.

It seems a vast majority of educators and educational writers attribute the accession of standards-based instruction onto the educational reform scene as an off-shoot of High Stakes Testing. While the connection may appear logical, even intuitive, it is misleading at best and patently false in most applications. Much of what constitutes High Stakes Testing assesses established standards; this is true. The ACT, SAT, GRE, ISAT and others do indeed test student skills in a number of academic areas. We must consider, however, that the skills and standards under consideration have been identified by state and national experts as those needed to advance to higher order thinking and more complex academic work. The Prairie State Achievement Examination is one such High Stakes Test taken over a two day period and used to determine a student’s relative proficiency on a number of academic skills. The resultant data are great indicators of student academic capacity but are, unfortunately, used primarily to rate students, schools and school systems based upon metrics concocted in educational think tanks. As Kim Marshall once told me, “I put it out there, but I can’t be responsible for how it’s used.”

So the question has been begged; what is standards-based instruction? SBI is a systematic approach to learning which utilizes proximal development of cognitive, problem-solving skills across disciplines to continually increase depth of understanding and interdpendency of skill relationships. In order to utilize proximal development of cognitive, problem-solving skills, an SBI practitioner must regularly assess student skills for proficiency and mastery. He must continuously review and reflect on the skills and skill levels under consideration. If the skill and level have already been mastered by the student, the student is not learning. If the skill and/or level has not been properly anticipated in previous work the lesson may appear too abstract or unconnected to established skills resulting in a variety of responses, few of which promote student learning. Gradually increasing depth of understanding of simple skills to complex skills, within a framework of skill “strands,” creates a progress map for mastery and expertise.

What is often lost in this simplified explanation is the very crucial role of cognitive and metacognitive development. When teachers teach units of instruction based solely upon topic content, student learning is isolated into specific knowledge within a particular aspect of a particular discipline. This type of instruction limits contextual implications and applications which are often unrecognizable outside of that particular classroom. Within the gathering of discipline-specific information there are few opportunities for student discussion and/or problem-solving. As students are assessed on retention of what was taught, they lack any real investigative skills which may be applied in other contexts. Content-based instruction usually does not require, or sometimes even request, that students develop cognitive skills to improve their understanding. Having observed hundreds of classrooms, I can tell you it’s often quite mindless.

Another barrier to standards-based instruction are the many brain-based neuromyths. These logical sounding pseudo-scientific nuggets are often little more than fabrication that have for one reason or another become accepted “truisms.” They dot the educational reform landscape like European starlings and daylilies. Once inserted into the dialogue, they take hold and seem as natural as any scientific rationale. Probably the favorite (surely the favorite of John Geake ) is the common belief that humans use only 10% of their brain. If this was true, Geake tells us, we’d all be brain-dead. Perhaps we are. Another of Geake’s favorites is the VAK (Visual/Auditory/Kinesthetic) learning styles theory. While we should all use a variety of instructional strategies in the course of teaching, VAK is just not based upon any scientific research supporting its widespread acceptance.

Introduction of VAK methods in the classroom would surely lead to greater student engagement than continual lecturing. By breaking up the monotony of a teacher talking for an hour or so at a time, students given a change of pace are not so easily lulled into unconsciousness. But the research here does not support VAK; the research opposes the droning lecture style. The research supports classroom discussion. The best way for students to learn is to have them participate in their own learning. Substituting one passive learning style for another does not improve academic skills or problem-solving capacity. Richard Elmore’s mantra, “Task predicts performance,” should be an ever conscious aspect of classroom instruction. What are the students doing? Students are never assessed on how well they stay awake in boring classes.