Tag Archives: The Educator’s Guide

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 – 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 – 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 – 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).