BEST PRACTICE IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUTIONO_| zn mzm (/) o Best Practice in Curriculum and Instruction 1. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 26, 1998, with attached excerpt from book by Douglas Reeves (ADE consultant on implementation of Smart Start), Making Standards Work: How to Implement Standards-Based Assessments in the Classroom, School, and District. 2. Memorandum to principals in Oct. 28, 1998, Learning Links information about a recommended book. Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools. 3. Memorandum to principals in Nov. 11, 1998, Learning Links
attached speech by Hayes Mizell, Principals as Leaders in Standards-Based Reform. 4. Memorandum to staff in Aug. 11,1999, Learning Links on a new publication. Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion. 5. Memorandum in Aug. 18, 1999, Learning Links on curriculum standards
attached article, Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education. 6. Letter to McRel Institute, Sept. 16, 1999, requesting permission to make copies of certain pages of Essential Knowledge: The Debate Over What American Students Should Know. 7. Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links on standards-based reform
attached article by Mike Schmoker and Robert Marzano. 8. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 22, 1999, establishing a committee to develop Instructional Standards for the District
attached copies of several research-based models for consideration. 9. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Dec. 8, 1999, with follow-up to committee working on Instructional Standards
attachments to support the work, including research article from ERS, How Children Learn: What Cognitive Research Tells Us About Effective Instruction. 10. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Dec. 14, 1999, with more models to consider for the Instructional Standards. 11. Memorandum to Terrence Roberts, Steve Ross, ODM, John Walker, and CTA from Bonnie Lesley, Dec. 15, 1999, requesting their input on the work relating to development of Instructional Standards. 12. Document: Summary of Teaching and Learning Research-Based Models, prepared for June 2000 workshop for high school teachers and used subsequently in other meetings as a summary of best practice. 13. Memorandum in Oct. 4, 2000, Learning Links to principals from Bonnie Lesley on readings before the Oct. 25-26 workshop on Teaching and Learning
attached three articles. 14. Memorandum to Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 7, 2001, on constructivism with attached publication from Detroit Public Schools. 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S. PULASKI LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 26, 1998 TO: Dr. Les Carnine Dr. Patty Kohler Dr. Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Lucy Lyon Marion Woods Carol Green FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Meeting with Doug Reeves I know that youve had a hard time getting hold of a copy of Doug Reeves book, as I had suggested you do. I m including a copy of the first few pages so that you can at least get a sense of what he is about. BAL/adg AttachmentMAKING I STANDARDS WORK How to implement Standards- Based Assessments in the Classroom, School, and District DOUGLAS B. REEVES, Ph.D. Center for Performance Assessment i, Contents Introduction 1 Part OneWhy Standards Matter chapter one Tying the Bell on the Cat................................... chapter two Getting to Know Your Standards...................... chapter three Standards and NormsWhat is the Difference? 7 15 23 chapter four Standards-Based AssessmentsThe Key to Standards Implementation................................................. chapter five Standards-Based AssessmentsHow Are They Better? chapter six The Role of the Classroom Teacher................................ chapter seven The Role of the Principal . chapter eight The Role oi the District . . chapter nine Measiirint
Standards Achievement 33 41 47 57 63 71 II Miikmji
SlundariLs Wurk chapter fen Validity and Reliability ............................ chapter eleven The Role of National and State Standards 83 . 91 Part TwoMaking Standards Work in the Classroom chapter twelve Collaboration: The Key to Effective Staff Development.. chapter thirteen Step One: Pull the Weeds Before Planting the Flowers..... chapter fourteen Step Two: Identify the Primary Standard........................... chapter fifteen Step Three: Develop an Engaging Scenario ..................... chapter sixteen Step Four: Develop Requirements for Students to Apply, Analyze, and Demonstrate Knowledge.............................. chapter seventeen Step Five: Develop Scoring Guides (Rubrics).................... chapter eighteen Step Six: Create an Exemplary Assignment ..................... chapter nineteen Step Seven: Get Feedback.................................................... chapter twenty Step Eight: Clarify and Enrich the Assignment.................. chapter twenty-one Step Nine: The Acid TestStudent Understanding and Use . . . chapter twenty-two Step Ten: Sharing With Colleagues.................................................. . 97 101 107 109 113 119 123 127 131 135 139 L Milking Sliiiuldids Work Part ThreeMaking Standards Work in the District chapter twenty-three Accountability
The Key to Public Acceptance . . . chapter twenty-four Organizing the District for Standards Implementation 145 . 151 chapter twenty-five Communicating About Standards With Parents and the Public . . 157 chapter twenty-six Responding to Constituent Challenges Part Four Reproducible Handouts Appendices ......................................................................... Appendix A: Performance Assignments/Assessments Appendix B: Staff Development Curriculum .... Appendix C: Standards Implementation Checklist . Glossary Bibliography 163 171 191 193 235 241 249 . 251 I . Order Form 255 -1 1 fl I Fil r h li introduction How to Get the Most Out of This Book This volume is designed not simply to be read, but to be used. It is written principally for use by classroom teachers and administrators at the building and district level. However, many of those interested in effective educational strategies, including students of educational leadership and assessment, parents, board members, and policy makers may find this format useful. Part One Part One addresses why standards matter. The central rationale for standards-based assessments is that they provide a means of evaluation that is accurate and fair. An essential component of fairness is consistencystudents and teachers have a fixed target at which to aim. In contrast to norm-referenced measures frequently in use by school districts, the standards-based academic target does not change. If, for example, students are expected to demonstrate proficiency in the application of the Pythagorean theorem (Figure 1.1, right) after a ninth grade geometry class, they can take scant comfort in being better than other .students. Proficiency is more than beating other students. It i.s insufficient to be better than 50% of the other ninth graders in the nation by successiully answeringor guessingthe responses to a multiple choice test, and then claiming that one i.s above average." figure 1.1 Pythagorean Theorem a^ + ib ll!a
ST r I c eI o 1J introduction 1 I Shnutn.ls Work A .sl
iii(.lai\l.s-ha>cJ syslcin will require the sliidetil In deinunstrale the ap|'lieatii)i) of the I'ylhat'orean iheoreni perhaps by using pencil and ptiper, perhaps by using blocks of wooil, or perhaps bv using a video-taped oral presentation. In none of these ctises can a student guess the right answer. In this respect, standards-based assessments are iiaevimbly more rigorous and more demanding than traditional multiple choice tests. Moreover, the require- ment to deme'nscrate that the sum of the square of two sides of a right triangle is equal to the square of the hypotenuse (a^ + b^ = c) does not change, while the national average does change from year to year. Part One will address why this method of assessment is the appropriate way to implement standards and what the roles of classroom teachers, principals, and district officials are with respect to implementing such a system. t Part Two Part Two of this book addresses, in a step-by-step manner, the process of making standards work in the classroom. All too frequently, the model of educational innovation has been that of a single teacher who attends a workshop, comes back to school full of innovative ideas and enthusiasm, and implements those ideasin one classroom. Sometimes, though rarely, these ideas are shared with others. Even more rarely are they implemented by others. But on the whole, innovation is sporadic and inconsistent. .8 i i f The process of implementing standards-based performance assessments, by contrast, demands a collegial effort. The requirement for collegiality is not merely a social or political necessity. Effective assessments require consistent evaluation and the application of several disciplines at the same time. If a school system has a writing standard, for example, and teachers create assessments in mathematics, science, and social studies without regard for the writing standards, chaos ensues. Students recognize these inconsistencies and will be the first to tell us that the standards emperor has no clothes. If, on the other hand, standards are consistently applied in assessments in which the evaluation criteria do not change from one discipline to the next, student performance responds accordingly. Such a move from idiosyncrasy to consistency requires cooperative work by teachers. Only with this consistency will policy makers, taxpayers and, most importantly, students, understand that standards have moved from slogans and speeches to clear and unambiguous practice in the classroom. The issue of consistency invariably raises the issue of teacher independence and discretion. Let us not mince words here: in few other professions do practitioners of all levels of experience and education have such broad discretion to make critical decisions throughout the vast majority of the day. The adoption of standards, consistently applied through standards-based performance assessments, retains large amounts of this discretion, freedom, and individual judgment. But this freedom has limits. The widespread practice of teachers defining curriculum and choosing not to teach critical subjects based on little more than their personal preference will, in a standards-based school system, go the way of the Dodo bird. Changes in teaching practice and experiments in learning activities are one thing
choosing to omit fractions for a third grade class because, in the word.s of one teacher, I dont like fractions, is an intolerable abuse of discretion. 2 a introductionMftkinx SliiruLiids Wurl- The need (or consistency in the applicalion o( standards is based on more than a bn tea net title imperative (or control or the psvebometric zeal tor statistical reliability. Consistency is requireJ by our commitment tc> (airness. Any reasonable notion o( (airries.s reqiiire.s that educational strategies, particularly assessments, must be consistent within a school system. Phis means, as a practical matter, that spelling counts in math class as surely a.s it docs in an English class. It implies that math counts in a graph provided to the social studies or economics teacher as surely as it does were the graph submitted to the science or math teacher. Although the development of standards-based performance assessments permits an extraordinary amount of creativity by individual teachers, the standards themselves remain fixed guiding stars by which educators and administrators can navigate. ihf tn S-If The Ten Steps described in Part Two comprise the heart of this book. The application of these steps to a single assignment and single standard by every teacher in a district can, over the course of two to three years, completely change the way educational strategies are developed, delivered, and assessed. B Part Three Part Three addresses the broader policy issues involved when making standards work in the district. Accountability, recognition, and response to challenges are among the critical issues of this section of the book. These chapters offer concrete and specific ideas helpful to superintendents and other educational leaders at the district level. B Part Four Finally, the reader will find reproducible handouts for easy review of key information, detailed sample assessments and assignments (including a sample format for assignments), a handy glossary, and a brief bibliography. School reform does not take place with books or speeches. School reform takes place through the actions of individual parents, teachers, and administrators who are willing to change what happens in the classroom. The standards movement can have an enormous intluence on a national commitment to excellence and equity, but it will inherently be the culmination of the efforts of teachers and school leaders working together, rather than a march in lock-step fashion to a uniform drumbeat. At the Center for Performance Assessment, we continue to gather stories of successful and unsuccessful innovations, and we hope that you might take a moment to share your stories with us. We look forward to an engaging, challenging dialogue with each of our readers and encourage you to contact us. Center for Performance Assessment 1660 South Albion Street Suite 1110 Denver, CO 80222 (501)504-9312 800-THINk-99 (800-844-6599) Fax: (.505) 504-9417 Web Site: wwu.testdtKtor.com E-mail: perlassessfu aol.eom i
:%' s. I i B I I 1 introduction 3 a 'Hr fJl3
fS 1 at chapter one Tying the Bell on the Cat The implementation of standards brings to mind this classic fairy tale. Once upon a time a council of mice gathered to consider how to deal with their deadly enemy, the cat. After much deliberation, the council decided that the best thing to do would be to tie a bell around the neck of the cat so that the mice would be warned whenever the cat approached. Amidst their general back slapping and self-congratulation, a small young voice uttered the telling question, But who will tie the bell on the cat? This book is about tying the bell on the cat. The national standards movement now faces a similar dilemma. There appears to be general agreement across the political spectrum that academic standards should: Be rigorous and challenging Be related to the technological forces that will mold the twenty-first century in which today's students will work Provide a fair and equitable basis for evaluation However, there i.s widespread and deep disagreement about how schools will be held accountable tor the implementation of these standards. Without accountability and without comprehensive and meaningful assessments, the standards movement contains little more than platitudes. While high expectations are certainly an important part of successful academic achievement strategies, expectations alone are insufficient. Assessment and accountability drive every other element ol the education delivery system, including instruc- Pari Oni -Why Standards Matter chapter one 7 I -jn , tt I I II h'W ' i A iti. f.- i 5^ Is t K. A* if li M.ikiii,i
Mill,.I, i- I dv.sign, clas.sruom iechnk|iic, alliicaiiiiii wl tt-sawcfs, .adiuniisiniiivc praciicc, ain,! central oflice decision making. a Linking Standards to AssessmentsAn International Challenge This issue crosses national boundaries. In August of 1997, I addressed a policy roundtable at the International Conference on Technology and Education in Oslo, Norway. Representatives of 57 countries heard speeches from leaders including a Prime Minister, several cabinet-level education officials, and a large number of leaders from universities and school systems. They appeared to be united on the necessity for high standards and placed particular emphasis on the need for technology literacy, student collaboration, and higher order thinking skills. The most frequent comment from the delegates of the many nations was, The same speech could have been delivered by educational leaders in our country. 1 then asked the group a simple question: if there is such unanimity on the need for high standards in thinking skills, collaborative work, and technology literacy, can any of the 57 nations here claim to have an assessment system that reflects these philosophies? In fact, can any nation claim to have an assessment system that doesnt reflect the opposite of what we claim to believe? One American community college dean said that they required technology performance assessment. A few delegates said that they were experimenting with individual proficiency tests at the university level. I These noble efforts notwithstanding, the state of assessment is now little different than it has been for decades. School leaders and national policy-makers talk about laudatory goals, and then continue to use tests that discourage (or more likely, prohibit) teamwork, cooperation and collaboration. The most frequently used tests encourage memorization of narrowly defined fact patterns or vocabulary words, and rarely require students to explain or justify their answers, analyze and synthesize information, or apply general principles to new and unfamiliar information. These are the skills required in the never-never land of political speeches, but rarely assessed in the classroom. The Central issue: How To Make Standards Work Despite this discouraging reality, the voices demanding change are gaining national and international attention. As far as voters and most board of education members are concerned, the issue is not whether to create effective accountability and assessment, but how to do it. There are a few hold-outs remaining who regard accountability and assessment as inherently improper, unfair, demeaning, and even unprofessional, but these voices are rarely taken seriously in most debates over educational policy. The new voices in the debate demand accountability and assessment systems that are based on high academic standards and that reilect the consensus of their communities about what students should know and be able to do. These voices lack the patience to debate endlessly whether we should have effective assessment--they demand to know how to implement effective iwsessment. It is to these 8 chapter one Pari OneWhy Standards Molfer i|^ energetic, innovative andyesfrii.siraied voiceMh.n this hook is addressed. Tlieir central questiim is: now that wc have standards, how do we make them work. K What Makes the Standards Approach Different From Business As Usual? Many school systems across the United States and abroad have endured the arduous proces,s of establishing academic standards. This has been no easy task, particularly in the politically charged areas of social studies, economics, and literature. As difficult as these tasks have been, however, even more difficulty lies ahead when transforming standards into assessments. If standards are to be successfully implemented, then many of the traditional ways of doing things must cease. Examples of traditional activities that can no longer take place under a standards-driven environment include the following
Attendance (or seat time) is sufficient to gain credit. This issue frequently leads to a debate over social promotion versus high standards, n with the implication that high standards invariably lead to flunking students. In fact, high standards are founded on the core belief that all students can perform at high levels given the opportunity to learn, and with appropriate teaching and assessment strategies. Therefore, the practical impact of the application of high standards is neither high failure rates nor social promotionit is rather the use of multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency, and the steadfast refusal of teachers and administrators to label a student as proficient when they are not. i A D is a passing grade. I know of no classroom in American in which a D represents anything other than the failure of the student to demonstrate proficiency and the failure of the teacher to acknowledge it. The availability of a D is simply the policy op non that allows a school to explicitly acknowledge that a student failed to demonstrate proficiency in the subject, while refusing to require the student to do so. In a genuinely standards-based school system, the grade of D should not exist. Either students are proficient (usually a grade of at least an A or B and, sometimes, a C) or to be proficient should, in most circumstances, result in a gr
the student is afforded more opportunities to learn and Should the student refuse to do so, a failing grade, not a grade. XJiy are not. The failure of incomplete while emonstrate proficiency. L . is the only accurate <3 Pari OneWhy Sfondords Mofter chapter one TO ill K 9Mdknij
VVdik I A great high school is measured by the quantity and creativity ol its elective offerings. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the prolileration oi non'acadeniic electives have improved student learning. But there is a growing quantity ol statistical and narrative evidence that an emphasis on core academic disciplines promotes student learning, not only in traditional test scores, but also in complex performance asses.sments. Nevertheless, there are hundreds of high schools that have academic standards for statistics and economics, but offer no classes in these subjects, while the same schools devote time and resources to classes for which the community has no academic standards. Note well: this does not make a brief for a curriculum based only on the three Rs" but rather insists that every class, regardless of its label, owes a duty to the student and community to reinforce academic standards in math, language arts, social studies, and science. Classes in music, cooking, wood shop, and physical education offer extraordinary opportunities to teach math, science, history, and language arts. We cannot squander the talents and time of these teachers, nor can we afford the inconsistent message that such subjects are soft because they are not really academic. The defensiveness of teachers (and more commonly, some professional associations) on the subject of academic emphasis in elective subjects is misplaced. Academic core curriculum classes are identical in structure and length for every student. The common practice requiring that every ninth grade student should take the identical math class (typical algebra) is absurd. In a diverse district (that is, any district without a small and neatly identical group of students), some students come to the ninth grade ready for trigonometry while others require basic mathematical skills in order to avoid a catastrophic failure. Some students are ready for the challenges of literary criticism and advanced composition, while others need work on the fundamentals of spelling and grammar. A standards-based approach to education begins with the premise that all students can learn and achieve at high levelsbut that does not imply that all students leam in the same way and at the same pace. Standards-based districts expect that all students will achievethat does not mean that they should expect that all students will learn in the identical manner and at the same pace. The practical impact of standards implementation is more than a series of community meetings in which everyone exclaims how nice it would be if all students learned math, English, history, and technology. This will remain the stuff of Rotary Club lunch speeches unless it is transformed into specific curriculum reforms. It is likely that many school districts that began establishing standards would never have completed the journey had they realized that the elimination of these notion.s are the practical outcome of standards implementation. A standards-driven district, however, cannot afford rhe luxury of paying lip service to academic standards bv implementing ,i system based only upon attendance (or seat time"), hourly credit, and ancient definition.s of satisfactory. Let us consider each ol these implications in some detail. , 0 chapter one Port OneWhy Standards Matter II I .r I 89 It's ProficiencyNot Seat TimeThat Matters f H Mil nl StandarJs implementation depends on a ilciiionstration of protitivuty. Iraditioiial means ol such as a Idler grade associated with seal lime.jire hardly ever an indication that a student has met standards. Indeed, most teachers would agree that students to whom they have given a "D grade do not meet the standards for that class, and the teacher would have regarded the D as an unsatisfactory grade. Nevertheless, for the purptwes of awarding the ultimate credita high school diplomathe D is regarded as satisfactory. assessment tin
li fi If standards mean anything, they mean that students must demonstrate proficiency in order to obtain credit for classes and, ultimately, in order to obtain a high school diploma from that school system. This means that the era of credit for attendance and class participation is over. Students gain credit through a demonstration of proficiency. This can be done either at the i. beginning of the class, in the middle of the class, or at the end of class. For students who demonstrate proficiency early, the classroom teacher has the responsibility of providing enrichment opportunities that allow those students to indicate..that they have exceeded standards. For students who have difficulty achieving standards, the teacher has the obliga- provide multiple opportunities for those students to make progress towards standards cion to provide multiple opportunities tor tnose stuaencs co imc luwmko and, ultimately, to meet the standards. For students who, at the end of the term, fail to meet standards, the teacher has an obligation to forthrightly indicate that the student does not meet standards, and hence was awarded no credit for the achievement of that standard. Along with this obligation to tell the uncomfortable truth, teachers have the obligation to continue to help the student work toward the achievement of that standard. I i sN n H Standards Lead to Curriculum Reform Standards implementation inevitably leads to curriculum reform, including the provision of intensive assistance for small groups of students who are not initially meeting standards. Another essential element of curriculum reform is the systematic use of standards in the description of courses. At the very least, this means that every class (particularly in a middle school, junior high, or high school) is listed in a course catalog and is associated with one or more standards established by the district. Some districts, for example, have standards in statistics, but no classes in it. On the other hand, they have classes in psychology, sociology, and photography, but no standards are associated with those classes. If standards are to become more than a slogan, then one of two things must happen. Either the classes that are not associated with standards are no longer taught, ora better alternativethe teachers of those classes creatively identify ways their classes can help students achieve academic standards. For example, statistics standards can clearly be met in a number of sociology, ethnic studies, psychology, and social studies classes. The same is true of many language arts and civics standards. The photography class could be linked to siandards in mathematics, language arts, and civics. The bottom line remains, however, that classes ni.)t linked to standards do not make a contribution to the goals of the district and should not be taught. li KI Pcf r OneWhy Standards Matter chapter one H 11.Siandard.s implementation requires a comparlmeniali
ed eurticuliim. By comparimeiiializa- tioii, I mean the reduction of some academic subjects into smaller blocks. I here should be no such thing a.s ninth grade mathematics" or tentb gr.ade English. Rather, standards that these classes base traditieuially comprised should be taught in units ranging in size from a lew weeks te' a lull semester. It might be possible that some students would take two classes to complete all those requirements-the time traditionally used for a full class. Other students, however, may need four, five, or even six units to achieve the same level of standards. J j t y ? 5 This is most evident in mathematics classes. The notion that every ninth and tenth grader should take the same algebra class is simply preposterous. A number of students enter high school without knowing multiplication tables, not to mention having any preparation for J algebra class. The traditional system requires that these students take a class for which they are hopelessly ill-prepared and then brands those students as failures in mathematics. A better approach is to permit these students to achieve high school mathematics standards through a number of different classes, including not only traditional academic classes, but also application classes, vocational classes, and interdisciplinary classes. Those students still have to achieve the algebra standard but they do so by taking a variety of classesnot by taking a dumbed-down curriculum. h i The goal of a standards-based curriculum is not to tell students how to achieve standards, but rather to provide a broad menu of alternatives that meet the needs of students who require additional instruction, as well as those who have already achieved the standard and appreciate further enrichment. The practical effect of this system is that students who need to spend more class time to accomplish the graduation standards will take fewer electives. Does this mean that a student who needs extra math and English classes in order to achieve high school graduation might not have time in his or her curriculum for band and drama. That is precisely what it means. This leads to the next issue. Standards implementation almost invariably implies fewer electives. I I What About "Non-Academic" Electives? One of the many ill-considered trends in secondary school education in the last twenty years has been the proliferation of non-academic electives. Although many of these classes have earned high marks for innovation and creativity, they have done little to contribute to the academic achievement of students. Even in districts that claim to be standards-based, many of these electives continue to thrive in ignorant bliss ot any responsibility the teachers of these electives should have with regard to standards implementation. .Although 1 acknow- ledge the social importance ot many electives, these are times of limited resources and failin' academic achievement in many districts. Such times call for making choices with regard ig to available time and resources. Although it may not be necessary to eliminate electives in instrumental music, chorus, journalism, drama, social sciences, and creative writing (just to name a tew), it is essential that these electives be available only to students who have already achieved the standards appropriate for their grade level, or that those classes are directly used to help all students achieve academic standarels. In addition, the teachers of these elective' 12 chapter one Part OneWhy Stondarrds Matter'.liJkin.i' u-'. iW' sub|eits hear a respitnsibilif, (nr either demons!rating that their ckisses can, iii faet, help students achieve specilic academic siunchinls. or accepting the fact that the activities in which they are engageil are more appropritite a.s after-school exiraciirricnlar activities. To he sure, there are a number of teachers of music, shop, home economics, and many other elective.s who can be splendid mathematics and English teachers if only given the chance to use these subjects, which they so creatively teach, to help students achieve academic standards. h it| 1 There is substantial controversy on the subject of whether non-academic" subjects should have their own standards. This position is advocated by many professional groups associated with music, physical education, and vocational education. They argue separate standards makes these subjects part of the standards movement. In my view, such a movement is precisely wrong. It distances these subjects from core academic subjects and may doom them to irrelevance. A better approach is to integrate these traditionally non-academic subjects with academic standards. For example, woodworking and cooking become ways to teach math and science. Music and art become ways to teach history and literature. This integration will elevate the status of music, art, woodworking, home economics, ant! subjects that are too frequently placed on the chopping block during budget difficulties, in sum, the importance of these subjects is best recognized, not by their isolation, but by th _ir integration into the core academic content standards of our schools. * IE ii Standards and High School Graduation Requirements Standards implementation implies different graduation requirements. The myth of the gentlemans C (or given todays grade inflation, the gentlemans A-) holds that mere attendance without an excess of disruptive behavior qualifies a student for a passing grade in a class. If standards are to have meaning, then a demonstration of proficiency must be linked to the awarding of high school diplomas. Many progressive districts are moving toward a certificate of completion for students who have been able to pass the attendance requirements for graduation but were unable to demonstrate proficiency in academic standards after the normal number of high school years. Typically, these students are offered a fifth year of instruction, at no charge, either in the secondary school setting or in an appropriate post-secondary institution. B Standards Call for Courage For most, tying the bell on the cat requires courage, just as it did for the council of mice. Districts that seek to undertake standards must be prepared to face the political firestorm that accompanies a restriction on student choices and a diminution of the widespread emphasis on non-academic elective subjects. Moreover, criticism will inevitably come from those who believe the application of curriculum blocks is too close to tracking." .As a result, they will brand the implementation of standards as unfair, sexist, racist, and other appellations thill say more about the le\el ot educational and political discourse than they do about the targets of the labels. 4^ Par} OneWhy Standards Matter chapter one B 13 iiJfSShiHtknd.s Wmk I'iivilly, ciiticism will come from teachers, themselves, who appreciate pertormance-hased assessments ril slaiiciarJs in theory, hut who are less than enthusiastic when they discover that the primary responsibility for the creation and year-round administratitrn of these assessments rests with the classroom teacher. Only those districts w'illing to risk the wrath ol all of these criticisms, and many more, are going to be able to successfully implement standards. The result will certainly be worth it in academic achievement, fairness, equity, educational cipportunity, professional development for teachers, public accountability, and in many other ways. But only the most innovative and courageous districts will endure the pain and discomfort of these criticisms in order to achieve those long-term results. 1 j I i li li. J 14 ? P. j-t )ne Z/liy ihimlunU M'HIci , hLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 S. PULASKI LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 26, 1998 TO: Dr. Les Carnine Dr. Patty Kohler Dr. Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Pat Price Lucy Lyon Marion Woods Carol Green FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Meeting with Doug Reeves I know that youve had a hard time getting hold of a copy of Doug Reeves book, as I had suggested you do. Im including a copy of the first few pages so that you can at least get a sense of what he is about. BAL/adg Attachment 2 1 I i L L { LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 October 23, 1998 TO: Principals I FROM
Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction ! SUBJECT: Best Practices You will want to add to your own and to the schools professional library copies of Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools by Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde, published by Heinemann in 1998. (See www.heinemann.com.) I The book includes chapters on exemplary programs in reading, writing, mathematics, science, social studies, fine arts, and classroom structures for best practice. There is another chapter on staff development and a final one on urban schools. I think all could be helpful to your Campus Leadership Team. BAUrcm I i I j i 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 4, 1998 TO: Principals FROM
Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Principals and Standards Please read carefully the list of the attached speech by M. Hayes Mizell, Principals as Leaders in Standards - Based Reform. Mizell is absolutely right, I wish I had written this speech. I know that you all need support, however, not just admonition. Please send me your suggestions of the professional development you need, based on this speech, to lead standards-based reform in your school. We'll try to provide it! Remember - standards is one of four components of Smart Start. The others are professional development, assessment, and accountability. I hope you are seeing how all this fits together. Attachment BAL/rcm Home 1 Latest Updates | Newswatch 1 MiddleWeb Index I Reforming. Schools ] Links | Search Excerpts from the remarks ofM. Hayes Mizell at a meeting ofrall elementary, middle, and high school principals from the Corpus Christi Independent School District. The meeting was held on March 14, 1996 in the CCISD administrative offices in Corpus Christi, Texas. Principals as Leaders in Standards-Based Reform Somewhere in Corpus Christi there is a church marquee with a powerful message on it: "Faith will work if you do." That says a lot, and I probably should leave it alone, but I can't resist the temptation to adapt that message to say "Standards will work if you do." This morning I want to talk with you about the principal's leadership role inimplementing standard The concepts of content and performance standards are still relatively new, and this school system is one of only a few in the nation committed to making academic standards a reality in all the district's schools. This is a necessary and noble cause, but the truth is that there are no models for how to implement standards so they increase student performance. You probably want direction, but there is no road map for you. There is only hard thinking and hard work ahead. There are also risks. Some of you may want guarantees that standards will work magic on your teachers ^d your students. There are no such guarantees. Some of you may want the handbook on how to implement standards successfully. There is no such handbook. Like many other issues in education today, standards present difficult questions that depend on your experience, intellectual engagement, creativity and good faith for answers. Without tfae leadership of principals, standards will not result in more productive teaching and learning in your school^ ------------- This leadership is easy for me to talk about but difficult for you to demonstrate. I suspect many of you see standards implementation as one more item on a very long list of tasks somebody expects you to carry out. You experience your jobs as responding to a variety of "shoulds," "oughts," and "musts," array of expectations and mandates that come at you from many different directions. an There is no shortage of people and groups who want to set your priorities. Some people want your schools to focus on student control and order, Others want to make sure the most advantaged and able students get the best teachers and the most engaging curricula. Still others want you to give priority to athletics, students social needs, or their self-esteem. It would surprise me if you wonder where or how standards you are supposed to fit standards into your list of dizzying tasks. There is no shortage of people and groups who want to set your priorities ... I suspect many of you see standards implementation as one more item on a very long list of tasks somebody expects you to carry out. I want to .suggest that you restructure your task list. Separate it into three parts. At the top of the list, write "Enabling studenteto perFonn'at standard. Then insert twotirthree line spaces. ListeveryUsk for which you are responsible that is necessary to enable students to perform at .standard. Then insert several more line spaces, and then list all the other tasks you find on your plate. Now you have your list of priorities. Begin at the top. If making sure students perform at standard is your first priority, then you will develo_a respectful and 1 of 5 10/13/98 1:35 PMPrincipals as leaders in standards-based reform http'.//middleweb.com/Prinstan drd.html canng leamng enviroiment not to control students but beca^ it provides the context in which students \ / can le^ b_gst. You will determine who gets which teachefnna~access?gwhat ^^iat TV all students need to perform at st^dard. You will provide all students with diverse opportunities to . develop and demonstrate their tolents becauseTich opportunities reinforce the importance of achievement in all areas of schooling. " ..... You can use standards to refocus your schools on what I believe should be their primary mission, to significantly increase what students know and can do. Unless you are clear that "this is, in fact, the~ mission, and unless you and the central office agree that it is also the school district's mission then standards will make little difference to your students. I do think it is important for principals ^d the central office to get straight on this issue. If enabling stodents to perform at standard is thepriprity^then jtmay call for reform in central office expe^tions and operations to support that priority One of die ' leadership roles of pnoci^sls if insist that what the central office does reflects what the cehrial office says. If enabling students to perform at standard is the priority, then it may call for reform in central office expectations and operations to support that priority. You can see that implementing standards is likely to be uncomfortable. Contrary to what most people assume standards jeggire educators to change more than they require students to change. Students will X" not perform at standard unless teachers increase their own knowledge of subject content, more successfully engage shidents in learning that content, and assign and assess student work congruent with t^ perfOunaiice standards. Teachers v/ilT riot be able to make these changes unless principals and site-basedjecisionmaking teams give~pribrity to enabling students to perf^aTstdridarT
mdT:rcatc the expectations, school culture, and supportTfructures necessary for-teachers to reform'their practice Principals will not provide the leadership to implement standards unless the central office gears its systems, operations, admonitions, and priorities to encourage and support principals' efforts to enable students to perform at standard. In other words, standards implementation is primarily about adult learning, adult change, and adult risk, all towards'tEe end of enabling every sPident to perform at higher X- The leadership of principals is needed at every level of this enterprise. You can begin with your Cl + _r40CO/4 /-I Cl*rt V i rr T U 1 1____________11 . srte^based decision making teams. I don't know how well your teams are functioning or where they are ----_, ---p - X V rj TTVil J MUI ivcuiw Olc luiiuuuiiuig ui vviicrc Liicy focusing their energies, but I have little doubt that they need your help in keeping them focused on improving student performance. .. . (Slite-based decision making teams bavp tn play a much more aggressive and creative role in understanding the actual performance levels of students, and focusing schools and their communities on student performance. This is not a role site-based teams will adopt easily, and principals have a leadership role to play in helping them do so. Each SBDM team and each principal also needs to grapple with this basic question: "How should this school stmcture itself to enable students to perfonii at standard?" Keeping this question high on the site^based decision making team's agenda is essential because an important dimension of sUndardsjiased reform is changing schools' organization and structures to more effectively support student and teacher learning. _ ' ... We know that when teachers have time to analyze and reflect on their classroom practice, and to learn from 2 of 5 10/13/98 1
35PM1 c riuj^*r iiiKibiK rr w. Will
x i xxx>>txxiivxikx.iiuxii and collaborate with each other, they become better teachers. This is not rocket science. For example, we know that all students perform better \yhen they are in,small settings where they consistently interact with the same group of students and develop close relationsTups with their teachers. 7\ These small communities of learning also provide better opportunities for teachers to^ tbkn6w dieir students well, and understand how students learn best and what keeps them from learning. We know that when students have extended class time to cover more subject matter and understand it more thoroughly, their learning increases. We know that when teachers have time to analyze and reflect on their classroom practice, and learn from and collaborate with each other, they become better teachers. This is not rocket science. However, in spite of what we know about "what works" in education, there are still m^y, many schools , vzxxvw wKo^uwuxxvxXj *44^xV CUV JLXll Aixcm^y iiKuxy jVXIvUIo y that are not re-forming themselves to create small learning communities, longer periods for instruction, ~ and more time for teacher reflection and collaboration, t his is a serious problem It hnrders on education malpractice. Schools know how to create conditions under which students can learn better and teachers can be more effective, but schools are not acting on what they know to improve education. What would we say about a doctor who.knows about a promising medical.treatmentbut refuses to risk .using it on a jick patient? What would we say about a corporate board of directors that knows there are management practices that can increase the p oductivity of employees and the value of the company's stock but tolerates executives who refuse to i nplement the more effective practices? Why are both of these examples almost ummaginable, but it is acceptable for schools not to act on what they know will benefit students and teachers? This has to change, and it will only change if principals become strong advocates for structural rgforms^that create conditions under which students and teachers will~b^better ableTb perform at higher levels. - What would we say about a doctor who knows about a promising medical treatment but refuses to risk using it on a sick patient? Why is this example almost unimaginable, but it is acceptable for schools not to act on what they know will benefit students and teachers? I make the case here that standards-based refoiin applies to the whole school, not just to teachers and students, and that principals need to exert leadership to ensure that this reform is integral to the school's structure, operations, and culture. In the flnal analysis, however,It will be in classrooms where content and performance standards succeed or fail. This means principals must pay just as much attention to ~ 'teachers'use of content and perfomiahce^standardTTh their cl^srooms ^to the school-wide reforms to support the teachers' ettorts. In Corpus Christi, principals will have to be especially vigilant because there has been some early success in standards implementation. Many teachers have accepted the standards because some of their peers participated in the standards development, and these colleagues have been able to orient other teachers to the standards and explain their purpose. Teachers are also welcoming the standards because across the district they provide common direction about what teachers should teach. Teachers also appreciate knowing how the content they are covering relates to the content students learned, or should have learned, at lower grade levels as 3 of 5 10/13/98 1:35 PM^cipals as leadeis in stanQaras-basea retorm http://middleweb.com/ Hnnstandrcl.titml well as to the content students should leam at higher grade levels. Teachers and students' families seem to like the fact that the standards have introduced coherence, fairness, and predictability to coverage of subject content and instruction. Of course, there is more work ahead. Teachers have to become more skilled at assigning work that will prepare students to perform at standyd and they have to become more proticient at assessing v/hat students actually know and can do. Principals need to make sure teachers are developing and boning these skills in ways that increase student performance. This means that principals need to provide leadership to standards-based reform by spending more time in classrooms. However, occasional visits to classes will not provide principals with the information they need to understand whether standards are spurring teachers towards more effective instruction and more productive student engagement in learning. Principals will have to make time to be in classrooms more routinely, for longer periods of time, and they .will need to go into these classes with ideas about the kinds of changes in teacher practice that ar'e'mdicahv^oT more effective instruction..... This leadership by principals at the classroom level is necessary because there is a looming problem in standards implementation. Now that the school system has developed and disseminated the standards, and teachers have ac'cepte3 them, teachers'jiractice may remain largely unchangecTThere are stiirdassrooms wherg'students j~e engaged m worksheets but where it is less clear how well students understand what they are learning, or whether the worksheets will enable the students to dem^trate^at they know and can do. There are still hallways -with little or no student work, or where there are displays of uncorrected student work. As I have said before, and as I will keep on saying, students will not pefforrh at standard if teachers do not change their practice so theyare more effective /v In engaging students inTeammgT" The school system has academic standards that describe the levels of performance students should demonstrate, but I wonder if the school system has standards for exemplary teacher practice. The school system has promulgated academic standards that delineate the content teachers should cover - and the levels of performance students should demonstrate, but I wonder if the school system has standards for exemplary teacher practice. I am not suggesting that there should be such standards because teaching is truly an art rather than a science. At the same time, however, I do think it would be appropriate for the central office, in collaboration with representative teachers and administrators, to wrestle with identifying pedagogy and^practice that is most likely to enable students to perform at stmdard. If nothing else, this process would help principals develop a point ofview about teacher- behaviors that can increase student performance, and this would, in turn, inform principals' perspectives when they visit classrooms. In any case, the successful implementation of standards-based reform is absolutely dependent on the leadership of principals, and that leadership must be in evidence at the classroom level as well as throughout the school. Principals must develop a clear vision of the kind of teaching they believe is necessary to enable students to perform at standard, and tluough the hiring, support, and supervision of teachers they must provide the leadership to bring that vision to fruition in classrooms. I know your roles are very difficult and the demands on you are very hea-vy. Perhaps you have interpreted these remarks as one more pleading to give priority to a special interest. In a way you are right. I do not apologize for pleading for you to focus your role, your responsibility, and your moral authority on student performance. I do not apologize for asking you to bear the burden of leading true reforms at your schools that you know are best for the education of your students. 4 of 5 10/13/98 1:35 PMPrincipals as leaders in standards-based reform http
//m iddle web. com/Prinstandrd .html I do not apologize for this special pleading because you and this school system are at an important juncture. The academic standards provide the framework for refocusmgyomVcEs ^^^Eori^al Student performance. Now the question is whethei you will compromise the standar^pj^smaU,^!^^ the m^g?ns thi j^^ffireTittleorschoolsand t^cheH
and will yield little or nojgsults^,oFwEeffier you wilt ny the.stand^ds , -1 . 3~-j ----T-------catapult to major reforms in your buildings and classrooms, aiid^n to significantly higher levels oT student performance. " On behalf of the thousands of yom students who are depending on you and your schools, I am asking you to choose e path that is hard for you but full of promise for the young people of this'commimlty. Return to "The New Principal" Return to The Haves Mizell Reader index 5 of 5 10/13/98 1:35 PM4 *//// q 7 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 I August 5,1999 I TO: Everyone t FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley,A, AAcssociate Superintendent for Instruction t SUBJECT: Social Promotion i The U. S. Department of Education has an excellent new publication that you will want to read: Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion. A copy of the Executive Summary is attached. You can get a full copy of the report for yourself by calling 1-877-4ED-PUBS, or you can download it from the website: www.ed.gov. When you read it, youll want to note that we are implementing most, if not all, of the recommendations at the elementary level. i BAL/adg Attachments t I Executive Summary that all students have the best chance to achieve high standards of learning 1 i ! 1 Working to ensure-------------------- demands that educators and state and local leaders take responsibility for giving students the opportunity to meet high expectations and for ending the practice of social promotion-where students are allowed to continue to pass through school with their peers without satisfying academic requirements or meeting performance goals at key grades. In his 1999 State of the Union address. President Clinton called for an end to social promotion. In order to help educators and state and local leaders meet that challenge, the President directed the U.S. Department of Education to draw on lessons from research and practice to prepare this guide on I effective approaches to ending social promotion. I While the practice of passing along students who are unprepared is often hidden, there are indications that the problem is prevalent in many of our nations schools. More than half of teachers surveyed in a recent poll stated that they had promoted unprepared students in the last school year, often because they see no alternative. Research indicates that from 10 to 15 percent of young adults who graduate from high school and have not gone further-up to 340,000 high school graduates each year-cannot balance a checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to explain an error on a bill. If one examines national assessments of student performance, * . 1 _ _ 1_____1 _r_____, A+ fU/a romo timA upwards of a third of students score below the basic level of proficiency. At the same time, analysis of the 1996 Current Population Statistics indicates that only about 3 percent of students 1 /_______3 Ur'7 koAT rpfoinpH are two or more years over age least once). for their grade (a good indication that they have been retained at same time, The issue of ending social promotion has too often been posed as a debate over the relative benefits and disadvantages of promotion versus repeating a grade (retention). Yet we know that neither strategy is appropriate for students who are not meeting high academic standards. Students who are promoted without regard to their achievement tend to faU eyen_fijrth^ejund their classmates as they move through school, and thqs_e_y^o_dgTiptdro2,3Ut usuaUy^nish without having the knowledge and slalls expected of hi .ah school graduates. At the same time_, Vpsearch shows feath^I^gSldents back to repe^ga^ithout changinging^ojLal,, ?i
^
i
wii
7F^Tective. The achievement of retai^students, after repea^_a^de^stiU jags of their peers, and retention also greatly incr^j^e likehhggd&g a out of school. Being held back twice makes dropping out a virtuaUert^v. Retenti^disproportionately affects minority and economically disadvantaged students. To pass students along in school when they are unprepared or retain them without addressing their needs denies students access to opportunities at the next level of schooling, in nostsecondary education, and in the workplace. Both policies send a message to students that little is expected from them, that they have little worth, and that they do not warrant the time and effort it would take to help them be successful in school. The cost of these policies extends beyond individual students to society as a whole. Employers have little confidence in a high school diploma as proof that graduates are prepared with the requisite skills. Colleges and 1 ! 3businesses spend resources providing remedial training for students and employees. Lack of education and skills is highly associated with poverty, crime, and violence among youth and young adults. With pressure increasing to hold students accountable for performance and to end social promotion, and research pointmg to negative findings related to retention, educators may feel they have few choices. The results of both policies are unacceptably high dropout rates, especially for poor and minority students, and madequate knowledge and skills for students. Neither practice closes the learning gap for low-achieving students, and neither practice is an appropriate response to the academic needs of students who have not mastered required coursework. Strategies Social Pr<Mafibiii Compreherisive approaches tO'radii^ socM pfomohoij require leadershipj rraotees, and conunanfty support to: This policy guide offers better options to social promotion and retention by focusing on interventions to help all students meet high expectations. While raising our awareness of the important need for students to meet performance requirements at key grades, ending social promotion is not a stand-alone policy that can be imposed on students. Taking responsibility for ending social promotion requires a comprehensive effort involving all stakeholders to addresses multiple problems and a variety of student needs. It starts with setting high standards and making them count by holding schools accountable for preparing students to meet the standards. A comprehensive approach .to ending social promotion requires early identification of student needs, researchbased strategies for improving learning. Set clear objectives for students to meet performance, standards at key grades. Identify student needs early in order to apply appropriate instructional strategies. Emphasize early childhood literacy. Focus on providing high-quality curriculum and instruction. Provide professional development that - deepens teachers' content knowledge and improves instructional strategies to engage all children in learning. Set out explicit expectations for all stakeholders, including families and communities, in efforts to help end social, promotion. Provide summer school for students who are not meeting high academic standards. Extend learning time through before- and after-school programs, tutoring, homework-centers, and year-round schoolings Reduce class sizes in the primary grades. Keep students and teachers together for more than one year and use other effective student grouping practices. - , Develop transitional and dropout prevention programs for middle arid hi'^ school students. Hold schools accQUihable by publicly reporting school performance, rewardiag school improvement, and intervening in' Isw-performing schools. " and timely intervention for students who need extra assistance to meet standards. It demands that all classrooms have well-prepared teachers and high-quality curricula. It calls for increased J 5 I i I i ! {! f I i JIJ ii family involvement at home and in the school, and it calls for greater community support of educational activities. 5 i 1 I The guide shows how states and districts can set a policy context for high expectations and success, how schools can prevent and intervene to reduce school failure, and how these strategies can be sustained through ongoing support for school improvement. The guide concludes with an inventory of federal resources available to help states, districts, and schools end social promotion. i i i I
I Taking Responsibility There is widespread agreement among the public that schools need to set higher standards than now exist for what students should know and be able to do to be promoted. The first step in taking responsibility for ending social promotion requires states and districts to develop clear and challenging standards for all stodents. There must be clear objectives for students to meet performance standards at key grades (e.g., every child should be able to read well and independently by the end of the third grade). States and districts also need to set explicit policies about the promotion of students and must take responsibility for making sure that students receive the help they need to meet the requirements -- including providing the necessary resources for schools to help students, and intervening in schools that fail to provide students with the skills they need to succeed. Districts "such as Chicago, Tacoma (Washington), Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Corpus Christi (Texas), and New York City, and states such as Delaware, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, and Oregon have stepped up their efforts to improve student achievement by adopting policies to end social promotion and providing support and assistance to students who are unprepared for the next grade. Assessment is an important issue in efforts to end social promotion. Schools must be able to accurately measure student progress toward achieving performance standards, but education leaders must take care when deciding how assessments are used to influence student promotion decisions. There must be adequate educational justification for the use of the tests, evidence of validity and rehability for the populations tested, adequate prior notice to parents, and adequate opportunity for students to become familiar with the curriculum-bgmg. tested. States, districts, and schools should not rely upon one assessment as the sole measure for making educationally sound promotion decisions. Rather, a rich variety of measures of student progress are central to making student promotion decisions and diagnosmg problems early. High standards, clear policies, and high-quality assessments are the starting point from which other practices must be developed and aligned. Schools must concentrate on providing high- quality curriculum and instruction aligned with high standards and get all stakeholders-includii^g family and community members-involved in helping all students reach high standards. i iii ! IStarting Early I i To prepare students to meet high standards we must start early. By having a range of positive early learning experiences, young children broaden their knowledge and develop their skills. Early childhood education can help educators identify children possibly at risk of school failure and take steps to ensure their readiness for school and successful learning in the early grades. Starting early is particularly important to help students develop literacy skills. Reading must be introduced to children at a very young age, integrated into preschool activities, and reinforced at home. Across the nation, educators are recognizing the significance of early intervention. Chicagos Cradle to Classroom program works with 700 young mothers each year to give them the skills they need to stimulate their childrens minds as well as to care for them physically, emotionally, and socially. The citys Parents as Teachers program trains parents to visit the homes of r,500 preschoolers to help them develop preliteracy skills. In Charlotte-Mecklenburg the district has directed the great majority of its Title I funds toward its Bright Beginnings prekindergarten program. In collaboration with Head Start, the program gives four-year-old children a literary-rich, full day prekindergarten experience. Strengthening Learning Opportunities in the Classroom I I s i If students are to be held more accountable for their acadeimc performance and made to accept consequences for not meeting standards at key grades, schools must provide adequate opportouties for students to meet expectations on time. Educators must use data effectively to identify at-risk students before they fall too far behind. They must ensure that all students have access to good teachers by recruiting qualified teachers, providing teachers with high-quality i ( professional development opportunities, establishing mentoring and networking relationships ^ong teachers, andjroviding incentives for good teachers to work in the most needy schools. Educators and leaders also must take advantage of research-based practices to enhance student achievement
these include flexible student grouping, keeping teachers and students together for more than one year (looping), " t I I i 1 cooperative learning, tutoring, and reducing class size. Schools must also strengthen learning opportunities for students with limited English proficiency, migrant students, and students with disabilities by providing them with appropriate educational services and accommodating their unique needs. This guide highlights examples of transitional programs for Along -with ending the practice of social promotion we must provide extra help for children after school and in the summer so that we don 'tjust identify children as failures, but instead say, we re going to give you more help until you succeed. -President Clinton, July 1998 non-English speaking immigrants and distance learning projects for migrant students. ivExtending Learning Time 1 i J 4 I 1 I i i I 1 1 S i
Programs that extend learning time-such as summer school, after-school programs, and ye^- round schooling-can help prepare students academically and developmentally to move to tte next grade. Mandatory summer school is a central feature of efforts to end social promotion in Nev^I^i^n, and Washington D.C. The 21st Century Commumty Learning Centers proffam, for example, enables schools to provide expanded learmng opportunities for :OTaftCT^ool, on weekends, and during the summer in a safe, drug-free, and supervised chi
The centers offer homework assistance, intensive tutoring in basic skills. environment. otter homeworK assisxance, mtcubivc m uaoiv counseling to prevent drug use and violence, and enrichment in core academic subjects, as well as opportunities to participate in recreational activities, the arts, technology education programs. and services for children and youth with disabilities. The centers are supported through school- OliU OVi w*.***---J-------- 11 community partnerships that include public and nonprofit agencies and organizations, local businesses, and educational entities. Helping Students Still Do Not Meet Standards For students who still have difficulty meeting standards despite prevention and early intervention efforts, repeating a grade with the same instniction over again has been found to be ineffective. These students need alternatives that help th'm develop the skills they need to acmeye. But intervention services usually dinainish in the upper grades, just as these students face tough challenges and peer pressure that can seriously affect their academic lives. Establishmr effective high school transition and dropout prevention programs can help. For example. Long Beach (CA) Unified School District assigns eighth-graders who fail two or more classes to the Long Beach Preparatory Academy, a year-long alternative program that has smaller classes than regular ninth-grade classes
Counselors work closely with students and their families. In the programs first year of operation, almost 90 percent of participants earned promotion to the nmth grade. Holding Schools Accountable for Performance and Helping Them Improve Ig Ending social promotion requires real accountability for results, and this accountabili^ must "STwiOie schoo'is. Many states and districts have taken steps to hold schools more 'accountable for student performance. Thirty-two states publish annual school report cards. Some states distribute the report cards to parents, and the contents of the reports often are published by local newspapers. State, district, and school leaders alike claim that this form of be a motivating force in school improvement efforts. To take public accountability can responsibility for ending social promotion also means that states and districts must intervene to improve schools that are failing, as well as reward schools that do make significant progressm helping all students meet performance standards. President Clinton and the U.S. Department of Education are committed to helping to end social promotion This guide concludes with an inventory of resources firom the U.S. Department of Education to help states, districts, and schools in the effort. The inventory starting on page 58 describes federal programs and assistance available and lists helpful documents. Vi s 1 LegM^tiea LeafniBg Clp^jtoniiSes National Class Size Reduction IhitiaUve: In October 199s Pr/^cid^nt n- te SSt" ? "S' 'ndt, hire, ..^d S' teachers and help reduce class sizes, particularly in the early grades. J^ellence Act: Two years ago President Clinton issued a challenge to help <^ldrcn.be able to read well and independently by fte end of third president si^d legislarion &at wiB provide $260 mil linn chil&eh to develop literacy skills. grade. In 1998, the to help more than 500,000 competitive-grant program provides $120 million mentonnf, tutoring, enrichment programs, and other aciivines c' " awareness and oollege-going rates among low-income students ' to support activities designed to increase Community Learning Centers: $200 miffion in 1999 s ! m a a priority for I 5 J i hggall students reach high standards. It ftajoaMmffitoen.to .fbrperfoimance. It requires a focu^ of collective responsibility that can that^sc^kmdj^dents b^hddl^^^ l^-?,?J5?.OHLq.es-_.^d itd^^ V HpX/Al/\r\ ., only develop when expectations and a sense consequences are clearly communed within the. Qrhnni
7j narrn'TTj'n ^ons^nces are clearly matag su.k., .1, child,if^^
^^ggaS^a responsibility for ending social promotion. vi 1 I 15 / ' - / ?//y/77 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 August 17, 1999 TO
Everyone FROM
Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent, for Instruction SUBJECT
Curriculum Standards Teachers, K-12, will be implementing new curriculum standards and grade-level/ course benchmarks in English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies this year. We focussed on the critically important instructional strategies that will be required for student success in meeting those standards in the preschool inservice. Now the real work of translating standards/benchmarks into daily lesson plans beains. Teachers will need our support and ongoing professional development. Attached is an art.i.c.l e from t.1h e kM aa_r_c_hI- A1 999 issue of EduI cationrsa oJ I IL oeoaHdoerrcsKhiine tthhaatt I hope you find to be helpful. BAL/rcm .11^ 1-' 0 I * i-J To avoid curricular chaos, educators must be judicious about the standards they assess. Mike Schmoker and Robert J. Marzano . \ b O The standards movement is arguably a major force in education today, and some researchers assen that the significance of the standards campaign will be huge. Undoubtedly, historians will identify the last decade of this centurj' as the time when a concentrated press for national education standards emerged (Glaser & Linn, 1993, p. xiii) But will the standards movement endure? .\nd if it does, will it contribute significantly to higher achievement? We believe it willbut only if we rein in its most excessive tendencies. Those tendencies can be seen in the nature and length of state and professional standards documents and in their unintended consequences. The Promise of the Standards Movement Make no mistake: The success of any organization is contin-gent upon clear conunonl^_' _d_e_f_i_n_e_d_ g_oals. A well-articulated focus unleashes individual and collective energy'. And a common focus clarifies understanding, accelerates commum-cation, and promotes persistence and collective purpose (Rosenholtz, 1991). This is the stuff of improvement. The promise of standards can be seen in places like Frederick County, Maryland, where the number of students reaching well-defined and commonly assessed standards rose dramatically, lifting them from the middle to the highest tier in Maryland schools. Local assessments were deliberately aligned with standards as they' were embedded in the state assessments. Fon Logan Elementary School in Denver, Colorado, where scores rose significantly when teams of teachers analyzed weaknesses in performance relative to grade-level standards. Each team reviewed test data and developed strategies for helping students leam in identified areas of difficult}'. Lake Havasu City, Arizona, where teams of Title 1 teachers identified, defined, and focused instruction on common reading skills. Once teachers had a shared language about which skills to concentrate on. they improved strategies and systems to improve instructional quality- and consistency . As a result, the number of students reading at or above grade level rose from 20 to .A3 percent in just one year. Glendale Union High School District near Phoenix, Arizona, where teams of teachers have increased student performance for almost every course offered. All district teacherswhether they teach algebra, U.S. history, biology. I or senior Englishare teaching to the same year-end assess- ments developed by subject-are-.i teams. The same coordina-o lion is happening at Adlai Stevenson High School in I .\TlO \ to H S I' IM-R s l?> I o AN1> Cl RRlCni.OM Drvvi Ol'.Mr.N i 17 W ' b I i< SSI t
4 -*r ^-1 Wq I 2j M I feV' 1 o &, } \ 15 M i?e :i!^ J '"^1 RS^ Si Lincolnshire. Illinois, where teacher teams continue to set measurable achievement records on every kind of assessment. Amphitheater High School in Tucson. Arizona, where teacher Bill Hendt routinely helps exceptional numbers of students pass advanced placement tests by carefully focusing instruction on the standards made explicil by the .\1 exam. How did they get these results? Inter- estingh. not by focusing on standards contained in state or professional documents. Their eftoRs preceded those documents, \onetheless. in each case. Ictichcrs hillll- cxiully irbiH .iliideiils nceited tn Iviii-ii. a ha! t'l Iciicb In. irhcrc In iiulimi-c. nml ii iinl In iinrh nil irilh cnlliiiyin-.-i. I leiir. tommon able ii learning MundartSman
numberpromote bettt r results. 'fhey_ are es-scnnal to locus anti to coherence. II Ibis is true, then etlucalors face iwo important tiuesiions: 11) Do c alreatly have MiriK ienih clear''Uuulard' and (2) \rc M.ilv and |in>lcssiHnal -.laiiilard- i [very teacher deserves a clear, manageable, grade-by-grade set of standards ' and learning benchmarks that make sense and allow a reasonable measure of autonomy. Anything less is frustrating, inhumane, and counterproductive. documents truly helping us achieve the focus and the coherence that are vital to success? In too many cases, the answer to both questions is no. Don't We Already Have Standards? (luriously. standards in most districts arc often similar. We have curriculums, scope, and sequence for each grade level, course, and subject area. But the perception of a common, coherent program of teaching and learning i.s a delusion line of us once sat with a curriculum coordinator, ponng through a dense curriculum notebook of the gr.iJe-by-grade" learner '" The diicunient wa.s years in diMricl.s g 1 utc< imc.s ilu- making, Nonc'.lielcas. when the cijiirdinainr was asked wliai iiilluence the curriculum was having on instnic- tion. she was candid enough to reply probably none." Consultant and author Heidi Hin es Jacobs likes to say that curriculum guides are well-intended fictions." Her conclusion is that the current system actual!} encourages teachers to simply teach what they like to teach. It i.s time to admit that at the ground level, where teaehers teach and students learn, there is not coherence, but chaos. The chief problem i.s that there is simply too much to teach arguably iwo to three times loo much tschmidt. .McKnigbl. ck
Kaizen. IWi- and loo main options for what can be taught (Hosenholtz. 1901). There are enormous ilifferenees in what teachers teach in the same subiect al the same 18 I |>
I A I l.i\ M 11 Ihl U'-llir/'l Me i
I ')p,II 1 grade level in the same school. In en when eommon. higbb structured texlbook.s are used as the basis lor a curriculum, teachers make independent and idiosyncratic decisions regarding what should be emphasized, what should be added, and what should be deleted (see. for example. Doyle. 1992). Such practices create huge holes in the continuum of content to which student.s are exposed. In The Learning Gap, researchers Sics'enson and Stigler (1992, p. 140? observe that teachers are daunted by the length of most textbooks." In a system that does little or nothing to help them coordinate priorities, the\' are forced to select or to omit different topics haphazardb'. This only add.s to the prevailing chaos. Standards and School Improvement The implications of this chao.s go to the heart of school improvement. Researcher Susan Rosen-holtz found that (The hallmark of any successful organization is a shared sense among its members about what thev are tri ing to accomplish. Agreed-upon goals and ways to attain them enhance the organization's capacin/or rational planning and action. (1991. p. 13: our s^mphasis) For this reason, she was dismayed to find that schools were unique among organizations in lacking common goals and that the goals of teaching were multiple, shifting and frequently disputed " (p. 13). This state of chaos wa.s the rationale ^1 for the standanls movementand the most visible and influential manitest.i-tions arc the state and professional stan-dartls documents, fet these documents themselve.s have contributed to the vein problems they were intended to solve. '.he Perils of Standards-Based Education Less is more' we keep telling ourselves. Students learn more when i U.S. schools would bpnetil from ' d?crcasinq the amount of content they try to cover. we leach lessbut teach it well (Dempster, 199.3). Nowhere i.s thi.s principle more obviously violated than in the standards documents, flic official documents generated by -19 states and the professional subject-area organizations have had unintended consequences. Commentator Ronald 'Wolk has found some of them not only to be written in language that is absurd but also to contain such quantin' that it would take 9 & a , J i 'j. In Glendale, Arizona, foreign language teachers assess students' work to obtain datalor curriculum improvement. a 10-hour teaching day to cover the material in them (1998). Because it is easier to add and enlarge than to reduce and refine, we are caught in the snare of having honored (perhaps for political reasons) far too man) suggestion, for inclusion in the standards documents. We have often failed to place bard hut practical limits on the number and the nature of the standards, fhe result? Bloated and poorlv written standards that almost no one can realistie.illy teach to or ever hope to adequaieb assess. W e are making the same mistakes with these documents that we made with our district curriculums. In the ease of standards, quaniio' is not qualiii. The iron) ol the I hirsl Inter A'Mii lA I HI'. I hi
M I'i KI I'HI'' ' M) Cl Rlllfl l.liM Dl'Vl I OlMI.NI 1- national .Mathematics and Science Study I'I'IMSS) shouts at us: Although b.S. maihcmatics texlbook.s attempt to address I "5 percent more topics than do Cicrman textbooks and .350 percent more topics than do.lapanese textbooks. both German and Japanese student.s significantly outperform U.S. students tn mathematics. Similarly, although U.S. science textbooks attempt to cover 930 percent more topic.s than do German tcxtbook.s and 433 percent more topics than do Japanese textbooks, both German and Japanese students significantly outperform U.S. students in science achievement as well (Schmidt, McKnigl
:, & Raizen, 1996). Clearly, U.S. schools would benefit 1 from decreasing the amount of content they ua to cover. And teacher morale and self-efficacy improve when we confidently lay out a more manageable number of essential topics to be taught and assessed in greater deptli. Getting Standards 1 Right 94 Too many of the sure Stangl dards documents, informed . I as they are by the profes-sional subject-area standards, I have frustrated rather than helped our attempt to provide common focus and clariw for teachers and students. The good news is this
Clear, intelligible standards are a pillar of higher achievement. Aligned with appropriate assessments, they can help U.S realize the dream of learning for all. They are the heart of the infrastructure for school improvement (Rosenholtz, 1991
Fullan & Stiegelbauer. 1991). The Standards-Driven School Consider a school where teachers know exactly what essential skills and knowledge students should learn that sear and where they know that their colleagues are teaching to the same manageable standards. Recause of this, their fellow teachers can collaborate with them on lessons and units. This in turn lead.s to a living bank of ai 1 proven, siandards-relcrenccd instructional material lessons, units, and assessments perfected through action research. Both new and veteran teachers can peruse these targeted materials, learning from and adding to the richness of the faculty's repertoire. Because of these rich resources, new and struggling teachers achieve confidence and competence much more rapidly, and experienced teachers have a sense of making a meaningful, ongoing contribution to their craft while being renewed by instructional ideas that are engaging for students. Proven methods, practices, and lessons aligned with established standards become the center of the professional dialogue. Results on local, state, and formative assessments get better and better. Such an alignment leads inevitably to better short- and long-term results on local and state assessments as well as on norm-referenced, alternative, and criterion-referenced assessments. To create this infrastructure in schools, we can take a i few concrete steps: I. Start with the standards that are assessed. Be circum-spect about standards that are not assessed. After thoroughly reviewing the state standards documents, we believe that many of them never will be thoroughly assessed. Many of the existing standards that educators are working manically to cover" will disappear because of their own irrelevancy and imprecision. Expending orga-nized effort on evert standard is senseless because many of them Will turn out to be ephemeral. Start by focusing teaching on the standards actually contained in current state norm-referenced or criterion-referenced assess-nicnts. As state assessments develop, real prioritics become clear. And tve must i-iriT3ll wc can about how to teach to these priorities most effectively Teachers in Colonido. now ihat they know the reading and writing standards 20 lint a rio.sAi t.e.*I*Ft<siii*'/.M.xit#.11 : Il is time for us to admit that at the qrounu level, where teachers teach and students learn, there is not coherence, but chaos. through their experience with the state assessments, arc responding in a positive and coordinated fasliion. Many schools, like Bessemer Elementarv- in Pueblo, which has an 80 percent minority population. have realized dramatic gains. At Bessemer, from 1997 to 1998, the number of students performing at or above the standard in reading rose from 12 percent to 64 percent. In writing, they went from 2 percent to 48 percent. Weekly standards-based team meetmgs made the difference. Teacher Steve Ducey at Sunnyslope High School in Glendale, Arizona, assesses a student bridge design. State and standardized assessments do not measure eveiything we deem important, hut success on such tests in this age of accountability is vital. Strong standardized scores cam us the trust of our communities as we begin to demon-stratc measurable progress on local criterion-referenced and alternative assessments. In districts where improvement on formal, public assessments is ol the essence, we should assemble clear lists of the standard.s and prollciencies that the assessments will require of I HOM students. District offices and regional consonium.s must take the initiative here. They must assemble representative teams of teachers to developand provide everv' teacher witha precise, manageable list of the essential, assessed standards. Every school year, the full faculty should conduct a review of assessment results. Teams of teachers should identify the most pronounced patterns of student weakness, then seek absolute clarin' on the nature of these proble.ms. Through staff development and regular, professional collaboration, teachers should focus on these areas, while monitoring progress regularly. 2. Reyond state assessments, add judiciously to the list of standards you will teach and assess. For Michael Fullan, assessment is the coherence-maker in school improvement (1998, personal communication). Because of the limitations of state and norm-referenced tests, we must develop local and district standards and assessments that take us beyond them. Districts should revdew 1 the standards documents, but S j1i then exercise severe discipline in prioritizing on the t basis of what students Will I most need if they are to I become reflective tliinkers, competent workers, and I responsible citizens. For even I grade or level, pilot your new I standards and assessments while asking the question, -An tlie standards clear, relevant, and not so numerous that they sacrifice depth over breadth? Dont be afraid to do a rough accounting of time for teacliing topics. Adlai Stevenson High School has achieved world-class results in this way Glendale Union High School District ha done a masterful job of successfully concentrating on norm-referenced test while implementing a coherent system of formative and end-ol-course alternative assessments for high school courses. These assessments require students to do investigative science and lo write analyses about social and 3 J J I 3 historical issuesail ttccording to clear standards anti criteria. These common, teacher-made tessessments embody and clarify precisely those thinking and reasoning standards that norm-referenced tests don t adequately assess. The result is an education that ensures a level of both breadth and substance that goes far beyond what is now required of the average high school graduate. Perhaps the best time to dt clop such standards-based assessments is summer. Such work doesn't always require enormous amounts of time or resources. In Lake Havasu City, Arizona, educators developed common K-12 assessments in almost every subject area for about 525,000 over a two-year period. They took only four days to prioritize core science standards and generate common K-12 assessments. 3. Do not add more topics than can be taught and assessed reasonably and effectively. A key to developing science assessments in Lake Havasu City was following open discussions with fast, fair rank-ordering procedures that used w'eighted voting to quickly establish priority standards. Because we can expect educators to differ in philosophy and priority-, every school employee could benefit from training in the use of these simple decision-making tools. The tendency toward overload is strong in schoolsand crippling to improvement efforts (Fullan & Hargreaves. 1996). .A district we know has received high praise for showcase work by developing grade-by-grade benchml
arks for the state standards. For 4th i grade, educators developed 210 items to be taught in math, but 125 of these were also to be taught in si.': to eight other grades. In another district, in . another state, there are only 17 items for 4th grade math, and they're written in language that is clear to parents and teachers. _ .Al the local and state levels, we must dentand that economy and clarity mf^n all standards and that they he meaningfullynot |ust rhetorically aligne(,l with assessments. Eveiy teacher deserve.s a dear, manageable, gradc-by- gr,.
kIc sei of .staiit-lards and learning benchmarks that make sense and allow a reasonable measure ol autonomy. Anything less i.s Irusiraiing, inhumane. and counterproductive. Standardswhen we gel them rightwill give u.s the results we want. But this will require hard-headed, disciplined effort. Tlie lesson of TIMSS should considerably diminish the perceived risk of downsizing the curriculum. The very nature of organizations argues that we succeed when all parties are rowing in the same direction. \Ve wall realize the promise of school reform when we esublish stan- McREL Researches Curriculum-Based Reform Curriculum-based reform, which aligns curriculum with content and performance standards, is sweeping education systems. But what makes curriculum-based reform effective? The Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL) is heading a series of studies to survey the implementation of this reform approach and its impact on student achievement. McREL researchers have identified four state-level components for successful curriculum-based reform: an ongoing standards review, a professional development plan, an assessment program, and an accountability system. Although 80 percent of states reported that they impose sanctions when school or I district assessment results are low. I only 55 percent of states reported that assessment is tightly aligned to standards. And more than 45 states require that all students meet standards and participate in standards-based assessment projects. The reports "Curriculum Reform: 1 WV V ht IaOtk SJitaaltwe Ov-rrf f' icials -S'a-7y Works" -an d- 1 "Taking Stock of States' Curriculum-i Based Reform Efforts" are available I frorri l /icREL, Curriculum, Learning i and Instruction. Project, 2550 South I Parke' Rd., Ste. 500, Aurora, CO ! 80014-1678 (Web site: ' \v\wy mcrefcgi. I (.lards and expectations for reaching them that arc clear, not conftising
essential, not exhaustive. The result will be a new coherence and a shared focus that could be the most propitious step we can take toward educating all students well. References Dempster, F. N. (1993). Exposing our students to less should help them leam. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 432-437. Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy'. In P. W. .Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research in curriculum (pp. 486-516). New York
Macmillan. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer. S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York
Teachers College Press. Glaser, R., & Linn, R. (1993). Foreword. In L. Shepard (Ed.), Setting performance standards for student achievement (pp. xiii-xiv). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education, Stanford University. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1996). Splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education: Executive summary. Lansing, Ml
U.S. National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can leam from Japanese and Chinese education. New- York: Summit. Wolk, R. (1998). Doing it right. Teacher Magazine. 7 0(1). 6. Mike Schmoker (e-mail: mschmoke mcrel.org) is author of Results: The Key to Continuous School improvement (ASCD, 1996). Robert J. Marzano is coauthor of A Comprehensive Guide to Designing Stenderds-Based Districts, Schools, and Classrooms (ASCD/McREL, 1997) and Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for K-12 education (McREl/ASCD, 1996). Schmoker is Senior Consultant, School Improvement, and Marzano is Senior Fellow for McREL, 2550 S. Parker Rd., Ste. 500, Aurora, CO 80014-1678. i.\n(is roi! Snrr.HvisioN and Ci'RRicm.iiM Dro rioi'Mf.NT 7 6 fi -iS Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge September 16,1999 McRel Institute 2550 S. Parker Road, Suite 500 Aurora, CO 80004 We request permission to make copies of Appendix E, pp. 347-419 of Essential Knowledge: The Debate Over What American Students Should Know to use in discussions with curriculum committees of principals and teachers in the Little Rock School District. We further request permission to benchmark these terms by grade level and course and to include in our curriculum documents. Please call me at 501/324-2131 or email me at baiesie@irc.irsd.ki2.ar.us additional information. if you need Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg 810 W Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000 fax: 501-324-2032 7 LL TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 (501) 324-2131 November 4, 1999 Everyone Dr. Bonnie Lesley, AASs!sociate Superintendent for Instruction Standards-Based Reform We all know that change of any kind is difficult. Before we know it, people with the best intentions slip back into the comfort zone - the way theyve always done it. Weve had one quarter of instruction now based on the new K-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Weve spent a great deal of time and money training teachers in new instructional strategies that are necessary for aN students to meet the new standards. But has anything really changed? In many, many cases, absolutely! My heart is warmed by the stories I am collecting. In other cases, I know the answer is negative. So we must all be relentless in our expectations that teachers teach the new curriculum and relentless in our expectation that ajl children can and will learn. Every child must be taught the tested curriculum, and thats part of what standards enable us to do. The attached article will be helpful to you. It is written by Mike Schmoker, who wrote Results: The Kev to Continuous School Improvement, and Robert Morzano, who v/rote Essential Knowledge. You are culturally deprived if you dont know both of these books. ! IJ There are excellent suggestions in the article for your Campus Leadership Teams agenda. Be sure to discuss this information with them. We will review our standards at the end of the year. Well need your schools feedback. II Attachment BAL/rcm I i i rP.- 1^-' !
i 1 - . r J I i -A i' f I j To avoid curricular chaos, educators must be judicious about the standards they assess. Mike Schmoker and Robert J. Marzano .............................r^SsAS 4^. The standards movement is arguably a major force in education today, and some researchers assert that the significance of the standards campaign will be huge. Vndoubtcdlv, historians will identify the last decade of diis century as the time wher. a concentrated press for national education standards emerged (Glaser & Linn. 19S3. p. xiii). But will the standards movement endure? .And if it does, will it contribute significantly to higher achievement.' Xve believe it willbut only if w^e rein in its most excessive tendencies. Those tendencies can be seen in the nature and length of state and professional standards documentsand tn their unintended consequences. .it .. IW vAy5:3-^'^*,}
.fv- '3. ?* ii"r..rf- 1. -. .w":f Sr i' V' .r**?
' .f? {?" " < a'TSK'.fTC & s . r "I-' '^i Z*rJ ,1''' IJ The Promise of the Standards Movement Make no mistake: The success of any organization is contin-gent upon clear, commonly defined goals. A well-articulated focus unleashes individual and collective energt'. And a common focus clarifies understanding, accelerates communication. and promotes persistence and collective purpose (Rosenlioltz, 1991). This is e stuff of improvement. The promise of standards can be seen in places like Frederick Counw, Maryland, where the number of students reaching well-defined and commonly assessed standards rose dramatically, lifting them from the middle to the highest tier in Manland schools. Local assessments were delib-eratelv aligned wi standards as tlicy were embedded in the state assessments. Fon Logan Elementin' School in Denver. Colorado, where ri' ^*1 f" r .aSS , i:/ +\V <- .i
> ' ' -W -M-tX scores rose significantly v/hen teams of teachers anah'zed !k -.:. A. 2 ry s*' b^- If' "f i^~
r 2.y *1 El U-f S F" ?- I.-. Si jME^ weaknesses in performance relative to grade-level stantods. Each team reviewed test data and developed strategies for helping students leant in identified areas of difnculp'. Like Havasu Ciw. Arizona, where teams of Title J-teachers identified, defined, and focused instruction on comnton reading skills. Once teachers had a shared language about which skills to concentrate on. they improved strategies and svstems to improve instructional qualip' and consistency. As a result, the number of siudent.s reading at or above gride let el &HJt-. , Af .k. ' ^VkA. .Jtt' L, rose trom 20 tn 5S porcen: in just one ^^ear. Glcnd.ak- Pninn High School District net Phoenix. i^'1 / *S.7W -**.^** 'W i*' Ji./ ^fc. -Il*, ** - { Arizona, where teams of teachers ha\ e increased student pcrl'ormance for almost evers' course offered. .All district teacherswhether they teach algebr.i. t'.S. histon . biology, or .senior Englishare teaching to the same year^end iissess- I mcni.': developed b\' siihicct-area team^ 'I he same coordina-iion is happening at Ailkii bxvenson High School in A.^^o'. iMh^ roll sii'i:n\moN .\si^ CiuwHt.' m I)' l hu-m i. vi r S: Iii S Z *rX^ '^2 I
.
i A! o I il
S p-l"*- * ^- i ^!::>^ 'iwii IB r3LS-rt..... nrr sit 4! t : % 9 S-'i. Lincolnshire. Illinois, where teacher xcains continue to set measurable achievement record on ever}' kind oi assessment. Amphitheater High School in T.iCson. .An.ona. wliere teacher Bill nv. Ks J Every teacher deserves a clear, manageable, qrade-bv-qrade set of standards and learning benchmarks that make sense and allow a reasonable measure of autonomy. Anything less is frustrating, inhumane, and counterproductive. I ndt routinely helps exceptional tmbers ol student.s pas.-, advanced acement tests by caretiilly focusing strtiction on the standards made cxpbcii b> liiC '.? exam. documents truly helping us achieve the focus a.ad the cohcre.".cc t.hat arc vital to success? In too many cases, the answer to both questions is no. the ciirricnlum a.is havir tion. she wiis cand: enci en instruc- :1
to reply Hc Xilf r^idtliv h. no
b'. ned in si
)- li these roLi'.is? Ir.lcr-r fn standards
. ir nr'he.ssi'.jnal doev.-
ort^ pi ceded those ?i
'.icu.T.e .oneii k in each case. icuclvi-.i ejzc.r c.v..'-. qT whu! slndeiils n-eiled ('> Icarh :> h(ili leach la. irhei'c Kt iailvm c. aiii! irl.hit la irarh ttU i: ih calk 'iio. ( k-ar. eommon ii arniim standa:'kismanageable in ,^^,qit-n^.| _-]iriinioie better rcMihs. I he\ an Vsscnnal lo men-'
ind m coherence. 1! (his I' O'Ui. then edikator* late two anporiant tiue.suon'' ( I ) Do we alreadv 11.1.
- .tilliciviul'. ilc.ir s'aiHtai.ht ,iu.l 12) \r. ^iiitL uihI m.''cs''ionnl ^t-ini.-uil'. 18 Don't We Already Have Standards? (.uriousi
. standartls in most dLstricts arc often similar. Vi e have curriculums. probably none." Consultant: Heidi 'Hayes Jacobs iike.s to s. curriculum guides are "weh-i: fictions." Her conclusion i' th current system actually enc.r. and autlini . that ttcndetl itt
the J' teachers to simpb teach waat they L scop
. and sequence for each grade Hl te-ach. ft i.s time to admit that at
round. level, course, and subject area. But the perception ol a commoi.. coherent program ol teaching and learnin.g is a delusion. One ol us once s.it with a curriculum coordinator, ponng through a dense curriculum noiebool
oi the district s gr.ide-b\ -grade learner tniuxmics. I bc (.kciiincni wa.*' ycac.'' in. t!ic 111.iking. .\niicilulcs.s. w hen thf (.inirdin.iUr wat'' wlu: itifliicuvc* level, where teachers teach .ir.d stLa.lent.s learn, there is not coherence, but chaos. The chiei problem is that there-MS simptv too much lo each iirgiiablv two to llii'cc linic'' too ir.iic.b (Sehmidi. .Mcknight. l<a'' 'll. 1900)- and too mans- options lor w ha taught (Hosenhoh/ lb)I i can be I here are enormous dil'lerences in Vx hat leai lit i * teach in the same subb'Ct at the ^anle grad, level in the same school. I veii when common, highh structured ii-xlbooks are used as the ba'i' fora curriculum, teachers make indepeniicni and idiosvncratic decisions regarding what should be emphasized, what should be added, and whai should bv deleted (see. for example. Doyle. 199). .Such practices create huge boles in the continuum of content to which student.' are e.\posed. In ZZie l.eariihr^ (rd/i. researchers .Siesenson and Stigler (1992. p. NO) obsen e that teachers are daunted by the length of most textbooks." In a system that doe.' little or nothing to help them coordinate priorities. they are forced to select or to omit different topics haphazardly. Thi.s only avid.' to the prevailing chaos. U.S. schools would benefit from decreasing the amount of content thev trv to cover. we leach lessbut leach it well (l)emp- Sier. I'W.i). Nowhere is this principle more obviousiv violated ilian in the siandaixl.' slocuments. The ofllcial docu-mcnis ncnited b\- 9 stales and the proiessional subject-area organizations have has! unintended consequences. Commentator Ronald V oik ha.s found some o' them not only to be written in language that is -absurd' but also to co.m.ain such, quantity that it would take naliona! .Mtnliem.nics and Science .siudv I ri.MSS) shouts at us
.Mihough li.s. inalheniatics lexibooks attempt to addres.s 15 percent more topic.' than do (ierman textbooks and .-.SO percent more lopics than do Japanese textbooks. both (lerman andja sanese students signilicanily outperform I'.S. student.' in mathematics. Similarly. although T.S. science textbooks attempt to cover y.-IO percent more topics than do (ierman te.xtbooks and percent more topics than do Japanese textbooks. both (Terman and Japanese students significantly outperform l..S student.' in science achievement as well (Schmidt. .McKnight. & Raizen. ipyd). Clearly. t.'..S. schools would benefit Stanciards ani^ School Improvement The implication.' of this chaos go to the hean of school improvement. Researcher .Susan Rosen-holu found that The hallmark of any successful organization is a shurea s^ among its sr a J member.' about what th.ey are trying to accomplish. .^greed-upon goals and ways to attain them enhance the organiza-tion's capacity for rat-onalplanning and action. (I9)l. p. l.'l: our emplvasis) from decreasing the amount of content thc\' try to cover. .\nd teacner morale and self-efficacy improve when we confidently lay out a more manageable number of essential topics to be taught and assessed in greater depth. H' k' /rift. S.-Tfe -w n In Glsndale, Arizona, foreign language teachers assess students' work to obtain data for curriculum improvement. Getting Standards Rijht Too many of the state standard,' documents, informed a.' they are by tlie professional subject-area standards, have frustrated rather than helped our anerapt to provide common focus and claritv for teachers and For this reason, she was dismat ed to find
h:it schools is crc unique among orgaCiizatioi :kiiig common goais and that the goals of teaching were "multiple, shifting and frequently disputed" ip. I.'). "Hiis state ol chaos wa.' the rationale for the standards movementant! the most visible and inilueiitial manilesia-iioiis are ihe sl.iic and profession.!! si.in-tl
irds_tlocumen!s 'ivt tliese vlociimenl' themselves h.ive conirihuled Io llie \ ers problems ihey. were intended lo sobe a Ill-hour teaching ckiy to cover the material in them (1998). Because it is easier tn add and enlarge th..n to reduce and refine, we are caught in the snare of having honored (perhaps for political reasons) tar too r n\ Migi :>tion.' lor inclusion in the standards documents. \\ e haee often failed to place hard hut practical limits on the number .ind the nature of the siaadarils. 'Hie result' Bloated and students. The good news is this: Clear, intelligible standards are a pillar of . higher acltievement. Aligned iritb '7*' appropriate assessments, they can help 11.' realize the'dream of Icaniing for all. They are the heart of the infrastructure for school improvement (Rosenlioltz, 1991
Fullan & Stiegelbauer. 1991). poorh wriller anilards ihai almost no The Standards-Driven School"^ (.onsider a school where teachers know exactly wh.at essentia! skill.' and knowl- The Perils of Standards-Based Education "Less is more we keep telling oui'elves. Miideili' learn more uiieu one c.in rciili'iicalb teach |.> or ever h.ipc lo adei|ualch asses.' Weare making the same mi'iakc' wiih iliesc dociimeni' ihai e iii.iilc with our di'iricl eiirricule.m' hl Ihi va.eol 'l.iiitlarvls. qicmiilv is not qii.ihlv Iheiroiiv ol llie Hurd Inier-cilgc students should learn that y ,r and \v here thev know that their colleagues are leaching to the same manageable standards. Because of this, ihcir fellow teachers can collaboraie with them on lesson.' anti units. I his in turn Icatl.s lo a living bank of \ I V I H t \ i < 1 SI ri i
\ |S|O\ WIJ (J KKH I II M l)l A'l I Of Ml. SI 19 proven. standards-rcfcrenced msinu- ,lessons, unit.', and Students. District offices and regional "consortiums must take ihe initiative liere Thev- must .tssemble representative teams of teachers to developand provide even- teacher witha precise, manageable list of the essential, assessed standards. it is time lOfiislo admit that 3t thf ground level, where teachers teacn and students learn, there is not coherence, but chaos. i noiial materials-asscssmi- ni.' pe-fecied through actioi research. Both new and veteran teachers can peruse these targeted materials, learning from and adding to the richness of the faculty's repertoire. Because of these rich resources, new and struggling teachers achieve confi-dl s-tA ! - I*-"' -A
'"4 <4. 1..S deuce and competence much more rapidly, and experienced leachers have a sense of malting a meaningful, ongoing contribution to their craft while being renewed by instructional ihrougli their experience with the state assessments. are responding in a positive and coordinated fashion. Many schools. lik-F BessemerElementanJnPug^ Evert' school year. ih_full_faHlS' Qhfs.ii.l ronductTrevie^jaf assessment -Tg^StTre^s of teachers should-glen- 7?f\ thejno^t pronouncedpattems^f lEjaemweaki^STthen seekabsohite claritv on the nature of thesgrublems. TKrou^'i staffdevelopmemand regular. kZ IS <i
S. WKi ftA pEZ-Stw-.li'i S' y"" ideas that are engaging for students. Proven methods, practices, and lessons aligned with established standards become the center of the professional dialogue. Results on local, state, and formative assessments get better and better, such an alignment leads inevitably to better short- and long-term results on local and state assessments as well as on norm-referenced, alternative, and criterion-referenced assessments. which has an 80 percent minorigjypu-lation. have realized dramatic^gains. At Bessemer, from 199 to 1998. the number of students perfor.-ning at or above the standard in reading rose from 12 percent to 64 percent. In writing, "they went from 2 percent to 48_percent. Weekly standards-basedjeanijasetings made the difference. SKtB t' professional collaboration, teachers should focus on these areas, while monitoring progress regularly. 2 state assessments. adil_ p.idiciously to the list of standards you will teach and assess. For Michael Fullan, "assessment is the coherence-maker' in school improvement (1998, persona! communication). Because of the limitations of state and norm-referenced tests, we 3' that are assessed. Be circum- 1 L Start u'itb tbe standards spect about standards that ar-not assessed, .-\fter thor-oughlv reviewing the state standard-s documents, we believe that many of them never -will be thoroughly assessed. Many of the emsting s
indarcls th: educators are worldng manicalh.' to - cover wiii di. -cause of their own irapr LIZ irrelevancy and iisicn ipending orga- To create this infrastructure in scncols. we can take a few concrete steps: Bl must m-rctcreu'-'-ti - it develop local and Hisfrict standards and_^sss-r-' j .a. ments Sil Th^nSteus beyond Teacher Steve Ducey at Sunnyslope High School in Glendale, Arizona, assesses a student bridge design.
d effort on even- standard is sense- State and standardized assessments ies.., because many of them wiU tunt out do no: measure everaalhng we de.em to be ephem-er.i Start by focusing teaching on the stand.ird.s acttralb i'mn7
7
am7bms^IcSs on suchtestsjti il-iis ape oTaccountabilitTislital-rnntained in ct -rent .state norm-refer- -I nr ,^nitrion-refcrenccd asse^- T^THdSdized scoiS'Mm u.s the tru^of our communities a.s we begin to demon-ments- \s Slate asscssmenus dei elop. real priorities become clear. z\nd we must learn all we can about him- to lead'. UI these priorities most efleciively. -rcachci-s in Colorado, now that ihet know the rcaU.ng and writing standard-. 2Q fill ( A , \i l.i Ml umiH'/M >1 smite i-ni-asur.tble progress on local criterion-reterenced and alternative :i
.pss.Tients. In districts whcrcTmprme-menl on ft-ii-n-ial. public asse.ssment.s is^if ihc c.ssciicc. V CL- should assemble clear lists of the standards and proheieneivs that the assessmeni.s will require ol 1 i)O them. Districts should reviev the standards documents, then exercise severe disci-pline in prioritizing on the I basis of what snidents will I most need if they are to I become reflective thinkers. competent workers, and r responsible citizens. For ev. 5 grade or level, pilot your ne i standards and assessments wliile asking the question,. the standards clear, relevan and not so numerous that they sacrifice depth over breadth? Don't be afraid to do a roug accounting of time for teaching topit Adlai Stevenson High School has 3dhS?eT5^rid-c!asTresults in this v Glendale Union High Schoo! District done a masterful job of successfully concentmting on norm-referenced t while implementing a coherent s\-st of fonnative and end-ol-course alter
live assessments for high school courses. These assessments require students to do investigative science and to write analyses about social a hisiorieal issuesall aceoriling to clcai siandards and ci'iieria These common, teacher-made assessments embody .ind clanb nreeiscli those thinking and re a SI ining st.indards that norin-reler-i- ncrd lestsdiin'i .ulequalelv assess. 1 he result i.s an education that ensures a level of both breadth and substance that goes far bcvond what is now retjuireri of the average high school graduate. Perhaps the best time to develop such .standards-based assessments i.s summer. Such work doesn t alway s require enormous amotint.s oj time or resources.
. In Lake Havasu Cit\'. Arizona. educators developed common K-12 assessments in almost even' subject area for about 525.000 over a two-year period. They took only four dtiys to prioritize core science standards and generate common K-12 assessments. 3 Do not add more topics than can be taught and assessed reasonably and '~effectn'e!y~A key to developing science assessments in Lake Havasu City was following open discussions with fast, fair rank-ordering procedures that used weighted voting to quickly establish priorin- standards. Because we can expect educators to differ in philosophy and prioriri. every school employee could benefit from training in the use of these simple decision-making tools. The tendency toward overload is strong in schoolsand crippling to in.provement efforts (Fullan & Harg-reaves. 1996). A district we know has received high praise for showcase work by des eloping grade-by-grade benchmarks for the state standards. For -ith grade, educators developed 2l() items to be taught in math, but 125 of these were also to be taught in si.x lo eight other grades. In another district, in another state, there are only I" items for -nil grade math, and they re written in language th.it is clear to parents and teachers. At the local and state lei els. we must .b-niand that econoim and cJiirib ii^onn all xiamlards and that they be meaiiinglulli^h iiisi rhelonealh aliuried wilh assi^sineiiis Fi ery teacher desen e's a clear, manageable, grade-hy- grade sei i.')f staiul'.irtls anti learning bendhu'.arks th.ii in.ike sense anti allow a reasonable measure of autonomy. Aiiyihiiig less is fnisiraiing. inhumane, and eounierprodutiive. Siandard.swhen ss e get them rijgl-iiwill give us the results we want. Bui this will require hard-headed, disciplined effort. The le,sson of TI.MSS should considerably diminish the perceived risk of downsizing the curriculum, Tlte verr nature of organizations argues that vs-e succeed when all parties are rowing in the same direction. We will realize the promise of school reform when we establish stan- McREL Researches CurricuIum-Based Reform Curriculum-based reform, which aligns curriculum with content and performance standards, is sweeping education systems. But what makes curriculum-based reform effective? The Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL) is heading a series of studies to survey the implementation of this reform approach and its impact on student achievement. McREL researchers have identified four state-level components for successful curriculum-based reform: an ongoing standards review, a professional development plan, an assessmient program, and an accountability svaem. Although 80 percent of states reported that they impose sanctio.ns when school or I district assessme'*.! results are low. I only 55 petce- states reported I that assessment iS tightly aligned to stanca'CS. Ano more than 45 states requino that all sr-dents meet stan-dards and oar: based assessn-.i The reports What Stale Or "Taking Stock Baseo Reform spate in standards-nt oroiects. Curriculum Reform' !5!is Say Works and Stales Curricjlum-drts" are available il'jm, Learn.c.g C-from McP.cL, and Instructior Project. 2550 South Parker Rd.. Ste SCO. Aturora, CO 1 800l4-167SlV.e viAW/.mcrel.org''. site: I io: si I" II11 dard.s and expectations for reaching them that are clear, not confusing
essential, not exhaustive. The result will be a new coherence and a shared focus that could be the most propitious step we can take toward educating all students well. H References Dempster, F, N. (1993). Exposing our students to less should help them learn. Pbt Delta Kappan, 432-43". Doyle, W. (1992). Curriculum and pedagogy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.). Handbook ofresear-.h in curriciduin (pp. -186-516). New York: Macmillan. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). iVhat's worth fighting for in your school? New York
Teachers College Press. Fullan, M.. & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). Dre new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers CoUege Press. Glaser, R, & Linn, R. (1993). Foreword. In L, Shepard (Ed.), Setting performance standards for student achievement (pp. xiii-xiv). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education, Stc .ord Universiw. Rosenholtz. S. J. (1991). Tenc.bcrs workplace: ne social organization of schools. Y'ork: Teachers College Press. Schmidt. W. H.. McKnighi, C. C., & Raizen. S. A. (1996). Splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education: Executive summan- Lansing, MI: U.S. National Research Center for the Th-,rd International Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University. Stevenson, H. W,, Stigler, J. M. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what tee can team from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Sununit. Wolk, R. (1998). Doing it riglit. Teacher Magazine. TT'J'): 6. I Mike Schmoker (e-mail: mschmoke mcrel.org) is author of /Results. The Key to Continuous School Improvement (ASCD, 1956). Robert J. Marzano is coauthor of A Comprehensive Guide to Designing Standards-Based Districts, Schools, and Classrooms (ASCD/McREL, 1557) and Contenf Knowiedgs: A Compendiurn of Stsnddfds sod Benchmarks for K-12 Education (McRELZASCD, I I 1996). Schmoker is Senior Consultant, School Improvement, and Marzano is Senior Fellow for McREL, 2550 S. Parker Rd., Ste. 500. Aurora, CO 80014-1678 sios tsn Ci'nmcin.i'M llrt 11 oi'mi.n : 2 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 November 22, 1999 TO: Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Pat Price Suzi Davis Dr. Kathy Lease Linda Austin Carol Green Mable Donaldson Dr. Gary Smith (or designee) Karen Broadnax Gene Jones, ODM Dr. Virginia Johnson Mona Briggs Eddie McCoy FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: Instructional Framework - Delivery Standards Please join me in a meeting on Tuesday, December 7, from 8:30 until noon in Room 18 at the IRC, to discuss what our Instructional Framework or Delivery Standards should be. We need to get this decision estabished as per the Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation Education Plan, and the NSF project. A related need is to construct/adopt a classroom observation form for use in assessing whether the practices are in use. And, critically important, is the need to use these standards as the curriculum for professional development. The models I want us to examine are as follows: 1. Stephanie Daltons Pedagogy Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice (see attached) 2. Fred Newmann, Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlages A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring (see attached summary) 3. Robert Marzanos (et al) Dimensions of Learning (see attached summary) 4. Robert Cole's Educating Everybodys Children (see copy in professional library) 5. Gordon Caweltis Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement (you have) ) 6. Charlotte Danielsons Enhancing Professional Practice (see attached summary) There are, of course, other models that we may wish to consider. If so, please do not hesitate to bring them in. Instructional Framework - Delivery Standards November 22, 1999 Page Two Our meeting agenda follows: Overview of Tash Summary of Pedagogy Matters Summary of Authentic Instruction Summary of Dimensions Summary of Everybody's Children Summary of Handbook of Research Summary of Professional Practice Discussion of NSFRequirements Bonnie Mable Pat Dennis Kathy Marie Mona Vanessa (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (10 minutes) ) Discussion of Options Bonnie A. Adopt a generic mode! B. Adapt a generic mode! C. Create a generic synthesis mode! D. Adopt discipline-specific models E. Adapt discipline-specific models F. Create synthesis discipline-specific models Qj. Create discipline-specific examples of the generic model Discussion of Process All 1. Who else should be in the conversation? 2. How should we structure principal/teacher input? 3. What expert assistance do we need? 4. What are our products? A. Set of Instructional Standards B. Observation Instrument(s) C. Professiona! Development Plan D. ? Next Steps 1. Next meeting? 2. Who will lead? 3. Whom shall we add? 4. What are agenda items? AllInstructional Framework - Delivery Standards November 22, 1999 Page Three Please prepare for the December 7 meeting by reviewing the following attachments: 1. Pedagogy Matters 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Authentic Instruction, pp. 7-13 and pp. 28-43 Dimensions of Learning, pp. 3-18 Everybodys Children, pp, 77, 81, 101, 123,141 Handbook of Research, pp, iii-v Professional Practice, pp, 29-37 BAL/adg Attachments cc: Dr. Les Gamine Sadie Mitchell Dr. Marian Lacey Frances Jones J > Chapter 1: A Conception of Authentic Human Achievement CHAPTER 1 A CONCEPTION OP AUTHENTIC HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT ! 1 i t i THE PROBLEM hy should we be concerned about authenticity in education? Arent there already enough ideas-such as higher level thinking, creativity, basic and cultural literacy, disciplinary mastery, career skills, and responsible citizenship-that can serve as standards for intellectual quality? The aim of authentic standards for intellectual quality is not to replace these goals, but to address a serious problem that is neglected even as these goals are ardently pursued. The problem is that the kind of mastery required for students to earn school credits, grades, and high scores on tests is often considered trivial, contrived, and meaningless-by both students and adults. This absence of meaning breeds low engagement in schoolwork and inhibits transfer of school learning to issues and problems faced outside of school. The problem can be attributed to many sources: a curriculum consisting largely of superficial exposure to hundreds of isolated pieces of knowledge, which is reinforced by teacher training institutions, textbook publishers, testing agencies, and universities
teaching loads and school schedules that exacerbate problems of classroom management, making it difficult for teachers to concentrate on individual students using their minds well
and student isolation from adults in the community beyond school who have made significant achievements. I I i ! 7 I .J Guide to Auc^wntic Instruciion and Assessment Vision, Standards and Scoring lapter i: Conception of Authentic Human Ac In short, schools seem to promote inauthentic kinds of mastery and achievement. In contrast, autlientic academic achievement stands for accomplishment that is worthwhile, significant, and meaningful. Consider the kinds of mastery demonstrated by successful adulis-scientists, musicians, busine
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.