In Support of District and Division Core Values
Darshan Jain - Mathematics Director
Adlai E. Stevenson HS is a nationally recognized school of excellence. The profusion of accolades and recognitions indicate that our students learn and learn well supported by faculty, staff, community, and administration. This longitudinal success has been sustained by decades long engagement in continuous improvement cycles.
At times, a false prerequisite is placed as a condition for engagement: “What problem are we trying to fix?” As continuous improvement nearly always beckons change, it is important to remember that improvement does not necessarily imply a current state of failure or dysfunction. Edie Holcomb in Asking the Right Questions: Tools for Collaboration and School Change conveys this succinctly, “...when we talk about improvement, we’re not thinking ‘horrible-to-wonderful.’ We’re thinking ‘good-better-best’” (Holcomb, p. 60).
If we cannot attest that we have met our commitment to “Success for Every Student” every day, in every course, then we have not yet achieved our mission. Considering changes to meet that mission is our responsibility and our opportunity. Perhaps in the case of our organization, engaging in continuous improvement beckons us to a journey from better to even better to even even better. What is clear is that meeting our commitment to “Success for Every Student” calls us to engage in change for the growth it yields in student and adult learning.
As we assess the change that standards based grading (SBG) or evidence based reporting (EBR) offers, we must consider how it aligns with our core values as curricular divisions and as a District.
Q: Does SBG/EBR promote interdependent collaboration within our professional learning communities?
A: Yes. The primary purpose of professional learning communities (PLC) is to foster the learning and growth of professionals as we develop week-by-week, year-by-year into increasingly more effective practitioners. Consider PLC Question #1: “What do we want students to learn?” (DuFour et al, 2010). We have worked for many years to develop, articulate, and integrate learning targets into our planning and instructional practices. Students today are more capable of identifying the work of the day and in naming specific areas of struggle. This is most observable as students seek help from teachers or Student Learning Program (SLP) staff. Rare is it to hear students say, “I don’t understand anything.” Rather, more often, students say, “I don’t understand this target.” This work has laid a good foundation.
PLC Question #2 reads “How will we know if they have learned?” (DuFour et al, 2010). Building on this we can ask, “How well have they learned?” (Gobble et al, 2015). It is the “how well” that is the primary change and a challenging question that curriculum teams must address. This is done through teams developing gradients of proficiency that makes explicit the pathway for growth. The work of teams becomes increasingly more interdependent around adult learning as teachers develop, revise, and use the team’s proficiency standards alongside evidence of students’ work. This calls for conversation, consensus, and calibration. In turn, this yields growth for the team. Consider also the work teams have engaged in using conversation protocols to review common assessment data. The review of individual and team results to identify best practices and effective instruction strategies have more validity knowing that the proficiency standards and scoring have been calibrated across all educators on the team. In addition, as teachers make common place the “how well” conversations using formal and informal feedback, there is a shift in students’ perception of their learning away from binary judgments of “I get it; I don’t get it” and towards assessments of growth: “I am developing because _____ and I need to improve _____ to demonstrate my proficiency.”
The work of developing a proficiency-based learning model has great power to address PLC Questions #3 and #4 (DuFour et al, 2010). Respectively, “What will we do if they don’t learn?” and “What will we do if they already know it?” As teams develop, articulate and integrate a gradient of proficiency, communication around how to improve and how to extend learning are made transparent. With the former, patterns of struggle over targets can be grouped by standards. Thus, support can be provided that addresses overarching needs that transcend multiple areas of study. This can change students’ perception from “I need help on this, and this, and this, and this” to “If I can improve on this standard, I can also get better at these targets.” The shift in perspective, allows students to engage in remediation knowing their efforts will have wider impact over the important components of the course. With the latter, teams must develop and provide opportunities to extend students’ experiences if they demonstrate mastery. This provides teams opportunities to shift perspectives of teaching and learning from attainment and towards growth for every student.
Q: Does SBG/EBR promote learning within the discipline that transcends course-specific experiences?
A: Yes. When students’ experiences with overarching practices (i.e., math practices, science and engineering standards, essential communication skills, computer science practices, etc.) are purposefully planned and explicitly taught, students can develop the tools to deepen their knowledge-level learning in the progression of courses across the discipline. It is the practices that gives students access to unfamiliar content. Students’ perspective on the purpose of learning shifts from one of only acquiring knowledge (i.e., content) to also acquiring the skills (i.e., practices) to master all courses of the discipline. What transcends is the thinking processes that support learning across coursework. This is well supported by the four-stage organization (Gobble et al, 2015) of standards, objectives, targets, within EBR:
The ability to promote students’ growth mindset (i.e., intelligence is developed and malleable, Dweck, 2006) is often cited when describing the benefit of the expanse of time available for students to learn, relearn and demonstrate mastery within EBR. In EBR, judgment of students’ demonstrated work is with respect to the preponderance of the body of evidence with consideration for growth over time (calibrated against the team’s expectations.) Students have time to remediate and reperform within a mastery window set by the team; thus, early assessment of struggle does not confound final evaluation of student learning.
However, students growth mindset is also developed by limiting the number of proficiency metrics students must manage and negotiate. Consider a course organized only by conditions of success (i.e., targets). Here a student must manage between 5-8 targets per unit (i.e., 60 to 96 proficiency metrics over two semesters) for the course. Refocusing on “Why are we doing all of this?” (i.e., standards of the discipline) allows students to manage between 4-7 standards that are practiced through the use of 5-8 targets per unit. Since the proficiency gradient remains consistent across the course, addressing the “how well am I doing?” question is more manageable for students and for teachers. Within EBR, the Student Learning Objective (SLO) is not an external event, rather the normative feedback mechanism around the essential standards of the course. Progress in the course towards proficiency is always a “how well” conversation against the stated expectations.
Q: Does SBG/EBR strengthen students’ engagement in the learning cycle?
A: Yes. Writing for Forbes about the speed of changes in the modern workforce, Margie Warrell cited Alvin Toffler: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn” (Warrell, 2014). EBR provides pathways for students to develop into agile learners. In addition, central to our commitment to “Success for Every Student” is that our students not only grow and maximize their academic potential, but also grow to be socio-emotionally mature and responsible citizens. EBR provides for developing both facilities.
With the former, since EBR calls attention to students’ progress towards the standards, students must continually manage their proficiencies over time. The students’ perspective shifts from acquiring and demonstrating learning momentarily to one of continually demonstrating proficiencies in new contexts and to sustain this over the assessment window until a final evaluation is made. Rather than students climbing a mountain (i.e., attainment), they must continually spin multiple plates (i.e., sustained growth and self-management). Students must learn and be agile in unlearning and relearning to meet proficiency. Students can engage in formative feedback not as moments of judgment but rather as signposts on their learning journey. In addition, students’ reflections and actions are critical, just as they are in any modern work environment centered on a continuous improvement model of growth.
With the latter, teams can develop social-emotional competencies within classroom social and curricular contexts. For instance, Math Practice #3 calls students to “…listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments” (CCSS, 2010). Here the social-emotional competency of social-awareness can be addressed to help students “understand others’ perspectives to effectively interpret their arguments” (Inside Mathematics, 2017) and relationship-skills can be addressed by “listen[ing] actively to further explore the arguments of others” (Inside Mathematics, 2017). Presently, teams can report out students’ growth (or concerns) around the social-emotional competencies of self-management, responsible decision-making, and relationship skills. Developing a mindset for academic learning (and relearning) as well as developing social-emotional competencies support students’ engagement in their learning.
The national awakening in education is one of recognizing that the time-based, age-dependent, factory-model of education does not fully meet the emerging needs of a fast changing workforce. In considering changes, standards based grading supports expectations of students retained knowledge and application of learning in addition to providing context to socio-emotional growth towards self-management and self-advocacy. Engagement in continuous improvement cycles draws us closer to achieving our mission of “Success for Every Student.” When implemented with fidelity, standards based grading catalyzes learning for students and practitioners in alignment to the core principles of curricular divisions and District. The change builds off of our work making explicit what students will learn and moves us towards articulating how well students are learning. The organization of learning into a hierarchy does not dilute content, but rather supports access to unfamiliar content by strengthening the use of the discipline’s practices (i.e., skills). Finally, students’ efficacy as learners is strengthened as they manage both academic and social-emotional expectations of the classroom.
_______________
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Gobble, T., Onuscheck, M., Reibel, A., & Twadell, E. (2015). Proficiency-Based Assessment: Process, Not Product. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Holcomb, E. L. (2009). Asking the Right Questions: Tools for Collaboration and School Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Margie, W. (n.d.). Https://www.forbes.com/. Learn, Unlearn And Relearn: How To Stay Current And Get Ahead. Retrieved May 13, 2017, from http://Learn, Unlearn And Relearn: How To Stay Current And Get Ahead Margie Warrell - www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2014/02/03/learn-unlearn-and-relearn/#58866bfb676f
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core State Standards Initiative.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C., 2010. (n.d.). Inside mathematics - a professional resource for educators / . Integrating Social and Emotional Learning and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, Making the Case. Retrieved from http://www.insidemathematics.org/assets/common-core-resources/social-emotional-learning/a__integrating_sel_and_ccssm_making_the_case.pdf
At times, a false prerequisite is placed as a condition for engagement: “What problem are we trying to fix?” As continuous improvement nearly always beckons change, it is important to remember that improvement does not necessarily imply a current state of failure or dysfunction. Edie Holcomb in Asking the Right Questions: Tools for Collaboration and School Change conveys this succinctly, “...when we talk about improvement, we’re not thinking ‘horrible-to-wonderful.’ We’re thinking ‘good-better-best’” (Holcomb, p. 60).
If we cannot attest that we have met our commitment to “Success for Every Student” every day, in every course, then we have not yet achieved our mission. Considering changes to meet that mission is our responsibility and our opportunity. Perhaps in the case of our organization, engaging in continuous improvement beckons us to a journey from better to even better to even even better. What is clear is that meeting our commitment to “Success for Every Student” calls us to engage in change for the growth it yields in student and adult learning.
As we assess the change that standards based grading (SBG) or evidence based reporting (EBR) offers, we must consider how it aligns with our core values as curricular divisions and as a District.
Q: Does SBG/EBR promote interdependent collaboration within our professional learning communities?
A: Yes. The primary purpose of professional learning communities (PLC) is to foster the learning and growth of professionals as we develop week-by-week, year-by-year into increasingly more effective practitioners. Consider PLC Question #1: “What do we want students to learn?” (DuFour et al, 2010). We have worked for many years to develop, articulate, and integrate learning targets into our planning and instructional practices. Students today are more capable of identifying the work of the day and in naming specific areas of struggle. This is most observable as students seek help from teachers or Student Learning Program (SLP) staff. Rare is it to hear students say, “I don’t understand anything.” Rather, more often, students say, “I don’t understand this target.” This work has laid a good foundation.
PLC Question #2 reads “How will we know if they have learned?” (DuFour et al, 2010). Building on this we can ask, “How well have they learned?” (Gobble et al, 2015). It is the “how well” that is the primary change and a challenging question that curriculum teams must address. This is done through teams developing gradients of proficiency that makes explicit the pathway for growth. The work of teams becomes increasingly more interdependent around adult learning as teachers develop, revise, and use the team’s proficiency standards alongside evidence of students’ work. This calls for conversation, consensus, and calibration. In turn, this yields growth for the team. Consider also the work teams have engaged in using conversation protocols to review common assessment data. The review of individual and team results to identify best practices and effective instruction strategies have more validity knowing that the proficiency standards and scoring have been calibrated across all educators on the team. In addition, as teachers make common place the “how well” conversations using formal and informal feedback, there is a shift in students’ perception of their learning away from binary judgments of “I get it; I don’t get it” and towards assessments of growth: “I am developing because _____ and I need to improve _____ to demonstrate my proficiency.”
The work of developing a proficiency-based learning model has great power to address PLC Questions #3 and #4 (DuFour et al, 2010). Respectively, “What will we do if they don’t learn?” and “What will we do if they already know it?” As teams develop, articulate and integrate a gradient of proficiency, communication around how to improve and how to extend learning are made transparent. With the former, patterns of struggle over targets can be grouped by standards. Thus, support can be provided that addresses overarching needs that transcend multiple areas of study. This can change students’ perception from “I need help on this, and this, and this, and this” to “If I can improve on this standard, I can also get better at these targets.” The shift in perspective, allows students to engage in remediation knowing their efforts will have wider impact over the important components of the course. With the latter, teams must develop and provide opportunities to extend students’ experiences if they demonstrate mastery. This provides teams opportunities to shift perspectives of teaching and learning from attainment and towards growth for every student.
Q: Does SBG/EBR promote learning within the discipline that transcends course-specific experiences?
A: Yes. When students’ experiences with overarching practices (i.e., math practices, science and engineering standards, essential communication skills, computer science practices, etc.) are purposefully planned and explicitly taught, students can develop the tools to deepen their knowledge-level learning in the progression of courses across the discipline. It is the practices that gives students access to unfamiliar content. Students’ perspective on the purpose of learning shifts from one of only acquiring knowledge (i.e., content) to also acquiring the skills (i.e., practices) to master all courses of the discipline. What transcends is the thinking processes that support learning across coursework. This is well supported by the four-stage organization (Gobble et al, 2015) of standards, objectives, targets, within EBR:
- I) Standards of the Discipline (i.e., Why are we doing all of this?)
- II) Expectations of Learning (i.e., What am I asking you to do?)
- III) Gradation of Expectations (i.e., How well should you do this?)
- IV) Conditions for Success (i.e., What are the supporting content and prerequisite skills needed to meet the expectation?)
The ability to promote students’ growth mindset (i.e., intelligence is developed and malleable, Dweck, 2006) is often cited when describing the benefit of the expanse of time available for students to learn, relearn and demonstrate mastery within EBR. In EBR, judgment of students’ demonstrated work is with respect to the preponderance of the body of evidence with consideration for growth over time (calibrated against the team’s expectations.) Students have time to remediate and reperform within a mastery window set by the team; thus, early assessment of struggle does not confound final evaluation of student learning.
However, students growth mindset is also developed by limiting the number of proficiency metrics students must manage and negotiate. Consider a course organized only by conditions of success (i.e., targets). Here a student must manage between 5-8 targets per unit (i.e., 60 to 96 proficiency metrics over two semesters) for the course. Refocusing on “Why are we doing all of this?” (i.e., standards of the discipline) allows students to manage between 4-7 standards that are practiced through the use of 5-8 targets per unit. Since the proficiency gradient remains consistent across the course, addressing the “how well am I doing?” question is more manageable for students and for teachers. Within EBR, the Student Learning Objective (SLO) is not an external event, rather the normative feedback mechanism around the essential standards of the course. Progress in the course towards proficiency is always a “how well” conversation against the stated expectations.
Q: Does SBG/EBR strengthen students’ engagement in the learning cycle?
A: Yes. Writing for Forbes about the speed of changes in the modern workforce, Margie Warrell cited Alvin Toffler: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn” (Warrell, 2014). EBR provides pathways for students to develop into agile learners. In addition, central to our commitment to “Success for Every Student” is that our students not only grow and maximize their academic potential, but also grow to be socio-emotionally mature and responsible citizens. EBR provides for developing both facilities.
With the former, since EBR calls attention to students’ progress towards the standards, students must continually manage their proficiencies over time. The students’ perspective shifts from acquiring and demonstrating learning momentarily to one of continually demonstrating proficiencies in new contexts and to sustain this over the assessment window until a final evaluation is made. Rather than students climbing a mountain (i.e., attainment), they must continually spin multiple plates (i.e., sustained growth and self-management). Students must learn and be agile in unlearning and relearning to meet proficiency. Students can engage in formative feedback not as moments of judgment but rather as signposts on their learning journey. In addition, students’ reflections and actions are critical, just as they are in any modern work environment centered on a continuous improvement model of growth.
With the latter, teams can develop social-emotional competencies within classroom social and curricular contexts. For instance, Math Practice #3 calls students to “…listen or read the arguments of others, decide whether they make sense, and ask useful questions to clarify or improve the arguments” (CCSS, 2010). Here the social-emotional competency of social-awareness can be addressed to help students “understand others’ perspectives to effectively interpret their arguments” (Inside Mathematics, 2017) and relationship-skills can be addressed by “listen[ing] actively to further explore the arguments of others” (Inside Mathematics, 2017). Presently, teams can report out students’ growth (or concerns) around the social-emotional competencies of self-management, responsible decision-making, and relationship skills. Developing a mindset for academic learning (and relearning) as well as developing social-emotional competencies support students’ engagement in their learning.
The national awakening in education is one of recognizing that the time-based, age-dependent, factory-model of education does not fully meet the emerging needs of a fast changing workforce. In considering changes, standards based grading supports expectations of students retained knowledge and application of learning in addition to providing context to socio-emotional growth towards self-management and self-advocacy. Engagement in continuous improvement cycles draws us closer to achieving our mission of “Success for Every Student.” When implemented with fidelity, standards based grading catalyzes learning for students and practitioners in alignment to the core principles of curricular divisions and District. The change builds off of our work making explicit what students will learn and moves us towards articulating how well students are learning. The organization of learning into a hierarchy does not dilute content, but rather supports access to unfamiliar content by strengthening the use of the discipline’s practices (i.e., skills). Finally, students’ efficacy as learners is strengthened as they manage both academic and social-emotional expectations of the classroom.
_______________
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
Gobble, T., Onuscheck, M., Reibel, A., & Twadell, E. (2015). Proficiency-Based Assessment: Process, Not Product. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Holcomb, E. L. (2009). Asking the Right Questions: Tools for Collaboration and School Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Margie, W. (n.d.). Https://www.forbes.com/. Learn, Unlearn And Relearn: How To Stay Current And Get Ahead. Retrieved May 13, 2017, from http://Learn, Unlearn And Relearn: How To Stay Current And Get Ahead Margie Warrell - www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2014/02/03/learn-unlearn-and-relearn/#58866bfb676f
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core State Standards Initiative.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C., 2010. (n.d.). Inside mathematics - a professional resource for educators / . Integrating Social and Emotional Learning and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, Making the Case. Retrieved from http://www.insidemathematics.org/assets/common-core-resources/social-emotional-learning/a__integrating_sel_and_ccssm_making_the_case.pdf