Search results matching tags 'teachers' and 'common core'

MS Language Arts: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:56:13 GMT

Probably a subtitle more like: “Bravely going where no language arts teacher has gone before” might’ve been more appropriate.

Our middle school language arts teachers have been on quite a journey this year, and we’re capping it off with our second joint meeting tomorrow (ALL 14 teachers from grades 6-8 at both MS buildings, plus an intervention specialist, plus a media specialist). We’ve tackled BOTH text complexity and curriculum mapping simultaneously this year, and to say that it’s been chaotic is an understatement. But, it is with absolute appreciation for the hard work of these teachers that I can say we have accomplished something awesome.

Tackling Text Complexity

We started the year by making a decision 6-12 to look at the books we are currently using and figure out if they still fit in the context of the Common Core. In October’s department meetings (voluntary, after school), MS and HS teachers inventoried their book rooms and text purchases to create one list of all books currently used at each grade level. They also looked up the Lexiles for each of the texts.

I was operating under the assumption that if it fit the Lexile, there was no need to discuss whether or not the text fit in the grade level, but if it didn’t, then we needed to use a qualitative rubric to debate its appropriateness. We tried this, and quickly realized we could spend all of our precious department time debating the merits of a book until we talked ourselves into making it fit. So, using a qualitative rubric to assess books with lower Lexiles did not work for us.

Going back to the drawing board, as a group the MS teachers decided that no book whose Lexile was lower than the suggested grade band (925 on low end) could be used as a whole-class novel. We had a LOT of books on our list that weren’t up to the Lexile level, and we moved those to our “differentiating for struggling readers” list (more about this in a minute). With permission of our department heads, here is the list we finally settled on at the middle schools: ELA Text List*

We are now working to choose 1-2 texts (1 fiction and 1 informational) that will be the basis for common units at each grade level across the two buildings. So ALL 6th grade teachers would use the same whole-class novel and the same whole-class informational text, for example.

(*Side note: This list is our list of texts that work for our school district. Other districts may read the same texts at different grades)

The Parallel Conversation: Mapping Units

About a year ago on this blog I started talking about Sarah Wessling’s “fulcrum/context/texture” text idea (p. 22-28), which I love. I wanted to combine this idea with the PARCC Model Content Frameworks whereby a “fulcrum” text (Wessling) becomes the “extended” text (PARCC) and “Context/Texture” texts (Wessling) become the “short texts” (PARCC).

I then wanted to use this combined idea to reconcile the argument between “grade level” texts (those that meet the complexity expectations) and “instructional level” texts (those at student’s reading levels. (Again, something I discussed here and here). This Prezi describes how we will be pulling the three efforts together tomorrow to create two shared units at both buildings:

Going back to the ELA List above, books in the right column can only be used as context/texture for students reading below grade level, whereas books in the left column are the choices for whole-class, “extended text” usage. Planning for writing/research, language, and speaking and listening standards can be done within the context of planning thematic/topical units.

I’ll be spending much of this afternoon creating a visual representation that teachers can use tomorrow as a graphic organizer. As soon as its available, I’ll share.

My Takeaways:

Teachers shared that tackling both text complexity and mapping at the same time was a challenge.
On using the qualitative rubric–it was very easy for us to talk ourselves into defending any book at a grade level. As we all know, any book can be made infinitely more challenging depending on the level of the task, but we had to set a bar of expectation based on something concrete (like a Lexile score).
MS teachers (at least in our case) are coming from an instructional structure of constant differentiation. Our teachers have, rightfully so, taught reading at levels as defined by each students reading level (determined by an assessment). Asking them to require all students to read a high-Lexiled text is a complete mind shift for them. We are proceeding cautiously with the understanding that we are experimenting; we are going to scaffold the heck out of grade-level texts, and we are going to pre-plan close readings for struggling students over essential excerpts from the book. We are going to plan units that will provide appropriate amounts of context through differentiated pieces in preparation for the grade-level text. This is going to be a huge challenge, but we are moving forward with an expectation of revising.
Teachers see value in this kind of unit planning and like the idea of text sets.
I see little value in the textbook anthology–if the texts don’t fit our unit sets, why would we need 500+ pages of random stories? We design our units, not the textbook publishers. We could venture into iBooks and creating our own unit “text books.”
We have to keep a focus on the language strand. Grammar always tends to be moved to the back burner, but we need to ensure it as a priority.

When the System Strikes, Refute.

Anonymous — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 06:12:49 GMT

I’m stuck tonight unable to sleep. It seems dumb, but I cannot stop thinking about those HB555 changes. I’ve got this image in my head of what the end of the 2014-2015 school year will look like in Ohio, and it’s a little something like this:

We’re a year into holding kids back in third grade for the Third Grade Reading Guarantee. Elementary schools across the state are scrambling to find highly qualified reading teachers; principals are struggling to figure out the scheduling issues that go along with promoting students in some areas while retaining them in reading; teachers are still trying to figure out how to create effective RIMPs (once they’ve finally figured out what the *** that abbreviation stands for–”Reading Improvement and Monitoring Plan,” if you’re curious) and implement them and monitor them; we’re a year into the new tests, which extend all the way down to this already-clustered third grade level and the data from those tests are skewing (?), replacing (?), calling into question (?) the data from whatever diagnostic tests the school has been using for two years of 3GRG implementation.
We’re one year in to the new assessments. At the elementary levels, we’ve got teachers trying to teach advanced technology to kids because there hasn’t been enough guidance from testing companies in the previous two years to show teachers what technology skills the little ones should be developing. It isn’t until that first fall diagnostic assessment when the student sits down and pushes the “on” button that teachers across the state realize they should’ve been teaching advanced computer programming to 7-year-olds since 2012 at least. At the secondary levels, teachers have had a couple years to practice with the new standards, but haven’t had adequate time to make sure they are meeting rigorousness of the tests–they’re administering tests (whatever “administering” looks like in two years) and crossing their fingers that either the student scores high enough on the end of course test (given that end of course tests will account for some percentage of the course grade) or scored high enough on the rest of the coursework to manage to pass the class.
Everyone, K-12, statewide and beyond, is waiting to see this epic academic cliff. Some…are waiting to say, “I told you so! Our schools are awful!!!” Some…are waiting to say, “If we had adequate funding this wouldn’t have happened.” Some…are waiting to say, “It’s these standards, they’re terrible.” Some…are waiting to blame. Some…are going to use it as an opportunity to retire. Some (I’d say the minimal few)…are just waiting to see where to start picking up the pieces and moving forward. No matter the camp, everyone is anxious.
Evaluations (well, 50% of everyone’s evaluations statewide) are plummeting in response to the epic academic cliff. Why? Because HB555 set it up that way. Why not? Given this incredible storm of chaos, it’s the perfect time to base 50% of an educator’s evaluation on new, unknown, inadequately-planned-for tests….especially if you want to be able to say I told you so…or Our schools are awful.
Resident Educators, in only their 4th years of teaching if they started in year one of the program, fall right into this wonderful trap. Their scores on these new tests are low, they’re submitting giant assessment projects in the midst of the storm while their evaluations are affected by these tests. Again, what better time than this to say that our teacher preparation programs are creating poor teachers? What better time than an epic academic cliff, new evaluations, and a sizeable retained 3rd grade student population to say our teachers aren’t prepared? In droves….I see new teachers leaving in droves….unwilling/able to cope with this unbelievable anxiety caused by their true inherent desire to fulfill a calling and a system dumping more and more on them until they can’t swim out.

It’s bleak. I look forward and I don’t just see a “perfect storm”; I see one of those “hunker down all winter and stockpile the pantry with canned goods” kinds of storms that take a long time to thaw.

I’m not becoming negative or pessimistic. That’s not what I do. I see things for what they are, and I try my best to find ways to prepare–if you’re telling me there’s an ice storm coming, I’m buying salt for the driveway; if you’re warning me I’m going to be miserable stuck indoors, I’m jazzing up my queue on Netflix. I’m prepared.

So when the system strikes, when we can foresee what may come as a result of what is happening, it may not do us any good to scream and yell, but it will do us wonders to pull ourselves together in an effort to refute, rebut, and contradict what the system says. Here are the ideas I’m tossing around…

I go back to that clear communication post I posted recently. Communicate. Clearly. Frequently. Through many channels. Keep the message positive and simplistic: ”Changes are coming. We are preparing. Understand what the data means.”
Make sure the screeners, diagnostics, progress monitoring tools, etc. your district is using are research-based, quality tools. Whether or not legislation is going to allow us to include this data on any formal level doesn’t matter–we have data that shows children are learning REGARDLESS of what the unknown new tests say. Make sure that data is good, reliable, and valid. Let those numbers speak in your district as strongly as these state- and national-level numbers do.
Use the “Uniform Standards for Remediation-Free Status” report produced by the Ohio Board of Regents last week to your advantage. Start gathering your ACT and SAT scores from the last several years and compare them to the remediation-free ACT and SAT scores on this report. When the new tests say students are below proficient, produce your storehouse of data showing what percentage of students over several years meet these remediation-free numbers. Trust the data that has stood over time, and publicize that information alongside your new test scores.
Work with the willing. Focus on those who are on board.
Create a list of district-wide best teaching practices, preferably brainstormed, compiled, internalized by teachers, and communicate these outward. What is good teaching? What does it look like? Don’t focus on the buzzwords–we can all list differentiation, scaffolding, KWL charts, etc–focus on what it really looks like. How does a parent or community member know when they walk into a classroom if good teaching is happening? Then post these practices everywhere–posters in the school buildings, posters in offices, send a letter to the local paper, beg/plead for articles to be written about awesome teaching.
Recognize the accomplishments of the teaching staff and students on a constant basis. Perception in 2014-2015 is key, the perception will be that our schools are failing, so take that perception head-on and stop it before it can begin. Make sure the board, community, parents, and business leaders know just how successful and talented your staff and students are.

There is still time. We cannot accomplish everything that needs to be done academically before 14-15, but we can begin to counter whatever negative images will result from uncontrollable factors of legislation and assessments that year.

We are in a state of asking our teachers for evidence (OTES/OPES), How do you know students are learning? we ask them, and we want to see proof–work samples, observation notes, effective feedback. In two years, people state- and nationwide are going to ask us, How do you know students are learning? and we can either respond with uncontrollably abysmal test scores from new assessments that don’t adequately represent us because of their newness, or we can respond with a multitude of data from several years that prove what we know to be true.

Facing Difficult Truths in Selecting Texts

Anonymous — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:05:32 GMT

In what must be the Common Core controversy flavor of the month, the most recent criticism of the Standards addresses the split of nonfiction to fiction texts at the secondary level. Alarmist articles decrying the replacement of classic literature, such as The Catcher in the Rye, with instruction manuals are far off base from the language and intent of the Standards, which is, simply: read better texts.

While we all spin our wheels weeding through cycle after cycle of misinformation, we waste valuable time that could be so much better spent on reaching the heart of the Standards and raising our expectations of students. We need to focus our efforts on the real work of improving our students’ reading skills by looking critically at the texts we are using in classrooms across the country. There are incredible conversations happening among language arts department teachers in response to the Common Core, and we need to support, encourage, and cultivate these efforts rather than seeking out and throwing curveballs at them with exaggerations and misinterpretations.

It was through a recent conversation with middle school language arts teachers that I realized the Common Core Standards do not deter English teachers away from classic pieces of literature; instead, they drive us back to those classic texts that may have been strewn by the wayside in favor of seemingly more engaging, albeit less challenging, contemporary texts. The Standards in no way encourage teachers of language arts to forego classic texts for informational ones as implied by recent criticism, but they do encourage us to move from selecting texts based on student interest alone to selecting texts, both classic and contemporary, that will appropriately challenge students and build strong reading skills.

We get to the heart of the Standards when we think critically about our text selections. Secondary teachers in my district began the process of critically analyzing our reading selections by starting with a thorough inventory of the texts we currently use, have stored away in bookrooms, or that are preserved on lists as protected for certain grade levels. Using these lengthy compilations, teachers researched the Lexile levels, one of several calculations that can be used to figure out the difficulty of a text, of each text on the list. Those texts that met the minimum Lexile suggestion of 925 for grades six through eight were safe; we decided to keep them within the grade band. Those that did not were up for discussion.

While many of the classics such as Animal Farm (1170L) and Red Badge of Courage (900L) that clearly meet the Lexile expectations for the grade band, did appear on our lists, they were overwhelmed by a number of contemporary novels such as Edward Bloor’s Tangerine (680L), Neil Shusterman’s Unwind (740L), Scott Westerfield’s Uglies (770L), and Roland Smith’s Sasquatch (680L) that did not. There were several texts, both contemporary and classic, whose low readability levels surprised the teachers—a surprise we would not have uncovered had it not been for having these conversations. While these texts may be great and engaging books, their inability to meet those suggested Lexile levels made us think much more critically about our choices. A book like Unwind will keep a student up late at night reading, but does the text itself have the depth or complexity reflective of those texts on the exemplar lists for these grade levels? Is there a more challenging contemporary or classic text that better meets the Lexile suggestions? In teaching easier texts is our focus on encouraging a love of reading or teaching students how to read? Can we do both with more difficult texts? And the quintessential question of text complexity: Are these texts at these Lexile levels the best choices for challenging students, improving their reading skills, and preparing them to be successful readers throughout their lives?

It was through these conversations that these middle school teachers began making tough decisions about which books should stay and which should go. Maybe there are better, more challenging, but equally engaging books for students than those we are currently using that do not meet the grade band suggestions. Maybe we should expect a higher level of reading out of our students.

Work such as this is happening in schools across the country in response to the Standards; when was the last time we were given the opportunity or framework to think about text selections through this critical lens? These thought-provoking conversations held by classroom teachers nationwide would not have happened without the shifts encouraged by the Common Core. Our efforts are much better spent in encouraging these critical discussions than in driving teachers astray with alarmist untruths.

Why We Do What We Do! (Formative Assessments and Learning Targets in ACTION in 7th Grade Math)

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:18:04 GMT

My goal is to never be so far removed from the classroom that I forget what it’s like to be a teacher. Over the last few weeks while I’ve been adjusting to my job and new responsibilities, I’ve been running from meeting to meeting, a million miles a minute, task after task, running out of time before I realized time had passed.

I needed a quick reminder of why I am doing what I’m doing, a refocus, if you will. Which led to my totally informal observation in a 7th grade math class at one of our buildings. I know they say you know good teaching when you see it, and today I saw good teaching. Selfishly, I was excited to be around kids again (even if they were awkward middle schoolers); I have missed the interactions, and the teacher was gracious enough to let me talk to the kids while they worked. They were doing a neat activity that got them up and moving around the room through a “Math Scavenger Hunt.” Posted around the room were numbers paired with an equation, exponent, etc. for students to solve. The solution to the equation, exponent, etc. was another number around the room; they would move to that number and answer its associated equation, exponent, etc. Really cool idea.

But what I wanted to share is the awesome work the teacher is doing with formative assessment. I apologize in advance for the picture quality, but my iPad should be in soon

First, she had a “Math Map” wall that clearly lists the learning targets in the unit.

Note a couple of things:

Learning targets are specific and directly connected to the 7th grade standards.
Learning targets include info about when and how they will be addressed using the textbook.
These are not daily targets, but represent instead the learning that is to take place.
The “stop” sign is a planned formative assessment, although she also informally formatively assesses as she goes.
The ending stop sign is a summative assessment.
Check out the Lightning McQueen and Mater characters representing current location within the learning.

She gives students the following document at the beginning of the learning, and they indicate dates when they reach each target.

How cool!

Finally, posted at the front of the room (and I’m assuming making their way around the room) are the learning targets they have already focused on in previous units:

Having read this post, the teacher wanted to relate new learning back to targets they already addressed and/or revisit the learning as they grow. So she uses racecar stickers (very small in the picture) to indicate targets as they revisit them.

It is observing good teaching that makes me feel reinvigorated and excited about being in education. This teacher’s work was awesome!

The Social Studies Dilemma

Anonymous — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:37:17 GMT

I passed this chart out to our department heads, and it seemed helpful. And you know I am all about visuals…

	Standards “Ohio’s New Learning Standards: K-12 (Subject)”	Assessments
English	Common Core (National)	2014-2015: End of Course (EOC) Exams created by PARCC (National)
Mathematics	Common Core (National)	2014-2015: EOC Exams created by PARCC (National)
Social Studies	Ohio Revised Standards (Ohio ONLY) *Conversations about a common core, but unlikely	2013-2014: Our self-created EOC Assessment in U.S. History and Government 2014-2015: State created EOC in U.S. History and Government
Science	Current: Ohio Revised Standards (Ohio ONLY) Winter, 2013: Next Generation Science Standards (National)	2014-2015: State created EOC in Biology and Physical Science
Fine Arts, Career-Tech, Physical Education, World Languages	All have Ohio Revised Standards as of 2012

My struggle this week has been with high school history courses and meeting the requirements of SB 165.

Let’s review some of the legislation before I get into the scenario.

Currently, students are required to have a minimum of 1/2 credit American History and 1/2 credit government. This requirement did not change as a result of SB165. Many districts have American history in the 9th or 10th (traditionally, World History in 9th, American in 10th or vice versa) and government/civics in 12th grade. I remember taking government in 12th grade because it was when we all registered to vote (well, everyone except myself and the few other 16-17 year old seniors).
American History (AH) and Government (G) are required to read specific primary documents, which are now included in the revised course syllabi. Here’s the legislation:

(M) It is important that high school students learn and understand United States history and the governments of both the United States and the state of Ohio. Therefore, beginning with students who enter ninth grade for the first time on or after July 1, 2012, the study of American history and American government required by divisions (B)(6) and (C)(6) of this section shall include the study of all of the following documents:

(1) The Declaration of Independence;

(2) The Northwest Ordinance;

(3) The Constitution of the United States with emphasis on the Bill of Rights;

(4) The Ohio Constitution.

The study of each of the documents prescribed in divisions (M)(1) to (4) of this section shall include study of that document in its original context.

The study of American history and government required by divisions (B)(6) and (C)(6) of this section shall include the historical evidence of the role of documents such as the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to firmly establish the historical background leading to the establishment of the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Districts are to be creating/purchasing end of course exams for AH and G. (ODE just released this not-incredibly-helpful tutorial about the EOC exams this past week.) These exams must be approved by local board before July 1, 2013, which means they need to be finalized by around April.
These locally-created EOC exams will be in place for any student regardless of grade taking AH or G in 2013-2014. This means, if you offer either course as a semester class only, students enrolled in that class in the fall with take EOC exams at the end of fall semester. They will continue to be used until the state chooses a statewide exam (choice to be made by July, 2014) and that exam is in place (no date).
The EOC in Gov must have 20% of its questions based on the primary docs that are spread over two courses. Here’s that legislation:

(3)(a) Not later than July 1, 2013, each school district board of education shall adopt interim end-of-course examinations that comply with the requirements of divisions (B)(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of this section to assess mastery of American history and American government standards adopted under division (A)(1)(b) of section 3301.079 of the Revised Code and the topics required under division (M) of section 3313.603 of the Revised Code. Each high school of the district shall use the interim examinations until the state superintendent and chancellor select end-of-course examinations in American history and American government under division (B)(2) of this section.

(b) Not later than July 1, 2014, the state superintendent and the chancellor shall select the end-of-course examinations in American history and American government.

(i) The end-of-course examinations in American history and American government shall require demonstration of mastery of the American history and American government content for social studies standards adopted under division (A)(1)(b) of section 3301.079 of the Revised Code and the topics required under division (M) of section 3313.603 of the Revised Code.

(ii) At least twenty per cent of the end-of-course examination in American government shall address the topics on American history and American government described in division (M) of section 3313.603 of the Revised Code.

Notice a couple of things in the legislation: 1) The EOC must meet mastery of the standards, and remember that mastery in the new SS standards means combining the content statement with the content elaboration and expectation for learning. (and I thought the ELA standard statements were convoluted!). 2) The G EOC spans the content of both AH and G.

Despite all my research, I still do not know what the impact of failing an EOC is. Nor do I know if the EOC completely replaces the OGT in SS 2013-2014. Currently, if a student fails the OGT, s/he can continue with the next course and will retake the OGT in summer (fall, the next summer, fall…etc.). But what happens if a student fails the EOC? Does s/he repeat the course? Simply retake the test (like the OGT)? Continue on with the next course in the SS sequence? The legislation is vague:

(D) Upon completion of the development of the assessment system, the state board shall adopt rules prescribing all of the following:

(1) A timeline and plan for implementation of the assessment system, including a phased implementation if the state board determines such a phase-in is warranted;

(2) The date after which a person entering ninth grade shall meet the requirements of the entire assessment system as a prerequisite for a high school diploma under section 3313.61, 3313.612, or 3325.08 of the Revised Code;

(3) The date after which a person shall meet the requirements of the entire assessment system as a prerequisite for a diploma of adult education under section 3313.611 of the Revised Code;

(4) Whether and the extent to which a person may be excused from a social studies an American history end-of-course examination and an American government end-of-course examination under division (H) of section 3313.61 and division (B)(2) of section 3313.612 of the Revised Code;

(5) The date after which a person who has fulfilled the curriculum requirement for a diploma but has not passed one or more of the required assessments at the time the person fulfilled the curriculum requirement shall meet the requirements of the entire assessment system as a prerequisite for a high school diploma under division (B) of section 3313.614 of the Revised Code;

(6) The extent to which the assessment system applies to students enrolled in a dropout recovery and prevention program for purposes of division (F) of section 3313.603 and section 3314.36 of the Revised Code.

No real answer there….So I tried the Legislative Services Fiscal Analysis:

State assessments

Current law requires the State Board of Education to develop a system of college and work ready assessments to replace the Ohio Graduation Test (OGT) as a requirement for high school graduation. Under current law, the system of assessments must include a series of end-of-course examinations in the areas of science, mathematics, English language arts, and social studies. The bill replaces social studies with American history and American government as distinct areas for which end-of-course examinations must be selected. Furthermore, the bill requires that at least 20% of the end-of-course examination in American government cover the historical documents mentioned above. According to ODE, they have already planned for American history and American government under the current social studies end-of-course examination requirement…

The bill also requires the State Board to revise the fifth and eighth grade social studies achievement assessments and the social studies portion of the OGT. ODE is already planning to revise the social studies assessments as part of a new assessment system aligned with the new standards adopted in 2010.

Again, no real answer. I cannot figure out 1) the impact of the EOC on students, and 2) when/where the OGT in SS is done. Obviously, these are pretty important questions to have answered before making significant decisions about HS curricula.

In terms of my new responsibilities, I’m thinking about the following issues….

Should we move government from 12th grade to 11th or 10th? The problem is it can’t be moved straight from 12th (in 2012-2013) to 10th (in 2013-2014) because current juniors and sophomores will still have to take the course to meet graduation requirements. It could be transitioned back, but next year we will have a lot of seniors and juniors enrolled in the course at once.
Why should we move government? My argument is that if a senior is taking government in the second semester of senior year and s/he fails the EOC and ODE determines that failing the EOC means failing the course, that senior is pretty out of luck! In addition to providing students with extra opportunities to pass the test, though, because the government syllabus/requirements/content statements build on the AH syllabus/requirements/content statements, AND because the government test contains 20% question based on content covered in both areas, government and AH should be offered as close together as possible to ensure a continuum of learning. (Not to mention a continuum of progression toward the test)
What the legislation says about moving the courses: The legislation talks about “demonstrated mastery” in AH and government before taking courses with world issues, which to me says AH and G should be first in the HS course series.

I think moving the government course out of 12th grade is the only way to meet the needs and requirements of the mandate. Would love to hear what your districts are doing.

RtI, FA, and Paying Attention to Each Student

Anonymous — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:28:20 GMT

I vaguely remember the moment when it hit me in my classroom…It was a couple years into my career as a secondary teacher, poring through half-sheet after half-sheet of reading pop quizzes from my 130 students, marking red “x” after red “x,” thinking to myself “We just talked about this! Why didn’t they pay attention when they were reading!!” and “Where on Earth did he get that answer?!?!”, when a sudden flashback on all of my experiences in education led me to a sudden realization….

Some high school kids can’t read.

Somewhere deep inside I knew it all along. I remember my own brother who struggled with reading all the way through school–the kid could sit for hours reading and have no idea what he read. He could read one sentence aloud, perfectly fluent, but have no clue what the words meant. I knew some kids couldn’t read, but because I didn’t know what to do about it (I was, after all, trained in my area of specialty–American literature), I chose to ignore that it happened. I told myself that if they couldn’t read by high school, they would have to figure out on their own how to fake it the rest of the way through school. I thought giving them audio recordings was the solution to all their problems, and I really thought those teachers in grades below me did the kid a disservice by passing him/her on to me without the necessary reading skills.

I sought to justify their reading difficulties (and often, their failing grades) because I didn’t know 1) their areas of weakness, or 2) how to help fix the problem.

Then, I learned about Response to Intervention (RtI). I’ve written on this blog time and time again about RtI and its benefits, but I’ve only recently started connecting the framework of RtI with the concept of formative assessment. Because I can see how these ideas fit together, I think of them less as educational fads and more as elements of good instruction. And because I see true benefits to combining formative instruction with RtI, I want to make them both as practical as possible for teachers to implement as soon as possible.

Let me make my case for RtI/FA in reading instruction, particularly at the secondary levels: Let’s face it, I am not the only teacher who willingly said, “Ok, they can’t read….Guess they need to figure that out.” I’m probably one of very few who would openly admit to thinking it, though. Like I said, as a secondary teacher, I wasn’t taught to teach reading. But as we move deeper into implementing the Common Core Standards, we all become reading teachers through all grades–we are just teaching reading at grade-level appropriate levels. As a 9th grade teacher, then, I am using 9th grade level texts to teach students how to cite specific evidence to prove what the text says. I am teaching comprehension and analysis of grade level texts. I am teaching reading. Using combined RtI/FA allows us to pinpoint areas of deficiencies, and if (like me) you aren’t familiar with specific interventions for those areas, a quick Google search will help you build an intervention toolbox for the long run.

Because we can 1) Identify the area(s) of weakness, and 2) Find methods to help fix the problem, it is unethical for us to continue to ignore the problem. Even if we are high school teachers steeped in our content.

Let’s talk very briefly about RtI and FA. I want to keep this brief because no matter how little or much you know about the two, the point isn’t to swim in the verbiage, it’s to grasp the main idea and find simple means of implementing these good practices into your own classroom.

Both RtI and FA are frameworks for thinking.
Both frameworks are adaptable to any situation.
Both are cyclical processes.
Both are elements of good instruction, and FA is something quality teachers do naturally all the time a thousand times a day.

Formative Assessment: Here’s a slightly verbose image to highlight a simple process–

In even simpler terms…

1. We teach something.

2. We assess somehow (exit slips, handout, observations, conference, thumbs up/down, etc.) to see who’s got it, who’s almost got it, and who’s in left field.

3. We do something to move those who have got it forward, to help those who have almost got it, and to really help those in left field.

4. We reassess somehow.

5. We try something else.

And the cycle goes on as we progress toward our learning goals. Good instruction is responsive to student needs–it doesn’t just truck through lesson plan after lesson plan; it is adjustable.

Response to Intervention: RtI is also cyclical, involves the formative assessment process, but quantifies FA with data.

1. We assess all students using a benchmark screener/diagnostic assessment (which will be repeated two more times during the year to see growth over time).

2. We use data from the screener to see who’s got it (on track for the year–approximately 80% of students will fall in this range), who’s almost got it (potentially on track–approximately 15% will be here), and who’s in left field (not on track–approximately 5% of students).

3. We then create customized learning paths for those students in the “struggling” 20%.

4. We teach something to all students, but we also use intervention techniques with the 20% we’ve identified as needing additional assistance (with progressively more assistance for those struggling the most).

5. We use our formative assessment practices with all students. (Teach, assess, change instruction; teach, assess, change instruction)

6. Periodically, we monitor the progress of the “struggling” 20%. Those who have almost got it could be assessed once a month or as needed, and those who are in left field can be assessed more often (up to weekly). Using the data from these progress monitoring assessments, we can figure out if the intervention we have been using with each student has worked, and if it hasn’t, we know we should try something else. We can try additional interventions until we find one that works for a student (as reflected in the progress monitoring and/or teacher professional expertise).

What this means for reading instruction (aka: How the heck do I incorporate this in my classroom?)

Benchmark screeners are a great starting point because they focus on the skills inherent in the common core. They can pinpoint skills (such as analyzing point of view) with which each student is struggling–and how amazing and wonderful would teaching be if we had this kind of information about each and every student? But given financial strain, I know beautiful benchmark screeners such as those by NWEA (MAP) and STAR that do a fantastic job of drilling down to standards-based areas of deficiencies while offering suggestions for intervention strategies for each individual student, are completely out of the question for many districts, but all hope is not lost. Look for benchmark assessments that are packaged with textbook materials and use those. Don’t have any of those? interventioncentral.org and/or rti4success.org have tools that allow you to create your own benchmark assessments for free.

I know, I know, that’s a lot of work, so I’m losing some of you in the verbiage again…

If you don’t have a benchmark tool you can use and you don’t feel like creating one, try using your district’s common assessments. No common assessments? How about creating a learning-target-based (NOT CONTENT BASED!) benchmark tool for your own classroom? (**Let me clarify…we’re looking as assessing reading skills–skills that are applicable in any context with any text; we are not looking to assess content knowledge, such as “Who wrote Grapes of Wrath?”) The key is to start with something that gives you a better picture of each student right away at the beginning of the year–no more waiting until November to finally have solid footing with each student’s strengths and weaknesses.

From there, focus on learning-target-based lessons and target-based grades that will allow you to track individual student progress that is aligned to the skills in the standards. Because you’ve adopted, created, manipulated a screener into place, you already have a working knowledge of students’ areas of strength and weakness. As you plan units based on learning targets, you’ll know which students need more assistance (because the targeted skill is an area of weakness) and which students you may need to push further (because the targeted skill is a strength). Constant formative assessment (that thing we do naturally when we say to ourselves, “Oh, he’s definitely got it!” or “I need to work more individually with her!”) tells us whether the student is advancing in those areas of weakness or if our strategy for working with that student is not working at all.

I hear you…”Wait, Christina, you just multiplied all my work ten-fold!” And here I will argue with you. I don’t believe anymore in nightly homework assignments or grading every piece of paper that comes across a teacher’s desk. In fact, I think the assessment that comes from using a tracking sheet and working your way around the classroom to observe and work individually with students is so much more valuable than the feedback given by an arbitrary 9/10 on an assignment. Imagine how much less grading you would have if you spent less time in front of the classroom lecturing (yeah, I’m calling myself out again for my own practices) and more time working with students on assignments. Do you need to collect a product from an activity when you have already worked with John on a skill and you know he is still developing? Likewise, do you need to “grade” each answer to questions 1-10 that are all focused on citing from a text when you know Sarah has already mastered that skill with the text you’re reading? I say no. When we remove some of the grading factor and make instruction more about the one-to-one exchange of teaching and learning, we make learning more effective for each learner.

Where you go from here…

It’s not as important that you understand every single facet of formative instruction or RtI to improve your instruction. But was is important is that you begin to look at each individual student’s strengths and weakness (skills, not content!), that you notice students who struggle with reading and work individually with those students to build reading skills and track progress over time. It is important that you (I) acknowledge these students and try new strategies to help them–instead of handing over an audio recording and saying good luck. Combining the basic tenets of RtI and FA into our instruction gives us an organized means of paying attention to each student and maximizing each student’s opportunity to learn. And in the era of Common Core, it’s important that we really step up our own game as teachers.

My mindset was TOTALLY unacceptable. I, once again, think of the kids to whom I did a great disservice as I passed them on knowing they couldn’t read.

Achieve the Core: Introductory PD Module Notes

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:59:17 GMT

I’m working through the PD modules recently posted to the achievethecore.org website. My notes from the 46 min introductory webinar are below (my thoughts included).

Student Achievement Partners

Claim no intellectual property to modules/materials—use them at will
Receive no state/local funding
Have no financial connections to textbook companies
True goal is to just offer information and resources for others to use to aide implementation efforts

Modules

Feel free to adapt and modify
Can be done in 1.5 hours
Could do all modules over a few days or just one
Can be done for full staff, small PLCs, just interested teachers (Personal thought–I think this is wonderful. Here I sit, by myself, working through these modules simply because I am interested in the information contained therein–interested in learning and keeping abreast of available common core resources. Because I can do it on my own and engage in my own professional learning without an administrator, department head, curriculum person, etc. telling me to do the work, any teacher can engage in this learning as well. Educators should always be advocates for their own professional growth)
All very relevant work, created for and ready to be used in a variety of contexts by curriculum coordinators, principals, teacher leaders, teachers, etc.
All come with annotated PPTs—“so individuals feel comfortable to deliver this information”
Quality implementation of the standards demands attention and thought, so modules include hands-on activities and discussion topics (It has only been through really diving into the standards and trying some of the work on my own that I have been able to continue developing my understanding of the standards. 10 months of intense standards study, and I’m still learning all the time!)

Why these modules first?

Math: Key Shifts—really understanding the “forest for the trees.” This module outlines what really is different from previous standards. Really understanding these shifts deeply is a very important first move.
ELA: Key Shifts—Same rationale as Math
Text-Dependent Questions—The questions students respond to must require evidence from the text. Explains why these questions are important, evaluating these types of questions, and how to develop. Added with first batch of PD modules because 1) It’s a K-12 concept, 2) It’s a cross-content concept, 3) You don’t have to buy or change anything to just ask better questions using the materials you already have. (The school year is coming quickly, and if you/your teachers haven’t been doing intense work in the common core this summer, this is a practical place to start. Increasing the quality and level of questions asked in classrooms subsequently increases the rigor of lessons, holds students to higher expectations, and allows for more critical thinking. It’s also a relatively easy change to make in all content areas.)
Implications for Instructional Leadership—RTT schools went from rating instructional leadership at beginning of RTT as least important to now, it is the most important piece of implementation. Because CCSS is about changing practices and redesigning our education paradigm, it takes leadership to lead CC implementation. This module is appropriate for leaders at all levels (including teacher leaders!).

We are all learning—there was once a time when we thought instructional leaders had to be experts. This is not the case. We are all learning as we go, and these modules support that mindset. (I appreciate that she said this. I don’t think anyone is an expert in common core at this point, and it’s important for teachers to collaborate and come to common, and informed understandings of common core expectations.)

Accessing and Using the Modules

Though the PD section says it is “creative commons” license, you do not have to attribute use of the modules to them. They have changed their mind on this—they do ask that people are pointed to the achievethecore.org website to access the documents instead of hosting them elsewhere.
Each module includes: Facilitator’s Guide for notes and guidance, Presentation slides (with and without facilitator’s notes), handouts and activities
Can click email icon to receive an email when there are updates to each resource

Achieve the Core Professional Development Modules

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:05:50 GMT

Student Achievement Partners at achievethecore.org have created professional development modules for implementing common core. The work includes an introductory module, modules for the shifts in ELA and Math, a Text Dependent Questions module (one I’m particularly interested in and will be visiting after this posting), and an Instructional Leadership Module. Each module comes complete with facilitators’ guides and slides, and handouts.

I Finally Understand!!

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:23:57 GMT

I have been getting so many questions about high school end-of-course (EOC) exams, Ohio Graduation Tests, and PARCC assessments, and I had no clue how to answer! I couldn’t figure out if Ohio was using PARCC as a graduation test, or if the OGTs would still exist, or if the EOCs would be the graduation tests–I was just as confused as all those who were asking.

But finally, I UNDERSTAND!!! (*cue giant overhead lightbulb with sudden insight sound!*)

Having read the Cincinnati-based article “Ohio plans tougher high school tests” combined with PARCC Educator Leader Cadre member and Ohio-based curriculum director Char Shryock’s blog, “A Walk in the PARCC Ohio Style,” I finally understand what is happening with the future of assessment in Ohio. (Side Note: If you’re not already doing so, you should follow Char’s blog and her twitter @edTechGirl because as a member of the ELC, Char is going to have firsthand knowledge of what is happening in PARCC land)

So, here’s what I’ve learned.

PARCC assessments in grades 3-8 and HS ELA and Math (knew that already, but reinforcing)
ODE-developed assessments for science (1 elem, 1 MS, EOC in Biology and Physical Science for 2014-15)
ODE-developed assessments for Social Studies (1 elem, 1 MS, EOC American History and Government for 2014-15)–Don’t forget the legislative requirement for schools to develop interim EOC exams for American History and Government by July, 2013. To be used in 2013-14
OGT will be replaced by End of Year Exams in ELA grades 9-11; replaced by End of Course Exams in Math (traditional or integrated models); replaced by End of Course Exams in Biology, Physical Science; replaced by End of Course Exams in American History and Government
The Cincinnati article adds:“Ohio is expected to choose end-of-course exams or end-of-year exams from PARCC for language arts and math and to develop social studies and science tests.
All the tests are under development, state officials said. The exams, like the OGT and other standardized tests, will include some multiple choice and short-answer questions. They will focus on each high school course, one grade-level at a time, unlike the OGT, which had multiple grade level knowledge in some sections.”
As far as a cut score for a high school diploma, the Cincinnati article says that is still being discussed–26 other states mandate high school exams, and of those, 15 states tie scores to diplomas
Once again, the assessment schedule for PARCC is as I have discussed in the past, which Char highlights in this screenshot:

Guest Post: Some Questions about Text Dependent Questions

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:46:14 GMT

Vicki Vinton is a literacy consultant and writer who works in the New York City public schools and other districts around the country. Her most recent book What Readers Really Do, co-authored with Dorothy Barnhouse and published by Heinemann, explores how to invite students to read closely and deeply in the age of the Common Core Standards. She is also the voice of “To Make a Prairie: A Blog about Reading, Writing, Teaching and the Joys of a Literate Life,” which can be found at http://tomakeaprairie.wordpress.com.

As the school year finally begins to wind down here in New York City, a new term is the air: text dependent questions. I first encountered the term in the Common Core Standards Publishers Criteria, which recommends that Standards-based instructional material includes a sequence of “rigorous text dependent questions that require students to demonstrate that they not only can follow the details of what is explicitly stated but also are able to make valid claims that square with all the evidence in the text.” And nowStudent Achievement Partners, the group founded by several of the Common Core authors, has issued a “Guide to Creating Text Dependent Questions” along with an ever-growing number of “Close Reading Exemplars” that show this method in action.

These text dependent questions stand in contrast to some of the common kinds of questions often heard in classrooms, such as questions about students’ own feelings or experiences and questions related to strategies or skills, like “What’s the main idea?” I agree that these kinds of questions are problematic and should be used sparingly. The first kind can shift students’ attention away from the text to their own thoughts, while the second can turn the act of reading into a scavenger hunt, as I explored a few weeks ago in my post on basal readers.

But text dependent questions seem problematic, as well. The Student Achievement Partners’ guide says that text dependent questions aim to “help students see something worthwhile that they would not have seen in a more cursory reading.” This is a goal I completely share. But the text dependent question approach relies on teachers directing and prompting students to what they want them to see, not on teaching in a way that empowers students to more independently notice what there is to be noticed through their own agency. And in this way text dependent questions run the risk of creating teacher dependent students instead of strong, flexible readers.

To see what I mean, let’s look at one of the Close Reading Exemplars from the Student Achievement Partners’ Achieve the Core site. Here eighth graders are asked to dip into a passage from Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass an American Slave, Written by Himself, which begins like this:

Like all the Exemplars, this one asks students to first read the passage silently to themselves, without any introduction or instruction. They then follow along for a second go through as the teacher reads the text aloud in order to offer “all students access to this complex text.” Then the questions start:

This read-listen-then-answer-questions sequence seems to almost guarantee that some, if not most, students will read and listen to the passage passively, waiting for the teacher to tell them what to do. It also seems to mirror standardized tests, where students don’t often begin to think until they hit the questions, rather than the moment they first begin to read.

The questions themselves also seem test-like; you can almost imagine them being followed by a choice of four possible answers. That’s because there seems to be one right answer, and the questions are seeing if you ‘got it’ or not. In this way, the questions are assessing comprehension, not helping students build it, which means that students who are able to comprehend will probably do fine, while those who can’t, will not. And one can only imagine how those answers might be pulled and yanked like a tooth from those struggling students through continued prompting.

But what if, instead, we taught students that every reader enters a text not knowing where it’s headed, and because of that they keep track of what they’re learning and what they’re confused or wondering about, knowing that they’ll figure out more as they both read forward and think backwards? This vision of what readers do acknowledges that reading is just as much a process of drafting and revising as writing is, with readers constantly questioning and developing their understanding of what an author is saying as they make their way through a text. And it supports the idea that readers are actively engaged and thinking about how the pieces of a text fit together, beginning with the very first line.

To make this process more visible to students, Dorothy Barnhouse and I developed our text-based Know/Wonder chart. Depending on students’ familiarity with the chart, we might briefly model how we use it in a way that encourages students to acknowledge their confusion by reading the first two sentences and noting the following:

Students who had noticed the title, might say that the narrator was a slave, which would help answer the first question and also raise a lot more, including how a slave got to be friends with white boys; where, exactly, was this taking place; how old is/was the narrator; and, as they read further on, how did he manage to get a book and was he allowed to take the bread or had he stolen it. Reading forward on the lookout for answers to these student-generated questions, the students would pick up clues that engaged them in considering the third text dependent question about how Douglass’s life as a slave differed from those of the boys. And those students who hadn’t caught the title could hold on to the question, made visible by the chart, until later on in the passage where they’d encounter more clues. And at that point they’d need to think backwards to revise whatever they’d made of the text so far in light of this realization.

Thus, all this could happen the first time the students read the text with virtually no teacher prompting, because they’d be reading closely from the get-go, fitting details together like puzzle pieces to see the larger picture they revealed. And doing so without any prompting would contribute to an increase in both their engagement and their ability as readers. It would also be an experience they could transfer to the next complex text they read.

Additionally all this drafting and revising would eventually enable students to “make valid claims that square with all the evidence in the text,” in a much more independent way than the text dependent question method permits, because so much more of the thinking istheirs. So let’s not jump so quickly on the text dependent question bandwagon and consider, instead, making the process of meaning making more visible to our students, by offering instruction not directions and giving them time to practice–and perhaps remembering that asking a question doesn’t constitute teaching, nor does answering one always mean learning.