Use of This Guide

40

Acknowledgements

This training program was based on the Southern Regional Education Board Learning-Center Leadership Program and the Wallace Foundation as part of its series of professional development opportunities for preparing school leaders. The following people contributed to the development of the SREB version of the module: Kristie Clements, SREB; Cheryl Gray, SREB; Kathy O’Neill, SREB; Andrea Keim, Consultant; and Pat Mohr, Consultant

The Module was updated and re-organized by Lou Howell and Carol Lensing, under the direction of Matt Ludwig, Leadership Consultant of the Iowa Department of Education to align with the Common Core, the Iowa Core, and to fit the needs of the school administrators in Iowa. The work was completed in the fall and winter of 2010-11.

Big Ideas

· Rigor is the expectation that students will be able to perform at levels of cognitive complexity necessary for proficiency at each grade level and readiness for college and the workplace. Alignment of instruction and assessment with standards/objectives that are at those levels of cognitive complexity is a critical part of increasing rigor in schools.

· Typically, the gap between the levels of cognitive complexity in the standards and the levels in assignments increases as student’s progress through grade levels.

· Taxonomy is a useful tool for classifying and aligning objectives, instruction, and assessment to determine level of cognitive complexity.

· The revised Bloom’s taxonomy helps us to analyze cognitive demand along two dimensions.

· Using the taxonomy can result in rich discussions about intentions, assumptions and outcomes.

· The very act of using the taxonomy can inform our decisions and motivate us toward demanding higher levels of rigor.

· Alignment (standards ( objectives ( assessment tasks ( instructional strategies) is essential to raising the level of rigor.

· We attend to what we measure! If we are serious about raising the level of rigor in our school, we must accurately assess where we are now.

· Measuring rigor at the classroom level is a multi-faceted, ongoing, collaborative process requiring a variety of strategies.

· Through these strategies, we can accomplish the dual goals of building professional expertise and analyzing the level of rigor in the classroom.

Overview

• The focus of Evaluator III is to continue to support and develop the administrator as coach and evaluator of improving teaching and learning.

• Developing skills in rigor – the level of cognitive complexity of the intended learning - is key to creating both the instructional climate and the instructional action to achieve high levels of learning. We must continue to work with all educators to assure rigor in instruction, lessons, units, and assessments as well as questioning to assure the learning our students achieve through the Iowa Core and Common Core prepares them as 21st century learners, earners, and citizens.

• Although school leaders generally recognize the importance of rigor, many are not prepared to thoroughly and accurately measure, monitor, and encourage rigor. Through this module, these leaders will learn how rigor is evidenced at the school level. For example, do students have sufficient access to rigorous courses (placement and course-taking patterns)? How many students have high levels of performance on a variety of standardized and other summative tests (and are there relationships between those scores and student classroom grades)? Are students adequately prepared to meet or exceed standards at the next grade level? Are they expected to learn developmentally appropriate, challenging grade level/course objectives? Are they prepared and ready for the next stage of their education, whether formal or in the workplace?

• Participants will learn that the level of cognitive complexity of expected learning (i.e., rigor) may be directly examined at the classroom level in lesson plans, unit plans and course content; instructional activities, teacher assignments, and student work; formative and summative assessments; and the tight alignment of these elements to challenging standards. The goal is to assure that the enacted curriculum and the assessed curriculum allow students to achieve the intended curriculum.

• School-wide rigor may be achieved by a sustained “academic press” — a focus on challenging students to learn complex knowledge through cognitive processes. In this module, school leaders will learn how to use tools and strategies to determine whether rigor exists in their classrooms (by evaluating the alignment among the intended curriculum (i.e., the expected student learning), the enacted curriculum (i.e., the instructional and student learning opportunities), and the assessed curriculum (e.g., formative and summative assessments) and to determine whether support for rigor exists systemically in their schools.

• Having a conceptual understanding for rigor provides the content for the coaching and evaluation addressed in Evaluator II.

Who the Training Is For

This module is designed to be taught to school leaders and potential school leaders. Ideally, this might include school or district teams of principals, superintendents, central office staff, and aspiring leaders. It is beneficial to include district staff involved in curriculum, standards and instruction.

Module Rationale

The intent of this module is to offer school leaders a process to measure the school’s rigor (level of cognitive complexity of expected student learning).

Academic press, which is the way rigor is frequently manifested at the organizational level, refers to the extent to which school members, including students and teachers, experience a strong emphasis on academic success and conformity to specific standards of achievement. Although school leaders generally recognize the importance of rigor, many are not thoroughly and accurately measuring, monitoring and encouraging rigor. Too often, it is a vague concept that means that instruction is “hard, tough and sometimes boring.”

Educational leaders will learn how rigor is evidenced at the school level and why it is important as an evaluator and coach to understand and guide staff to increase rigor. They will learn that the level of cognitive complexity of expected learning (rigor) may be directly examined at the classroom level in lesson plans, unit plans and course content; teacher assignments and student work; formative and summative assessments and rubrics; and the tight alignment of these elements to challenging standards.

School-wide rigor may be achieved by a sustained “academic press” — a focus on challenging students to learn complex knowledge and cognitive processes. In this module, school leaders will learn how to use tools and strategies to determine whether rigor exists in their classrooms (by evaluating the alignment among expected student learning, teaching and assessing) and to determine whether rigor exists systemically in their schools.

Module Goal

The purpose of this training is to provide a series of workshops that will show school leaders the potential benefits of establishing a culture of rigor in their classrooms throughout their schools and districts. It will also guide you through the concepts and skills needed to create and sustain such a culture in your role as a building leader, coach, and evaluator. By the end of this course, you will be able to: Facilitate school staff in a collaborative effort to measure and increase classroom rigor in instruction, assessments and objectives, and in school-wide academic press, in order to meet the demands of continued education and, ultimately, college or the workplace.

Module Objectives

Days One and Two: What is rigor, how do we measure it, and why should we care?

1. Understand that rigor is the level of cognitive complexity of expected student learning, teaching and assessing which can be directly measured in the classroom along the knowledge and cognitive process dimensions.

2. Define alignment as having a matching level of rigor among standards and objectives, assessment and instruction.

3. Explain why tighter alignment among standards/objectives, assessment and instruction increases the precision of teaching and the enhancement of student learning.

4. Explain the relationship between the level of cognitive complexity (rigor) of expected student learning and student achievement.

5. Understand that rigor is the level of cognitive complexity of expected student learning,

6. Given data at the classroom level, correctly identify the level of cognitive complexity (rigor) of standards and objectives, assessment and instruction by identifying where each should be placed on a matrix of knowledge and cognitive processes.

7. Identify ways to measure, monitor and encourage rigor at the school and classroom levels.

8. Demonstrate how to gather and analyze data related to the level of cognitive complexity of expected student learning (rigor).

Day Three: Measuring Rigor at the Classroom Level

9. Identify ways to measure, monitor and encourage rigor at the school and classroom levels.

10. Demonstrate how to gather and analyze data related to the level of cognitive complexity of expected student learning (rigor).

11. Given data at the classroom level, correctly identify the level of cognitive complexity (rigor) of standards and objectives, assessment and instruction by identifying where each should be placed on a matrix of knowledge and cognitive processes.

Day Four: Measuring Rigor at the School Level

12. Given data across grade levels and subject areas, synthesize the data in order to identify a whole-school picture of rigor and areas of strength and areas of concern.

13. Given school-wide strengths and areas of concern, identify actions to develop a culture of rigor across the school to ensure that all students will learn at cognitively complex levels of learning.

Facilitator’s Information

Facilitator’s Information:

Name: ___________Amy Wichman_____________________________________________

Mailing Address: ___________________________________________________________

E-mail Address: ____amy.wichman@central-clinton.k12.ia.us_______________________

Cell Phone: ______563-650-8377______ Home Phone: ____________________

Work Phone: ____________________ FAX: ____________________

Facilitator’s Information:

Name: ___________Sally Rigeman_____________________________________________

Mailing Address: ___3627 Kennedy Drive, East Moline, IL 61244____________________

E-mail Address: ____s.rigeman@mchsi.com_____________________________________

Cell Phone: ______309-236-4365______ Home Phone: ____309-752-0369________

Work Phone: ____________________ FAX: ____309-752-0369________

Iowa Teaching Standards and Model Criteria

The Iowa Teaching Standards appear in Iowa Code section 284.3. The Model Criteria were developed by the Iowa Department of Education with input from stakeholders and adopted by the State Board of Education on 5/10/02. They were updated May 13, 2010.

Standard 1

Demonstrates ability to enhance academic performance and support for

implementation of the school district’s student achievement goals.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Provides multiple forms of evidence of student learning and growth to students, families, and staff.

b) Implements strategies supporting student, building, and district goals.

c) Uses student performance data as a guide for decision making.

d) Accepts and demonstrates responsibility for creating a classroom culture that supports the learning of every student.

e) Creates an environment of mutual respect, rapport, and fairness.

f) Participates in and contributes to a school culture that focuses on improved student learning.

g) Communicates with students, families, colleagues, and communities effectively and accurately.

Standard 2

Demonstrates competence in content knowledge appropriate to the teaching

position.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Understands and uses key concepts, underlying themes, relationships, and different perspectives related to the content area.

b) Uses knowledge of student development to make learning experiences in the content area meaningful and accessible for every student.

c) Relates ideas and information within and across content areas.

d) Understands and uses instructional strategies that are appropriate to the content area.

Standard 3

Demonstrates competence in planning and preparing for instruction.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Uses student achievement data, local standards, and the district curriculum in planning for instruction.

b) Sets and communicates high expectations for social, behavioral, and academic success of all students.

c) Uses student’s developmental needs, backgrounds, and interests in planning for instruction.

d) Selects strategies to engage all students in learning.

e) Uses available resources, including technologies, in the development and sequencing of instruction.

Standard 4

Uses strategies to deliver instruction that meets the multiple learning needs of

students.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Aligns classroom instruction with local standards and district curriculum.

b) Uses research-based instructional strategies that address the full range of cognitive levels.

c) Demonstrates flexibility and responsiveness in adjusting instruction to meet student needs.

d) Engages students in varied experiences that meet diverse needs and promote social, emotional, and academic growth.

e) Connects students’ prior knowledge, life experiences, and interests in the instructional process.

f) Uses available resources, including technologies, in the delivery of instruction.

Standard 5

Uses a variety of methods to monitor student learning.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Aligns classroom assessment with instruction.

b) Communicates assessment criteria and standards to all students and parents.

c) Understands and uses the results of multiple assessments to guide planning and instruction.

d) Guides students in goal setting and assessing their own learning.

e) Provides substantive, timely, and constructive feedback to students and parents.

f) Works with other staff and building and district leadership in analysis of student progress.

Standard 6

Demonstrates competence in classroom management.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Creates a learning community that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement, and self-regulation for every student.

b) Establishes, communicates, models, and maintains standards of responsible student behavior.

c) Develops and implements classroom procedures and routines that support high expectations for student learning.

d) Uses instructional time effectively to maximize student achievement.

e) Creates a safe and purposeful learning environment.

Standard 7

Engages in professional growth.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Demonstrates habits and skills of continuous inquiry and learning.

b) Works collaboratively to improve professional practice and student learning.

c) Applies research, knowledge, and skills from professional development opportunities to improve practice.

d) Establishes and implements professional development plans based upon the teacher’s needs aligned to the Iowa teaching standards and district/building student achievement goals.

e) Provides an analysis of student learning and growth based on teacher-created tests and authentic measures as well as any standardized and district-wide tests.

Standard 8

Fulfills professional responsibilities established by the school district.

Model Criteria

The teacher:

a) Adheres to board policies, district procedures, and contractual obligations.

b) Demonstrates professional and ethical conduct as defined by state law and district policy.

c) Contributes to efforts to achieve district and building goals.

d) Demonstrates an understanding of and respect for all learners and staff.

e) Collaborates with students, families, colleagues, and communities to enhance student learning.

Iowa Standards For School Leaders

Standard 1: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. (Shared Vision)

The administrator:

a. In collaboration with others, uses appropriate data to establish rigorous, concrete goals in the context of student achievement and instructional programs.

b. Uses research and/or best practices in improving the educational program.

c. Articulates and promotes high expectations for teaching and learning.

d. Aligns and implements the educational programs, plans, actions, and resources with the district’s vision and goals.

e. Provides leadership for major initiatives and change efforts.

f. Communicates effectively to various stakeholders regarding progress with improvement plan goals.

Standard 2: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional development. (Culture of Learning)

The administrator:

a. Provides leadership for assessing, developing, and improving climate and culture.

b. Systematically and fairly recognizes and celebrates accomplishments of staff and students.

c. Provides leadership, encouragement, opportunities, and structure for staff to continually design more effective teaching and learning experiences for all students.

d. Monitors and evaluates the effectiveness of curriculum, instruction, and assessment.

e. Evaluates staff and provides ongoing coaching for improvement.

f. Ensures staff members have professional development that directly enhances their performance and improves student learning.

g. Uses current research and theory about effective schools and leadership to develop and revise his/her professional growth plan.

h. Promotes collaboration with all stakeholders.

i. Is easily accessible and approachable to all stakeholders.

j. Is highly visible and engaged in the school community.

k. Articulates the desired school culture and shows evidence about how it is reinforced.

Standard 3: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. (Management)

The administrator:

a. Complies with state and federal mandates and local board policies.

b. Recruits, selects, inducts, and retains staff to support quality instruction.

c. Addresses current and potential issues in a timely manner.

d. Manages fiscal and physical resources responsibly, efficiently, and effectively.

e. Protects instructional time by designing and managing operational procedures to maximize learning

Standard 4: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs and mobilizing community resources. (Family and Community)

The administrator:

a. Engages family and community by promoting shared responsibility for student learning and support of the education system.

b. Promotes and supports a structure for family and community involvement in the education system.

c. Facilitates the connections of students and families to the health and social services that support a focus on learning.

d. Collaboratively establishes a culture that welcomes and honors families and community and seeks ways to engage them in student learning.

Standard 5: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner. (Ethics)

The administrator:

a. Demonstrates ethical and professional behavior.

b. Demonstrates values, beliefs, and attitudes that inspire others to higher levels of performance.

c. Fosters and maintains caring professional relationships with staff.

d. Demonstrates appreciation for and sensitivity to diversity in the school community.

e. Is respectful of divergent opinions.

Standard 6: An educational leader promotes the success of all students by understanding the profile of the community, and responding to and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. (Societal Context)

The administrator:

a. Collaborates with service providers and other decision makers to improve teaching and learning.

b. Advocates for the welfare of all members of the learning community.

c. Designs and implements appropriate strategies to reach desired goals.

f. Communicates effectively with both internal and external audiences about the operations of the school.

IOWA CORE

Characteristics of Effective Instruction

Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum

Purpose: The purpose of this brief is to provide Iowa educators with a clear idea of what is meant by rigorous and relevant curriculum as a characteristic of effective instruction of the Iowa Core.

Definition: A rigorous and relevant curriculum is one that is cognitively demanding and challenging to students as they apply the essential concepts and skills to real world, complex and open-ended situations. The concept is not just interesting to students, but involves particular intellectual challenges. When students successfully meet these challenges, their new learning will have meaning and value in contexts beyond the curriculum unit or classroom setting.

Rigor and relevance is characterized by content that is linked to a core disciplinary concept or skill and

· Requires students to do authentic work, using methods that are specific to the

discipline and to apply what they know or what they are learning to solve complex problems

· Involves the use of prior knowledge, the development of in-depth understanding, and

the ability to develop and express ideas and findings through elaborated

communication.

A rigorous and relevant curriculum requires students to use knowledge to create and apply solutions to complex, real-world problems.

Critical Attributes of a Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum

Rigorous curriculum, instruction, and assessment include the following attributes:

· Higher order thinking (HOT) is performed by students during instruction

· The instruction and the tasks presented to students require them to predict, hypothesize, justify, interpret, synthesize, evaluate, analyze and/or generally create new levels of meaning and understanding to be successful.

· Deep understanding and mastery of critical disciplinary concepts and skills are

demonstrated.

· Instruction aims at students developing an integrated, holistic understanding of important concepts. Students are able to articulate details, nuances, and different applications of important disciplinary content, rather than only fragmented pieces of information.

· Concepts and skills are applied to situations, issues, and problems in the world beyond school.

· Students are asked to apply discipline specific processes to address a real world problem or complete an authentic task. In doing student learning is deeper and more likely to carryover to new learning. Instruction reflects an understanding, both by teachers and students, of the value of applying concepts and skills to influence an audience beyond school.

Additional important aspects of a rigorous and relevant curriculum

· Connections within and across disciplines are made to develop essential concepts and skills in ways that address the complexity of real-world problems.

· Students are making the connections among essential concepts from two or more disciplines and using those to solve complex real-world problems. The nature of the work prompts students to incorporate concepts, discipline specific methods and processes from more than one discipline in order to address the complex nature of the problem.

· Essential understandings are formatively assessed using standards, criteria, and a variety of formal and informal strategies.

· Learning goals are clearly defined, examples of high quality work are available, and rubrics are frequently and consistently applied.

· To help students do well, their work in progress is closely monitored. They are given descriptive feedback from the teacher and one another based on the goals and criteria for the task they are completing. Examples of previous work- both strong and weak-are available to help guide their work. Teachers and students collaborate in nurturing a class climate where it is safe to take risks and receive feedback that strengthens the quality of their work.

· The coherence of enduring understandings and culture supporting high expectations is consistent among all grade levels.

· Teachers who teach the same content have reached a common understanding of the nature of the essential concept or skill and the kinds of evidence one would see in student work to identify its presence. Based upon age, prior learning, and the developmental differences among students, teachers adjust the work assignments and requirements. As students move from one level of instruction to another, their knowledge of and ability to use the skills and concepts grows with continuity, becoming increasingly more complex and demanding.

Planning - Rigor and relevant instruction requires careful design and preparation.

Teacher actions:

· Teachers focus on critical instructional content.

· Teachers develop tasks that require students to apply concepts and skills in a real-world context.

· Teachers design tasks that are cognitively complex and require higher order thinking

· Teachers identify enduring understandings related to the critical concepts and skills included in their instruction.

· Teachers collaborate with one another to strengthen curriculum through interdisciplinary connections.

· Teachers carefully consider and select cognitive processes in designing instruction

Instructing—Teachers and student take on active roles as the rigor and relevance of instruction increases.

Teacher actions:

· Teachers serve as facilitators and coaches.

· Teachers tailor learning to meet specific student needs.

· Teachers provide descriptive feedback to students.

· Teachers gradually release control of learning over to the students.

· Teachers provide access to information, resources, experts, and technology that students will need to complete authentic tasks.

· Teachers demonstrate essential concepts or skills as needed.

· Teachers prompt students’ thinking with questions about the work they are doing and the decisions they are making.

· The responsibility for learning is shared between teacher and students.

Student actions:

· Students collaborate with their peers and adults as they engage in problem-based learning

· Students share responsibilities for members of their learning teams.

· Students exchange ideas and points of view as they work together.

· Students strengthen their active listening skills through intelligent coherent communication.

· Students communicate in elaborated and specific ways during the development and presentation of their work.

· Students use technology to access, retrieve, and produce information.

· The responsibility for learning is shared among teacher and students.

Monitoring and assessment- Teachers and students continuously reflect on the thinking that’s happening during and as a result of instruction.

Teacher actions:

· Teachers continually reflect on students’ level of cognition as learning progresses.

· Teachers consistently apply standards and criteria to evaluate student work.

· Teachers arrange for appropriate audiences or evaluators for student work outside the classroom.

· Teachers make plans to re-teach if students do not meet the learning goals.

Student actions:

· Students self and peer analyze their work before they present to an audience.

· Students continually reflect as they engage new learning to strengthen their skills and identify areas for improvement.

Traditionally, academic rigor was most often found in college preparatory curriculum or AP courses. Students seeking relevance in their course work selected elective courses that matched their interests. But rigor and relevance are critical factors that must be prevalent in each and every student’s educational experience. Partnered with the essential concepts and skills of the Iowa Core, rigor and relevance prepare students to meet future intellectual challenges.

Sources:

1. Newmann, F.M., (1992). Student Achievement in American Secondary Schools. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

2. Newmann, F.M., B.M. King, and D.L. Carmichael, (2007). “Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Common Standards for Rigor and Relevance in Teaching Academic Subject.” Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education.

3. Rigor and Relevance Handbook (2002). Rexford, New York: International Center for Leadership in Education.

4. Smith, Thomas, J., (2008). “Striking the Balance: Career Academies Combine Academic Rigor and Workplace Relevance.” National High School Center. American Institutes for Research, Washington, D. C.

5. Harada, Violet H., Carolyn Kirio, Sandy Yamamoto. “Project-Based Learning: Rigor and Relevance in High Schools.” Library Media Connection: March, 2008. Volume 26 Issue 6, p. 14-20.

6. McNulty, Raymond J., Russell J. Quaglia. “Rigor, Relevance and Relationships.” School Administrator, September 2007, Volume 64 Issue 8, pp18-24.

7. Tobias, Shelia. “Yes: A Rigorous Curriculum Produces Better Students.” Tucson Citizen. Feb. 2007.

8. ACT. (2007). “Rigor at Risk: Reaffirming Quality in the High School Core Curriculum.” Iowa City, IA.

Day One: Connecting Rigor to the Iowa Core

Pair/Share Activity on Rigor

Directions: With a partner, review the definition of rigor provided on the slide and then review “The Rigor and Relevance Brief of the Iowa Core” – recognizing connections and any “disconnections” with the information. Be sure to watch for extensions of your own understanding as you review the two documents. Then with another pair, share your connections and disconnections. Be prepared to share highlights with the large groups.

Connections of Rigor Definition on Slide with Rigor from the Rigor and Relevance Brief of Iowa Core

Disconnections of Rigor Definition on Slide with Rigor from the Rigor and Relevance Brief of Iowa Core

Day One: Jigsaw Activity

Part I Directions:

Read your assigned article on rigor, take notes and with other members of your small group discuss the Part 1 question as well as share your “Ah-Ha!” points. When your group is finished, return to your table.

Part 2 Directions:

At your table with others who read different articles from you, share your knowledge from Part I. Come up with an answer to the Part 2 question that synthesizes the information from the different articles. Select a spokesperson to present your team’s answer.

Part 1 Question: What examples of rigor are described by the author?

Great “Ah-Ha!” points I want to share!

Title of article I read and discussed:_______________________________

Title of article others read and shared:_______________________________

Title of article others read and shared:_______________________________

Part 2 Question: What is the message you want to take back to others at your school about rigor?

Article A

Educational Leadership

October 2008

October 2008 | Volume 66 | Number 2 Expecting ExcellencePages 20-25

Rigor Redefined

Tony Wagner

Even our “best” schools are failing to prepare students for 21st-century careers and citizenship.

In the new global economy, with many jobs being either automated or “off-shored,” what skills will students need to build successful careers? What skills will they need to be good citizens? Are these two education goals in conflict?

To examine these questions, I conducted research beginning with conversations with several hundred business, nonprofit, philanthropic, and education leaders. With a clearer picture of the skills young people need, I then set out to learn whether U.S. schools are teaching and testing the skills that matter most. I observed classrooms in some of the nation's most highly regarded suburban schools to find out whether our “best” was, in fact, good enough for our children's future. What I discovered on this journey may surprise you.

The Schooling Students Need

One of my first conversations was with Clay Parker, president of the Chemical Management Division of BOC Edwards—a company that, among other things, makes machines and supplies chemicals for the manufacture of microelectronics devices. He's an engineer by training and the head of a technical business, so when I asked him about the skills he looks for when he hires young people, I was taken aback by his answer.

“First and foremost, I look for someone who asks good questions,” Parker responded. “We can teach them the technical stuff, but we can't teach them how to ask good questions—how to think.”

“What other skills are you looking for?” I asked, expecting that he'd jump quickly to content expertise.

“I want people who can engage in good discussion—who can look me in the eye and have a give and take. All of our work is done in teams. You have to know how to work well with others. But you also have to know how to engage customers—to find out what their needs are. If you can't engage others, then you won't learn what you need to know.”

I initially doubted whether Parker's views were representative of business leaders in general. But after interviewing leaders in settings from Apple to Unilever to the U.S. Army and reviewing the research on workplace skills, I came to understand that the world of work has changed profoundly.

Today's students need to master seven survival skills to thrive in the new world of work. And these skills are the same ones that will enable students to become productive citizens who contribute to solving some of the most pressing issues we face in the 21st century.

1. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

To compete in the new global economy, companies need their workers to think about how to continuously improve their products, processes, or services. Over and over, executives told me that the heart of critical thinking and problem solving is the ability to ask the right questions. As one senior executive from Dell said, “Yesterday's answers won't solve today's problems.”

Ellen Kumata, managing partner at Cambria Associates, explained the extraordinary pressures on leaders today. “The challenge is this: How do you do things that haven't been done before, where you have to rethink or think anew? It's not incremental improvement any more. The markets are changing too fast.”

2. Collaboration and Leadership

Teamwork is no longer just about working with others in your building. Christie Pedra, CEO of Siemens, explained, “Technology has allowed for virtual teams. We have teams working on major infrastructure projects that are all over the U.S. On other projects, you're working with people all around the world on solving a software problem. Every week they're on a variety of conference calls; they're doing Web casts; they're doing net meetings.”

Mike Summers, vice president for Global Talent Management at Dell, said that his greatest concern was young people's lack of leadership skills. “Kids just out of school have an amazing lack of preparedness in general leadership skills and collaborative skills,” he explained. “They lack the ability to influence.”

3. Agility and Adaptability

Clay Parker explained that anyone who works at BOC Edwards today “has to think, be flexible, change, and use a variety of tools to solve new problems. We change what we do all the time. I can guarantee the job I hire someone to do will change or may not exist in the future, so this is why adaptability and learning skills are more important than technical skills.”

4. Initiative and Entrepreneurialism

Mark Chandler, senior vice president and general counsel at Cisco, was one of the strongest proponents of initiative: “I say to my employees, if you try five things and get all five of them right, you may be failing. If you try 10 things, and get eight of them right, you're a hero. You'll never be blamed for failing to reach a stretch goal, but you will be blamed for not trying. One of the problems of a large company is risk aversion. Our challenge is how to create an entrepreneurial culture in a larger organization.”

5. Effective Oral and Written Communication

Mike Summers of Dell said, “We are routinely surprised at the difficulty some young people have in communicating: verbal skills, written skills, presentation skills. They have difficulty being clear and concise; it's hard for them to create focus, energy, and passion around the points they want to make. If you're talking to an exec, the first thing you'll get asked if you haven't made it perfectly clear in the first 60 seconds of your presentation is, ‘What do you want me to take away from this meeting?’ They don't know how to answer that question.”

Summers and other leaders from various companies were not necessarily complaining about young people's poor grammar, punctuation, or spelling—the things we spend so much time teaching and testing in our schools. Although writing and speaking correctly are obviously important, the complaints I heard most frequently were about fuzzy thinking and young people not knowing how to write with a real voice.

6. Accessing and Analyzing Information

Employees in the 21st century have to manage an astronomical amount of information daily. As Mike Summers told me, “There is so much information available that it is almost too much, and if people aren't prepared to process the information effectively it almost freezes them in their steps.”

It's not only the sheer quantity of information that represents a challenge, but also how rapidly the information is changing. Quick—how many planets are there? In the early 1990s, I heard then–Harvard University President Neil Rudenstine say in a speech that the half-life of knowledge in the humanities is 10 years, and in math and science, it's only two or three years. I wonder what he would say it is today.

7. Curiosity and Imagination

Mike Summers told me, “People who've learned to ask great questions and have learned to be inquisitive are the ones who move the fastest in our environment because they solve the biggest problems in ways that have the most impact on innovation.”

Daniel Pink, the author of A Whole New Mind, observes that with increasing abundance, people want unique products and services: “For businesses it's no longer enough to create a product that's reasonably priced and adequately functional. It must also be beautiful, unique, and meaningful.” Pink notes that developing young people's capacities for imagination, creativity, and empathy will be increasingly important for maintaining the United States' competitive advantage in the future.

The Schooling Students Get

I've spent time observing in classrooms across the United States for more than 20 years. Here is a sampling of what I've seen recently. These examples come from secondary honors and advanced placement (AP) classes in three school systems that enjoy excellent reputations because of their high test scores.

AP Chemistry

Students work in groups of two and three mixing chemicals according to directions written on the chalkboard. Once the mixtures are prepared, students heat the concoction with Bunsen burners. According to the directions on the board, they are supposed to record their observations on a worksheet.

I watch a group of three young men whose mixture is giving off a thin spiral of smoke as it's being heated— something that none of the other students' beakers are doing. One student looks back at the chalkboard and then at his notes. Then all three stop what they are doing, apparently waiting for the teacher to come help them.

“What's happening to your mixture?” I ask the group.

“Dunno,” one mutters. “We must have mixed it up wrong.”

“What's your hypothesis about what happened—why it's smoking?”

The three look at one another blankly, and the student who has been doing all the speaking looks at me and shrugs.

AP U.S. Government

The teacher is reviewing answers to a sample test that the class took the previous day. The test contains 80 multiple-choice questions related to the functions and branches of the federal government.

When he's finished, he says “OK, now let's look at some sample free-response questions from previous years' AP exams.” He flips the overhead projector on and reads from the text of a transparency: “Give three reasons why the Iron Triangle may be criticized as undemocratic. How would you answer this question?”

No one replies. “OK, who can give me a definition of the Iron Triangle?” A student pipes up, “The military-industrial-congressional complex.”

“OK, so what would be three reasons why it would be considered undemocratic?” The teacher calls on a student in the front row who has his hand half raised, and he answers the question in a voice that we can't hear over the hum of the projector's fan.

“Good. Now let's look at another one.” The teacher flips another transparency onto the projector. “Now this question is about bureaucracy. Let me tell you how to answer this one. . . .”

AP English

The teacher explains that the class is going to review students' literature notes for the advanced placement exam next week. The seven students are deeply slouched in their chairs, arranged in a semicircle around the teacher's desk.

The teacher asks, “Now what is Virginia Woolf saying about the balance between an independent life versus a social life?”

Students ruffle through their notebooks. Finally, a young woman, reading from her notes, answers, “Mrs. Ramsey sought meaning from social interactions.”

“Yes, that's right. Now what about Lily, the artist? How did she construct meaning?”

“Through her painting,” another student mumbles, her face scrunched close to her notes.

“So what is Woolf saying about the choices these two women have made, and what each has sacrificed?”

No reply. The teacher sighs, gets up, goes to the board, and begins writing.

A Rare Class

Once in a great while, I observe a class in which a teacher is using academic content to develop students' core competencies. In such a class, the contrast with the others is stark.

At the beginning of the period in an Algebra II class, the teacher writes a problem on the board. He turns to the students, who are sitting in desks arranged in squares of four that face one another. “You haven't seen this kind of problem before,” he explains. “Solving it will require you to use concepts from both geometry and algebra. Each group will try to develop at least two different ways to solve this problem. After all the groups have finished, I'll randomly choose someone from each group who will write one of your proofs on the board, and I'll ask that person to explain the process your group used.”

The groups quickly go to work. Animated discussion takes place as students pull the problem apart and talk about different ways to solve it. While they work, the teacher circulates from group to group. When a student asks a question, the teacher responds with another question: “Have you considered . . . ?” “Why did you assume that?” or simply “Have you asked someone in your group?”

What makes this an effective lesson—a lesson in which students are learning a number of the seven survival skills while also mastering academic content? First, students are given a complex, multi-step problem that is different from any they've seen in the past. To solve it, they have to apply critical-thinking and problem-solving skills and call on previously acquired knowledge from both geometry and algebra. Mere memorization won't get them far. Second, they have to find two ways to solve the problem, which requires initiative and imagination. Third, they have to explain their proofs using effective communication skills. Fourth, the teacher does not spoon-feed students the answers. He uses questions to push students' thinking and build their tolerance for ambiguity. Finally, because the teacher announces in advance that he'll randomly call on a student to show how the group solved the problem, each student in every group is held accountable. Success requires teamwork.

Rigor for the 21st Century

Across the United States, I see schools that are succeeding at making adequate yearly progress but failing our students. Increasingly, there is only one curriculum: test prep. Of the hundreds of classes that I've observed in recent years, fewer than 1 in 20 were engaged in instruction designed to teach students to think instead of merely drilling for the test.

To teach and test the skills that our students need, we must first redefine excellent instruction. It is not a checklist of teacher behaviors and a model lesson that covers content standards. It is working with colleagues to ensure that all students master the skills they need to succeed as lifelong learners, workers, and citizens. I have yet to talk to a recent graduate, college teacher, community leader, or business leader who said that not knowing enough academic content was a problem. In my interviews, everyone stressed the importance of critical thinking, communication skills, and collaboration.

We need to use academic content to teach the seven survival skills every day, at every grade level, and in every class. And we need to insist on a combination of locally developed assessments and new nationally normed, online tests—such as the College and Work Readiness Assessment (www.cae.org)—that measure students' analytic-reasoning, critical-thinking, problem-solving, and writing skills.

It's time to hold ourselves and all of our students to a new and higher standard of rigor, defined according to 21st-century criteria. It's time for our profession to advocate for accountability systems that will enable us to teach and test the skills that matter most. Our students' futures are at stake.

Endnote

1Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Riverhead Books, pp. 32–33.

___________________________________________

Tony Wagner is Codirector of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education; tony_wagner@harvard.edu; www.schoolchange.org. The themes of this article are discussed more fully in his book The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need—and What We Can Do About It (Basic Books, 2008).

Copyright © 2008 by Tony Wagner

Article B

Tying the Bell on the Cat

The implementation of standards brings to mind a classic story.

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 21st century in which today’s students will work.

· Provide a fair and equitable basis for evaluation.

However, there is widespread disagreement about how schools will be held accountable for the implementation of these standards. Without accountability and without comprehensive and meaningful assessment, 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 of the education delivery system, including instructional design, classroom technique, allocation of resources, administrative practice, and central office decision making.

Linking Standards to Assessments: An 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 technological 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.” I then asked the group a simple question: if there is such unanimity on the need for high standards in thinking skills, collaborative work, and technological 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 doesn’t reflect the opposite of what we claim to believe? One American community college dean said that they require performance assessment in technology. A few delegates said that they were experimenting with individual proficiency tests at the university level.

These noble efforts notwithstanding, the state of assessment is now little different than it has been for decades. School leaders and national policy makers frequently talk about laudatory goals, such as teamwork and cooperation among students. Indeed, business leaders frequently cite these characteristics as essential for a successful participant in the work force of the 21st century. Unfortunately, typical assessment practices do not match these goals. Few assessments encourage meaningful teamwork and cooperation; in fact, tests based on the Bell Curve actively oppose cooperation among students because the gain of one student is invariably at the expense of another. 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 sills required in the never-never land of political speeches, but rarely assessed in the classroom.

At the dawn of the 21st century, there is a significant backlash against standards in general and mandatory testing in particular. Here is the dilemma: Critics of standardized tests note that the tests are poorly aligned to curriculum and standards. In reaction to this criticism, a few states have expanded the scope and method of assessment to include writing, problem solving, and other academic areas. These assessments are more complex and time-consuming, but are better related to the standards than the formerly used “ quick and dirty” standardized tests. The critics, rather than celebrating the fact that they influenced assessment for the better, are now enraged because the tests take too much time and are so directly related to state standards that teacher creativity has been inhibited. In the absence of a perfect test, what are school leaders and state legislators to do? The extreme options appear to be the abandonment of tests or the exclusive reliance on a single nationally standardized test. Neither extreme is worthy of our students. A balanced approach to standards-based assessment will continue the quest for improved assessments, with multiple testing methods that include multiple-choice, short-answer, extended response, problem solving, and demonstration. Most importantly, the result of these assessments will not be the terrorizing of children nor the threatening of adults, but clear and meaningful feedback on how to improve teaching and learning. While that vision departs significantly from present reality, educational leaders will never achieve the goal of meaningful and fair assessment if we remain mired in the acrimonious debate that now prevails. We should be able to acknowledge the flaws inherent in any human-made test and use those flaws as a basis for improvement. This will help us avoid a retreat to the pre-standards era of mystery grading, idiosyncratic judgments, and the Bell Curve.

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. The question is 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 I 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 reflect 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 assessment. It is to these energetic, innovative, and frustrated voices that this book is addressed. Their central question is: Now that we have standards, how do we make them work?

What Makes the Standards Approach Different From Business as Usual?

Many school systems across the United States and abroad have endured the arduous process 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 assessment. 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,” 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 promotion. It is rather the use of multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency and steadfast refusal of teachers and administrators to label students “proficient” when they are not.

· A “D” is a passing grade.

I know of no classroom in America 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 option 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 they are not. The failure to be proficient should, in most circumstances, result in a grade of “incomplete” while the student is afforded more opportunities to learn and demonstrate proficiency. Should the student refuse to do so, a failing grade, not a “D”, is the only accurate grade.

· A great high school is measured by the quantity and creativity of its elective offerings.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the proliferation of non-academic electives has improved student learning. But there is growing quantity of 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 assessments. 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 they have no academic standards. Note well: This does not make a brief for a curriculum based only on the “three R’s.” 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 identical math classes (typically 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 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 levels, but that does not imply that all students learn in the same way and at the same pace. Standards-based districts expect that all students will achieve. That does not mean that they should expect that all students will learn in an 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 notions is the practical outcome of standards implementation. A standards-driven district, however, cannot afford the luxury of paying lip service to academic standards by implementing a system based only upon attendance (or “seat time”), hourly credit, and ancient definitions of satisfactory. Let us consider each of these implications in some detail.

It is Proficiency, Not Seat Time That Matters

Standards implementation depends on a demonstration of proficiency. Traditional means of assessment, such as letter grade associated with “seat time,” are 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 purposes of awarding a high school diploma the “D” is regarded satisfactory.

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 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 obligation to provide multiple opportunities and constructive feedback for those students to make progress towards standards 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.

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, or - a better alternative - the 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 civic standards. The photography class could be linked to standards in mathematics, visual arts, science, language arts, and civics. The bottom line remains, however, that classes not linked to standards do not make a contribution to the goals of the district and should not be taught.

Standards implementation requires a compartmentalized curriculum. By compartmentalization, I mean the reduction of some academic subjects into smaller blocks. There should be no such thing as “ninth grade mathematics” or “tenth grade English.” Rather, standards that these classes have traditionally comprised should be taught in units ranging in size from a few weeks to a full 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.

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 algebra class. The traditional system requires that these students take a class for which they are hopelessly ill prepared and then brands these students as failures in mathematics. A better approach is to permit these students to achieve the 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 classes, not by taking a “dumbed-down” curriculum.

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? This is precisely what it means. This leads to the next issue. Standards implementation almost invariably implies fewer electives.

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 of any responsibility that teachers of these electives should have with regard to standards implementation. Although I acknowledge the social importance of many electives, these are times of limited resources and falling academic achievement in many districts. Such times call for making choices with regard 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 few), 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 standards. In addition, the teachers of these elective subjects bear a responsibility for either demonstrating that their classes can, in fact, help students achieve specific academic standards, or accepting the fact that the activities in which they are engaged are more appropriate as after-school extracurricular activities. To be sure, there are a number of teachers of music, shop, home economics, and many other electives 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.

There is substantial controversy on the subject of whether “non-academic” subjects should have their own standards. Many professional groups associated with music, physical, and vocational education advocate the position. They argue that separate standards make these subjects part of the standards movement. In my view, these arguments are wrong because they diminish the very subjects they seek to promote. The contention that music, physical education, and art, to name a few examples, should not be part of academic content standards but should have completely separate standards distances these subjects from core academic subjects and may doom them to irrelevance when the next round of budget cuts inevitably comes. 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, and 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 their integration into the core academic content standards of our schools. This is not merely a theoretical ideal, but has been applied in practice to the hundreds of schools I have visited. Art classes routinely capitalize on the visual learning styles of students to build vocabulary and enhance thinking skills. Music classes give students not only a joy of rhythm and tunes, but also a better understanding of fractions and intervals. Art and music classes collaborate to give students a deeper understanding of social studies subjects, relating culture to history. Physical education classes integrate the joy of movement and games with measurement and strategy. Administrators bear a particular burden to incorporate all faculty members into the standards discussion. When, after all, was the last time we invited the physical education teacher to a discussion of math achievement? When did we last ask the art teacher to participate in a discussion of thinking skills and vocabulary development? Effective faculty collaboration depends upon administrators who will take the initiative to be deliberately inclusive of all faculty members in all discussions of academic standards and student achievement.

Standards and High School Graduation Requirements

Standards implementation implies different graduation requirements. The myth of the “gentlemen’s C” (or given today’s grade inflation, the “gentleman’s 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.

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 that say more about the level of educational and political discourse than they do about the targets of the labels.

Finally, criticism will come from teachers themselves, who appreciate performance-based assessments of standards in theory but who are less than enthusiastic when they discover that the primary responsibility for the creation and year-round administration of these assessments rests with the classroom teacher. Only those districts willing to risk the wrath of all 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 opportunity, 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.

Reproduced by permission of Advanced Learning Press, Copyright 2002. All rights reserved

Article C

The ‘Crayola Curriculum’

By Mike Schmoker

Education Week, October 24, 2001

We may have the reading crisis all wrong. It may have far less to do with the "reading wars" than we presumed. I am convinced that the following explanation is, without doubt, the least recognized but most salient explanation for why there is a reading gap between rich and poor, for why so many kids reach upper-elementary and middle school with less than even minimal ability to read and make sense of text. The explanation is both simple and shocking. But the evidence for it is compelling. Best of all, this explanation holds out enormous hope for dramatic, near-term improvements at every level of education.

A couple of years ago, I found myself touring a school that had received an international award for excellence in staff development. Roaming from class to class—on what was clearly a "showcase day"—I went from being puzzled to astonished by what I saw.

Two things were terribly wrong: One, a majority of students were sitting in small, unsupervised groups, barely, if at all, engaged in what were supposedly learning activities. Many of the children were chatting. Second, but more important, was that the activities themselves seemed to bear no relation whatsoever to reading, the presumed subject being taught at the time. After seeing this pattern in several classes, I finally asked my host what kinds of gains had been made in this award-winning but high-poverty school. I was regretfully informed that there had been no gains, what with the hardships these children faced at home and in their neighborhoods.

This had to be an aberration, I thought. Nonetheless, I came away from the experience a little jaded, and anxious to see if this pattern held in other places. So I began, as part of my work with school districts—most, but not all of them low-performing—to tour early-grade classrooms during the reading period. I purposely took several people along with me each time: building and district administrators, teachers, even an occasional superintendent. I briefed them on what to look for: (1) reasonably good reading activities, the kind almost anyone would agree on, and (2) the majority of students at least nominally attending to them. We wandered in and out of classrooms, deliberately returning to many of them to see how long students were engaged in certain activities. Along the way, I asked the group how the lessons stood up to our scrutiny.

From the start, the virtually unanimous impression was that (1) most of the activities had very little relation to reading—to acquiring the ability to read, and (2) students were barely, if at all, engaged in their work. We weren't looking for perfection; we were looking for a reasonable amount of student engagement in garden-variety literacy activities.

After a few such tours, I became more convinced that something was truly awry, something more profound than the debates that perennially rage about such matters as phonics vs. whole language. After touring about 50 classrooms in several schools in several states—always with others from that same school or district—I became doubly convinced. I am now up to about 300 classrooms, and the pattern still holds.

What is actually going on during these early-grade reading periods? A number of things, but the activity that overwhelmed all legitimate literacy activities may surprise you. Students were not reading, they weren't writing about what they had read, they weren't learning the alphabet or its corresponding sounds; they weren't learning words or sentences or how to read short texts.

They were coloring. Coloring on a scale unimaginable to us before these classroom tours. The crayons were ever-present. Sometimes, students were cutting or building things out of paper (which they had colored) or just talking quietly while sitting at "activity centers" that were presumably for the purpose of promoting reading and writing skills. These centers, too, were ubiquitous, and a great source of pride to many teachers and administrators. They were great for classroom management—and patently, tragically counterproductive.

One of the questions I would occasionally ask teachers during these rounds, especially if it was late in the school year, was whether or not students knew the alphabet and its sounds. The teachers would regularly say no, but add that, after all, these were either poor or second-language students. The question in my mind, never uttered, was this: "Why wouldn't they be learning the alphabet? Why are they coloring instead of being taught to read?"

Well into this journey, I ran into a friend and fellow consultant who travels all over the world and has also been in a great number of classrooms. He too vehemently decried, and confirmed, exactly what I was seeing—even in many high-scoring schools. Not long after that, I heard Joyce Bales, the superintendent of the Pueblo, Colo., schools, implore her principals to be on the watch for the excessive "coloring, cutting, and pasting" she saw going on in elementary classrooms during reading instruction.

This story ends with my listening to an audiotape of Kati Haycock, the director of the Education Trust, a Washington-based nonprofit group that is working to improve achievement in poor schools. Her teams had toured thousands of classrooms as part of their landmark study on disadvantaged schools that had beaten the odds. Look hard at her remarks, which may be as revealing of the current context as anything ever said or written:

I can only summarize the findings by saying we've been stunned [that] ... kids are given more coloring assignments than mathematics and writing assignments. I want to repeat that, because I'm not joking, nor am I exaggerating.

For those who aren't yet convinced, I urge you to conduct just such an audit yourselves.

As for my own classroom tours, in every case but one, the people who accompanied me have found them to be a revelation—and a hugely positive one. The one administrator who did not found herself at odds with her faculty, which had been mobilized to seize the opportunity this new awareness made possible. In one high-poverty district where I made several visits, the principals were not only ecstatic, but ecstatic at the opportunity these observations created. In two years, their scores on the Stanford Achievement Test-9th Edition for grades 2-4 went up by 25 percentile points; in math, they went up by 40 points.

None of these tours was conducted in a spirit of accusation. On the contrary, we were looking for patterns. It was those patterns, not individual teachers, that were discussed. Rather than condemn teachers, it is time for us to condemn the traditions, the institutional inertia, that account for these practices. They represent nothing less than a crisis in teaching, in teacher training, in supervision and supervisory training, and in reading research itself, which is still far too esoteric and remote from the trenches where teachers teach and students learn.

We should see this as an unparalleled opportunity for near-term improvement. It is time to redirect our focus to attend to simple things: the amount of time kids spend reading, just plain reading; and drill—yes, drill—in letters, sounds, and phonemic patterns. It is worth emphasizing that the most important single activity to promote reading is reading. It is even better if this is done with a purpose, and if we regularly write about and discuss what we read. Several studies have shown that having students read an additional 280,000 words per year can mean the difference between scoring at the 20th percentile and scoring at the 50th. That's like reading two books the length of a Harry Potter novel (about 155,000 words).

But these are not the activities we encountered in the classrooms I visited, even as we returned to them several times over the course of the reading period.

If our perceptions are well-founded, if Ms. Haycock and others are correct, then all of us may be in denial about the actualities of time and tasks in early-grade reading classrooms. The logic is pretty plain: Kids, especially those in disadvantaged settings, don't have a chance unless we teach them to read, early and well. This can happen the moment we charge teachers and administrators in every school and district to give reading and language arts instruction the thoroughgoing, common-sense review it so desperately needs.

Reprinted with permission of M. Smoker; copyright 2001

Excerpt from Toward a More Comprehensive Conception of College Readiness by David Conley, 2007

Components in a Comprehensive Definition of College Readiness

College readiness is a multi-faceted concept comprising numerous variables that include factors both internal and external to the school environment

In order to provide a functional representation of the key facets of college readiness, the model presented below organizes the key areas necessary for college readiness into four concentric levels. These four areas of college readiness knowledge and skills emerge from a review of the literature and are those that can be most directly influenced by schools.

In practice, these various facets are not mutually exclusive or perfectly nested as portrayed in the model. They interact with one another extensively. For example, a lack of college knowledge often affects the decisions students make regarding the specific content knowledge they choose to study and master. Or a lack of attention to academic behaviors is one of the most frequent causes of problems for first-year students, whether they possess the necessary content knowledge and habits of mind.

Figure 1: Facets of College Readiness

What the model argues for is a more comprehensive look at what it means to be college-ready, a perspective that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all of the facets contained in the model. This is the key point of this definition, that all facets of college readiness must be identified and eventually measured if more students are to be made college-ready.

Habits of Mind

The success of a well-prepared college student is built upon a foundation of key habits of mind that enable students to learn content from a range of disciplines. Unfortunately, the development of key habits of mind in high school is often overshadowed by an instructional focus on de-contextualized content and facts necessary to pass exit examinations or simply to keep students busy and classrooms quiet.

For the most part, state high-stakes standardized tests require students to recall or recognize fragmented and isolated bits of information. Those that do contain performance tasks are severely limited in the time the tasks can take and their breadth or depth. The tests rarely require students to apply their learning and almost never require students to exhibit proficiency in higher forms of cognition (Marzano, Pickering, & McTighe, 1993).

Several studies of college faculty members nationwide, regardless of the selectivity of the university, expressed near-universal agreement that most students arrive unprepared for the intellectual demands and expectations of postsecondary (Conley, 2003a). For example, one study found that faculty reported that the primary areas in which first-year students needed further development were critical thinking and problem solving (Lundell, Higbee, Hipp, & Copeland, 2004). The term “habits of mind” was selected for this model to describe the intelligent behaviors necessary for college readiness and to emphasize that these behaviors need to be developed over a period of time such that they become ways of thinking, habits in how intellectual activities are pursued. In other words, habits of mind are patterns of intellectual behavior that lead to the development of cognitive strategies and capabilities necessary for college-level work. The term habits of mind invokes a more disciplined approach to thinking than terms such as “dispositions” or “thinking skills.” The term indicates intentional and practiced behaviors that become a habitual

way of working toward more thoughtful and intelligent action (Costa & Kallick, 2000).

The specific habits of mind referenced in this paper are those shown to be closely related to college success. They include the following as the most important manifestations of this way of thinking:

Intellectual openness: The student possesses curiosity and a thirst for deeper understanding, questions the views of others when those views are not logically supported, accepts constructive criticism, and changes personal views if warranted by the evidence. Such open mindedness helps students understand the ways in which knowledge is constructed, broadens personal perspectives and helps students deal with the novelty and ambiguity often encountered in the study of new subjects and new materials.

Inquisitiveness: The student engages in active inquiry and dialogue about subject matter and research questions and seeks evidence to defend arguments, explanations, or lines of reasoning. The student does not simply accept as given any assertion that is presented or conclusion that is reached, but asks why things are so.

Analysis: The student identifies and evaluates data, material, and sources for quality of content, validity, credibility, and relevance. The student compares and contrasts sources and findings and generates summaries and explanations of source materials.

Reasoning, argumentation, proof: The student constructs well-reasoned arguments or proofs to explain phenomena or issues; utilizes recognized forms of reasoning to construct an argument and defend a point of view or conclusion; accepts critiques of or challenges to assertions; and addresses critiques and challenges by providing a logical explanation or refutation, or by acknowledging the accuracy of the critique or challenge.

Interpretation: The student analyzes competing and conflicting descriptions of an event or issue to determine the strengths and flaws in each description and any commonalities among or distinctions between them; synthesizes the results of an analysis of competing or conflicting descriptions of an event or issue or phenomenon into a coherent explanation; states the interpretation that is most likely correct or is most reasonable, based on the available evidence; and presents orally or in writing an extended description, summary, and evaluation of varied perspectives and conflicting points of view on a topic or issue.

Precision and accuracy: The student knows what type of precision is appropriate to the task and the subject area, is able to increase precision and accuracy through successive approximations generated from a task or process that is repeated, and uses precision appropriately to reach correct conclusions in the context of the task or subject area at hand.

Problem solving: The student develops and applies