The Leadership and Learning Blog

Q&A - Argument vs. Pursuasion in the Common Core

admin — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:29:42 +0000

Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.

11/21/2011

Question: We are running some professional development sessions on argumentative writing in middle school and have been discussing the differences between “argument” and “persuasion.” We currently have a unit in our curriculum units around persuasive writing and have been talking about claims and proof vs. emotional appeal. We were wondering your thoughts on the subject as we transition to the Common Core.

It’s a “both/and” situation. Successful persuasion relies both upon the argument-evidence formula of argumentative writing and also the emotional appeal of persuasive writing.

At the argumentative level, students must be able to evaluate whether or not a claim (such as a newspaper headline) is supported by evidence. IT’s the classic “make an argument, break an argument” critical thinking challenge, and most daily newspapers and web sites offer real-world examples for teachers to use. It’s useful when teachers help students take that material and separate it out into “claims”, “arguments” and “evidence.” Then they can evaluate competing claims, arguments, and evidence.

However, evidentiary claims are not always the end of the argument. On some topics, such as the death penalty or childhood vaccinations, the statistics alone do not resolve the argument. If the death penalty is, overall, administered in a statistically accurate method most of the time, how do we deal with the fact that some innocent people are executed? Is it like collateral damage in war? Similarly, we value the freedom of parents to make health decisions for their kids, but what about when they expose other innocent children to deadly risks? Quantitative reasoning only helps us so far in these debates – we need both the mathematical and the emotional to help us sort them out.

I’m afraid that I haven’t made this much easier for you and your students, but in general, I think we need to challenge them much beyond the “save the whales” arguments on one side or the “save the dollars” on the other side. Policy (and humanity) depends upon both quantitative and qualitative reasoning.

Do you have a question for Dr. Reeves? Send your questions to info@leadandlearn.com

CCSS ONLY

X-Marketing Inset:

Common Core State Standards U.S. Tour

Boston, Massachusetts

June 12-13, 2012
St. Louis, Missouri

October 2, 2012
Des Moines, Iowa

October 16-17, 2012
Millbrae, California (San Francisco)

November 8-9, 2012
Seattle, Washington

November 13, 2012

Common Core State Standards Resource Center

Books & DVDs

Getting Ready for the Common Core State Standards Handbook Series

Angela Peery, Ed.D., Cathy J. Lassiter, Ed.D.,...
Navigating the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards

Angela Peery, Ed.D., Cathy J. Lassiter, Ed.D.,...

Aligning Literacy Instruction with the Common Core State Standards

admin — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:23 +0000

Thommie Piercy, Ph.D.

10/14/2011

Yes

Literacy is exploding with complexity and opportunities! Today’s literacy needs, in conjunction with expectations in the Common Core State Standards, call for explicit and direct literacy instruction. In particular, Disciplinary Literacy instruction increases students’ comprehension of increasing levels of complex text, as demanded in Standard 10. This type of instruction may represent a significant change for English Language Arts teachers and teachers in different disciplines, as indicated in Achieve’s, On the Road to Implementation, (2010).

One question that has arisen is how Disciplinary Literacy instruction coexists with Reading Across the Content strategies. What Disciplinary Literacy experts and studies have disclosed is the lack of generalizability of strategies. That is, secondary students require discipline-specific instructional support as text complexity increases, as noted in the groundbreaking work by experts including the Shanahans: “In literacy development, progression to higher levels in the pyramid means learning more sophisticated but less generalizable skills and routines.” This passage continues, “By the time adolescent students are being challenged by disciplinary texts, literacy instruction often had evaporated altogether or has degenerated into a reiteration of general reading strategies" (Harvard Ed. Review, 2008). As text complexity increases at the secondary level, disciplines requires specific instruction that builds upon strategies provided previously to fully comprehend increasing levels of complex texts. Intermediate students may also benefit from this type of explicit instruction as noted in the Carnegie Final Report, “The skills that students learn up until fourth grade are absolutely critical to later success, but they are simply not enough. Literacy demands change drastically in grades 4-12.” Both the textual demands, and the types of texts used, vary widely across different content areas. “Each content area in middle and high school demands a different approach to reading, writing, and thinking. Texts read in history class are different from those read in biology, which in turn are substantially different from novels, poems, or essays read in ELA” (Carnegie, 2010).

It is important for literacy concepts to coexist and build upon current practices for the secondary levels. The Leadership & Learning Center’s Disciplinary Literacy: Redefining Deep Understanding and Leadership for the 21st Century (Piercy and Piercy, 2011) and onsite seminar are designed to provide guidance and support to both English Language Arts teachers and teachers in different disciplines for implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Interactive instructional models and guidance in selecting complex texts, aligned with the cognitive demand within the Common Core State Standards’ Learning Progressions, as described in Larry Ainsworth’s, Rigorous Curriculum Design, are included. Through collaboration between teachers in different disciplines, students will be able to access higher levels of complex texts with the support of discipline-specific instruction and Standard 1’s text-dependent questioning, to enhance deeper understanding. Maryann Wiggs and I are providing models of ELA instruction described in this Blog during the Common Core Tour. Please consider joining us when the Tour arrives near you!

X-Marketing Inset:

Common Core State Standards Resource Center

Common Core State Standards U.S. Tour

Boston, Massachusetts

June 12-13, 2012
St. Louis, Missouri

October 2, 2012
Des Moines, Iowa

October 16-17, 2012
Millbrae, California (San Francisco)

November 8-9, 2012
Seattle, Washington

November 13, 2012

Books & DVDs

Rigorous Curriculum Design: How to Create Curricular Units of Study that Align Standards, Instruction, and Assessment

Larry Ainsworth
Disciplinary Literacy: Redefining Deep Understanding and Leadership for 21st-Century Demands

Thomasina D. Piercy, William Piercy

How Close Reading Increases Student Access into Complex Text As Expected in the ELA Common Core State Standards

admin — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:33:52 +0000

Thommie Piercy, Ph.D.

09/08/2011

Yes

The ELA Common Core State Standards provide enormous opportunities for all students while creating challenges for instruction. With Standard 10 establishing the high expectation that all students read and understand complex text, the key word receiving much attention is, “all.” Yes, the expectation is for every student to independently read complex texts with understanding from Grade 2 through Grade 11 and into College and Careers. Currently, the most frequently asked questions revolve around Standard 10. These questions include, “How can I provide instruction to support my students’ capacity to read complex text?”Also, “Specifically, how can I support my students, who entered my classroom not reading on their enrolled grade level, to read such difficult texts in my content area, (including History/Social Studies, Science/Technical Subjects, Mathematics, and English Language Arts?”

In addition to providing student access to complex text by providing text-dependent, discipline-specific questions, as described in an earlier blog, guiding students to improve their close reading of text increases their understanding of complex text. Questions which focus directly on the text require students to practice close reading.

What is Close Reading?

Close Reading is keeping your eyes on the text to read the content very carefully, paying attention to details. Being quite different from a summary or the big idea, close reading requires active thinking and analyzing of the content to make decisions. You can see how text-dependent, discipline-specific questions support the need for students’ to incorporate close reading of their text because they must cite evidence directly from the text. This is a skill that will remain one of the students’ most practical literacy skills throughout their college and careers. Few disciplines do not benefit from students’ close reading to achieve understanding. The majority of career paths depend on close reading to remain current in the particular field. For this reason, close reading is a skill that supports students’ comprehension in different disciplines. Elementary, Middle, and High School students benefit from the close reading of complex texts in different content areas. If you would like models of complex text instruction which include close reading for elementary, middle, and high school, as required in Standard 10, join Maryann Wiggs and me for our literacy sessions on these topics during the Common Core Tour scheduled throughout the year.

X-Marketing Inset:

Common Core State Standards Resource Center

Common Core State Standards U.S. Tour

Boston, Massachusetts

June 12-13, 2012
St. Louis, Missouri

October 2, 2012
Des Moines, Iowa

October 16-17, 2012
Millbrae, California (San Francisco)

November 8-9, 2012
Seattle, Washington

November 13, 2012

Books & DVDs

Standards and Assessment: The Core of Quality Instruction

Brandon Doubek, Ed.D., Gabriel Rshaid, Jan...

How Text-Dependent, Discipline-Specific Questions Provide Students Access to Complex Text Required in the Common Core State Standards

admin — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:09:29 +0000

Thomasina Piercy, Ph.D.

09/01/2011

Among the highest priorities of the Common Core State Standards is that students must read texts closely and acquire knowledge.

At each grade level, 80 to 90 percent of the Reading standards require text-dependent analysis. Questions that expect student responses to be text-dependent and discipline-specific require students to demonstrate that they understand the text details and can provide accurate evidence.
Questions that are text-dependent can only be answered correctly by close reading of the text. The evidence in the response comes directly from the text and does not depend on additional information from other sources. Although there is an important role for questions requiring a synthesis of information from a variety of sources, text-dependent questions assure knowledge from a specific text is clearly understood prior to leaping into synthesizing. This level of scrutiny of text increases expectations for accuracy for future thinking, which may include synthesizing, analyzing, and creating. It builds the critical foundation of knowledge needed for comprehending texts used in higher grade levels. Text-dependent questions are not the same as recall questions. They require understanding that extends beyond recalling basic facts. The use of inference is an important skill for close reading. Consider which of the following questions requires students to read text closely for text specific information:
1. How did Frederick Douglass’ ability to read contribute to his emotional struggle for freedom? Cite examples from the text to support your answer.
2. In what ways does America represent the hope for freedom that lived in the heart of Frederick Douglass? Although question “b” would generate a rich conversation, the open-ended nature of this question does not require students to demonstrate specific text-dependent knowledge.
Providing a set of sequenced questions is supportive in guiding students’ focus through the text. This set of questions begins with a simple focus on word, details, and the logic presented in the author’s argument, then expands to the entire text. Such a set of questions guides students in making inferences based on the evidence in the text. After grounding their understanding of the specific text, students are better prepared to apply evaluation thinking and offer their sound opinions.

Having responded to a set of text-dependent questions in all disciplines, students increase their ability to read with understanding. Gradually, as their reading skills and foundation of knowledge increase, they expand their capacity to read increasing levels of complex text with understanding.

Standard 10 in the Common Core State Standards establishes the high expectation that students read and understand increasing levels of complex text. This expectation begins informally at Kindergarten and Grade 1 through exposure to books that generate thought and incorporate Tier 2 vocabulary. From Grade 2 through Grade 11-CCR, Standard 10 formally states high grade level expectations for independent reading of complex texts. Providing instruction, which includes text-dependent, discipline-specific questions, increases student capacity for close reading and provides access to increasing levels of complex text.

Additional suggestions for providing “student access” to more complex text will be coming in my next blog. I welcome and value your thoughts on this evolving topic!

X-Marketing Inset:

Upcoming Events

Literacy Institute

Carlsbad, California (San Diego)

September 25-26, 2012

Books & DVDs

Disciplinary Literacy: Redefining Deep Understanding and Leadership for 21st-Century Demands

Thomasina D. Piercy, William Piercy

Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program

admin — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:11:09 +0000

David Nagel

06/27/2011

Yes

Are you or the fellow science educators you support in need of effective instructional strategies and activities specifically related to teaching science? As one of the ‘newer’ topics on the accountability platform of NCLB, teaching science effectively requires a unique set of skills and practices for teachers to employ. As a former biology teacher and administrator, I found Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program, by Lynn Howard, to be full of effective strategies for all educators, new and veteran. Lynn’s resource offers a multitude of interactive strategies for both the students and the teacher, as well as for administrators and instructional specialists to support and coach effective science classroom practice.

What also makes this series so effective and practical is Lynn’s examples which differentiate between lessons targeted for primary, upper elementary, middle school, and high school levels. While the framework is the same, these concrete examples allow for teachers and leaders to have specific models to build off of and implement in their classrooms. They are correlated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science process skills, which demonstrates the relevance and direct link to what teachers need to be successful in serving their students.

The five steps Lynn outlines in the series are:

Establishing an Effective Science Environment
Problem Solving
Conceptual Understanding (often missing in so many science classrooms—MY opinion)
Mastery of Science Information
Common Formative Assessments

These come together in a comprehensive but very manageable system for teachers and schools to employ that will provide the guidance and structure needed for quality teaching and learning in all science classrooms.

Teachers will enjoy incorporating them into their repertoire, leaders will have a guide for coaching and monitoring practice, and students will reap the rewards. The Five Easy Steps for a Balanced Science Program series will provide examples which are very user-friendly and reproducible. No school or district’s professional library would be complete without it!

X-Marketing Inset:

Books & DVDs

Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program for Primary Grades

By: Lynn Howard
Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program for Upper Elementary and Middle School Grades

By: Lynn Howard
Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program for Secondary Grades

By: Lynn Howard

The Text Complexity “Staircase” in the Common Core Standards

admin — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 15:59:17 +0000

Thomasina Piercy, Pd.D.

04/08/2011

Yes

Just as the Aorta carries blood from the heart, Common Core State Standard number 10 carries increasing levels of text complexity up from Grade 2 through Grade 12 and into College and Career Readiness. In many respects, text complexity is the hallmark of the CCSS as it reveals the depth of educators’ commitment to providing American students every opportunity to be prepared to meet future global challenges. Providing a specific Standard 10 presence in each grade level, including a place-holder in both Kindergarten and Grade 1 to allow foundations to be established, the Common Core’s text complexity standard provides a backward-mapped format to scaffold instruction. Notice the scaffolded expectations in the Staircase for Text Complexity within the following (Grades 11 – Career and College Readiness):

GRADES 11-CCR: By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature (informational texts) at the high end of the grade 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently. By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature (information texts) in the grades 11-CCR text complexity band proficiently, and with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

The combination of the increased text complexity and the depth of cognitive demand within the task, such as incorporating discipline-specific questions, generates higher levels of rigor.

Although text complexity is not a new concept, it has been an expectation buried in the haystack of educational assumptions. Without the existence of specific standards and measurable outcomes, its significance became lost. The Common Core State Standards acknowledge that increasing text complexity expectations is not a simple task. Increasing a student’s capacity to understand complex text is an arduous goal. The path provided by the Common Core State Standards represents commitment to closing this gap, informing teachers, and guiding deep understanding with clear expectations.

As we proceed to expand teachers’ expertise in increasing students’ deep understanding of complex text—and its use with disciplinary literacy instruction—I welcome and value your thoughts.

CCSS AND ARTICLES

Prioritizing the Common Core State Standards

admin — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:51:43 +0000

Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.

02/14/2011

Yes

While The Center’s work to help school systems implement the Common Core is gaining wide recognition, it is important that we remain aware that different clients have different needs. This is particularly true with regard to the contentious issue of whether or not Power Standards still have a place in the era of the Common Core. I’d like to offer my ideas on this, in the same way that I have at our national institutes.

The Leadership and Learning Center respects local decisions on standards and curriculum.

This week, one client said that their state has determined that “all of the Common Core Standards are priorities” and “the Common Core is already prioritized.” Therefore, they will not be using the Power Standards approach. Two other clients said, “We are drowning in curriculum and the Common Core does not make it any better. We need help in prioritization.” The Center remains highly capable of serving the best interests of both clients.

The Center has extensive experience in previous standards adoptions that informs our practice today.

Because our work was widely used in the 1990’s when the number of states with standards expanded from 12 to 50, we have extensive experience and know what to do—and what not to do—when it comes to standards implementation. All of our clients have teachers and administrators who can recall those years as well. The common refrain was, “too many standards, too little time.” The truth then—and now—is that teachers can work as hard as they want to, but they do not always cover every part of a curriculum or every standard. Therefore, “perfect coverage” does not exist. The question is not whether teachers cover everything—they do not—but whether they choose wisely the standards that will be covered. That is why the Power Standards approach helped then and, in my opinion, is still helpful today.

The Common Core Standards are not equally important.

The most obvious example of a Power Standard in the Common Core is “information writing,” a K-12 requirement in English Language Arts, Science, and Social studies. Effective writing instruction takes time for students (making lots of edits and revisions) and for teachers (giving lots of feedback). If teachers give informational writing the time it deserves, then they will not always have time to cover every other standard.

We encourage schools to EXCEED the Common Core.

An essential part of The Center’s work in Rigorous Curriculum Design, Engaging Classroom Assessments, Making Standards Work, and Common Formative Assessments is not just “meeting” prevailing standards but creating opportunities for students to achieve “exemplary” performance—performance far above and beyond the standard. Our consistent message is about meeting and exceeding standards—not about lowering the bar. In fact, there is no evidence that frantic coverage leads to effective learning. There is abundant evidence that focus, feedback, and multiple opportunities to learn are all components necessary to meet and exceed standards.

The Center’s commitment to focus has credibility with teachers and administrators.

Although we know that many states will insist that “everything is important,” classroom teachers know better, particularly in a time of increasing class sizes and diminished resources. Every time I talk about respecting the conflicting demands on teachers’ time, I connect with audiences in a palpable way. We are not seeking to pick a fight with those who believe that every standard is equally important and must be covered. We respect that reasonable people differ on these matters. At the same time, we owe it to our clients to give them our best thinking on the subject. Some will accept our advice; others will not. We will know that we respected the wishes of our clients and also did our very best to serve them.

This is certainly not the last word on the Power Standards controversy, but I hope it sets the tone for the right kinds of discussions. Keep the clients first. Disagree without being disagreeable. Focus on evidence, research, and practical realities faced by teachers and school leaders.

CCSS AND ARTICLES

States Hold the Key to Core Standards Implementation

admin — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:54:04 +0000

Hayes Mizell

01/13/2011

Yes

Findings from a survey of state education agencies published Jan. 6 by the Center on Education Policy reveal that states may undercut their own implementation of the Common Core State Standards.

On the one hand, states say they adopted the standards because of their “rigor” and “potential to guide statewide education improvement.” However, states are also “expecting, rather than requiring, districts to…make complementary changes in curriculum and teacher programs.” Districts may or may not develop new curricula, materials, and instructional practices, provide relevant professional development, and implement standards-related teacher induction programs and evaluations.

Maybe state education agencies deserve some sympathy. Local school officials frequently deride them for being heavy-handed and intrusive. Sometimes that is true, but sometimes when school districts want to fend off complaints from disgruntled educators or parents, they use their state department of education as a convenient scapegoat: “The state requires us to do it…”

If one thing is certain in efforts to improve student performance, it is that courageous leadership is necessary from each level of school governance—local, state, and federal. Adopting the Common Core State Standards is an important step, but that is not enough. States have been down this road many, many times in the past. They know that when school districts are left to choose for themselves whether to take difficult steps to improve education, some will not do so. Often, these are districts with persistent records of low performance, and many students from low-income families.

The Common Core State Standards will not have the impact state education agencies want unless states do four things: (1) require school districts to take actions that states know are essential for effective standards implementation; (2) provide high quality and sustained technical assistance to support districts’ implementation of the standards; (3) monitor and assess standards implementation in each school district; and (4) publicly report the status and results of districts’ standards implementation during each of the next five years.

The Common Core State Standards are not stand-alone reform. They are simply statements that describe what students should know and be able to do as a result of their public education. The standards are a challenging vision, but that is all they are. Without more effective curricula, professional development, and instruction, students will not develop the knowledge and skills necessary to perform at standard. State education agencies know this, and they should not leave it to school districts to decide for themselves whether they will “make complementary changes” that will determine whether the standards facilitate improved student performance, or frustrate it.

CCSS AND ARTICLES

How can we as educators ensure that we are focusing on standards while simultaneously developing student creativity?

admin — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:20:14 +0000

Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.

01/12/2011

Standards yes, standardization, no.

We embrace standards not because they are perfect, but because they are vastly superior to the Bell Curve—the way that students were evaluated before the standards movement. The Bell Curve gave us the worst of all worlds—it made some students inappropriately complacent just because they “beat” other students, and it labeled other students as failures even if they were proficient. Neither the Wisconsin State Standards nor the new Common Core State Standards are perfect, but they are far better than the Bell Curve. Embracing standards does not mean that teachers have to be like robots—the same standard can be taught in a variety of different ways. Wisconsin teachers have, as have teachers around the world, created new scenarios and new performance tasks to teach standards in different and unique ways so that students are engaged in learning.

Fairness yes, mindless repetition, no.

One of the fundamental commitments of standards-based reform is that of fairness—all students have an equal opportunity to achieve proficiency. But that does NOT mean that teaching needs to be reduced to mindless repetition and identical instruction. Think of a great music class: the end goal may be playing “Minuet in G,” but each student will learn and improve in different ways. Standards-based education does not have to work against teacher creativity; rather, effective implementation of standards depends upon teacher creativity.

Teacher judgment yes, teacher anarchy, no.

The use of standards does require a combination of teacher freedom and teacher support for standards. For example, there are many different ways for teachers to help students reach proficiency in informational writing. But it is not acceptable for teachers to say, “I will not teach informational writing because I don’t believe in it.” The new Common Core State Standards make clear that all students, K-12, will benefit from more informational writing. That is consistent with The Center’s research that nonfiction writing helps students in math, science, social studies, reading comprehension, and other areas.

CCSS AND ARTICLES

Design and Organization of the Common Core State Standards

admin — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:00:24 +0000

Maryann Wiggs

01/06/2011

One of the most salient accomplishments in design considerations of the ELA Standards document are the learning pathways that a student follows as they advance from one grade-specific standard to the next, leading to proficiency in each of the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards. While the anchor standards taken together serve to provide focus on what matters most for College and Career Readiness in the area of English language arts, coherence is accomplished by the explicit articulation of knowledge and skills along the learning progressions. The specificity of the content within the learning progressions makes visible and clear the expectations for student learning (CCSSO & NGA Center, 2010). In other words, the grade-specific standards clearly define competence at every level of schooling.

The “spiral effect” is a useful metaphor relating to the ascending level of difficulty embedded in the content of each grade-specific standard as it approaches the College and Career Anchor Standard. The CCR serves as the central point or significant learning expectation toward which all grade-specific standards aspire. As students move along the plane of a particular learning trajectory they study the same expectation each year at ever increasing increments of complexity and sophistication. The gradual cycling through repeated exposure to iterations of the same concepts and processes each year breaks complex learning expectations into manageable teaching and learning targets.

I welcome your thoughts on how the design and organizational features of the Common Core State Standards actually promote access and acceleration for advancement of higher levels of thinking and comprehension for all students.

CCSS AND ARTICLES

Questions on Leading for the Future

admin — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:14:40 +0000

Connie Kamm, Ed.D.

12/09/2010

What does leadership for the future look like? There have been countless articles itemizing 21st century skills that students must cultivate to succeed, but how do leadership structures and practices in schools need to change in order to maximize student development of these skills? Frequently, lists for 21st century learning skills need include the following: commitment to continuous learning, innovation, creativity, teamwork, problem solving, flexibility, and adaptability. In The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change, Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) also suggest including the following deeper virtues: compassion, service, long-term commitment, sacrifice, and perseverance. If, as educational leaders, we are to ensure that our instruction, curriculum, and assessment practices lead students to develop these 21st century skills, what is our role as educational leaders and how do we guarantee our success? How do we have to transform our practices in order to meet the demands of teaching, leading and learning for the future? I welcome your thoughts.

Performance Assessments

admin — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:13:05 +0000

Lisa Almeida

11/08/2010

Performance Assessments provide engaging learning experiences for all students. These assessments, or interactive learning experiences, represent a comprehensive model that includes standards, assessment, data analysis, instruction, and as an outcome – increased student learning. Performance assessments are an engaging way to involve the learner in the assessment process.

Leading Change in the Face of Criticism

admin — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:55:03 +0000

Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.

10/20/2010

I recently gave a keynote presentation in Atlanta regarding Sustainable Change for 21st Century Learning, and was struck by the people I met there who are ready to start the commitment to change in their schools and districts. One participant, a Director of Secondary Education in New Hampshire, followed up with me regarding some major changes he has made in his district:

Question:

Dear Dr. Reeves,
I am the Director of Secondary Education at a regional high school in New Hampshire and recently saw you speak in Atlanta, where I was struck by your message of change and leadership. This school year, our high school has eliminated mid-term and final cumulative exams, instead implementing a structured, on-going assessment program based on competencies. We are being roundly battered from pillar to post by the public and press who claim that we are “softening our curriculum”, “not preparing our students for the rigors of college”, and “dumbing down” our curriculum. I write to you today to ask if there are any studies or research that we may be able to point to help support our decision to move away from a one-off comprehensive exam to an ongoing targeted system of competency-based assessment. I thank you for your time and attention to this matter and look forward to your reply.

Dr. Reeves’ Response:

The critics are RIGHT – schools SHOULD replicate the “real world” and give students greater challenges. But what the critics are wrong about is what the “real world” really is. In the most technologically advanced enterprises of New Hampshire or anywhere else, is the actual model, “Finish the test in 90 minutes and get the minimum passing score?” I don’t think so. The quality model of the world’s most successful enterprises, from biotechnology firms to law firms to research universities is: “Do it, get feedback, improve it, do it again, get more feedback, improve it more . . .” While the final exam may be held as a rite of passage in the memories of your critics, it is not what leads to world-class quality. That goal is achieved by a continuous cycle of challenge, performance, feedback, and improvement.
The critics are RIGHT – students should learn personal responsibility. But they are wrong that the use of averages and perfectly done homework assignments achieves that goal. In fact, when a student has a string of perfect homework assignments, we have evidence leading to only one conclusion: the student was not challenged and the student wasted a great deal of time demonstrating what he or she already knew. Wise teachers (and coaches and orchestra conductors) do not spend time rehearsing what students, athletes, and musicians can already do well – they invest precious practice time on activities that are challenging and difficult. That means, by definition, that there are failures in practice – look at all the ice skaters who fall down in practice because they are attempting difficult moves. The skater who doesn’t fall is not learning. The student who doesn’t fail is not sufficiently challenged. You want to teach personal responsibility? Give assignments that lead to challenge, failure, and feedback. You want to teach sloth and irresponsibility? Give assignments that some kids get easily – essentially telling them that they don’t need to work hard – and that other kids don’t get, perhaps because their parents are not doing helping them on their homework.
The critics are RIGHT – we SHOULD prepare students for the rigors of college. But just because the critics might have endured terrible college teaching techniques – lecture halls filled with the sonorous tones of a professor who could compete with Ambien – doesn’t mean that this is the model for 21st century learning. Don’t ask what the worst college experiences of 30 years ago were. Ask what the best college experiences of today are. That includes, by the way, not just universities, but community colleges and technical schools that are providing more job opportunities and real-world skills than any lecture hall. What you will find are great professors who emphasize collaboration, project completion, personal responsibility, complex reasoning, and communication – all without the benefit of a multiple-choice final exam. By the way – one could make the argument that hazing of freshmen in high school will also prepare them for the rigors of hazing in college, but I hope at least some Pleistocene habits have died out with the woolly mammoth. I always find it interesting that some of the same critics who demand “21st Century Education” are also the defenders of Neanderthal assessments. (My apologies to Neanderthals, who utilized performance assessment and feedback, not multiple choice exams.)

I’d be happy to elaborate, but you get the picture – critics who demand real world education, personal responsibility, and university preparation are all right about the claims – they are simply all wrong about the methods. Since this is often a fact-free debate, I would refer you to the research of John Hattie in Visible Learning, the largest compendium of educational research at to date, with thousands of studies included. My own work is only a modest pebble on the mountain of research available to anyone who wants to look. But it appears to me that the critics you are describing are not in search of research, but instead already have their minds made up. They don’t want “evidence-based decision-making” but prefer “decision-based evidence-making.” I also deal with people who believe – deeply and fervently – in corporal punishment for students. They are sincere enough in their beliefs, but they are sincerely wrong.

Get Your Students Writing!

admin — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:09:28 +0000

Angela Peery, Ed.D.

09/23/2010

If you think you don’t have time to use writing in your classes, think again! You can’t afford not to have your students write.

No matter what grade level or subject you teach, having your students write about their learning increases their academic achievement in your class. Frequent nonfiction writing is also positively correlated with higher standardized test scores in all subjects (D. Reeves, “Standards Are Not Enough,” NASSP Bulletin, 2000).

Students aren’t the only ones who benefit from increased writing. As a teacher, you can gather valuable formative information and adjust your teaching immediately Writing can also be a part of a balanced classroom assessment system that includes authentic performance tasks.

What kinds of writing should you engage your students in? First, teach effective note-taking strategies like Cornell and combination notes, which include summaries at the end. Frequent, short, “writing-to-learn” tasks can also be implemented easily. Activities like quick writes, entrance and exit slips, K-W-L with writing, think-write-pair share, prediction paragraphs, and summary paragraphs help students process information and engage in critical thinking. (Detailed descriptions of these strategies appear in my book, Writing Matters in Every Classroom, available through The Leadership and Learning Center’s online store).

At least once every marking period, require students to take a piece of writing through the entire writing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, publishing). Focus on expository and persuasive writing instead of creative forms (such as poetry, personal narrative, and fictional narrative). Asking students to explain a process, analyze an event, compare two historical figures, or take a stand on an issue forces them to do demanding cognitive work—work that is certainly more demanding than answering multiple-choice questions!

When students are working through the writing process, build in plenty of support for them. Provide models of good writing. Use rubrics for them to evaluate their work as it transitions from an early draft to the final product. Set up checkpoints along the way so you can assist as needed with content, organization, style, and grammar—pacing the process like this also ensures that you will not be swamped grading everything at once at the very end.

As for language conventions (grammar, syntax, usage, and mechanics), keep a tight focus on what’s most important. Orchestrating peer conferences, providing informal verbal feedback, and focusing only on a few grammatical errors at a time are effective strategies as you guide student writers to a finished product. Teaching students how to combine sentences has a very positive impact on student writing and also prepares students to perform well on writing tests (Graham and Perin, “A Meta-Analysis of Writing Instruction for Adolescent Students,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 3, Aug. 2007).

Donald Murray, noted educator and writer, once said, “Teaching a student to write is, in the final analysis, the same thing as teaching him/her to think.” Teachers want their students to become good thinkers, not just good test-takers. Writing is one way to continuously stimulate good thinking.

The Center would be honored to partner with your school or system to use writing across the curriculum and to increase academic achievement for all of your students. Our Writing To Learn seminars can get you started, and customized follow-up work will assist you in sustained improvement. Don’t hesitate to contact us if we may be of service or simply if you have a question.

Formative Assessment as a Process

admin — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:17:36 +0000

Connie Kamm, Ed.D.

09/14/2010

When educators say “formative assessment” there is often confusion about whether they are speaking of a process or product. The word assessment translates to most educators as a product, something that teachers collect for evaluative purposes. The process portion of formative assessment is often lost on educators. It is in this formative process that rich classroom practices are enhanced and learning dialogues occur. There has been a great deal of study on the power of formative assessments to transform teaching and learning. Beginning even before the 1998 pivotal meta-analysis, “Assessment and Classroom Learning” by Paul Black and Dylan William, educators have been extolling the virtue of formative assessment, oftentimes without really grappling with the cycle of learning inherent in the process. In order to be a vital practice, formative assessment must include both process and a series of products in order to provide continuous evidence that students are learning and progressing successfully. Consider the following steps in the formative process that involve both teachers and students in a cycle of learning:

Teachers identify and post priority standards for learning and establish a learning progression.
Teachers provide standards-based exemplars (products, models) for students to examine and interpret, ensuring that students clearly understand what the final product should look like and the learning progression.
Students and teachers collaboratively generate specific criteria that are in alignment with the standards-based learning outcomes.
Students determine their personal learning goals and through a series of learning experiences demonstrate their mastery of concepts and skills in the learning progression. This provides an opportunity for teachers to give frequent, focused feedback that builds students’ confidence as they master new learning.
Within this learning cycle, teachers provide ample opportunities for students to self-assess based on the specific standards-based criteria.
When the first draft of the final project/assignment is collected, students are provided with the opportunity to peer-assess using the standards-based criteria. Students understand that it is their responsibility to help one another meet the criteria. The teacher spends time ensuring that students know how to peer-assess. Teachers provide clear guidelines for this activity and only require students to give feedback on criteria that they are capable of addressing.
To more thoroughly guide student learning, teachers provide specific and timely feedback throughout the process. In addition, teachers employ a variety of research-grounded instructional strategies providing learners with alternate ways to master the learning.
Students are provided with another opportunity to apply the standards-based criteria as they revise their work according to the feedback they have received. One major component of formative assessment is providing multiple opportunities for success.

Through these steps, assessment happens for learning and happens as learning occurs. Formative assessment is both a process of instruction and a variety of products on which specific and frequent feedback should be given. Through this formative process, students are more highly engaged as active participants by leading their own learning and challenging themselves for continuous improvement. By guiding students through this process of continuous formative assessment and feedback, teachers also become better informed about where students are in the learning progression. This allows teachers to frequently adjust their instruction to meet each student’s learning needs. In his pivotal book Visible Learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (2009), John Hattie states, “The biggest effects on student learning occur when teachers become learners of their own teaching and when students become their own teachers” (p. 22).

In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World (2005), Shepard, Hammerness, Darling-Hammond, and Rust, et al. state “. . . formative assessment, effectively implemented, can do as much or more to improve student achievement than any of the most powerful instructional interventions, intensive reading instruction, one-on-one tutoring, and the like” (p.277). It is when formative assessment is viewed as both process and product that this heightened learning occurs.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-25.

Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of Learning. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.

Kamm, C. (2008). The Effects of a Professional Development Program on the Assessment Pedagogy of Secondary Arts Teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.

Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Rust, F., Snoweden, J.B., Gordon, E., Gutierrez, C., et al. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransdord (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 275-326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Focusing on Specific Instructional Strategies

admin — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:54:03 +0000

08/09/2010

Question: Greetings, Dr. Reeves. I really enjoyed your webinar this morning on data analysis. When a superintendent talks with a principal about state test results and compares one school to another, should the principal focus the conversation on the specific results at her school, rather than engage in a conversation about why other schools are outperforming hers?

Dr. Reeves’ Response: Thanks very much for your question. I don’t think you can compare the performance of one school to another unless you also look at the specific teaching and leadership practices that are associated with student results. Saying a school “should work harder to get the results that Jefferson School achieved” is not very helpful to your school unless the similarities and differences between your school and Jefferson school can be identified at the classroom level. It’s somewhat like admonishing the Red Sox to “Be the Yankees” without talking about hitting, pitching, and defense.

That said, I know that school districts will compare schools, just as I check the league standings every day. But so far, my daily habit has not helped the Sox to prosper. A more constructive approach for those wishing to compare schools would be focus on the data I addressed today – student by student, classroom by classroom, teacher by teacher. Districts should focus on specific instructional strategies, such as nonfiction writing, formative assessment, additional time, and deep implementation of effective teaching practices. They should, in brief, put down the newspaper, put on a uniform, and get in the game.

Standards 4.0: The Next Generation

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:38:26 +0000

07/19/2010

Star Trek had a good run, helping a generation of kids, and perhaps a few adults, make the transition from a “duck and cover” mentality to a “live long and prosper” mentality, bridging the 1960’s with the 2160’s. The standards movement must cross similarly difficult terrain. Without skillful leadership and planning, standards will meet the fate of Star Trek characters – desperate pleas for attention (Kirk), burned to a cinder in outer space (Spock), or forgotten and irrelevant (McCoy). I fear that the standards moveme

Six Tips for Facilitating an Effective Book Study

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:38:58 +0000

Katie Stoddard

05/27/2010

Effective professional development comes in many forms, one of which is a book study. In order to ensure productivity and value, here are some tips for you to implement your next book study with success:

Own the content! The book study should support initiatives or struggles happening in your school; therefore, participants can easily relate to the content. Allow participants to be involved in the book-selection process.
Find a purpose. Set goals based on what outcomes you want to achieve through the study and make sure you monitor your progress. If the study does not go as well as you are hoping, and you are not meeting your goals, abandon the book.
Honor the meeting time. Do not let the book-study time become less important than any other professional development time you would have had. Set meeting protocols and guidelines and adhere to these throughout the study.
Motivate participants by involving everyone in the planning and the discussion. Jigsaw chapters, have participants bring related articles or books, create engaging activities, and develop questions to garner discussion.
Have fun! Reading interesting content and partaking in exciting discussions should be fun. Be creative by bringing food, developing contests, picking an off-site location, or designing a virtual book-study group.
Follow through! The learning should not stop with the end of the study itself. To monitor growth, create an implementation plan and revisit this well after the study ends.

The Leadership and Learning Center offers numerous titles that support educators in the areas of data, standards, assessment, leadership, accountability, writing, and instruction.

Visit our bookstore at www.LeadandLearn.com/books-dvds to learn more and to take advantage of our special discount pricing for school sets.

How Will Next Year Be Different?

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:51:21 +0000

05/25/2010

Even before the final grades are in for the spring of 2010, many student schedules for the year are already set in stone. That’s too bad. If we expect the 2010-2011 academic year to be one of improved student performance, we must first ask, “How will next year be different?” If we have the same schedule and use the same interventions, same assessment practices, same teaching strategies, and same leadership decisions, why should we expect student results to be different? Here are seven decisions you can make now to improve student success for next se

Drowning in Data; Thirsty for Information

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:54:20 +0000

Douglas B. Reeves, Ph.D.

05/19/2010

A group of teachers are in the middle of the desert, dying of thirst. What they need more than anything else is a drink of water. It’s a simple request – just a drink of water. On the horizon, they see three large caravans, each containing large numbers of people and animals, a certain sign that help is on the way. Surely at least one of the people in one of the caravans can offer them a drink.

The first caravan looks odd – people in suits and wire-rimmed glasses riding on camels, bulging briefcases labeled “water” at their side. As they pass by, they empty the contents of their suitcases – pages and pages of spreadsheets and PowerPoint diagrams about water.

The second caravan appears to be from the circus, with lions, elephants, and clowns. At last the ringmaster appears, delivering an inspirational speech and heart-rending anecdotes about the value of water.

Finally, the third caravan arrives – surely this one must include a life-saving drink.– But hope is quickly displaced by despair as the dour-looking crew announces in stentorian tones new regulations about the professional responsibility of teachers to use water more wisely, and threatening them with consequences should they fail to comply with these regulations that the crew is setting forth.

I don’t know how this story ends, but based on what I’ve been hearing from schools around the world, I wouldn’t recommend that the thirsty teachers in our story wait around for the fourth caravan. Schools, teachers, students, leaders, and policymakers remain thirsty for information, even as an increasing tidal wave of data washes over them. Here are three ideas to help find order among the chaos.

First, start with questions, not theoretical capabilities. Data salesmen are fond of claiming “This system can do everything!” But teachers and school leaders are not interested in “everything”. Rather, we need the answers to very specific questions. For example:

What is last year’s profile of a student who received a D or an F in 9th grade math or English this year?
Which 2nd grade teachers last year produced the highest proportion of students who are proficient readers in 3rd grade this year?
What is the profile of students who received honor roll grades last year, but who were not proficient on external exams this year?
What were the specific curriculum, assessment, and instructional strategies used by teachers whose students had the best achievement gains?

That’s a start. The answers to these questions provide information that teachers and administrators can really use. Capabilities of data systems are not relevant unless their salespeople and advocates can address these real-world questions. The fourth question in particular is of interest, because virtually no data systems, despite their multi-million dollar expense, even attempt to answer it. We focus as a nation on effects, not on causes. It is as if we diverted the entire budget of the National Institutes of Health on weighing the student population, but never inquired as to the diet and exercise habits of those children. What are the big questions that you want to ask? Don’t spend money – yours or the taxpayers’ – until you consider those questions.

Second, focus on the classroom. Many data systems are designed to work splendidly on the desk of the Director of Technology, a very capable person who also has the latest, best, and fastest computer in the school system.– But most of the time the Data Utility Point is Ms. Washington’s 3rd grade class – not the Director of Technology. If Ms. Washington is endure yet another lecture about the value of data-driven decisions, then she should exchange desktop computers with the Director of Technology. As this is unlikely to happen, vendors should be required to demonstrate the value of their wares in the classroom, not just in a school’s central office.

Third, ask “So what?” In our studies of thousands of schools that claim to use data, collaboration, and learning communities, we have noticed that it is far more common for schools to view data than to use data. While colorful charts and graphs adorn the walls of schools and board rooms, the unanswered question remains, “So what?” The next time you encounter claims of data use, ask these questions:

How will next year’s schedule be different? We have abundant data showing that some kids need more time than others. So what?
How will next year's instruction be different? We have abundant data showing that some instructional practices are more effective than others. So what?
How will next year’s leadership be different? The data show unequivocally that some leadership practices are more likely to improve educational equity and excellence than others. So what?

While we ponder these questions, the teachers in the desert are still thirsty, still waiting for a caravan that offers more than data, platitudes, and rules.

X-Marketing Inset:

Upcoming Events

Decision Making for Results and Data Teams Seminar (Texas Data and Assessment Summit)

San Antonio, Texas

June 19-20, 2012
Decision Making for Results: Data-Driven Decision Making / Data Teams Seminar

Oak Lawn, Illinois (Chicago)

September 19-20, 2012
Decision Making for Results: Data-Driven Decision Making / Data Teams Seminar

Fort Worth, Texas

October 24-25, 2012
Decision Making for Results: Data-Driven Decision Making / Data Teams Seminar

Fresno, California

November 14-15, 2012
Data Teams Summit

Broomfield, Colorado (Denver)

December 5-6, 2012

Books & DVDs

Response to Instructional Strategies and Interventions: Scenarios for K-12 Educators
- Linda Gregg, Ed.D.
- Lynn Howard
Data Teams Success Stories, Volume 1
- Kristin Anderson
Visible Learning - A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Academic Achievement
- John Hattie

Cutting Budgets Now: The Brutal Truth and Some Practical Advice

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:57:37 +0000

05/04/2010

Everyone knows that budget cuts are serious, long-term, and brutal. In some states this week, there have been announcements of multi-million dollar cuts that will have to be made within weeks, meaning, in some cases, immediate layoffs of teachers, paraprofessionals, bus drivers, support staff, and administrators. In some California districts, teachers with more than a decade of tenure are subject to layoffs with no prospect of returning to their jobs in the foreseeable future. In Florida and Minnesota, the staff in some administrative offices has been cut in half.

Lessons of Heartbreak Hill

admin — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:59:43 +0000

04/21/2010

I finished the Boston Marathon, far behind many inspiring grandparents, wheelchair racers, and real athletes. I ran to raise money for the Boston Debate League, part of a national organization of urban debate programs that brings the values and rigor of elite debate competition to inner city schools that typically do not have debate programs. While I don’t offer any inspiring stories of courage and perseverance, I did learn a few things while completing the 26.2 mile course, and some of these ideas might be relevant to classroom educators and educational leaders:

1	Don’t wait for Washington to have final answers – take initiative now in curriculum, assessment, and teaching.
2	Do compare your present standards to the Common Core – identify what will not change and where the greatest changes will be for your particular grade levels and location.
3	Don’t settle for off-the-shelf “teacher-proof” curricula and assessments.
4	Do engage teachers in the process of unwrapping the standards and designing rigorous curricula and assessments.
5	Don’t settle for fiction, fantasy, and personal narrative as the majority of student writing assignments.
6	Do increase significantly the amount of informational writing by students, starting in kindergarten.
7	Don’t expect English/Language Arts faculty to bear the sole responsibility for literacy.
8	Do engage every faculty member in every subject at every grade level in a universal commitment to student literacy.
9	Don’t try to do it all at once or all alone.
10	Do ask for help, including online and in-person support from The Leadership and Learning Center.

The Leadership and Learning Blog

Q&A - Argument vs. Pursuasion in the Common Core

Aligning Literacy Instruction with the Common Core State Standards

How Close Reading Increases Student Access into Complex Text As Expected in the ELA Common Core State Standards

What is Close Reading?

How Text-Dependent, Discipline-Specific Questions Provide Students Access to Complex Text Required in the Common Core State Standards

Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program

The Text Complexity “Staircase” in the Common Core Standards

Prioritizing the Common Core State Standards

States Hold the Key to Core Standards Implementation

How can we as educators ensure that we are focusing on standards while simultaneously developing student creativity?

Design and Organization of the Common Core State Standards

Top Ten Ways to Get Ready for the Common Core

Questions on Leading for the Future

Performance Assessments

Leading Change in the Face of Criticism

Get Your Students Writing!

Formative Assessment as a Process

Focusing on Specific Instructional Strategies

Standards 4.0: The Next Generation

Six Tips for Facilitating an Effective Book Study

How Will Next Year Be Different?

Drowning in Data; Thirsty for Information

Cutting Budgets Now: The Brutal Truth and Some Practical Advice

Lessons of Heartbreak Hill