This summer Governor Nixon signed into law legislation requiring all students who begin high school after July 2017 to pass a civics test to graduate. According to the legislation, the test should be similar to the tests immigrants must pass to gain citizenship. While I definitely see the need for a renewed focus on citizenship in our country- for everyone, not just high school students- I wish the legislature recognized there other ways to demonstrate knowledge than a test. It is refreshing; however, that the state has allowed local educators to have flexibility in crafting the test. There will not be another "one size fits all" test required in the spring. Educators will be allowed choose when and how the test will be administered, as well as assign the cut scores. I'm thankful the legislature trusted local educators enough to provide some flexibility in determining how this important knowledge is assessed.
Showing posts with label curriculum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label curriculum. Show all posts
Evaluating Missouri's Proposed Standards
Like many Missouri educators, I've been slogging my way through the nearly 500 pages of proposed standards produced by work groups last year. Overall, I would say the proposed standards match closely with current standards. However, there are enough subtle differences to disrupt the curriculum work of educators. Elementary teachers will face major challenges in trying to realign their curriculum in all four core subjects in one year. Ideally if new standards were to be adopted, teachers would only be asked to implement new curriculum for one subject a year.
While there are areas where the new standards represent improvements, I personally do not find the improvements to be worth the level of disruption that will be caused by adopting so many new standards so quickly. Small schools, lacking subject area curriculum directors, will be at a disadvantage compared to larger districts who have specialized personnel to analyze and align curriculum. Some leaders will inevitably choose to risk having their students learn a curriculum that is not fully aligned to new standards (and the accompanying tests), rather than make unreasonable demands on teachers who may be experiencing their third set of standards in five years.
Below are a few notes I made while comparing the proposed standards to the current standards.
English Language Arts:
-The proposed ELA standards do not use the same strands in grades K-5 as they do in grades 6-12. The K-5 strands are language, reading, writing, and speaking and listening. In 6-12 the strands are reading literature, reading informational texts, writing, and speaking and listening. Unnecessary complexity, particularly in grammar and punctuation instruction, could result.
-Because grammar and punctuation are lumped into writing in the 6-12 standards, the standards lack the specificity found in the K-5 language standards. "Conventions of standard English" for "commas, verb tense, and unclear pronouns," seems to be used too often as a catch all. At which grade should using a colon to introduce a list be taught? At which grade should the use of semi-colons in a list be taught? At which grade would these concepts begin appearing on a state test?
-Many similarities between current standards and proposed standards can be found. For example the current standard, MSL LA 4.RI.9, "integrate information from two texts," is very similar to the proposed standard, Reading 1CB, "explain relevant connections between text to text." Current standard MSL LA 6RI 1" cite textual evidence to support analysis" is identical to proposed standard, RL.1, "cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says."
-In spite of the similarities, many changes exists. The k-5 crosswalk includes the phrase "not in current standards" over 100 times. "Not in proposed standards" appears over 70 times. For example, "writes legibly" is a proposed second grade standard and "produces simple, compound, and complex sentences" has been removed from third grade standards.
-Much of the criticism of the common core standards seemed to stem from a baseless belief that the standards included a political agenda, so it surprised me to see that the proposed standards included language in the 6-12 grade standards requiring the analysis of "historical and cultural context of texts."
Mathematics
-Overall the crosswalk between proposed and existing standards matches up more closely than in ELA.
-The crosswalk does show 19 "new standards," and changes exist. For example, the current elementary standard of "measure to determine how much longer one object is than another" is out, but " describe time shown on a digital clock to the same time on an analog clock" is in, as well as "find a combination of coins that equal a given amount." While current standards had language similar to these new standards, the proposed standards relating to money and time are much more specific.
-Algebra I standards are identified separately, which will help instructors preparing for the Algebra 1 EOC.
Science
-Unlike the mathematics standards, the science writers did not write specific standards for Biology I, which has its own EOC. Biology standards will have to be pulled from the Life Sciences strand, which contains 26 standards, ten fewer than the current Biology I course level expectations. Biology teachers will have to sort this out.
-Secondary science standards have "assessment thresholds" which should help clarify limits of what students should be expected to learn. This is especially helpful because most textbooks contain much more information than is appropriate for students to learn in a year.
-Seemingly influenced by Next Generation, most standards are built on verbs such as model, construct, and predict. If this leads to science classes that are more hands on, then an improvement has been made; however one wonders if test writers can construct items that match the standards.
-Unlike ELA standards, the science standards use the same strands though out the grade levels: LS (life sciences), PS (physical sciences), and ES (earth science). However, the work is not formatted in the same way, which will add some complexity for curriculum leaders.
Social Studies
-The proposed elementary standards are much more robust than current standards. Over 49 pages of standards were written for kindergarten through fifth grade.
-Over 60 new standards for elementary students have been written.
-Unlike science work groups, the social studies writers chose to write specific standards for American Government, which will be helpful for students preparing for the American Government EOC. 34 standards for American Government were written. The writers made a special effort to write the standards in a way that promotes higher levels thinking skills over simple recall. Most standards are built around verbs such as compare, predict, evaluate, and analyze.
While there are areas where the new standards represent improvements, I personally do not find the improvements to be worth the level of disruption that will be caused by adopting so many new standards so quickly. Small schools, lacking subject area curriculum directors, will be at a disadvantage compared to larger districts who have specialized personnel to analyze and align curriculum. Some leaders will inevitably choose to risk having their students learn a curriculum that is not fully aligned to new standards (and the accompanying tests), rather than make unreasonable demands on teachers who may be experiencing their third set of standards in five years.
Below are a few notes I made while comparing the proposed standards to the current standards.
English Language Arts:
-The proposed ELA standards do not use the same strands in grades K-5 as they do in grades 6-12. The K-5 strands are language, reading, writing, and speaking and listening. In 6-12 the strands are reading literature, reading informational texts, writing, and speaking and listening. Unnecessary complexity, particularly in grammar and punctuation instruction, could result.
-Because grammar and punctuation are lumped into writing in the 6-12 standards, the standards lack the specificity found in the K-5 language standards. "Conventions of standard English" for "commas, verb tense, and unclear pronouns," seems to be used too often as a catch all. At which grade should using a colon to introduce a list be taught? At which grade should the use of semi-colons in a list be taught? At which grade would these concepts begin appearing on a state test?
-Many similarities between current standards and proposed standards can be found. For example the current standard, MSL LA 4.RI.9, "integrate information from two texts," is very similar to the proposed standard, Reading 1CB, "explain relevant connections between text to text." Current standard MSL LA 6RI 1" cite textual evidence to support analysis" is identical to proposed standard, RL.1, "cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says."
-In spite of the similarities, many changes exists. The k-5 crosswalk includes the phrase "not in current standards" over 100 times. "Not in proposed standards" appears over 70 times. For example, "writes legibly" is a proposed second grade standard and "produces simple, compound, and complex sentences" has been removed from third grade standards.
-Much of the criticism of the common core standards seemed to stem from a baseless belief that the standards included a political agenda, so it surprised me to see that the proposed standards included language in the 6-12 grade standards requiring the analysis of "historical and cultural context of texts."
Mathematics
-Overall the crosswalk between proposed and existing standards matches up more closely than in ELA.
-The crosswalk does show 19 "new standards," and changes exist. For example, the current elementary standard of "measure to determine how much longer one object is than another" is out, but " describe time shown on a digital clock to the same time on an analog clock" is in, as well as "find a combination of coins that equal a given amount." While current standards had language similar to these new standards, the proposed standards relating to money and time are much more specific.
-Algebra I standards are identified separately, which will help instructors preparing for the Algebra 1 EOC.
Science
-Unlike the mathematics standards, the science writers did not write specific standards for Biology I, which has its own EOC. Biology standards will have to be pulled from the Life Sciences strand, which contains 26 standards, ten fewer than the current Biology I course level expectations. Biology teachers will have to sort this out.
-Secondary science standards have "assessment thresholds" which should help clarify limits of what students should be expected to learn. This is especially helpful because most textbooks contain much more information than is appropriate for students to learn in a year.
-Seemingly influenced by Next Generation, most standards are built on verbs such as model, construct, and predict. If this leads to science classes that are more hands on, then an improvement has been made; however one wonders if test writers can construct items that match the standards.
-Unlike ELA standards, the science standards use the same strands though out the grade levels: LS (life sciences), PS (physical sciences), and ES (earth science). However, the work is not formatted in the same way, which will add some complexity for curriculum leaders.
Social Studies
-The proposed elementary standards are much more robust than current standards. Over 49 pages of standards were written for kindergarten through fifth grade.
-Over 60 new standards for elementary students have been written.
-Unlike science work groups, the social studies writers chose to write specific standards for American Government, which will be helpful for students preparing for the American Government EOC. 34 standards for American Government were written. The writers made a special effort to write the standards in a way that promotes higher levels thinking skills over simple recall. Most standards are built around verbs such as compare, predict, evaluate, and analyze.
Thoughts On SLO Implementation After RPDC Training
On November 24th I attended a workshop on Student Learning Objectives (SLO's). Here are a few reflections on the training.
SLO's are DESE's response to the NCLB waiver, which requires student achievement data be part of teacher evaluation. Beginning in 2016 Missouri schools will be required to document, through core data, that achievement data is used in evaluation. Local districts have been given the responsibility for choosing what data will be used. This is certainly better than models which would mandate evaluations be based on state assessments. However any change to evaluation must be communicated clearly and followed by thoughtful support.
A few bullet points on using SLO's for achievement data:
-SLO's should evaluate individual objectives/learning targets contained in the Missouri Learning Standards.
-SLO's should document achievement over two points in time.
-SLO's should incorporate "stretch." Formative and summative assessments should challenge students in appropriate ways.
-SLO's should be chosen by teachers.
-SLO's should allow teachers to communicate to administrators any unique learning challenges students have.
-SLO's should allow teachers to set "growth targets" for individual students.
The formula for setting individual growth targets suggested by our trainers is illustrated below. Growth targets are set at half the distance between the student's baseline score and one hundred percent. This is a straightforward method, but it leaves me with a few questions.
Thoughts, questions, and concerns:
-Using SLO's will come naturally to many teachers. Most elementary teachers already use assessment data in reading and mathematics. Secondary teachers in large departments have common assessments. Many teachers already submit results on locally created assessments to central offices. Data being tracked by assessments already in place is a perfect resource for meeting new evaluation requirements. However, for various reasons, not all teachers have had the same practice working collaboratively on data collection and evaluation. How will administrators support them?
-What is the most efficient way to submit SLO data? Could a teacher's grade book be used to track SLO's. Administrators and teachers would need to have conversations along the way, but once the assessments have identified, could a teacher submit a printout of their grade book as part of the evaluation process?-SLO's emphasize baseline data. How can administrators discourage teachers unfamiliar with best formative assessment practices from incorporating results of baseline assessments in a student's final grade?
-The "half the distance to the goal" strategy works on a points earned/points possible mindset, which runs counter to standards based grading. Wouldn't a rubric, with a high bar set for mastery, be a better model for incorporating both "stretch" and growth targets?
These are important questions that administrators and teachers should have sooner rather than later. I'd be interested in hearing from those who are further along in the conversation.
Thoughts on the SBAC Digital Library
I decided to update this blog post after recently exploring the library. Many resources have been added since I attended the training. I do still believe that some educators will be disappointed in the Digital Library if they confuse it for the SBAC interim assessments that have not been released yet.
I also wanted to share screen casts of what it looks like to search the library for resources. Flash player is required.
Original Post
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium maintains an online bank of resources, the Digital Library, to support teachers as they prepare students for the SBAC exams. Today, June 30th, I attended a workshop on the Digital Library.
A few observations:
1.) The digital library is not an assessment bank. According to our trainer, SBAC interim assessments will be available in December or January.
2.) The resource is primarily designed to model formative assessment practices. Animated vignettes of teaching practices, rubrics, model lesson plans for performance events, and information on techniques such exit slips and quiz, quiz trade are available. General instructional strategies make up more of the library than content specific, grade level resources.
3.) The library is designed for easy use. Users can filter resources by grade level and subject area.
4.) The resources in the library are high quality. An intensive vetting process was used to select resources.
5.) Perhaps, due to intensive vetting the amount of content is limited at this time.
For example:
A filtered search for resources designed to support seventh grade instruction for Reading Informational Texts Standard 4 (vocabulary in context) provided one resource, a video of quiz, quiz trade protocol from a fourth grade classroom.
A filtered search for resources designed to support seventh grade instruction for Mathematics G.B.4 (circumference) returned no results.
It is important to note that content is still being uploaded. Two resources were uploaded during the training.
So how should the Digital Library be used? It depends.
While some model lesson plans include reproducible assessments, teachers looking for digital or reproducible classroom activities for students will most likely be frustrated. However, the more time I spent in the library, the more material I found that would help classroom teachers in lesson design. For example, a resource titled "Flustered by Fractions," included a clip from American Choppers and instructions on how to use the clip in a lesson.
For administrators the digital library could be a resource to supplement professional development on formative assessment. It could also serve as resource for curriculum writers looking for models endorsed by SBAC.
I would be interested in hearing how others plan to use this tool.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments