They move to problem solving and eventually develop an error-analysis sheet so that each can re-examine the papers of those students who did not score well on the assessment (see figure 1.1). They determine that they will return the papers to these students and ask them to circle errors they found during rereading. The teachers decide that circling alone, rather than correction, is sufficient.
Figure 1.1: Error-analysis form for writing conventions.
Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore for a reproducible version of this figure.
“These are first drafts,” says Mr. Mansfield. “If students can notice their errors, we don’t need to reteach it.”
The teachers then use the error-analysis sheet to form groups for reteaching unnoticed errors.
Later, Ms. Harrison comments, “We all had a clear sense of which students would need reteaching on using evidence to support claims, but conventions and mechanics are trickier. The whole class doesn’t need this instruction, but it’s vital for those who do. With this method, we’re getting better at identifying who needs some short-term intervention.”
Conversations like this are possible when teachers have had the opportunity to work together in collaborative planning teams. To teach the Common Core State Standards well, teachers need to collaborate with their colleagues. In doing so, they can ensure learning for all students. It is imperative that collaborative team members work to answer the four critical questions of a PLC as they devote attention to the CCSS (DuFour et al., 2008).
1. What do we want our students to learn?
2. How will we know when they have learned it?
3. How will we respond when some students don’t learn?
4. How will we extend and enrich the learning for students who are already proficient?
In other words, teachers need to plan together, look at student work together, identify needs for reteaching together, trust one another, and ask for help when needed. Figure 1.2 provides a meeting record that we have found useful in helping collaborative teams work together. As part of their overall PLC work, collaborative teams focus on the four critical questions and begin to build a school culture in which student learning drives the discussions of teachers and administrators. In the case of the tenth-grade teachers, the third teacher practice question drove the discussion.
Over time, teams will modify and change this meeting record, but to start, it is likely useful to focus on each aspect of the tool. At the top of the form (“Collaborative Team Meeting Logistics”), teachers record the grade level, the date of the meeting, who was facilitating, and who was in attendance. Given that there are different phases that a collaborative team uses to complete the work, we ask that the team agree on its focus for each of its collaborative meeting times. Importantly, there may be two or more foci during a meeting, and we ask teams to complete different forms for each shift in focus. The reason for this is simple: the team learns to integrate the stages as a habit of interaction when it names each stage each time. It also provides a record that the team can use to review past efforts to improve student achievement. School systems are very good at documenting when things are going wrong and not so good at recording successes. Using a tool like the one in figure 1.2 provides a record of success that team members can review when they need to revisit a successful time in the past.
The remainder of the logistics portion of the form focuses on the team’s discussion, including the development of pacing guides, teaching strategy implementation, and peer advice and coaching. During some of the meetings, the team will develop common assessments or review the results of an assessment. We recommend that teams use the “Item Analysis Summary” portion when they are discussing assessment results, since there are a number of specific decisions to be made in terms of intervention and changes in practice.
Teachers are able to have these types of conversations because they understand the power of PLCs and the conceptual shifts represented in the Common Core State Standards for English language arts. They also know the specific standards for their grade level and how these are developed across grades 9–12. In this chapter, we will discuss these major shifts represented in the CCSS, especially their implications for teaching English language arts. In addition, we will highlight what is not included in the standards.
Source: Adapted from Fisher & Frey, 2007a. Reprinted with permission. Learn more about ASCD at www.ascd.org.
Figure 1.2: Collaborative team meeting record.
Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore for a reproducible version of this figure.
The Common Core State Standards
The adoption of the Common Core State Standards for English language arts extends a trend in U.S. education to collaborate across organizations in order to obtain better learning results. Standards-driven policies and practices have yielded notable results, especially in our collective efforts to articulate purposes and learning outcomes to our stakeholders (Gamoran, 2007).
This in turn has led to improved alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessment. But the years have also exposed weaknesses of this system, many of which are related to the disjointed efforts of individual states trying to put their own standards in motion. No matter how effective the process or product, states simply could not share them with other states, as no standards were held in common. Consequently, states, like Arkansas and Arizona, could not pool human and fiscal resources to develop common materials and assessments.
As standards-based assessments rose to prominence in the 2000s, a mosaic of testing results made it virtually impossible to fairly compare the effectiveness of reform efforts across states. The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers sought to rectify these shortcomings by sponsoring the development of a shared set of standards each state could agree on. Beginning in 2010, state boards of education began adopting these standards in English language arts and mathematics. In 2012, nearly all the states adopted them and began work on determining timelines for implementation, as well as methods for assessment.
In an effort to capitalize on new opportunities for collaboration among states, two assessment consortia are developing standards-based assessments. Both the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) consist of representatives from states working to develop assessments of the standards. Some states belong to both and will eventually determine which instruments they will use. While these efforts are a work in progress, common themes are emerging from both consortia. For one, it is likely that a significant part of the tests will be computer based. In addition, it is anticipated that benchmark assessments will play a prominent role in order for schools to better identify students who are falling behind. Perhaps the biggest shift in these assessments has to do with the ELA standards themselves. (Visit www.parcconline.org or www.smarterbalanced.org for more information.) In the next
