academic vocabulary, those important terms that are covered and learned by students at level 2.0 but are often a review of terms learned in prior units or years of instruction.
For PLC question two, “How will we know when students have learned?” the template directs the teacher to identify possible sources of assessment data. In the case of our example, the assessments will be teacher-created, but it is equally possible that there may be state- or district-level assessments that will provide data on student performance on this priority standard. The template requires the teacher to consider each of those possibilities.
Next, we include the proficiency scale we have been working from to design the learning for this unit. The next question, “How will teachers facilitate the learning?” allows the teacher to input the specific daily lesson activities developed when creating the unit plan, and here we capture both the learning progression inspired by the proficiency scale as well as the sequence of assessments that permit the teacher to make formative judgments about student progress as the learning develops. In the process of adding those specific activities, the template asks the teacher to consider supporting resources, like the textbook or close reading passages, that the teacher may commonly use each year in instruction. Additionally, the teacher considers any digital tools that may be appropriate for this unit. In our example, there are no additional resources.
The last two questions—“What will we do when students have not learned?” and “What will we do when students have learned?”—are vital considerations when creating a unit. We have built in opportunities for intervention on the unit plan we created, so these find their place in the template under the question about what to do when students have not learned. (Additional discussion of intervention methods can be found in the following section, Differentiation With Response to Intervention.) We have also considered learning opportunities for those students who move beyond proficiency in the form of the knowledge application lesson from days seven through eleven, and this provides an effective answer to the question of what to do with students who already have learned the material and are at or above the standard.
Thus, whether teachers plan with a template or simply by applying the four-step process outlined in this chapter, planning in standards-based learning involves considering each student’s learning needs for the unit ahead. Unlike traditional planning, standards-based learning starts with the standard as the centerpiece of the learning, and from there the teacher aligns the content to the learning progression on the standard.
Differentiating With Response to Intervention
Even in the planning stage, teachers need to consider what to do when students do not progress to proficiency in the expected manner, and when some students are ready to do higher-level work while others are still working on the basics at score 2.0 and lower. Response to intervention (RTI) provides a framework for considering these possibilities. Thus, a quick review of the basics of RTI is in order.
RTI is available for all students, not just those who are in need of intervention. Although the RTI model provides intervention options at three different tiers, and teachers must access these, as needed, to do everything possible to help struggling students, it also suggests the need for intervention for those students who are ready to move beyond the limitations of proficiency on the standard, as represented by score 3.0 on the proficiency scale. For those students, true differentiation in the classroom may offer a solution.
To review the basics of RTI, consider the three tiers of intervention. Austin Buffum, Mike Mattos, and Janet Malone (2018) state:
The pyramid is commonly separated into tiers: Tier 1 represents core instruction, Tier 2 represents supplemental interventions, and Tier 3 represents intensive student supports. The pyramid is wide at the bottom to represent the instruction that all students receive. As students demonstrate the need for additional support, they receive increasingly more targeted and intensive help. Because timely supplemental interventions should address most student needs when they are first emerging, fewer students fall significantly below grade level and require the intensive services Tier 3 offers, creating the tapered shape of a pyramid. (p. 2)
The tiers are traditionally represented in the form of a pyramid, as shown in figure 1.9.
Source: Buffum, Mattos, & Malone, 2018, p. 2.
Figure 1.9: Traditional RTI pyramid.
Buffum et al. (2018) continue:
With this approach, the school begins the intervention process assuming that every student is capable of learning at high levels, regardless of his or her home environment, ethnicity, or native language. Because every student does not learn the same way or at the same speed, or enter school with the same prior access to learning, the school builds tiers of additional support to ensure every student’s success. The school does not view these tiers as a pathway to traditional special education but instead as an ongoing process to dig deeper into students’ individual needs. (p. 19)
Moving students to a score 4.0 activity approximately halfway through the unit raises the concern for those students who have yet to master score 2.0 or score 3.0 content, or both. It will often be true that not all students in the class will be ready to take on highlevel work at the same time. Teachers should include those students who can benefit from participating in the knowledge application activity. Knowledge application activities are student centered; the teacher’s role shifts toward facilitation. This means that while the teacher introduces the activity and monitors student progress as the activity goes forward, for much of the time during which the knowledge application activity is proceeding, the teacher is available for one-to-one remedial instruction with students who require it. The classroom becomes truly differentiated for a short period of time, providing a range of activities to meet students’ individual needs.
Summary
Teachers shifting to standards-based instruction from a traditional approach will find significant adjustments when planning instruction. Planning will begin with an understanding of the priority standards and will focus largely at the unit level. The proficiency scale provides a learning progression on the standards that will allow students to gradually progress to or beyond proficiency on the priority standards. Whether one uses The New Art and Science of Teaching framework or another instructional planning framework or template, sequencing lessons, activities, and assessments using a proficiency scale will provide students with a steady challenge and consistent feedback on their progress toward proficiency.
Now that teachers have planned for instruction, the next chapter will focus on instruction using proficiency scales.
| 2 | Instructing With Proficiency Scales |
Once teachers have created a strong unit plan around one or several priority standards, instruction can begin, again based around proficiency scales. The unit plan provides general guidance, but teachers now need to connect instructional strategies with the current level of student performance.
A teacher familiar with instructing in a traditional manner may find the instruction process this chapter describes rather foreign. In the sense that the central focus of instruction—the standard, rather than the content—is very different, this may be so. Teachers switching to standards-based learning may feel overwhelmed at first and unsure whether they will be able to make such a profound change to their instructional practice.
The reality is that once teachers change to standards-based instruction, they find that what they teach does not change
