(2003) has shown that there is insufficient instructional time in the K–12 years to bring all students to proficiency on every required state standard. Teachers must thus determine the priority of standards so that they can focus their instructional time on those standards identified as essential to a particular class or grade level. The remaining standards, which educators still teach but for which students may or may not reach proficiency, are identified as supporting standards.
In general, districts provide teachers tasked with implementing standards-based learning in their classrooms with lists of priority standards. If it is necessary to go through the process of identifying priority standards, more information about this process can be found in A School Leader’s Guide to Standards-Based Grading (Heflebower, Hoegh, & Warrick, 2014).
It is important to note that priority standards are the ones on which teachers focus instruction, assessment, and feedback in standards-based learning. Supporting standards are still taught, and may or may not be assessed, but the priority standards are the basis of assessing and reporting student performance. Thus, because teachers need proficiency scales for planning and delivering instruction, creating assessments, and reporting progress, we will create proficiency scales only for priority standards. Proficiency scales are usually not needed for supporting standards.
Understanding Proficiency Scales
Standards-based learning emerges from a teacher’s thorough understanding of the concept of proficiency scales (first created by Robert J. Marzano; for more information see Marzano, 2006). In essence, a proficiency scale defines a learning progression or set of learning goals for a specific topic, relative to a given standard. It shows teachers and students what proficiency looks like, what knowledge and skills students need to achieve proficiency, and how students might go beyond proficiency. See figure 1.1 for the generic form of a proficiency scale.
Source: © 2007 by Marzano & Associates; Marzano, 2010, p. 45.
Figure 1.1: Generic form of a proficiency scale.
Score 3.0 is the heart of the proficiency scale; it defines the target content that teachers expect all students to know and be able to do. When creating a proficiency scale, teachers place the standard or other statement of expectations at score 3.0. Score 2.0 describes simpler content—the foundational knowledge and skills that students will need to master before progressing to proficiency. This often includes vocabulary and basic facts. Score 4.0 provides students the opportunity to go above and beyond expectations by applying their knowledge in new situations or demonstrating understanding beyond what the teacher teaches in class. Score 1.0 and score 0.0 do not involve specific content. Score 1.0 indicates that a student can demonstrate some knowledge or skill with help from the teacher, but not independently. Score 0.0 means that, even with help, a student cannot show any understanding. Figure 1.2 depicts a sample proficiency scale as a teacher might use it in a classroom—with specific content for a certain topic and grade level.
Source: Adapted from Marzano, Norford, Finn, & Finn, 2017, p. 29.
Figure 1.2: Proficiency scale for a fifth-grade science topic.
The scale in figure 1.2 defines a learning progression for the fifth-grade science topic of material properties. Score 3.0 describes the learning target that all students have to reach, score 2.0 describes foundational vocabulary and processes, and score 4.0 describes an advanced task. In some scales, score 4.0 may simply state that students will demonstrate in-depth inferences and applications, rather than specifying a task.
The scale in figure 1.2 also includes half-point scores. This helps teachers measure student knowledge more precisely and helps students see their progress and inspires them to keep working. Students who receive a half-point score have demonstrated knowledge that is between two levels. Score 3.5 means that a student has demonstrated proficiency and had partial success with advanced content, score 2.5 means that a student has mastered the simpler content and demonstrated some understanding of the target content, and so on.
In a standards-based learning environment, proficiency scales form the basis of instruction, assessment, feedback, and grading. Teachers deliver instruction based on the expectations and progressions that proficiency scales define. Assessments align with scales, and students receive feedback on their performance that clearly describes where they are on the scale. Teachers report grades on the four-point scale. The proficiency scale forms the foundation for a consistent system centered around student learning. Principal William Barnes describes proficiency scales and their impact in his school:
In our standards-based grading system, standards outline what students should learn, and our scales clearly define what students need to know and be able to do to achieve each level of knowledge. Since these standards and scales inform our grades and form the foundations of our courses, it is much easier to purposefully align our whole instructional system. The activities and assessments that represent the day-to-day work in our classes are aligned to the standards and scales, so teachers and students are able to communicate progress and learning in a clear and concise way. This results in a much richer understanding of where gaps in learning exist, while also providing an opportunity for teachers to push students who are more advanced in their learning. (Personal communication, January 19, 2018)
Since teachers share proficiency scales with students throughout instruction, these scales become the common language surrounding everything that happens in the classroom. This has the added advantage of connecting students and teachers with the learning that will occur across the unit, raising students’ ability to understand the relevance of each lesson, activity, assignment, and assessment in the unit. The scale becomes the centerpiece of communication and understanding in the classroom, as well as the common language for discussing learning between teacher and student (see figure 1.3).
Figure 1.3: The role of the proficiency scale in classroom communication and understanding.
Given this understanding of the proficiency scale and its role as the basis of instruction, assessment, feedback, and grading, we will now discuss how teachers can adapt the standards-based paradigm to their desired teaching framework. The following section will discuss how to plan standards-based instruction using The New Art and Science of Teaching framework and how this method can be adapted to other teaching frameworks the teacher may be using.
Planning Standards-Based Instruction
Teachers new to standards-based learning may find a focus on the standards rather than content to be uncomfortable at first. Traditionally, the sequence of presenting content to students has been the guide for instructional planning. As teachers consider the planning process for standards-based learning, the content moves into a secondary position. That content will still be there, and likely in much the same sequence. But the starting place for planning instruction will be the priority standards and their associated proficiency scales.
Further, no matter what instructional framework a teacher uses, he or she can adopt standards-based instruction to the framework requirements. There are multiple frameworks available to teachers, including:
• Danielson Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007)
•
