In the fall of 2007, we went through a short and intense process to write ELTs.  There is more information about the ELTs and the Instructional Model on the Student Achievement blog, particularly this posting:http://isobelstevenson.edublogs.org/2008/11/12/happy-birthday-elts/

We knew when we wrote them that the ELTs would need revision after teachers had had the chance to work with them for a while.  What we didn’t know was when the state would decide to revise the state standards.  The state’s deadline of December 09 puts us in an interesting position, because we are eager to start on the refiningn work, but we don’t know how close the drafts in circulation are to the final versions that will be approved in six months.

What we have decided to do is to work on language arts and math ELTs this summer.  We have a good idea of what we want to see changed in these documents, we like a lot of what is in the current version, and we think we can realistically achieve revision of these subjects during the summer vacation.

We plan to document the progress we make on this work on this blog.  All that’s on there right now is the same information in this email, but if you go there, you can sign up for an RSS feed (on the sidebar on the right).  If you want to know more about RSS, go tohttp://edtekzone.edublogs.org/2008/11/13/rss-really-simple-syndication-translation-your-own-personal-newspaper/ for help.

I cannot overemphasize the importance that we place on good curriculum.  It defines what academic knowledge and skills our students-all our students-should have upon graduating.  It is the foundation for our work on classroom formative assessment, the instructional strategies that we believe will have the greatest impact on raising student achievement and closing achievement gaps.

If you want to know more about classroom formative assessment, I suggest you check out the ATI website at http://www.assessmentinst.com/, the CTLT website at http://www.ctlt.org/index.php , and the Student Achievement blog at http://isobelstevenson.edublogs.org/ 

Isobel

Target Finish Date: July 6th, 2009

Over the past two years District 27J has worked through the Student Achievement team, district leaders, principals and many teachers from all levels to craft curriculum that reflects 40-year, life-long, transferable concepts. A scaffold to these 40-year concepts through the acquisition of skills and knowledge expressed in 40-day timeframes known as Success Criteria were developed. The creation of the 40-day Success Criteria was guided by state standards, CSAP frameworks, CBLA, College Boards, the ACT and applied Bloom’s taxonomy to their grammatical construction. The 40-day Success Criteria were aligned across grade levels in a spiraling format that utilized an Introduced, Developing, and Secured (IDS) scale for proficiency at each grade level.

In the last year the curriculum has been applied within the context of and in support of 27J’s Instruction Model which focuses on student achievement for all students without regard to label and highlights a path to student growth and closing achievement gaps through increasing levels of instructional focus, scaffolding, intervention and specifically tailored instructional programs. We have seen very encouraging and positive movement on this front in CSAP scores for Reading at 3rd grade, in NWEA RIT growth for all students in Math and Reading, and in growth in Reading for students in our Read 180 intervention.

Beginning fall of 2009, we began a focus on Classroom Formative Assessment (CFA) as an embedded instructional process and set of strategies that are integral to the delivery of the curriculum and how we will reach the achievement and growth ends of the Instructional Model. As part of the CFA focus, classrooms and instruction across 27J worked diligently to establish clarity of the learning target (a specific CFA strategy of Clarity of Target) for students and the instructional aim of the teacher. Staff development and PLC conversations had as a continual focus to discuss and reflect upon CFA strategies and their practice in instruction.

Reflecting, though many channels, on where we are today with the curriculum in 27J, it has became clear that in several areas the Success Criteria are not clear in regards to the learning targets for students and that the IDS framework is often confusing with respect to proficiency. It is often difficult to decide, based on the language of the Success Criteria and the level of proficiency indicated by IDS, what students need to learn and to what level of competency. A refining of the curriculum with the intent to clarify Success Criteria and align them with clear learning targets and grade level proficiency is needed.

The timing of this refining process aligns nicely with the State of Colorado’s process for revision of the state standards. A draft copy is circulating for public comment and finalized versions will be approved in December for Reading, Math, Science and Music. The state’s new format will include proficiency levels for each grade level providing a 40-week (end of year) proficiency level. This provides a missing link in our curriculum work where we have developed 40-year (life-long) ELTs and 40-day (unit level) Success Criteria which can now be aligned with 40-week (year-end) proficiency targets that clarify what students should have mastered within a specific academic year at specific grade levels. We will be able to end the IDS framework for proficiency and align more clearly with mastery of skills and concepts by grade level and clarify Success Criterion around specific 40-day learning targets.

The confluence of these two, a need for greater clarity in the Success Criteria (40-day) and the year-end grade level proficiency (40-week) provided by the state standards, creates a timely opportunity to refine our curriculum. The goal of the refinement is to establish clarity on learning targets and proficiency levels that will allow us to have curriculum maps that provide a framework for designing instruction and intervention to ensure that all students master the 40-day learning targets. A refinement of this nature will support instruction, embed CFA processes and strategies, maintain a curriculum that is consistent across schools (guaranteed) in terms of learning targets and proficiency (viable), and set us up to design common assessments. These three; clear curriculum (this includes aligned materials), instruction (CFA embedded), and assessment (common and aligned with learning targets) form the quintessential supports and tools to see our Instructional Model fulfilled (where all students achieve and grow regardless of need). By way of a metaphor, the graphic shape of the Instructional Model forms a triangle with four tiers (see illustration) designed to progressively focus instruction and interventions for student growth. The geometric shape of a triangle is quintessentially formed by the nature of the angles. Three angles that add to 180˚, where they intersect, a triangle is formed. In a similar manner, where the angles of Clear Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment intersect, the Instructional Model takes shape and makes a visible difference in student achievement and growth. Our goal is to get the angles correct.

The process will be rolled out in phases that will continue to use a collaborative approach that our Instructional Model outlines with teams of people at various stages and at different times. When milestones are reached the resulting work will be available for all to provide feedback on and then teams will revise the work and create a finished milestone that will be a foundation for the next phase. Through a process of 3 phases we will develop curriculum maps that provide a framework for designing instruction and intervention to ensure that all students master the 40-day learning targets. These phases will be implemented beginning this summer and through the school year. The process will begin with refining of curriculum in the areas of Reading and Math – Kindergarten to 12th grade.  

Here are the phases for refining each content area beginning initially with Reading and Math state standards:

• Phase I Reading: Align 40 Week & 40 Day Proficiency – June 23 to August 27
  • Step 1: Grade Level Proficiency (40-week)
    • Establish Learning Targets for 40-week proficiency
    • Public Comment on Learning Target Milestone
    • Team Review and Revise – Learning Target Milestone complete
  • Step 2: Unit Level Proficiency (40-Day)
    • Align Success Criteria to Learning Targets
    • Public Comment on Success Criteria Alignment Milestone
    • Team Review and Revise – Success Criteria Milestone complete

• Phase II Reading: Embedding 21st Century Skills – August 28 – September 29
  • Step 1: Align 21st Century skills and language with Learning Targets and Success Criteria
  • Step 2: Formatting Curriculum Maps
    • Instructional Materials Alignment
    • Public Comment on 21st Century and Format Milestone
    • Team Review and Revise – Format Milestone complete

Repeat Phases I and II for Math – September 29 – December 9

• Phase III – Field Testing – January – May (greater detail developed in November)
  • Step 1: Diary Mapping
  • Step 2: Exemplar Collection

Additional content areas will follow in the same fashion beginning Summer 2010 and continuing as the state adopts more content area standards.

Regular communication during the revision process can be found on this project website (40-40.org).