This week, I’ll be sharing a bit about the next steps that several schools I am working with are taking: lesson study and instructional coaching relevant to the shared reading of complex text.

See you tomorrow!

And so it is with unit design. My previous posts have spoken to the pre-design phase of this process and the benefits of investing time and energy in the establishment of vision and the definition of standards that should be attended to in addition to the CCLS. As we’ve continued deepening our understanding of high quality learning experiences, we’ve investigated the work of varied experts who came before us and the perspectives and processes they’ve shared relevant to unit design. We’ve also begun exploring the following instructional shifts, which underpin the standards themselves and influence unit design with the CCLS in significant ways.

Designing ELA units of instruction with the Common Core compels us to:

• Balance the study of literature with the study of expository text
• Use reading to build knowledge in content area classrooms
• Engage learners in the shared reading of grade level appropriate text
• Ask questions that require learners to return to the text in order to shape responses
• Write from sources
• Build academic vocabulary

Each of the links above will direct you to video clips intended to provide clarity around what each shift means. David Coleman also models what these shifts might look like in the classroom here.

In the coming days, I’ll share more about what we’re discovering as we unpack these shifts and begin aligning our units and instructional practices to them.

If you are approaching similar work in your role as a teacher or facilitator, I’m eager to connect with you! Over the last few months, I’ve received invitations to collaborate with others in spaces beyond this blog, and I’m learning a great deal as a result. Please let me know if you’d like to add your voice to this conversation. I hope you’ll add a comment below or email me at stockmanangela@gmail.com. Here’s what I’ve been up to over the last few months:

I began the work of Race to the Top by helping the teachers that I am working with define a vision for the graduate they hope to shape and the teacher they hope to become:

• It was important to me that everyone involved in our work treat Race to the Top as a means to those greater ideals, not an end unto itself.
• We began by Envisioning the Top
• Getting Race Ready involved conceptualizing our personal frameworks for professional practice and considering the positive influence that other frameworks might have on our own.
• We defined HOW we wanted to accomplish this work in addition to WHAT needed to be done. 
• And in doing so, we realized how important it was to reflect, strategically plan, and attend to sustainability.

As each initiative has unfolded inside of the districts I am serving we’ve begun:

• Developing a Fluency with the Common Core Learning Standards
• This involves more than a perfunctory gap-analysis, and while unwrapping the standards can deepen our understanding of them, we’ve found that the timing of this work can have a significant influence on how valuable it becomes to teachers.

As a facilitator, one of my primary objectives is to help teachers work in ways that increase job satisfaction.

• Sharing protocols that enable teachers to align to their vision as well as the CCLS has been a critical part of this process.
• This involves fleecing out indicators of vision and thinking in bigger ways about standards, too.

Last week, I shared the way that I’ve begun approaching curriculum design with the teachers I serve. This week, I’ll blog about the products that are emerging from this work and how I’m using formative assessment to inform my practice and professional development planning.

If there are specific aspects of this work that you’d like me to speak to more or questions you’d like me to address, please feel free to leave them below or drop me an email at stockmanangela@gmail.com. Responding helps me clarify my own thoughts, and the questions that I’ve been receiving challenge me to consider some very different perspectives and approaches. I’m learning a great deal–thanks!

Does this sound like you? Then we have a lot in common. I’d really love to know more about how these realizations inform your planning and your work with others.

Over the last six months, I’ve begun helping teachers from a variety of districts design units and plans that are aligned to the CCLS. I’ve tapped into their vision of the graduate they hope to produce and the teacher they long to become at the outset, and I’ve also invited them to begin these processes by considering questions like these:

• What are your students longing to learn?
• What engages them?
• What do they need?
• How could you design an incredibly meaningful learning experience for them in a way that will leave you feeling energized and enthusiastic about your work and the difference that you make for kids?
• How could you position yourself as a learner within this process as well?
• What are you excited to teach?
• How would you love to teach it?
• What’s stopping you from doing any of that?

Then I tell them to go right ahead and do exactly what they dream of doing–I invite them to design a unit or a lesson that truly inspires them and to do it in a way that will empower their kids.

Teachers don’t need to start with standards in order to accomplish this anymore than writers need a lesson on grammar or mechanics when they set out to write something that will set the world on fire. Over the years, I’ve found that starting with standards creates a bit of tunnel vision.

We all know that people don’t become teachers for the money, the prestige, or the (diminishing) amount of time that some of them have off each summer. They become teachers because they love learning, they want to inspire kids to love learning, and often, they have significant expertise about their content area to share. Teachers know more than enough about the conventions of unit or lesson design and standards to begin, and like writers, their work is more inspired if they begin with idea development first.

Voice.

Heart.

I begin unit and lesson design by giving these professionals the permission that they think they need to design powerful learning experiences for kids. Why do they think they need it? Well, I have a hunch that it’s because so many people keep suggesting that they do.

Once teachers have finished designing a unit that is aligned to their vision and to the needs of their students, we visit the standards document and identify those that are most relevant to their work. We unwrap them, and in the process, we often learn a great deal about where and even how we might enrich rigor or relevance. We consider how we could differentiate instruction. We think about what the standard says explicitly and what it implies.We adjust our units in response, and we adjust our perspectives about what might be possible, too.

We use the standards in service to our far, far greater vision.

We also give similar attention to the six instructional shifts that David Coleman speaks to and to the 21st Century skills, literacies, and fluencies that Silvia Tolisano speaks to so well here (thank you again, Silvia).

Each time I’ve approached curriculum design in this way, 95-100% of the total population of teachers that I am working with report that they agree or strongly agree with each of the following statements (via anonymous electronic survey):

• This work is challenging me to grow my professional expertise.
• I am feeling energized by my work and enthusiastic about the curriculum I am designing.
• I feel that this work allows me to be creative.
• I am approaching my work in a way that is mindful of the standards, my vision, and the difference I hope to make for learners.
• This work is increasing my confidence and my levels of job satisfaction.

Sometimes, for varied reasons, I haven’t been able to work in these ways though.When this has been the case, responses have been different, so I think I may be on to something here……

These are some of my processes. Next week, I’ll talk more about the products that are emerging from them.

If ever there were a time when mindfulness would take a back seat to panic and job satisfaction would be sacrificed to perceptions about imposed mandates, that time would be now.

We run the risk of losing some incredibly talented educators with all of this.

What’s worse is that we run the risk of losing kids too.

If we maintain a singular focus on what needs to be done without thinking deeply and planning thoughtfully about how it happens, I fear we may do some damage here.

How can we Race to the Top in ways that increase job satisfaction?

What if we did more than simply articulate a clear vision for the graduate we hope to produce and the teacher we hope to become?

What if we transformed that ideal into standards or performance indicators of our own?

What if we wrapped them around the Common Core Learning Standards (and our content-specific standards)? What if we aligned to them in ways that ensured we were attending to everything we hope our students will know and be able to do as graduates?

What if we aligned to them in ways that would challenge us to grow our professional expertise? Increase our energy and our enthusiasm for the work we do? Nurture levels of creativity? Promote mindfulness? Improve our confidence and job satisfaction? Standards like those are not articulated here, and that’s okay. That’s not the point or purpose of that document.

We still have the power to move mindfully in these directions.

We aren’t taking anything away. We’re adding some perspective by focusing on the how instead of the what. We’re also expanding our understanding of the why.

I think this matters.

What do you think?

• First, I returned to the importance of vision and the call for strategic plans that support the work of Race to the Top while remaining aligned to it.
• Then, I shared a creative strategy for assessing what teachers may already know about the standards and where their needs might be prior to beginning deeper design work.
• Yesterday, I defined what it meant to unwrap standards and shared what I’m learning about the timing of this work.

And today, I’m going to talk about Common Core gap analysis. By this, I mean the process of examining a standard and using evidence to determine if curricula aligns to it. There are different levels of gap analysis and different protocols that support this work. For instance:

• It is possible to glance at the standards and begin having conversations about what they might mean and where we think our curricula is aligned. This enables us to orient ourselves with the standards and begin making initial connections between what we think they might mean and our curricula. I think of this as a perfunctory gap analysis, and the understanding is that when I work this way with teachers initially, there is far more to come in the future.

• A deeper gap analysis could involve unwrapping the standards by defining explicit and implicit meaning, content, concepts, skills, and levels of rigor. This enables us to articulate what the standards mean with far greater specificity, in order to design or align curricula with far greater precision. If this is our purpose, it is important to use evidence to support the decisions we make about where alignment may exist or not. This is where curriculum maps, unit guides, lesson plans, assessments, annotations and other data begin to play a very critical role.

• When we consider the links between vision, curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional learning, protocols such as these might be helpful as well.

My next steps with teachers in most of the schools I work in involves performing a perfunctory gap analysis relevant to what the standards have made explicit.

I think this works well if:

• You are just beginning to work with a group of teachers you do not know well
• Teachers haven’t had much experience with curriculum design or mapping
• People haven’t read or unwrapped the standards yet

In these cases, a perfunctory gap analysis can ease people into the process of making meaning from standards and comparing what they learn about them to what they are doing. They can also enable facilitators to learn more about the teachers they are serving and their needs. When we listen carefully, teachers will often reveal what they think the standards might mean. You can also take some time to ask  important questions about how well they think their curricula aligns. This often prompts them to share information about different kinds of evidence that can inform future work and what they feel needs to be done. This  can help you refine your strategic plan. If this sort of perfunctory analysis suits your purposes, a deeper analysis must happen later and part of your work will involve helping teachers build the capacity to do this greater work.

I noticed that as we moved through this simple gap analysis process, teachers in different schools and districts began voicing similar uncertainties:

“I’m not sure if I really teach this standard because I don’t remember what happened last year very well. We don’t have curriculum maps.”

“We have pacing guides but they don’t say much about these standards. They really focus on the resources I’m using and when I need to use them.”

“I haven’t taught this course yet, so I don’t know if I will be aligned to this standard.”

“Well, I teach this at least once I think, but is this about what I DO or is it about what STUDENTS DO?”

“When we say we’re addressing a standard, does that mean we’re teaching it, assessing it or both?”

“If I am not checking how well each of my students performs against a standard, how can I confidently say that my curricula is aligned? More importantly, how do I even know if they are getting it? Just because I’m teaching it doesn’t mean they are getting it.”

“Is it okay that my curricula is aligned but that my assessments are not? I’m not so sure anymore…..”

“If a standard says that students MUST do X, Y, AND Z, that’s much different than saying students MAY do things such as X, Y, OR Z.”

These were some of the good questions that emerged from this very early work, and landing in this place was critical. Successfully “Racing to the Top” can’t be about rushing to “get stuff done” in order to meet a set of requirements or check activities off of a list of things to do. Reform involves changing the way we think, continually revising the work that we do, and shifting practice in significant ways.

If the work of unwrapping has already occurred, gap analysis can attend to implicit as well as explicit meaning. It can also attend to additional indicators generated from visioning work or the study of things that the CCLS don’t attend to but that matter to your district or school.  For instance, some of the teachers I am working with have also explored various resources in order to define indicators of 21st Century Skills, Literacies, and Fluencies. Silvia Tolisano’s work is grounded in meaningful research and incredibly reader-friendly. She also connects theory to practice and shares so much from her work with kids. I’ve been sending many teachers her way throughout this process. Teachers can also articulate indicators that are aligned to vision. Designing high quality units and lessons requires alignment to these greater understandings that emerge from deeper learning and work.

I believe that all of this work should be about helping schools become communities of learners. If this is the case, then gap analysis isn’t an end unto itself. Any of the processes and protocols we use are catalysts for change. The creative tension, cognitive dissonance, and questions that emerge as we use them are one indication that change is beginning to happen at one level of the system, but there is so much more work to be done. These are the things I’m left wondering:

• What other levels of the system must be considered? For instance, where does policy align? Where do we need to advocate for change?
• What kinds of changes should be made there?
• Which processes and protocols can be used as catalysts?
• How will we know when change has begun?
• What will it look like when we’ve finally arrived where we want to be?

Implicit meaning?

Aren’t standards supposed to be articulated with precision?

Well, that’s the hope, but even the best standards require skillful interpretation. This is informed by the professional conversations that we have with others and the expertise they we are all willing to share.

For instance, consider the explicit expectations of this standard:

RL.4.10 By the end of the year, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poetry, in the grades 4–5 text complexity band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.

Now, think about the implicit expectations. What isn’t clearly defined? Comprehension is a pretty loaded concept, and often, questions arise relevant to what a “text complexity band” is. Also: what does it mean to read and comprehend proficiently?

Answers to questions like these need to be clearly defined and articulated. Often, this requires deeper investigations into meaning and the location of other resources and people who can guide us.

When we unwrap standards, we also distinguish content and concepts (typically articulated as nouns within the standard) from skills (which are typically articulated as verbs). This enables us to design and align curricula with greater precision. Considering adjectives and adverbs can help us think critically about levels of rigor as well. Some teachers begin to design essential questions and big ideas during this phase of the process as well. The video below can walk you and others through the unwrapping process fairly simply if you don’t have someone facilitating it for you. Thanks to Shelly Wilcoxen from David Douglas School District for sharing her process here:

We concluded this phase of our work together asking ourselves: what do we still need to learn about these standards? How will this happen? Are there other standards that need to be brought to the table? Whose voices and perspectives might be missing here?

An important note about timing: the first time I worked with teachers around the CCLS, we jigsawed the document and unwrapped all of the standards at each grade level in teams. Our findings were housed online, where others could access and amend them as we learned more. Others who are facilitating this work timed this phase of it a bit differently. They began by designing high quality units with teachers and then aligned the units back to the standards. It was at this point in the process that they unwrapped the standards, and in doing so, units were revised along the way. I’ve played with this process a bit as well in recent months, and I’m finding it far more effective. When teachers unwrap as they design units, they consider what they are learning about a standard and immediately revise their thinking and work within the unit to reflect these deeper understandings. It seems to narrow the distance between standards and curricula and allows alignment to happen more efficiently and effectively.

Photo credit: Angela Stockman, August 2011

As I’ve begun debriefing with different members of my network and teachers and administrators inside of the schools that I serve, much of the conversation has been about the demands of text, scaffolding complexity, and attending to the needs of readers and writers in every content area.

I’ve learned a great deal from Anthony Petrosky’s work around all of this, and many of the teachers that I’ve engaged in curriculum design with have been beside me as I’ve done so. If you’d like to know more, I’m happy to share the resources, tools, and structures that have emerged from that learning and work. I think it’s provided a solid foundation for those I’ve been serving over the last few years. Looking forward to deepening our conversation and practice as we continue moving forward.

“Some of my former students came back to see me this year,” she said. “They graduated a couple of years ago. When they were here, they really struggled, but they wanted to do well, and they listened to me when I told them I could help them. I helped them read. I helped them write. I gave them strategies that got them through the tests. When they complained, I promised it would be worth it. ‘Don’t you want something better?’ I said to them. ‘Don’t you want choices in life?’ And of course they did, and they worked to prove it. It was a miracle that they didn’t drop out.”

She didn’t seem to feel victorious about this….or even particularly happy.

“When they walked across the stage to get their diplomas,  I knew they would go to college, and they did. For a year. I knew they wouldn’t make it there, and now they are back home again. They have no idea who they are….what they are good at….who they are meant to be. I see these kids on the street now. I see them hanging out in town, doing nothing that really inspires them.”

I nodded. Some of us really do get it. By “us” I mean staff-developer types. Even ones who appreciate data. And rubrics. And standards.

“I helped those kids get a diploma, but you know what? I failed them anyway, and that just haunts me. I can’t help it. Our drop-out rate is a problem, but it isn’t our only problem. If we’re going to do this right, we have to do something completely different from what we’ve done before. I will continue to help them read. I will help them write. They’ll pass the tests, and they will graduate. Don’t get me wrong, I am so glad to be able to use information about performance in better ways now. You know I can’t wait for us to work to our full potential there, but it isn’t enough.”

She’s right.

We need to define what dropping out really means. We need to admit that it’s happening after graduation too, and the consequences are just as dire.

All that stuff I’ve been saying this week about helping students understand who they are, what they love, and all that really matters to them? I know it’s about so much more than defining writing territories. Each of the students we work with, regardless of how they might perform within our classrooms or on the tests that we give them, has something significant to contribute to our classrooms…our schools…our communities….our world. It’s important to ask every student we teach the questions that will help them figure out exactly what this might be.

So, how can we begin connecting kids to the places and the people that might really benefit from their contributions?

And if we did this, would it keep them coming back to school during those moments when academic struggle might tempt them to opt-out? If we did this, would it help them engage in life beyond school the same way?

I honestly don’t know, but I’m grateful to be working with a group of teachers who are really eager to find out.

Anyone else interested in connecting with us as we begin this particular journey? We’d love to learn with you…….

Photo Credit: The roots of education are bitter via Schluesselbein2007 @flickR

I’ve gained more than a bit of wisdom from the following people, who have devoted much of their lives to studying and facilitating change. Who inspires your learning in this area?

• Linda Lambert
• Art Costa and Bena Kallick
• Patricia Cloud Duttweiler
• Peter Senge
• Mary Pipher
• George Siemens
• Stephen Downes
• Giselle Martin-Kniep, Joanne Picone-Zocchia