The Importance of Assessing—NOT Guessing—Each Student’s COVID-19 Slide
Introduction
Despite the fact that the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths continues unabated—if not increasing in many states, schools must necessarily plan for some type of re-opening this Fall. In our last two Blogs, we focused on the planning for students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health re-entry.
[CLICK HERE for: May 16, 2020. Why is Education Week Sensationalizing Student Trauma During this Pandemic? Will Schools Re-Open Without Pathologizing their Students' Emotional Needs? (Part I)]
_ _ _ _ _
[CLICK HERE for: May 30, 2020 Preparing NOW to Address Students’ Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Needs Before They Transition Back to School: Let’s Use Caring and Common Sense as Our Post-Pandemic Guides (Part II)]
_ _ _ _ _
In this new two-part Blog Series, we discuss what schools need to consider now as they plan for their students’ academic re-entry this Fall.
More specifically, in this Part I, we address why (and how) schools should validly assess—as soon as possible when students return to school—the functional, mastery-level status of all students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts. These assessments should be anchored by the academic performance standards that are operationalized by well-crafted scope and sequence maps that are accurately measured by the school-selected (or created) assessment tool(s).
We then recommend that the assessment results—corroborated by classroom performance and previous assessments—be used to identify groups of students who are functioning above, at, below, or well-below their current grade-level placements.
Finally, in this Blog message, we discuss how to organize students who are functioning within one grade level of their respective grade placements into homogeneous instructional or skill-specific cohorts, and heterogeneous comprehension-level or applied project-based cohorts. These instructional groups are based on the academic standards and goals of the subject area, and the grade level of the students.
In Part II of this Series, we will discuss how to use the assessment results to address the academic progress and enrichment of students who are “above” their grade-level standing, and the academic gaps of students who are below and well below their grade-level placements.
I anticipate many who will say that these ideas—while research- and statistically-based—are not realistic given time, resources, schedules, and even expertise.
In fact, I heard this earlier this week during a virtual consultation with a District Leadership Team that I am working with.
But the concerns seemed to die down when I noted the following:
- We need to know and be guided by the research-to-practice first as we approach our students academically this Fall. We then can strategically come as close to our evidence-based blueprints (given the available time, resources, schedules, and expertise) as possible.
If we are not guided by the research-to-practice, we will (in essence) be playing “instructional roulette” with our students’ futures—knowing that the risks are great and the results may be underwhelming.
_ _ _ _ _
- If we don’t instructionally program our students for academic success, then academic frustration and related social, emotional, and behavioral problems—beyond where these students will enter this Fall—have a high probability of emerging.
These problems will then undermine these (and other) students’ academic engagement and progress as part of a vicious cycle.
The result: We will be further behind—both academically and behaviorally—than when we started.
_ _ _ _ _
- We need to “go slow to go fast.” That is, schools should not assume that they know where students are academically functioning—rushing to put students into different instructional groups in the absence of valid data this Fall. Moreover, they should not rush to begin instruction.
Clearly, students (and staff) will need some social, emotional, and behavioral time this Fall to re-establish relationships, debrief the last half of the school year, and re-set their routines and interactions. This “time” must include discussions regarding the death of George Floyd; racial bias, injustice, and discrimination; and the anguished protests that rightly followed yet another unjustified Black murder.
Academically, we need to accurately, and in a measured way (no pun intended), determine who is behind, and how far they are behind.
If this takes “a little more time” to get it right. . . so that students are then assigned to the “right” classes and instructional levels. . . where we can get it right on their behalf. . . then we will actually be ahead of the game. . . as will our students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
First Things First: What Will “School” Actually Look Like
None of us can completely predict the Fall, whether students will be allowed to return to school, and how many parents/guardians will allow their children and adolescents to return.
At the same time, most schools are already planning—basing their plans on a “best guess” scenario of what “school” will look like for them. Many schools are wisely supplementing these primary plans with one or two contingency plans depending on parents, staff, buildings, transportation, computer and related technological resources, state COVID-19 requirements, and the possibility that the pandemic will further rebound.
A few days ago, an Education Week article outlined six potential re-opening models based on their discussions with public health officials, education leaders, and superintendents across the country.
These are presented below because the model used by a district will necessarily impact its schools’ and staffs’ functional and logistical plans for their academic and social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health re-opening activities in the Fall.
Below are descriptions of these six models—some of which could be used simultaneously. To find the Pros and Cons for each model, please consult the original article.
[CLICK HERE for Original Article]
1. Phased Reopening
How it works: Schools bring back only some students at first to avoid crowding buildings and make it easier to adhere to social distancing. For instance, schools could welcome back only one or two grade levels, while students in other grades continue to learn remotely. As conditions with the virus improve, schools can gradually welcome more students until they reach full capacity.
Another version: School buildings initially open one day a week, with students continuing to learn remotely the other four days. Students would be divided into groups, either alphabetically or based on grade level, and be assigned to come on a specific day. The number of days a week that students are physically in school could gradually increase as the risks to health decrease in local communities.
_ _ _ _ _
2. Multi-Track System
How it works: Schools operate on a track schedule, with groups of students in school buildings on different days and engaging in remote learning when they are home. For example, one cohort of students comes to school on Mondays and Wednesdays, another cohort comes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and everybody stays home on Fridays.
Another version: Schools divide students into A, B, and C groups, and have students take classes in-person every third day. In this model, special education students, English-language learners, and other vulnerable children like homeless students attend classes in person every day.
_ _ _ _ _
3. Staggered Schedules
How it works: Half of students come to school in the morning while the other half comes in the afternoon. Schools divide the students based on grade levels or alphabetically, in order to keep siblings on the same schedule.
_ _ _ _ _
4. Bubble Strategy
How it works: The same group of students stays together for all or most of the day, with the same teacher or teachers.
Students remain in a single classroom all day, even for lunch. If needed, different teachers rotate into the classroom while the students stay put. Younger students might forego electives, like art or physical education, or those teachers provide a lesson to the homeroom teacher. Students might also take those elective classes online, at home.
_ _ _ _ _
5. Cyclical Lockdown Strategy
How it works: School buildings regularly alternate between being open and closed, with students staying home for a minimum of 10 days during closure periods. Students attend school one full week, followed by two weeks of remote learning at home.
Another version: Students come to school Monday through Thursday, and then learn from home on Friday and all days of the following week.
_ _ _ _ _
6. Year-Round Schedule
How it works: The school divides students into groups—one cohort attends school for a set period, roughly nine weeks, while the other cohorts participate in remote learning. The groups would rotate at the end of each period. Breaks from schooling would be more frequent, but shorter than the traditional 10-week summer vacation.
_ _ _ _ _
If you read this Education Week article literally, there are many concerns.
For example, nothing in the article suggests that the student groups or cohorts, chosen to come to school, should be organized by students’ academic learning and mastery status or needs (other than the global special education, ELL, and vulnerable student statement in #2).
And, the models do not appear to factor in the importance of grouping students—strategically and using valid data—so that teachers can effectively (a) differentiate their instruction, (b) use appropriate pedagogical approaches and strategies, and (c) address the fact that many students are strong in some academic subjects but weak in others.
Thus—again, at face value, the models seem to focus on logistical “cattle-herding,” rather than also trying to impact and maximize (certainly, under trying conditions) instructional efficacy.
And if this is true and if educational leaders say, ”We don’t have enough time” or “We’re doing the best that we can”. . . . then the three bullets at the end of the Introduction section above need to be re-read and seriously considered.
My friends, I understand that these are unusual and unprecedented times. But, we can and must do better at this—right from the outset.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
First Things Second: A Blueprint for Assessing Students’ Current Academic Skills
In order to accomplish the assessment, instructional grouping, effective differentiation and pedagogy, and multi-tiered service and support goals implicit in the Blog Sections above, a research-based roadmap is presented below.
Critically, nothing in this roadmap is new. It simply needs to be adjusted to each district’s current conditions, resources, . . . and re-entry timelines.
To accomplish this, districts and schools may need to think—logistically, and relative to staff and resource (re)allocations—"outside the box.” At the same time, aren’t they already doing this in planning for their students’ unprecedented post-pandemic re-entry? We all are already outside of the box.
The “bottom line” is that, in this essential area of academic planning, districts and schools need to accomplish the following:
- Functionally and validly assess all of their students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts early in the Fall as they return to school;
- Integrate and “StoryBoard” the results (see below), in each academic area, to determine the best instructional homogeneous and heterogeneous groups (to include cross-grade or cross-aged groups, as relevant) to maximize teachers’ pedagogical differentiation and students’ academic progress;
- Identify, specify, and integrate the students who need multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions in order to be successful into the StoryBoard;
- Align the StoryBoard with available (and flexibly deployed and used) staff and resources (including Intervention Specialists, paraprofessionals, computer-assisted instruction and intervention, after-school tutoring, etc.). . . with an eye toward student equity, and not student equality;
- Factor the results into (a modification of) the school’s post-pandemic schedule and logistics; and
- Evaluate on a quarterly basis, making “mid-course” grouping, scheduling, and/or logistical changes as needed.
Parenthetically, the crucial student equity suggestion above has been discussed in previous Blogs.
[CLICK HERE to see:
April 11, 2020. The Pandemic Unearths the Raw Reality of Educational Inequity and Disparity: COVID-19 Forces Us to Realize We Need to Change the Village]
[CLICK HERE to see:
November 23, 2019. Maybe It’s the (Lack of) Money that Explains the Relationship Between Black-White Achievement Gaps and Disproportionate Disciplinary Suspensions?]
_ _ _ _ _
While this does not need to be sequential, in order to complete this journey, districts may—first—need to address students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs (as above) when they re-entry their schools in the Fall.
Then—second—schools will need to organize their schedules and staff so that academic assessments can be completed (as above) to functionally and validly assess all of their students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts.
To accomplish this—just to suggest an “out-of-the-box” creative approach—schools may need to take a week and have different grade levels of students come to school on different days to be assessed, while other students are home learning virtually. This way, all of the staff in a school can be fully committed to completing the grade-by-grade assessments in a timely, effective, and most valid way.
In fact, this suggestion may not be so radical. . . as some schools already adjust their schedules and staffing at least three times per year to conduct interim, formative assessments.
And why not change the schedules and staffing for a short period of time? . . . if it results in valid academic assessments that allow schools to move ahead with high-quality grouping and instruction?
_ _ _ _ _
To expand further, below are four areas of additional steps to guide this assessment-to-instructional-grouping process.
Choosing/Developing the Academic Assessments
In order to accomplish this, districts or schools should:
- Identify the Power or Anchor Standards in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts at each grade level that are most essential for students to learn and that, typically, represent the foundational or prerequisite knowledge and skills that generalize to help students to learn and master the content in other, related standards.
Many states and publishers have already done this. . . so districts do not need to reinvent this wheel. . . they only need to research and tap into these existing templates.
Some state departments of education in fact (e.g., Arizona, Arkansas, and others) have re-visited this process, creating COVID-19 “academic playbooks” and “unit plans.”
_ _ _ _ _
- From the respective Power or Anchor Standards, identify the knowledge, content, information, and skill-specific test item specifications needed in each grade level’s academic literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts assessments that will most accurately evaluate their current functional learning and mastery status.
Once again, many state departments of education (e.g., Florida, California, Indiana), publishers of different academic curricula (that include formative assessments), and academic assessment vendors (e.g., NWEA, Edmentum, STAR, i-Ready, Istation) have already completed this task for districts and schools.
_ _ _ _ _
- Either create (e.g., from an existing test bank) an Adaptive Assessment Tool, or cross-walk (if you are using a publisher’s test or a computer-adaptive assessment platform) an existing Adaptive Assessment Tool, to ensure that its items are consistent with the test item specifications above.
This is essential to a valid assessment of each student’s current functional academic skill level—as represented by the Power or Anchor Standards specified.
Adaptive Assessment Tools use internal programming, or algorithms, where the “next” test items given to a student are based on that student’s correct or incorrect responses to the previous items.
In this way, a student’s grade-level functioning—regardless of his or her current grade-level standing, and based on an academic area’s standards and scope and sequence—can be determined. This is how, for example, we can determine that a fifth-grade student is functioning at the middle of third grade level in phonic skills, and at the end of second grade in vocabulary and comprehension skills.
_ _ _ _ _
- Complement (and re-validate) these assessments (and their results) with formal and informal classroom- and curriculum-based teacher assessments that are completed during instruction, through independent assignments and work samples, and based on in-class portfolios, projects, or tests.
_ _ _ _ _
Throughout this assessment process, students will need to be closely supervised to ensure that (a) the assessment vehicle will accurately evaluate their skills; and (b) they have participated with their full attention and motivation.
Relative to the former area, we are finding that many students do not learn or represent their knowledge and skills as accurately on computer assessments as opposed to paper-and-pencil assessments. Schools need to be careful when they sacrifice assessment validity for assessment convenience.
_ _ _ _ _
Pooling the Academic Assessment Results
Recognizing that different assessments have different assessment goals, the goal here is to organize students—based on the literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts assessments completed—into broad clusters that represent their current mastery and functional knowledge and skills levels viz a viz the performance standards at their current grade placement level.
As noted above, in each academic area, the broad clusters are functioning: above, at, below, or well-below their current grade-level placements.
(For high school students, this will need to be course-specific as a student’s grade-level placement—when based on credits earned—does not represent his or her functional skills in literacy, mathematics, or writing/language arts.)
_ _ _ _ _
To complete this clustering process, school staff will need to pool the quantitative and qualitative data into a “Skill Summary Score” for each student.
- The quantitative data will be a standard score, percentile, or grade-level equivalent score from the Adaptive Assessment Tool discussed above.
While a school can over-rule this recommendation, perhaps depending on the specific academic area and student grade placement, they might consider students scoring (a) 1.5 standard deviations above the assessment tool mean to be functioning above their current grade placement; (b) between -1.0 and 1.5 standard deviations to be functioning at grade-level; (c) between -2.0 and -1.0 standard deviations to be below grade-level; and (d) below -2.0 standard deviations to be well-below grade-level.
This quantitative data should be integrated into other quantitative data collected by teachers during any (curriculum-based) assessments that students have done in their classrooms between the beginning of the school year and their completion of the Adaptive Assessment Tool.
This quantitative data also can be loosely correlated to students’ longitudinal progress on past interim assessments (noting that students did not take state standards tests this past year). At the same time, the last interim assessments were probably done around January, 2020. Thus, these results are somewhat dated, and they do not reflect the fact that students—even in the same school and classes—had very different home-instruction learning experiences and opportunities since late February or early March.
Said a different way, while information from past interim assessments can contribute to our understanding of students’ current (Fall, 2020) academic functioning, the Adaptive Assessment Tool results should anchor this understanding.
_ _ _ _ _
- The qualitative data, as noted above, include teachers’ formal and informal observations of students’ classroom, curriculum-based learning as reflected in their involvement and participation during instruction, interactions during cooperative group or project-based activities, independent assignments and work samples completed, and in-class portfolios, projects, or tests.
Additional qualitative analyses can be conducted by looking at the Adaptive Assessment Tool results and determining how many Power or Anchor Standards a specific student has mastered at each grade level.
For example in math, a specific beginning-Sixth-Grade student may have mastered all of the Power Standards in Fourth Grade and below, four of eight Grade Five Power Standards, and one of eight Sixth Grade Power Standards. Qualitatively, we might estimate this student’s current functional skill level to be at the middle of Fifth Grade in math.
All of these qualitative data can be supplemented by information shared by students’ 2019-2020 classroom teachers and others.
_ _ _ _ _
- Ultimately, all of the quantitative and qualitative data (leaning most heavily on the quantitative and, especially, the Adaptive Assessment Tool data) is pooled into a “Skill Summary Score” for each student.
While not the most sophisticated psychometric score, it is satisfactory for the purposes of clustering students. Ultimately, we suggest a Beginning-, Middle-, or End-of-Grade-Level Equivalent score to summarize a student’s current functional skill level in a specific academic subject. This score can then be cross-walked with the academic performance standards reflected by the score, as well as the district’s scope and sequence maps and the curricular material available for instruction.
Thus, for example, a beginning-Seventh-Grade student might be functioning at the End of Fifth Grade level in Reading, the Middle of Sixth Grade level in Math, and the Beginning of Fifth Grade level in writing/language arts.
_ _ _ _ _
StoryBoarding the Students
In this step, educators in a specific school look separately at the literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts Skill Summary Scores for all of the students in a particular grade level—pooling, or StoryBoarding, the data across students.
Let’s say that a third grade class of 85 students has the following distribution of literacy Summary Scores—based on the Fall quantitative and qualitative data collection activities:
- 10 Students: Middle of Fourth Grade functioning or above
- 15 Students: Middle to End of Third Grade functioning
- 45 Students: Middle to End of Second Grade functioning
- 10 Students: End of First Grade to Beginning of Second Grade functioning
- 5 Students: Middle of First Grade functioning or below
School staff might then summarize these results by saying 10 students are above grade level in literacy, 15 students are at grade level, 40 students are below grade level, and 10 students are well-below grade level.
BUT. . . given that these students “lost” a number of months of high quality instruction due to the pandemic this past year, the school should not be surprised that 40 students are functioning at the middle to end of Second Grade. Indeed, they may reconsider the “designation” that they are “below grade level.”
But the more functional, critical issues here are:
- How are school staff going to cluster these students right now into instructional groups?
- What different-skill-level instructional groups are going to be taught in the same class by the same teacher?
- Where in the literacy scope and sequence will teachers begin teaching these different student clusters?
- How are teachers going to teach them?
Through this process, every grade level will have a separate literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts StoryBoard of its students. Eventually, these StoryBoards can be pooled to identify students who are consistently (or inconsistently) above, at, below, or well-below grade level in two or all three of the targeted academic areas. And then, schools can determine how to organize their instructional clusters based on the number of teachers per grade level and the re-opening model (see the First Things First section above) that they are using.
For example, what if a school is using a #2-Multi-Track System model where one cohort of students comes to school on Mondays and Wednesdays, another cohort comes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and everyone status home on Fridays. And what if the third grade described above is in this school with four classroom teachers available. And, finally, what if the school decides to use the students’ third grade literacy scores to organize the cohorts—given the importance of literacy in third grade, the integration of writing/language arts in the literacy curriculum, and the fact that the teachers are committed to adapting the Monday/Wednesday and Tuesday/Thursday student groups to accommodate for students’ differential mathematics skills.
Moving On: One option for this school is to have the Monday/Wednesday in-school cohort include the 10 Middle of Fourth Grade functioning or above students, 20 of the Middle to End of Second Grade functioning students, and the 10 End of First Grade to Beginning of Second Grade functioning students. These 40 students will be assigned to three of the four classroom teachers (Average Class Size= 13 students; which allows for social distancing), and the fourth teacher will be guiding the Tuesday/Thursday cohort through virtual instruction.
This means that the Tuesday/Thursday cohort will consist of the 15 Middle to End of Third Grade functioning students, and the remaining 25 of the Middle to End of Second Grade functioning students. Once again, three teachers will be teaching this cohort, and one teacher will be guiding the Monday/Wednesday cohort virtually.
The 5 Middle of First Grade functioning or below students are likely to include ELL or students with disabilities, and they will attend school every day. They will be taught by a combination of classroom teachers and special education or intervention specialist teachers in their areas of academic weakness. They will obviously get more on-site time and attention (as they should) and, hopefully, this approach will maximize their academic learning and progress.
_ _ _ _ _
Clearly, every grade-level StoryBoard in a school may look somewhat different, and the School Leadership Team will need to pool all of the StoryBoards together to make many whole-school staffing and support decisions.
But critically, these decisions are based on data, and they are made in informed, strategic, incisive, and student-centered ways.
Moreover, this whole-school perspective may trigger other creative staffing approaches. For example, what if the 10 Middle of Fourth Grade functioning or above Third Grade students (above) are combined into a multi-grade literacy group with Fourth Graders who are working at grade level? And what if, then, the Third Grade team takes responsibility for teaching an above-grade-level group of Second Grade students in another multi-grade group?
All of this aside, know that I understand that the Monday/Wednesday and Tuesday/Thursday cohorts chosen at the beginning of the school year (especially relative to bus routes) may have to change at the beginning of October after the testing and StoryBoarding process described above is completed.
And this will be a challenge.
But perhaps this may impact which Re-Entry Model a school decides to use NOW.
Or, at least, the school may prepare staff, students, and parents for this October potential now—in the best interests of instruction and the students’ learning, mastery, and long-term academic well-being. [NOTE: not every student will need to change cohorts.]
_ _ _ _ _
Homogeneous Skill versus Heterogeneous Comprehension and Application Groups
This fourth academic planning consideration is largely relevant only to students functioning near or above their grade-level placements. For students functioning below or well-below their grade placements multi-tiered assessment and support procedures are needed. These will be discussed in Part II of this Blog Series.
Homogeneous Skill Groups consist of students who are functioning in a specific academic subject area at or around the same skill level in the district’s scope and sequence map.
Homogeneous Skill Groups are most effective when an academic scope and sequence (at any grade or course level) requires students to learn specific, discrete skills that require explanations, differentiated instruction, materials, practice and feedback opportunities, and assessment and response approaches in a specific, tailored way.
Homogeneous Skill Groups also are most effective when a cluster of students need remediation because they have not learned and mastered specific, discrete skills that are prerequisite to the “next” (perhaps, grade-level) skills in an academic scope and sequence.
For example, the 10 End of First Grade to Beginning of Second Grade functioning Third Grade students in the example above likely have not learned the first, second, and third grade decoding skills in the district’s literacy scope and sequence. In this case, a Homogeneous Skill Group (whether primary or supplemental) that focuses on teaching these skills just to these students in a small and intensive group may be the best long-term approach relative to their eventual success.
Critically, Homogeneous Skill Groups should be fluid, adapting to student needs, progress monitoring data, and students’ academic outcomes. They could be organized as part of a heterogenous classroom—when a teacher is differentiating his or her instruction. Or, they could be part of a long-term solution involving one, three, five, or ten school-year months.
_ _ _ _ _
Heterogeneous Comprehension and Application Groups are most effective when focused (as named) on students’ comprehension, application, higher-ordered thinking, and/or cooperative or project-based learning. Once again, these groups are formed and used to address goals and objectives in the district’s scope and sequence in a specific academic area, or the specific needs of a lower- (or higher-) functioning skill group.
For example, Heterogeneous Groups of Third Grade students in the Monday/Wednesday and Tuesday/Thursday cohorts, respectively and as above, may work together each week on the vocabulary and comprehension activities in their reading curriculum. While the students who are functioning above their grade level can also receive enrichment opportunities, heterogeneous groups typically generate higher quality discussions and thinking, resulting in greater whole-group understanding and learning.
As with Homogeneous Skill Groups, the use and membership within a Heterogeneous Comprehension and Application Group should be strategic and fluid. Progress monitoring and formative/summative evaluations should determine if the desired academic outcomes are actually being attained, and teachers should not hesitate to modify group membership or to adapt instruction as needed.
_ _ _ _ _
Summary
After completing the recommended Fall academic assessments to determine the current functional skill levels of all students, school leaders and grade-level teachers need make strategic decisions on how to cluster students into classrooms and instructional groups. While accomplishing this, they need to determine which student skill clusters will/can be taught in the same class and by the same teacher, and how to match their grouping approaches to the goals and outcomes of the curriculum and scope and sequence.
All of this determines teachers’ projected use of Homogeneous Skills Groups and/or Heterogeneous Comprehension and Application Groups. These grouping approaches are selected to deliver the most effective instruction with the highest probability of student learning and mastery.
These grouping decisions do not have to be “either/or” decisions. . . nor do the decision need to be permanent. But in order to begin “on the right foot,” schools need to plan in the four areas above, using systematic, data-based decision-making approaches. Moreover, they need to organize their classrooms and instructional groups in ways that balance (a) students’ current academic status; (b) their pedagogical and instructional needs; (c) their social, emotional, and behavioral status and success; (d) the scope and sequence demands of the curriculum; and (e) everyone’s health and safety in this uncertain time in the midst of a pandemic.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
First Things Third: Support for Moving Ahead
Hopefully, the discussion above has helped create an academic planning blueprint that districts and schools can use right now to prepare for the re-opening of schools (some time) in the Fall. Clearly, an explicit part of this blueprint involves potentially putting students into Homogeneous Skills Groups.
And for those who react emotionally when discussions advocating homogeneous skill grouping or teaching students at their instructional (rather than age/grade) levels begin, we hope that our explanations and clarifications have resulted in a level of calm.
To be more specific: The use of homogeneous skills groups is not ability grouping, and we would never suggest the “old-school” tracking of students.
Indeed, to this point and embedded in the discussions above, we have emphasized the importance of:
- Grouping students so that teachers do not have so many differently-prepared (relative to prerequisite knowledge and skills) student groups that differentiation is functionally impossible;
- Effectively monitoring students’ progress relative to formative and summative outcomes—to ensure that the selected grouping patterns are producing expected learning and mastery;
- Regrouping students in a timely way when they have made so much progress that the group they are in no longer makes pedagogical sense; and
- Grouping students on an academic subject-by-subject basis—eliminating the potential whereby the same students stay together for all subjects for an entire semester or year or, perhaps, across multiple years.
But beyond our assertions, we would like to note some additional voices that support our recommendations in this area.
_ _ _ _ _
Large-Scale Research in Math Suggests Gap Students May Benefit from Functional-Level Instruction
On November 9, 2019, we published a Blog titled, “Closing Secondary Students’ Significant Academic Skills Gaps: Teach at Their Grade Level or Their Skill Level (Part II).”
[CLICK HERE for This Blog Article]
In this Blog, we reviewed two recent studies of math deficient students. The first study involved a longitudinal analysis of the progress of tens of thousands of students who were behind in math in fourth versus eighth grade, respectively.
While we summarized a number of study outcomes, the most critical outcome was that:
- Students who began 4th grade “off track,” had an 46% probability of being on grade level in 8th grade—four years later.
- Students who began 8th grade “off track,” had an 19% probability of being on grade level in 12th grade—four years later.
- Students who began 4th grade “far off track,” had an 10% probability of being on grade level in 8th grade—four years later.
- Students who began 8th grade “far off track,” had an 3% probability of being on grade level in 12th grade—four years later.
The second study provided compelling information on (a) how different math skills are scaffolded across most mathematics curricula; and (b) the negative effects that accumulate when students fall significantly behind in their learning and mastery of skills that then become the prerequisite skills for the next level of learning.
The four Key Insights from this Report were:
- Key Insight #1: Math is cumulative—unfinished learning from prior years makes it harder for students to master more advanced concepts.
- Key Insight #2: Current educational policies favoring grade-level instruction (i.e., teaching students at their current grade placements) are hindering many students’ longer-term success.
- Key Insight #3: Balancing pre-grade level, on-grade level, and post-grade level skills to each student’s needs can better support their long-term success.
Collectively, we use these research studies to conclude the following:
This current (Blog) presented information and data specifically in the area of mathematics. It was noted that, in contrast with literacy, math tends to be more finite (i.e., there are right and wrong answers), more dependent on specific mathematical algorithms (e.g., formulae or clear problem-solving steps), and more sequentially scaffolded—with certain skills laying the “foundation” as prerequisite skills to a next set of skills.
In addition, large-scale longitudinal data were presented demonstrating that students in fourth and eighth grade, respectively, who are “off track” and “far off track” relative to their grade-level mastery and proficiency in math, maintained their low academic standings four years later.
All of this suggests that middle and high schools need to seriously consider . . . scheduling students into courses (or a double-blocked course) in their academic area(s) of deficiency that target focus instruction at students’ functional, instructional skill levels (and not at their current grade placement). These courses should take students from their lowest points of skill mastery (regardless of level), and move them flexibly through each grade level’s scope and sequence as quickly as they can master and apply the material.
These courses should be the students’ only course in the targeted academic area, and the course instructors are responsible for making the content and materials relevant to the grade level of the student, even as they are teaching specific academic skills at the students’ current functional skill levels.
_ _ _ _ _
Today’s Teachers Open to Grouping Students by Competency
In mid-May, the Educators for Excellence, a national organization founded by public school teachers, published the results of a national survey of teachers, “Voices from the Virtual Classroom.”
[CLICK HERE for Report]
According to its website, “Educators for Excellence is a growing movement of over 35,000 educators united around a common set of values and principles for improving student learning and elevating the teaching profession. We work together to identify issues that impact our schools, create solutions to these challenges, and advocate for policies and programs that give all students access to a quality education.”
The Survey, conducted on-line from May 2 through May 8, 2020, involved a nationally-representative sample of 600 full-time teachers employed full-time in pre-K through Grade 12 classrooms in public district or charter schools. Survey invites were sent out to 4,583 pre-screened education professionals; 2,977 entered the survey, and 600 qualified and completed the full survey, resulting in a response rate of 13%.
For the purposes of this Blog, the following results were pertinent:
When it comes to instruction next year, teachers were most concerned about students' academic gaps and social-emotional health. But they also worry that they will be held to unrealistic expectations about how quickly they can get students back on track. Forty-five percent said these expectations were their biggest concern about returning to the classroom, above prospective budget cuts or physical health issues.
To address learning loss, most teachers—60%—would prefer to include remediation within the regular school day. Fifty-six percent also supported tutoring and after school programs. Other options, like lengthening the school day or the school year, were less popular.
Teachers also supported some less traditional ideas to address learning gaps. Fifty-eight percent said they would be in favor of grouping students by competency, rather than age, and 54% said they supported looping—moving students to the next grade level with the same teacher.
Thus, these results suggest that the nationally-representative group of teachers surveyed last month were very concerned about students’ academic standing, when they return in the Fall, and that they were already thinking about ways to provide remediation and other needed academic supports like tutoring.
Significantly, 58% of these teachers were in favor of group students by competency as one way to provide an effective instruction and learning opportunities.
_ _ _ _ _
Competency-Based Education in K-12 Schools
Finally, it is important to note that many of the ideas discussed in this Blog are consistent with competency-based education.
Significantly, this is a growing movement across the country. . . one that may be accelerated due to the pandemic.
In August, 2018, the National Conference of State Legislatures published a LegisBrief titled, “A Look at Competency-based Education in K-12 Schools.”
[CLICK HERE for the Brief]
This article noted:
"Competency-based strategies provide flexibility in the way that credit can be earned or awarded, and provide students with personalized learning opportunities. These strategies include online and blended learning, dual enrollment and early college high schools, project-based and community-based learning, and credit recovery, among others. This type of learning leads to better student engagement because the content is relevant to each student and tailored to their unique needs. It also leads to better student outcomes because the pace of learning is customized to each student.
Depending on the strategy pursued, competency-based systems also create multiple pathways to graduation, make better use of technology, support new staffing patterns that utilize teacher skills and interests differently, take advantage of learning opportunities outside of school hours and walls, and help identify opportunities to target interventions to meet the specific learning needs of students. Each of these presents an opportunity to achieve greater efficiency and increase productivity.
Many states have policies in place allowing schools and districts flexibility to award credit based on demonstrating competency rather than on seat time, with the policies varying widely in their scope.
New Hampshire has been working toward systemwide transformation from traditional, one-size-fits-all education to more personalized, competency-based learning for more than a decade. In 2005, the state began requiring high schools to assess students based on their mastery of course-level competencies, rather than time spent in class. New Hampshire is pioneering the Performance Assessment of Competency Education (PACE) pilot program, a first-in-the-nation accountability system offering reduced levels of standardized testing together with locally developed common performance assessments.
A number of states—including Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah—have appropriated money for competitive grants for districts to design and implement competency-based education programs.
Idaho has begun a systemwide transition to competency-based learning. Idaho HB 110 (2015) directed the Department of Education to begin the state's transition to a mastery-based education system, resulting in 19 districts and/or schools launching Idaho’s Mastery Education Network.
Vermont, Maine, and Ohio have taken steps to move from time-based diplomas to graduation requirements that are rooted in demonstrations of student proficiency. In 2014, Vermont enacted new Education Quality Standards in which schools’ graduation requirements must be based on student proficiency, as opposed to time spent in classrooms. Maine requires high school students to demonstrate achievement in core learning areas to earn a standards-based diploma rather than a traditional time-based diploma. Ohio requires school districts to allow students to earn high school credit based on demonstrated competency in a subject area rather than completed hours of classroom instruction."
In addition to these state efforts, in late May (last month), the CEO of the Cleveland School District floated the idea of a “Mastery Learning Initiative” that would scrap grade levels and let students learn at the own pace.
The motivation underlying this idea included students’ anticipated learning loss due to COVID-19 and the lack of sufficient internet access for home learning, as well as the fact that recent evaluations suggested that Cleveland students were academically two years behind the national average even before the pandemic.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This new two-part Blog Series addresses what schools need to consider now as they plan for their students’ academic re-entry this Fall.
In this Part I, we addressed why (and how) schools should validly assess—as soon as possible when students return to school—the functional, mastery-level status of all students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts.
We then recommended that the assessment results—corroborated by classroom performance and previous assessments—be used to identify groups of students who are functioning above, at, below, or well-below their current grade-level placements.
Finally, we discussed how to organize students who are functioning within one grade level of their respective grade placements into Homogeneous Skill Groups and/or Heterogeneous Comprehension or Applied Groups. We provided a Third Grade example with literacy results, integrating the data into one of the six models of how most districts nationally are considering the return of students to school in the Fall.
More specifically, we emphasized that districts and schools need to accomplish the following:
- Functionally and validly assess all of their students in literacy, mathematics, and writing/language arts early in the Fall as they return to school;
- Integrate and “StoryBoard” the results (see below), in each academic area, to determine the best instructional homogeneous and heterogeneous groups (to include cross-grade or cross-aged groups, as relevant) to maximize teachers’ pedagogical differentiation and students’ academic progress;
- Identify, specify, and integrate the students who need multi-tiered services, supports, and interventions in order to be successful into the StoryBoard;
- Align the StoryBoard with available (and flexibly deployed and used) staff and resources (including Intervention Specialists, paraprofessionals, computer-assisted instruction and intervention, after-school tutoring, etc.). . . with an eye toward student equity, and not student equality;
- Factor the results into (a modification of) the school’s post-pandemic schedule and logistics; and
- Evaluate on a quarterly basis, making “mid-course” grouping, scheduling, and/or logistical changes as needed.
In Part II of this Series, we will discuss how to use the assessment results to address the academic progress and enrichment of students who are “above” their grade-level standing, and the academic gaps of students who are below and well below their grade-level placements.
_ _ _ _ _
As also discussed earlier, we anticipate many who will say that these ideas—while research- and statistically-based—are not realistic given time, resources, schedules, and even expertise.
Our response was:
- We need to know and be guided by the research-to-practice first as we approach our students academically this Fall. We then can strategically come as close to our evidence-based blueprints (given the available time, resources, schedules, and expertise) as possible.
If we are not guided by the research-to-practice, we will (in essence) be playing “instructional roulette” with our students’ futures—knowing that the risks are great and the results may be underwhelming.
_ _ _ _ _
- If we don’t instructionally program our students for academic success, then academic frustration and related social, emotional, and behavioral problems—beyond where these students will enter this Fall—have a high probability of emerging.
These problems will then undermine these (and other) students’ academic engagement and progress as part of a vicious cycle.
The result: We will be further behind—both academically and behaviorally—than when we started.
_ _ _ _ _
- We need to “go slow to go fast.” That is, schools should not assume that they know where students are academically functioning—rushing to put students into different instructional groups in the absence of valid data this Fall. Moreover, they should not rush to begin instruction.
Clearly, students (and staff) will need some social, emotional, and behavioral time this Fall to re-establish relationships, debrief the last half of the school year, and re-set their routines and interactions. This “time” must include discussions regarding the death of George Floyd; racial bias, injustice, and discrimination; and the anguished protests that rightly followed yet another unjustified Black murder.
Academically, we need to accurately, and in a measured way (no pun intended), determine who is behind, and how far they are behind.
If this takes “a little more time” to get it right. . . so that students are then assigned to the “right” classes and instructional levels. . . where we can get it right on their behalf. . . then we will actually be ahead of the game. . . as will our students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
As always, I appreciate your ongoing support in reading this Blog. If you have comments or questions, please contact me at your convenience.
And please feel free to take advantage of my standing offer for a free, one-hour conference call consultation with you and your team at any time.
Best,
