Thinking Out Loud: Leveled Proficiency-Based Diplomas

So this is a "thinking out loud" post.  These are simply questions or thoughts I've had, and want to simply "put them out there."  I don't have a lot of details, research, or examples... just an idea.

And when I have an idea, please note: it's not "outside of the box" thinking.  In my world, there is no box.
_____________

Maine law requires all students to graduate with proficiency-based diplomas starting in 2018.  By all students, I mean: all students.  Whether a student has an exceptionality or not, all students must meet proficiency- expectations in order to receive a diploma.  Pathways and methods may differ, but the line in the sand has been made.  All students.  This notion of "all" really scares and intimidates people.  I think the reason is that when we think "all" in our current educational construct, we think in an industrialized mindset.  We think in a way that our system has to churn-out a singular diploma that is equal across all students.  We think in a way that equates "equal" to "fair."

Well, what if we stopped thinking this way?  What if our diplomas were differentiated?  What if our diplomas were "leveled" for all students?  What if we stopped thinking of "diplomas" as high school exit tickets, and started thinking of them as stepping stones to further learning?

Let me explain further.

In a proficiency-based system of learning, teachers and content-areas develop and design proficiency-based learning expectations.  These expectations are non-negotiable and essential, as a high-level of mastery/competency/proficiency is required in order to be successful at the next level.  Think of it in terms like a video game.  Level One is usually basic understanding and control competency.  Over the next few levels, new controls and abilities are unlocked as the player becomes more fluent and competent.  At the "Boss" or upper-levels, new abilities are less likely to appear, but deeper use and understanding of those abilities are required to advance.  In this way, video games and proficiency-based systems of learning are identical in their basic structure.

So at the high school level, we typically/traditionally have 4-levels (9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade, 12th grade).  What if we established non-negotiable/essential proficiency standards at each level,  required our students to meet them, and then issued a proficiency-based diploma based on the level.  There would be four distinct levels of diploma (Level 1-4), and a Level 4 diploma would mean that the student was able to show proficiency in the highest levels of learning in our schools (traditionally 12th grade).  A student who had been struggling may not achieve a Level 4 diploma, but maybe a Level 3... or a Level 2... or even a Level 1.  If our system is based on developing learners, and our grading system is founded in communicating what has been learned, these leveled diplomas would not be high school exit tickets; rather steps to "what's next" in the life of the learner.  Some students, depending on home life, prior experiences, exceptionalities, etc., may take four-years and only ever achieve a Level 1 diploma.  Some students may accelerate their learning and earn a Level 4 diploma in three or fewer years.

Isn't the point of a proficiency-based diploma to prove that a student has learned what was intended to be learned?  Isn't this an issue of validity?  If so, can one diploma do that job sufficiently, effectively, and realistically?

I'm not saying this is THE solution.  I know many schools and districts are wrestling with this very issue.  It's an idea.

Is it a good idea?  You tell me.

Rigor: Defined

(Sigh)...  here we go again.

Educators are well versed in the art and science of complicated terms, acronyms, and vocabulary.  "Accommodations," "modifications," "research," "validity," "reliability," "RTI," "protocol," to name a short list of some of my favorites.   I like these particularly because they are so often used, and so often misused.  Accommodations and modifications are NOT interchangeable words; they have explicit meaning and have DEEP implications in learning.  Looking up something on Google or in a scholarly journal isn't "research," it's a search or literature review.  "Research" requires a hypothesis, testing, variables, data collection and analysis, interpretation, and implications.  "Validity" and "reliability" are generally understood in concept, but in practice... well, let's just say that if our schools were validly and reliably aligned to our mandated learning expectations, our students would be performing much better norm-based assessments.  

And now, a new term has joined the ever-growing list of edu-babble that, to paraphrase the MTV "Diary" series, "We think we know, but we have no idea." 

Rigor.

Saying it publicly in a teacher break room can get you into trouble.  In fact, saying it anywhere right now can get you into trouble.  "Rigor" is being thrown around like a beach ball at a Jimmy Buffet concert.  It's everywhere.  Politicians, policy-wonks, teachers, administrators, parents, students... everyone is talking about "rigor" in schools, tests, and learning.  

And rightfully so.

This is one conversation that is absolutely worth having.  When talking about improving schools, the discussion of rigor is necessary.  You can't improve student achievement and learning without examining, at some level, the embedded rigor which is being taught and/or learned.  The problem, as I see it: people are talking about rigor, but with varying degrees of a common understanding.  It's more than being complex; it's more than being difficult.  It's more than depth.

So what is "Rigor"?  ... and with that it mind, I give you:

RIGOR: Defined

For this definition, I am breaking the definition into 3 distinct parts: Rigor, Learning Goals, and Performance Scales (Rubrics).  All parts are components of defining a working and practical understanding of "Rigor."


The Great Schools Partnership (GSP) has created an EdGlossary, where they have a definition of rigor that is usable, but is also filled with, what I call, "edu-babble."  EdGlossary defines rigor as:

This is a fine example, but it's also missing a key component that truly makes rigor rigorous.  While at a workshop this summer by Learning Sciences, Intl. entitled, "Essentials for Achieving Rigor," I was presented with the following "equation" that truly summed up what rigor actually is in very simple and easy terms:

What's missing from the GSP definition that is prevalent in the Learning Sciences definition is Student Autonomy.  When I saw this working equation of the definition of rigor, I quickly came up with this chart:

The x-axis represents Student Autonomy.  The far left represents a teacher-created quiz, assignment, task, or project.  The far right represents a student's independent ability to not only use the skill and content, but know both when to use them and when not to use them.  

The y-axis represents Cognitive Complexity.  This is best understood when using a taxonomy of skills (Bloom's, DoK, etc.).  This chart uses the Marzano Taxonomy, as AOS #94 uses the Marzano model as its framework of instruction.  

EXAMPLE: Building furniture.  

LOWEST RIGOR:

If you buy a cabinet or table from IKEA, it comes pre-fabricated in every detail.  The wood has been cut, primed, painted/stained, pre-drilled, and packed.  All hardware and screws/bolts are provided, and the tool (allen wrench) also comes with the explicit and picture-laden instructions.  This is an example of an activity that would be in the bottom-left corner of the chart above.  For cognitive complexity: it does not require any deep thought, analysis, comprehension, or creation.  It simply requires "follow directions."  For student autonomy: the builder is taken out of the equation entirely, as all components are pre-made and prepared, leaving very little for the builder to do independently.

HIGHEST RIGOR:

Walk into a forest and be able to design & create a high-quality and functioning piece of furniture using the appropriate wood, hardware, etc.  This individual would have the knowledge and skill level to not only build the furniture, but know how, when, & what trees to use.  This individual would have such a deep understanding of the academic processes, that s/he would be able to discern when and where to use each skill with deep content understanding.

Any assignment, task, lecture, classroom, or school activity can be placed somewhere on that chart above.  Our goal as an educational system is to have all students in high school have the vast majority (if not all) of their work and educational experiences somewhere in the big blue dot.  To get them there, our K-8 teachers and schools need to scaffold the rigor in the learning goals and provide opportunities throughout the K-8 system to ensure that when they get to the high school they not only have the academic content in tow, but they can also use that content deeply and (to some degree) independently.

LEARNING GOALS

Simply put, a learning goal is a statement of what is to be learned.  "Determine the main idea of a story" is a learning goal.  "Compare and contrast 5 different types of leaves" is a learning goal.  "Conduct an investigation that proves that all living things have cells" is a learning goal.  A learning goal states what the student will be able to do at the end.  Notice the verbs and the content in the previous goals.  "Determine" is the verb; "main idea of a story" is the content.  "Compare and contrast" are the verbs; "5 different types of leaves" would be the content.  Simple enough, right?

Things get a little more cloudy when you ask the question: what's the difference between a learning goal and an activity/assignment (via http://www.marzanoresearch.com/reproducibles/designing_teaching)

You can find the answers to this on the link above.  You will have to provide an email address to access the content, but... you should!  There's great stuff there!

 The crux of the issue here is that: learning goals can be activities, and vice versa.  BUT (and this is crucially important) activities can also NOT be learning goals (see #2).  They might be great/fun/incredible/life-changing/edu-awesome activities... but without a clear learning goal to base the activity on, then the learning becomes secondary.  The learning goals in a classroom clearly define and scaffold the rigor AND content.  Once defined, students have a clear goal of what is to be achieved/learned.  With that target set, infinite possibilities of pathways to achieve that goal emerge.

PERFORMANCE SCALES (RUBRICS)

If rigor is the combination of cognitive complexity and student autonomy, and that rigor is embedded along with the content in the learning goal, it becomes an imperative to measure that learning.  This measurement is not for the teachers, mind you.  Yes, we have to "grade" or "report" the learning of our students, but the primary goal of any grade is to communicate growth to the student; where s/he is in the learning pathway, and a clear target of where s/he needs to go next.  Having a clear and shared performance scale, like a rubric, will allow the students themselves to self-assess their progress along the way.  If the level of cognitive complexity is high, and we are teaching our students to not only use the skills and content independently, but also intrinsically and objectively measure their performance of that learning goal, then the level of student autonomy is also very high.  And, as we have already defined, if both student autonomy and cognitive complexity are high, then we have achieved rigorous learning.

OK.  Breathe.  

There's a lot here.  I recognize that.  This is my first blog post... ever, really.  I'm also not known for my brevity.  It's a goal, and one that I'll get better at.  Rigor is so important for meaningful school improvement, that I had a hard time editing this down.  Yup... the original version was much longer.  I'm sure I will revisit this topic again, as it is a continuing source of content for this blog in my work as a Curriculum Coordinator.  For now, take the time to digest what's here.  I'm not sure if my language is effective, and I appreciate any constructive feedback you (the Internet) are willing to provide.  That or YouTube videos of babies laughing.  I have a real weakness for those.

Thanks for your time.  

Twitter:@DrewetteCard