Gone are the days when we pull out a folder of all of the activities we used to teach a concept last year, or the year before, or even the year before that! We are planning smarter and working smarter. As a result, our students are learning a lot more. Our conversation has shifted from "What and how do I teach this?" to "What is it that students need to know, show and do to demonstrate mastery of this concept?"
At Waterman, all of our grade level teams are planning instruction using a backwards planning or backwards design approach. This is a process that begins with a deep exploration of the Virginia Standards of Learning and the Curriculum Framework. We begin by asking, "What is the content that must be taught to achieve this grade level standard?" "What is the vocabulary that we need to be using when we teach it?" "What is the essential knowledge, what are the skills and processes that each student needs to be successful?" These questions drive us into in-depth conversations about the content of the standard. We focus on the verbs included in the standard to be sure that the rigor of the standard is addressed. How will students engage with this content? We talk about the differences between the verbs
identify,
describe, and
construct. This rich discussion occurs before anyone mentions an activity that will be used to teach the content.
We then use this discussion to create a visual map of the unit. This map shows the progression that will be followed to reach the end of the unit. Some maps are beautiful, and some are beautifully messy, just like learning is beautifully messy. But all encompass a plan for our students to learn, and learn deeply.
Once the map has been constructed, we talk about common grade level assessments. How will we measure if our students learned what we taught? How will we know if the flexibility in thinking has occurred? How will we challenge our students to think beyond the basic thinking skills or demonstration of skills, into the higher orders of thinking and application? Using our backwards map, we construct questions that will assess our students to a level of proficiency that we deem as necessary for all students. We expect success and hold our students to high standards and ourselves to even higher standards.
Once the common assessment has been given, we analyze the results. We ask, "Which students successfully demonstrated their learning?" "Which students need more practice?" "Which students need an intervention to help them be successful?" There are no excuses, and no boxes. We are thinking outside the box, and talking about how instruction must look different in order for our struggling students to be successful.
From analyzing the data, we plan the intervention/enrichment opportunities, by asking "How can we maximize our time, and who can we ask to help us?" This is a team effort, all hands on deck.
We are investing huge amounts of time into ensuring the success of our students. They are worth it. We give up hours of planning time, as a commitment to our 500 students who are here, waiting for us to solve the puzzle that is learning.
