One for All, and All for One! (Part 3)

As I mentioned in the conclusion of Part 2, teachers prioritizing broken apart standards with a systemic (across the grade levels) mindset need to do so using a process with two requirements that ensure the results are based on everyone’s viewpoints and collective contributions to the decision-making process.

The first requirement is using a value-filter criteria, which each participating teachers uses to determine a broken apart standard’s coding. While Larry Ainsworth (2003) said this years ago, it still holds true today:

          Without a definite process to prioritize standards, teachers will often
          “pick and choose” those standards to emphasize based on what they
          like to teach, what they have curriculum materials for, what they think
          students need to know and be able to do the following year, and/or
          those standards most likely to appear on the state test. But without
          using specific criteria for prioritization, everyone will most likely select
          different standards from their colleagues and then wonder why students
          come to them each year with such an inconsistent understanding of
          prior-grade standards….Teachers [need to] follow specific selection
          criteria.

While I do not implement Mr. Ainsworth’s prioritization process fully, as I prefer to break apart the full standards into broken apart standard statements, I do find his four-fold selection criteria helpful for teachers to filter through their reasoning regarding the “why” for their prioritization coding results:

I call my procedure the Bullseye Prioritizing Process because I use a bullseye (see first image) as a visual to aid participating teachers in thinking about the coding categories (see second image) when considering the total number of broken apart standard statements' allowable percentages for a grade level or course (see third image for an example).

The second requirement is to start by coding solo. In other words, not meeting yet as a grade-level or course team. This is so important! Every participating teacher’s voice needs to be heard and if a group meeting is the way teachers begin determining each broken apart standard statement’s agreed-upon code; well, I think we have all had at least one experience of not being able to get a word in edgewise or feeling pressured to doing what the leader or majority has decided!
​
By first coding individually and then bringing one’s codings for the total number of broken apart standards statements to a “Big Reveal” meeting is so powerful because what each participating teacher values is collectively known in a wonderfully visual way! How many teachers are involved in a small-group team (e.g., grade level; course) determines how many revealed codes each broken apart standards statements will have (see example below).

The collegial conversations that take place once the codes for the entire grade level’s or course’s broken apart standard statements being prioritized (one discipline/course at a time) have been shared and recorded are priceless! The teachers have to work as a team to turn their individual codings into one agreed-on code for each of the broken apart standard statements in the document. In the example above, what you see on the far-left column (check, plus, plus) is what this Kindergarten team decided would be the priority for the three standard statements, but only after each teacher shared her viewpoint for each individual coding preference.

So many teachers over the years have told me they wished they had done this kind of a detailed standards prioritization process years ago and shared “we thought we knew our standards, and we thought we agreed on so much about them, and now realize that we hadn’t!”

The clarifications made during the Big Reveal are immediate in such positive ways, including teachers’ empowerment regarding what needs to take place in their classrooms based on their horizontal (grade level) and eventual vertical (across grade levels) conversations.

While there are multiple steps involved in my Bullseye Prioritizing Process the prioritization process, including across-grade-level meetings, my hope is that you have gained insights into why it is important for standards-based curriculum decision making to include clear value criteria and ensuring that participating teachers have individual reflection and prioritization coding time prior to sharing their collective codes in a team setting.
​
If you are interested in discussing how to conduct a Bullseye Prioritizing Process in your school or district, please contact Janet Hale for a free consultation.

Ainsworth, L. (2003). Power Standards: Identifying the Standards that Matter the Most. Advanced Learning Press.