Using Learning Objectives Effectively: Enhancing Student Proficiency and Curriculum Congruency

As schools were faced with these daunting expectations to meet standards, state agencies, school boards, and administration all had to re-evaluate current practices, not only in the form of what should be taught, but how it should be taught (Performance Evaluation Advisory Council, n.d.). In more appropriate terms,

Improved Assessment Literacy: Unlike the current education system that treats assessment more separated from teaching, the core teaching standards recognize that teachers need to have greater knowledge and skill on how to develop a number of assessments, how to balance use of formative and summative assessment as

Today’s education system is challenged with creating and incorporating the most effective and meaningful methodological and conceptual curriculum designs to date. One of the key challenges is to design curriculums that facilitate understanding, retention, and generalization (Bulgren, Deshler, & Lenz, 2007, p. 121-122). However, there is no single way to overcome these challenges due to the variances and complexities within each content area. These, along with the demands of meeting high stakes testing, and the endless revolving door of performance standards, places teachers in a constant state of turmoil as they seek to create coexistence between student achievement and rigorous and challenging standards. One strategy being implemented

The major emphasis in education for the 21st century is on data driven accountability measured by student performance on standardized testing. National and state expectations require students to demonstrate mastery of curriculum objectives. Instructional objectives are the focus of the building principals to show measurable student progress. The improvements are evaluated based on data and monitoring of the curriculum.

The purposes of standardized tests are to instruct decision making, establish program eligibility, evaluate course goals, evaluate program goals, and examine external curriculum. When a teacher gives and assesses a standardized test, they gain information about their students that helps them realize what concepts they have learned according to the agenda for the subject at hand. If the assessment is performed in a sensible amount of time and given according to the directions, this purpose should be fulfilled; however, it is a common belief that standardized tests do not work well in establishing where a student stands in a specific curriculum. The test uses a general curriculum that is the basis for the tests

“Common Core State Standards Initiative” is a result of the “Standards and Accountability Movement” which began in the 1990s in the United States. This particular branch of education reforms was geared towards expectations of learning at each grade level. The Standards and Accountability Movement not only brought attention on what students were expected to learn, but on teachers as well – focusing on how teachers were to implement lessons and able to teach for student achievement which would be measured in

The Common Core Standards engage a standards-based education. The standards guide teachers to prepare students for what they are expected to learn to succeed in life. It is essential that teachers understand the expectations and implications of the standards, so teachers can help students achieve educational goals by designing specific educational plans that align with the core standards. Furthermore, tailoring the curriculum will help to build relevant skills students are argued to integrate in college and their future careers.

To remediate this, we contracted with the Achievement Network to help us connect the standards to a curriculum and plan for a more fluid instructional delivery that would improve the assessment outcomes. They provided us a structure that laid out the Common Core Standards of assessed skills that included a scripted curriculum and instructional activities outlined in their guidelines. Students are making growth towards attainment. However, only 9% of the student population have met grade-level proficiency targets. Teachers are feeling that they are harshly judged because 30% of their evaluation is based on students meeting proficiency.

The third choice of the required reading that I read for my internship is Fair Isn’t Always Equal written by Rick Wormeli. This book is written to help schools and school districts transform their standard grading on assessments and homework to a standards based grading system. The book reasons why schools should look to change to a standard’s based grading system, and the benefits and the amount of information that this type of grading can give us about our students. Not only does this book give the benefits of the grading, it discusses ways to rewrite tests, how to use attendance and effort to give grades, and how to differentiate instruction and assessments to get a true picture of our students and their knowledge of the materials. Wormeli uses quotes from teachers and educational leaders in the different section of the book that have opposite views of standards based grading and the process they used to get to where they are at. This book was assigned to me to read over summer break to begin to prepare us for the change in grading formative assessments using standards based rubrics and the reasons why the change in necessary to truly see if students are learning.

Originally the Standard Based Assessment exam was used from 2012 to 2014 in order to evaluate the students’ proficiency on content-based material ( ). Just last year a new testing method, the Alaska Measures of Progress testing in the areas of mathematics, reading, and writing was adopted ( ). The shift from the Standard Base Assessment to the Alaska Measure of Progress was the Department of Education desire to have students prepared for secondary education or work placement expectations set for in the statement. The Alaska Measure of Progress exam are drastically different in questioning, scoring, achievement definitions, and score parameters then the preceding testing assessment ( ) This lack of comparison leaves the educators in a glitch as they try to educate their students in content-based material without having reliable proficiency testing results. As of this writing the educator will only have the snapshot of last year’s results to direct, guide, and implement their teaching strategies to facilitate the learning process in the classroom. However these test results scores are presently being debated in open forum to the public to set cutoff scores for the four categories in which the student will show proficiency ( ) . So without adequate guidance the teacher is hampered in their efforts to educate a diverse

She discusses a clear definition and different styles of objectives, assessments, rubrics, activities, and many other lesson components intended to help other new teachers find a start for lesson planning. She focusses a lot on objectives, how to create and effective objective that will shape the entire lesson and some examples of effective verses ineffective. For support she quotes and pulls information Bloom’s Taxonomy as well as other people’s works in educational advancement. Taxonomy is useful when, “… trying to articulate what you want students to be able to do as a result of learning the material in a lesson or unit,” states Reeves on page

“Our educational goal [is] the production of caring, competent, loving, lovable people” . The students found in the schools across the United State are the future of America. They are the doctors, teachers, business people, lawyers and many other roles, that will be out in the workforce in the years to come. What they learn in school will impact them immensely; it is the responsibility of a teacher to give students the best education in order to ensure the common good of the future. It is essential for students to not only learn content matter, but also the skills to enable them to participate in a democracy. Due to standardized testing, the emphasis of education has become on score and rankings rather than learning. A standardized test does not look at the whole student, the scores provided are on a very narrow aspect of education. In the classroom, there are countless ways for teachers to assess the student as a whole person not as just a score. Standardized tests scores should not be the sole criteria for determining a student’s academic achievement.

Although the standards are concise and clear, these standards are broad with no specific directions of how to teach students to attain them; “in fact, that is left for the teachers to determine. (McLaughlin and Overturf, 2012, p. 157) According to revised Louisiana Student Standards (2016) that’s derived from the federal Common Core State Standasrds, “the new standards provide appropriate content for all grades, maintain high expectations, and create a logical connection of content across and within grades.” (p.1) Thus this paves a path for horizontal collaboration of content area teaching and support among same grade level teachers and a vertical use of assessment where teachers can spend more time working with students who are not on bar to catch up and students who are at mastery level to be challenged to reach the advanced level ready for the next grade up. (McLaughlin and Overturf, 2012, p. 157)

The litmus test that is used to show teacher competency, is a small scale test that is controlled and monitored to show if effective approaches to instructional practices are being implemented. The test scores also generates data about what works well and would also reveal what modifications are needed to empower teachers/districts with the capacity to implement approaches to instructional practices and designs. Teachers are now being held accountable for their instructional practices and how well students are mastering the content that they teach. According to O’Conner (2007) most research studies “support claims that academic ability is important for teachers to possess and that formal teacher preparation and teaching experience may have only modest effects on student achievement test results” (pgs.172-173).

Currently, instructors are pressured by state education department to adjust school curricula to meet the expectations of the standardized test. Educators alter the curriculum to “match the [standardized] test” (“How Standardized”). Therefore, instructors are limited and classroom instruction is focused around test preparation for the annual standardized test. Teachers are forced to abandon their creative lessons and “teach the test,” or concentrating only on the material that will be evaluated (“How Standardized”). This frequently involves taking multiple choice tests that are formatted identically to the standardized test and only memorizing facts, formulas, and items included only on the standardized tests (“How Standardized”). Even though test scores may improve, students are not learning how to think critically and perform better in other subjects that are not on the test (“How Standardized”). Instructional time is limited in the other subject areas such as science, social studies, music, and art. Instructors feel “handicapped” and plead to state officials abandon these standardized tests for the sake of the “quality of the instruction in American schools” (Zimmerman 206). School curricula are being modified only to prepare students for a single test, not for education the students need in the future.