In using a version of this template, we can include the planning from our previously provided example of the eighth-grade ELA teacher designing a unit on theme or central idea (see figure 1.6, page 19). The completed template might look like the example in figure 1.8.
Source: © 2017 by Uinta County School District #1. Used with permission. Source for standards: Adapted from National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO), 2010a.
Figure 1.8: Sample completed unit design template.
In adapting the planning work from our example to this template, for PLC question one, “What do we want all students to know and be able to do?” we have included the priority standard in two learning targets. It is possible that we could have added some supporting standards, though in this case we have chosen not to. Supporting standards receive instruction but would likely not be assessed, though their role in any given unit is an important consideration, and the template can prompt the teacher to think through that issue. We have recorded the previous and the next grade-level standards, looking at the logical progression of skills from year to year. In this case, the previous and next grade-level standards are very similar, but in many cases the standards are substantially different and teachers should consider the learning progression on the specific skills and content in the standard. Next, we have translated each of the learning targets into language the teacher can use in the classroom with students and identified one potential way in which a student might demonstrate proficiency on these targets. Finally, we have broken down the level 2.0 content on academic vocabulary into two categories: (1) key vocabulary terms which might be defined as those that are absolutely essential to proficiency on the standard, and (2) scaffolded academic vocabulary, those important terms that are covered and learned by students at level 2.0 but are often a review of terms learned in prior units or years of instruction.
For PLC question two, “How will we know when students have learned?” the template directs the teacher to identify possible sources of assessment data. In the case of our example, the assessments will be teacher-created, but it is equally possible that there may be state- or district-level assessments that will provide data on student performance on this priority standard. The template requires the teacher to consider each of those possibilities.
Next, we include the proficiency scale we have been working from to design the learning for this unit. The next question, “How will teachers facilitate the learning?” allows the teacher to input the specific daily lesson activities developed when creating the unit plan, and here we capture both the learning progression inspired by the proficiency scale as well as the sequence of assessments that permit the teacher to make formative judgments about student progress as the learning develops. In the process of adding those specific activities, the template asks the teacher to consider supporting resources, like the textbook or close reading passages, that the teacher may commonly use each year in instruction. Additionally, the teacher considers any digital tools that may be appropriate for this unit. In our example, there are no additional resources.
The last two questions—“What will we do when students have not learned?” and “What will we do when students have learned?”—are vital considerations when creating a unit. We have built in opportunities for intervention on the unit plan we created, so these find their place in the template under the question about what to do when students have not learned. (Additional discussion of intervention methods can be found in the following section, Differentiation With Response to Intervention.) We have also considered learning opportunities for those students who move beyond proficiency in the form of the knowledge application lesson from days seven through eleven, and this provides an effective answer to the question of what to do with students who already have learned the material and are at or above the standard.
Thus, whether teachers plan with a template or simply by applying the four-step process outlined in this chapter, planning in standards-based learning involves considering each student’s learning needs for the unit ahead. Unlike traditional planning, standards-based learning starts with the standard as the centerpiece of the learning, and from there the teacher aligns the content to the learning progression on the standard.
Differentiating With Response to Intervention
Even in the planning stage, teachers need to consider what to do when students do not progress to proficiency in the expected manner, and when some students are ready to do higher-level work while others are still working on the basics at score 2.0 and lower. Response to intervention (RTI) provides a framework for considering these possibilities. Thus, a quick review of the basics of RTI is in order.
RTI is available for all students, not just those who are in need of intervention. Although the RTI model provides intervention options at three different tiers, and teachers must access these, as needed, to do everything possible to help struggling students, it also suggests the need for intervention for those students who are ready to move beyond the limitations of proficiency on the standard, as represented by score 3.0 on the proficiency scale. For those students, true differentiation in the classroom may offer a solution.
To review the basics of RTI, consider the three tiers of intervention. Austin Buffum, Mike Mattos, and Janet Malone (2018) state:
The pyramid is commonly separated into tiers: Tier 1 represents core instruction, Tier 2 represents supplemental interventions, and Tier 3 represents intensive student supports. The pyramid is wide at the bottom to represent the instruction that all students receive. As students demonstrate the need for additional support, they receive increasingly more targeted and intensive help. Because timely supplemental interventions should address most student needs when they are first emerging, fewer students fall significantly below grade level and require the intensive services Tier 3 offers, creating the tapered shape of a pyramid. (p. 2)
The tiers are traditionally represented in the form of a pyramid, as shown in figure 1.9.
Source: Buffum, Mattos, & Malone, 2018, p. 2.
Figure 1.9: Traditional RTI pyramid.
Buffum et al. (2018) continue:
With this approach, the school begins the intervention process assuming that every student is capable of learning at high levels, regardless of his or her home environment, ethnicity, or native language. Because every student does not learn the same way or at the same speed, or enter school with the same prior access to learning, the school builds tiers of additional support to ensure every student’s success. The school does not view these tiers as a pathway to traditional special education but instead as an ongoing process to dig deeper into students’ individual needs. (p.