As a result, well-meaning, caring teachers gave these already proficient students tasks that not only did not help the proficient students learn but were also often detrimental to their academic and social growth. Some so-called extensions they offered, such as giving the proficient students ten more mathematics problems or placing them on a self-paced computer program—so the teacher needed to do little more than a quick check on the student once in a while—did not keep the students engaged. Another “extension” allowed students to quietly read a book after they completed an assignment. This practice encouraged students to hurry through their work and accomplish the bare minimum to attain proficiency so they could then move on to something they found much more interesting, as opposed to working thoughtfully at a deep cognitive level over an extended period of time.
Still other extensions did not help proficient students socially. For example, teachers used proficient students as ad hoc aides circulating through the class to help fellow students who were struggling. However, because these students received no training in supporting peers’ learning, this practice often led to frustration for all involved. The proficient students could not understand why the struggling student did not get it as quickly as they did, and the nonproficient students would often become frustrated with the “know-it-all” students and their overly complicated explanations.
In a worst-case scenario, proficient students became isolated from social learning opportunities as well as instructional support from the teacher. A highly proficient fourth-grade student was assigned mathematics extension work on a self-paced program on a computer facing the wall in the back of the classroom. The work required significantly deeper mathematical thinking than he had ever done, and he received little to no adult support. To exacerbate matters, mathematics was not this student’s favorite subject, and the computer he spent large portions of the day using was placed against the back wall, so his back was to all of his fellow students. While his classmates worked in groups, he was facing drywall. The unintended message he received was he did not really belong with his peers.
In short, by neglecting the learning needs of students who demonstrated proficiency—referred to as question 4 students going forward—we were not supporting high levels of learning for all students and keeping them engaged.
This should not have happened at a school I led. Before I became a principal, support for students identified as talented and gifted was one of my areas of keen interest. I had discovered the work of Joseph Renzulli and Sally Reis. Renzulli’s original enrichment triad model, developed in 1977, focused on extending student learning in three major ways: Type I pushes students to discover and inspire their interests, Type II features getting students to hone working and thinking skills, and Type III pushes students to investigate areas of intense personal interest. In 1994, Renzulli and Reis worked together to make the model more flexible for students and practitioners (for the most recent version, see Renzulli & Reis, 2014).
That work, combined with Carol Ann Tomlinson’s (2001) work emphasizing delivering differentiated instruction to improve student engagement creates a foundation for extending students’ learning and keeping them engaged in school. When we really began studying the data from our most proficient students as part of our refinement process, we did not see the level of growth we should have. We reacted by applying these two key pieces of research to the four critical questions and three big ideas of a PLC as set forth by Richard DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, and Thomas Many (2010) to change the school from an environment where students simply achieved proficiency to an environment where all students learned at high levels. This work serves as a model for the processes described throughout this book. By sharing the hard-learned lessons we, as a school, trudged through to become an accountable PLC, I hope to help guide staffs, both teachers and administrators, on their journey to ensure high levels of learning and engagement in school for all students.
About This Book
Tomlinson’s (2001) work on differentiation and Renzulli’s (1977) enrichment triad model and his work with Reis (Renzulli & Reis, 2014), combined with fundamental PLC concepts, provide the foundation for the work described in this book. I will propose three distinct extension types to apply with all students demonstrating proficiency.
1. Skill extensions: In skill extensions, students work to add new skills to their skillset. Examples include creative writing, oral defense of an idea, or an artistic or musical style or technique.
2. Interest extensions: Interest extensions are exactly what they sound like. Teachers access a student’s area of intense personal interest, tie that interest to a standard, and guide the student to deeper learning.
3. Social extensions: Social extensions push learning while putting the student in situations that also enable them to grow their social skills. By working in social settings, proficient students will deepen their own understanding while making connections with peers and learning to appreciate classmates’ work and thoughts.
Because students needing extension have already shown proficiency on the essential standards a team identifies, each extension should utilize related nonessential standards. While teams assign a lower priority to these standards, they are still standards that provide rich learning opportunities. Nonessential standards will push proficient students’ learning forward, but lack of exposure to these standards will not be detrimental to their academic future.
When educators use these broad extension types, question 4 and the proficient students associated with it will become less of an afterthought and instead be included in the vital collaborative process as originally intended.
Audience
This book supports collaborative teams in the urgent mission of pushing question 4 students to higher levels of learning. Because extension for proficient students is so important, this book has been designed for applicability with a variety of team types, including grade-level teams, subject-specific secondary teams, and cross-disciplinary teams as well as singletons. The scenarios that appear throughout the book reflect this range of team types.
Administrators do not get a pass when it comes to serving proficient students. Administrators at both the district and school levels will find this book helpful as it reminds them that students who are proficient upon preassessment still need to be challenged. By using this book, administrators can ensure question 4 students come up in collaborative conversations and teams intentionally plan for their learning. I will build a case that these students need extensions to stay engaged in school. This book will also be a handy resource for moving collaborative teams to the next level of reflection, discussion, and execution of the collaborative culture that serves as a cornerstone of a PLC.
Chapter Contents
The first chapter establishes the argument that question 4 is the least answered of the four critical questions of a PLC. The text challenges collaborative teams to include those students who have demonstrated proficiency early in a lesson, or even before the lesson has begun, in their collaborative conversations and their plans to continue to push those students’ learning to high levels. Chapter 2 supports the intentional planning and execution of extensions. This chapter includes reproducible forms for selecting essential standards and writing lesson plans that will help collaborative teams intentionally plan their extensions. Chapter 3 helps educators in planning skill extensions, chapter 4 focuses on accessing students’ areas of high interest to draw them into interest extensions, and chapter 5 provides ideas on drawing socially isolated students into school by using social extensions. Chapter 6 supports singleton planning of extensions with and without collaborative team support.
Features