Why Are Proficient Students Often Overlooked?
Teams often do not discuss question 4 students because the prevailing attitude is that these students are smart, they get it, they can play the school game, and in some cases they have been identified as gifted or labeled as gifted and talented education (GATE) or talented and gifted (TAG) students. Often, teachers see these students as able to succeed no matter what. They will achieve, no matter the classroom they are placed in and no matter how much (or little) individual attention they receive. In short, educators don’t see them as being at risk. For clarity’s sake, let’s define what I mean by the term at risk. Students at risk face factors inside or outside school that can inhibit them from learning to their potential, cause them to become unsuccessful in school, and possibly prevent them from graduating. When question 4 students are assessed as highly proficient or proficient on state tests and achieve such a label, teachers often consider these students “givens” in whole-school or classroom data discussions, and they are easily forgotten, which places them at risk.
Not just collaborative teams and schools can fall into the trap of forgetting to answer question 4. In 2018, I attended a professional development seminar that focused on helping all schools meet the needs of every student. During a fantastic weekend of professional learning, this group of highly engaged administrators was asked to create a learning continuum using placards that represented everything from formative assessments to district benchmarks to collaborative team conversations, from state standards through state assessment. Once we finished, we received more cards to place where we could provide additional support to students. The cards simply said “interventions” (corresponding to PLC critical question 3); there was no mention of extensions. When another participant in the group asked about question 4, the trainer said we must not forget that question. Her response was genuine, but the question was just not in the forefront of her mind when she made the cards.
It was a great exercise and one I have repeated during several trainings. But before we start, I tell the participants something is missing and, if they can find it, I have a coffeehouse gift card for them. As of this writing, no one has ever brought up that extensions are missing from the exercise (though surely this will change once this book is published). I tell this story simply to underline how easy it is for administrators and teachers alike to forget to answer question 4. (For guidance on how to ensure teams plan to address question 4 students, see chapter 2 [page 17].)
How Does Extension Align With the Three Big Ideas of a PLC?
To truly understand why these already proficient students cannot simply be sorted and forgotten, teachers must examine the three big ideas of a PLC.
1. A focus on learning: DuFour et al. (2016) explain, “The fundamental purpose of the school is to ensure that all students learn at high levels (grade level or higher)” (p. 11).
2. A collaborative culture and collective responsibility: DuFour et al. (2016) assert, “Educators must work collaboratively and take collective responsibility for the success of each student” (p. 11).
3. A results orientation: Successful PLCs require a results orientation. DuFour et al. (2016) maintain, “To assess their effectiveness in helping all students learn, educators in a PLC focus on results—evidence of student learning” (p. 12).
The first big idea, a focus on high levels of learning for all students, includes embracing students who may have shown up to school proficient in a concept. These students represent the “higher” in “grade level or higher” (DuFour et al., p 11). However, if educators do not push these students, they, too, will become at risk of not being successful because they have not been forced to develop the kind of perseverance required later in life (Lens & Rand, 2000).
A lack of perseverance leads to what Carol Dweck (2016) refers to as a fixed mindset—when a student believes his or her “qualities are carved in stone” (Dweck, 2016, p. 10). So, a proficient student with a fixed mindset—one who has not been challenged, pushed, or given the opportunity to rebound from failure—believes that he or she is only proficient because he or she was born that way, which makes one’s intelligence finite. If this mindset is not changed when a question 4 student is severely challenged by a concept or skill, he or she will believe this is the apex of their intelligence.
Dweck (as cited in Craig, 2014) contrasts this fixed mindset with a growth mindset “or embracing the power of yet.” According to Dweck (2016), in a growth mindset, the “hand you’re dealt is a starting point” (p. 7). A growth-minded person believes their basic qualities can grow and improve through their own work and through coaching from others, and they persevere to achieve this growth. Question 4 students, like all people, will not develop perseverance without being provided specific and well-thought-out extensions to their learning (Dweck, 2016).
James W. Stigler and James Hiebert (2004) state simply, “If we want to improve student learning, we must find a way to improve teaching” (p. 12). That includes teaching the students who are already proficient, not simply acknowledging they have a broad conceptual understanding and then allowing them to do a preferred activity or other work to simply occupy them while the teacher supports students who have not yet acquired the essential standard or skill. However, if collaborative teams do not answer question 4 effectively—or do not even ask it—this is often what happens. As the principal of an elementary school that grew to perform at a high level of student achievement, I had several conversations with individual staff members and collaborative teams at the beginning of the year about their year-long SMART (strategic and specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented, time bound) goals for student learning (Conzemius & O’Neill, 2014). Collaborative teams would often set the goals for students who were not yet reading at grade level or who were well behind in mathematics—their lowest-performing students. The teams recognized that to get minimally successful students to grade level, the students would need to pack in more than a year’s worth of growth in a year’s time. (For example, if the average third grader’s reading level could be expected to move from a 3.0 to a 4.0 during a typical year, a third grader reading at a 1.5 at the start of the year would need to grow more than the typical 1.0 during a year or they would be perpetually behind. So, teams would set goals for these students to grow from 1.5 to 2.8, or 1.3 years’ worth of growth during the year. Although this would not bring the student up to grade level completely in one year, it does begin to close the gap. And if teams throughout the PLC work cohesively over time to continue achieving similar growth, the student would be on grade level at the end of the seventh-grade year.) To accomplish these goals, the teams would discuss a series of intervention ideas.
However, these same teams expected their highest-performing students to grow a year or less over the same period. The argument team members would inevitably make for setting such low