Defining the Target - Part 1

There's been a lot of talk recently in my school about just what it takes to earn a score of "4". Unfortunately, some still cling to the notion that a 4 is an equivalent of 100%, perfection. In the past, this may have made sense, but in the standards referenced/based world, not so much. I have much to say about what makes a 4, but it seems appropriate to first begin with meeting a standard (i.e. - earning a "3").

My initial thinking about meeting the learning target was as follows:

• 3 (response provides all that was asked by the standard)

At first, that seems fairly straightforward. However, clouding the issue a bit is the factor of text complexity in the reading standards. Is it possible for a  middle school student to meet a learning target using a reading selection at a lower grade level? My initial thought was yes because the tenth learning target in each of the reading measurement topics focuses directly on text complexity. This view is changing over time as I have encountered a new approach to text complexity as follows:

• 3 (response provides all that was asked by the standard using text of required complexity for that learning target's level)

This can work, provided levels are agreed upon for each learning target. This requires a reorganization of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) away from grade level groupings and toward standard groupings. The CCSS list all the learning targets for a particular measurement topic by grade levels. Thus, 7th grade students are expected to meet all of the learning targets for 7th grade (not very flexible, really). However, if those same learning targets are organized by the content of the targets themselves, it is easier to see how they actually represent a learning progression for each standard. A student is expected, over time, to grasp a broader understanding of central idea of informational text. By assigning levels to each of these increasing depths of understanding, it is possible to link a text complexity requirement to each level. In short, a 3 is only a 3 if text of an adequate text complexity level is used.

This approach fits nicely with the concept of two dimensional scoring (diagramed below) which I will revisit in my next entry as a means of defining scores that are higher and lower than 3.