Lexile Requirements in the Customized Classroom

Lexile requirements are a major part of the Common Core (CCSS). There are expectations built in for each grade level. These expectations come into play as students work within a particular Measurement Topic (e.g. - Reading Informational Text). At some point a student needs to show that he/she can read a particular level of text. This is crystal clear in the wording of Learning Target 10 in each of the CCSS Reading Measurement Topics.

However,  times are changing! One big change is a move from grade level standards (the organization of the CCSS) toward progression levels (using more of a customized approach, meeting students where they are individually). Do lexiles still play a role in this new approach? The answer is, "Yes!"

In a customized approach, students work through levels of Reading Learning Targets.  As students work through the Learning Targets, the level of text complexity that is required increases. This is important because, if they were using very simplistic texts, students could meet all of the Reading Learning Targets very easily and without encountering enough developmental rigor, obviously not the intent of either CCSS or a customized approach. By assigning a required lexile range to each Reading Learning Target, however, a teacher can ensure that students are being held to reading text complexity that is repeatedly referenced in CCSS. (Ideally, the required lexile levels would be common throughout a school/district.)

Another benefit of matching lexile requirements to Reading Learning Targets is that it presents a curriculum sequence to guide instruction and learning. Obviously, an early reader isn't going to work on a Reading Learning Target that has a lexile requirement near 1000 (where CCSS would place a middle school student). Rather, that student is going to work on Reading Learning Targets that fall within his/her current instructional level. It's not an exact science, but a general sequence does present itself.

The hard work is forming a marriage between the Reading Learning Targets and lexiles. Fortunately, some schools are already doing this work, so there are models out there. A good model will present a path of gradual growth, both through the Reading Learning Targets and lexile ranges. As students encounter each pair of Reading Learning Targets / lexile ranges, they should find that both are accessible without being too simplistic. On the other hand, a poor model will result in many students trying to tackle Reading Learning Targets that are beyond their current intellectual levels or encountering too many Reading Learning Targets without a gradual growth in reading development.

And so, lexiles are still in the picture despite a shift toward a more customized approach. In fact, they are more important than ever. We can thank the developers of CCSS for bringing them to the table, and we can thank the promoters of customized learning for putting them to good use!

Time For a GIANT Step!

It must be at once satisfying and discouraging to hike the Appalachian Trail. The trail can be considered a lengthy series of shorter hikes. How satisfying it must be to finish one of those shorter hikes.  Yet, how frustrating it must be to start at square one again on another section.

Teaching can be like that. You work like crazy to accomplish a goal, and just as you begin to celebrate meeting it, you find yourself at the start of a brand new, though somewhat similar, challenge.

That's where I am right now. Over the past few years, my program has shifted significantly toward a more customized approach to teaching and learning. This year has been huge in that regard with the move to Measurement Topics, Learning Targets, and the Common Core State Standards. Great work!  Plenty of success!  Loads of learning! Time to change it! <Gulp.>

Like the hiker who has just reached the end of a trail, it can be hard to leave behind the successes of the past in order to move on to the next part of the journey.  However, that's just what we need to do in a continually evolving world.

What's next?  A GIANT step! Next year, my students and I will make the shift toward an even more customized approach, one that features progressions of Learning Targets as opposed to grade level sets of standards. For the first time, I will have the freedom (and expectation) to meet all of my students where they are and assist them through a group of Learning Targets that become more complex and challenging at each level. In other words, a student who enters my middle school classroom not having met the more basic Learning Targets will meet them in my class.  No skipsies!

This seems a bit daunting when you think about it. Fortunately, like the AT hiker who has finished several sections of trail, I've learned a great deal about how to solve the problems I will likely encounter during this stage of the journey. All of the work related to leveled readings, classroom management software, independent learning methods, and other things I've learned during my customized learning adventure will be put to good use.

I, for one, am so excited that I've been living a dual life of late. One Mr. Davis has been managing this year's approach. The other Mr. Davis has already begun revising and developing plans for next year's approach.

Someday, maybe I'll reach the end of this educational AT (on the summit of Maine's Mt. Katahdin). Of course, I have heard talk about extending the AT into Canada, so I'm not expecting to reach the end any time soon!

Defining the Target - Part 2

By initially focusing on meeting a learning target, it becomes possible to establish criteria for the other parts of the rubric as they are all relative to the score of 3.

As described in part one, the score of 3 is earned for work that accurately represents all of the content within the standard, remembering that in reading there is a required text complexity for each Learning Target built into the standard. In reality, students will at times fall short of that standard, earning a score of 1 or 2, and at times students will exceed that standard, earning a score of 4.

The scores of 1 or 2, indicating partial proficiency, are fairly easy to identify as there is usually a noticeable difference between student work that is far removed from proficiency and student work that is approaching proficiency. If a student is required to correctly make a cake but can barely identify the ingredients, let alone prepare them effectively, that student is likely in the 1 range.  If that same student is able to identify the ingredients and make a cake that doesn't taste quite right, that student is likely in the 2 range. In other words, the score of 1 is for skill/knowledge that is just beginning while the score of 2 is for skill/knowledge that is partially developed but not quite there yet.

That seems simple enough, but a score of 4 can be a bit more tricky to define, in part because of lingering aspects of the traditional education system. If one equates a 4 with an A+ or 100% (as in the traditional system), perfection is required to earn that score. This can lead to tedious, irrelevant proofing requirements that deter students from shooting for the 4. Imagine how deflating it would be for a student to have developed her own programming language only to be sent back to change the font or the way she spelled a few words. This pursuit of perfection misses the whole point of a 4 and education in general.

With this in mind some educators are approaching the 4 from a different angle. To earn a score of 4, students must meet the criteria for a 3 and demonstrate related higher order thinking. If you think about it, this approach makes perfect sense. When students encounter a standard for the first time, they usually begin by becoming acquainted with the basic knowledge that is tied to that standard. That represents a very low order of thinking, though it is an important step in a student's development. As students become more knowledgable and skilled, they begin to rise through the orders of thinking by applying their newly acquired knowledge or examining it via analytical tasks. Eventually, students acquire enough knowledge and skill to meet the Learning Target. However, some students are both willing and able to go beyond that Learning Target via related higher order thinking. Let's go back to our cake baking standard. In order to achieve a 3, students must correctly bake the cake, applying the knowledge and skills that they have acquired along the way. In order to earn a 4, however, students must take that learning to a whole new level. An example of this might be the student who correctly bakes the cake but along the way creates a brand new variation of the recipe. The creation of new content is related higher order thinking, and that is what earns a score of 4.

This represents a change for many students, parents, teachers, and administrators. However, if we truly seek to develop the talents of our students, we need to reach beyond the pursuit of perfection and into the realm of exploration, investigation, and the creation of new content. Education is really about thinking, after all. It's time to unleash students, encouraging them to pursue thinking at its highest levels. The result will be a newly engaged population of pupils, seeking out and developing the next great ideas.