There have been a lot of changes in my district this year, many being controversial. One of the least controversial changes has been the adoption of what we are calling “priority standards”. That is until I walk into the room.
Allow me to provide some context. Priority standards have other names depending on where you are. Some districts refer to these standards as “power” or “essential” standards; these standards are the ones that students should leave the grade having mastered. I heard it described as “if they learn nothing else this year, it will be these (priority) standards”. Of course we want all of our students to master every standard we teach, these priority standards are designed to provide clarity to teachers about what the focus needs to be.
Here is an example of an English standard we all learned about in our school career – onomatopoeia. Do you remember what onomatopoeia is? An example is “zap”, or a word that sounds like the noise it makes. While this is important to know for the sake of writing, it should not be a standard that teachers devote a large amount of instructional time to because it is not a priority: it is a supporting standard.
There has to be a balance between priority and supporting standards. It is not wise to teach only priority standards all year; students need time to process a particular strategy or skill before revisiting the standard again and going more in-depth. At the same time, it is not wise to teach only supporting standards; students need to be exposed to the rigor of standards that are considered a priority and work those thinking muscles. The important point is that we should be teaching all the grade level standards regardless of being considered a priority standard or supporting standard.
That’s where the controversy enters, or rather a giant misconception.
I was recently involved in a lengthy conversation about this topic and was quite surprised that the person I was speaking to thought that teachers were only supposed to teach the priority standards. The supporting standards were more of a “nice to know” rather than a “need to know”, and teachers only needed to make sure that their students had mastered the priority standards. I was told that their teachers were advised to only teach these and to skip the supporting standards. That is a terrifying misconception for teachers to have.
Priority, power, essential standards are there to help teachers focus their time. They help us plan our instructional time so that we do not spend 2 weeks teaching something like onomatopoeia when we could be revisiting writing a strong opening paragraph in a multi-paragraph essay. The priority is more than just reaching the “important” standards; it is making the most of that precious instructional time that we have a limited amount of.
Photo by Christina Morillo: https://www.pexels.com/photo/women-colleagues-gathered-inside-conference-room-1181622/
Comments 1
I love how you explained that essential standards can help us plan our time during the year. It doesn’t mean we ONLY teach those standards all year. I will definitely be sharing this with my team!