How To Reach A Faculty About Devloping Rigor

[Mike Parent]

My ears are burning. Stephanie Sandifer over at Leader Talk has a post about compliance and rigor. Just this coming week I was developing ideas on how to broach the topic with my staff.

Stephaine asks two important questions about rigor -

1. How do you, as a campus administrator (or instructional coach/lead teacher) monitor for effective implementation?
2. How do you monitor for deep, rigorous implementation as opposed to just simple compliance?

I'm not even discussing the subject of compliance (the connotations and images that word brings is too ugly to deal with), but I would like to add my thoughts about rigor.

I replied to Stephanie's post with this:

As a principal of a high school looking to increase rigor, I am preparing to involve the staff in a serious discussion and initiative about what rigor is and how it can be established and monitored. After much research, reading, and thought, I [broke it down] to this simple statement: "Rigor is achieved through expectations and assessment." It's not all encompassing about the subject of rigor, but it's a statement that a large faculty can understand and digest. (I like to keep things simple and palatable).

One way you can measure rigor is through assessing assessments. I will ask all faculty to structure exams and projects at the highest levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. Quizzes and Homework should be relegated to the lower four quadrants of the taxonomy. We can then measure the level of rigor by monitoring the quality of assessments. And using UBD ideology, if your assessments are developed using essential questions prior to the teaching, then the rigor should flow throughout the unit.

My reply was quick and pointed. I know that rigor is also defined as getting students to develop the ability to understand content that is complex, provocative, and challenging. But that concept is too academic and stale... you need to get to the heart of establishing rigor - assessments.

In order to motivate and move faculty to assess at a level of rigor that is acceptable, it's important to frame the discussion in a way that generates thought, not compliance. I use this simple visual to help faculty understand how to develop rigor by using what they already do.

Looking at the visual, you have to understand that a faculty do not need, or deserve, more demands, compliance, or do-it-or-elses. This framework can serve as a mapping tool for faculty as they begin to collaborate and work in PLCs to develop a plan for ramping up the rigor in their classrooms, departments, and school. But what do these PLCs look like when discussing and focusing on developing rigorous assessments?

One example is the peer-review model. Teachers form teams and peer review eachothers assessments. Using an assessing assessments tool, teachers can then honestly gauge their level of rigor and make improvements or give assistance to others. I have seen it in action before. It's tough to do, but worth it.

Bottom line is this: look to the assessments to measure rigor. Assess the assessments, then assess your practice.

[Michael Umphrey]

This would work better for me if I thought Bloom's taxonomy showed ascending levels of cognitive difficulty or complexity.

I don't think they do. Some feats of remembering are awe-inspiring, as one knows who has conversed with a real expert in a difficult field of knowledge who seems to know everything. Most acts of creativity and evaluation--which come readily to novices--are silly and wrong-headed.

Rigor has become a buzzword, so it's now used frequently, though not often with any rigor. That's not the case in this discussion--it's just an observation.

I do like the chart, though I would need to spend more time pondering the right column. I think you are spot on to say the focus should be on expectations and assessment.

[Connie Weber]

I propose we read "Rigor Redefined" by Tony Wagner and weave that perspective into the discussion.

Also thinking about some leadership articles/chapters that are relevant, such as Cultivating Leadership in Schools by Gordon A. Donaldson, which I just started. How we view leadership affects everything that needs to and can be done.

Mike, it's so good to hear from you. Just yesterday I was thinking I was missing the perspective and questions you have. So I open up Fireside's front page today, and here you are! Greetings! Is life just as busy with a zillion projects going on simultaneously? Maybe you could fill us in on the "check in forum," "What are your year-end goings on?" I'd sure like to hear about your adventures this year--and vacation. (Do you have a vacation?)

Glad you started this forum in the main section, not in the administrators' group, although that would have been ok too. This way, I think we'll get people from a variety of perspectives to join in. Hope we can get some lively discussion going.

Let's also look at Mikes' stuff, such as "Models to think with--School Reform..." He's having us examine data through a variety of lenses, also leadership.

Thanks for a great question!

[Mike]

Hey Mike.... been a while...good to hear from you!

When i hear rigor in schools i get big time nervous these days!!!
It reminds me of another famous buzz ....
"just say no!!!"

Rigor Or Rigor Mortis?---- Usually turns into---- harder is better!

Wonder why so many kids are dis-interested in school?

What do teachers do that "inspires" and "motivates" kids to learn?

Rigor.... will eventually run into the way we grade kids.... and how silly has that gotten at our highschool levels.....

rigor becomes AP courses....Honors courses.....College Prep course.... watered down versions of the same old same old..... boring stuff!!!!
We then weigh the rigor of the course work that then counts into the all important GPA and class ranking system. We then sort and rank our kids... line them up if you will.... then we play which great school can you get into and live happily ever after.

We get rid of our non-college bound tracks and think we now have more rigor......

There is something seriously wrong with this picture..... it is far deeper than our assessments.

What is it we are trying to accomplish with all this rigorous effort toward more rigor?

Do our kids find any meaning in this rigorous work?
Which kids and why?
Which kids could care less and why?

We seem to be running faster and faster..... more and more required from our children....

we may be in the wrong jungle here........ for some reason.... we seem to keep doing the same things over and over....... wonder what the next buzz words will be.....

Yet... as we ponder rigor we still have seniors being monitored for how often they need to go to the bathroom during the school day....we still have them sit quitely in study halls....
do we spend any time at all helping them to find their "gift"...their talent.... their interests.....

do we help them find their passion!!!

no....we continue to treat them the same way we did in middle school and expect them to want to do rigorous work....... hmmm.... is something wrong with this picture!

[Ian Carmichael]

Thanks Mike and Michael and Mike, (Connie - you don't have a Mike or Michelle hidden in your name anywhere do you? I thought not; typically breaking the pattern!)

Meaning and meaningful work come to mind - in class for teachers as students. I'm feeling that much of my time is consumed proving that I'm doing things right, and allowing my administration to do the same, that I don't get to wrestle with doing the right things. (Perhaps I have an elevated view of my competence, and should be content with a humble part in the knowledge chain.)
For rigour to function anywhere, it needs to be linked with meaning. I won't perform better when meaningless rigour is required of me, any more than my students will. But, for example, when I have a programming puzzle I need to solve, I know the rigour I follow will produce robustness at the end. I can't just say "Computer, solve Fermat's Last Theorem." (Anyway, yes: it's been done.)
If I'm building a bookcase, rigour is important - I need to measure precisely, joints and surfaces need to be accurately square, I need to choose wood suitable for the weight carried. And, my favourite: I need to remember that the wood I'm using has a thickness, and get the correct shelf heights, not centre spacings.
Once the project has significance, rigour has relevance and its own instantiation for that particular project/discipline/process. Until it has significance then rigour is just empty precision.

I think we need to be rigourous in assessment - but it needs to be purposeful assessment, of meaningful dimensions. So, not everybody gets an elephant stamp. Equally, prettywork is not always a measure of excellence.

In a Newsweek of the late sixties/early 70's Feiffer (Pfeiffer?) has a cartoon of a hamburger seller arguing with a customer. His defence goes something like this
"Listen lady, I'm a double Ph. D. in Astrophysics and Biochemical Mathematics, and if I say that hamburger's done, it's DONE!"
Rigour, yes. But relevance?