What's developing student objectives look like?
29/07/09 12:28 Filed in: Define
Mission Achievement
School Year 1: Panic—we started in a state of
panic. And panic is not a good place to be.
I sat in my office, looking Focus on Learning,
the reaccreditation manual from the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC). I liked the title. I liked that the
reaccreditation process had been boiled down to
two questions: (1) “How are students doing with
respect to the [student objectives]…?” and (2)
“Is the school doing everything possible to
support high achievement of these [student
objectives] for all its students?”
I didn’t like it that I couldn’t answer the questions. “Great!” I thought. “This reaccreditation process is predicated on student objectives. We don’t have them. What are they? I don’t get it.” At this point, I did an understandable thing—I panicked, got to work, and tried to unsettle everyone as little as possible.
But where do you begin when you don’t understand what student objectives are? I knew what department objectives were, but our students were learning without student objectives—so why develop student objectives? One part of me answered, “Because the board says we have to be accreditated with WASC, and in order to be accredited with WASC, we have to have student objectives.” Another part of me answered, “This will be good for us. It’ll help us close the rhetoric/reality gap.”
I moved from panicking to working. Then I noticed that Focus on Learning had a section on student objectives—a definition, a set of descriptors, a sample procedure for developing these, and sample student objectives. I learned that student objectives were schoolwide, interdisciplinary, measurable student learning outcomes that define what a student should know and be able to do.
I read the words. I didn’t really understand them. They didn’t sound like department objectives. Department objectives were more like non- measurable ideals. I read the words again, but still couldn’t fully grasp the meaning. So I kept rereading while I collected samples from other schools.
I felt better. I remembered that during a recent philosophy review committee meeting we had talked about focusing on implementing the philosophy (instead of revising—wordsmithing—it). I had an inkling that student objectives could help us implement our philosophy.
Given that student objectives seemed related to the philosophy, student objectives sounded like the province of the board. However, the process outlined by Focus on Learning didn’t indicate this. Instead, the Focus on Learning process said students, parents, staff, and board should participate in developing student objectives.
I thought, “Parents aren’t even involved in curriculum development. Neither are students. Why are they involved in developing student objectives?”
Again, I did an understandable thing. I panicked, got to work, and tried to unsettle everyone as little as possible. Focus on Learning suggested roundtable discussions and brainstorming sessions involving students, parents, staff, and board members. A good process. But it was already early December, and I didn’t want to spring such a process on people just before Christmas vacation.
Surveys seemed like a good alternative, so in December I asked secondary students, parents, and staff to select 5 student objectives from a list of 22 that I had compiled.
In January of School Year 1, I published the results in student and school publications. Faculty used the student objective survey results to talk with student council representatives, reviewed the philosophy statement, and then developed an initial draft. “Things are moving!” I thought.
The teaching staff adopted a set of student objectives for field-testing, with the understanding that during the spring, school community input would be sought and that revisions could be made in June.
As a result of field-testing, we shortened the list of objectives, made them more readable, and mailed them to parents in June. I was feeling good. And I felt even better as we used our student objectives to successfully complete the reaccreditation process.
We finished student objective development—then I learned we were just getting started. Documentation completion = start implementation. And implementation is at least 90% of the work. I was feeling too good to realize this—we had survived reaccreditation, received a 6-year term and were implementing our strategic plan.
School Year 2 - School Year 5: Something was wrong. Maybe I should have clued in when a teacher said, “Student objectives describe what I do”—instead of saying, “Student objectives guide what I do.”
Maybe I should have clued in when we continued asking, “How well do the student objectives reflect our departmental objectives?”— instead of asking, “How well do our student objectives determine our department objectives?
Maybe I should have clued in when I couldn’t figure out the connection between our strategic plan and our student objectives. Certainly I should have clued in when wordsmithing these during the board approval process did not result in increased implementation. But I didn’t.
School Year 6: Finally at the start of School Year 6, it clicked. We had a corporate “aha” experience. We understood what student objectives were, that they defined mission achievement. The result? A flurry of implementation.
We are also implementing the following schoolwide improvement plan: By June 16, use a complete set of student objective baseline data to make decisions for getting 90% of high school students to score at or above standard on a given student objective.
*This blog entry is part of a 7-part series:
I didn’t like it that I couldn’t answer the questions. “Great!” I thought. “This reaccreditation process is predicated on student objectives. We don’t have them. What are they? I don’t get it.” At this point, I did an understandable thing—I panicked, got to work, and tried to unsettle everyone as little as possible.
But where do you begin when you don’t understand what student objectives are? I knew what department objectives were, but our students were learning without student objectives—so why develop student objectives? One part of me answered, “Because the board says we have to be accreditated with WASC, and in order to be accredited with WASC, we have to have student objectives.” Another part of me answered, “This will be good for us. It’ll help us close the rhetoric/reality gap.”
I moved from panicking to working. Then I noticed that Focus on Learning had a section on student objectives—a definition, a set of descriptors, a sample procedure for developing these, and sample student objectives. I learned that student objectives were schoolwide, interdisciplinary, measurable student learning outcomes that define what a student should know and be able to do.
I read the words. I didn’t really understand them. They didn’t sound like department objectives. Department objectives were more like non- measurable ideals. I read the words again, but still couldn’t fully grasp the meaning. So I kept rereading while I collected samples from other schools.
I felt better. I remembered that during a recent philosophy review committee meeting we had talked about focusing on implementing the philosophy (instead of revising—wordsmithing—it). I had an inkling that student objectives could help us implement our philosophy.
Given that student objectives seemed related to the philosophy, student objectives sounded like the province of the board. However, the process outlined by Focus on Learning didn’t indicate this. Instead, the Focus on Learning process said students, parents, staff, and board should participate in developing student objectives.
I thought, “Parents aren’t even involved in curriculum development. Neither are students. Why are they involved in developing student objectives?”
Again, I did an understandable thing. I panicked, got to work, and tried to unsettle everyone as little as possible. Focus on Learning suggested roundtable discussions and brainstorming sessions involving students, parents, staff, and board members. A good process. But it was already early December, and I didn’t want to spring such a process on people just before Christmas vacation.
Surveys seemed like a good alternative, so in December I asked secondary students, parents, and staff to select 5 student objectives from a list of 22 that I had compiled.
In January of School Year 1, I published the results in student and school publications. Faculty used the student objective survey results to talk with student council representatives, reviewed the philosophy statement, and then developed an initial draft. “Things are moving!” I thought.
The teaching staff adopted a set of student objectives for field-testing, with the understanding that during the spring, school community input would be sought and that revisions could be made in June.
As a result of field-testing, we shortened the list of objectives, made them more readable, and mailed them to parents in June. I was feeling good. And I felt even better as we used our student objectives to successfully complete the reaccreditation process.
We finished student objective development—then I learned we were just getting started. Documentation completion = start implementation. And implementation is at least 90% of the work. I was feeling too good to realize this—we had survived reaccreditation, received a 6-year term and were implementing our strategic plan.
School Year 2 - School Year 5: Something was wrong. Maybe I should have clued in when a teacher said, “Student objectives describe what I do”—instead of saying, “Student objectives guide what I do.”
Maybe I should have clued in when we continued asking, “How well do the student objectives reflect our departmental objectives?”— instead of asking, “How well do our student objectives determine our department objectives?
Maybe I should have clued in when I couldn’t figure out the connection between our strategic plan and our student objectives. Certainly I should have clued in when wordsmithing these during the board approval process did not result in increased implementation. But I didn’t.
School Year 6: Finally at the start of School Year 6, it clicked. We had a corporate “aha” experience. We understood what student objectives were, that they defined mission achievement. The result? A flurry of implementation.
- First, we used the student objectives to revise department standards. We developed a chart that showed the alignment between the student objectives and each department standard. We used the chart to revise department standards and to require all departments to have standards on helping students understand a Christian worldview and on helping students use a biblical perspective.
- Second, we developed assessments designed for students to demonstrate their achievement of the student objectives. We scored the assessments using rubrics that were explicitly based on standards (and consequently on the student objectives). We used student assessment data to monitor student achievement of the student objectives (and consequently the achievement of the mission).
- Third, we required secondary students to use the student objectives to assess their learning and to use their findings to develop a growth plan. They presented their plans to their parents during student-led conferences.
- Fourth, we developed a SMART goal for student learning: 90% of high school students will score above standard on all student objectives, scores being taking from rubric-scored assessments. We used this goal to drive school improvement.
- Fifth, we used publications to describe how, for example, chapel and writing help students achieve the student objectives and, consequently, the mission.
- First graders, for example, voted 20 to 2 to keep the category “caretakers” instead of changing it to “stewards.” Students in grades 4, 6, 7, and 11 confirmed that suggested changes reduced difficult vocabulary; for example, in the original draft, 6th graders identified 6.53 difficult words and in the proposed draft, they identified 2.2 difficult words.
- Parents said they preferred placing the distinctively Christian statements at the top of each category instead of at the end, as this emphasized that we are a Christian school; for example, “Discerning Thinker” category now lists “Use a biblical perspective” first.
- Staff offered suggestions to make the document shorter and more user-friendly; for example, we changed “Generate creative ideas, products, or performances” to “Make creative projects and presentations.”
We are also implementing the following schoolwide improvement plan: By June 16, use a complete set of student objective baseline data to make decisions for getting 90% of high school students to score at or above standard on a given student objective.
*This blog entry is part of a 7-part series:
- How can you define what it takes to carry out your school's mission?
- Are student objectives right for you and your school?
- What's developing student objectives look like?
- What questions should you consider before developing student objectives?
- What makes good student objectives good?
- What are some reasons for developing student objectives?
- How are mission, student objectives, and curriculum connected?