2.  Rigor means having high expectations in curriculum standards, classroom assignments, ongoing assessment, and testing.

3.  All of the above must be aligned for maximum student achievement.

4.  Typically, classroom expectations decline from one grade level to the next.

5.  A taxonomy is a useful tool for classifying objectives, instruction, and assessment to determine level of rigor.

6.  The revised Bloom’s taxonomy helps us to analyze cognitive demand along two dimensions.

7.  Using the taxonomy can result in rich discussions about intentions, assumptions, and outcomes.

8.  The very act of using the taxonomy can motivate us toward demanding higher levels of rigor.

9.  Alignment (standards –objectives— assessment tasks--instructional strategies) is essential to raising the level of rigor.

10.  We attend to what we measure! If we are serious about raising the level of rigor in our school, we must accurately assess where we are now.

11.  Monitoring and measuring rigor at the classroom level is a multi-faceted, ongoing, collaborative process in which a variety of strategies should be used.

12.  Students engaged in collaborative work.  Analysis, creativity, and practical application of learning occurring.  Evidence of pre-assessment for lesson content.  Teachers facilitating as students direct their own learning.  Teachers asking probing questions of students.  Students doing most of the purposeful talking.  Students actively engaged in problem solving activities.  Students using technology to learn.  Clear procedures used for all class work.  All students articulating their thinking in small groups.  Teachers doing various formative assessments of working students.

13.  Students engaged in higher level questioning and thinking.  Students using primary sources in their investigations.  Students applying learning in new areas thru projects.  Students assessing their own learning.  Students building and sharing their portfolios.  Different regularly occurring activities that address different learning styles.  Students independently recording their learning and generating their own questions.  Class discussions where students compare ideas with each other.  Student choice built in to assignments.  Tiered assignments designed for academic readiness.  Lessons moving at a brisk pace.  Students’ interests driving topics of learning.  Daily teacher assessments of learning outcomes.

14.  Content:  Is the content part of the Standard Course of Study?  Does it include basic skills and important concepts?  Does the content require students to apply core academic knowledge to problems or issues? 

15.  Instruction:  Does the instruction require students to engage in higher order thinking skills?  Are students required to engage in elaborated communication?  Do they have to explain or justify their conclusions or thinking?

16.  Assessment:  Is the assessment aligned to the lesson goals?  Does the assessment measure SCOS content?  Do students have to use higher order thinking skills on the assessment?  Do students have to explain or justify their conclusions or thinking?

17.  Knowledge level one: Limited amount of information is recalled; answer is incomplete level two: Sufficient amount of facts are recalled; answer is complete and acceptable level three: Numerous facts and details are recalled; answer is thorough

18.  Comprehension level one: Brief explanation of content; little or no evidence to support level two: Overall understanding of content; implied content/ issues not addressed level three: An interrelated, holistic interpretation of literal and implied content given; uses examples and illustrations to support

19.  Application level one: Solution has none or a limited number of elements to support; solution is not workable level two: Workable solution is supported by an adequate number of generalizations and principles level three: Solution has a “new slant;” supports solution with an abundant amount of facts and details

20.  Analysis level one: Solution shows minimal classification of elements; no relation between elements and their relation and structure to each other level two: Solution demonstrates the relation and structure between elements; recognized patterns; rationally supported level three: Solution classifies elements, their relationship to each other while identifying the arrangement and structure connecting them in a rational and persuasive manner

21.  Synthesis level one: Solution lacks self-expression; some important elements excluded; solution not workable; not clearly communicated level two: Workable solution is new and includes essential elements; adequately communicated solution to the appropriate audience; demonstrates self-expression level three: Workable solution which is new and includes all parts; demonstrates unique self- expression; communication is directed to a specific audience in a unique and highly effective manner

22.  Evaluation level one: Judgments have little or no support  level two: Judgments are on both cognitive and effective levels; based on given criteria or selected remembered criteria  level three: Judgments based on a variety of facets at both the cognitive and effective levels

23.  Classroom Assessments are rigorous if they provide specific information about student achievement of the learning and content in high standards.

24.  Level one: Some classroom assessments are strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of the grade-level state standards.  Level two: Most classroom assessments are strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of the grade-level state standards.  Level three: All classroom assessments are strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of the grade-level state standards and, when appropriate, go beyond grade-level standards.

25.  Level one: Common assessments are administered across some grades, subjects or courses.  Level two: Common assessments, which include high levels of cognitive complexity, are administered across most grades, subjects or courses.  Level three: Common assessments, which include high levels of cognitive complexity, are administered across all grades, subjects or courses and are regularly analyzed and revised by learning teams.

26.  Level one: Teachers analyze test results to improve assessments.  Level two: Teachers analyze test results to diagnose student learning and improve assessments and instruction.  Level three: Teachers analyze tests results to diagnose student learning, improve assessments and instruction, and modify curriculum.

27.  Level one: Teachers are generally assessment literate, understanding where and when to use a variety of assessments and recognizing quality assessments. Level two: Teachers can select high-quality, technically correct assessment items/ tasks that are aligned to higher levels of learning.  Level three: Teachers can select, develop and/or revise assessment items/tasks to measure higher levels of learning.

28.  Level one: The principal and/or learning team monitors classroom assessments in some grades, subjects or courses.  Level two: The principal and/or learning team monitors classroom assessments in most grades, subjects and courses.  Level three: The principal and/or professional learning team monitors and recommends revisions for classroom assessments in all grades, subjects and courses.

29. Collaboration within and outside of the school is important to build a common understanding and consistent application of practices that support rigor.

30.  Level one: Occasionally faculty, department and grade-level meetings focus on improving curriculum, instruction and assessment.  Level two: The focus of faculty, department and grade-level meetings is often the improvement of curriculum, instruction and assessment.  Level three: All faculty, department and grade- level meetings focus on the improvement of curriculum, instruction and assessments, include formal agendas, and support continuous collaboration throughout the year.

31.  Level one: Learning teams or study groups review academic rigor based on judgment or assessment data.  Level two: Learning teams or study groups use an organizing framework (taxonomy) to examine academic rigor.  Level three: Learning teams or whole faculty study groups use an organizing framework (taxonomy) to produce a common way of thinking about and a common vocabulary for talking about academic rigor schoolwide.

32.  Level one: Teachers collaboratively review assignments and assessments.  Level two: Teachers collaboratively analyze assignments and assessments for cognitive complexity and alignment to standards.  Level three: Teachers collaboratively analyze and revise assignments and assessments to increase the cognitive complexity and alignment to standards.

33.  Level one: Teachers collaborate in isolated instances to create opportunities that challenge students to perform at higher levels of learning.  Level two: Teachers collaborate within some departments or grade levels to create opportunities that challenge students to perform at higher levels or learning.  Level three: Teachers collaborate across the school to create opportunities that challenge students to perform at higher levels of learning.

34.  Level one: Some school-home communication from teachers about academic progress (students’ assignments and assessment results and mastery of standards) occurs.  Level two: Regular school-home communication from teachers about academic progress (students’ assignments and assessment results and mastery of standards) occurs.  Level three: Frequent communication (via multiple methods) to home and community about academic progress and increasing rigor school- wide occurs.

35.  The organization and sequencing of the curriculum is critical if students are to perform at higher levels of learning.

36.  Level one: Grade level/subject area curricula are horizontally aligned (focused and connected within each grade/course/subject area).  Level two: Grade level/subject area curricula are horizontally and vertically aligned (focused and connected within and across grade/course/subject area).  Level three: The horizontally and vertically aligned curricula are periodically reviewed and realigned to optimize student performance and academic challenge.

37.  Level one: There are few strategies in place to ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) among the written, taught and tested curricula.  Level two: There are strategies in place to ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) among the written, taught and tested curricula in some grades/subjects.  Level three: Strategies are in place and actions are taken to ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) between the written, taught and tested curricula in most courses/subjects.

38.  Level one: A standards-based curriculum guide has been developed for all subjects.  Level two: A system of curriculum analysis & alignment (e.g., curriculum mapping) is implemented, and the curriculum is revised/developed based on this data.  Level three: Based on data, a part of the standards-based school curriculum is reviewed/revised each year with a long- term plan to review/revise the entire curriculum every 5-7 years.

39.  Level one: Learning objectives, assignments and assessments in all classes reflect the learning and content expected for those students (usually articulated in state standards).  Level two: The standards-based objectives, assignments, and assessments in some classes accelerate the learning to address the expectations for the next grade, college, or the workplace (increasing the level of cognitive complexity).  Level three: The standards-based objectives, assignments and assessments in most classes accelerate the learning to address the expectations for the next grade, college, or the workplace (increasing the level of cognitive complexity).

40.  Level one: The curricula for a few courses introduce knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the knowledge and skills in subsequent years.  Level two: The curricula for core subjects introduce knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the knowledge and skills in subsequent years.  Level three: The curricula for all subjects introduce knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the knowledge and skills in subsequent years.

41.  Expectations that teachers set for quality student work are important to communicate as students are challenged by increased rigor.

42.  Level one: Expectations for performance are explicit in written or oral assignment directions.  Level two: Expectations for performance are explicit in course syllabi, rubrics and assignment directions in some classes.  Level three: Expectations for performance are explicit in course syllabi, rubrics and assignment directions in most classes.

43.  Level one: Where possible, teachers have students share with their peers graded samples of their work that have been deemed proficient.  Level two: Teachers provide examples of exemplary student work to students prior to assessments on that material.  Level three: Teachers require students to analyze exemplary student work, prior to assessment on that material, to determine the qualities that make the work proficient.

44.  Level one: Some teachers have reached consensus on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards.  Level two: Teachers within grade levels or subject areas have reached consensus on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards, and there is little variation among these teachers’ expectations, rubrics and grading practices.  Level three: The school’s professional staff (teachers and administrators) has reached consensus on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards, and there is little variation among teachers’ expectations, rubrics and grading practices.

45.  Level one: Students are routinely asked to evaluate their own and peers’ work using scoring rubrics.  Level two: Student evaluations of their own and peers’ work sometimes match teacher expectations and/or the scoring rubric.  Level three: Students evaluations of their own and peers’ work often match teacher and/or rubric definitions for quality.

46.  Level one: School staff has a collective belief that most students can achieve at grade level.  Level two: Some teachers provide the opportunity for all students to produce quality work through their grading practices, by re-teaching, and by allowing them to redo work.  Level three: Schools provide the opportunity for all students to produce quality work with policies related to redoing work, re- teaching and grading.

47.  The instructional strategies that teachers use foster higher levels of learning in their students and increased rigor in their classrooms.

48.  Level one: Teachers ask mostly low- cognitive complexity questions.  Level two: Teachers use an array of questioning techniques to prompt low, mid and higher level cognitive processing for some students.  Level three: Teachers use an array of questioning techniques to prompt low, mid and higher level cognitive processing for all students.

49.  Level one: Instructional strategies are selected based on teacher preference, experience and recommendations in text.  Level two: Instructional strategies are selected based on the content and level of cognitive complexity in the standards as well as on student preference/interest.  Level three: Instructional strategies are based on research and selected to match the content and cognitive complexity in the standards and to raise the cognitive complexity of student learning.

50.  Level one: Supervisors note presence/absence of rigor in monitoring/evaluation of classroom instruction.  Level two: Supervisors note frequency of levels of rigor in their monitoring/evaluation of classroom instruction.  Level three: The levels of rigor of classroom instruction are included in personnel decisions and measure s of school accountability.

51.  Level one: Teachers’ support for student learning is improved by professional development opportunities available from external providers.  Level two: Teachers’ support for student learning is improved by teams of teacher leaders involved in year-long professional learning to develop schoolwide strategies.  Level three: Teachers’ support for student learning is improved by the school’s professional development plan which has teacher teams learning, implementing and evaluating schoolwide strategies.