# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chris Jakicic, EdD, an author and a consultant, was principal of Woodlawn Middle School in Illinois from 1999 to 2007. She began her career teaching middle school science.

One thing I've learned as I work with schools across the country is that there are a lot of different definitions collaborative teams are using for common formative assessments, and what these teams think common formative assessments are influences how they write and use these assessments with their students. In our book, Collaborating for Success in the Common Core, we offer the following definition to help teams make sure they're able to use their results to improve student learning:

"Common formative assessments are team-designed, intentional measures used for the purpose of monitoring student attainment of essential learning targets throughout the instructional process. In addition to providing information about which students need additional support or extension, common formative assessments allow teams to examine the effects of their practice, and gain insight as to which instructional strategies yield high levels of learning. Furthermore, the data can be used to provide frequent feedback to students that they can use to adjust their own learning strategies."

In our definition, we look at three important concepts that we know help students achieve at high levels through the use of these assessments: they are formative (and thus occur during the learning process), they are team-designed, and they assess essential learning targets.

Formative

The first idea we included in our definition is the importance of the word formative. In working with teams, we've found that some teams focus on common assessments rather than common formative assessments. When teams write and use common summative assessments (think, for example, end of the unit tests), they are able to use essential standards and common pacing in their work. While this is a valuable step, we now know that it is formative assessment that truly impacts student learning. In 1998, Black and Wiliam published their revolutionary research concluding that formative assessment has a .9 standard deviation impact on student learning. This caused educators at all levels to focus on how to use formative assessment in their work. If student learning is the ultimate goal, then, high performing teams must use formative assessment throughout the learning process. High-performing teams understand that the purpose of formative assessments is different than summative assessments.

Sometimes teams will ask whether they can use their benchmark assessments as common formative assessments as long as they use them in a formative way. Here's why we recommend that they not do this. Formative questions are intentionally written in a different manner than summative assessment items.

The first thing is that formative items are written around learning targets rather than standards. Learning targets are the smaller skills and concepts students have to learn to become proficient on the standard. When questions are written around these smaller skills and concepts, the information they provide is much more diagnostic than when written around a standard.

Additionally, most benchmark assessments are not tightly linked to concepts that students are currently learning. Sometimes items assess content that was taught in earlier units of instruction and sometimes items assess content that hasn't yet been taught. We included the phrase "throughout the learning process" in our definition to emphasize how important we believe it is for formative assessment to occur shortly after students are taught new essential content.

When teams design their own common formative assessments, they write items to specifically match the learning targets they want to measure while they are still teaching that content. That means that before teachers move on to new content in the unit, they are able to correct misconceptions students might have that could impede them learning related concepts. This also means that teams are able to move from reporting the percentage correct each student earned to being able to report-for each student-which targets have been mastered and which still need response.

Getting their data back at this level of specificity also allows teams to examine which instructional practices are most effective either for all students or even for certain types of students. In a PLC, we start with the premise that teachers will use the instructional strategies that they believe will be most effective for their students, and that there is no expectation that all teachers will use the same strategies. High-performing teams, however, examine their results to see if a particular strategy is more effective. They also realize that, for students who need additional response, using the same instructional strategy they used the first time won't be very effective. When teams analyze the results of a common formative assessment, they can discuss these issues and learn from each other and from the results.

Team-Designed

The second idea we included in our definition is that these assessments are team-designed to assure that the items are aligned with the learning targets teams are teaching as well as the expected rigor teams have for results. We've seen some examples where teams use an assessment designed by curriculum writers or from a test bank of questions and though these items might be aligned with the content taught, they aren't always aligned to the rigor that it was taught at. This results in information that isn't helpful to teams in planning the response. Teams can effectively use items they've found in curriculum materials or online, but it's vital that they make sure the item matches the learning target they taught in both content and rigor.

Essential learning targets

The third important concept we included in our definition is that these assessments are used to monitor essential learning targets. Some teams write their CFAs around all of the content they've taught. When they do this, they lose the idea of a guaranteed and viable curriculum. We know that it's impossible to guarantee that all students learn everything we teach. When a team identifies its essential standards, they are agreeing that all students will learn these standards. We expect that they will learn more than these standards, but at least these standards. Agreeing about what is the most essential content assures that students are commonly prepared as they move from grade level to grade level and course to course. This common preparation means that less time is spent on review for previous grade level standards and more time to assure student learning of the essentials. If we know with specificity what students have or have not yet learned, responding is much more precise and, therefore, effective.

In this case, vocabulary matters because your definition of common formative assessment impacts your practice. Consider whether your own work around CFAs aligns with this definition.
References:
Bailey, K., Jakicic, C., & Spiller, J. (2013). Collaborating for Success With the Common Core: A Toolkit for Professional Learning Communities at Work™. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Black, Paul & Dylan Wiliam. (1998) Assessment and Classroom Learning.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice Vol. 5 , Iss. 1, 1998.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are Common Formative Assessments Anyway?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chris Jakicic, EdD, an author and a consultant, was principal of Woodlawn Middle School in Illinois from 1999 to 2007. She began her career teaching middle school science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Realizing the Potential of RTI: The Value of Response to Intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Shaun Killian (MEd, MLead)
Robert Marzano and John Hattie have both reviewed the research on which teaching strategies work best. While they used different methods and terminology, they agreed on these 8 powerful strategies.

Strategy 1: A Clear Focus

John Hattie highlights how important it is for you (and your students) to be clear about what you want them to learn. According to Hattie, teacher clarity is one of the most potent influences on student achievement. Robert Marzano agrees! He includes lesson goals in his top 5 list of factors that affect how well students do at school.

Hattie states that lesson goals:

Clarify what you want your students to learn

Can focus on surface or deep learning (or both)

Must be challenging for the students relative to their current mastery of the topic

May be grouped (i.e. a single lesson may have more than one goal)

Need to be shared with the students

Marzano also found that posing questions at the start of a lesson is an effective way to focus students. For example:

How do you add mixed fractions with different denominators? That's what you must know by the end of this lesson.

What is the difference between elements and compounds?

Why is Persuasive Essay A better than Persuasive Essay B?

When (what period) were Egypt's great pyramids built?

Hattie suggests using questions in a slightly different way:
How To Set Lesson Goals To Boost Student Achievement

What are today's lesson goals?

What do I already know that will help me achieve these goals?

What actions will I need to do to ensure I achieve these goals?

Strategy 2: Offer Overt Instruction

Robert Marzano claims it is important to explicitly teach your students the things they need to learn. In fact, he found it was the most critical factor (teacher controlled) affecting students' success. You need to:

Tell them what they need to know

Show them how to do things they must be able to do for themselves.

John Hattie did not review explicit teaching per se, but he did find that Direct Instruction was very effective. Direct Instruction involves explicitly teaching a carefully sequenced curriculum. And, it has built-in cumulative practice.

Hattie also highlighted the power of giving students worked examples. More specifically, you should use worked examples when explaining how to multi-step tasks. Marzano also highlights the importance of providing examples and non-examples of the concept you are teaching. For example, when teaching prime numbers it would be useful to highlight:

2 as an example

9, 15 and 21 as non-examples

This helps to avoid confusion with odd numbers.

Marzano also found that you can explicitly teach deeper levels of understanding. How? By using graphic organisers. You should use graphic organisers to show how different ideas were related to each other. For example, you should use them to show steps, cause-effect, hierarchy, lists, comparisons, etc.

.

Neither Hattie nor Marzano believes that great teaching is nothing more than standing out the front of the class and imparting knowledge. However, both agree that telling students what they need to know and showing students what they need to be able to do are essential aspects of teaching.

For an example of explicit teaching in context see the I Do, We Do, You Do model.

Strategy 3: Get the Students to Engage with the Content

You must teach students what they need to know and be able to do. But, it is also essential to get them to actively engage with the content.

Marzano and Hattie agree that this starts with students' prior knowledge. You need to help them link new information to their prior knowledge of the topic. Students need to engage with the content as soon as they hear it by:

Adding it to what they already know, or

Using it to clarify some of the faulty assumptions they currently hold

Engaging at the Surface Level

When students are relatively unfamiliar with what you are teaching, engagement strategies include:

Generating questions while reading

Taking and organising notes

Summarising

Rehearsal

Marzano also found getting them to work with physical manipulatives is helpful. And, he found that the simple act of asking students simple recall questions works well.

All these strategies are useful, but they only allow students to engage with the content at a surface level.

Engaging at a Deeper Level

Hattie and Marzano also found several ways for students to engage at a deeper level. These include exploring relationships between things using:

Marzano also recommends using analogies, such as:

Persuasive devices are to a writer what tools are to a tradie, or

The Magna Carta offered citizens what a referee offers a game of soccer

These are practical strategies that exemplify the higher levels of the SOLO taxonomy. This is an alternative to Bloom that Hattie advocates.

For further information, see 7 High-Impact Learning Strategies You Must Teach Your Students.

Strategy 4: Give Feedback

It is vital that you give your students feedback after they engage with any new material. This involves:
See How to Give Feedback to Students: The Advanced Guide

Highlighting what is right and wrong, or good and bad about their work

Helping students to see how they can improve

Robert Marzano found that you need to give your students feedback while they still have time to improve. John Hattie agreed with this but went further. He found that:
See The Value of Feedback Infographic

Novice or struggling students need immediate feedback

More experienced and capable students do better when they receive delayed feedback

Hattie also highlighted that feedback is a two-way street. Student results provide the basis for both feedback to:

Students on how they can improve

You on the impact your teaching is having

Strategy 5: Multiple Exposures

If you want students to internalize new information, you need to expose them to it several times.

Robert Marzano explored ways to enhance students' vocabulary. He found that it was critical for teachers to expose students to the same word multiple times.

John Hattie picks up on the significance of multiple exposures. He talks about the critical importance of techniques such as rehearsal and review.

Rehearsal means going over the material until you can remember it

Review involves going over things you have learned previously

He also stresses the merit of giving students time to practice doing the things they have learned to do. When spaced out over time, Hattie found that having students practice things led to a 26-percentile improvement in their marks.

On a more cautious note, Hattie warned that practice without feedback could be dangerous. Why? It leads to students internalizing the wrong things.

Strategy 6: Have Students Apply Their Knowledge

Robert Marzano found that helping students apply their knowledge deepens their understanding.

A Deductive Process

Knowledge application is a deductive process. Put another way, students apply general principles to specific case studies or problems. Marzano found that deductive thinking helps students to generalise their learning beyond the topic or task at hand. He advocates:

Teaching students how to think deductively

Giving them guided practice in doing so

Hattie confirmed that deductive processes are much more useful than inductive teaching (i.e. asking students to discover general principles from observing particular situations).

Problem-Solving

Knowledge application also involves problem-solving. Robert found that problem-solving had a significant effect (d = 0.54) on students' understanding. Marzano believes that problems should require students to apply previously learned knowledge and skills. Hattie agrees. When problem-solving is used in this way, Hattie found a similar effect size (d = 0.61) to Marzano. However, when a problem is used to stimulate discovery learning, the opposite is true (d = 0.15). Hattie also emphasized the importance of teaching students how to solve problems.

Strategy 7: Get Students Working Together

Robert Marzano and John Hattie agree that getting students to work together is a good idea. It helps them to achieve better results. The use of cooperative learning groups adds value to:

Whole-class instruction (d = 0.41)

Individual work (d = 0.59-0.78)

They also agree that inter-group competition can increase the effect of cooperative learning even more.

However, neither Marzano nor Hattie believes that cooperative learning should replace whole-class instruction. Nor should it replace individual learning activities.

Hattie highlights the importance of individual students' competence. If students haven't gained enough mastery of the material, they cannot actively participate in cooperative learning tasks.

Marzano adds that if students are to master what they are being taught, they also need opportunities for individual practice and feedback.

Finally, Marzano and Hattie agree that cooperative learning is only useful when you:

Structure it carefully

Keep groups small

Teach students how to work in groups

For further information, read Group Work That Works.

Strategy 8: Build Students' Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to a student's belief about their ability to successfully complete a task. It is situation specific. For example, a student may feel confident that they can dance well on stage but be insecure about public speaking.

Hattie & Marzano both found that students' self-efficacy had a substantial impact on how well they did at school. Students who:

Believed they would master fractions were more likely to do so

Saw themselves as poor readers were less likely to improve their reading

Marzano found that you could build students' self-efficacy through praise and expressing your belief that they can do well. However, to be effective, such praise must:

Be genuine - i.e. only given when students have made a real improvement

Refer to specific accomplishments related to the task

As Carol Dweck noted, if you praise lavishly and liberally, you end up praising mediocrity. In turn, this sends a message that you believe that this is all they are capable of.

Hattie highlighted the reciprocal nature of the link between self-efficacy and achievement

Achieving genuine success influences self-efficacy

Self-efficacy influences success

Marzano & Hattie In a Nutshell

John Hattie and Robert Marzano have each conducted significant reviews of what works best in the classroom.

There are some apparent differences in their work.

They use different terminology to each other.

Marzano uses more isolated strategies, while Hattie combines strategies into broader approaches

Marzano's findings are based heavily on teacher-designed assessments. Yet Hattie's findings make more use of standardized tests

However, as you can see, there is significant agreement between Robert Marzano and John Hattie when it comes to what works best in the classroom.
Updated December 2016
References

John Hattie. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement.

John Hattie & Gregory Donoghue. (2016). Learning Strategies: A Synthesis and Conceptual Model.

Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering & Jane Pollock. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works.
[+Ceri Dean, Elizabeth Hubbell, Howard Pitler & BJ Stone. (2012). Classroom Instruction That Works. (updated)]

Robert Marzano & Debra Pickering. (2010). The Highly Engaged Classroom.

Robert Marzano & Mark Haystead. (2009). Meta-Analytic Synthesis of Studies Conducted at Marzano Research Laboratory on Instructional Strategies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marzano & Hattie Agree on These 8 Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Shaun Killian (MEd, MLead) Robert Marzano and John Hattie have both reviewed the research on which teaching strategies work best. While they used different methods and terminology, they agreed on these 8 powerful strategies. John Hattie highlights how important it is for you (and your students) to be clear about what you want them to learn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Richard DuFour, EdD, was a public school educator for 34 years. A prolific author and sought-after consultant, he is recognized as one of the leading authorities on helping school practitioners implement the PLC at Work™ process.

I had a conversation recently with a high school faculty that expressed several concerns regarding the idea that teachers teaching the same course or grade level should have common formative assessments periodically to identify students who were experiencing difficulty, to identify strengths and weaknesses in their program, and to give each teacher feedback on the how well his or her students had learned in comparison to all the students attempting to become proficient. Here is a summary of their concerns and my responses.

Common assessments will require lockstep pacing and uniform instruction.

Advocates of professional learning communities do not support either lock-step pacing or uniform instruction. Teachers remain free on a day-to-day basis to make instructional decisions, and PLCs benefit from diversity in instructional techniques so members can begin to observe which of those techniques are most effective in helping students achieve the intended outcomes of the unit and/or course. PLCs do insist that teachers agree to 1) ensure students have access to the same knowledge, skills, and dispositions regardless of the teacher to whom they are assigned and 2) to specify certain benchmark dates when the team will administer assessments to identify students who may be experiencing difficulty or areas of the curriculum needing attention. When teachers first begin this practice, we recommend they start with a minimum of four common assessments per course/subject, per year. Once they begin to see the benefits, they typically add more frequent assessments. So once again, there is no expectation that all teachers must be teaching the same content on the same day or using identical strategies. The expectation is that we will agree to teach certain concepts within the same window of time (perhaps six weeks) so that all students will be prepared for the common assessment.

The common assessments will limit us to a narrow focus or lower-level skills.

Teams are free to use a variety of assessment strategies, and many use performance-based assessments. The assessments can be as rigorous, varied, and authentic as the team decides and should provide the team with the information it will find most helpful in assessing its effectiveness. As an individual teacher, you can use whatever assessments you like all throughout the year, but at least four times a year we agree to use the same common assessment.

We are already assessing too much. This adds to the burden.

Common assessments need not be additional assessments. They should replace some of the individual assessments that teachers have traditionally given. Doug Reeves contends that American students are over-tested and under-assessed. Teachers in PLCs do not test more often, but they do use assessments that are far more powerful.

If we focus on student achievement on assessments, we diminish our efforts to develop the whole student.

This is a false dichotomy. There is no need to choose between academic achievement and developing the character of students, fostering a love or learning, or generating good citizens for a democracy. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois is cited repeatedly as a model professional learning community. It was also cited as a national model for its attention to teaching character (see The Good and Smart High School by Thomas Lickona) and was the only high school in the nation cited by NASSP for two consecutive years for the exceptional service its students provide to the community.

Posted in: Design Assessments

Tags: Common Assessments, common formative assessments, pacing, whole child

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Richard DuFour, EdD, was a public school educator for 34 years. A prolific author and sought-after consultant, he is recognized as one of the leading authorities on helping school practitioners implement the PLC at Work™ process.

# data[].attributes.body
Rigor described in three phases.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term " academic rigor " has been perambulating its way through educational circuits, but many teachers are not familiar with the concept or how to support rigor within their classroom. Understanding rigor is essential for understanding how to approach and measure the learning of students. It questions the standards we demand from our students and reconsider exactly what we consider as true achievement.

"Rigor," in the academic sense, is referring to that fine line between challenging and frustrating a student. It means that students are challenged to think, perform, and grow to a level that they were not at previously. It means that students must work, like an athlete at a team practice, to build their skills, understanding, and thinking power so that they can achieve at higher and higher levels. It means that the standards of the course are calibrated so that students are compelled to grow, but are not frustrated and overwhelmed in the process.

Academic rigor is commonly thought of in three different phases of the educational process. The first is setting the standard for students; the second is equipping students through instructional and supportive methods; the third is student demonstration of achievement. These three phases were popularized by Barbara Blackburn's 2008 book "Rigorous Schools and Classrooms: Leading the Way."

Setting the Standard

We all know that there is a certain standard of excellence that we implicitly expect of our students. Sometimes these standards are made clear to students via examples, rubrics, directions, and instruction. Sometimes these standards are less defined. What is essential for establishing the appropriate degree of rigor in your classroom is making sure that you overtly demonstrate to students what the expected outcome is. Here are a few key characteristics of a classroom that communicates the standards.

Total classroom environment endorses a high-degree of performance from each student.

Teacher believes in the potential for each student's success and communicates this belief.

Lessons and tasks are designed to lead students to expected outcomes.

Examples of desired outcomes and undesired outcomes are overtly shared with students.

Students have opportunity to revise their academic attempts.

Higher-level, thought-provoking questions are asked by teacher.

High-level, thought-provoking answers are shared by students.

Teacher does not accept lower-level thinking or answers in discussion or academic tasks.

Supporting Rigorous Achievement

Not only is maintaining a high standard essential for student success, but excellent teachers must also make sure that they are supporting each and every student to move progressively toward the desired level of achievement. Teachers must consistently ensure that whatever the content or skill they are covering, they provide the requisite materials and instructional patterns. Here are the signs of a classroom environment supportive for student progress:

Lessons are systematically scaffolded from one to the next.

Materials are consistently organized to clearly provide instructions and demonstration of task.

Intervention tasks or instructions are regularly utilized to ensure no students are left behind.

Teacher is available for helping students individually at other points throughout the day.

Parents are communicated with regularly regarding the academic goals of the course.

Learning tools are color-coded, graphically organized, reinforced, and interactive.

Content is made relevant and relatable to student background information and interest.

Validation of Achievement

It's not enough for teachers simply to "teach" and expect students then to "learn." The final step for true assessment of academic rigor within the classroom is for the teacher to provide students with various opportunities to demonstrate their degree of achievement in relation to the given standard. Here are a variety of methods available for allowing students to exemplify their progress:

A balance of formative and summative assessments intermittently provided.

Student demonstration measured using a rubric or other standard-based assessment tool.

Students allowed the opportunity to conference and revise work.

Homework and class activities thought of as "practice."

Students work independently or collaboratively on a given project.

Students connect material to real-life examples and situations.

Students provide a written or spoken summative report.

Students metacognitively apply a variety of content learned.

Student performance compared to previous student attempts.

Students provide high-level answers to high-level questions.

Students do not give up or feel overwhelmed when faced with challenges.

Students reflect on their learning progress and efforts.

So what are your standards in your classroom? How are those communicated, supported, and demonstrated throughout the year? Take time to consider how "rigorous" the academic requirements are for your classroom, and shape the environment to consistently demand of students higher and higher levels of academic progress!
What do you consider "rigorous" for your students? Do you think it is different depending on the class? How do Common Core standards affect the type of rigor you engage your students in? Share your thoughts on this subject below!
Jordan Catapano is an English teacher at Conant High School in a Chicago suburb. In addition to being National Board Certificated, he also sits as the District Leader for the Illinois Association of Teachers of English and serves as a school board member for a private school. You can follow him on Twitter at @BuffEnglish, or visit his website .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Academic Rigor, What Do We Do with It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term " academic rigor " has been perambulating its way through educational circuits, but many teachers are not familiar with the concept or how to support rigor within their classroom. Understanding rigor is essential for understanding how to approach and measure the learning of students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Steps for Unpacking Essential Standards to Get to Learning Targets

# data[].attributes.subject
Steps for Unpacking Essential Standards to Get to Learning Targets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Maria Nielsen has served as a teacher and an administrator at every level of K-12 education. As an elementary principal, she helped her school earn national recognition as a model professional learning community.

With all of the published materials and frameworks available, teachers often ask why they should invest their time in unpacking standards. Consider the following:

Teachers who do the work to unpack standards are the ones who understand them. It is through collaborative conversations that we come to collective clarity on what we want our students to know and be able to do. When teachers unpack standards in isolation they are likely to interpret the intent and rigor differently resulting in an educational lottery for students rather than a guaranteed and viable curriculum.

Understanding all of the standards helps teachers wisely choose the essential or power standards. These are the standards guaranteed to all students at grade level.

Identification of the depth of knowledge required of the standards leads to more thoughtful lesson design.

Laser-like focus on the standards and team-created common formative assessments go hand-in-hand. When standards and assessments align it is easier to catch students quickly when they don't understand and to provide extension when they do understand.

The unpacking process keeps the focus on ALL students learning at high levels.

The process to unpack is simple and shouldn't take much time once you are in the swing of things.

These are the steps in unpacking standards into learning targets:

1. Read the standards as a team.

2. Circle the verbs.

3. Underline the nouns and noun phrases.

4. Determine the number of targets found within the standards.

5. Write as separate learning targets.

Remember to keep the core language intact at all times.

Do not omit any part of the standard.

6. Determine the depth of knowledge required of the standard.

7. Pull the academic vocabulary from the standard.

8. Unpack all of the standards before digging into how the standards will be taught and assessed.

9. Read all of the unpacked standards to determine the standards you will prioritize. These are often called power standards, essential knowledge, or big rocks.

Remember: the standards we have determined as essential are the ones we are going to spend the bulk of our time teaching, assessing, re-teaching and reassessing. These are the standards we can't imagine our students leaving our course of study or grade level without mastering.

Prioritization does not mean elimination. The other standards will still be taught. They are good to know or nice to know but a student could still progress to the next grade or course without mastering them at a high level.

10. Tom Schimmer reminds us that unpacking alone is not enough; we must repack, "With all of that, far too many teachers stop short of completing the process, which involves the repacking of standards when the verification of learning (summative assessment) is the primary purpose. Once a standard has been unpacked, the standard itself no longer exists unless the learners are asked to demonstrate their learning against the standard as a whole and not just the isolated skills that make up the standard. When it comes to meeting standards, the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts."

It is essential that teacher teams become proficient in unpacking standards into learning targets so that that the pathway to mastery becomes evident for teachers and students.

Unpacking example:
Grade 6 Reading Standard for Literature: Common Core Standard 2
Determine a theme or central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details; provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgments.

Learning target 1: Determine the central idea of a text and how it is conveyed through particular details.

Learning target 2: Provide a summary of the text distinct from personal opinions or judgments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unpacking Standards Leads to Confidence, Not Chaos, for Teachers and Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maria Nielsen has served as a teacher and an administrator at every level of K-12 education. As an elementary principal, she helped her school earn national recognition as a model professional learning community. With all of the published materials and frameworks available, teachers often ask why they should invest their time in unpacking standards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frequently Asked Questions | All Things PLC | Powered by Solution Tree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Professional Learning Community (PLC). An ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively to achieve better results for the students they serve.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rebecca DuFour-PLC and the Four Questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Rebecca DuFour-PLC and the Four Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Focus on Learning and the Four Essential Questions of a PLC