# data[].attributes.body
DOK Reading Definitions

DOK Math Definitions

DOK Science Definitions

DOK Social Studies Definitions

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 5 Science

Grade 5 Rubrics & Sample Student Responses

Grade 8 Science

Grade 8 Rubrics & Sample Student Responses

Grade 11 Science

Grade 11 Science Rubrics & Sample Student Responses

# data[].attributes.body
ELA Blueprint

Math Blueprint

NM-MSSA Word Count & Lexile Ranges

# data[].attributes.headline
Common Misconceptions About Rigor and DOK

# data[].attributes.subject
Common Misconceptions About Rigor and DOK

# data[].attributes.body
Director of Educational Data

Rio Rancho Public Schools

505-962-1321

tosha.young@rrps.net

# data[].attributes.headline
RRPS NWEA MAP Growth Administration Guidelines 25-26

# data[].attributes.subject
RRPS NWEA MAP Growth Administration Guidelines 25-26

# data[].attributes.body
Links to each of the NWEA MAP reports with descriptions and examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Which MAP Growth reports to use based on level

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Performance Level Descriptors - Elementary

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Performance Level Descriptors - Elementary

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 3 ELA

Grade 4 ELA

Grade 5 ELA

Grade 3 Writing & Language

Grade 4 Writing & Language

Grade 5 Writing & Language

Grade 3 Math

Grade 4 Math

Grade 5 Math

# data[].attributes.body
Practice Tests and Videos for MAP Growth

# data[].attributes.body
Charts that show examples of the type of work students might do at various points along the MAP Growth RIT scale.

# data[].attributes.body
Provides word lists and concepts at each RIT band that are likely to appear on the MAP Growth Assessment

# data[].attributes.body
Full 2025 Linking Study

# data[].attributes.headline
Realistic vs. Meaningful Growth: Rethinking Growth Goals with 2025 MAP Growth Norms

# data[].attributes.subject
Realistic vs. Meaningful Growth: Rethinking Growth Goals with 2025 MAP Growth Norms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Realistic vs. meaningful growth: Rethinking growth goals with 2025 MAP Growth norms - Teach. Learn. Grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MAP Growth norms work best when paired with a teacher’s knowledge of individual students, available resources, and instructional priorities.

# data[].attributes.body
Glossary of Terms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understanding both normal and academic growth can help teachers use MAP Growth data to support their students in setting and meeting goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Elementary Practice Tests w/ Standards 

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Elementary Practice Tests w/ Standards 

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 3 ELA (2021)

Grade 4 ELA (2021)

Grade 5 ELA (2021)

Grade 3 Math (2021)

Grade 4 Math (2021)

Grade 5 Math (2021)

Grade 3 Math (2025)

Grade 4 Math (2025)

Grade 5 Math (2025)

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Elementary Practice Tests to Print 

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Elementary Practice Tests to Print 

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 3 ELA (2021)

Grade 4 ELA (2021)

Grade 5 ELA (2021)

Grade 3 Math (2025)

Grade 4 Math (2025)

Grade 5 Math (2025)

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Performance Level Descriptors - Middle 

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Performance Level Descriptors - Middle 

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 6 ELA

Grade 7 ELA

Grade 8 ELA

Grade 6 Writing & Language

Grade 7 Writing & Language

Grade 8 Writing & Language

Grade 6 Math

Grade 7 Math

Grade 8 Math

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 5 PLDs

Grade 5 PLD Table

Grade 8 PLDs

Grade 8 PLD Table

Grade 11 PLDs

Grade 11 PLD Table

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 3 Writing Prompt

Grade 4 Writing Prompt

Grade 5 Writing Prompt

# data[].attributes.headline
What to Consider When Winter Scores Drop

# data[].attributes.subject
What to Consider When Winter Scores Drop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The subject line on the email from my daughter's third grade teacher read, "Totally Baffled."

It was mid-January, and my daughter's class had taken the winter MAP Growth Math assessment that day. Her teacher was aware that I worked for NWEA and that I had used MAP Growth data in my own classroom when I was teaching, so she'd come to me in the fall with some questions about understanding and utilizing her class summary data.

This time, however, the question she had was about an individual student whose score had dropped between fall and winter testing: my daughter's.

As a classroom teacher using MAP Growth data and in the years I've worked with NWEA, I've addressed the question about what it means when scores go down with many parents and educators. I'll admit it felt a little strange to be explaining it as the parent to the teacher instead of the other way around.

My daughter's score had gone down four RIT points, the email said. Four points is not too much greater than the standard error of measure, so I wasn't all that alarmed. I still wanted to know, however, more about what happened.

I asked the same questions I ask whenever I see that a student's score has gone down:

1. Did she take much less time on the winter test than she did in the fall?
Often, when a student score drops, the test duration time helps tell the story. Maybe the student took 45 minutes to complete the test the first time, but then rushed through the second test and finished in 20 minutes. In this case, the drop in the score was likely because he was rushing and not necessarily trying his best.

In my daughter's case, however, the reports showed that she had actually taken longer on the second test than she had on the first.

2. Did she seem distracted? Was there anything going on that day or during testing that may have made it hard for her to do a good job?
For my sweet, creative, social, and often scatter-brained child, I knew this was a distinct possibility. I would not have been surprised to find out that she'd been whispering with a friend or drawing pictures of animals on scratch paper during the assessment.This time, however, her teacher said the opposite was true. In the fall, she'd been off task a lot, but for the winter test, the proctor reported that my daughter had been "not very wiggly" or off task.

I was certainly glad to hear it, even if it didn't help explain the test score.

3. How did she feel about how she had done?
I taught upper grade students (grades 5-8), and when I talked with my own students about their test scores, I'd often start by asking how they felt about how they did - no matter what their scores were. Hearing their perspective was often very informative. I remember one student who seemed unhappy when we sat down to talk about his score. He said that the test had seemed really hard and that he'd struggled. He didn't think he had done well. Looking at his scores, however, it turned out that he had grown several RIT points beyond his growth projection! The test felt harder because he had gotten into some higher-level questions. He'd done exceptionally well! He left that conference with me with a huge smile on his face.

In my daughter's situation, she'd been smiling, too. Her teacher said my daughter was very proud of how she had done on the test. And her teacher was proud of her effort and focus, regardless of how the score turned out.

So, finally, I asked the most important question:

4. Is she learning? Do you see evidence in class that she is making progress on the skills she needs?
The teacher assured me that my daughter was learning, that she had shown a lot of progress in class since the fall. She mentioned some specific concepts they'd been working on and some class assignments recently completed.

We decided that we would keep an eye on her, but otherwise not worry too much about the drop, and that we'd see in the spring if her score came back up.

Why did my daughter's score go down? It's hard to know for sure. However, now MAP Growth is providing even more information about student engagement during the test which could have helped answer this question.

The researchers at NWEA have done a lot of work around student engagement in assessment. As a result, this past fall the MAP Growth assessments featured exciting new tools that monitor the length of time it takes a student to respond to each test item and compare the time to the average amount it has taken other students to respond to the same item.

Two new tools are available:

First, if a student is going a lot more quickly than is typical for the test items, called rapid-guessing, an alert will appear on the proctor's screen so the proctor can redirect the student to get back to focusing on the test. The difficulty of the items will lock at the current level, instead of becoming more or less difficult. It will start adapting the questions again when the student reengages with the test, responding more purposefully.

Second, two additional pieces of data have been added to the Student Profile Report. The data reports on what percentage of the test the student was rapid-guessing and gives an estimate of how much their test score was impacted because of that behavior.

As a classroom teacher, I relied heavily on MAP Growth data as a starting point when planning instruction for my students. For the teachers who are doing the same now, these new tools will make it that much easier to have accurate data to use in knowing what a student is ready to learn, and - in situations like my daughter's - to help answer additional questions that may arise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Questions to Consider When Winter Test Scores Drop

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a classroom teacher using MAP Growth data and in the years I've worked with @NWEA, I've addressed the question about what it means when scores go down with many parents and educators. Here are 4 questions to consider. #edchat #education #MAPGrowth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MAP Growth assessment data can help teachers determine where students are at in their learning. It can answer an all-important question like, "Is my student performing below, at, or above grade level?" It can also determine where they are in their learning in terms of percentiles or overall achievement compared to students across the country.

Recently, we received a question in our user community, NWEA Connection, that we thought was particularly interesting and perhaps helpful to others. That was, "How does the MAP Growth assessment show growth for students already at 99 percent?" Explaining this to parents of high-achieving and/or academically gifted students can be challenging. One may assume they can't grow because they are already at the 99 th percentile or it might appear that there is little or no growth when they are already scoring so high.

Here's what I said in answer to the question:

Here are six things to consider as we enter the high-achieving student growth conversation with parents. Put another way, this is what students, parents, and teachers should understand and be ready to act upon prior to the growth conversation.

An awareness that other students like them are making learning growth.

The growth projection is reasonable because the growth is based on students like them, or students who started with high RIT/achievement made that growth.

When students meet their growth projection, they maintain their achievement status.

Sometimes, small increments of growth (a growth projection of 2 points) are good growth.

Students don't have to alwaysmeet growth projections to grow over time.

What they are ready to learn next can be found on multiple reports for teachers.

The next question should be, "Have students been brought into the conversation about growth?" When a student is finding the current content easy and they are getting "everything" right, if we don't engage them, we may implicitly be sending a message to the students that they are "fine" because they find current content and learning easy.

It is important, in my work as a professional learning consultant, to ask teachers to reflect on how often they provide learning experiences that are aligned with students' "high achievement." (Are we designing learning for their readiness?) This does not mean that we must add a program or immediately develop a personalized learning plan. One way to think about this is through the lens of formative instructional practice. Once a student shows they are secure on current content, do we look carefully at the depth of knowledge opportunities on grade level prior to shifting to new content? Providing these opportunities at the right time, in the right measure, gives the high-performing student some of the challenge to learn that many of their peers' experience. This is essential to their future learning because, at some point, they will be challenged by a concept or skill.

Once the learning team, student, parent, and teacher understand that they can grow both on, and potentially beyond, grade level, and that together they can identify some specific concepts and skills to work on both in class and through other modalities, the conversation becomes relatively easy and actionable. We have seen in different "high achieving" demographics that students who are provided the opportunity to have a goal-setting conversation-with specific learning outcomes connected to their readiness-regularly get growth results that maintain their achievement level over time.

When students are blessed with academic gifts, and or an intrinsic desire to work hard and learn, we should attend to the assessments we are using at each grade level and the resources we use to help them continue to make growth. School districts and philosophies may differ, but offering high-performing students the support and instruction they need to grow takes commitment from the entire learning community.

For more on this topic, check out the full discussion on our community.

Tim Neville is a Professional Development consultant for NWEA. In his 30+ years in the education field, he has been a teacher, administrator, coach, and consultant. He has been a consistent MAP Growth user since 2003 facilitating its use in grades K-12 for a variety of purposes. Tim earned a Master's degree in Administration and Supervision from the University of New Hampshire. In addition, Tim received a certificate from Harvard University's Change Leadership Group, a research initiative at the Harvard Graduate School of Education for meeting the changing needs of public education. Tim's professional passion is increasing assessment literacy in learning communities for the purpose of improving instruction learning for all students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tackling the Question of Growth for High-Achieving Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MAP Growth assessment data can help teachers determine where students are at in their learning. It can answer an all-important question like, "Is my student performing below, at, or above grade level?" It can also determine where they are in their learning in terms of percentiles or overall achievement compared to students across the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Middle School Practice Tests w/Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Middle School Practice Tests w/Standards

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 6 ELA (2021)

Grade 7 ELA (2021)

Grade 8 ELA (2021)

Grade 6 Math (2021)

Grade 7 Math (2021)

Grade 8 Math (2021)

Grade 6 Math (2025)

Grade 7 Math (2025)

Grade 8 Math (2025)

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 6 ELA (2021)

Grade 7 ELA (2021)

Grade 8 ELA (2021)

Grade 6 Math (2025)

Grade 7 Math (2025)

Grade 8 Math (2025)

# data[].attributes.body
Grade 6 Writing Prompt

Grade 7 Writing Prompt

Grade 8 Writing Prompt

# data[].attributes.headline
24-25 Universal Tools, Accessibility Features and Accommodations at a Glance

# data[].attributes.subject
24-25 Universal Tools, Accessibility Features and Accommodations at a Glance

# data[].attributes.body
Grades 3 - 5 Informative

Grades 3 - 5 Narrative

Grades 3 - 5 Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vol. 79

No. 4

Abstract

Taking an Equity Lens

Working Toward a Shared Why

Celebrate Students' Strengths First

Embed Equity into Improvement

Educator teams need to take a more inquiry-based approach to data analysis to address inequitable norms and patterns.

You have 0 free articles left this month.

Create an account and get additional free articles.

Credit: DELPIXART / iSTOCK

Abstract

Taking an Equity Lens

Working Toward a Shared Why

Celebrate Students' Strengths First

Embed Equity into Improvement

If we want to support educators in using data to improve learning and teaching, we must reckon with the fact that data have not always been used to promote equity. In the United States, accountability pressures from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 led to a series of data-related actions that did not serve all students well. For example, although NCLB increased educators' access to information about students, it narrowed the field of what "data" were to standardized tests and easily graded assessments that put students into categories of proficiency. These assessments focused on literacy and mathematics at the expense of other academic content, social or emotional skills, or the arts. Practitioners and policymakers discounted other sources of data, such as observations of instruction, student work, and interviews, because they were harder to collect and analyze. Additionally, the passage of NCLB resulted in unintended consequences, such as teachers focusing on "bubble" students who were just at the cusp of proficiency, referring students who were not passing assessments to special education, and spending large amounts of class time preparing students to take standardized tests (Booher-Jennings, 2005).

As members of the Data Wise Project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, we have always encouraged educators to avoid these data-analysis perils by taking an improvement-oriented approach, rather than one focused on accountability. The 19 school- and university-based educators who came together in 2005 to write Data Wise: A Step-By-Step Guide to Using Assessment Results to Improve Teaching and Learning (Harvard Education Press, 2005) were concerned that, without a clear process for doing otherwise, teachers would be pressured to use data in a way that disproportionately disadvantaged the students whom educational systems were already not serving well. To use data for improvement, educators need to look at data that help them plan instruction and provide supports to students for their next level of learning (Nelson, Slavit, & Deuel, 2012). This approach requires using data to understand student thinking and address misconceptions about content, widening the definition of data to include student work, classroom observations, and even school climate surveys and student interviews.

However, an improvement-oriented approach alone does not take a critical perspective on the policies, structures, and norms of schooling that created the disparate student outcomes in the first place (Tate, 1997). We at the Data Wise Project believe that educators must go a step further and use collaborative data inquiry to build more equitable schools-schools where each student has access to rigorous learning opportunities, student outcomes are not predictable by demographics, and students feel respected and celebrated for who they are. This means that every single student, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, or any other dimension of identity, is provided with the support they need to be successful.

After reflecting on our own work, we are now more explicitly supporting educators to take an equity lens when engaging in collaborative data inquiry. Because systemic inequity is all around us and it is difficult to see clearly, we are determined to help educators sharpen their analyses.

Taking an Equity Lens

The National Equity Project (n.d.) uses the metaphor of a lens to describe "the possibility of seeing our contexts in new and revealing ways" (p. 3). In other words, the glasses we wear can have a profound effect on what we see. In our daily life, there are very different lenses we would use if our goal was to read fine print, drive in brilliant sunlight, or watch a 3D-movie. Similarly, when engaging in collaborative data inquiry, it is helpful to put on a specialized pair of metaphorical glasses to explicitly focus on equity as we gather, analyze, and act upon data.

At the most basic level, taking an equity lens in Data Wise involves having a team ask itself probing questions at each step of the improvement process (Camacho, 2018). We have learned from colleagues that equity should be embedded within each step, rather than treated as a secondary consideration (Amante-Jackson, 2018). In Figure 1, we present these questions in alignment with the eight-step Data Wise Improvement Process and the ACE Habits of Mind, which form the foundation of Data Wise. These habits include a shared faculty commitment to action, assessment, and adjustment, intentional collaboration, and a relentless focus on evidence. Around the outside of the figure, we pose our equity lens questions, which ask us to consider how educators' beliefs shape their actions; who is included and who is left out; and what assumptions educators make when they draw conclusions about students.

So that the equity lens drives the work instead of feeling like an add-on, it is also important for educators to ask themselves the equity questions as they are beginning a particular step. For example, in Step 3 of Data Wise, "Create Data Overview," educators compile relevant data to present to colleagues in a way that will ignite their curiosity about an area for improvement at the school. Before the team begins collecting and analyzing data, they should ask themselves: "Whose stories do we tell? Whose stories do we not tell?" As they think about different student subgroups, they may realize that they will need to disaggregate their data to make those students' stories more visible.

Or the team may decide that readily available data sources do not provide enough useful information about a particular subgroup: for example, educators might want to know whether their students of color feel connected with others in school, but this is not captured by standardized assessment results. They might decide to administer a new survey to capture students' perceptions of belonging. Having these conversations before they produce the data overview will ensure that they don't just default to using easily available data that does not challenge them to address important equity questions.

To see how this process looks in practice, let's take a closer look at two steps in the Data Wise Improvement Process and how they might be viewed through an equity lens for improvement.

In Step 1 of the Data Wise Improvement Process, "Organizing for Collaborative Work," educators agree to meet as a team to tackle an area for improvement in their schools. These teams meet regularly over the school year to go through the steps of Data Wise. They could be grade-level or departmental teams of teachers, usually including a school administrator or an instructional specialist. In this step, educators learn practices such as setting norms or agreements about how they will work together, using a shared agenda and distributing facilitation roles (Boudett & City, 2014).

Beyond practices that help teams function more effectively, at the Data Wise Project we also ask educators to articulate a personal story about why they are in education, then work toward a shared Why that summarizes the team's common values. The individual Why consists of answering the questions: "Who am I? What do I believe about equity? How does that influence the work that I do?" When reflecting upon these questions, educators share stories of why they got into education and how their pathways were influenced by their identities, backgrounds, and experiences. Starting with a personal story can help educators build empathy and connect to one another's shared humanity (Ganz, 2011). We then ask team members to synthesize their individual Why stories into a "shared Why," which describes a common purpose fueled by similar beliefs and values. For example, a team may discover that they value belonging and connection, that they got into education to ensure that students have strong relationships with one another and with adults in their lives, and that they believe in the power of role models, especially those who come from the same community as their students. If challenged to describe their shared Why in a simple phrase, they might say their purpose is to "create a supportive learning community where everyone belongs."

As educators, we need to share why we care about equity because, as a field, we do not agree on a single vision for what an equitable system looks like. While some educators entered teaching to help students follow the typical pathway of educational success followed by career advancement, other teachers believe they should teach students to tear down the current structures that exist and redefine what it means to be successful (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Some teachers believe they should help students achieve high test scores and good grades, which are needed to succeed within the system as it is. Other teachers believe the system is fundamentally flawed, so they should teach students to abolish the system and work toward a different vision of freedom (Love, 2019).

This approach of connecting to an individual Why and a shared Why helps educators empathize with one another when engaging in difficult conversations about data, students, or instruction. When looking at data, educators become aware of inequitable patterns that fall along lines of identity markers such as race/ethnicity, gender, special education status, or social class. When discussing these issues and analyzing the inequities in the system that caused them, it is easy to become defensive, dismissive, or upset. But by starting with Why, educators can remember the connections they have and what values they share, even when conversations become uncomfortable or difficult.

Using Data Equitably

While educators should use data to identify students who need targeted supports, they must ensure that those labels are not used to deprive students of opportunities.

Celebrate Students' Strengths First

For our second example of looking at data through an equity lens, let's move to Step 4 of the Data Wise Improvement Process, when educators discuss evidence of student learning. Often in schools, data have been used to highlight gaps or problems, such as differences in standardized testing performance, usually with the intention of improving what is not working. However, with this approach, some student groups are frequently portrayed as "underperforming" or "at risk" (Tuck, 2009). While educators should use data to identify students who need targeted supports, they must ensure that those labels are not used to deprive students of opportunities. In the United States, for example, data have historically been used to rank and sort students by perceived "intelligence," ability, and merit (Lyons, 2020), and rigid tracking systems placed students on various pathways (e.g., vocational versus college-preparatory courses) that had consequences for their future career choices (Oakes, 1985).

In the Data Wise Project, we used the phrase "learner-centered problem" to describe what students were currently struggling with in their learning. But we realized that by only focusing on what students could not do, we were reinforcing deficit thinking. Educators who engage in deficit thinking have negative beliefs about students or students' communities, thereby limiting their expectations for what students might accomplish (Nelson & Guerra, 2014). Additionally, educators who are under accountability pressure to raise test scores or who work in punitive organizational conditions often engage in deficit thinking by placing blame for low performance on students, and not their own actions or systems (Lasater, Bengtson, & Albiladi, 2020).

To counteract these deficit-oriented tendencies, we now recommend using data to highlight students' strengths and assets before describing the next level in their development. This "asset-based perspective" can reinforce what is working, such as content students have mastered or skills they can build upon. This strategy also highlights goodness, strength, and resilience (Lawrence-Lightfoot & Davis, 1997), and it recognizes students have "funds of knowledge" that come from their experiences, families, and cultural backgrounds (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005). In Data Wise, we now begin each learner-centered problem with a statement, grounded in the data, of what the students do well relevant to the focus of inquiry and what their next level of work should be. For example, an asset-oriented, learner-centered problem might be: "Students are able to organize their writing around a topic sentence and central argument, and they are still working on using textual evidence to support their claims." We teach educators to see these strengths as platforms from which to build to the next level of skill or learning.

Before the team begins collecting and analyzing data, they should ask themselves: "Whose stories do we tell? Whose stories do we not tell?"

Embed Equity into Improvement

As our work with the Data Wise Project has evolved, we've realized the importance of using an equity lens during collaborative data inquiry. The questions that we propose in Figure 1 can help educators examine the beliefs, assumptions, and behaviors that might be producing inequitable patterns. This work is already making a difference to educators: for example, they tell us that sharing personal Why stories and understanding their team's shared Why has helped them strengthen relationships and build trust to have the difficult conversations that they used to avoid. Other educators tell us that once they reflect upon whose stories are not being told, they begin looking for ways to show the diversity and variability within student groups by disaggregating data differently. We hope that these questions shift educators' thinking about the purposes of using data beyond needing to meet accountability targets or create narrowly focused improvement plans: Instead, we can use data to create the conditions needed to ensure that each student thrives.

Systemic inequity affects the expectations for what students can achieve, the way in which they are treated in classrooms, and how they see themselves in the curriculum. Considering systemic oppression might seem counterintuitive to educators who are coached to only focus on issues within their control, but it is necessary for educators to do both-to acknowledge the policies, structures, and norms of schooling that have led to inequities while also improving what is in their power to change. To do otherwise would be to remain silent about dynamics that routinely harm students who are most marginalized.

Reflect & Discuss

➛ Does your school pay close enough attention to equity issues when examining student data? If not, what stands in the way?

➛ How might coming to a "shared Why" or focusing on student strengths first help your team shed light on inequities within your school?

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.

We empower educators to reimagine and redesign learning through impactful pedagogy and meaningful technology use. We achieve this by offering transformative professional learning, fostering vibrant communities, and ensuring that digital tools and experiences are accessible and effective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educator teams need to take a more inquiry-based approach to data analysis to address inequitable norms and patterns.

# data[].attributes.headline
26-27 Process Guide for Traditional/Spotlight Schools (Grades 3-8)

# data[].attributes.subject
26-27 Process Guide for Traditional/Spotlight Schools (Grades 3-8)

# data[].attributes.headline
26-27 Process Guide for Traditional/Spotlight Schools (Grades 9-12)

# data[].attributes.subject
26-27 Process Guide for Traditional/Spotlight Schools (Grades 9-12)

# data[].attributes.body
Grades 3 - 5 Informative

Grades 3 - 5 Narrative

Grades 3 - 5 Opinion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Improving education to meet the needs of all students requires that we deliberately engage the voices of all educators. In our experience working with schools and school systems around the world, we have found that norms can play a powerful role in eliciting the breadth of perspectives that is needed for a group of educators to tackle hard problems. And, along the way, teams that lean into norms often find that they ratchet up the "joy factor" of their collaborative work.

Norms are shared agreements about how a group will work together. They help us answer questions like: How will we treat one another? How will we engage with challenging content? What will we do if we disagree? Without having an explicit conversation about these questions, collaborative work tends to reinforce inequitable patterns that exist within an organization or society. People with less positional power than others in the room may be hesitant to speak up. People from identity groups whose voices have historically been privileged may dominate conversations. As educators, we have the power to work toward a "new normal" on our teams. But it requires intentional effort to make this happen.

Setting and Clarifying Norms

Groups approach setting norms in different ways. Some start with a blank slate and brainstorm norms together. In other cases, the facilitator may propose a set of norms that are particularly useful for fostering equitable collaboration. If the team will be exploring how issues of race, diversity, inclusion, and equity play out within their school or system, it is especially important to consider a set of norms that will make that conversation productive.

In our work guiding teams doing collaborative data inquiry, we often open by sharing the norms adapted from Meeting Wise: Making the Most of Collaborative Time for Educators (Harvard Education Press, 2014). Although these norms were originally developed to support school-based teams as they work through the Data Wise Improvement Process , we have found that they can be useful in a variety of settings, from teacher team meetings to central office workshops to faculty meetings at colleges and universities. As a general rule, limiting the number of norms to 5-7 makes it easier for teams to keep them in mind. Longer lists can send the message that everything is a priority, which of course means that nothing is.

Meeting Wise Norms

Adapted from Meeting Wise: Making the most of collaborative time for educators (Harvard Education Press, 2014). (CHINCH/SHUTTERSTOCK)

Once a set of norms has been proposed, it is essential to provide time for the team to come to a shared understanding of what each norm really means. What would it look like and sound like if a particular norm were being followed? For example, the group might agree that taking an inquiry stance would involve asking questions from a place of genuine curiosity, not of judgment. The goal of questions is to clarify what teammates are saying. If group members know that their colleagues will take an inquiry stance, then they are more likely to trust that their perspective and insights will be understood.

When ground statements in evidence is first introduced as a potential norm, we have sometimes seen educators express concern that this means the group would only welcome statements that could be backed by formal research or hard numbers. But when discussing this norm, we encourage groups to hash out what they mean by "evidence." It can feel much more authentic to define evidence to include specific and descriptive statements from team members' own lived experiences or their observations of their students. Sharing rich stories about classroom experiences can be an essential step in dismantling inequitable practices in schools. Once a draft set of norms is in place, it is time to ask: Are there any norms in this list that we can't live with? and Do we need to adjust any norms to make them more useful? Personally, we have learned so much by asking teams these questions. For example, initially the third Meeting Wise norm was simply assume positive intentions. We explained to school teams that if someone said something that "rubbed them the wrong way," the listener should assume that the statement was coming from a good place, rooted in a shared desire to do the best by all children, and perhaps then take an inquiry stance to better understand what was said.

However, as educators discussed this norm, they told us that it could be exhausting to assume positive intentions when their colleagues spoke or acted in ways that were insensitive or hurtful. To have meaningful conversations, people needed assurance that if they were negatively affected by someone, they could say so and know that the speaker would be willing to own that impact. This adjustment became so prevalent that we revised the norm to be assume positive intentions and take responsibility for impact, and we now make it clear that everyone in the group is expected to act on feedback about how their statements are being received. Teams that agree to this norm commit to maintaining a growth mindset, meaning they give individuals an opportunity to address their blind spots and they resolve, as a team, to learn their way into working together more effectively.

When discussing a draft set of norms with large teams, we often allow time for people to turn to the person next to them and check in about how they feel about the list. Making time for one-on-one discussion of norms can ensure that everyone has a chance to explore concerns they may have before sharing with the broader group. When it is time for group discussion, the goal is to get to a place where people feel comfortable enough that they are willing to "play along" with the list for a few meetings.

Upholding Norms

The initial norms conversation is not over until the group has discussed what they will do if a norm is not being followed. Some teams have a lot of fun at this point, doing short role-plays where they deliberately violate a norm and test out different ways of addressing it. For example, someone could start checking email on their phone and the group could test-drive a few ways of reminding one another about the norm to be here now. Using humor in a low-stakes situation can help a group come up with playful ways to hold themselves accountable when it really matters. We've seen people agree to raise an eyebrow, tap their chin, or even hum when they feel a norm is being broken. It may be silly, but these types of agreed-upon gestures can get the job done: They provide a way for the group to hold itself to its shared promises.

Generally, though, the simplest, most straightforward way to uphold norms is for team members to speak up if they see a norm being violated. Reminding a colleague about a norm can feel uncomfortable, which is why it is so helpful to practice doing so as part of the norms-setting process. It will be easier to uphold norms during a real meeting if team members rehearse saying statements like, "I've noticed that we've been hearing from about half of the team during this discussion, and keeping in mind our norm of hearing all voices, I'm wondering if we might open up space for others to contribute." And let's face it: There is a very real power dynamic at play if a teacher is thinking about pointing out that his principal is breaking the start and end on time norm by showing up to a meeting 10 minutes late. It is critical to agree ahead of time how the group as a whole will uphold the high standards they have set for themselves. If calling out someone in the moment feels like too much of a stretch, appoint a team member to serve as the "norms checker" for each meeting. This can take the pressure off individuals to decide how and when to point out norm violations.

Keeping Norms Alive

In order for norms to make a difference in how a team works together, the team needs to revisit its norms continually. In fact, while it's important for a group to agree on norms when the team first forms, norms are most useful once the group is far enough along in its work for the "honeymoon" stage to have ended and disagreements to arise. If we don't keep our norms alive, they will be of no use to us when we get to this point.

To ensure that norms are top of mind, some teams display them on a table tent during each meeting. Others print their norms in the header or footer of their meeting agenda so they are available for easy reference. When we are working with a group, we periodically include a "norms check-in" as an agenda item. During this time, team members can rate themselves on how well they think they are following each norm and choose a norm to focus on for the remainder of the meeting. It can be useful for team members to share their thinking with a partner or with the whole group. We'll often hear a team member say, "Please, everyone, remind me if I'm not taking an inquiry stance-I know that one is so easy for me to forget!"

Especially in a larger group, it can be useful to gather and discuss evidence on how well the group thinks each norm is being followed. For example, a quick survey about norms might reveal that half the group thinks that the norm be here now is being followed "almost never," while half the group thinks it's being followed "all of the time." Identifying that kind of discrepancy in perception can lead to a useful discussion about what that norm looks like, because the data suggest that group members are thinking about it differently. Revisiting norms frequently helps people monitor their participation in meetings and develop common language to discuss how the group works together. A simpler way of collecting data is to have the "norms checker" gather and share evidence on how well norms are being followed. For example, this person could be charged with reporting back to the group about the number of people who arrived on time to a meeting or the number of times each person spoke. When the norms checker shares the data at the end of the meeting, it will be understood that they are not being "negative"; they are just doing their job.

One of the most effective tools we have found for keeping norms alive in a group is the plus/delta protocol. This is a simple method that takes about five minutes at the end of a meeting and gets everyone involved. The group is asked to identify "pluses," things that worked well in the meeting, and "deltas," things to change for next time to improve how the group works together (the Greek letter delta is also a symbol for change). This dedicated time for reflection is the perfect opportunity to consider which norms are being followed, to the benefit of the group, and which might need more attention.

Then, at the beginning of each meeting, the facilitator presents a summary of the plus/delta feedback from the prior meeting and explains how the feedback was taken into account while planning the current meeting. For example, if a delta is that the group struggled with the norm to hear all voices, the facilitator might explain how they will be using a discussion protocol designed to address this. Instead of problem solving through open discussion, for instance, they might start by having everyone silently write ideas for addressing a challenge on sticky notes and then work together to sort the ideas and discuss interconnections. When team members see facilitators making changes as a result of deltas, it's amazing how substantive and constructive their feedback can become.

Leaning into Joy

When norms that support equitable participation come alive, people start to feel like they can bring their full authentic selves to their team's work. They can spend less time silently fuming and more time laughing out loud at how many reminders everyone needs to live up to the expectations for inclusive teamwork that they have set for themselves.

Trying to improve education is emotional work because the problems we are trying to solve are so difficult. If there were straightforward solutions to problems, we would have found them already. We will only make meaningful improvements in teaching and learning for all students if we bring in everyone's perspectives and hear voices that historically have been less audible, even silenced.

At first we may discover that our colleagues have different assumptions about how a meeting should run and what it means to function as a team. That's why it's so important to bring tacit assumptions to the surface and come to a shared understanding of what it will look like to work together effectively to help all students thrive.

Guiding Questions

➛ How could norms, implemented intentionally, guide the work of a school or district team you're on?

➛ Which of the Meeting Wise norms would be most applicable to your team? Are any noticeably missing in your team's work?

➛ Based on what you read, how could your team respectfully "norm check" one another to ensure accountability?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Setting and sticking to shared agreements can transform team dynamics.

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Top Take-Aways for Teachers (Writing, 6-8)

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Top Take-Aways for Teachers (Writing, 6-8)

# data[].attributes.headline
NM-MSSA Top Take-Aways for Teachers (Writing, 3-5)

# data[].attributes.subject
NM-MSSA Top Take-Aways for Teachers (Writing, 3-5)

# data[].attributes.headline
24-25 Process Guide for CSI/MRI Graduation Rate (June 2024)

# data[].attributes.subject
24-25 Process Guide for CSI/MRI Graduation Rate (June 2024)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copy of NMPED Amira ISIP Subtests by Grade

# data[].attributes.body
Includes definitions of key Amira metrics, questions you might ask, and which report(s) will help you answer those question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for resources for Amira? This is your one-stop shop for all our best resources! From student decks to goal-setting posters to troubleshooting tips, you’ll find it here!

# data[].attributes.body
Read, Set, Read! (August - October)

Book Blizzard (November - December)

Read Your Heart Out! (January - February)

Slam Dunk Stories (March - April)

Amira Bingo (May - June or Year-round)

# data[].attributes.headline
Math: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Admin)

# data[].attributes.subject
Math: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Admin)

# data[].attributes.headline
Math: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Teacher)

# data[].attributes.subject
Math: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Teacher)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teacher Math Guide for Data-Driven Instruction

# data[].attributes.headline
Lectura: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Admin)

# data[].attributes.subject
Lectura: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Admin)

# data[].attributes.headline
Lectura: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Teacher)

# data[].attributes.subject
Lectura: Guide for Data-Driven Instruction (Teacher)

# data[].attributes.body
Karin Hess's Cognitive Rigor matrix visually lays out the relationship between deep understanding (Webb's DOK) and complex thinking (Bloom's taxonomy)

Hess CRM: Reading - Listening

Hess CRM: Math - Science

Hess CRM: Writing - Speaking

Hess CRM: Social Studies - Humanities

# data[].attributes.body
From Planning and Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom, 2022 Marzano Resources

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment items that are formatted similarly to those students will see on NM-MSSA. Include assessed standards, learning targets, DOK levels, distractor rationales, and student item sets ready to print.

Grade 3 ELA

Grade 4 ELA

Grade 5 ELA

Grade 3 Math

Grade 4 Math

Grade 5 Math

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment items that are formatted similarly to those students will see on NM-MSSA. Include assessed standards, learning targets, DOK levels, distractor rationales, and student item sets ready to print.

Grade 6 ELA

Grade 7 ELA

Grade 8 ELA

Grade 6 Math

Grade 7 Math

Grade 8 Math

Earth Science

Life Science

Physical Science