Ultimately, in K-12 educational systems, the final stages of climbing the proverbial “educational mountain” happen within the context of secondary education, in particular, high schools. High schools have a unique position in our school systems, as they are tasked with providing appropriate educational opportunities for all students, including those with disabilities. Yet high schools inherit students who enter having traversed lower grades, acquiring skills and knowledge to varying degrees, with the expectation of all students’ achieving identified learning standards. High schools, by virtue of their position in the succession of grade bands, have all the risks of previous failed attempts to respond to diversity attached to them.
As the developers of the curricular design method known as Understanding By Design (UBD), Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2008), have observed, the challenges facing high schools are significant (p. 36). The greatest challenge is to define successful teaching in terms of what students learn, not just what gets taught. This challenge exists at all levels of the educational system, but it is most pronounced at the secondary levels where the mission of the K-12 system reaches a culmination. Specifically, Wiggins and McTighe speak about the mission of high schools and what is required to achieve the mission:
The mission of high school is not to cover content, but rather to help learners become thoughtful about, and productive with, content. It's not to help students get good at school, but rather to prepare them for the world beyond school—to enable them to apply what they have learned to issues and problems they will face in the future. The entire high school curriculum—course syllabi, instruction, and especially assessment—must reflect this central mission, which we call learning for understanding. Learning for understanding requires that curriculum and instruction address three different but interrelated academic goals: helping students (1) acquire important information and skills, (2) make meaning of that content, and (3) effectively transfer their learning to new situations both within school and beyond it. (p. 36)
Teachers at all levels who design and implement their classes from a DI perspective would agree with McTighe and Wiggins’ emphasis on orienting all schools, not just high schools, around a central mission such as the interrelated academic goals they offer. But in many cases, the characteristics of the “traditional” classroom are still most often observable in our high schools and the principles of DI are not as present, much less prevalent. Proponents of DI would invite secondary level educators, principals, parents, educational stakeholders–and students–to determine whether the Try DI! High 5 would be desirable in their school(s). If so, the challenge would be to explore ways to make it doable in the secondary setting. Creating the conditions for learning in high school from a DI perspective remains challenging, but is increasingly defensible, desirable, and doable.
In defense of high schools, their placement in the progression of schools puts their traditional four grade level structure (9-12) at the tail end of the education system. From a “backward design” perspective, the high school learning context should be part of a seamless system, but this is rarely the case for even the best of districts. High schools have perennially struggled to fully engage students and personalize the learning environment for a variety of other reasons. It cannot be denied that the size of some high schools and class sizes in those schools present challenging variables for teachers. It also is obvious that the content/domain-driven (e.g., Science, Math, English, etc.) nature of most high schools creates a disjointed approach
Further complicating matters, typical academically diverse classes can have a spread of academic proficiency of several grades–or more. Consider the reading proficiency of students in a “typical” academically diverse 10th grade general education English class; teachers would say the spread is routinely from a 7th grade level of functioning all the way to college freshman. Generally speaking, high school staff lament that students are “not ready” for high school, but rarely suggest that the high schools are “not ready” for the students who arrive.
Writing elsewhere, McTighe and Tomlinson (2006) indicated that there are “twin sins” (p.28) that take place, one at the elementary/middle school levels (K-8) and the other at the high school level. They elaborated:
We have found that backward design helps avoid two familiar “twin sins” of planning and teaching. The first “sin” occurs more widely at the elementary and middle levels and may be labeled “activity-oriented” instruction. In this case, teacher planning is focused on activities. Often, the activities are engaging, hands-on, and kid-friendly. Those are fine qualities as long as the activities are purposefully focused on clear and important goals and if they yield appropriate evidence of learning. In too many cases, however, activity oriented planning and teaching are like cotton candy—pleasant enough in the moment but lacking long-term substance. The second “sin,” more prevalent at the secondary and collegiate levels, goes by the name of “coverage.” In this case, planning means reviewing the teacher’s edition and teaching involves a chronological march through the textbook. Indeed, some teachers act as if they believe that their job is to cover the book. In contrast, we believe that a teacher’s job is to teach for learning of important content, to check regularly for understanding on the part of all students, and to make needed adjustments based on results. The textbook may very well provide an important resource, but it should not constitute the syllabus.
Fair or not, all educational (K-8) roads do lead to the high school, and this is where the field and society in general place the greatest spotlight on the system’s struggles. In recognition of this reality, reformation strategies such as infusions of technology (Gates Foundation grants), re-structuring of schools into “schools within schools,” grant-funded structural changes such as “college in the high school,” thematic high schools (such as Charter or Magnet Schools), and building/architectural design all have been attempted to help increase student engagement and achieve McTighe and Wiggins’ vision of the mission of high schools. Proponents of DI would argue that in addition to considering the large-scale efforts that typically have extensive costs attached, systems would do well to consider change at the smallest scale as well. Each of the above high school reform strategies would help provide systemic support if teachers at the individual classroom level were implementing classrooms reflecting Try DI! High 5 Principles.
Any attempt to personalize high schools to create the conditions for optimal learning (i.e., engagement), which translates into results (i.e., understanding), needs to be designed with features that students value:
Given this new paradigm, the central questions shaping reform efforts in low-performing
high schools are:
Data-Driven High School Reform: THE BREAKING RANKS MODEL
Figure 1. Comparison of Traditional and New Paradigms for High Schools
TRADITIONAL SCHOOL PARADIGM
NEW PARADIGM FOR SCHOOLS
The Principals' Partnership
Sponsored by Union Pacific Foundation
Research Brief
Brain Research to support recommendations from Breaking Ranks
Question: How does brain research support the recommendations from Breaking Ranks?
Summary of Findings:
There was a great deal of information about specific schools that have implemented recommendations from Breaking Ranks. Although many of the articles described specific types of data used to inform decisions, none was available on how brain-based research was used or how it tied into the recommendations.
The major recommendations from Breaking Ranks are cited below. Under each, information is offered about how some of the brain learning research relates to each recommendation. Much of the current information in this field can be applied to most of the recommendations.
Major Findings and Conclusions:
1) Every school should expect that every student will demonstrate high academic achievement in
alignment with the national standards.
2) A school's programs must provide bridges for multiple options.
3) Each student should be a life-long learner.
4) Students must have ample chances to develop their social as well as academic natures.
5) To help train students to live and work in a diverse and multicultural global world, appropriate experiences should be offered as an integral part of the students' school life.
6) Students must have meaningful experiences to use technology effectively.
7) High schools must be advocates for young people.
Teachers, administrators, parents, and students at the high school level committed to a “whatever it takes” approach will find DI is a powerful way to begin making tangible differences that hold great meaning for students. School systems must find ways to align their K-8 and high school-level instructional approaches, and it seems that one of the ways to accomplish this would be to embrace the Try DI! High Five (or some version of these) across district settings, including the high school setting. Alignment within each classroom is attainable–alignment to the needs of students in each learning context. Although no one espouses or defends a K-8 “cotton candy” approach that leaves students unprepared for learning at the high school level, neither should high school colleagues expect a “mashed potatoes and no gravy” approach to be effective. Regardless of what districts call their consistent or aligned approach (e.g., mission statement, district strategic plan), it should represent their commitment to do “whatever it takes” to support the varied needs of students–including high schoolers.