Project #2: Rigor

I had a difficult time determining where to place my school as far as the

degree in which rigor is taking place in the curriculum. Rigor is in the definition of
the DoDEA standards that are used in my school. However, this does not mean that
the curriculum is rigorous or is implemented as such. Another reason I find it
difficult to pinpoint the amount of rigor taking place is due to the fact that we, as
teachers, are allowed quite a bit of freedom when it comes to how we implement
curriculum in our classrooms. In order to determine a score from 1 to 10 as far as
the degree to which my school is implementing a rigorous curriculum, I focused on
the teacher in my grade level, the specialists in the building (special education,
talented and gifted, reading specialists, etc.), and the administrators. I would give
my school 7 out of 10 for implementing a rigorous curriculum.
According to the Rigor/Relevance Framework developed by Willard R. Daggett
(2014), a versatile way to define the level of rigor of curriculum objectives,
instructional activities, or assessments is the Knowledge Taxonomy Verb list. The
Verb List can be used either to create a desired level of expected student
performance or to evaluate the level of existing curriculum, instruction or
assessment (p. 3). I reviewed the standards for grade 5 and tallied up how many
verbs I could find in each quadrant. Of course, this does not represent how many of
each verb was repeated or the verbs that were not listed in a quadrant. 26% of the
verbs found were in Quadrant A as well as an equal 26% for Quadrant B. 35 % of
the verbs in the standards were listed in Quadrant C, leaving 13% in Quadrant D.
So although the curriculum mentions the standards to be quite rigorous, there are a
limited number that reflect Quadrant D. I also want to point out that the verb
identify, located in Quadrant A, was used quite often throughout all subject areas.
This is one reason why the score given to my school is 7 out of 10 instead of a
higher number.
When reviewing the Application Model Decision Tree, I found myself less
confident in the area of relevance than I originally anticipated. I feel that my
lessons revolved around real-world application, but I am not sure how successful I
am in planning for real-world unpredictable application. Also, when reviewing the
DoDEA standards, the relevance of each standard is questionable. A little bit of
creativity with instruction could, in fact, create much more of a real-world
application. For instance, one Social Studies standard is: Students summarize the
key events of the era they are studying and explain the historical contexts of those
events. To make this standard more relevant, I would have students create a cause
and effect analysis on the event and what the event has led to versus what the
outcome might be if the event never took place. Students should be looking beyond
just summarizing.
One reason I scored my school so high is because of the focus on science,
technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. STEM education
focuses on creating real-world applications and integrating instruction instead of
keeping all areas separate. Even though the success and progress of STEM
education is debatable, the principle behind it connects well with Daggetts Action
Continuum (p. 1). All subject areas are intertwined throughout, whether focusing on

STEM education or not. As a 5th grade team, we are constantly tying in our writing
instruction with reading or science or using a trade book related to our social
studies unit in language arts. Making something relevant for students and not just
discussing it in its given forty minute block allows students to think more critically
and apply what they are learning in a broader sense.
When reading the article Rigor Redefined by Tony Wagner, I think he brings
up a big concern in schools today that are driven by assessments and statemandated testing. Rote memorization of facts and leaving out such an important
part of learning-questioning- leaves students with little to build off of. Of the seven
survival skills mentioned, it is safe to say that all of them are implemented in the
curriculum at some point, but there is always room to grow. What I see most often
in my school are the following of the seven survival skills needed in the workforce:
critical thinking and problem solving, collaboration and leadership, accessing and
analyzing information, and curiosity and imagination. Our school supports students
and their creativity. Students cannot take the easy way out, because it just is not
an option. Teachers and administrators throughout the school have high
expectations for students and a deeper level of understanding necessary to
succeed. Yes, a few of my students sound like those interviewed by Wagner in the
AP courses, but luckily the school environment has created inquisitive minds that
have a love for learning.
Overall, the curriculum has its holes that may not benefit students completely
and may not support the seven survival skills for the workforce, but luckily students
have more than just the curriculum available to them. With valuable instruction and
resources available, teachers and administrators are able to support the curriculum
and students, challenging them and setting high standards in order to succeed. The
environment provides teachers to learn, grow, and collaborate, which trickles down
to the students and allows them to do the same.