Tag Archives: lost learning

Regaining Proficiency Thru Needs-based Instruction

Posted on by
Reply

Words matter.  Assessments of student proficiency attainment after three semesters or more of pandemic instruction indicate significant drops in performance in math, reading, and ELA.  These data indicate both lost learning and missed learning.  Lost and missed learning extends far beyond these  three academic subjects.  Every curriculum taught displays the same lost and missed problem – art to zoology.  Math, reading and ELA are highlighted only because we have hard data.  These two concepts – lost and missed learning – drive our end-of-pandemic efforts to cause all children to return to levels of pre-pandemic proficiencies.  Lost learning is a tier 2 instructional challenge and missed learning is a tier 1 challenge.  We can recover and reconstruct what was lost and teach anew what was missed.

What We Know?

Learning loss is associated with a child’s capacity to access prior learning.  Retention theory tells us that repetition, opportunity for new applications, and adding greater meaning to learned content and skills build a child’s capacity to access and use what has been learned.  In a nutshell, we practice newly learned knowledge and skills not to make what is learned perfect but to make it more permanent and stronger for our access.  Without retentive practices easy and facile access to memory declines and we begin to lose immediate knowledge recall and sharp skill performance.  This is lost learning.

Missed learning is not a retention issue, because what was missed was never taught.  It is not lost, because it was not learned.  Consider the body of a child’s learning to be Swiss cheese.  Most of the learning is solidly learned.  The holes prevalent in Swiss cheese are not lost learning but learning that did not take occur and could not form a firm and solid basis for future referencing.

The largest cause of missed learning is the child’s absence from teaching and learning.  It is the Cartesian statement of education.  “If teaching takes place without students being engaged, learning never happened.”

Examples of Lost Learning

Picture these situations.  A child in the intermediate grades was learning to multiply fractions in February 2019 when learning was disrupted by the move to remote education.  The teacher relying on a series of concept and skill building lessons to develop a child’s understanding of the mathematical manipulations required to multiply fractions saw time on task between teacher, student, and instruction stop as the school doors closed.  Add the stories of every child engaged in new learning – a kindergarten child learning to decode letters into sounds, a child learning rules of capitalization or use of commas, or to avoid run-on sentences – to our understanding of learning loss.  Consider a high schooler in Algebra who was learning to use quadratic equations and to balance covalence in chemistry.   Opportunities for constructive retention, application, and expanded meaning of new learning were unavailable resulting in dissipation of memory-knowledge and skill work.

Lost learning is not like dropping a valuable necklace over the railing of the Titanic so that it may never be recovered from the abyss of ocean.  Learning is not gone forever.  Learning loss is more like a paragraph written that is inadvertently deleted.  The writer still has some memory of the words, sentences, and idea being expressed and rewriting can reconstruct what is lost.  With some technical help, what was lost may be recovered.  Lost learning can be relearned and strengthened.  If learned successful the first time, there is no need to correct errors or bad habits.  Recovering lost learning can be efficiently achieved in short order with diagnostic and prescriptive teaching.

So it is with children returning to daily in-person instruction with their classmates and teacher.  Where they left off in their interrupted learning can be recovered and reconstructed and they can make forward progress with new learning.

Some children regained access to continuous learning through strong virtual connections to their classroom teacher.  Children who returned to in-person teaching and learning regained connection to continuous instruction.  However, children who did not have strong Internet connectivity or whose school substituted vendor-provided curriculum for the school’s curricula lost touch.

Consider the 90 academic school days in the 2019-20 spring semester.  Campuses closed.  It took time to move from in-person teaching and learning to virtual teaching and learning.  It took time for schools to provide teachers with the technology of remote education and for teachers to gain proficiency in teaching through cameras.  It took time for families to stabilize their supervision of children as at-home learners.  It took time for children to connect their devices or school-provided devices via the Internet and to engage with remote teaching.  Some children made speedy connections and did not miss significant teaching.  Other children were spotty in their connection and support of remote learning and suffered recurring misses of teaching.  And, some children were so disconnected and unsupported that they missed most of the significant teaching of that semester.

Examples of Missed Learning

Missed learning also occurred in the 2020-21 school year.  Inconsistent Internet plagued without reliable connectivity.  Quarantining protocols closed classrooms and schools and the movement between in-person to remote and remote back to in-person caused missed learning.  Teachers with positive tests or close contact were quarantined and regardless of the substitute teacher on-going learning created misses.

Missed learning also arises when children move from the school’s curriculum to an alternative yet are accountable through assessments to the school curriculum.  Any child whose parent chose home schooling or enrollment in an alternative site and then returned to her home school this fall probably displayed holes in her proficiency on the school’s annual fall screening assessments.

The Fix Is Needs-based Differentiation

Remedying lost and missed learning is differentiated instruction 101.  The differentiation is keyed to each child’s learning needs.  End-of-pandemic classrooms will have children at different proficiency points in the annual curriculum.  Or, in all the curriculum they must learn in the pandemic years.  It is impossible to treat lost and missed learning as a whole group or whole class or whole grade level issue.  The problem is individualized and this necessitates teacher use of diagnosed and prescribed differentiated instruction. 

https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/what-differentiated-instruction-really-means

Lost and missed learning are tier 1 and tier 2 instructional issues.  Why?  Neither lost nor missed learning are functions of incomplete, unsuccessful, or mistakes in learning or learning that is challenged by a disability that require tier 3 intervention.

Fixing lost and missed and learning requires the teacher to be very diagnostic in analyzing each child’s fall screening assessments and matching the results with her knowledge of the child’s educational experiences in 2019-20 and 2020-21.  If the child received initial in-person teaching and learning of assessed content or skills and demonstrates underachievement this fall, the first consideration should be lost learning.  There was not adequate retentive practice to reinforce the initial instruction. 

Focused tier 1 teaching to all children will refresh the initial learning they had in the past.  For some, the refresh will be enough to re-engage lost knowledge and skills.  Generalized and focused tier 1 teaching may also be used strengthen initial learning for all.  Refreshing involves rehearing, rereading, renewing hands-on work and re-experiencing what was once learned.  It is the proverbial person who once learned to ride a bicycle getting back on the bike.  Some pedaling and balancing is necessary to regain bike riding skills.

Identifying individual children who need more than generalized tier 1 instruction creates groups within the class needed more drill and practice and extending instruction on the lost content and skills.  These children had just a “brush” with initial learning and not sufficient interaction to build quickly recoverable access.  Re-experiencing is combined with drill and practice in tier 2 to build strength of knowledge recall and skill usage.  Tier 2 group work can be fit into the normal and daily activities of the class.  Children not needing to recover the lost learning can be grouped for or directed to personal enrichment of ongoing learning.

Missed learning requires tier 1 initial instruction.  The teacher must treat this as new teaching and learning even though other children may have learned this teaching semesters ago.  The teacher uses all the good practices of lesson design for initial learning to assure children have adequate background preparation, can identify purpose and immediate goals, and are ready for chunks of instruction.  Missed learning requires opportunity for practice, formative assessment, feedback between teacher and child, strengthening practice and summative assessments over time. 

One critical issue with lost and missed learning arises in the teacher’s scaffolding of current and future instruction.  Due to the pandemic, a teacher cannot assume each child is ready to ascend the scaffolded curriculum.  The teacher must assure readiness by backfilling lost and missed learning prior to advancing the class as a group on the scaffold.

When Will It Be Soup?

Good question.  Being soup is the colloquial for telling us that children have been made complete in their pandemic education.  Whatever was lost or missed was recovered or reconstructed or taught anew.  Soup is when each child and all children can achieve the school’s grade level and subject curricular proficiency standards.  Locally, we will not soup soon.  The first order of business is determined what is lost and missed.  The second order is prescriptive tier 1 and tier 2 teaching to recover and teach what was lost and missed.  The third order is to use retention theory practices to reinforce and make permanent these pandemic teachings.  The fourth and largest order is to do all this while moving each and all children forward with their ongoing 2021-22 annual curricula.  The same statements hold for 21-22 as they held for 19-20 and 20-21:  children get only one academic year to learn these annual curricula.  In 2021-22, we have a lot of teaching and learning to accomplish.

Resuming Pre-pandemic Academic Proficiency Achievement

Posted on by
Reply

How did the pandemic affect K-12 student achievement?  This question should be consistently on the lips of school leaders.  The answer to the question, however, may be a long time coming?  Consider – is your local school district publishing current academic proficiency achievement data and talking about pandemic effect?  If not, they need to start now.  The pandemic’s impacts on student learning will challenge educators for years to come.

What Do We Know?

Data informs and drives educational decisions.  Teaching and learning without valid data points is groping for handholds on a hillside wearing a blindfold.  Because of the pandemic, we don’t have valid, recent, or relevant educational data today.

Fact – Available student academic data from the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years and first semester of 2021-22 display trends of achievement that differ significantly from pre-pandemic data.  To put it bluntly, current pandemic data trends are significantly below pre-pandemic trends. 

A tertiary problem with our educational data is curricular fidelity and continuity.  Some schools provided remote instruction of curriculum provided by virtual vendors not the district’s curriculum.  In-person and remote children in the same grade level and subject classes received instruction in varied and different curricula.  We cannot assume that each curriculum was equivalent in content, skills, and dispositions to another.  Curricular alignment with assessment is essential.  If there is no known alignment, the resulting data are not relevant.

Many data points for individual children and disaggregated groups of children are absent for multiple assessments as children were not available for testing in the pandemic semesters.  Parents withdrew children in favor of home schooling.  No data.  Children in homes without any or consistent Internet connection were unable to participate in daily instruction.  No data or no valid data.  Some children just hit the off button for remote education.  No data.  Some children completed the assessments as unsupervised take-home tests or on-line tests.  Data is suspect.  When school campuses re-opened for in-person attendance in 2020-21, some parents and children preferred to remain in remote mode.  No data.  For too many children we cannot credibly draw any conclusions regarding their educational status or progress because their data is not recent, valid, or relevant.

That said, we do have data for some children.  We have annual assessment data and continuous teacher-based assessment data for children who were in-person school attenders and received the district’s approved curricula during the pandemic.  In the fall of 2020-21 schools were either open for in-person teaching and learning or closed and in remote education mode.  Children whose parents chose the in-person option or returned to in-person as campuses re-opened in 2020-21 remained, for the most part, within the school’s traditional curriculum.  Excepting school days when children may have been quarantined or the school was temporarily closed, in-person children received a continuous provision of the school’s instruction of approved curricula.  In-person children completed supervised assessments and these children are the most likely to give educators a sense of the pandemic’s impact upon children whose education approximated normal teaching and learning.  Their data is recent, valid, and relevant.

We also have data for children who received daily remote instruction from their regular classroom teachers using their school’s adopted curricula albeit virtually.  Some schools were able to provide their children with digital devices and hotspots, as needed, and using classroom cameras and screens sustained a viable teacher/student and student/student instructional interaction remotely.  Teachers taught their regular curricula to children at home.  Barring days of Internet or viral interruption, these children also received an instruction that approximated normal teaching and learning.  Assessments for these children are informative.  Their data is recent, valid, and relevant.

What Do We See?

Local data from pre-pandemic years placed most of our children above the 50th percentile on annual academic assessments with a growing distribution above the 85th percentile and diminishing distribution below the 25th percentile.  Pandemic academic achievement data displays significant achievement slippage.   The pandemic data shows majorities of children by grade level and by subject now below the 50th percentile.

The decline in local data trends is reflected in statewide trends.  In Illinois, “Preliminary spring testing data from most schools statewide shows steep declines in students attaining proficiency in math and English language arts across grade levels – 17.8% and 16.6% respectively.”

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20211029/lower-scores-high-absenteeism-more-teachers-a-first-look-at-how-pandemic-affected-states-students

Locally, most high achieving pre-pandemic children remained high achieving in their pandemic assessments.  The numbers of pandemic children above the 85th percentile resembles the numbers from pre-pandemic assessments.  Children who scored in the 50th to 85th percentiles slumped to lower scores on pandemic assessments and large numbers of children in the 50th to 60th percentile ranges slipped just below the 50th percentile.

Children who were in the pre-pandemic 25th to 50th percentile range slipped below the 25th percentile.

Children whose pre-pandemic data was below the 25th remained below the 25th and their numbers increased, especially in math.

Local data does not disaggregate the pandemic results as the numbers of children in each disaggregation are so low as to identify children by name.

What Should We Think About This?

We have work to do. 

Children are provided one school year per grade level, meaning that a child in kindergarten has one school year to successfully learn kindergarten’s annual curriculum.  Few schools are talking about suspending grade level promotions due to the pandemic.  Hence, a child in kindergarten in 2021-22 will have only this year for a kindergarten education.  While usual practice in the fall of the subsequent school year includes some review of the prior year’s learning, the pace and intensity of schooling picks up in September and this year’s kindergarten child needs to be prepared for 1st grade next September.  We have work to do.

Additionally, the graduating Class of 2022 will not have a sticker on their diplomas indicating “Pandemic Education”.  They will not enter post-high school education or their employment with a “High School Education Incomplete” notation.  For high schoolers whose remote education was less than usual in 2020-21, we have six school months remaining in this school year to bring them up to graduation speed.  “Up to speed” will not include coverage of all topics that would normally taught in a school year.  There is not sufficient time for coverage.  “Up to speed” means the provision of essential senior year learning.  We have work to do.

We do have the option of spreading curriculum over time for K-11 students.  Unlike seniors who will graduate, K-11 children have access to the 2022-23 school year. 

At the same time, each cohort of children in our school will be promoted in June 2022 to the next grade K-12 grade level.  A child in the 6th grade this year will be expected to be prepared for 7th grade next fall. 

There is no reason a school cannot do these things.  Our children are relying on us to fulfill their educational needs.  It is our work to do.

To Do.

We need to personalize the pre-pandemic and pandemic academic achievement data into a profile for each child.  The goal is two-fold:  to cause children to regain pre-pandemic achievement status and to cause each child to meet the school’s continuing academic proficiency goals.  The latter goal may take more time and effort than the first goal.

A personalized plan provides initial instruction of missed curricula and corrective intervention of poorly learned or mislearned curricula.  This is important – we need to discern between missed learning and poorly learned or mislearned content and skills, because there is a real instructional difference.  We teach differently if content and/or skills were missed, that is not taught and learned, or if content/skills were poorly learned or contain errors in content and skills.  Missed learning will be taught as initial instruction.  Poorly learned content/skills need to be corrected or unlearned and then taught and learned correctly – this takes more teacher time and attention.

A personalized plan rebuilds the school/home relationship.  For the past three semesters, schooling for many children has been at home under parent supervision and decision making.  Decisions at home relative to place and time for learning were often more important and difficult than the lessons to be learned.  Parents provided initial instruction when children did not have daily or consistent connection with their teachers.  The presentation of a personalized post-pandemic learning plan reconnects the classroom teacher as the person providing instruction.

The aggregate of personalized plans creates the school’s focus for an academic year.  At the end of the 2021-22 school year, school success will be determined by the successful completion of personalized plans instead of the completion of annual curricula or the school calendar.  The school at large, as well as individual classroom teachers, use the plans to drive school calendar decisions prioritizing uninterrupted instructional time for teachers and students.  Children will participate in school activities, arts, and athletics, but these may be rethought in the face of needed personalized learning.

Finally, how we repair from the pandemic will define the community’s future trust in our schools.  Personalizing each child’s education is the high ground of this trust.  Fulfilling each child’s personalized plan is delivering on the trust we enjoy as the community’s educators.

The Big Duh!

Public education survived the Spanish Flu pandemic, two world wars, depressions and recessions, and political turmoils.  The historic measure of survival was the capacity of a school to adapt to new conditions and requirements for the education of children.  In each measure, schools were required to understand the stresses of the times, modify the how, where and when of teaching and learning, and fulfill the mission of child education.   Our schools, our teachers, and our children and their families will survive COVID by always focusing on the essential outcomes of a public education.