Heads up blog readers, I need to establish some context before I can proceed with my pithy, albeit provocative remarks.  In case you had not noticed, this week’s entry is part of a “blog series” that is intended to put some meat on the PD conceptual framework that I laid out in my earlier blog entitled; Integrated Professional Development: “An idea whose time has come” (9-2-09).

In the spirit of full transparency, you should know that I intend to write a short piece on each component of the Integrated PD conceptual framework beginning with the shapes on the outer rim (see diagram). As you look at the schematic above, you will notice that the last blog entry dealt with the topic of Valued Learning Targets (the 12 o’clock position). This blog, which focuses on the Vermont Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities (6 o’clock position), is really a continuation of that foundational concept regarding learning targets.

In my last blog, I posed a series of questions including these two fundamental questions; who decides what kids are going to learn? What is the connection between what we teach, how we teach and whether or not kids actually learn anything new?

I suggested that these questions were probably on the agenda when Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle metaphysically sat around the campfire in the cave and philosophized about the relevancy question. As we fast forward through time, we note that these same questions also popped up again in 1983 when we were treated with a scathing attack on public education entitled “A Nation at Risk”.

Based on the furor the Nation at Risk generated, academics, educators, parents, tax payers and, yes, politicians decided that once again they all needed to weigh-in on the topic of what should be taught in our nation's schools.  As a first year principal, I really appreciated all the input I was receiving from the public regarding what and how to teach! Even the President had an opinion on the topic that he was willing to share. He also wanted to be seen as the “Education President” so in 1989, President Bush #1 convened the National Governors Conference and those wise folks cooked up a national reform agenda entitled Goals 2000 that they hoped would spur us beyond mediocrity.

In an attempt to be provocative, read that as helpful, they developed several broad goals that were supposed to be achieved by the year 2000 and result in a generation of young people who would be prepared for the 21st century. Alas, as the education efforts of the 90’s rolled out in attempt to meet the Goals 2000 challenge, several politicians began calling for more radical steps to reform our failing public schools. National standards and national testing were among the ideas proposed. Can you see where this train is heading?? 


Several states wanted to beat the feds to the punch and avoid a national curriculum and consequentially we saw the development of the standards-base movement springing up from the grass roots level. In 1996, the Vermont Department of Education got into the game and created an organic and inclusive process and then convened a group of approximately two thousand Vermonters who produced the first iteration of the The Vermont Framework of Standards and Learning Opportunities. In my humble opinion, the document had several redeeming features as well as a few fatal flaws.

Chief among the flaws was the fact that no one really paid any attention to it. In an attempt to be "all things to all people" and avoid controversy at every step, (to paraphrase wise old Abe Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time") it was viewed as too vague and esoteric to be useful for instructional planning. It had broad ranges of vague standards K-4, 5-8, 9-12 that were supposed to serve as a curriculum framework. In 2000, the Vermont Framework was revised and streamlined and less people were now fooled. The vital results and the learning opportunities section began to make some sense as possible fodder as a curriculum framework but it was still too vague to be a useful resource for daily lesson planning. The learning target concept was not even on the radar screen.

In 2001, the feds had seen enough from these fragmented state by state efforts and the result of that frustration led to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) and the school accountability pressure we are contending with at the present time. One of the major ramifications for Vermonters, is that we needed to overhaul our Vermont Framework again to make it more grade level specific in order to meet the national grade 3-8 testing requirement. The irony here is that this external pressure for more accountability may have been just what we needed to start to wrap our heads around the learning target idea.  I suspect that clarity about 'the forest and the trees" finally emerged for some people who began to understand that we needed to actual assess the standards (i.e. learning targets) we wanted students to hit. Discussion about GLE’s actually began to seep into conversations regarding instructional planning, While many of us belief there are far too many GLE’s to assess, the bigger issue has to do with GLE grain size and bang for the buck. I will talk more about that idea in the next blog.

My hope at the present time is that you will start to see the Vermont GLE’s as one more source for the identification of learning targets. I also hope you will look at the work of Richard Stiggins who advocates for five broad areas of learning target identification as well as the work of Wiggins and McTighe dealing with mission related goals, enduring understandings and essential questions. The Vermont Framework is a good place to start if you want to embrace the concept of learning target identification, but it really is just the tip of the iceberg to a powerful idea that you simply must grasp if you want to make a difference in student learning.                  


I stated in my earlier blog on integrated professional development, these dots all connect and they all must be considered synergistically by this new generation of professional educators, the cave dwellers of the 21st century!