 Rigor
means having high expectations in
curriculum standards, classroom
assignments, ongoing assessment, and
testing.
 All
of the above must be aligned for
maximum student achievement.
 Typically, classroom
expectations decline
from one grade level to the next.
A
taxonomy is a useful tool for classifying
objectives, instruction, and assessment to
determine level of rigor.
 The
revised Bloom’s taxonomy helps us
to analyze cognitive demand along two
dimensions.
 Using
the taxonomy can result in rich
discussions about intentions,
assumptions, and outcomes.
 The
very act of using the taxonomy can
motivate us toward demanding higher
levels of rigor.
 Alignment
(standards –objectives—
assessment tasks--instructional
strategies) is essential to raising the level
of rigor.
 We
attend to what we measure! If we are
serious about raising the level of rigor in
our school, we must accurately assess
where we are now.
 Monitoring
and measuring rigor at the
classroom level is a multi-faceted,
ongoing, collaborative process in which a
variety of strategies should be used.











Students engaged in collaborative work.
Analysis, creativity, and practical application of learning
occurring.
Evidence of pre-assessment for lesson content.
Teachers facilitating as students direct their own learning.
Teachers asking probing questions of students.
Students doing most of the purposeful talking.
Students actively engaged in problem solving activities.
Students using technology to learn.
Clear procedures used for all class work.
All students articulating their thinking in small groups.
Teachers doing various formative assessments of working
students.













Students engaged in higher level questioning and thinking.
Students using primary sources in their investigations.
Students applying learning in new areas thru projects.
Students assessing their own learning.
Students building and sharing their portfolios.
Different regularly occurring activities that address different
learning styles.
Students independently recording their learning and
generating their own questions.
Class discussions where students compare ideas with each
other.
Student choice built in to assignments.
Tiered assignments designed for academic readiness.
Lessons moving at a brisk pace.
Students’ interests driving topics of learning.
Daily teacher assessments of learning outcomes.
 Content:
 Is
the content part of the Standard Course
of Study?
 Does it include basic skills and important
concepts?
 Does the content require students to
apply core academic knowledge to
problems or issues?

 Instruction:
 Does
the instruction require students to
engage in higher order thinking skills?
 Are students required to engage in
elaborated communication?
 Do they have to explain or justify their
conclusions or thinking?
 Assessment:
 Is
the assessment aligned to the lesson
goals?
 Does the assessment measure SCOS
content?
 Do students have to use higher order
thinking skills on the assessment?
 Do students have to explain or justify
their conclusions or thinking?
 Knowledge
level one: Limited amount of information
is recalled; answer is incomplete
level two: Sufficient amount of facts are
recalled; answer is complete and
acceptable
level three: Numerous facts and details
are recalled; answer is thorough
 Comprehension
level one: Brief explanation of content;
little or no evidence to support
level two: Overall understanding of
content; implied content/ issues not
addressed
level three: An interrelated, holistic
interpretation of literal and implied
content given; uses examples and
illustrations to support
 Application
level one: Solution has none or a limited
number of elements to support; solution
is not workable
level two: Workable solution is
supported by an adequate number of
generalizations and principles
level three: Solution has a “new slant;”
supports solution with an abundant
amount of facts and details

Analysis
level one: Solution shows minimal classification
of elements; no relation between elements and
their relation and structure to each other
level two: Solution demonstrates the relation and
structure between elements; recognized
patterns; rationally supported
level three: Solution classifies elements, their
relationship to each other while identifying the
arrangement and structure connecting them in a
rational and persuasive manner

Synthesis
level one: Solution lacks self-expression; some
important elements excluded; solution not
workable; not clearly communicated
level two: Workable solution is new and includes
essential elements; adequately communicated
solution to the appropriate audience;
demonstrates self-expression
level three: Workable solution which is new and
includes all parts; demonstrates unique selfexpression; communication is directed to a
specific audience in a unique and highly
effective manner
 Evaluation
level one: Judgments have little or no
support
 level two: Judgments are on both
cognitive and effective levels; based on
given criteria or selected remembered
criteria
 level three: Judgments based on a
variety of facets at both the cognitive and
effective levels
 Classroom
Assessments are rigorous
if they provide specific information
about student achievement of the
learning and content in high
standards.
Level one: Some classroom assessments are
strongly
aligned to the cognitive complexity and topics of
the grade-level state standards.
 Level two: Most classroom assessments are
strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and
topics of the grade-level state standards.
 Level three: All classroom assessments are
strongly aligned to the cognitive complexity and
topics of the grade-level state standards and,
when appropriate, go beyond grade-level
standards.

 Level
one: Common assessments are
administered across some grades, subjects
or courses.
 Level two: Common assessments, which
include high levels of cognitive complexity,
are administered across most grades,
subjects or courses.
 Level three: Common assessments, which
include high levels of cognitive complexity,
are administered across all grades, subjects
or courses and are regularly analyzed and
revised by learning teams.
 Level
one: Teachers analyze test results
to improve assessments.
 Level two: Teachers analyze test results
to diagnose student learning and
improve assessments and instruction.
 Level three: Teachers analyze tests
results to diagnose student learning,
improve assessments and instruction, and
modify curriculum.
 Level
one: Teachers are generally
assessment literate, understanding where
and when to use a variety of assessments
and recognizing quality assessments.
Level two: Teachers can select high-quality,
technically correct assessment items/ tasks
that are aligned to higher levels of learning.
 Level three: Teachers can select, develop
and/or revise assessment items/tasks to
measure higher levels of learning.
 Level
one: The principal and/or learning
team monitors classroom assessments in
some grades, subjects or courses.
 Level two: The principal and/or learning
team monitors classroom assessments in
most grades, subjects and courses.
 Level three: The principal and/or
professional learning team monitors and
recommends revisions for classroom
assessments in all grades, subjects and
courses.
Collaboration within and outside of the
school is important to build a common
understanding and consistent
application of practices that support
rigor.
Level one: Occasionally faculty, department and
grade-level meetings focus on improving
curriculum, instruction and assessment.
 Level two: The focus of faculty, department and
grade-level meetings is often the improvement of
curriculum, instruction and assessment.
 Level three: All faculty, department and gradelevel meetings focus on the improvement of
curriculum, instruction and assessments, include
formal agendas, and support continuous
collaboration throughout the year.

 Level
one: Learning teams or study groups
review academic rigor based on judgment
or assessment data.
 Level two: Learning teams or study groups
use an organizing framework (taxonomy) to
examine academic rigor.
 Level three: Learning teams or whole faculty
study groups use an organizing framework
(taxonomy) to produce a common way of
thinking about and a common vocabulary
for talking about academic rigor
schoolwide.
 Level
one: Teachers collaboratively
review assignments and assessments.
 Level two: Teachers collaboratively
analyze assignments and assessments for
cognitive complexity and alignment to
standards.
 Level three: Teachers collaboratively
analyze and revise assignments and
assessments to increase the cognitive
complexity and alignment to standards.
 Level
one: Teachers collaborate in isolated
instances to create opportunities that
challenge students to perform at higher
levels of learning.
 Level two: Teachers collaborate within some
departments or grade levels to create
opportunities that challenge students to
perform at higher levels or learning.
 Level three: Teachers collaborate across the
school to create opportunities that
challenge students to perform at higher
levels of learning.
Level one: Some school-home communication
from teachers about academic progress
(students’ assignments and assessment results
and mastery of standards) occurs.
 Level two: Regular school-home communication
from teachers about academic progress
(students’ assignments and assessment results
and mastery of standards) occurs.
 Level three: Frequent communication (via
multiple methods) to home and community about
academic progress and increasing rigor schoolwide occurs.

 The
organization and sequencing of
the curriculum is critical if students
are to perform at higher levels of
learning.
 Level
one: Grade level/subject area
curricula are horizontally aligned (focused
and connected within each
grade/course/subject area).
 Level two: Grade level/subject area
curricula are horizontally and vertically
aligned (focused and connected within and
across grade/course/subject area).
 Level three: The horizontally and vertically
aligned curricula are periodically reviewed
and realigned to optimize student
performance and academic challenge.
Level one: There are few strategies in place to
ensure a “tight” alignment (correlation) among
the written, taught and tested curricula.
 Level two: There are strategies in place to ensure
a “tight” alignment (correlation) among the
written, taught and tested curricula in some
grades/subjects.
 Level three: Strategies are in place and actions
are taken to ensure a “tight” alignment
(correlation) between the written, taught and
tested curricula in most courses/subjects.

 Level
one: A standards-based curriculum
guide has been developed for all subjects.
 Level two: A system of curriculum analysis &
alignment (e.g., curriculum mapping) is
implemented, and the curriculum is
revised/developed based on this data.
 Level three: Based on data, a part of the
standards-based school curriculum is
reviewed/revised each year with a longterm plan to review/revise the entire
curriculum every 5-7 years.
Level one: Learning objectives, assignments and
assessments in all classes reflect the learning and
content expected for those students (usually
articulated in state standards).
 Level two: The standards-based objectives,
assignments, and assessments in some classes
accelerate the learning to address the expectations
for the next grade, college, or the workplace
(increasing the level of cognitive complexity).
 Level three: The standards-based objectives,
assignments and assessments in most classes
accelerate the learning to address the expectations
for the next grade, college, or the workplace
(increasing the level of cognitive complexity).




Level one: The curricula for a few courses introduce
knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade
levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the
knowledge and skills in subsequent years.
Level two: The curricula for core subjects introduce
knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade
levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the
knowledge and skills in subsequent years.
Level three: The curricula for all subjects introduce
knowledge and skills at developmentally appropriate grade
levels and increase the level of cognitive complexity of the
knowledge and skills in subsequent years.
 Expectations
that teachers set for
quality student work are important to
communicate as students are
challenged by increased rigor.
 Level
one: Expectations for performance
are explicit in written or oral assignment
directions.
 Level two: Expectations for performance
are explicit in course syllabi, rubrics and
assignment directions in some classes.
 Level three: Expectations for
performance are explicit in course
syllabi, rubrics and assignment
directions in most classes.
 Level
one: Where possible, teachers have
students share with their peers graded
samples of their work that have been
deemed proficient.
 Level two: Teachers provide examples of
exemplary student work to students prior to
assessments on that material.
 Level three: Teachers require students to
analyze exemplary student work, prior to
assessment on that material, to determine
the qualities that make the work proficient.
Level one: Some teachers have reached consensus
on what constitutes proficiency on grade-level
standards.
 Level two: Teachers within grade levels or subject
areas have reached consensus on what constitutes
proficiency on grade-level standards, and there is
little variation among these teachers’ expectations,
rubrics and grading practices.
 Level three: The school’s professional staff (teachers
and administrators) has reached consensus on what
constitutes proficiency on grade-level standards, and
there is little variation among teachers’ expectations,
rubrics and grading practices.

 Level
one: Students are routinely asked to
evaluate their own and peers’ work using
scoring rubrics.
 Level two: Student evaluations of their
own and peers’ work sometimes match
teacher expectations and/or the scoring
rubric.
 Level three: Students evaluations of their
own and peers’ work often match teacher
and/or rubric definitions for quality.
 Level
one: School staff has a collective belief
that most students can achieve at grade
level.
 Level two: Some teachers provide the
opportunity for all students to produce
quality work through their grading
practices, by re-teaching, and by allowing
them to redo work.
 Level three: Schools provide the opportunity
for all students to produce quality work with
policies related to redoing work, reteaching and grading.
 The
instructional strategies that
teachers use foster higher levels of
learning in their students and
increased rigor in their classrooms.
 Level
one: Teachers ask mostly lowcognitive complexity questions.
 Level two: Teachers use an array of
questioning techniques to prompt low,
mid and higher level cognitive
processing for some students.
 Level three: Teachers use an array of
questioning techniques to prompt low,
mid and higher level cognitive
processing for all students.
 Level
one: Instructional strategies are
selected based on teacher preference,
experience and recommendations in text.
 Level two: Instructional strategies are
selected based on the content and level of
cognitive complexity in the standards as
well as on student preference/interest.
 Level three: Instructional strategies are
based on research and selected to match
the content and cognitive complexity in the
standards and to raise the cognitive
complexity of student learning.
 Level
one: Supervisors note
presence/absence of rigor in
monitoring/evaluation of classroom
instruction.
 Level two: Supervisors note frequency of
levels of rigor in their
monitoring/evaluation of classroom
instruction.
 Level three: The levels of rigor of classroom
instruction are included in personnel
decisions and measure s of school
accountability.
Level one: Teachers’ support for student learning
is improved by professional development
opportunities available from external providers.
 Level two: Teachers’ support for student learning
is improved by teams of teacher leaders involved
in year-long professional learning to develop
schoolwide strategies.
 Level three: Teachers’ support for student
learning is improved by the school’s professional
development plan which has teacher teams
learning, implementing and evaluating
schoolwide strategies.
