Recently, I received a question about the appropriateness of
the Daily Five to the Common Core. Interesting question….
I think
the purpose of the Daily Five is to provide teachers with a curriculum
framework that guides them to spend time on a certain set of activities. Many teachers embrace it
because it gives them a way to make sure a variety of things take place in
their classrooms each day. Teaching is a complex job and frameworks that help
simplify choices can be very useful.
Although
the Daily Five plan bears a superficial resemblance to what I used in the
Chicago Public Schools, it differs from my approach in at least one big way: it
focuses on teaching activities rather than on learning outcomes. “Reading to
someone” or “listening to someone read” are fine activities, so I don’t oppose
them, and yet, there are enough pressures on teachers to submerge themselves in
the activities at the expense of the outcomes.
The
Daily Five ensures that certain activities are included, but this can be a real
distraction from making choices that support student learning. I’d much rather
have a teacher, wanting to expand students’ vocabularies, who decides to read a
book to them to facilitate this learning, than one who is going to read to the
kids and can either seek a purpose for it or not.
There
are lots of ways to a goal, and I deeply respect the teacher who has a clear conception
of what she is trying to accomplish and the choices that entails. Starting with
the activity instead of the outcome, however, allows someone to look like a
teacher without having to be one.
That’s a
big difference, and I think the common core separates itself from the Daily
Five even more. The common core state standards emphasize goals –not activities,
and they provide a specific delineation of the specific levels of demand or
complexity or quality that has to be evident in performances of these standards.
Nothing like that in the Daily Five.
Obviously
one could combine the Daily Five and CCSS. “I’ll use the Daily Five to guide my
lesson planning and I’ll aim those lessons at the goals specified by the Common
Core.” Lessons are always a bit of dance between goals and activities—and,
ultimately, it doesn’t really matter where you start out as long as the two are
closely and effectively connected in the implementation.
The Daily
Five establishes a very low standard for teaching by emphasizing activities over
outcomes, and by not specifying quality or difficulty levels for student
performances. Teachers can successfully fulfill the Daily Five specifications without
necessarily reaching, or even addressing, the standards.
Perhaps, teachers could animate the Daily Five framework with goals and proficiency standards from the common core. I think any of the activities could be stretched or shaped to somehow address the core standards. And, yet, I wonder if it’s worth the extra time this represents. What does it add?
5 comments:
“Although the Daily Five plan bears a superficial resemblance to what I used in the Chicago Public Schools, it differs from my approach in at least one big way: it focuses on teaching activities rather than on learning outcomes. “Reading to someone” or “listening to someone read” are fine activities, so I don’t oppose them, and yet, there are enough pressures on teachers to submerge themselves in the activities at the expense of the outcomes.”
My teachers have been using the Daily Five for many years now and I have had concerns in the past as to the relevance of what students are learning. Fortunately, those conversations I have had with teachers have led them to making sure that what they offer in the Daily Five is relevant. I’m certainly not taking credit for this, but just stating that the professional conversations have helped.
I guess what I’m wondering from reading your blog is why is it such a bad things to have some learning activities included in Daily Five rotations? After all, the Daily Five is used with students from kindergarten through fifth grade and I wonder why there would be harm in finding a balance between having students engaged in activities (which may offer a brain break) and having them engaged in rotations that would offer learning outcomes as well. Perhaps those activities would bring back some creativity in the classroom.
Thanks for your time.
An interview I did with the two sisters. http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2012/09/the_daily_5_an_interview_with_the_two_sisters.html?qs=daily+five
Peter-
You are absolutely correct that a teacher can make this scheme work well for kids, and that there are many good things in it. But fundamentally there is nothing in the DNA of this plan that ensures anything of the kind.
I'm very much a fan of time-based frameworks and have used one of my own for a couple of decades. One problem in this case is that the 5 divisions do not all address issues of equal importance (we've got a mix of those things proven to improve literacy and those things that might). And there is nothing in the basic scheme that focuses teachers on the learning outcomes themselves (though, of course, there is nothing here that would prevent a teacher from imposing her own overlay on this plan--in fact, I'd encourage that).
As a teacher I read to children every day, and would still do so if I were teaching in the primary grades. But the value of this in terms of student reading development is far from proven (though it is absolutely clear that being read to in the preschool years gives a boost to language development). In this case, 20% of the language arts time is spent on that. The word work seems fine to me and very much in line with the research. That seems pretty unequal.
That the students spend 20% of the time reading is very good, except that this could be reading on their own (which has been found to have anything like the learning impact of reading a text with the teacher)... Devil's in the details.
I received an email from a teacher about this plan lauding it because it gives the teacher guidance in what kind of productive work to engage kids in, which frees her up to confer with individual students who may be having problems. I sure like the individual teaching time, but if she is serious that the kids spend most of their activity time on their own, then my concerns are even greater given the research findings indicating the importance of explicit teaching in student learning. She did indicate that she was in an upper income district--all of her students read on grade level or higher--so I'm not very worried about those kids... in many schools the challenges are greater and it is essential to have a more specific emphasis on student learning (rather than student activity) and on explicit instruction rather than students just having an itinerary to work through on their own.
tim
Hi Tim,
Thank you. It definitely depends on the make-up of the students as well as the expectations and expected outcomes. Your explanation was really helpful.
Peter
I have many concerns with Daily Five. There are so many independent literacy tasks that cover 2 hours. This amount of time would squeeze out quality interactive read alouds, writing instruction, shared writing, reading instruction, shared reading, science instruction. Students need more direct instruction from their teacher. Do teachers need to provide 4-5 minute mini lessons every day? Please advise school districts who are adopting this without talking to the experts.
There is no research on mini-lessons so the idea that you have to provide them or that you have to provide them every day is silly. Keep your focus on learning rather than on activities--make the activities come from the learning goals (not the other way around). The cart here is definitely pulling the horse.
Post a Comment