Rigor in Education

Education is filled with “buzz” words: “project-based learning,” “mastery,” “multicultural education,” “relevance,” and “data driven instruction” to name a few. In an entry in his National Staff Development Council blog, educator Bill Ferriter (2006) notes, “The danger in buzzwords, however, is also very real. Overuse can lead to casual interpretations that weaken meaning and lead to disagreement between dedicated individuals in the same organization” (para. 9). While there were many such words that were bantered about during my time in Hawaii, “rigor” seemed to spark the most discussion. What do we mean by it? What does rigor look like? How is it measured? How can we insure that we provide a rigorous curriculum that is implemented in way that challenges students while offering them the support to achieve? Not so easy, even when a basic understanding of the term is reached.


In “Rigor: It’s All the Rage, but What Does It Mean?” (Jacobs & Colvin, 2009), identified three components to rigor: “content, pedagogy, and assessments” (p. 3). If a curriculum is truly rigorous, according to Michigan State professor William Schmidt (2009), it will be “focused, coherent, and appropriate challenging” (as cited in Jacobs & Colvin, 2009, p. 3). None of these really tell teachers what it should look like and just how to measure whether their coursework is rigorous. Some teachers define it to mean more work, while other educators see it as a measure of student accountability. In the end, this drive for rigor leaves much of our education system at the height of mediocrity. It has struck me as odd that in our continuous efforts to “bridge the gap,” we’ve only seemed to lower the standard. Equality appears to cost us excellence – and is that the price our students should pay?

I’ve sat in numerous faculty and committee meetings that discussed curriculum design and assessment. Inevitably, my peers across the varied high school contents had one phrase in common in response to certain student expectations: “our students can’t do that.” I’ll even admit to being guilty of saying this myself. When students enter your classroom four to six years (or more) behind in reading levels, unable to do simple math solutions in their heads, and unable to comprehend the basic structure of a sentence, one naturally begins to reassess their expectations, because, obviously, “our students can’t do that.” As I gained experience and took part in intense and inquiry based department discussions, it occurred to me that it shouldn’t be about what student’s can’t do now, but what they need to do by the time they leave. Our problem isn’t how to get students to do work at their level, but how to get them to work at the needed level, in spite of their deficiencies. Isn’t that the point of differentiated education – to provide the steps necessary for all students to achieve?

So what does this mean in regards to rigor? Are the three components previously mentioned (content, pedagogy, and assessment) enough? Have we neglected to incorporate expectation – both in the individual classroom and as part of the whole school environment? And what about the role of behavior in student achievement? Don’t all of these combine to create a rigorous learning environment? Excluding one of these weakens the overall structure, sliding once more towards mediocrity. And so we continue to struggle with creating rigorous learning environments that promote engagement and success in our students. I wonder what would happen if we actually came together at our schools to define rigor, create pictures of its implementation and outcomes, and develop a format for monitoring and assessing school and student achievement. One major problem with developing and maintaining rigor is a lack of a consistent approach school wide by faculty and administration. As teachers, we often feel that our classrooms are our domains and we want the freedom to determine what happens in them. There are too many cookie cutter approaches that tell us what to say, when to say it, and how to do it; seasoned teachers can attest to the numerous passing fads. Such a beleaguered past has caused any talk of consistency to become frightening. We worry about a loss of power in our classrooms. In addition, we are afraid to create school wide teacher standards/expectations because it means we will be held up to them. And there will always be mediocre teachers who don’t want to be pushed to be more than that. Yet, without consistency among teacher expectations, how can rigor be achieved?

In Rigor is NOT a Four-Letter Word, Barbara Blackburn (2008) cites three obstacles to developing rigor: 1) the lack of a clear definition of the term; 2) the inability to clearly map out how to make a course rigorous; and 3) the complex nature of individual classrooms and how they intersect with rigor (class size, cultural makeup, professional development for educators, and the overall quality of teachers in the field). How we tackle these obstacles as professionals will ultimately determine our success in creating rigorous learning environments.
Citations:

Blackburn, B. (2008). Rigor is not a four–letter word. New York: Eye on Education.

Jacobs, J. and Colvin, R.L. (2006). Rigor: it's all the rage, but what does it mean? Understanding and reporting on academic rigor. New York: Columbia University. 1-5.