Kelly Teague's post

One thing that really stuck in mind after reading Chapter 2 was when Conley and his colleagues addressed the four intellectual standards. He states that these four intellectual standards were paramount, within and among the disciplines.
The standards were:
Read to infer/interpret/draw conclusions.
Support arguments with evidence.
Resolve conflicting views encountered in source documents.
Solve complex problems with no obvious answer.
I thought to myself, where have I heard these before and I remembered—GLE’S on the IBD’s. These particular GLE’S where repeatedly questioned on the MAP tests. It’s the higher level of thought (Strategic Thinking), not the basic recall that is so important to teach our students. Along with teaching this higher level of thought to produce higher achievers, these skills are essential for students to learn because these thought processes are also used on a daily basis in our relationships, at work, etc. We are here as educators to help students be higher achiever and produce high test scores, but we are also here to teach them how to be successful socially and become contributing members of our society.
I loved the examples of the two schools that stepped out of the box in regards to their teaching approach and focused on curriculum that consisted entirely of the kind of standards suggested here: close, analytic reading of common texts, monthly formal writing assignments; and daily Socratic discussions where students argue, resolve conflicting viewpoints, and draw conclusions. Focusing on high-priority standards not only optimizes essential learning, it also ensures good test scores on any state and national assessment (Schmoker).

Kelly Teague