Learning Loss Guide

Click here to download this resource in Word.

Learning Loss Guide

A co-requisite model for learning is a systematic way to address the learning needs of students while engaging with on grade-level content. As opposed to delaying grade-level learning experiences until students acquire “the basics,” students study appropriate course content while receiving “just-in-time” support for prerequisite knowledge and skills. As students in Tennessee return to learning this fall, employing a co-requisite model to support lost learning from the previous grade can be an effective strategy to fill gaps in understanding for students while teaching up to grade level standards. As this approach scaffolds learning support over time, planning for the recovery of lost learning must be cyclical in nature throughout the upcoming academic year. This cycle should include determining standards gaps and subsequently adapting grade-level scopes and sequences, assessing students learning gaps, monitoring students’ learning to see if students are mastering content, and providing additional scaffolds and supports to ensure all students are receiving the right level of intensity and duration for remediation.

This guide outlines a series of four sessions. Each session provides guiding questions for participants to collaboratively answer with their PLC team. In answering the embedded questions, teachers will develop cohesive plans to address loss of learning for all students.

This image shows four guided outlines to help teachers develop cohesive plans to address loss of learning.

Re-Aligning Scope and Sequence

Pre-work: Teachers should come to the meeting with the focus standards for their grade level. They should have already identified any standards that students as a whole did not demonstrate mastery of or had limited exposure to in the 2019-20 academic year to share during the PLC.

	Session One: Re-Aligning Scope and Sequence
Step One: Determine students’ level of experience with previous years’ standards and merge into current year’s scope and sequence.
Teachers should be placed in groups comprised of members from their current grade level AND the prior grade level (e.g., the second grade group should include current second grade teachers and prior year first grade teachers). This step will take two rotations so that each teacher can participate as a focal grade teacher and a “prior grade” teacher.
In this session, teachers should focus on the following questions. What standards were not taught AND/OR were not assessed at mastery learning? These standards would be considered incomplete from the previous school year. How do these “gap” standards connect to the current scope and sequence? NOTE: What are the on-grade-level standards that would be impacted in the current grade level and where do they occur in the current grade’s scope and sequence? OR Where are the connected standards that would naturally provide a connection to “missed standards”? How can the current grade level’s scope and sequence be modified to include co-requisite instruction for the gap standards? Teachers should modify the current scope and sequence. (This step will take the majority of the PLC time and instructional coaches and supervisors should actively collaborate in these conversations). Are there any necessary (and only necessary) pacing shifts that need to occur as a result of the adaptations to the scope and sequence? Are there adaptations to materials, assessments, and benchmarks to ensure that students have high-quality instructional experiences and master the merged content? How will on-grade-level teachers monitor students’ progress to ensure that merged content continues to help students master concepts and skills at on-grade level expectations?

Initial Assessment of Student Learning Gaps

Pre-work: Teachers need to gather benchmark/checkpoint data for the students they are currently teaching in predetermined content areas. This data needs to be brought to the PLC.

Session Two: Initial Assessment of Student Learning Gaps

Step Two: Assess students’ mastery of prior year’s content to determine what skills and concepts to include as focal areas within the scope and sequence, additional remediation sessions, or focal areas for intervention.

In this session, teachers should focus on the following questions.

What did the benchmark/checkpoint identify as major gaps
- For my class?
- For groups of students?
- For individual students?

Where are students in their understanding of the pre-requisite standards, skills, and concepts for the current grade-level standards focusing on major work of the grade?

How do I need to support the whole class with lost learning as identified in question one??

How do I need to support groups of students with lost learning as identified in question one?

How do I need to support individual students with lost learning as identified in question one?

Each section of missed learning (whole group, small group, individual) needs to be aligned to and identified in the modified scope and sequence from PLC session one. Will this scope and sequence meet all the needs identified? Or do additional supports need to be structured?

Note: In this sections, districts and schools will need to ensure teachers can analyze benchmark results that they can identify concepts that the whole class struggled to master, small group challenges, and individual student challenges. The school will need to identify structures and supports that will allow teachers to support groups and individual learners with identified needs. These supports can include intervention time, additional time included in learning blocks, “push-in” classroom support, etc.

Monitoring Student Progress

Pre-work: Teachers should bring to the session data from unit assessments for each student.

Session Three: Monitoring Student Progress

Step 3: Monitor students’ learning closely to see if students are effectively mastering both new and prior content by assessing current grade-level standards.

Session 3 should become an ongoing session throughout the academic year, ideally occurring at the end of units of study especially those units that focus on major standards within the grade. As teachers collect more data on student progress, they will need the opportunity to ascertain the learning of each individual student. Teachers should be grouped in grade level teams for this PLC session.

In this session, teachers should focus on the following questions.

What did the assessment of learning for this unit identify as major learning gaps
- For my class?
- For groups of students?
- For individual students?

What misconceptions do my students have? How can I address those misconceptions?

Guiding questions when thinking about the whole class:
- When is the most appropriate time to address the learning gaps identified for my whole class?
- What does my instruction need to look like/sound like?
- What resources are available in my instructional materials?
- Are there other members of the PLC group who didn’t have the same identified gaps? Was their instruction different?

Guiding questions when thinking about groups of students:
- When is the most appropriate time to address the learning gaps identified for these students?
- What does my instruction need to look like/sound like?
- What resources are available in my instructional materials?
- Are there other members of the PLC group who identified similar gaps? What do their plans look like/sound like?

Guiding questions when thinking about individual students:
- When is the most appropriate time to address the learning gaps identified for these students?
- What does my instruction need to look like/sound like?
- What resources are available in my instructional materials?
- Are there other members of the PLC group who identified similar gaps in individual students? What do their plans look like/sound like?

Note: Teachers may need assessment literacy strategy support to understand the differences between skill-based diagnostics and standards/knowledge-based benchmark data and how to effectively use different types of data. Further, teachers may need additional resources and professional learning around intervention vs. remediation.

Reaching All Students

Pre-work: Teachers should bring to the session data from a variety of assessments for each student who they feel is not being reached by just-in-time instruction.

Session 4: Reaching All Students

Step 4: Identify additional scaffolds and supports needed to ensure students are receiving the appropriate intensity and duration of remediation.

This PLC session is designed to help provide clarity to participants and then provide the opportunity for teachers to discuss supports for students beyond core instruction time. This session should occur for the first time after there is enough significant data to indicate that just-in-time instruction is not enough to meet the learning needs for a group of students.

Districts need to be prepared to provide the following information for participants at the beginning of the first time this session occurs:

How/when do we decide that inline instruction is not enough? At what point is the decision made that the needed intervention for a student needs to happen outside of the core instruction window?

What team helps make this decision?

What data needs to be evaluated? Discussion questions for PLC participants:

What structures and supports are available to support both groups and individual learners with identified loss of learning needs that extend beyond what can be covered in the core instruction window?

How is intervention time being utilized to support students’ learning needs?

What are the communication channels between each student’s teacher and their teacher for intervention?

What resources are available to be used during intervention?

Additional Topics for Districts

In addition to the topics covered in these PLC sessions, the district may want to consider providing additional guidance on the following topics related to addressing loss of learning.

A deep dive into the instructional materials available
Vertical coherence in the standards progressions
Prioritizing instructional time
Effective instructional practice in both traditional and virtual learning environments
Unique challenges in each content area to be addressed in digital learning environments (e.g., manipulatives in mathematics)
Small-group instruction in a digital learning environment

Appendix: Supplemental Guiding Questions and Resources for Math

Click here to download Appendix A and Appendix B to a Word document.

Learning Loss PLC Appendix A – Supplemental Guiding Questions for Math

Additional Guiding Questions
Session 1 Does the missed or incomplete standard(s) represent major work of the grade or course? What is the most critical learning from previous year(s) that students need to be successful in my class? Will student learning in future grades and courses be hindered without understanding and proficiency of this standard? Session 2 What conceptual understandings might be missing? What mathematical fluency might be missing? Are students aware of their strengths relative to grade level expectations? Session 3 How might teachers begin the year with routines and procedures while addressing mathematics content? How might students work with math manipulatives in either an in-person or virtual manner? How can teachers ensure that students have experience with concrete and pictorial representations to develop deep conceptual understanding rather than tricks like mnemonics and key words? How will meaningful mathematics discourse, both teacher/student and student/student, be incorporated into lessons? How might quality instructional feedback be incorporated into the lesson among teacher/student and student/student? Session 4 How might teachers work with those who focus on serving English Language Learners, students with IEPs and other vulnerable student populations? What type of instructional support is needed in order for students to be successful with grade level content? Where might these supports be found within districts’ instructional materials?

Additional Guiding Questions

Session 1

Does the missed or incomplete standard(s) represent major work of the grade or course?
What is the most critical learning from previous year(s) that students need to be successful in my class?
Will student learning in future grades and courses be hindered without understanding and proficiency of this standard?

Session 2

What conceptual understandings might be missing?
What mathematical fluency might be missing?
Are students aware of their strengths relative to grade level expectations?

Session 3

How might teachers begin the year with routines and procedures while addressing mathematics content?
How might students work with math manipulatives in either an in-person or virtual manner?
How can teachers ensure that students have experience with concrete and pictorial representations to develop deep conceptual understanding rather than tricks like mnemonics and key words?
How will meaningful mathematics discourse, both teacher/student and student/student, be incorporated into lessons?
How might quality instructional feedback be incorporated into the lesson among teacher/student and student/student?

Session 4

How might teachers work with those who focus on serving English Language

Learners, students with IEPs and other vulnerable student populations?

What type of instructional support is needed in order for students to be successful with grade level content? Where might these supports be found within districts’ instructional materials?

Learning Loss PLC Appendix B – Resources for Math

TDOE Resources
Front Mapping Tools: These grade-specific tools can be used to connect standards or concepts that may not have been taught to current and future grade level standards. It may be used in conjunction with the Standards Summary Tools. Instructional Focus Documents: The purpose of these documents is to provide teachers with examples of learning across all performance levels to help educators determine the depth of a student’s conceptual understanding of the Tennessee mathematics standards. Standards Summary Tools: These grade-specific tools can be used to identify standards that may not have been taught or were not adequately addressed in the 2019-2020 school year due to disruptions caused by natural disasters and/or COVID-19 school closures.
External Resources
Achieve the Core 2020-2021 Priority Instructional Content: This document names the instructional content priorities for the 2020–21 academic year. It is intended to help instructional leaders find new efficiencies in the curriculum that are critical for the unique challenges that have resulted from school closures. Achieve the Core Coherence Map: The coherence map is an interactive website that illustrates the coherent structure of mathematics standards. NCTM/NCSM Moving Forward: This document provides guidance for mathematics teachers and leaders at all levels to make informed decisions for next steps due to COVID-19. Solution Tree Protocol to Determine Prior Knowledge for a Math Unit: This protocol uses the standards from the previous grade levels or courses (or your current grade level or course standards) to determine the prior-knowledge standards students need to make connections to learning in the current unit.
LEA Resources
LEA Curriculum District-adopted curriculum materials District-adopted curriculum pacing guides District-created unit and lesson plan templates District-create PLC protocols	LEA Assessments Assessments from adopted materials Diagnostic Assessments for K-2 District created formative assessments District purchased assessments Universal Screener Assessments

TDOE Resources

Front Mapping Tools: These grade-specific tools can be used to connect standards or concepts that may not have been taught to current and future grade level standards. It may be used in conjunction with the Standards Summary Tools.

Instructional Focus Documents: The purpose of these documents is to provide teachers with examples of learning across all performance levels to help educators determine the depth of a student’s conceptual understanding of the Tennessee mathematics standards.

Standards Summary Tools: These grade-specific tools can be used to identify standards that may not have been taught or were not adequately addressed in the 2019-2020 school year due to disruptions caused by natural disasters and/or COVID-19 school closures.

External Resources

Achieve the Core 2020-2021 Priority Instructional Content: This document names the instructional content priorities for the 2020–21 academic year. It is intended to help instructional leaders find new efficiencies in the curriculum that are critical for the unique challenges that have resulted from school closures.

Achieve the Core Coherence Map: The coherence map is an interactive website that illustrates the coherent structure of mathematics standards.

NCTM/NCSM Moving Forward: This document provides guidance for mathematics teachers and leaders at all levels to make informed decisions for next steps due to COVID-19.

Solution Tree Protocol to Determine Prior Knowledge for a Math Unit: This protocol uses the standards from the previous grade levels or courses (or your current grade level or course standards) to determine the prior-knowledge standards students need to make connections to learning in the current unit.

LEA Resources

LEA Curriculum

District-adopted curriculum materials
District-adopted curriculum pacing guides
District-created unit and lesson plan templates
District-create PLC protocols

LEA Assessments

Assessments from adopted materials
Diagnostic Assessments for K-2
District created formative assessments
District purchased assessments
Universal Screener Assessments

Learning Loss Guide