1

Module 1 Analysis: Exploring Standards

Erinn L. Reed

American College of Education

CI 5353: Standards-Driven Learning

Dr. Susan Spero

July 11, 2025

Module 1 Analysis: Exploring Standards

As an instructional coach with over a decade of classroom experience teaching students

in grades K–7, I have seen firsthand how the standards-based movement has transformed

teaching and learning. Today’s accountability era—shaped by the Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA) and the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)—demands

that educators anchor instruction in clearly defined, measurable learning goals. In my current

role, I support teachers across multiple grade levels in aligning their instruction with state-

adopted standards, unpacking grade-level expectations, and designing rigorous, student-centered

learning experiences. A key part of this work involves guiding professional learning

communities (PLCs) through the continuous reflection process advocated by Dr. Richard

DuFour. This paper will focus on the first of his three foundational questions—“What do you

want your students to learn?”—by examining the critical role of content standards in defining

learning priorities and supporting equity in education. Through this analysis, I will highlight how

intentional planning, grounded in standards, serves as the cornerstone of high-performing

schools.

Student Strength: Standard 1.OA.A.1

Standard:

1.OA.A.1 – Use addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving situations

of adding to, taking from, putting together, taking apart, and comparing, with unknowns in all

positions, e.g., by using objects, drawings, and equations with a symbol for the unknown number

to represent the problem. (Table 1)

Table 1

Standard That Reflect Student Strength: 1.OA.A.1

Diagnostic Period % Proficient

Fall 2024 52%

Winter 2025 76%

The standard that best reflects our students’ academic strength is 1.OA.A.1, which

focuses on using addition and subtraction within 20 to solve word problems involving real-life

situations, including unknowns in all positions. This includes problems such as adding to, taking

from, putting together, and comparing, using objects, drawings, and equations with symbols to

represent unknown quantities. Based on Winter 2025 i-Ready diagnostic data across our first-

grade classrooms, 76% of students demonstrated proficiency in Operations and Algebraic

Thinking, specifically showing strength in solving word problems within 20. This is a significant

improvement from the Fall 2024 diagnostic, in which only 52% of students were meeting or

exceeding expectations in this domain. The data clearly indicates that this standard has become a

foundational strength area due to focused, standards-aligned instruction and collaborative

planning efforts within our professional learning communities (PLCs).

As an instructional coach supporting grades K–2, I work closely with first grade teachers

to plan and model lessons that emphasize conceptual understanding of word problems. During

coaching cycles and data meetings, we identified student misconceptions and provided
 4

differentiated strategies to meet learners’ needs. We implemented number talks, interactive math

journals, and visual models such as part-part-whole diagrams and ten frames. Teachers also

introduced problem-solving mats and graphic organizers that helped students break down the

components of word problems. These instructional practices are grounded in the work of Van de

Walle, Karp, and Bay-Williams (2019), who advocate for the use of context-based problems and

manipulatives to promote mathematical reasoning. Additionally, we integrated regular formative

assessments, including exit tickets, fluency checks, and journal reflections, to monitor student

progress and adjust instruction. These strategies not only built procedural fluency but also

deepened students' mathematical thinking, allowing them to articulate their reasoning clearly and

confidently. The combination of structured small-group instruction, student discourse, and

scaffolded practice created an environment in which students could master the standard and

apply their understanding independently.

Area for Improvement: Standard 1.NBT.C.6

Standard:

1.NBT.C.6 – Subtract multiples of 10 in the range 10–90 from multiples of 10 in the range 10–

90 (positive or zero differences), using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on

place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.

(Table 2)

Table 2

Standard That Reflects an Area for Improvement: 1.NBT.C.6

Diagnostic Period % Proficient

Fall 2024 31%

Winter 2025 38%

While students demonstrated clear success in solving addition and subtraction word

problems within 20, our data also revealed an area in need of targeted instructional support.

Standard 1.NBT.C.6—subtracting multiples of 10 in the range 10–90 using concrete models or

drawings and strategies based on place value—emerged as a consistent challenge for our

students. According to our Winter 2025 i-Ready diagnostic results, only 38% of first grade

students demonstrated proficiency in this standard, compared to 31% in the Fall. This limited

growth suggests that students are struggling to internalize the structure of our base-ten number

system, particularly when subtracting using mental math or visual strategies that involve groups

of tens. The lack of conceptual understanding in this area is evident not only in benchmark data

but also in teacher-created common formative assessments (CFAs), which showed frequent

errors in subtracting multiples of 10 without counting by ones.

Several factors may be contributing to the lack of mastery in this standard. First, many

students do not yet have a solid foundation in place value, which is necessary to understand

subtraction at this level. Through classroom observations and teacher reflections, I have found

that students often default to rote strategies, such as counting backwards by ones, instead of

making efficient jumps of ten. This indicates a need for deeper number sense development and

more opportunities to engage in reasoning tasks (Boaler, 2015). While our teachers have begun
 6

incorporating place value charts, connecting cubes, and number lines into their instruction, these

tools need to be used more consistently and with greater intentionality. Moreover, the pacing of

instruction sometimes limits opportunities for revisiting and spiraling this concept throughout the

school year. In response to this data, I have worked with teachers to develop small-group

intervention lessons that include explicit modeling, hands-on practice with base-ten blocks, and

strategy anchor charts to build visual connections (Fuson, 2003). Additionally, we are

implementing number talks focused specifically on tens-based reasoning and using classroom

walkthroughs to monitor student engagement with these strategies.

Although progress in this standard has been slower than desired, we are encouraged by

the upward trend and are committed to addressing this learning gap with a more focused and

systematic approach. By emphasizing mathematical discourse, promoting conceptual

understanding, and using student work as formative feedback, we aim to build a stronger

foundation in place value and support all students in mastering this critical standard.

Conclusion

In high-performing schools, the alignment of instruction to clear, measurable learning

standards is essential for promoting equitable student outcomes. As an instructional coach who

supports grades K–2, I believe that understanding what we want our students to learn—Dr.

Richard DuFour’s first guiding question—is foundational to instructional planning and school

improvement. The analysis of our students’ strengths and challenges in mathematics reveals the

importance of using data to drive decision-making and instructional support. Our students’

success with standard 1.OA.A.1 demonstrates that strategic use of visual models, real-world

connections, and structured problem-solving routines can lead to deep conceptual understanding

and high levels of proficiency. Conversely, our challenges with 1.NBT.C.6 highlight the need for
 7

continued emphasis on place value instruction, guided practice with concrete tools, and

consistent spiraling of key concepts. Through collaborative planning, professional development,

and targeted interventions, we are working toward narrowing achievement gaps and ensuring

that every student receives the support they need to meet grade-level expectations. The use of

standards as a guide allows educators to remain focused, intentional, and accountable in their

mission to provide rigorous, high-quality instruction for all learners.

References

Boaler, J. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math,

inspiring messages, and innovative teaching . Jossey-Bass.

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A

handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Solution Tree Press.

Fuson, K. C., & Carpenter, T. P. (2003). Developing mathematical power in whole number

operations. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 68–94). National Council of

Teachers of Mathematics.

Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2019). Elementary and middle school

mathematics: Teaching developmentally (10th ed.). Pearson.