Leadership Presentation

Riojas'
Root System

Transforming vague standards into rigorous learning targets.

1.1 Standards-driven instruction
1.3 Rigorous learning & cognitive lifting
navigate
T contents
The Problem

One vague standard.
Three grades. Zero progression.

— used identically for 6th, 7th, AND 8th grade.

Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

What happens

  • One flat standard for all grades
  • All students get the same worksheet
  • Zero cognitive progression
  • No visible success criteria
  • Unclear rigor expectations
  • Difficult to assess learning

Impact on students

  • 6th graders confused about "citing"
  • 8th graders unchallenged
  • No one knows what success looks like
  • Low engagement
  • Inconsistent achievement
  • Fails WCPSS 1.1 and 1.3 requirements
WCPSS Lever
1.1

Clear, standards-aligned learning targets

The roots — what holds it all up.

1.1.1

Learning targets, standards, and goals are visible, communicated, and evident.

1.1.2

Teachers communicate the learning targets, identifying key vocabulary and success criteria.

1.1.3

Lesson learning goals are determined by standards.

1.1.4

WCPSS-aligned curricular resources are utilized and instruction aligns with pacing/scope & sequence.

Critical probing questions

  • How do students know what they are learning and why?
  • How do you communicate learning targets, key vocabulary, and success criteria to students?
  • How do you ensure instruction aligns with WCPSS Pacing/Scope & Sequence?
WCPSS Lever
1.3

Rigorous learning & cognitive lifting

The canopy — where it reaches the light.

1.3.1

Students engage in student-to-student discourse communicating their understanding.

1.3.2

Learners do the majority of cognitive lifting—explaining, making connections, addressing questions.

1.3.3

Assignments and activities directly reflect standards and involve analysis, comparison, evaluation, problem-solving.

1.3.4

Grade-level writing standards are integrated into assignments.

Critical probing questions

  • What strategies do you use to ensure students engage in higher-order thinking rather than just recalling information?
  • How do you ensure assignments directly reflect standards?
  • What do you do when you see instruction needs adjustment based on student responses?
The Framework

Three dimensions.
One living system.

When all three escalate together, you get authentic rigor — not vocabulary choices, but genuine cognitive progression where students think deeper, question more, and understand more profoundly.

01

Verb

cognitive action

Remember · Understand · Apply · Analyze · Evaluate · Create · Transfer

02

Cognitive Zone

level of abstraction

Physical · Representational · Abstract · Metacognitive · Intuitive

03

Depth of Knowledge

content complexity

Facts · Concepts · Procedures · Strategies

When all three escalate together = authentic rigor.

This is what WCPSS means by "rigor"—not vocabulary choices, but genuine cognitive progression where students actually think deeper, question more, and understand more profoundly.

The Cognitive Architecture

Root Statements are the scaffolding

They guide teachers to create contextualized targets that demand the right thinking.

First —

Root Statement

the cognitive blueprint
I can evaluate physical facts.
Verb: Evaluate
Zone: Physical
DOK: Facts
Then —

Teacher Thinking

the contextualization
"In my content, what does it look like to EVALUATE (make judgments about) PHYSICAL FACTS (concrete, observable evidence)?"
At last —

Contextualized Target

the student learning target
I can determine which sentences provide the strongest evidence for the claim.
Still reflects: Evaluate thinking · Concrete evidence · Judgment required

Why this matters

  • Root Statement ensures cognitive consistency — teachers can't accidentally create a lower-demand target.
  • It's the thinking structure, not a template to fill in.
  • Each contextualized target must honor the Verb + Zone + DOK demand — or it fails to serve its purpose.
Direct Alignment

The Root System directly addresses Lever 1.1

Clear, visible, communicated learning targets with success criteria.

Look For
What the Root System delivers
The result
Targets visible & communicated
Root Statement provides cognitive scaffolding. Contextualized target shows what students actually learn. Both are communicated—Root Statement explains the thinking, contextualized target is what students pursue.
Students see exactly what they're learning AND understand the cognitive demand behind it
Success criteria identified
Root Statement defines the cognitive demand. Contextualized target's success is measured by whether it requires that exact thinking.
"Success = meeting the Root Statement's cognitive demand in context"
Key vocabulary communicated
Verb, Zone, DOK terms become shared language
Teachers and students discuss learning using consistent cognitive language
Standards-aligned targets
All targets flow directly from one standard
One standard → three grade-level targets → all aligned
Targets determined by standards
Root Statements are based on cognitive demands of the standard
Instruction stays focused on grade-level standards, not generic skills

Students know what they're learning

Students know why it matters

Students know what success looks like

Teachers teach with clarity

Direct Alignment

The Root System directly addresses Lever 1.3

Rigorous learning & student cognitive lifting.

Look For
What the Root System delivers
Evidence in student work
Higher-order thinking (not just recall)
Root Statement scaffolds the cognitive demand: Verb escalates from Remember → Analyze → Evaluate → Create. Contextualized target must reflect this demand.
Students explain, defend, create—not just identify or list
Majority of cognitive lifting by students
Root Statement scaffolds the cognitive zone: Physical → Abstract → Metacognitive → Intuitive. Contextualized target must engage students at that level.
Students think about relationships, not just visible facts
Analysis, comparison, evaluation, problem-solving
Root Statement scaffolds the DOK demand: Facts → Strategies. Contextualized target applies this complexity to grade-level content.
Students apply flexible thinking to novel situations
Grade-level rigor maintained
Root Statement ensures appropriate cognitive demand for grade level. Contextualized target applies that demand to grade-level standards.
Every student challenged appropriately at their level
Student-to-student discourse about understanding
Root Statement provides the vocabulary for cognitive discourse. Students discuss thinking because the target makes clear what thinking they're doing.
Students discuss HOW they're thinking and WHY strategies work

Every student experiences genuine cognitive demand

Students explain, analyze, evaluate

Rigor is evident and measurable

Student engagement increases

Real Example — ELA

Citing textual evidence, three ways

— the original standard —

Cite textual evidence to support analysis...
"I can evaluate physical facts."
6th Grade
Foundation
I can determine which sentences provide the strongest evidence for the claim.
verb Evaluate zone Physical DOK Facts rigor low
"I can apply metacognitive strategies."
7th Grade
Building
I can justify my evidence choices by articulating my decision-making process.
verb Apply zone Metacognitive DOK Strategies rigor medium
"I can recognize intuitive procedures."
8th Grade
Deep Rigor
I can independently recognize what makes evidence effective and transfer that understanding to new texts without new instruction.
verb Recognize zone Intuitive DOK Procedures rigor high
Real Example — Math

Understanding ratios, three ways

— the original standard —

Understand the concept of a ratio and use ratio language...
"I can evaluate physical facts."
6th Grade
Foundation
I can determine which ratio accurately represents the relationship between quantities in a given situation.
verb Evaluate zone Physical DOK Facts rigor low
"I can apply metacognitive strategies."
7th Grade
Building
I can justify my scaling decisions by explaining the strategy I used and why that approach works.
verb Apply zone Metacognitive DOK Strategies rigor medium
"I can recognize intuitive procedures."
8th Grade
Deep Rigor
I can independently recognize proportional relationships and transfer that understanding to new contexts without new instruction.
verb Recognize zone Intuitive DOK Procedures rigor high
Common Pitfalls

WCPSS-identified challenges, solved

i

Learning targets owned by teachers, not students

Teachers post targets, but students ignore them. No student ownership.

The Solution

Structured unpacking of Root Statement + Contextualized target helps students understand HOW they're thinking. They own it because it makes sense.

ii

Targets too complex with multiple verbs and broad scope

Targets pack in too much: "I can identify, analyze, and evaluate..." Students confused about what they're learning.

The Solution

Complexity lives in Verb × Zone × DOK escalation. Each target is clear. One Root Statement. One Contextualized target. Measurable complexity.

iii

Targets not used daily in lessons

Targets only exist on paper. Teachers don't refer to them. No connection to daily work.

The Solution

Specific, meaningful targets become natural anchor points. Used at lesson start, during application, and during closure because they drive instruction.

iv

Targets require only lower-level thinking

All targets are "remember" and "identify." No progression to higher-order thinking.

The Solution

Framework forces intentional rigor escalation. Can't accidentally create all low-level targets. Verb + Zone + DOK progression ensures mix.

v

Targets mismatched to assessments

Target says "analyze," but assessment is multiple-choice. No alignment.

The Solution

Verb × Zone × DOK automatically determines assessment type. Alignment is built in, not an afterthought.

Built-In Alignment

Assessment alignment, automatic

The Verb + Zone + DOK determines what and how to assess.

E

Target: Evaluate Physical Facts

assessment type

Judgment tasks, comparison tasks, identification with criteria

example

"Which of these facts best supports the main idea? Why?"

not this

Multiple choice with no reasoning required

A

Target: Apply Metacognitive Strategies

assessment type

Extended response, explanation, justification

example

"Explain the strategy you used and why it worked."

not this

Procedures worksheet with step completion

R

Target: Recognize Intuitive Procedures

assessment type

Transfer task, pattern recognition, principle application

example

"Apply this pattern to a completely new situation and explain how you know it works."

not this

Familiar practice problems

The harvest is good

  • Alignment is automatic
  • Assessment measures real learning
  • Data is actionable
  • Teacher confidence increases
Side-by-Side · part 1

Without vs. with the Root System

How the practice itself changes — standards, targets, criteria, rigor, and assessment.

Without
With Root System
Standards
One vague standard for all grades
One standard → three grade-level targets with clear cognitive progression
Learning Targets
Generic, unclear, one-size-fits-all
Root Statement + Contextualized target, grade-specific, crystal clear
Success Criteria
Vague or missing
Defined through Verb + Zone + DOK combination
Rigor
Inconsistent; hard to measure
Escalated intentionally; easily visible and measurable
Assessment
Misaligned to targets; multiple-choice default
Automatically aligned; type determined by target
Side-by-Side · part 2

Without vs. with the Root System

The impact on engagement, clarity, differentiation, and WCPSS compliance.

Without
With Root System
Student Engagement
Low; students unclear about learning goals
High; students know what, why, and what success looks like
Teacher Clarity
Confused about what rigor looks like
Clear direction for instruction and assessment
Differentiation
All students → same assignment
All students → appropriate cognitive level with genuine challenge
WCPSS 1.1 & 1.3
Unmet requirements
Direct, measurable alignment
Whole-Child Development · part 1

CASEL's 5 competencies, blooming together

All five CASEL competencies develop as students progress cognitively — not bolted on, woven in.

01

Self-Awareness

understanding strengths, values, emotions

Begins with "Evaluate Physical Facts." Students recognize what they can do, identify their strengths in concrete tasks.

What it looks like: Students articulate: "I can identify evidence." They build confidence as learners.
02

Self-Management

regulating emotions, setting goals

Accelerates through "Apply Metacognitive Strategies." Students explain their decision-making, reflect on choices, adjust approaches.

What it looks like: Students articulate: "I justified my choice by..." They manage their thinking process deliberately.
03

Social Awareness

understanding others, perspective-taking

Develops across all levels. Discourse about Root Statements requires listening to how others think, valuing diverse approaches.

What it looks like: Students hear peers explain thinking differently. They recognize multiple valid approaches to the same problem.
Whole-Child Development · part 2

Two more petals, and the integration

five petals · one bloom

04

Relationship Skills

communicating, collaborating, resolving conflict

Strengthens through "Apply Metacognitive Strategies" and "Recognize Intuitive Procedures." Students explain thinking, defend reasoning, collaborate on complex tasks.

What it looks like: Students engage in discourse: "Here's my thinking..." "I see what you mean because..." They co-construct understanding.
05

Responsible Decision-Making

making ethical choices, problem-solving

Culminates in "Recognize Intuitive Procedures." Students transfer learning independently, apply principles to novel situations, make informed choices about approach.

What it looks like: Students independently recognize when to apply which strategy. They justify choices based on principles, not rules.

The beautiful integration

You're not adding SEL as an afterthought—it's built into cognitive progression. Every Root Statement level develops specific CASEL competencies. Students can't advance cognitively without advancing socially and emotionally. The framework ensures whole-child development.

Getting Started

The implementation pathway

Four phases, from understanding to district-wide mastery.

Understanding
Month 1

Leadership and teacher teams learn Riojas' Root System. Understand Verb × Zone × DOK progression. See it applied to one standard in your grade level.

Pilot
Months 2–3

Select one standard per grade. Build Root Statements and contextualized targets. Use in classroom instruction. Gather feedback. Refine.

Expansion
Months 4–6

Roll out to more standards. Build district resource bank. Coach teachers in how to communicate targets and use them daily. Establish assessment alignment.

Mastery & Scale
Months 7+

All standards mapped. Teachers creating targets confidently. Whole-district shared language about rigor. Evidence of Lever 1.1 and 1.3 compliance visible in classrooms.

Professional learning supports every step

Coaching cycles ensure fidelity

Quick wins build momentum

What You'll See & Hear

Success indicators

In Classrooms

what walkthroughs reveal

  • Learning targets visible and clearly posted
  • Teachers reference targets multiple times per lesson
  • Students can articulate the target in their own words
  • Student-to-student discourse about thinking process
  • Assignments directly connected to targets
  • Questions require explanation and reasoning
  • Different cognitive demands at each grade level

In PLCs

how teacher conversations shift

  • Shared cognitive vocabulary replaces vague "low" or "high" student labels
  • Teachers describe where students are in cognitive progression, not who they are
  • Data conversations focus on cognitive demand, not just percentages
  • Vertical alignment (6th → 7th → 8th) becomes coherent across grade teams
  • Interventions target specific cognitive gaps, not generic "needs more help"
  • Teams calibrate rigor expectations together using shared language
  • Student growth visible by cognitive zone, not just summative score

When the principal walks into a classroom

Students can explain what they're learning and why

Teacher can articulate the cognitive demand of the target

Work samples show rigor progression

Instruction aligns with target

WCPSS Levers 1.1 & 1.3 are evident

The Impact

District-level outcomes

For Schools

building-level transformation

  • Consistent implementation of Lever 1.1 and 1.3 across all buildings
  • Shared language about rigor and cognitive demand
  • Clear progression from grade to grade (6th → 7th → 8th aligned)
  • Stronger collaboration within grade levels and departments around standards
  • Reduced confusion about what "rigor" means
  • Evidence-based instruction aligned to standards and assessments

For Teachers

professional practice elevated

  • Clarity about standards and what students need to learn
  • Confidence in differentiating instruction within a grade level
  • Easy assessment alignment (no guessing about assessment type)
  • Reduced planning time through use of template Root Statements
  • Better data showing student progress toward mastery
  • Professional autonomy in contextualizing to their content and students

For Students

learning experiences transformed

  • Know what they're learning and why it matters
  • Understand what success looks like before they start
  • Experience appropriate challenge at their cognitive level
  • See growth trajectory across grade levels
  • Engage in meaningful discourse about their thinking process
  • Develop metacognitive awareness and independence
Bottom Line

One framework. Two Levers. District-wide consistency.

The Riojas' Root System directly addresses WCPSS Lever 1.1 (Clear, visible, standards-aligned learning targets) and Lever 1.3 (Rigorous learning with student cognitive lifting). Implementation is measurable, scalable, and creates the consistency in rigor that WCPSS requires across all schools and grade levels.

In Closing

Ready to transform
standards into rigor

From vague standards to clear, rigorous, measurable learning targets.

One framework. Three dimensions.
Every student appropriately challenged. Measurable growth.

Jump to a slide

— the full presentation, at a glance —