Part 1: Setting the Route — Why Clarity Matters

I’m that girl! I’m the one who gets lost in a parking lot. So, when I get in my car, I don’t just start driving and hope I end up where I want to go. I plug in the destination, and my GPS maps the route. Along the way, I might add a few stops for gas or coffee, but I always know where I’m headed, or the general direction 😊. My destination is clear. 

Teaching works the same way. Our standards are the destination. They tell us where student learning should end up, what students should know, understand, and be able to do. Learning targets are the stops along the route. They are part of the trajectory that leads to a successful trip. They help both teachers and students see where the current lesson fits in the journey.

Still, there’s an ongoing debate about whether or not we should post learning targets. Teachers say they’re for principals. Principals say they’re for districts. But who’s advocating for the students?

Students need to know what they’re learning on any given day, and how it connects to where they’ve been and where they’re going next. I don’t get in my car and drive mindlessly. I have a clear path. Why wouldn’t we want learning to be the same? We should want it to be clear for all involved. Students also need to know what mastery looks like, so they can recognize when they’re getting closer. We will dive deeper into that in another post. 

Late-Lee, I’ve noticed posts by a principal that many teachers follow online saying what many want to hear: “Don’t post them.” Now, I’ll admit, I’d love to spar with him a bit. He says you can walk into a classroom and tell if students are getting quality instruction. I won’t argue that intense instruction is visible. However, as a former administrator myself and a certified school improvement specialist, I must ask: how does he know if the task or lesson is aligned with the state standard? Alignment isn’t always apparent on the surface. You must understand what students are expected to learn, not just what they’re doing, to determine effectiveness. I could elect to teach a group of 6th graders about plant and animal cells and keep the instruction at a fundamental level, focusing on identification. An administrator could walk in, see students looking at slides, drawing pictures, etc, and think, “Yeah, they are getting it.” However, if the level they should be reaching is much deeper, such as understanding their function, then it’s possible the trajectory of learning won’t get there without further investigation. Result: students don’t perform well on state-aligned assessments. Whose fault is that? 

In systems where accountability is tied to state assessments, clarity is crucial. The research backs that up. When students understand what they’re learning and how success will be measured, they’re more engaged, retain more, and improve faster. John Hattie’s research shows that clear learning intentions (targets) can double the rate of learning. Over many conversations I often hear, students are behind. Well, if we know the research points to positive impacts of using clear learning targets on student learning, why do we want to bypass that strategy?

I agree that clarity doesn’t come from posting a target for compliance. It comes from using it, reviewing it, unpacking it, and connecting it to what comes before and after in the learning progression. When teachers co-construct or discuss learning targets with students, they turn the lesson into a shared journey. It’s like having a co-pilot in the seat next to you while on a trip. Students know what to pay attention to, how to monitor their progress, and how to ask more effective questions. They become more accountable to the learning.

So why not post it? When you review it, let students read it with you. When they’re working, it gives them something to come back to — a way to refocus, track progress, and take ownership of their learning.

Let’s think of it another way. For many, the pathway to teaching is through completing classes. Typically, on the first night, you receive the syllabus for the course. What if you didn’t get it? How could you prepare for the “secret” learning that will take place? You’d be a little miffed in some cases. That syllabus outlines the goals and expectations. It’s vital to your success. 

I understand that age can be a factor. I understand if kindergarten students can’t read the target, then why post it? It’s still vital to write it in student-friendly words and orally connect students to it. 

What does this look like in Practice? 

Solid Examples

1. ELA Example: Learning Target: I am learning how an author’s word choice influences the tone of a text.Success Criteria: I can identify words that convey tone, explain how they impact meaning, and support my response with evidence from the text.
2. Math Example: Learning Target: I am learning to compare fractions with unlike denominators using models and reasoning.Success Criteria: I can create fraction models, use benchmark fractions like ½, and justify which fraction is greater than another.

Non-Examples

1. “We are working on fractions.” Too vague. Students may finish the task without knowing what skill they’re developing or why it matters.
2. “Students will complete a reading passage and answer comprehension questions.” → That’s an activity, not a learning target. It tells what they’ll do, not what they’ll learn.

Just like a GPS, clarity doesn’t limit your route. It gives you freedom to adjust with purpose. You can add stops along the way (learning goals, formative checks, discussions) or reroute when needed (based on results). But without a clear destination, all the activity in the world won’t get you where you need to go.

In the next post, we’ll take a look at those stops along the route such as short, aligned formative assessments and how they help both teachers and students see if they’re still on the right road or if it’s time to recalculate.