I'm out in the boony-toolys this week. I don't mind---I wanted to come out and spend a couple of days with schools out here. (I also spent a few days in a different rural region a couple of weeks ago.) I grew up in the sticks and remember quite well what it is to have a 3-hour drive to the nearest McDonalds (or to use today's terms: Starbucks). But there are teachers and kids here, just as there are in more populous environs. And they have Common Core, online testing, new teacher evaluation models, and a host of other initiatives heading straight at them. I know, everyone does, but not quite like these schools. I don't know of any teachers in "larger" (i.e. more than 200 students) districts that do not have any contractual planning time and who drive the school bus (in addition to teaching in a multi-age, multi-prep environment). Other than these situations, I don't see para-educators who have to double as the lunch lady and cook food for all the kids. I don't meet superintendents who have to also serve as curriculum director, SPED director, assessment coordinator, business manager, and crossing guard. And so far, everyone I've met in these roles does all these things with a
smile on their face and cannot imagine having a better job.
Many of the staff---including administrators and teachers---grew up in the area and came back to the school. It is their school. And while most educators may feel that way about their building, it's different in these little districts. There is a heightened level of passion for and pride in a place that you attended as a child, and now teach your classmates' children...knowing you will be there when their grandchildren come through.
One of the buildings I toured this afternoon is one of the oldest continuously operated school buildings in the state. It opened in 1908, and you have to wonder if the community realized at the time just how long the school would last and how many generations would pass through the doors. Not all of the buildings are so old. I would say that the majority of what I've seen in these districts was built between 1955 and 1965---baby boomer years. After the war, it appears that there was quite the emphasis on new schools for the children born of the Greatest Generation. I have to say that these buildings are in marvelous condition for their age---far better than any school in a larger place that is from the same era. Sure, the architecture is a bit dated, but the structures are aging well, mainly because small class sizes cause such little wear and tear.
The social contract between families and community takes on a very 1950's tone out here, too. There is a strong expectation that "kids get to be kids." This is helped along by growing up in a place where cell phones don't work, there's no such thing as cable tv, and home Internet still runs on dial-up. Being 15 years old in a place like this is a lot like when your parents were 15 and growing up here. Being 5 is focused on playing with your friends outside. The community offers what it can to the school, and as one superintendent said today, it's important to listen to that offer and make it work. If a retiree with a tractor wants to level some ground for a ball field, and the dairy will donate top soil, then you find the rest of the money to make the project happen. If three women want to put a library in your 5-teacher school, find a place for them and give it your blessing. In these towns, children are "our" kids, not just in terms of school, but how everyone sees them.
There is an idyllic, pastoral gestalt that comes with being here...like some sort of ecological habitat for schooling. And here come the developers, ready to pave paradise and put up a CCSS parking lot. I continue to struggle with the idea that these students deserve access to an education that will make them "career and college ready." How does that balance against the backdrop of the culture that they live in (and likely their children, too)? Can any entity claim it knows what's best for these kids, other than the community itself?
I am not here to push CCSS. Or assessment of any flavour. Or teacher evaluation. I am here to help them connect with one another and provide an opportunity for them to have some professional conversation about what happens in their classrooms---whatever is important to them. I am here to listen to whatever they choose to share and learn whatever I can. I wish others would do that, too.
24 April 2013
15 April 2013
Don't Be Such a Tool
I am traveling to Hither, Thither, and Yon this month---a lot of time on the road and not enough time to blog as I'd like. But here are a few things that have caught my eye that I'm thinking about.
You might also want to have a look at Dirty Sexy EdTech, while we're at it. I think people are finally starting to wake up when it comes to edtech. I'm liking where this is going. Maybe we can have a discussion about student learning instead of "iPad! iPad! iPad!"
A girl's gotta dream, especially with all the windshield time ahead.
 |
 |
| https://twitter.com/aimeegbartis/status/306973200091332610 |
 |
 |
| https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/323983188491894785 |
You might also want to have a look at Dirty Sexy EdTech, while we're at it. I think people are finally starting to wake up when it comes to edtech. I'm liking where this is going. Maybe we can have a discussion about student learning instead of "iPad! iPad! iPad!"
A girl's gotta dream, especially with all the windshield time ahead.
04 April 2013
A Brief History of the Edublogosphere
If you're viewing this post via RSS, you won't know that I've made few changes at my place. I've refreshed the template a bit and added some pages to collect some of the bigger ideas of Ye Olde Blog. I still have a few bits of code to work out, but things are shaping up.
I've been overdue in giving this space a refresh. I was reminded of that recently after reading Tim's post, What's in Your Backlist? For me, that means 1626 posts (including this one). It's not the biggest backlist in the blogosphere, but it's hefty enough for me to manage on my own. One of the things that I didn't realize when I started this whole thing is just what a job basic maintenance and curation of content would be. Let that be a warning to you kids.
Even though it is easy enough to see the template changes here, what you probably won't notice is that within the last week, I went back through all of the posts and did some clean up work. The coding changes Google has made in the background have not been kind to the oldest pieces in the collection. And, I wanted to swap out images for Creative Commons licensed ones, and assign credit (where possible) to others. I know, it's kind of a George Lucas dick move to go back and rewrite the past in that way, but I didn't change the substance of the post. I've just made them compliant with current expectations.
I didn't read all of the posts word-for-word. But as I scanned them, I couldn't help but think about how edublogging has changed over the years. So, in case you're (relatively) new to this arena, here is a brief history of the edusphere---at least as I know it.
When I started blogging in 2004, there was just beginning to be a small critical mass of teachers who were blogging, too. Maybe there was a critical mass forming in other arenas as well---politics and science, for example---because the lines blurred more easily. Starting in early 2005, there was a weekly Education Carnival hosted at a different blog. The "Carnival" was a collection of posts submitted by people. Sometimes, it ended up on blogs with only tenuous links to education, but again, there were some blurry lines as we all figured out what we could do with this space. The Carnival was a good way for us to find one another and build community. But it started dying off as soon as Twitter started gearing up. It's last incarnation was about a year ago over at Bellringers.
Speaking of Twitter, when I look at my backlist, I see what an impact that tool has had on the way I use this space. Before microblogging, everything went here. I was much more likely to share an article, a fun link, or resource than I am now. My archive has many posts that aren't much longer than 140 characters. There are just a few sentences to point readers to something. Those are now the sorts of things I toss into Twitter, while this space has evolved into more sporadic, but intensive, reflection. I don't know that that's true for other "old-timers," but it would be interesting to find out. Many people who had blogs I followed have quit blogging---but they're going strong on Twitter. Nothing is more delightful (for me) than rediscovering them in that space.
Way back when, nearly everyone had a pseudonym. Originally, anonymity was of value because of all the unknowns about how this whole blogging thing would play out. For the most part, the edusphere was comprised of teachers---it was rare to spot an administrator or someone in another stakeholder role. It wasn't until several years later that principals and superintendents started finding their voice online.
Now, no one is ever really anonymous on the Internet, but I wish I knew where so many of the early bloggers have gone. Maybe I am following them on Twitter...or have found them elsewhere and just don't know it's the same people. But Graycie, Mr. Lawrence, Ms. Smlph, Athena, and the rest---I haven't forgotten you. I really wish you hadn't deleted your blogs. Your stories are still important. It makes me sad to see so many of my old posts full of conversations with ghosts. Fifteen of us were interviewed by USA Today in the fall of 2006. Four of us are still regularly blogging.
I started noticing the rise of edtech bloggers in 2007. Some of them were no doubt blogging all along, but they were never part of the Carnival or conversations of any of the blogs I engaged with. It's a lot like now---they're still off in their own little self-important world of toys while the rest of us wrestle with the meatier ideas in education.
The purpose of blogging has changed a bit, too. There are still those teachers who use their space for sharing what happens in their classroom and then engaging in some reflective practice. I have to admit, those are my favourite blogs. In the old days, nearly every teacher blog was like this. I also think that these blogs are the ones with the most stamina. The whiny blogs---the ones used to piss and moan about administrators/kids/colleagues---tend to lose steam in a short time. Meanwhile, I see an increasing number of blogs that are blogs in name only. By that, I mean that the people who write them are "big names" and can say they have a blog, but they post there only a few times a year. Blogging has stretched from a place to put the stuff in your head to a label you can add to your Twitter bio.
In this era of instant gratification, I'm not sure how many people care about the historical aspects of this space---and I can only present my view from here. No doubt other longterm bloggers have a slightly different take on things. I hope they'll post their memories, too. As for me, I just re-upped my domain registration for another nine (!) years. This space may change, and I may end my contribution to it at some point, but I plan to let it live on as long as I can.
If you'd like to see some of the old blogs, you can use the Wayback Machine to see cached copies.
I've been overdue in giving this space a refresh. I was reminded of that recently after reading Tim's post, What's in Your Backlist? For me, that means 1626 posts (including this one). It's not the biggest backlist in the blogosphere, but it's hefty enough for me to manage on my own. One of the things that I didn't realize when I started this whole thing is just what a job basic maintenance and curation of content would be. Let that be a warning to you kids.
Even though it is easy enough to see the template changes here, what you probably won't notice is that within the last week, I went back through all of the posts and did some clean up work. The coding changes Google has made in the background have not been kind to the oldest pieces in the collection. And, I wanted to swap out images for Creative Commons licensed ones, and assign credit (where possible) to others. I know, it's kind of a George Lucas dick move to go back and rewrite the past in that way, but I didn't change the substance of the post. I've just made them compliant with current expectations.
I didn't read all of the posts word-for-word. But as I scanned them, I couldn't help but think about how edublogging has changed over the years. So, in case you're (relatively) new to this arena, here is a brief history of the edusphere---at least as I know it.
When I started blogging in 2004, there was just beginning to be a small critical mass of teachers who were blogging, too. Maybe there was a critical mass forming in other arenas as well---politics and science, for example---because the lines blurred more easily. Starting in early 2005, there was a weekly Education Carnival hosted at a different blog. The "Carnival" was a collection of posts submitted by people. Sometimes, it ended up on blogs with only tenuous links to education, but again, there were some blurry lines as we all figured out what we could do with this space. The Carnival was a good way for us to find one another and build community. But it started dying off as soon as Twitter started gearing up. It's last incarnation was about a year ago over at Bellringers.
Speaking of Twitter, when I look at my backlist, I see what an impact that tool has had on the way I use this space. Before microblogging, everything went here. I was much more likely to share an article, a fun link, or resource than I am now. My archive has many posts that aren't much longer than 140 characters. There are just a few sentences to point readers to something. Those are now the sorts of things I toss into Twitter, while this space has evolved into more sporadic, but intensive, reflection. I don't know that that's true for other "old-timers," but it would be interesting to find out. Many people who had blogs I followed have quit blogging---but they're going strong on Twitter. Nothing is more delightful (for me) than rediscovering them in that space.
Way back when, nearly everyone had a pseudonym. Originally, anonymity was of value because of all the unknowns about how this whole blogging thing would play out. For the most part, the edusphere was comprised of teachers---it was rare to spot an administrator or someone in another stakeholder role. It wasn't until several years later that principals and superintendents started finding their voice online.
 |
| Lighter 1 by Alan Klim CC-BY |
I started noticing the rise of edtech bloggers in 2007. Some of them were no doubt blogging all along, but they were never part of the Carnival or conversations of any of the blogs I engaged with. It's a lot like now---they're still off in their own little self-important world of toys while the rest of us wrestle with the meatier ideas in education.
The purpose of blogging has changed a bit, too. There are still those teachers who use their space for sharing what happens in their classroom and then engaging in some reflective practice. I have to admit, those are my favourite blogs. In the old days, nearly every teacher blog was like this. I also think that these blogs are the ones with the most stamina. The whiny blogs---the ones used to piss and moan about administrators/kids/colleagues---tend to lose steam in a short time. Meanwhile, I see an increasing number of blogs that are blogs in name only. By that, I mean that the people who write them are "big names" and can say they have a blog, but they post there only a few times a year. Blogging has stretched from a place to put the stuff in your head to a label you can add to your Twitter bio.
In this era of instant gratification, I'm not sure how many people care about the historical aspects of this space---and I can only present my view from here. No doubt other longterm bloggers have a slightly different take on things. I hope they'll post their memories, too. As for me, I just re-upped my domain registration for another nine (!) years. This space may change, and I may end my contribution to it at some point, but I plan to let it live on as long as I can.
- Get Lost, Mr. Chips by Mr. Lawrence, a substitute teacher
- Today's Homework by Gracyie
- Mz. Smlph by KatieJ
01 April 2013
Proficiency Scales: The End in Near
In previous posts, we looked at the basic structure of a proficiency scale and a way to communicate it to students. Now, we’ll take a look at how these scales intermingle with assessment and grading.
I am starting to see districts build leveled assessments. This means that the questions are ordered to reflect the proficiency scale. Questions that address the descriptors associated with Approaching Standard are placed first, then those for At Standard, and finally, Above Standard. Sometimes, the step from the proficiency scale is included on the assessment—but I have seen districts that don’t include it. Personally, I like it on there. If we’ve been using the language from the proficiency scale with students and have been making intentional connections about how performance does or does not match the items, then it seems like a logical choice to include it at the end, too.
I mocked up a test to show this. Keep in mind that assessment is much broader than tests and quizzes—there’s no reason why you couldn’t apply the same format to labs, projects, and so forth. Also, I won’t claim that these questions are the best. Just take things at face value here for our model.
Score the assessment and total the points. Ideally, this would be a common assessment, with agreed upon “look fors” for each of the short answer items—as well as where to make the cut between the various levels of performance.
I do know a district where they choose to make the cut using the minimum points necessary for that level. For example, this assessment has 22 points, 9 of which are assigned to the Approaching Standard questions. So, earning 9 points would be the minimum needed to get an overall score for the test at Approaching Standard/Level Two. There are ten more points assigned to At Standard questions, so 19 would be the next cut…and 22 the final cut (to earn an “Above Standard” evaluation). In other words, you have to get a perfect score to get a “4” on the test.
The scale I chose is a bit of a mix on this. I kept the first cut, scaled back the final cut to getting any of the three possible points for the Above Standard item, and then split the rest. I do not have a psychometric reason for any of this…so feel free to set the cuts at whatever makes sense for your own work in the classroom. And if you want to throw some half-points in there, that’s your choice, too.
The nice thing about developing these leveled assessments is that they dovetail with standards-based grading so nicely. Once you’ve determined the score, it slides right into your gradebook. It also makes providing feedback to students very clear. You could even have them track how many items were scored correctly in each category.
You can download my version of the assessment here, if you want to play around with things yourself. (Note: I was too lazy to write the individual guidelines for the short answer items.)
Are you using leveled assessments, proficiency scales, or related ephemera in your classroom? How’s it working for you?
Getting back to a question from the last post—Is there a difference between a proficiency scale and rubric? I still think there is, even though they have several things in common. In fact, Jennifer asked this question of the Marzano Research Labs and got this answer:
In my mind, however, a proficiency scale has a more universal application in the way we structure the information we provide to students, how we score their work, and how we evaluate their overall performance. It is more than just a measurement device...bigger than just evaluating student progress toward a standard. I may be drawing a very thin line in making that distinction, but I think it's enough of a different tool to do so.
I am starting to see districts build leveled assessments. This means that the questions are ordered to reflect the proficiency scale. Questions that address the descriptors associated with Approaching Standard are placed first, then those for At Standard, and finally, Above Standard. Sometimes, the step from the proficiency scale is included on the assessment—but I have seen districts that don’t include it. Personally, I like it on there. If we’ve been using the language from the proficiency scale with students and have been making intentional connections about how performance does or does not match the items, then it seems like a logical choice to include it at the end, too.
I mocked up a test to show this. Keep in mind that assessment is much broader than tests and quizzes—there’s no reason why you couldn’t apply the same format to labs, projects, and so forth. Also, I won’t claim that these questions are the best. Just take things at face value here for our model.
I do know a district where they choose to make the cut using the minimum points necessary for that level. For example, this assessment has 22 points, 9 of which are assigned to the Approaching Standard questions. So, earning 9 points would be the minimum needed to get an overall score for the test at Approaching Standard/Level Two. There are ten more points assigned to At Standard questions, so 19 would be the next cut…and 22 the final cut (to earn an “Above Standard” evaluation). In other words, you have to get a perfect score to get a “4” on the test.
The scale I chose is a bit of a mix on this. I kept the first cut, scaled back the final cut to getting any of the three possible points for the Above Standard item, and then split the rest. I do not have a psychometric reason for any of this…so feel free to set the cuts at whatever makes sense for your own work in the classroom. And if you want to throw some half-points in there, that’s your choice, too.
The nice thing about developing these leveled assessments is that they dovetail with standards-based grading so nicely. Once you’ve determined the score, it slides right into your gradebook. It also makes providing feedback to students very clear. You could even have them track how many items were scored correctly in each category.
You can download my version of the assessment here, if you want to play around with things yourself. (Note: I was too lazy to write the individual guidelines for the short answer items.)
Are you using leveled assessments, proficiency scales, or related ephemera in your classroom? How’s it working for you?
Getting back to a question from the last post—Is there a difference between a proficiency scale and rubric? I still think there is, even though they have several things in common. In fact, Jennifer asked this question of the Marzano Research Labs and got this answer:
 |
| https://twitter.com/MarzanoResearch/status/316572776272109569 |
In my mind, however, a proficiency scale has a more universal application in the way we structure the information we provide to students, how we score their work, and how we evaluate their overall performance. It is more than just a measurement device...bigger than just evaluating student progress toward a standard. I may be drawing a very thin line in making that distinction, but I think it's enough of a different tool to do so.
28 March 2013
Proficiency Scales: What Lies Beneath
In my last post, I shared a bit about a new frontier with proficiency scales as an evaluation tool. And, okay, I rambled a bit, too. But you have to expect that sort of thing if you're a reader here. It's not for the faint of heart.
Jennifer asked a good question about whether there's a difference between a proficiency scale and a rubric. I don't know that there is one, in terms of the nuts and bolts. The main difference I am seeing is in their overall purpose...as if a proficiency scale is a subspecies of rubric. Maybe if we poke at the idea a bit more, turn it over a few times, we'll be able to better answer her question. So, let's build out this idea of proficiency scales and see what we learn.
One way to start is by translating the big ideas from the standard into something more concrete for students. This is not a new idea. The image below comes from a document I posted here more than five years ago. (Jeez, I feel old...)
It's not terrible. A few of you will no doubt point out that the standard referenced is no longer in place. (Washington adopted new science standards in 2009...and will most certainly jump on the NGSS bandwagon at the earliest opportunity.) But the basic idea is one that is common to many classrooms: "I can..." statements for students.
We can do better, however. Why not place these sorts of statements on a proficiency scale so students can see which ones are for scaffolding, which are for mastery of standards, and which indicate performance above the standard? At the recent ASCD conference, a group from Grayslake Community High School District in Illinois presented something similar to this.
I moved things around, switched up a bit of the language, and made a few additions. The (old) standard is on the left. I used the previous statements and fit them under the "Approaching Standard" and "At Standard" columns. I pulled the "Above Standard" statements out of the NGSS---for now. I understand that this would have to become the "At Standard" expectation in the future. I've left off the Level One (Not at Standard) option. I don't think it's necessary. If you can't even meet the targets for approaching standard, then you aren't on the map yet.
There are a lot more statements we could add here. (It's just a model.) But I like the basic idea. It gives you a place to tie the work you do in class---to be explicit in pointing out the connections to the learning targets. And, it also provides some structure for thinking about where to fall back for remediation...or push ahead for enrichment. It opens some discussion about how to move from one level to another---you can get your ZPD on, if that's your thing.
In the next post, we'll look at how a proficiency scale can worm its way into the assessments we build. For now, if you want to download the models shown above and play with them, be my guest.
Jennifer asked a good question about whether there's a difference between a proficiency scale and a rubric. I don't know that there is one, in terms of the nuts and bolts. The main difference I am seeing is in their overall purpose...as if a proficiency scale is a subspecies of rubric. Maybe if we poke at the idea a bit more, turn it over a few times, we'll be able to better answer her question. So, let's build out this idea of proficiency scales and see what we learn.
One way to start is by translating the big ideas from the standard into something more concrete for students. This is not a new idea. The image below comes from a document I posted here more than five years ago. (Jeez, I feel old...)
It's not terrible. A few of you will no doubt point out that the standard referenced is no longer in place. (Washington adopted new science standards in 2009...and will most certainly jump on the NGSS bandwagon at the earliest opportunity.) But the basic idea is one that is common to many classrooms: "I can..." statements for students.
We can do better, however. Why not place these sorts of statements on a proficiency scale so students can see which ones are for scaffolding, which are for mastery of standards, and which indicate performance above the standard? At the recent ASCD conference, a group from Grayslake Community High School District in Illinois presented something similar to this.
I moved things around, switched up a bit of the language, and made a few additions. The (old) standard is on the left. I used the previous statements and fit them under the "Approaching Standard" and "At Standard" columns. I pulled the "Above Standard" statements out of the NGSS---for now. I understand that this would have to become the "At Standard" expectation in the future. I've left off the Level One (Not at Standard) option. I don't think it's necessary. If you can't even meet the targets for approaching standard, then you aren't on the map yet.
There are a lot more statements we could add here. (It's just a model.) But I like the basic idea. It gives you a place to tie the work you do in class---to be explicit in pointing out the connections to the learning targets. And, it also provides some structure for thinking about where to fall back for remediation...or push ahead for enrichment. It opens some discussion about how to move from one level to another---you can get your ZPD on, if that's your thing.
In the next post, we'll look at how a proficiency scale can worm its way into the assessments we build. For now, if you want to download the models shown above and play with them, be my guest.
25 March 2013
Proficiency Scales: The Next Frontier
Most people who make the shift to standards-based grading have a journey on their hands. Whether it’s a philosophical change, managing communications with stakeholders, reconfiguring grading and reporting tools, or just determining the basic nuts and bolts of a new-to-you program, there can be a lot to sort out. But suppose you have survived the sturm and drang of making this shift and are ready to move out to the bleeding edge again. Why not take a look at proficiency scales?
A proficiency scale breaks down a standard into smaller and more specific skills and abilities. The scale is often 1 – 4, but you can increase or decrease the range to fit your needs. Think of it as a way to determine whether or not a student can meet a specific standard.
Here’s a sample from the Common Core ELA standards for Writing at Grade 5. This is standard #6: With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.
What are all of the things a student needs to do in order to meet this standard at grade 5?
Aside #1:
I’m trying really hard to overlook some of the vagaries here. But this standard is not making it easy.
For those of you who come from the "standards shouldn't be taught in isolation" camp, welcome to my blog. Line forms at the left for your comments. I totally get where you're coming from, but the reality is simply that most schools want to document what each child is able to know and do for each standard along the way. Apologies in advance for pooping on your quixotic parade.
Let’s move on. We’ll pretend that the people writing the Common Core knew what they were doing when they created these bigger-faster-stronger standards. All of our students will be veritable Olympians of mental and technological gymnastics all because we have new standards. Opportunity gap be damned. Full speed ahead!
Sorry. I got distracted again. But I’m really ready to move on now. Scout's honour. We were talking about proficiency scales, weren't we?
With the statements above, we can at least get the basics of an at-standard performance. But what about student work that is above or below standard?
For above-standard work, we are looking for evidence that the student has transferred or applied their knowledge or skills to new territory. Perhaps the student moderates a discussion about their writing. Or, maybe s/he shows fluency by choosing the publishing tool to best fit the content or audience. Take your pick. The bottom line is that we want more complex thinking.
And for below-standard work, we would see evidence of simpler thinking. Maybe the student understands that a word processor can be used to produce writing and is able to do some keyboarding, but isn’t able to save and share documents…or use features that would allow him or her to comment on the work of others.
Work that is well-below standard could represent a student who is unable to use the available technology or has other learning deficits.
Okay, so we have a basic outline…
Ideally, a group of teachers would sit down and develop this together. I won't claim to have finessed this one...just remember that it's only a model.
If you want to go halfsies with the points, I won’t stand in the way of your interpolations. In fact, if you go here and download the proficiency scale for this standard from Marzano Research Laboratory, you’ll see that they do just that.
Aside #2: Aside #1's Shorter, but More Handsome Brother
Did you notice that Marzano is recycling his Making Standards Useful in the Classroom tome? I always did think that book didn't fit how he was trying to sell it. And now, under the guise of creeping Marzano-ism, we have a whole new hole for this peg. An ugly peg with way too many lines, and ohmygodmyeyes, but a peg nonetheless.
We have more reasons to push into this frontier. Now we can build leveled assessments and other tools that will support our new grading aspirations and make monitoring student progress even simpler. We'll have to invest more time, thought, and energy to get there, but I think you might find it scratches some of your remaining itches from the move to standards-based grading. Stay tuned.
A proficiency scale breaks down a standard into smaller and more specific skills and abilities. The scale is often 1 – 4, but you can increase or decrease the range to fit your needs. Think of it as a way to determine whether or not a student can meet a specific standard.
Here’s a sample from the Common Core ELA standards for Writing at Grade 5. This is standard #6: With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.
What are all of the things a student needs to do in order to meet this standard at grade 5?
- Use technology (including the Internet) to produce and publish writing.
- Use technology (including the Internet) to interact and collaborate with others.
- Type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.
I’m trying really hard to overlook some of the vagaries here. But this standard is not making it easy.
- What qualifies as “technology”? Do they mean “digital,” or can a kid still do a science fair project board, take a picture, and post it in order to “produce and publish writing”? Does printing something and pasting it on a poster board equal "publishing"?
- Can you produce, but not publish, writing? What if you post something and no one reads it—If a science goddess blogs and no one comments, has she still published?
- Can you collaborate, but not interact? Interact, but not collaborate? I think both of these are possible. Does the Common Core imply they should be simultaneous in order to count here?
- How on earth does seat time translate to an evaluation of keyboarding skills? I can type two pages of nonsense in a hurry…or sit for a long time while I “hunt and peck” a well-reasoned two pages. What if I take a bathroom break while I’m still logged in—does it still count as a “single sitting”?
For those of you who come from the "standards shouldn't be taught in isolation" camp, welcome to my blog. Line forms at the left for your comments. I totally get where you're coming from, but the reality is simply that most schools want to document what each child is able to know and do for each standard along the way. Apologies in advance for pooping on your quixotic parade.
Let’s move on. We’ll pretend that the people writing the Common Core knew what they were doing when they created these bigger-faster-stronger standards. All of our students will be veritable Olympians of mental and technological gymnastics all because we have new standards. Opportunity gap be damned. Full speed ahead!
Sorry. I got distracted again. But I’m really ready to move on now. Scout's honour. We were talking about proficiency scales, weren't we?
With the statements above, we can at least get the basics of an at-standard performance. But what about student work that is above or below standard?
For above-standard work, we are looking for evidence that the student has transferred or applied their knowledge or skills to new territory. Perhaps the student moderates a discussion about their writing. Or, maybe s/he shows fluency by choosing the publishing tool to best fit the content or audience. Take your pick. The bottom line is that we want more complex thinking.
And for below-standard work, we would see evidence of simpler thinking. Maybe the student understands that a word processor can be used to produce writing and is able to do some keyboarding, but isn’t able to save and share documents…or use features that would allow him or her to comment on the work of others.
Work that is well-below standard could represent a student who is unable to use the available technology or has other learning deficits.
Okay, so we have a basic outline…
Ideally, a group of teachers would sit down and develop this together. I won't claim to have finessed this one...just remember that it's only a model.
If you want to go halfsies with the points, I won’t stand in the way of your interpolations. In fact, if you go here and download the proficiency scale for this standard from Marzano Research Laboratory, you’ll see that they do just that.
Did you notice that Marzano is recycling his Making Standards Useful in the Classroom tome? I always did think that book didn't fit how he was trying to sell it. And now, under the guise of creeping Marzano-ism, we have a whole new hole for this peg. An ugly peg with way too many lines, and ohmygodmyeyes, but a peg nonetheless.
We have more reasons to push into this frontier. Now we can build leveled assessments and other tools that will support our new grading aspirations and make monitoring student progress even simpler. We'll have to invest more time, thought, and energy to get there, but I think you might find it scratches some of your remaining itches from the move to standards-based grading. Stay tuned.
18 March 2013
ASCD 2013: Celebrate
I had the honor of meeting representatives from this year's winner of the ASCD’s Vision in Action: The ASCD Whole Child Award. This award is given to schools that have done an outstanding job of developing students who are "knowledgeable, emotionally and physically healthy, civically active, artistically engaged, prepared for economic self-sufficiency, and ready for the world beyond formal schooling" (full press release here). In other words, they recognize that we are in not in the business of creating widgets---we work with people. They go above and beyond to walk that talk. This year, the award was won by Milwaukie High School in Milwaukie, Oregon.
Here is a brief summary of the work they've done on behalf of their students.
- Raised $600K to build a health center for students to access free care for physical, emotional, and dental needs.
- Both staff and students participate in various service projects throughout the community, including social issues (such as addressing the needs of the homeless) and environmental (restoring wetlands).
- Increasing cultural competency has been a primary focus of ongoing professional development.
- A system of support has been put in place for students and families. For example, if a student is not coming to school, there is an effort involving public services, school, and the family to determine the reason and address the barriers.This can include additional tutoring, connection to area non-profits to help solve family problems, or anything else that helps build a healthy student who is ready to learn.
- Building partnerships with the community. At current count, there are 28 different partners who step in to assist students and families.
The group from the school who was comprised of five men. The principal, Mark Pinder, is a well-spoken and kind man. He looked a bit overwhelmed and a bit like Charlie Brown's teacher at the Christmas pageant ("Isn't this the best thing ever?"). It was the most endearing expression I've seen in a long time. The rest of the group was equally delightful and committed. And while I did ask about their group being limited to pale males, I was assured that they are being active in increasing the diversity of staff.
We so rarely take time to celebrate accomplishments in this profession. We are focused on continual improvement---which is not a bad thing, but sometimes you just need to get your happy dance on. So with that spirit in mind, kudos to Milwaukie High School!
Boo-freakin'-hoo.
When the issue was raised about how they shared their work and whether they used social media, I watched the body language in the principal change. He used the thumbs of his interlaced hands to touch and reassure himself. This was not a conversation he wanted to have. (A little later, I whispered to him, "Are you okay?" He said he was. I told him not to worry...I'd fight for him. He seemed to relax a bit after that.)
I pointed out that this school was sharing. They were here at the conference. They had already talked about opportunities in their state to connect with other educators. They weren't withholding or hiding anything. Just because they don't have a blog or use Twitter doesn't mean that they don't share.
But apparently this wasn't good enough. In fact, they were told that they have a "moral obligation" to share their work. Does the lack of a blog automatically make one immoral...a bad person? But beyond that---whose version of "morality" are we talking about---the white middle-class Christian male one represented by the finger-pointer? Out of all that this school has done to move students forward, the only thing you can think of to say is that they've neglected their moral imperative?
There was further discussion when the teacher from Milwaukie said he didn't have time. The blogger thought that was an "excuse." Maybe it is, but if you're out there making sure your students and families have access to quality care and learning...if you're out raising $600K and building community partnerships...then I think that's a damn good excuse. And frankly, a far more important one than writing a blog post. What would you rather say you did with your time? Published a blog post...or helped a family restore the electrical service to their home?
Hey, if all you want on your tombstone is "He blogged." I'm okay with that. Rock on. What I don't support is a sense of entitlement to impose the same thing on everyone else. If the administration of Milwaukie HS doesn't want to blog, that's fine by me. Blogging is not a one-size-fits-all thing. We are educators. We each share our stories in the ways that make sense for ourselves and our communities.
At the end of the day, I want kids to have a healthy and safe environment, and equitable access to educational opportunities. I want them to learn. And I want them to celebrate every positive step along the way. We, as educators, need to support one another in all of the ways we make that happen---blog or no blog.
So, Milwaukie, go get your party on. I've got your back.
ASCD 2013: A Trip to the Library
I had an opportunity to sit down with several ASCD authors. It was part speed-dating, part squee-like-a-fangirl, and part new book smell. Heavenly.
I am first to admit that I have not read all of the books listed below---a deficit I plan to rectify at the earliest opportunity---but for now, let me comment on the authors and my reaction to their ideas during our conversation.
Author: Robyn Jackson
Title: Never Work Harder than Your Students
Ms. Jackson is a passionate educator and author who continues to share her ideas on Twitter. I have read the book featured at her table and remember being inspired by her dedication. In my mind, she was a bit larger than life. In reality, she is a petite and softspoken tour de force. Her confidence takes the form of quiet resolve. A reflective educator, she shared insight into how she continues to find inspiration (read something other than "teacher books") and renew enthusiasm for her work.
Authors: Bill Parrett and Kathleen Budge
Title: Turning High-Poverty Schools into High-Performing Schools
Mr. Parrett is a friend of my colleague who is attending the conference with me. They worked together in Alaska many years ago and it was very sweet to see him insist that he join the table as his personal guest. The authors are based in Boise, Idaho, but spend a lot of time doing consulting work, including some of the districts in my state. While listening to them discuss their ideas and ongoing work, I really appreciated the depth of understanding and individualized attention they applied to each district. Every district is unique, after all. So, this is another book that I’m interested in diving into. I don’t expect a magic bullet (nor was one offered), but new ideas are always welcome.
Author: Allen Mendler
Title: When Teaching Gets Tough: Smart Ways to Reclaim Your Game
I read this book earlier in the year and was glad to have a chance to sit down with the author. Mr. Mendler has a background as a social studies teacher and school psychologist. He has written extensively about working with challenging students, but the most recent book focuses on helping you rediscover your passion for the classroom. There are lots of common-sense strategies to get you through those rough patches. You know---the ones where you’re questioning your reason for getting into the work in the first place? Give this book a try.
Author: Mark Barnes
Title: ROLE Reversal: Achieving Uncommonly Excellent Results in the Student-Centered Classroom
I only got to talk with Mr. Barnes for a few minutes, but we discovered we had a lot in common. His book is about his journey over the last few years as he moved away from a traditional classroom to one that is more student-centered. We chatted about the impact of changing grading practices and using more feedback with students. Yes, this one is going on the nightstand, too.
Authors: Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams
Title: Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day
These authors were seated at the same table as Mr. Barnes and only had a few minutes to spare, too. Although they are the leaders of the flipped classroom revolution, the idea is a familiar one by now. Again, it’s not a book I have read (yet), but it was good to chat with them about next steps. How are people starting to groove off of this idea? There are lots of different variations in play as educators adapt the model. Their plan for book two is to showcase these examples. These authors were very friendly, approachable, intelligent, and interested in both listening and sharing ideas. They have an aura of intensity around them, but don’t be shy if you’d like to engage in some conversation with them. I think you’ll find them game.
Authors: R. Thomas Dewing and Matthew Perini (not present: Harvey Silver)
Title: The Core Six: Essential Strategies for Achieving Excellence with the Common Core
This was far and away my favourite conversation of the event. I had not heard of their book, let alone read it, but hey, why let details stand in the way of a good time? Mr. Dewing and Mr. Perini have a delightful sense of humor and we laughed quite a bit through our chat. Their book focuses on a few central strategies that support the Common Core. The strategies are not new---they include things like Compare and Contrast, and Write to Learn. But I think the message here is important for a lot of classrooms: help kids learn how to learn and they will be able to meet whatever standards there are for their grade level. I especially like this idea as one to bring back and discuss with our “supersmalls.” A teacher in a school district who might have five different grade levels in a classroom, no contractual prep time, and only one other colleague could use this as a way to organize the transition to the Common Core. Planning is reduced somewhat by focusing on the strategy and then differentiating by grade level.
There were a few authors I didn’t get to talk to, but I greatly enjoyed the buffet of ideas I was able to sample. My suitcase is a little heavier for the trip home. My mind is full of ideas, too, but fortunately there will be no overage fee to carry those on the plane. Once I have time to read and think about these books in more detail, you can expect some more expansive posts here.
I am first to admit that I have not read all of the books listed below---a deficit I plan to rectify at the earliest opportunity---but for now, let me comment on the authors and my reaction to their ideas during our conversation.
Author: Robyn Jackson
Title: Never Work Harder than Your Students
Ms. Jackson is a passionate educator and author who continues to share her ideas on Twitter. I have read the book featured at her table and remember being inspired by her dedication. In my mind, she was a bit larger than life. In reality, she is a petite and softspoken tour de force. Her confidence takes the form of quiet resolve. A reflective educator, she shared insight into how she continues to find inspiration (read something other than "teacher books") and renew enthusiasm for her work.
Authors: Bill Parrett and Kathleen Budge
Title: Turning High-Poverty Schools into High-Performing Schools
Mr. Parrett is a friend of my colleague who is attending the conference with me. They worked together in Alaska many years ago and it was very sweet to see him insist that he join the table as his personal guest. The authors are based in Boise, Idaho, but spend a lot of time doing consulting work, including some of the districts in my state. While listening to them discuss their ideas and ongoing work, I really appreciated the depth of understanding and individualized attention they applied to each district. Every district is unique, after all. So, this is another book that I’m interested in diving into. I don’t expect a magic bullet (nor was one offered), but new ideas are always welcome.
Author: Allen Mendler
Title: When Teaching Gets Tough: Smart Ways to Reclaim Your Game
I read this book earlier in the year and was glad to have a chance to sit down with the author. Mr. Mendler has a background as a social studies teacher and school psychologist. He has written extensively about working with challenging students, but the most recent book focuses on helping you rediscover your passion for the classroom. There are lots of common-sense strategies to get you through those rough patches. You know---the ones where you’re questioning your reason for getting into the work in the first place? Give this book a try.
Author: Mark Barnes
Title: ROLE Reversal: Achieving Uncommonly Excellent Results in the Student-Centered Classroom
I only got to talk with Mr. Barnes for a few minutes, but we discovered we had a lot in common. His book is about his journey over the last few years as he moved away from a traditional classroom to one that is more student-centered. We chatted about the impact of changing grading practices and using more feedback with students. Yes, this one is going on the nightstand, too.
Authors: Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams
Title: Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day
These authors were seated at the same table as Mr. Barnes and only had a few minutes to spare, too. Although they are the leaders of the flipped classroom revolution, the idea is a familiar one by now. Again, it’s not a book I have read (yet), but it was good to chat with them about next steps. How are people starting to groove off of this idea? There are lots of different variations in play as educators adapt the model. Their plan for book two is to showcase these examples. These authors were very friendly, approachable, intelligent, and interested in both listening and sharing ideas. They have an aura of intensity around them, but don’t be shy if you’d like to engage in some conversation with them. I think you’ll find them game.
Authors: R. Thomas Dewing and Matthew Perini (not present: Harvey Silver)
Title: The Core Six: Essential Strategies for Achieving Excellence with the Common Core
This was far and away my favourite conversation of the event. I had not heard of their book, let alone read it, but hey, why let details stand in the way of a good time? Mr. Dewing and Mr. Perini have a delightful sense of humor and we laughed quite a bit through our chat. Their book focuses on a few central strategies that support the Common Core. The strategies are not new---they include things like Compare and Contrast, and Write to Learn. But I think the message here is important for a lot of classrooms: help kids learn how to learn and they will be able to meet whatever standards there are for their grade level. I especially like this idea as one to bring back and discuss with our “supersmalls.” A teacher in a school district who might have five different grade levels in a classroom, no contractual prep time, and only one other colleague could use this as a way to organize the transition to the Common Core. Planning is reduced somewhat by focusing on the strategy and then differentiating by grade level.
There were a few authors I didn’t get to talk to, but I greatly enjoyed the buffet of ideas I was able to sample. My suitcase is a little heavier for the trip home. My mind is full of ideas, too, but fortunately there will be no overage fee to carry those on the plane. Once I have time to read and think about these books in more detail, you can expect some more expansive posts here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)