In Defense of Rubrics

Learning doesn't happen just in schools.
Just because you're in school, doesn't mean you're learning.
A keystone of learning is self-reflection.
Learning is a fantastically messy business.

I think everyone who is engaged in discussions about teaching and learning would agree with the previous statements. At the end of the day, if you're engaged in the discussion, you've already committed to changing the stricture in whatever way works for you. As rubrics come up in discussion again, I am thrilled to engage in discussion with other educators who are committed to change.

As I've shared on my blog, I'm all about addressing my ignorance. I have no problems being corrected when I'm wrong, because the alternative just doesn't make any sense. However, when it comes to rubrics, I'm standing fast. Plus, I've got some pretty compelling strong support on my side.
* rubrics define the features of work that describe quality. (Arter & Chappuis, 2006)
* used to evaluate the quality of students' work. (Popham, 2006)
* a rubric identifies all the needed attributes of quality or development in a process (Martin-Kniep, 2001)

This is not a rubric.


-->

	1 pt.	2 pt.	3 pt.	4 pt.
Sources	Student uses 1 source.	Student uses 2 sources.	Student uses 3 sources.	Student uses 4 or more sources.

This is not a rubric.


-->

	1 pt.	2 pt.	3 pt.	4 pt.
Mistakes	Writing has lots of mistakes.	Writing has a few mistakes.	Writing has some mistakes.	Writing has no mistakes.

How do we know? Rubrics are about quality... and you can't count quality.

A movie doesn't win the Academy Award because it had 4 crying scenes and the others only had 3.
Your favorite book didn't make you feel something 17 times while you're least favorite book only made you feel something 2 times.Your partner didn't suddenly become perfect for you the 9th time they did something for you.

In life, we don't count quality. I write that as if it's a truth and it can be argued. However, generally speaking when we talk about quality, we talk about attributes and definitions. We don't stop and count and determine what is good. "Sorry, Barb, can't recommend this as a good restaurant. The waiter took 17 minutes to refill my water. I recommend the one next door. They only took 12 minutes." We know, though, the traits of a good restaurant and if a friend of ours opened a new restaurant and asked for feedback, we wouldn't sit there and count.

In school, it is not physically possible to provide all students with feedback all of the time. There will come a moment when a child has to self-assess their work. Without understanding what quality looks like, their efforts are likely to result in guessing. Yes, we tell them. Yes, we give them verbal feedback. But we know students don't remember everything we tell them. A well-developed, thoughtful rubric can help students understand the attributes of quality. Consider this rubric that @russgoerend and I co-constructed. The rubric describes the quality of the presentation - note the top level is all about "breaking the rules" and the bottom of the document contains a checklist.

I think "rubric-esque tables" are developed way too frequently because we think rubrics are better than checklists.But, if you want specific things in order for a student's work to be considered acceptable, tell them what you want in a checklist. Checklists aren't bad or less then. They each serve a purpose in communicating expectations. Personally, I'd like to take a red pen to a certain website and rename 90% of their "rubrics" as "scoring guides". Many oft-shared critiques of rubrics are actually discussing "scoring guides" - and identify major problems with that tool. It seems were in a cycle of critiquing a tool while we're still negotiating a common understanding. My hunch is if we polled 100 lawyers and asked them to define "contract", there would be near unanimous agreement. I wonder what results we'd get if we polled 100 educators about "rubrics"?

If you'd like to read more about what makes quality rubrics, I invite you to check out the rubric wiki. I am always open to discussions of challenges and flaws in rubrics and how we can create better rubrics with and forth students and I would like to extended the invitation to readers who have identified those flaws to ask themselves if their concerns are with rubrics or impostors.

In Defense of SED

My instinct when I see an article or blog posting that slams SED is to come to their (its?) defense. Granted, if an argument is sound, I'll agree but when it's not I feel compelled to say something. I think it stems from the fact that I used to work for a school improvement team that fell under the SED umbrella. As a result, when I hear "SED", I think of Dawn, Elizabeth, and other educators I've worked with or heard talk and present about the assessments and standards. I truly believe that the vast majority of educators who make up SED have the best interests of schools and children in mind when they go to work. The challenges they face are numerous - one of which is how the public responds to their actions.

Yesterday, complaints about scoring on the math assessment bubbled up in my RSS Reader. Why now? Why this year? We've been using a holistic rubric for years but this year, The Post publishes an article with the frustrating headline of "NY passes students who get wrong answers on tests". Let's dismantle that, shall we? (Not hyperlinked by choice.)

1. You do not pass or fail the 3-8 Math NYS Assessments*. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the assessments are designed as large-scale programmatic assessments - not culminating exams. In other words, the assessments are a tool for schools and the state to determine if students are meeting certain performance indicators from our state standards. Consequences for performance belong to the school and district, not the student. Compare this to the Regents. A student scores a Level 2 on a 3-8 assessment, they're referred to intervention services and may or may not receive them based on a review of their classroom, etc. If you get a 3, a magic passing fairy doesn't suddenly appear and grant you admission to the next grade level. A student scores a 54 on a Regents? They fail the exam. Two different types of assessments. (Analogy alert: it's like taking a cholesterol test to find out how good your blood pressure is. Different questions and purposes, different assessment measures.)

2. NYS 3-8 Math Assessments contains short and long-response questions. If one of the multiple choice questions is 2+2 (don't worry, they're not that simple), and you pick 5, you'll get it wrong. So no. NYS is not giving credit for wrong answers. If on a long response, you demonstrate you can correctly do the math - i.e. set up the problem, determine which variables to use, show you understand the concept - but make a computational error, wouldn't you want a child to get partial credit? A student is getting credit for what they do know, and losing points for their mistakes. If an argument is that the "Real World" doesn't work like that, no one is claiming the state assessments are the "Real World." Nor, are they claiming the tests measure creativity, senses of humor, or even if a child is a "good student". They are asking: on this day, at this time, can they students of this school demonstrate mastery of these performance indicators?

3. "This is rocket science." David Abrams, Director of Assessment for NYS. There is a field of study called psychometrics - the design and study of measures in the social sciences, including education. It's a fascinating field and sets the rules and standards for test design. Perhaps I am skewed by my personal connection to SED but I have to ask: Does it make sense that NYS would allow our students to take an assessment that didn't meet the requirements of quality assessments? Does it make sense that NYS would give "partial credit" if there wasn't a sound reason for it? I recommend reading the technical reports about the assessments to learn more.

Yes, there are issues with high stakes testing in the US. I support and follow FairTest. I think we've lost sight of what "data" means and are focusing on numbers to the detriment of multiple measures. I think we as a field have a lot of unanswered - and unasked - questions about standardized testing. All of that being said, this article frustrates me and does not add to the collective conversation around education. The headline was probably designed to get hits. And did it ever.

Here's the hard part for me. Self-reflection. Am I off-base? This argument isn't about how the scores are used, or how the pressure teachers feel around the tests, rather just this narrow band about the irresponsibility of publishing an article that doesn't even begin to address the complexity of a large-scale assessment system. Grumble, grumble.


* Yes. In NYC, a student can fail the assessments. That is a local decision and not how the tests were designed to be used.

What is PD for anyway?

For the past seven years, I have had the distinct pleasure of working part-time in a district as their K-12 Curriculum Coordinator.  While the road has not always been smooth - what I have learned from the "bumps" has made me a better educator and a better leader.  With budget cuts, my formal work there will end this year but I leave confident that when it comes to professional learning they are headed in the right direction.

I know this because last week was the last Superintendent's Conference Day of the year and it was one in which the teachers shared their learning from participating in Collegial Circles all year long.  It took seven long years and many mistakes in PD for this to happen - but the teachers wanted it, cried for it and we were able to make it happen.

For each conference day this year, thirteen groups of teachers met under the direction of a team appointed facilitator with a team developed agenda to learn about team goals.  They ranged from infusing technology in a variety of settings to developing curriculum in areas like counseling and PE to examining middle level transition.  These weren't administrative directives, these were teacher selected and teacher led.

Along the way, the teacher leaders on the committee that helped to lay out the PD plan met and reviewed what was happening and tweaked the process and sought additional input.  And they were honest with each other about what they thought was effective teaching and good pedagogy and many other things.  Brutally honest at times.  And incredibly professional.

I know that it seems too good to be true - a local superintendent wanting to replicate the process had her doubts too.  But she visited us - so don't believe me, believe her.

It makes me sad that I haven't been able to help replicate the culture anywhere else - at least not yet.  But I know now that it is possible and not just me tilting windmills again.  And when I read posts like this (and of course the comments that follow) I see complaints and excuses and lamenting galore - but I don't see a lot of  "so here is what we are going to do" happening.  I'll keep working toward changing the meaning of professional development - what will you do?

Teacher Evaluations and Value Added

As many may have heard by now, NYS has passed legislation designed to enhance it's Race To The Top (RTTT) application as well as "support the Regents reform agenda to improve teaching and learning, increasing the opportunity of all students to graduate from high school ready for higher education and employment.."  We had a fantastic discussion about it at a regional data meeting and it raised many more questions than it answered.

Having watched the May 11th webcast announcing the legislative reforms around the APPR process, it is clear that incorporating student performance into teacher evaluations makes some sense (at least to me!).  By looking at growth in both the NYS assessments and locally determined assessments, understanding the impact that teachers have by seeing how their students shows growth makes some logical sense.  The key word seems to be growth (rather than achievement.)

Without a doubt - this raises some issues and questions and of course, some concerns.  While I wrestle with the impact this might have (positive and negative), the lawyer in me just can't stop thinking about the legal implications of these changes.  Or at least the challenges that could be presented.

Fortunately - I am not alone and there are some well thought out arguments that has my gray matter really working.  Bruce Baker over at Schoolfinance101's blog teases out his thoughts in "Pondering Legal Implications of Value-Added Teacher Evaluation."  Interesting here is whether the proposals to link evaluations to student performance will in fact raise due process challenges due to the idea that "tenure" is in fact a property interest.  Many other possible legal arguments are addressed but I find the tenure rights one very interesting (and very complicated!)

At Edjurist, Justin Bathon posted a response to the post above touching again on the due process piece but adding another tidbit that has really been bugging me about the use of quantitative data as well as the quantative way in which New York is proposing to weight the components of the evaluation:

Generally, all this is what happens when you start forcing statistics in the legal system - which is not built for that at all. The legal system is a very qualitatively oriented system, making decisions mostly based on evidence obtained through interviews and the like. The jury, even, is a qualitative system that collectively makes a decision based on all the evidence presented. Statistics throw a wrench in all that because people react differently to numbers. They think numbers don't lie (although, of course, we know that they can and do).

Finally, Scott Bauries responds from the perspective of an employment lawyer and I will warn you - there is plenty of legal speak here.   Bottom line on this post - yes there will be lawsuits ("Simply put, if you fire people, and they think their firings were unfair, then you are going to be sued.") but it is going to very difficult for many plaintiffs (i.e. the teachers) to be successful.

I share these to help to continue the discourse around this topic.  Many are wondering with data in the mix - will people want to become teachers? Will we lose teachers because we have set this new bar? Or will we in fact begin to have others view teaching as a profession with the same accountability measures that other professions have?  Weigh in - I would love to hear your thoughts!

Is professional discourse possible on Twitter?

Recent “conversations” on Twitter have left me excited, annoyed, frustrated, and thrilled. Very much like any other conversation but there have been some fundamental differences in the nature of the Twitter experiences that inspired me to dust off my blog template.

I adore discourse. Fortunately, I married an amateur elocutionist so I get plenty of practice. Theresa and I started this blog so we could engage with others around what we’re reading or wondering about. My motto (after “The Geek Shall Inherit the Earth”, and Wil Wheaton’s philosophy) is “Seek first to understand then to be understood”. I truly do want to understand different perspectives. There is no benefit to walking around ignorant or wrong so I want to engage with people with different perspectives. It’s not their job to convince me I’m wrong, but my job to seek them out and investigate if I am. Within reason, of course. I’m not actively looking for members of the Flat-Earth Society.

Twitter has opened a whole new world of resources. I have four perma-search columns in Tweetdeck and am constantly tagging new sites and resources as a result of the awesome people I follow. In the past few weeks I’ve been purposefully engaging with other educators who have explicitly stated an opinion I disagree or struggle with and many times, find myself more frustrated than ever before. Almost without fail, the frustration comes from the nature of Twitter itself and not the conversation. If we focus on those moments when educators are directly engaging with each other around challenging issues or topics, there may be cause for some concern.

Which leads me back to my guiding question: Is professional discourse possible on Twitter? A few points of evidence for what might be getting in the way.

140 characters is very limiting. When trying to assert your point of view, one of the first things to go are “unnecessary words” such as please, thank you, I was wondering, tell me more, I agree but am curious about…those words that let the other person know you’re not attacking. As a result, a tweet that we mean as curious and inquisitive may come off as brusque and rude. Some educators solve this by referring to blog postings they’ve done on the subject and others disemvowel themselves or truncate their words to a point where it’s hard to interpret their message.

Twitter moves quickly. Even though there are resources for tracking connected Tweets, it’s my sense that most users are doing other things while Tweeting. As a result, someone posts a Tweet with a provocative question, not knowing their partner had to head back to teach, and wonders if they’re being ignored, their question was too forward, or their partner has gotten bored with them. By the time you return and see that question, four hours has passed and whatever point you wanted to make may have slipped away.

We’re talking about big issues. As a result of working with Adam Fletcher, I still feel a tickle when I talk about student engagement without students. I feel that same tickle when we try and tackle big issues on Twitter. When we have an #edchat where most of the Tweeters are on the same page, there is the potential for it turning into an echo chamber. This by itself isn’t a bad thing but I fear it may lead to atrophy of our discourse muscles. On the other hand, trying to talk about this big beautiful thing called learning in snippets seems to border on disrespectful.

It’s very possible that the problem lies entirely with me. I point to the length of this post as one example of how I struggle with character limits. A friend and colleague of mine has done a great deal of work around discourse and presents the following types and it’s interesting to think about what type(s) are possible on Twitter:

Conversation: Talk where the participants take turns talking and listening but little movement occurs. The talk is congenial. (Mark Lipman) Carefree and effortless discourse. (James Dillon)

Dialogue: (Talk where) “members help one another reconsider, reevaluate, and reassemble bits of information they already have, integrating them into a new, more inclusive whole.” … Dialogue encourages mutual respect and insights that lead to new solutions. (Peter Winchell)

Discussion: Alternately serious and playful effort by a group of two or more to share views and engage in mutual and reciprocal critique. The purposes of a discussion are fourfold: 1) to help participants reach a more critically informed understanding about the topic or topics under consideration, 2) to enhance participants’ self-awareness and their capacity for self-critique, 3) to foster an appreciation among participants for the diversity of opinion that invariably emerges when viewpoints are exchanged openly and honestly, and 4) to act as a catalyst to helping people take informed action in the world. (Brookfield and Preskill, p. 7)

Debate: Participants argue opposing sides of a question with emphasis on winning based on reasoned argument. The winner is usually determined by a judge.

Clearly, I am not advocating for limiting Twitter to just sharing resources but a part of me wishes we had a version of “let’s take this outside”. But with slightly less violence. Should we as educators develop an approach that allows us to start a conversation on Twitter and move it elsewhere? What are your thoughts?

On Being Critical....A Response

I didn't intend for this to be a full post - but as I was busy typing away in response to Angela's post I realized it would just be better to link my responses from here!!  Start by reading Angela's original post - go ahead, I can wait!!

Angela makes a pretty powerful case for the alignment of tech tools with what we are teaching/learning.  This has long been a cause of mine - that the technology should serve some sort of pedagogical purpose, not merely be put into a lesson for "fun" or because the district has decided to go with blogs and wikis as a form of PD.  I pushed back in a district recently that asked me to use a particular tool that an administrator had seen, but not used, while working with teachers on differentiated instruction.  I pontificated on my stance (and I don't say that lightly - I know I did it) and made sure they understood that I would not sacrifice the deeper learning about differentiating for the sake of the technology tool.

And at the same time - I was a hypocrite.  The district had also asked me to go virtually paperless in order to model technology integration for teachers.  This was not my first time working with the teachers, they had gone through "the fundamentals" with me and I thought going paperless was a grand idea.  We were going to spend some time on design and the teachers would all have laptops so the electronic content would make things easier for all.

So - I embedded a poll and a WallWisher wall into the website as a pre-assessment tool.  Nothing fancy - just replacing the paper/post-it note activity with one that was virtual.  And while we did not get completely derailed - we certainly slowed a bit as the teachers wanted to learn how to use the tool and ask questions about access.  Did the use of technology align? Yes - to the going paperless objective.  Maybe not to the differentiated instruction.

When the technology gets in the way of the learning - whether because it doesn't work the way we want it to or because it is "dazzling" - learning doesn't happen. Or rather, not the learning we had intended or planned for.

Angela talks about her best work involving a lot of discomfort - I know that I learned a great deal as I developed the website for the teachers and thought about which tools to embed and which to save for another day.  But did my learning and the discomfort of using a tool promote the learning of the teachers?

I had hoped for a relatively presenter-free day - one in which I had created a tool for the teachers to use and explore differentiation as they designed for their classrooms with me there to guide them as needed.  Instead, the website became the powerpoint and we walked through it together.  Was it because I hadn't crafted the experience well enough or was it because after the initial resistance to working on their own, I resorted to "expert" mode?

I have been and continue to struggle with the role that technology should play as I work with teachers.  On one hand, I think the use should be purposeful and meaningful.  Kim Cofino's recent post on Looking for Learning and her observation rubric has me thinking about making the use of technology more transparent and embedded.  Kim Moritz's post on Facebook in schools has me thinking about open conversations with educators about technology that presents both the good and the bad and seeks solutions.  And now, Angela has me thinking about alignment and discomfort and change.

I don't know everything there is to know about technology or technology tools - I only know where they fit in my world.  I try to promote questioning and exploration - but more often than not am not truly successful.  I get a lot of sharing -but not a lot of pushback or discourse. 

How do we change professional learning to embrace this?

Changes to New York State Assessments

An email went out today on the NYS DATAG (Data Analysis Technical Assistance Group) listserv regarding pending changes to the NYS 3-8 assessments. Most prevalent for this (2009-2010) year was the following:

The math exams will move from March to May and will expand to cover performance indicators that: 1) have not been tested before; or 2) have not been tested within the past two years. Over the span of the 6 grades tested, on average, a minimum of approximately 25% of the questions on the 2010 math exams will cover performance indicators that were not covered by the questions on the 2009 Tests. The number of actual test questions will remain the same.

I posted a response to the listserv regarding the implications on instruction, especially for schools that have used carefully constructed historical test maps to determine their curriculum and test prep focus. It's always difficult to figure out what will provoke a response on the listserv and as of this posting no one has replied. (One drawback of listservs - hitting "reply" sends a reply to poster, not the entire listserv. No telling how many comments the original poster of the SED documents received)

Additionally, the issue of similar items appearing year after year was addressed by a variety of media sources (e.g. GothamSchools). It is my hope that these changes were underway before the articles came out, rather than changes being a response to perceived testing flaws. We owe it to NYS students to assess them using psychometrically sound assessments, not assessments that appease the public. In the words of David Abrams, "This is rocket science." If SED increased the item pool based on an article in the newspaper, then a psychometric fairy just lost its wings.

What are your thoughts? Is it fair to include standards that haven't been previously tested? What other implications do you see for the field?

To read more about the coming changes (including mention of vertical scaling and secure tests in 2010-2011), check out the Regents update here.

Racing to the Top

Education can be a political sticky wicket.  I didn't really realize this when I became a teacher, hoping to leave behind the game playing and politics of a different profession.  As classroom teacher, I saw the adoption of "Nickle-B" as we affectionately called it and the impact it had on my classroom, the relationship I had with my administration and the need for me to learn even more.  Currently, as a leader and administrator, I am looking at the marathon implcations of the Race to the Top applications and perhaps, the revision of NCLB.

I have been reading the applications of various states as they have become available and noting with interest the language of the application writers.  Having tried my hand at various grants in the past, I recognized the "this would be a great idea if you fund me" language and the "we think this is what you want to hear but in reality we might not implement it this way" language that was used in various places.  Understandable - given the time states had to prepare and submit their application along with the various assurances.

Through Eduwonk, I stumbled upon the application of Louisiana which I had not read yet.  To quote the Washington Post Op-Ed piece that led me to the application:

And the plan is beautifully written.  It describes each area in which they have already begun implementation and then explains what they will do to continue the work.  It then adds other key initiatives to investigate and add to the application to make their work even more outstanding.

"The beauty of Louisiana's reform model lies in its simplicity. The state has taken critical baseline steps, it proposes expanding projects that have shown promising results, and it has ensured that participating school districts will actually do the things that are in the application. "

Some highlights I found (accent mine):

• Facilitating the creation and usage of professional learning networks at district and school levels that emphasize,among other things, reflection on and continuous improvement of how teacher and leader practice contributes to student achievement and teacher effectiveness. This is already being piloted by Dr. Michael Fullan in St. John the Baptist Parish, a Participating LEA. (page 9) They had me at Fullan.
• Integrating an Instructional Improvement System that will give teachers, leaders, and administrators rapid access to student achievement and teacher effectiveness data through mechanisms such as a dashboard. This integration will vastly increase the use of data to drive instructional improvement and will unequivocally show the effect teachers have on student learning. (Page 10)  We hate to hear it, but we know it is true.  What teachers do impacts student learning.
• To support our strategy (of adopting 100% the common core standards), summative assessment results will be available within two weeks of test administration so they can be used to inform decisions about students and also to aid in the effective evaluation of teachers and schools. The test will be vertically scaled to provide a clear picture of annual student growth. We will extend the blueprint of the K-12 common assessment quickly to science and social studies so that we can ensure a rich view of student progress and the effectiveness of teachers can be measured more reliably. We will also evaluate and implement developmentally appropriate measures of progress for Pre-K aligned to the common core standards to ensure students are on track at the earliest ages. (Page 10)
• To implement the state’s ambitious plans and provide a level of service that supports successful reform similar to the responsiveness shown to the RSD, the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) will accelerate a process that began more than two years ago to transform itself from a compliance monitoring bureaucracy to a performance-based and service-oriented school support institution. (Page 12)

There are 251 additional pages of the application but these are some pieces that had me thinking about the work that my state is (or isn't) doing.   And while not perfect, it gives me hope that the amount of money being poured into the Race to the Top applications might actually create change.

What does your state application say? If you are from Louisiana, how accurate are the claims made in the application? Inquiring minds want to know...

Pillars of Success

A recent EdWeek article caught my eye on five keys to urban school success.  Based upon 15 years of work in Chicago elementary schools, a new book identifies five "tried and true" ingredients that work, in combination with one another to lead success in urban schools.

Those pillars are:

• Strong leadership, in the sense that principals are “strategic, focused on instruction, and inclusive of others in their work”;


• A welcoming attitude toward parents, and formation of connections with the community;

• Development of professional capacity, which refers to the quality of the teaching staff, teachers’ belief that schools can change, and participation in good professional development and collaborative work;

• A learning climate that is safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing to all students; and

• Strong instructional guidance and materials.

I am not sure I gained any huge "a-ha" in reading the article but it is causing me to think about the role that I play in helping schools to plant these pillars.  And it has me questioning about the role that I can play when politically, I am outside of a single district and instead operate among and with 27 of them.

And, as the article suggests, I am thinking about these findings in conjunction with the current Race to the Top initiatives and President Obama's State of the Union speech last night.

In short - I don't want to think alone.  What do you think of these 5 pillars? Are they new? Surprising? How do we go about supporting our educational systems to embrace them?

Kayaks and Canoes

We opened our team meeting today by viewing this TED Talk and talking about the future:



Transparency. Connectedness. Co-dependency.

And as we watched, I thought about how education seems to be lagging behind in even these first 5000 days.  While we don't still have the green screens that Kevin Kelly talks about - in many ways, education has barely even begun to tap the potential of the Web.

Then, by linking through a Twitter post to a blog, I found this amazing analogy on the Edge from George Dyson:

"In the North Pacific ocean, there were two approaches to boatbuilding. The Aleuts (and their kayak-building relatives) lived on barren, treeless islands and built their vessels by piecing together skeletal frameworks from fragments of beach-combed wood. The Tlingit (and their dugout canoe-building relatives) built their vessels by selecting entire trees out of the rainforest and removing wood until there was nothing left but a canoe.


The Aleut and the Tlingit achieved similar results — maximum boat / minimum material — by opposite means. The flood of information unleashed by the Internet has produced a similar cultural split. We used to be kayak builders, collecting all available fragments of information to assemble the framework that kept us afloat. Now, we have to learn to become dugout-canoe builders, discarding unneccessary information to reveal the shape of knowledge hidden within.

I was a hardened kayak builder, trained to collect every available stick. I resent having to learn the new skills. But those who don't will be left paddling logs, not canoes."

Which boat will you take to the future?

Making Connections - Creating Alliances

Graph of Grand Rounds Blog

Hard to believe that Jenn and I started this blog on August 21, 2006!!!

We had the best of intentions - bring together professionals to discuss what they are reading, trends in education and share their expertise.  We try to walk a neutral line and post questions rather than answers - although I am sure that some might not read our posts that way.  In short - what we have been trying to do is build a learning network.

Since that first post, we have embarked on using delicious and Twitter and Good Reads and Shelfari and other tools to network and connect with others.  We have been pretty fortunate to build a great personal learning network - both of local/regional folks and those who we hope to meet some day.  (I hope I am not putting words in Jenn's mouth but she will be sure to tell me in the comments!)

But despite it all - I have been a bit disappointed that we haven't had more "conversations" via this blog.  Granted - we haven't been all that faithful about posting, but it can be pretty lonely when it feels like no one is listening.  Or pushing back.  Or asking more questions.  Or sharing.

So I was very excited to read a post from a fellow blogger about creating an "alliance."  At first blush, I have to admit that the very word scares me.  When someone says alliance I think about Survivor and all the amazing things that people did to try and win that game - the back stabbing, the switching alliances, the carrying of undeserving people to the finals. (Did I mention that we try to remain neutral?)  But as I read on, and read all the links, I became very intrigued.

So of course, I signed us up!!

It isn't about getting more traffic to the site or winning any awards or making any money - that has never been the intent of our blogging.  It is about reaching out to other edu-bloggers, supporting them, having them support us and expand the learning network we have created.  We are looking for questions and more questions, not pats on the back or atta-girls.  But an open, honest and professional conversation about education.

So - join our alliance or create your own. Connect. Question. Share.

Grand Rounds in Education.

To Blog or Not to Blog - That is the Question

As a part of our session on growing and enhancing learning communities using Web 2.0 tools at NSDC, we are introducing participants to a variety of tools within the context of the dispositions of practice.  One tool that we are sharing is blogs.

For me, blogging has been a way to put my thoughts out to the greater world.  Sometimes I get feedback in the form of comments, sometimes I don't. (That makes me very sad by the way! Post a comment! Just don't post spam!)  Either way - the very act of putting my question out there, of writing about my thought process helps me to clarify my work and the vision I have for that work.

When I began blogging, there was the initial fear of "what if I say the wrong thing" - particularly as I blogged about my work.  Then I ran into the problem that my chose blogging platform was often blocked in district (very frustrating!)  However, I persevered and my blogging continues.

I find that I blog less often than I used to - perhaps because I tweet more? - but that I am always reflecting on my work which will usually result in a blog post.  As a result, blogging is one of the most important tools that I use.

If you are new to blogging, what are your concerns or questions about blogging? What most intriques you about blogging?

Vision in Education

A colleague posted the following on Facebook and Twitter the other day:

"Is there any reason for a lack of vision in education?"

At a recent meeting, the keynote speaker asked us several questions about our organization and one of them was:

 "Who would you follow?"

Who would you leave the safety and security of your tenure and seniority for? Who is that person in your organization that you want to work with - to plan with - to dream with?

I have been thinking a great deal about vision, or the lack of it, in our educational systems for quite a while.  As a Fellow in Communities for Learning, vision is one small part of a Framework that has been developed to look at school improvement.  But I am beginning to think that if I had to weight them - it would be one pretty important part.

I am not just talking about a "vision" statement that is created by a committee and done for the sake of compliance. I am talking about an understanding of where we want to be - what it will look like, sound like, be like for students, teachers, administrators and parents.  Something that we hold in our sights, revisit and refine regularly, reflect on at the end of a good day and a bad day.  Something to move toward.

I am not sure that I have seen one of those.  I have met lots of teachers and leaders who are trying but clarifying vision and making it something manageable and achieveable can be daunting.  We might speak it once in a meeting and then never again after we have been given "the look" by our colleagues or leaders.  Or we might push for it - every day and in every way - only to be disappointed in the obvious lack of vision that we are handed.

I know that I don't have the answers - but I love the fact that more and more people are posing the questions.  But the real thing I am interested in is

What are we going to do about it?

Teaching as a profession

The following is an exchange from an #edchat on Twitter last night:

I am going to be the first to admit that the heat of the conversation and being limited to 140 characters did not highlight my ability to word things well - but what about those bigger questions?

• Is there a difference between a learner and a teacher? Between a learner and a student?
• What is a profession? Who are professionals?

Why I Love Rubrics

Theresa and I started Grand Rounds as a place to discuss educational research and professional development. Slowly, I moved away from the blog and into a PLN based primarily on Twitter to accomplish that goal. Several times, I’ve jumped into Twitter conversations around topics of interest but last night, I watched a conversation about rubrics fly by on Tweetdeck and self-censored. Knowing I wouldn't be able to say what I wanted to say in 140 characters, I returned here to Grand Rounds to lay out my argument for why, frankly, I love rubrics.

Seven years ago, I was a new staff developer, fresh from the classroom and attending a series of workshops that my new office was sponsoring. The program was school based, so I sat among teachers that had a long history together and was privy to their student work, curriculum tasks, and conversations. The theme of the program was “Communicating Expectations” and when rubrics were first mentioned, it was as a tool, not as the end unto itself. After a series of activities around expectations and feedback, including a discussion around measuring work that seemingly can’t be measured, we started to work with a task the teachers had recently assigned. It was an authentic task that involved creating, exploring, communicating - a whole slew of skills and tasks. They brainstormed what they expected from their students, organized what students actually did by their approximation to their expectations, articulated the attributes of the work that met their expectations, and slowly but surely, built a rubric. Teachers then took the rubric they wrote, modified it for a future task, and came up with a plan for using it with students. When they returned to the next session, almost every teacher spoke of the improved quality of student work and clarity of language between teacher and students. They used the rubric as a gauge for assessing the distance between their work and what the task required. The teachers weren't using rubrics for all tasks and they weren't treating them as some sort of a holy grail.

I was hooked. Since then, I've seen numerous examples of high quality rubrics being used by students and teachers. I use them regularly in my work and will continue to advocate for taking the time to design high quality rubrics for worthy tasks. When I read blogs, tweets, and books that are anti-rubric, I almost always agree with their dislike of the things they are describing. But frequently, what I see people describing aren't rubrics, they're checklists. So to me:

1. The rubric itself is the least important part of the process. The sheet of paper is the product of a process articulating expectations of student learning and work.
   
   
2. Any rubric that hasn't been checked against student work, developed with students or gotten student feedback is still in draft form.
   
   
3. The language describes that quality of a piece of work - not the quantity. Some, few, and many are quantitative terms and are slippery terms to define. To me, a rubric's purpose to is articulate expectations of success - so a student working on a task will know what they need to do to improve their work. The language needs to reflect that goal.
   
   
4. The language of the rubric focus what is present, not just what is absent. ("Includes irrelevant material" versus "doesn't stay focused on topic")
   
   
5. The highest level describes what exceeds the standard or expectation, and often includes language about "breaking rules" or "new and unexpected" approach to task.
   
   
6. The task is worthy of a rubric. That's a value loaded statement, so to clarify - not all tasks need a rubric and a well-written rubric does take time to write. Generally speaking, I use rubrics for authentic, process tasks that are similar to real world tasks.
   
   
7. We need to be critical consumers of rubrics that are available in the cloud.
   
   

I won't go into the rubrics in writing debate as far better writers than I have tackled it (I recommend reading Ruth Culham and then Maja Wilson for two takes on that particular issue) but I will state explicitly that I think rubrics are among the best tools available for articulating expectations in a way students can refer to when their teacher isn't around.

For a more recent view from both sides, check out TeachPaperless' Why I Hate Rubrics/Rubrics Were Great (especially the comments) and Two Arguments for Using (Some) Rubrics and please share your thinking around the sticky wicket that are rubrics.

Tornado Testing

While in Connecticut for a Communities for Learning last week, we received the updated, revised testing schedule for the 3-8 assessments in New York. The air was immediately charged as building level leaders let the new schedule sink in and began to think about the implications. After airing our frustrations, we did what we always do and set about getting the work done.

In my region, we have a strong history of regional scoring so these changes mean that my team will need to develop a new calendar of scoring dates to assist the districts. We have sent out a survey to our districts regarding participation and trying to determine the best way to handle the tight testing/scoring window. I am confident that with the input from our districts we will determine a way to get this task done, although I am concerned that we will lose the professional development aspect that has been the cornerstone of what we do.

Working in a position that requires me to pass along information from SED to our districts and then work to make their directives reality, I tend to walk a fairly careful line with my thoughts and actions. Often, I try to put the realities of a state office into perspective for our districts and get to what the true intent of their decisions are, not how they are actually implemented, funded or twisted by media coverage. I remind teachers about the importance of standards - while we wrestle with making meaning of their broad guidelines and inconsistency across grade levels. I remind administrators that the 3-8 testing system over time will give us important information about a cohort of students that we can use to address issues in curriculum as well as remediate using data, while bracing myself for the "Business First" month of coverage. I share, in a user friendly format, the regulations that deal with mentoring, AIS, RTI and every other mandate there is pushing my districts to think outside the box and find where they are already doing these things, while fighting off the complaints that these are all non-funded and how are districts/teachers supposed to do all of this.

But lately - I am feeling a little like the aftermath of the tornadoes that recently hit my area. Changes have come upon us with little warning, the path is unpredictable and the aftermath is going to require a great deal of clean-up.



I am still processing all of the information and trying to help our districts find a way out of the storm. But it is becoming harder and harder to defend the wizard.