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?
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:
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!
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?
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.
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?
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:
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.
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.
Some highlights I found (accent mine):
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...
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)
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?
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:
Which boat will you take to 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
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?
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?
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:
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.
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:
- 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.
- Any rubric that hasn't been checked against student work, developed with students or gotten student feedback is still in draft form.
- 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.
- The language of the rubric focus what is present, not just what is absent. ("Includes irrelevant material" versus "doesn't stay focused on topic")
- The highest level describes what exceeds the standard or expectation, and often includes language about "breaking rules" or "new and unexpected" approach to task.
- 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.
- We need to be critical consumers of rubrics that are available in the cloud.
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.
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.
New York State moves 3-8 testing to May
It started with a question on a listserv, sort of like a rumble in the background. I spent a lovely day doing program design and then visiting The Cloisters in New York City. My cell phone battery died mid-morning so I missed the rumble rising to a dull roar. By time I got home and back on-line, the roar had crested and the conversations regarding implications already in progress.
All New York State students in Grades 3-8 will be taking the mathematics and English Langauge Arts assessments in May beginning next year.
The rumor was confirmed on the DATAG listserv with the following message:
Positive Consequence: Teachers can now teach Math and ELA all year long. April Spring Break can provide a natural break between teaching content and teaching students test sophistication or test wise-ness.
Negative Consequence: Eighth graders may conceivably be testing (Math, ELA, Science, and SS) more than learning during the month of May. (Angela)
Positive: The assessments can be viewed as a one-shot deal that happens at the end of the year. A chance to show off what you know, like the big kids in high school.
Negative: A nine year old probably won’t see it that way. (Theresa)
Positive: Weather is less likely to impact testing administration.
Negative: Scoring all assessments at the same time might lead to more than one testing and assessment coordinator cowering in a corner, whimpering.
Positive: The media will report on test data once a year, rather than twice. (Erin)
Negative: People may perceive this as a response to the increase in scores. A way to shake things up so students don't get to used to the test.
I expect the conversation will crest again as the press reports the change. I, like many others, have lots of questions. I wonder how students feel about the change. Were students given the chance to respond to the survey? Angela wonders if it's time to combine ELA and Social Studies into one assessment. What about the impact on final exams, especially given the recent article in The Buffalo News about schools using SED scores in student averages? ... and more more.
Your thoughts?
All New York State students in Grades 3-8 will be taking the mathematics and English Langauge Arts assessments in May beginning next year.
The rumor was confirmed on the DATAG listserv with the following message:
Johanna Duncan Poitier just sent out a special edition issue of News and Notes which provides important updates from the June meeting of the Board of Regents to District Superintendents, Superintendents of Schools, Administrators of Charter and Nonpublic Schools, and Other Partners which included a confirmation of the Regents action earlier today moving the 3-8 ELA and Math assessments to May starting next year.I’m sure more will be released in the coming days, including guidance on how schools should handle administration, scoring, data reporting, and other aspects of the assessments. To hear what others were thinking, I connected with my PLN on Twitter and Facebook and the responses were similar. Lots of surprise that we went from survey to action so quickly, panic at the thought of 3rd graders sitting through 5 straight days of testing, and bafflement about what it will look like in practice. Talking through the consequences has been fascinating. Some of the comments from conversations are below. I liked to the author's blog when possible:
Positive Consequence: Teachers can now teach Math and ELA all year long. April Spring Break can provide a natural break between teaching content and teaching students test sophistication or test wise-ness.
Negative Consequence: Eighth graders may conceivably be testing (Math, ELA, Science, and SS) more than learning during the month of May. (Angela)
Positive: The assessments can be viewed as a one-shot deal that happens at the end of the year. A chance to show off what you know, like the big kids in high school.
Negative: A nine year old probably won’t see it that way. (Theresa)
Positive: Weather is less likely to impact testing administration.
Negative: Scoring all assessments at the same time might lead to more than one testing and assessment coordinator cowering in a corner, whimpering.
Positive: The media will report on test data once a year, rather than twice. (Erin)
Negative: People may perceive this as a response to the increase in scores. A way to shake things up so students don't get to used to the test.
I expect the conversation will crest again as the press reports the change. I, like many others, have lots of questions. I wonder how students feel about the change. Were students given the chance to respond to the survey? Angela wonders if it's time to combine ELA and Social Studies into one assessment. What about the impact on final exams, especially given the recent article in The Buffalo News about schools using SED scores in student averages? ... and more more.
Your thoughts?
Change or Slight of Hand?
According to news reports this past week, 46 states including New York State, have agreed to “the process and development of voluntary, common standards.” Said standards would be in draft form for review by July 2009 with grade-by-grade standards available in December 2009. States would have three years to adopt and implement those standards.
Now, I am not against national standards per se, I just want standards that are manageable, measurable and relevant. Having waited anxiously for the revision to the NYS ELA standards since last June, I find it hard to believe that a national group with appropriate representation is going to be able to reach consensus and produce something that will meet those criteria in a matter of a few weeks. Sadly, I became even more skeptical when I read the actual agreement drafted by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices which contains criteria for said standards, which will be:
It has taken a year for NYS to review and develop a plan for their revision of state standards in ELA. The last time I was in Albany I was told the committee was still discussing them and “tweaking” what they had before roll-out for public comment, now scheduled for Fall 2009. We have had some sneak peeks at what to anticipate, such as the fact that we will now have a Literacy and Literature strand and that in addition to Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking, we will now add Viewing and Presenting.
The latter two are very similar to the National Council for the Teachers of English (NCTE) Standards for the English Language Arts which frankly don’t look too terribly different from what NYS currently has in place. So the cynic in me is doubting whether there is going to be any real change when it comes to the standards. If NYS has already spent significant time and energy into developing these revised standards, yet have agreed to develop the national pieces (of which 85% should be adopted by the states voluntarily) – is there going to be real change or are we just going through the motions?
Now, I am not against national standards per se, I just want standards that are manageable, measurable and relevant. Having waited anxiously for the revision to the NYS ELA standards since last June, I find it hard to believe that a national group with appropriate representation is going to be able to reach consensus and produce something that will meet those criteria in a matter of a few weeks. Sadly, I became even more skeptical when I read the actual agreement drafted by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices which contains criteria for said standards, which will be:
- Fewer, clearer, and higher, to best drive effective policy and practice;
- Aligned with college and work expectations, so that all students are prepared for success upon graduating from high school;
- Inclusive of rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills, so that all students are prepared for the 21st century;
- Internationally benchmarked, so that all students are prepared for succeeding in our global economy and society; and
- Research and evidence-based.
It has taken a year for NYS to review and develop a plan for their revision of state standards in ELA. The last time I was in Albany I was told the committee was still discussing them and “tweaking” what they had before roll-out for public comment, now scheduled for Fall 2009. We have had some sneak peeks at what to anticipate, such as the fact that we will now have a Literacy and Literature strand and that in addition to Reading, Writing, Listening and Speaking, we will now add Viewing and Presenting.
The latter two are very similar to the National Council for the Teachers of English (NCTE) Standards for the English Language Arts which frankly don’t look too terribly different from what NYS currently has in place. So the cynic in me is doubting whether there is going to be any real change when it comes to the standards. If NYS has already spent significant time and energy into developing these revised standards, yet have agreed to develop the national pieces (of which 85% should be adopted by the states voluntarily) – is there going to be real change or are we just going through the motions?
Technically Writing
I spent last week helping some of my teammates lead the regional scoring of the NYS Assessments in Mathematics. It was quite a relief to just have to "be there" this year as opposed to having to play an active role in the training! And that allowed me to really listen to and think about the conversations the teachers were having about student answers.
Being a social studies teacher with a passion for all things writing, I was struck by how much writing is required of students on the math assessments. Interestingly, it was often the writing that prevented students from receiving full credit on some of the answers. Many of the teachers complained about this, particularly as we moved onto the middle grade levels. Often, I heard comments like these:
"These kids clearly knew the answer - I don't know why we can't just give them full credit."
"These scoring guides penalize the students who can 'do math' in their heads and don't need to show their work."
I understand their arguments but I also know that NYS is trying to emphasize (through the standards as well as the assessments) the power of communicating in math. And in order to communicate well in math - they must do so using the very technical language of math. While these teachers found the issue to be one of math (and sometimes of reading), I really saw these as the students not being able to express themselves in the mathematical language. A few examples:
Writing in the disciplines is very content specific. I have long held the belief that each content area has its own literacy that goes beyond merely teaching students to use the English language. In social studies, students need to be able to read and communicate about maps using correct terms. They need to understand the symbolism in political cartoons and the trends in charts/graphs. In science, they need to understand scientific notation, the symbols in chemistry and how to write a chemical equation. I could go on and on but you get the picture. Each discipline requires a highly technical language and one that we must explicitly teach our students. Each of us truly is a teacher of literacy.
For my math friends, it didn't seem the appropriate time to share my thoughts about the difference between having students muscle through the math to come up with a correct answer and having them share their understandings of the process and relationship between numbers in written form. But you can bet that I will be learning more about the technical writing in other subjects so that I can help them teach writing there as well.
Cross-posted on Writing Frameworks.
Being a social studies teacher with a passion for all things writing, I was struck by how much writing is required of students on the math assessments. Interestingly, it was often the writing that prevented students from receiving full credit on some of the answers. Many of the teachers complained about this, particularly as we moved onto the middle grade levels. Often, I heard comments like these:
"These kids clearly knew the answer - I don't know why we can't just give them full credit."
"These scoring guides penalize the students who can 'do math' in their heads and don't need to show their work."
I understand their arguments but I also know that NYS is trying to emphasize (through the standards as well as the assessments) the power of communicating in math. And in order to communicate well in math - they must do so using the very technical language of math. While these teachers found the issue to be one of math (and sometimes of reading), I really saw these as the students not being able to express themselves in the mathematical language. A few examples:
When asked to express their answer in exponential form, several students would provide the correct answer when writing "three to the sixth power" but could not receive full credit because they did not write it in correct form.
Some students would write to explain how they found a particular answer, but in a somewhat vague manner such as "because you have to find the straight 180 so you would subtract." Teachers would argue that it is evident that the students understood the notion of complementary angles, but in reality there is not enough detail in this statement. The straight 180 what? Subtract what? From what?
Writing in the disciplines is very content specific. I have long held the belief that each content area has its own literacy that goes beyond merely teaching students to use the English language. In social studies, students need to be able to read and communicate about maps using correct terms. They need to understand the symbolism in political cartoons and the trends in charts/graphs. In science, they need to understand scientific notation, the symbols in chemistry and how to write a chemical equation. I could go on and on but you get the picture. Each discipline requires a highly technical language and one that we must explicitly teach our students. Each of us truly is a teacher of literacy.
For my math friends, it didn't seem the appropriate time to share my thoughts about the difference between having students muscle through the math to come up with a correct answer and having them share their understandings of the process and relationship between numbers in written form. But you can bet that I will be learning more about the technical writing in other subjects so that I can help them teach writing there as well.
Cross-posted on Writing Frameworks.
EQ: Teacher Leadership
What does it take to truly develop teacher leadership?
When this question lept off the page for me at a recent Communities for Learning session, it seemed that three days worth of thinking had found a home. This post has been in draft form for a while but I have decided that examining the research and practice around this essential question will be one focus for me in the upcoming year. Since this post will capture my initial thinking around this topic, it is not heavy in the research but merely my attempt to capture the "problem."
Consider these scenerios that recently presented themselves in my work:
District A has adopted a new series and carved out a 90 minute literacy block. Teachers are struggling with the use of the block and despite having an onsite "coach" do not seem to be making good use of the time. In a planning meeting to discuss the development of the teachers, the idea of starting by coaching those teachers who were closest to the ideal in order to have them lead their colleagues was suggested. Building principal was not sure there were many teachers who were "close" and was concerned about how those teachers who were coached might be percieved by their peers.
District B has slowly been acquiring new technology resources for teachers to use and the building principal has been committed to providing teachers with the use of interactive whiteboards. As teachers see this equipment being used in the school, some are ready to embrace the technology (and the learning curve) and try out some lessons. Building principal asks the early users to showcase how they use the technololgy for their peers at a faculty meeting - none feel they have the expertise to do so and the computer teacher demos something instead.
In the same district, one new teacher (untenured) has slowly been integrating the technology even though she has not been given one of the interactive whiteboards. She researchs sites on the Internet, is taking a graduate course on media literacy, brings her class to the school lab weekly and has integrated quite a bit of technology. She even selected a technology based lesson for her observation with the building principal. She is not asked to present at the faculty meeting and has recently been passed by for the installation in her classroom of a new whiteboard purchased by the PTA.
In District C, a consultant has asked teachers who have been engaged in a long-term professional learning opportunity around discourse to share an instance where they took a risk and were successful. In the reflection around this question, teachers struggled to think of answers where they had been successful.
In each of these examples, I am certain that the district wants to foster teacher leadership and that there are teacher leaders available - yet they have not been tapped. What conditions must be in place in a school system for teacher leadership to be developed, and more importantly, to thrive in a sustained way? What dispositions must teacher leaders exhibit to be effective? In short, the essential question is what does it take to truly develop teacher leadership?
As I work to frame this question and my research better - I would appreciate any warm/cool feedback on the identification of the problem and question!!
When this question lept off the page for me at a recent Communities for Learning session, it seemed that three days worth of thinking had found a home. This post has been in draft form for a while but I have decided that examining the research and practice around this essential question will be one focus for me in the upcoming year. Since this post will capture my initial thinking around this topic, it is not heavy in the research but merely my attempt to capture the "problem."
Consider these scenerios that recently presented themselves in my work:
District A has adopted a new series and carved out a 90 minute literacy block. Teachers are struggling with the use of the block and despite having an onsite "coach" do not seem to be making good use of the time. In a planning meeting to discuss the development of the teachers, the idea of starting by coaching those teachers who were closest to the ideal in order to have them lead their colleagues was suggested. Building principal was not sure there were many teachers who were "close" and was concerned about how those teachers who were coached might be percieved by their peers.
District B has slowly been acquiring new technology resources for teachers to use and the building principal has been committed to providing teachers with the use of interactive whiteboards. As teachers see this equipment being used in the school, some are ready to embrace the technology (and the learning curve) and try out some lessons. Building principal asks the early users to showcase how they use the technololgy for their peers at a faculty meeting - none feel they have the expertise to do so and the computer teacher demos something instead.
In the same district, one new teacher (untenured) has slowly been integrating the technology even though she has not been given one of the interactive whiteboards. She researchs sites on the Internet, is taking a graduate course on media literacy, brings her class to the school lab weekly and has integrated quite a bit of technology. She even selected a technology based lesson for her observation with the building principal. She is not asked to present at the faculty meeting and has recently been passed by for the installation in her classroom of a new whiteboard purchased by the PTA.
In District C, a consultant has asked teachers who have been engaged in a long-term professional learning opportunity around discourse to share an instance where they took a risk and were successful. In the reflection around this question, teachers struggled to think of answers where they had been successful.
In each of these examples, I am certain that the district wants to foster teacher leadership and that there are teacher leaders available - yet they have not been tapped. What conditions must be in place in a school system for teacher leadership to be developed, and more importantly, to thrive in a sustained way? What dispositions must teacher leaders exhibit to be effective? In short, the essential question is what does it take to truly develop teacher leadership?
As I work to frame this question and my research better - I would appreciate any warm/cool feedback on the identification of the problem and question!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)