National School Reform Faculty

LASW Principles
Date: January 30 - February 7, 2004
Listserv: Coaches

Friday, January 30, 2004 1:03 PM
Hello All:

More and more, it seems, people are interested in beginning to "examine student work" through the following lens (this comes directly from the school improvement plan of a school with which I am working):

"Provide professional development for "looking at student work" to determine common understanding of performance rankings (Advanced Proficiency, Working Proficiency, Developing Proficiency, Limited Proficiency; A-F grading; 1-4 ranking)."

My question - how are you beginning when this is the question? What protocols are appropriate? How do you integrate the principles (http://www.lasw.org/principles.html) for looking at student work when this is the need (see below)?

Thanks,
Gene

These principles were developed through dialog among participants in the Looking at Student Work association of educators.

1. Student work is often serious work; it is, like the work of adults working in various fields and disciplines, intentional: It demonstrates the effort to understand and master the nature, possibilities, and challenges of particular genre and/or media, it demonstrates understanding of significant ideas and concepts, and it is meant to communicate to an audience. This work can take many forms.

2. When looking at children's work, an inquiry "stance" is key; in other words, it is important to look for what it is one can learn, rather than to try to see what one already thinks one knows. Children's work is key data about the life of a school.

3. The work of children and adults in schools can and should be public. Schools tend to be isolated and isolating places. Looking at work collaboratively can break down this isolation and reverse the norm of "privacy" often found among school people.

4. It is important to look at children's work in depth, with others, over time and to engage in reflective dialogue about the work, the child(ren), and teaching and learning.

5. When looking collaboratively at children's work, it is important to "match" the purpose for looking, the form [and function] of the work, and the protocol used.

6. When looking at and discussing children's work, the development, consideration, and negotiation of standards at all levels--personal, local, community and national-- must be important elements of the conversation.

7. Looking at children's work can be one way to strengthen connections between children's learning and changes in instruction, curriculum, or other aspects of school life.--
Gene, Indiana

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:33 AM
Hi Gene
We've had some good experiences with looking at student work using the Standards in Practice protocol at the schools I work in. (Education Trust and ASCD) Participants connect teacher assignments, local standards, and assessment of the resulting student work. Then we examine the implications for practice in the classroom, school, and larger community.
I haven't found the process antithetical to the LASW principles, and actually, I've found that this protocol is a good entry point with reluctant and pressured school leaders, who often have to justify their PD time to their supervisors (maybe it's the "Standards" in the title). I think that it might work for the school you mention.

In one of my schools, I facilitated a 5th grade group for a year, using SIP. I learned so much about creating rubrics that reflected what we were asking our students to do in the assignments we give them. Also, we discovered that we often were unclear about what we were asking students to do in the first place.

Has anyone else used SIP? I'd love to hear what you think.
Judi, New York

Thursday, February 5, 2004 7:40 AM
Sorry if I was vague, a private email convinced me to clarify what SIP is--
It's Standards in Practice. A protocol developed by the Education Trust and published by ASCD. It's focus is on looking at teacher assignments, figuring out the demands of the task, what local standards it addresses, developing a rubric to grade the work, and then rating the student work using the rubric. Then we dicuss what the implications are--how do we need to change the assignment? what kinds of support does the school need to offer, the district? do we need more books? parent workshops? etc.
Hope that helps.
Judi, New York

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:00 AM
Gene & Judi, et. al.:
Conceptually I like the Standards in Practice protocol a lot, but, not having used it yet, I would like the protocol to contain a few more suggestions regarding the amount of time required to do this protocol right. It seems to require a full day, or to be done over several 2 hour sessions--very time consuming! We tried to use it at one of the Winter Coaches Clinics and it did not work very well because of time constraints.

For example, can/should group participants complete the assignment on their own prior to coming to the CFG session? That would save meeting time.

Also, while it may be a useful exercise, is it essential for the group to construct their own rubric if one for the assignment already exists? Can't that be used, with possible suggestions for improving the rubric coming out of the protocol process?

I guess I'm looking for a little more clarity around the context, beyond the 6 steps, for using the Standards in Practice protocol. I find the most helpful protocols make suggestions for
process, contingencies, use of time, etc.

Alec, Massachusettes

Friday, February 6, 2004 10:48 AM
Standards in Practice, SIP is looking at the work through a different lens than most protocols do with CFG. It is looking through the lens of "standards based instruction".
The rubric developed by the group is developed specifically for the assignment WITHOUT looking at the student work, but instead looking at the directions from the teacher AND the state or national standards the teacher used when writing the assignment. Then, when you hold the student's work up to the rubric you are looking to see if the student met the standard or not. Generally speaking, a score of 1-2 means the student did not meet the standard with that assignment and re-teaching would be needed, a score of 3-4 means that they met the standard. The rubric should not be translated into a grade for the student. You do not compare student work to each other, but hold it to the rubric you create in Step 3.

In Step 4 you score the student work individually against the rubric you created. Finally, in Step 5 you come to consensus on a score for the student. This is probably the most important step-discussing why or why not the student met the standard.

An outcome for the teacher is they know more clearly who needs to be re-taught the standard. It also helps to "uncover" confusing or missing elements in the directions, whether the assignment was rigorous enough and models a process of comparing student work to a rubric using their standards and not comparing student work each other.

Our schools have been going through curriculum calibration during the past two years, and the SIP process helps teachers grow in their craft as standards-based-teachers to create lessons that have rigor (higher order thinking) and are actually teaching the correct standards for their grade level.

The newest modification to the SIP Steps, from Ed Trust is that the problem or assignment does not have to be completed by the group, if it is too lengthy, or can be easily described by the teacher. They are changing their thinking on this somewhat, due to time.
Here is a link to an article written by Ruth Mitchell for the Journal of Staff Development, called Examining Student Work- using Standards in Practice.
http://www.nsdc.org/library/publications/tools/resources2-01.cfm
Also, here is the link from Education Trust on Standards in Practice.
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/SIP+Professional+Development
Ed Trust is just as particular about educators being formally trained in the Standards in Practice protocols (they call it "endorsed"), like NSRF is about CFG coaches being formally trained.

Hope this helps some,
Toni, South Carolina

Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:39 AM
For the past three years at Narragansett Elementary School we've been using LASW to create rubics for writing and problem solving. Our process is similar to the one Toni describes, except we start by looking at student work. Finding the exemplars, the ones that stand out, allows us to begin talking about what we want to see in our students' work. While we were concerned about outside standards (how many times did I hear, "why reinvent the wheel?") we decided that the conversations would be richer if we took this route. They are, but the process takes a long time.

1. Student work is often serious work; ... Yes, we took the work of our students seriously - enough so that we set our standards by it.

2. an inquiry "stance" is key... Looking at student writing was hard - many of us thought we knew what it should look like. Problem solving was much easier - none of us seemed to know. But by not starting with outside standards, we were certainly in an inquiry mode.

3. public. ... Yup. We held evening sessions to invite in parents. Whole school was involved.

4. in depth, with others, over time and to engage in reflective dialogue about the work, the child(ren), and teaching and learning. Yes, in depth. Yes, with others. Yes, over time. A concern of mine is the degree to which the dialogue was or wasn't reflective. Somewhat, for some people.

5. "match" yes, the protocols we invented matched the purpose.

6. standards must be important elements of the conversation. That was the point of it all.

7. Looking at children's work can be one way to strengthen connections between children's learning and changes in instruction, curriculum, or other aspects of school life. Again, this was only true for the teachers who were willing to make the connections between LASW and their practice.

Reflection: This work has felt different. I think it has to do with the need to create a product - the standards and the rubrics. For too many of the people involved, that was the purpose, the only purpose. But overall, it has been good work and has opened some conversation doors that were closed before.

Thanks for raising an interesting question, Gene. Hope all is well.
Simon, Rhode Island