Design-Solutions

Why make your own rubrics?

Criterion referenced rubrics are a great assessment tool when used correctly.  Teachers who want to increase individual student achievement may want to employ the “Criterion referenced rubric” or “Performance assessment rubric.”  This type of assessment tool creates a more individualized approach to assessment. Criterion referenced rubrics are used to measure student success against objective standards based criteria rather than against their peers as in Norm referenced assessments. The theory is that this method of assessment allows students to work toward individual achievement without necessarily competing with their peers. In any case the “Performance assessment rubric”  continues to be used increasingly by teachers across various disciplines.

Most teachers admit they depend on templates that are created by online generator’s such as those found at “Rubistar” or “Teacher Planet.” However, this need not be the case any longer. Mr. Jonathan Schneider of Design Solutions offers the following reasons why teachers should make their own rubrics. (View the free instructional tutorials here.)

1. Freedom from templates: While template designs can be a quick way to get a rubric created, is quick necessarily best for your students? Template designs can often be narrow and restrictive in their content and offer little control over formatting and design.
2. No need for an internet connection: For those who need to work offline at times, Microsoft Word can be to create performance assessment rubrics with or without an internet connection. This can allow teachers freedom from the restriction of having to be online in order to be productive.
3. Increased control over design: Microsoft Word 2010 and 2007 offer some simple table tools that can help make rubrics visually appealing with a few clicks, and provide much needed control over content and formatting. This puts the control back into the hands of the teacher who knows how to best meet the needs of their particular students.
4. Gain confidence and independence: In this 21^st century educational environment the need for teachers to be confident in their ability to use technology has never been greater. Mr. Schneider’s tutorials provide a free resource for teachers who want to gain greater independence in their teaching practices.
5. Very easy to do: The new tools offered in the newer versions of Microsoft Word, both 2007 and 2010 simplify the creation and design process. It may seem like a daunting task, but what better professional development can you offer yourself free of charge this summer, than an investment in your profession and ultimately in your students achievement?

To view the free videos and gain your independence from online templates click Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. For student centered instructional tutorials delivered via CD-ROM visit T3series.com.

View tutorial here.

How to find my school’s strategic school profile.The first step in finding a Strategic School Profile is to open a web browser and navigate to a favorite search engine. In the accompanying video Google will be used. Enter “Connecticut State Department of Education” in the search box and then press “enter.” This will bring up the search results page and “Connecticut State Department of Education” will be first, click to navigate to the CSDE website. (Click on this link to get there from this article.)
Once on the Connecticut State Department of Education web site, click on “Forms and Publications” in the header menu. This will bring up the Forms and Publications page and there will be two links in the center of the page. Click on “Publications” which will bring up the SDE publications page with links to a number of publications. Located near the bottom of that list find a link entitled “School Profiles” click on this link.
This should be the Connecticut Strategic School Profiles page. Click on the “View School Profiles by Year” link. From this page select the desired year and school profile type either “Education by District” or “Education by School.”
The “Education by District” link will provide a list of Connecticut school districts. Click on the desired district name to see that school district’s Strategic School Profile. The “Education by School” link will provide a list of Connecticut school districts. Click on the desired school district to find a listing of schools within that district. Click on the particular school to see its Strategic School Profile.
These SSP’s can be very informative when selecting schools or when wanting to learn more about the makeup of a school. These documents provide a rich source of data in this age of data based decision making.

Maintaining high standards

The greatest accomplishments of any educator must then become  fundamental pursuits in order to climb the hierarchical ladder of greatness. For instance, a commitment to establish high standards and expectations for all students must first be accomplished, then maintained. Like any of our educational ideals and guiding principles, establishing high standards and expectations for all students is not something to be attained, then placed on a shelf, or checked off on a list of things to do. The following anecdote from a Windsor public schools educator will serve as an illustration.

Reflecting upon this event helped the teacher identify the point of tension. The student clearly felt that the expectations for him were too high while the teacher believed his expectations for himself were too low. This tension became the impetus for further reflection and perhaps more questions than answers. Was there a common standard by which to measure both the teacher’s and the student’s expectations? How does the excellent educator reconcile their student’s expectations, with their own expectations? Does the educator accept the student’s self serving standard and then lower the bar? Or, does the educator do the hard work and maintain high expectations working with each student until they succeed?

Thomas Aquinas once wrote, “The straight line rules both itself and the crooked line.” This simple statement has provoked deep thinking regarding the nature of standards. C.S. Lewis In essence it boiled down to two questions. What is the standard? And, what is its nature, relative, or absolute, movable or fixed? If the standard was relative, then the answer would be simple, lower the bar and allow each student to “be successful in his own way” using what he could do at the moment as the standard. However, the relative nature of standards continues to undermine the very idea of a standard. If standards are relative then the status quo would be perfectly acceptable.

In this particular case, the standard the teacher held was that a perfectly healthy seventh grader should be able to draw a straight line using a ruler. Anything less would be unacceptable. The reason the teacher volunteered to work with the student after school was not because he could not draw a straight line with a ruler. It was precisely the opposite; it was because the teacher believed he could draw a straight line with a ruler. The student ultimately demonstrated that he could draw the straight line with a ruler during the next class. The excellent educator is able to see student potential and is not willing to lower the standard.

Even if a student truly believes that they cannot accomplish a task, and has adopted a set of low expectations, the educator must not participate in accepting their low standard. Instead, the educator should be true to their commitment to establishing and maintaining high expectations for all students. This particular case illustrates a worthwhile principle; it is often as we work through these points of tension, between high and low expectations, and are finally able find resolution that real, significant learning takes place for the student and the teacher.

According to Connecticut statute each year public schools in Connecticut must submit both an individual Strategic School Profile for each school and a district Strategic School Profile to the State. Each individual school collects and reports their specific data, and then this information is summed up in the District Strategic School Profile. According to the Connecticut State Department of Education  these profiles serve at least two purposes, “to serve as an accountability system which informs the public about what is happening in Connecticut schools and to stimulate school improvement through shared information.” The SSP’s are available on the Connecticut State Department of Education website and are freely available to interested viewers. These profiles are an often overlooked piece of documentation that can provide a rich in depth look at a particular school, or district, and impact decision making in important ways.

The district SSP begins with the general information about the district such as the name of the superintendent and mailing address of the district. The first category “Community Data” includes information such as population, percent growth, number of schools, Per Capita income, and other general information. The District Reference Group or DRG is identified for referencing schools that are in the same DRG that have similar enrollment, income and other similarities.  The overall student enrollment is included with a “5-year enrollment change” which is helpful in understanding the overall trend in population. This number is given as a percent in either positive or negative percentage points.

The second category “Indicators of Educational Need” provides various indicators such as “Students eligible for Free/Reduced-Price Meals.” This indicator can help the viewer understand the socio-economic makeup of the student body. “Students not fluent in English” or “Students identified as Gifted and Talented” help provide a glimpse of the student body as a whole. A table is provided to help the viewer compare the particular district numbers to the DRG numbers, and to the entire State numbers.

The third category “School District Diversity” provides a look at the student body racial/ethnic makeup. Also included is the “Percent of Minority Professional Staff.”  This category contains a statement of  “Efforts to Reduce Racial, Ethnic, and Economic Isolation” which describes various ways the school provides opportunities for students to interact with students who have differing racial, ethnic, and  economic backgrounds from their own.

The fourth category “Student Performance” contains all the major testing data including the Connecticut Mastery Tests or CMT’s for grades 3-8, as well as the Connecticut Academic Performance Test or CAPT test administered in 10^th grade.  The testing categories include reading, writing, and mathematics for every grade as well as science for grade 8 and grade 10.  These scores are also provided in a table that compares the district scores to the State, and to the percent of districts in the state with equal or lower percent of student meeting goal (the higher the better). Physical fitness scores are included in this category with the “Percent of students reaching health standard on all four tests.”  The “SAT” scores of the graduating class are included as well as “Graduation and Dropout Rates” and the “Activities of Graduates” which provides the percent of students pursuing higher education, and  those who went straight into the workforce or armed  services.

The fifth category “Resources and Expenditures” provides data on the “district staff” including the percentage of teachers with a Masters degree or above.  This section also provides average class sizes for various grades and compares the numbers to the DRG and state numbers. The lower the class sizes the better in most estimates.  The “hours of instruction” are included with minimum requirements given by the state. The “Students per academic computer” numbers are given to indicate how valuable technology seems to be in the district.

The sixth category “District expenditures and revenues” breaks down the expenditures into various categories and provides a quick comparison of “expenditures per pupil” across the district, DRG, and the state. This section also includes “Special education expenditures.” The “Revenue Sources, % of expenditures from source” includes details on local, state, federal, tuition and other, sources of revenue.  This section ends with a statement entitled “Equitable allocation of resources among district schools” providing a rationale and explanation of how equity between and among school resources is sought.

The seventh category “Special Education” provides information on the number of special education students and disaggregates the numbers into disability types including but not limited to, autism, learning disability, etc. The graduation rates as well as dropout rates for special education students is stated with a comparison with the state average. The state test scores for special education students are recorded in much the same way as the regular education students including CMT and CAPT scores.  Further caveats and explanations are included to supplement the data.

The final statement of “School district improvement plans and activities” provides a narrative statement of the schools vision for improvement. This statement can be very valuable for stakeholders who want to know more about the schools goals and plans to meet those goals. This section is a type of summary of where the district is now and plans to go.

Community members, parents, teachers, and administrators who have an interest in the particulars of the school district will find no other document as valuable as the district strategic school profile. The depth and breadth of the data provided by the SSP can help provide the necessary accountability to enact and support positive change in school districts across Connecticut.

What in the world is an SSP?

SSP is an acronym which stands for Strategic School Profile. The SSP is, as the name suggests, a profile of the school meant for strategic planning by the State, local Boards of Education, and district administration. However, these SSP’s are made available for the public and anyone who may be interested.  In May 1990 the Connecticut General Assembly passed a law that ““…each local and regional board of education shall submit to the commisioner of education a strategic school profile report for each school under its jurisdiction and for the school district as a whole. Each profile report will contain information on measures of student needs, school resources, and student and school performance” (Section 10-220(C) ).  These reports contain a wealth of valuable information and data that should be of interest to not only the school administration but to savvy parents and teachers as well, after all, knowledge is power.

Each year every public school in Connecticut must submit both an individual Strategic School Profile for each school and a district Strategic School Profile to the State. Each individual school collects and reports their specific data, then this information is summed up in the District Strategic School Profile. According to the Connecticut State Department of Education these profiles serve at least two purposes, “to serve as an accountability system which informs the public about what is happening in Connecticut schools and to stimulate school improvement through shared information.” The SSP’s are available on the Connecticut State Department of Education website and are freely available to interested viewers. These profiles are an often overlooked piece of documentation that can provide a rich in depth look at a particular school, or district, and impact decision making in important ways.

For an in depth look at District profiles and their specific content click here. To find out more about the individual school profiles and their specific content click here.

"Effective leadership is by design"

Robert Marzano has become a bit of an icon in the American educational culture and for good reason. He and his colleagues at McREL (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning) have used meta-analysis to statistically identify and distill the tremendous amount of existing research down into particular qualities that define the excellent educational leader.  These qualities are labeled, “responsibilities and their correlations with student achievement” (Marzano, 2005).

Among the twenty-one responsibilities listed there are five with a correlation of >.25, and only one with a correlation over .30. The single leadership responsibility with a correlation >.30 is “situational awareness” with a correlation to student achievement of (.33). Heightened awareness and an ability to anticipate problems and respond before a situation gets out of order make this trait especially valuable in an administrator.

Closely related to situational awareness is “flexibility” which has the next highest correlation to student achievement of (.28). Being comfortable with change and dissent, and the ability to adapt accordingly with confidence define this attribute. “Discipline” has a correlation to student achievement of (.27) and precedes affective instruction.  The excellent administrator will discipline students promptly allowing teacher to maximize their time with students who are willing and ready to learn. “Monitoring/Evaluation” is the fourth responsibility of an excellent administrator. It has a correlation of (.27) to student achievement for obvious reasons.  Studies suggest that thrive in an environment which provides them with frequent, specific feedback, both positive and negative. However, this approach demands balance in order to provide the individual with space and avoid micro-management as this can produce negative results.  The fifth responsibility is “Outreach” which involves all stakeholders including parents, teachers, and students being approached with honesty and integrity, and being given the opportunity to contribute to the mission and vision of the institution, demonstrating to them that their contribution matters.

There are a variety of responsibilities that educational leaders may feel are very important. However, when a direct correlation to student achievement has been identified, the prudent educational leader will reflect upon their own leadership style, and strive to develop these research based qualities.

  (Marzano, W. M. (2005). School Leadership that Works. ASCD.)

My greatest accomplishment in 13 years of teaching is also one of my fundamental pursuits, namely, my commitment to establish and maintain high standards and expectations for all students within my purview. Although I consider this my greatest accomplishment, I am aware that like our ideals and guiding principles, this is not something to be attained, then placed on a shelf, or checked off on a list of things to do.  I offer the following example to illustrate my point.

A recently transferred student of mine was not quite prepared for his first day in my class, or the high expectations for his performance. Having come to my class halfway through the third quarter, there were concepts already in place which the other students had mastered that he needed to master in order to succeed. When I explained that I could arrange for him to stay after school with me so that I could help him grasp the knowledge and skills he would need to complete his design he exploded, “how you gonna tell me that your gonna hold me after school just because I can’t draw a straight line.” (I don’t think he realized that to tell an art teacher “I can’t draw a straight line with a ruler,” is essentially to throw down the gauntlet.)

Reflecting upon this event helped me identify the point of tension. He clearly felt that my expectations for him were too high while I believed his expectations for himself were too low. This became the impetus for my further reflection and perhaps more questions than answers. Were we using a common standard by which to measure our expectations? How do I as an educator reconcile student’s expectations, with my expectations? Do I accept the student’s standard and then lower the bar? Or, do I maintain my high expectations and work with each student until they succeed?

 Thomas Aquinas wrote, “The straight line rules both itself and the crooked line.” This simple statement has provided much needed guidance as I navigate these often difficult questions. C.S. Lewis reflecting on this wrote, “How could I know that a line is crooked unless I had some idea of a straight line? How do we recognize injustice, unless we have a former idea of what is just?” In the same way, to recognize the inferior and the superior, there must be a prior objective standard by which we may measure.

In essence it boiled down to two questions. What is the standard? And, what is its nature, relative, or absolute? If the standard was relative, then the answer would be simple, lower the bar and allow this student to “be successful in his own way” using what he could do at the moment as the standard. However, I don’t believe in the relative nature of standards; otherwise the status quo would be perfectly acceptable. In this particular case, the standard was that a perfectly healthy seventh grader should be able to draw a straight line using a ruler. Anything less would be unacceptable. As I considered his opinion, I realized that it was not because he could not draw a straight line with a ruler that I was going to keep him after school. It was precisely the opposite, it was because I believed he could draw a straight line with a ruler, I was willing to invest the time after school to work with this student.

Even if my student’s believe that they cannot accomplish a task, and have set low expectations for themselves, I am not willing to accept their low standard. I have a prior commitment to high expectations. This particular case illustrates a principal I have come to discover and embrace. It is often as we work through these points of tension, between high and low expectations, and are finally able find resolution that real, significant learning takes place.