Collaborative community that examines student work.

Our special education, Title I/LAP program has fully implemented the RTI (Response to Intervention) delivery system. Aimsweb has been very helpful and we highly recommend it. It’s a wonderful method of tracking student progress. Aimswebs materials are excellent as well as affordable. The phone support has been outstanding.

Our next step is to develop a collaborative learning community that will closely examine student work; we have named this our Care Team. “Student work” should be the focus and center of attention in school. The process of examining and evaluating students work, using collective intelligence, may be the single most important aspect of education. Teachers have always corrected students work, but they haven’t systematically examined it in great detail. Instead of throwing away the students work, these artifacts become a valuable mirror of how the school is teaching. Unlike standardized tests, their evidence speaks directly and revealingly to the quality of teaching and learning. Analysis of student artifacts can change perceptions of students, revise curricula and change teaching strategies. Looking closely and collaboratively at student work can unveil a treasure trove of insight to guide the school community as they reflect on their purpose, evaluate their progress, and plan strategies for instructional improvement. Student work is key data about the effectiveness of the school environment. It should affect future instruction, not just the individual students whose work is closely examine. This is the job of the Care Team.

Philosophy of the Care Team
Title I/LAP will “rank order” all students in our school district in terms of academic achievement and academic risk. The Care Team will examine the work of the most academically challenged students in rank order. We assign each student a case manager so they will not fall through the cracks. All pupils not progressing as expected should be entitled to excellent remediation. Every student the Care Team examines must have an individualized educational plan.
1. Define exactly what the problem is. Is the student learning at their potential rate? Use data not teacher opinion to determine if a student has a problem. Rely on data based decisions.
Others areas to consider or rule out;
a. Could this be an instructional problem?
b. Could this be a curriculum problem?
c. Could this be an environmental issue?
d. Could the student have a learning problem? What skills are missing?

2. What can be done about this problem? What interventions can be designed to meet the needs of the student? What additional support is needed? Utilize specialists in each field if possible.

3. Write measurable meaningful observable long term goals and short term benchmarks. Use research to set the goals to eliminate human opinion. Design an ACTION PLAN. Define exactly what it means (for this student) to be a success.

4. Implement the interventions. Identify who will deliver the service, where the interventions will take place, the time of service and the curriculum to be use. Try the interventions for 3 days and re-evaluate the services.

5. How do we know the interventions are working? How will we evaluate the student? Are the interventions working? What type of progress monitoring will be used?

Teachers must attempt to meet the needs of each individual and structure a learning environment that will motivate and stimulate them. Listen and recognize the needs of the students. The system and curriculum should be built around the needs of the students, not the other way around.

Learning communities use protocols.
The learning community called a Care Team use a script called a protocol. We need a formal structure or protocol, which is simply a meeting agenda. A protocol is like putting on a play, “through the dialogue,” is mainly improvisational. Effective protocols have built in questions, which need to be addressed and answered. In the analysis of the student work one will discover flaws in teaching strategies, curriculum and materials.

A protocol structures the conversation and it promotes collective intelligence. The structure of the conversation encourages participation, helps the group to stay on task and focus, ask the essential questions, promote creative thought, enhance deeper comprehension and evaluate the student’s work. Harvard University has developed a number of excellent protocols used by teachers in education. I have received training in this area at Harvard’s Project Zero. I highly recommend it.
The Collaborative Assessment Conference Protocol
Adapted by Steve Seidel of Harvard University
http://www.lasw.org/CAC_steps.html
I. Getting started
• The group chooses a facilitator who will make sure the group stays focused on the particular issue addressed in each step.
• The presenting teacher puts the selected work in a place where everyone can see it or provides copies for the other participants. S/he says nothing about the work, the context in which it was created, or the student until Step V.
• The participants observe or read the work in silence, perhaps making brief notes about aspects of it that they particularly notice.
II. Describing the work
• The facilitator asks the group, "What do you see?"
• Group members provide answers without making judgments about the quality of the work or their personal preferences.
• If a judgment emerges, the facilitator asks for the evidence on which the judgment is based.
III. Asking questions about the work
• The facilitator asks the group, "What questions does this work raise for you?"
• Group members state any question they have about the work, the child, the assignment, the circumstances under which the work was carried out, and so on.
• The presenting teacher may choose to make notes about these questions, but s/he is does not respond to them now--nor is s/he obligated to respond to them in Step 5 during the time when the presenting teacher speaks.
IV. Speculating about what the student is working on
• The facilitator asks the group, "What do you think the child is working on?"
• Participants, based on their reading or observation of the work, make suggestions about the problems or issues that the student might have been focused on in carrying out the assignment.
V. Hearing from the presenting teacher
• The facilitator invites the presenting teacher to speak.
• The presenting teacher provides his or her perspective on the student’s work, describing what s/he sees in it, responding (if s/he chooses) to one or more of the questions raised, and adding any other information that s/he feels is important to share with the group.
• The presenting teacher also comments on anything surprising or unexpected that s/he heard during the describing, questioning and speculating phases.
VI. Discussing implications for teaching and learning
• The facilitator invites everyone (the participants and the presenting teacher) to share any thoughts they have about their own teaching, children’s learning, or ways to support this particular child in future instruction.
VII. Reflecting on the Collaborative Assessment Conference
• The group reflects on the experiences of or reactions to the conference as a whole or to particular parts of it.
• Define exactly what the problem is.
• What can be done about this problem?
• Write measurable meaningful observable long term goals and short term benchmarks.
• Implementation of interventions.
• How do we know the interventions are working?
VIII. Thank the presenting teacher
• The session concludes with acknowledgment of and thanks to the presenting teacher.
Please comment if you have any suggestions, agreements, disagreements or questions. I would love to hear from you.