by Luann

A few years back, some colleagues and I  previewed a new way to look at student work with my colleagues.  I learned more, brought the practice into my classroom, and saw significant, steady growth in my students approach to learning and study habits.  We all learned more, I was given the opportunity to offer this as professional development in my district. Those of us who worked together to implement this practice in our classrooms and departments saw student gains in achievement and engagement. Those of us who made honest use of this practice did, anyway…….but not any more.  Why not?

The process holds both teachers and students alike are
held accountable – students for their own learning, and teachers for,
well, student learning.  Teachers presented student work and their
students' evaluation of their own work, in their own voice, to the
worst possible team of critics: ourselves and our peers. Feedback was
immediate and positive, even when more information was needed to be
convincing.  Suggestions were made, very creative and useful
suggestions. Teachers reflected on their lessons with peers.We saw and documented gains in student learning.  Some students even remarked to other teachers that they liked having a
learning target every day because they knew what they were supposed to
learn that day. One struggling teacher, after working with a group of
colleagues for a few weeks, was overheard exclaiming "This is going to
completely change the way I teach,"  and it did; the teacher and her students grew noticibly and found joy in their accomplishments. Why was this not considered a best practice?

PLC's (Professional Learning Communities), the current vogue in education, can make perfect use of the protocol's presentation, discussion, and feedback on student work. Why, then, is it not at least one vehicle for discussion of student learning in PLC meetings?

 It's research based (I can't believe I just said that) so I will cite the Fouts report titled titled "A Decade of Change"
and Duane Baker's work. Additionally, it's met the "teacher test."

It's the ultimate in personalized learning and differentiation, because student learning is reflected in student voice. The teacher listens to student needs as students vocalize what they need to do to reach their learning targets and can more easily facilitate each student's learning.

This professional development is free, other than the teacher time involved in a 30-45 minute session. Free; no one is getting rich from this.  Maybe that's the problem. 

It's also tough, due to the accountability component. Criticism comes
mainly from teachers who are hesitant to allow anyone a picture of
their practice.

Our district administration has put the squelch on the program.  As I understand it, so has OSPI, although the links remain to the training materials. (As I post the link, I notice that links to outdated Science Needs Assessment materials are still active.)

We aren't using this methodology any longer.  Why not?