![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Teaching Diary 21: Boundaries and Rules
Apr. 19th, 2022 01:51 pmAs the end of the year looms ever nearer, one thing I'm re-evaluating is how I set boundaries for my students, particularly with deadlines. One one hand, I'm hampered by school rules. Our school was found with a "mastery learning" curriculum, which means that student grades are based on meeting standards and scored by rubric. In contrast, a typical American school runs on a points-based system. Teachers assign point values to work, tabulate a score based on work received, and that is the student's grades. I vastly prefer a standards-based score to a points based, but it's not without problems. One huge problem is the subjectivity of rubrics. For example, in the most recent completed short story unit I taught, one of the standards for assessment is: 2. analyze how the authors’ choices of narrative structure and conflict creates such effects as mystery, tension, or surprise in a story.
Fair enough. So how am I to assess student mastery of this concept? Well, the current rubric gives options for A-level (advanced) and B-level (basic mastery). Anything below basic mastery is considered "in progress." Which is fine! Students often need time to master skills. But the rubrics leave a lot to be desired. The rubric for this skill is one of the better-written sections. At A level, "Student analysis is
persuasive and provides relevant textual evidence to support his/her points as to how authors’ choices of
narrative structure and conflicts create a variety of effects." B level mastery says that, "Student analysis is factual and competent and uses textual evidence support his/her points as to how authors’ choices of narrative structure and conflicts create a variety of effects." Okay. So how do I determine the difference between persuasive and competent? If I had colleagues at the same grade level, we could get together and determine some norms, but those would at least change year by year, unless we kept a few examples as anchor papers. But I'm alone teaching this.
The other huge frustration I have right now is that while we are supposed to be mastery learning, that is, allowing for time to re-teach concepts, or even go deeper into a skill to give students a chance to move from competent to persuasive, in reality, I'm expected to cover ten units worth of material. The schedule is carefully planned to allow for 3 weeks for most units (4 weeks for a couple others). I have to cover all the standards, and I have to "close" ten units. If students don't close a unit by the end of the year (that is, earn at least a B), they have to do it again next year (or at least the standards they missed). If we don't close these units, students don't have enough credits to graduate.
No pressure, right?
In order to encourage unit closure, we don't really have deadlines for assignments. I set a due date, like Thursday for the most recent essay. We don't have school Friday due to parent-teacher conferences. When we come back after Spring Break, BAM, we start a new unit! If the kids aren't done with the old unit, oh well! We have to keep on moving. So, do I try and teach skills with the depth that I, as a professional educator, think they should have? Or do we skim through the units and check things off a list?
And, because we aren't allowed to let a student NOT finish a unit during the year (even months late -- if they have the work that shows evidence of mastery for the skill, we have to take it), students don't learn the important skill of meeting deadlines and obligations. Like, I agree that if a student can show mastery, we should accept that evidence within the year. That's fine. But part of a child's education is teaching soft skills like time management and organization. The one benefit of a points-and-deadline based system like most US schools have is they do learn about consequences of not following through with obligations.
And of course -- of course -- we need to find a way to be flexible, whether a student (or staff member) needs grace due to disabilities, unexpected things in their lives outside of school, needing that extra time, etc. Jobs need to get on board with this idea of grace and flexibility as well.
But I have not found a balance that meets both student/staff social-emotional needs AND allows for some good, deep education.
Maybe that balance is a myth.
Fair enough. So how am I to assess student mastery of this concept? Well, the current rubric gives options for A-level (advanced) and B-level (basic mastery). Anything below basic mastery is considered "in progress." Which is fine! Students often need time to master skills. But the rubrics leave a lot to be desired. The rubric for this skill is one of the better-written sections. At A level, "Student analysis is
persuasive and provides relevant textual evidence to support his/her points as to how authors’ choices of
narrative structure and conflicts create a variety of effects." B level mastery says that, "Student analysis is factual and competent and uses textual evidence support his/her points as to how authors’ choices of narrative structure and conflicts create a variety of effects." Okay. So how do I determine the difference between persuasive and competent? If I had colleagues at the same grade level, we could get together and determine some norms, but those would at least change year by year, unless we kept a few examples as anchor papers. But I'm alone teaching this.
The other huge frustration I have right now is that while we are supposed to be mastery learning, that is, allowing for time to re-teach concepts, or even go deeper into a skill to give students a chance to move from competent to persuasive, in reality, I'm expected to cover ten units worth of material. The schedule is carefully planned to allow for 3 weeks for most units (4 weeks for a couple others). I have to cover all the standards, and I have to "close" ten units. If students don't close a unit by the end of the year (that is, earn at least a B), they have to do it again next year (or at least the standards they missed). If we don't close these units, students don't have enough credits to graduate.
No pressure, right?
In order to encourage unit closure, we don't really have deadlines for assignments. I set a due date, like Thursday for the most recent essay. We don't have school Friday due to parent-teacher conferences. When we come back after Spring Break, BAM, we start a new unit! If the kids aren't done with the old unit, oh well! We have to keep on moving. So, do I try and teach skills with the depth that I, as a professional educator, think they should have? Or do we skim through the units and check things off a list?
And, because we aren't allowed to let a student NOT finish a unit during the year (even months late -- if they have the work that shows evidence of mastery for the skill, we have to take it), students don't learn the important skill of meeting deadlines and obligations. Like, I agree that if a student can show mastery, we should accept that evidence within the year. That's fine. But part of a child's education is teaching soft skills like time management and organization. The one benefit of a points-and-deadline based system like most US schools have is they do learn about consequences of not following through with obligations.
And of course -- of course -- we need to find a way to be flexible, whether a student (or staff member) needs grace due to disabilities, unexpected things in their lives outside of school, needing that extra time, etc. Jobs need to get on board with this idea of grace and flexibility as well.
But I have not found a balance that meets both student/staff social-emotional needs AND allows for some good, deep education.
Maybe that balance is a myth.
