Editor's note: History teachers at Hoover Middle School regularly examine student work products together, looking for ways to improve their teaching. The conversations are often frank, and as 6th grade teacher Janet Leis explains, "It hurts sometimes." But Leis says teachers have "to put their egos aside" and take as much from the "critical friends" sessions as they can. "You have to admit that maybe they are right, and maybe I am hearing something that will help my kids learn even more."

At a recent Hoover student-work session, seven teachers and Cal State-Long Beach professor Linda Whitney scrutinized one of Leis's writing assignments, part of her students' study of early humans. Students received a handout that included an example of how to write a friendly letter; a writer's notesheet with four blank columns - "Sights--things you see," "Actions," "Sounds," "Feelings and emotions;" and a two-page background paper on the discovery of the ancient hominid skeleton "Lucy." The paper included excerpts from LUCY: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald Johanson, a picture of Lucy's skeleton and a concise summary of Lucy facts. A scoring rubric described what students would have to do to earn various grades. Leis's students also watched a video in which Johanson recreated some of the events on the day of Lucy's discovery.

Excerpts from the Hoover Teachers' Conversation
September 25, 1997


[We pick up the conversation deep into a discussion about Janet Leis' student work assignment. Janet is defending her decision to give the paper by "Lisa" a grade of 4, but several of the teachers, including her fellow 6th grade history teacher Alicia Estrada, are questioning whether the well-written paper really meets all the conditions for a 4 described in the rubric.]

JANET: It sounds like she was there, it's believable. She includes many details, sights and sounds, and feelings - many. She has a correct and thorough description of Lucy's skeleton and the proper form at for a friendly letter.

ALICIA: Earlier you were talking about some of the things you were looking for in a thorough discussion of Lucy's skeleton. You mentioned "bi-pedal." But that's not in her letter.

JANET: I know. I still felt that this was a "4" paper.

ALICIA: But it wasn't thorough.

JANET: It's thorough enough, because . . .

ALICIA: She doesn't mention anything about the skeleton.

JANET: Yes she does.

ALICIA: She just says it was three-and-a-half feet tall. And "is said" to have died in her late teens. You told them they have to tell how they knew that. [Earlier, Janet described 8-10 details about the skeleton she was looking for.]

JANET: I suggested that they do that. "Almost a whole 40% of her skull was found." I think I looked at that and decided she had met the conditions of the rubric.

MARIA: I love her style of writing. I would have given her a 3, but if she had given [more information about the skeleton] I would have given her a 4 because the writing was descriptive, it was creative, it took the reader in. This paper has all the requirements for a 3, but that 4 says, "ah, ha, this is it!" This child did not give all the information you say you wanted.

JANET: I did struggle with that. But I finally gave it a 4. It's very subjective, but as I'm reading them, and I come across one like this, I say "wow!"

LINDA: Don't you have to be really careful? Good writers could describe the day really
well, but they may not have much of the historical information. That's why I almost prefer the ones that aren't written as well but show more of the details you're looking for.

[A little later, discussing the paper by "John," which received a grade of 3.]

JANET: This is my point of view. We are saying that if a kid has a 3 or 4, they have met the standard. A 1 or a 2 has not. I just feel like this kid got the right idea.

ALICIA: But you didn't go by your own rubric.

JANET: (with some emotion) But I did! Pretty much.

ALICIA: (emphatically) No. It says "includes some details, sights, sounds and feelings that correctly describe the day." He didn't describe the day!

JANET: I don't know -- to me he's making a pretty decent attempt to sound like he's there, compared to the other kids. He's trying to create a scene. He's only 11 years old! He's hearing this song; he says he gets to see it again "before it goes to the museum." I feel like this kid has a pretty good sense of being there in this historical moment. I think it's a 3.

ALICIA: OK, may I? I'm looking at your rubric description of a 2. It looks to me as though his paper matches a 2 better. His paper "sounds a little bit" like he was there. The second rubric item about describing the day - he really doesn't describe the day at all. On the third one about the description of the skeleton - that's the only one he did good on. He described a lot but it sounds like he's just repeating what he's been taught. On the last one, "contains many mistakes," this paper does have a lot of mistakes and doesn't seem to meet the requirement for a 3: "has a proper friendly letter format and few spelling, grammar, and punctuation mistakes."

JANET: I see your point OK, you're right, it is a 2, because he doesn't describe the whole day. But see, in my mind, I was thinking - it's like, if I gave all (hesitating) - oh, I don't know! For the type of lesson it was, where I didn't give them a lot of instruction on the writing or models, I just felt that this kid basically got it. So I gave this kid a 3, because to us, the way I'm understanding it, a 3 is proficient, and a 2 is kind of lacking. And a 1 is really lacking. Maybe the problem is with the rubric. Maybe it needs to change. I don't know I usually spend a day teaching about writing, but I'm more familiar with teaching "report of information" type of writing. I need some in-service on observational writing. I don't know how to teach it yet. So I almost feel like it's not fair to grade the students down.

LINDA: Looking at the rubric again, the important thing here is the standard, which is to trace the development of early humankind. That's the most important thing to be looking for.

ALICIA: But again, looking at the 3 paper, it just doesn't go into a description of much of anything, except the skeleton, which they could read in a book. It doesn't show that they've learned a lot about the importance of the find.

JANET: Okay. I understand what you're saying. It is a 2. (With finality) But I did give the kid a 3, and that's it Sometimes you have to get a feel for the age level you're dealing with. These are 11-year-olds. They're not college students.

YVETTE: Then you have to look at what you're asking them to do.

JANET: (somewhat aggressively): I'm not asking them too much for a 3. "Sounds pretty much like you were there." Pretty much? That's not too difficult. "Include some details?" "Some" could just be three things. "Contains a fairly thorough description?" I'm not asking a whole lot for the 3, to be honest with you. And I think for a 3, we shouldn't be asking for the world. We want to just see that they're proficient; they got it; we can move on.

[A minute later.]

JANET: I'm going to give the papers back to them with some models and say "if you got a 2 and want to try for a 3, turn it in again. If you want a 4, turn it in again. Learn from your mistakes. Analyze your mistakes." That's how you can bring a kid up Usually, when an assignment is big like this, I have them turn in a rough draft and then we talk about what more they need. Then I get a pretty good product. And then I get with the kids that still don't understand, and we get in a group of four or five and we work on the project together. That's how I would really help those kids on the low end. But for this assignment, it's not something we've worked really hard at and put in a lot of time on.

[A minute or two later.]

JANET: The point is, too, that I don't want to tell them everything to put in it. I want something that shows they paid attention in class, that they know something. It's an assessment. If we spoon-feed everything to them, what are they going to get from that? In high school and college no one is going to do that. I want them to get a feel for what is good work and excellent work. One idea is to take these different papers and have the kids assess them themselves and then discuss their assessments, so that they begin to get a better idea of what good work really looks like. Because a rubric like this isn't objective; it's still subjective.

ALICIA: There's something I struggle with a lot, also. When I look at the student's work and the rubric, and I see there's one item the student didn't meet for a 4, I automatically drop down to the criteria for a 3. But I'm not sure that's the right way to do this.

JANET: And that's the same problem I was having. I could see it didn't meet all the things to earn a 4, but it met so many of them.

ALICIA: So I'm wondering which way we should do it.

LINDA: You're teaching history here, and I would have to put more emphasis on the history part of it. And I wouldn't necessarily drop them down because they had one mistake on the grammar. I almost would like to put the word "generally" in front of each item in the rubric. Because how many perfect papers are you ever going to see? You have to use some judgment and look at the paper as a whole.

TIM: What I want to know is what do you do when you have a kid who is kind of on the low end but makes an extraordinary effort? Should they get a higher grade than another kid who does the same level of work but you know could have done a lot more?

LINDA: I know what you mean and my heart goes out to those kids. But when you're working with standards, you have to be real careful. If he has the history right, that would be important.

GARY (the principal): You've got to read the whole paper carefully. You've got to work through it. But you've got to stick to the standard. The bar has to stay there; you can't bring the bar down for one student. If you start doing that, then you destroy the whole purpose of having standards.

MARY: Let me bring some closure to this. I think Alicia is really going to benefit from this when she does this same activity with her kids, because she's got some student work to dialogue with her kids. And Janet, your idea of going back to give the kids another chance to move up, with the support, you're going to give them, is just the right intervention to take this assignment a step further. Thank you for sharing this work - it's been a really good experience.


Back to the main Hoover story