<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>My harmonious wall by Dave Pritchard</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/CarlowDave/s12nfb038d1d</link>
      <description>Made with charm</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2018-11-25 00:15:54 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2025-12-14 17:22:28 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>CarlowDave</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/CarlowDave/s12nfb038d1d/wish/307446969</link>
         <description><![CDATA[The two that are most difficult for me to consistently implement in my teaching experience have to do with ‘Practice 2: Show criteria and models in advance’ &amp; ‘Practice 7: Allow new evidence of achievement to replace old evidence’. Each of these require a unique set of circumstances that can immediately set into motion instructional conflicts. When Practice 2 states – 

“When a department or grade-level team—or better yet, an entire school or district—uses common rubrics, evaluation results are more consistent because the performance criteria don't vary from teacher to teacher or from school to school.”

I almost fell of my chair! ‘Common rubrics’ utilized by an entire school district might sound fair, equitable and egalitarian on paper but could not possibly address the inherent differences within school populations, learning styles and socio-economic strata.  I’m not suggesting a form of handicap assessment that starts form a less rigorous point of evaluation but in the Visual Arts example within given district, you might have a huge socio-economic disparity concerning access to supplies and materials, computers, printers &amp; internet access. I like Common Core categories like the ones that the NCAS - National Core Arts Standards have put forward but ‘rubrics’ should be designed to be tailored specifically to certain learning cohorts and groups of students who may or may not have variant learning styles and expectations. They need to be more flexible and organic in nature and adaptable to specific Art Studio Needs. ‘Presentation’ as an assessment criteria cannot be expected if a school has not the display space and or digital format to facilitate exhibitions. Also, the percentages of ‘weighting’ given to categories for student grades could be problematic in that instruction varies from school to school based on studio space, supplies and curriculum content. One teacher may focus more on the ‘Art Historical’ aspects of the Visual Arts verses a program at a school across town in the same district that has more of a traditional hands on kinesthetic learning environment. It seems troublesome that they have stated the “evaluation results are more consistent” when common rubrics are involved, as if that was a bonus effect of using them (?) Are they just looking for common/consistent results or are they actually interested in reflecting truly what the individual students have learned s specific schools (?) Are they suggesting that grades would somehow be more honest and less variant if everyone wore the same evaluation pants (?) The National Curriculum in England works there for many reasons and having taught in the system, I can see the advantages, but it’s not without its problems and pitfalls. They have common assessment across the board but will arbitrarily change grade boundaries of a given District (aka educational authority / catchment area, if it has grades that appear to be too high achieving – they’ll force the ‘leveling of the playing field’ essentially. Ethically, that’s a repulsive Model of predictable outcomes. But conversely, in the States, schools that have the most money, set the table in such a fashion as to perpetuate the need results. 

Practice 7 also has been very difficult to implement in that when working towards an AP Portfolio beginning in Grades 9 &amp;10, you often cannot demonstrate what I call “compensating strength” early pieces that they make may be mediocre in skill and quality of the death of expression but they may totally hit it out of the park creatively &amp; aesthetically with their last few efforts but the external evaluator at the College Board doesn’t know this and cannot score their work based on accelerated expression and skill because of the required structure of the portfolio itself. They only grade on the finished product, not the creative growth the individual student went through to get there! I’m not a fan of the scoring process and have long wanted to have a ‘local  instructional mark’ included and factored into the overall portfolio evaluation scoring.  
]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-25 00:16:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/CarlowDave/s12nfb038d1d/wish/307446969</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title></title>
         <author>CarlowDave</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/CarlowDave/s12nfb038d1d/wish/307446971</link>
         <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/324816911/ff06a648eb8011159f04cf7e98dbc500/image.png" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-25 00:16:12 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/CarlowDave/s12nfb038d1d/wish/307446971</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
