Quality Work Protocol Summary Sheet

School Name
Date of Protocol
Participants
(Name and Role)

CapitalCityPublicCharterSchool
May 21, 2015
ILT Member Participants
:
Britt Villaflor (5th Humanities)
Ariel Kramer (7th Math)
Chris Kenny (6th Math/Science Inclusion)
Janeth Diaz (HS Spanish)
Melanie Roberts (English HS Inclusion)
Haajar Celestin (Science HS Inclusion)
Olivia Rhoads (Kindergarten)
Katie Spellacy (3rd grade)
Chip Chase (Director of Library Services and Technology)
Jake Fishbein (EL School Designer)
ILT Member Facilitators:
Ayanna Gallant (MS Music)
Christina Marino (8th ELA Inclusion)
Liane McGillen (Chemistry)
Kendra Macko (Math HS Inclusion)
Stephanie Murphy (4th grade)
Nicole Cummings (LS music) (facilitation),
Instructional Coach Organizers
(setup, logistics, filming):
Katie Pick (MS)
Katryna Andrusik (HS)
Thora Balk (EC)
Leensa Fufa (LS)

Based on todays protocol, what conclusions did you draw about the level of quality displayed in the
student work?
The work presented today demonstrates higher quality than in prior examinations of quality work.
High quality work was represented in a diverse number of formats.
Multiple drafts were present in all quality work samples. Additionally, subsequent drafts represented an
improvement in quality.
Peer feedback and critique was often leveraged to improve the quality of student work.
Complexity was the attribute of student work that made the biggest jump from the first Quality Work
Protocol to this one.
Craftsmanship was especially evident in students writing.
All attributes were demonstrated to a high degree on long term assignments, but not so much on
shorter tasks.

 No math was submitted as an example of high quality work.

Based on todays protocol, what conclusions did you draw about the tasks and scoring tools that
teachers are designing?

The strongest tasks were modeled on concrete, real world exemplars.

Tasks pushed students to CREATE- many tasks required students make real things.
Tasks demonstrated high expectations for all students.
Tasks varied greatly in format - teacher by teacher. A question remains about determining the right
task, as there seems to be a fine balance between being too descriptive and too open.
Tasks were improved when they required the synthesis of multiple sources.
Most tasks had a real, outside audience.
The three attributes of high quality work were helpful when used explicitly in high school student
rubrics and tasks.
Note catchers often supported increased complexity in content, but may have over-scaffolded writing.
Critique and feedback was a powerful part of the process that teachers developed.

Based on these conclusions, what goals and action steps did you determine?
Goal

Action Steps/Dates

Create an
onboarding
system for new
teachers to
develop high
quality tasks and
student work

Summer New Teacher Training by Jake (with exploration of brand new CCPCS quality
work site!)
Fill the Gap sessions to move our mediocre work to high quality

Develop a
consistent
archiving system
of high quality
student work

Upload all student work files to new website. (TBD: WHO)

Work with Chip to develop a numerical coding system for student work.
Create a process for having teachers scan and upload work.

A documented
set of calibrated
expectations for
tasks across
grades

A comprehensive vision of what goes on in products for each grade (EC, LS, MS, HS)
Department-based task calibration (choose facilitation tool for these conversations)
A global task progression chart

Other ideas for goals:

A stronger balance of authenticity with complexity.
A rubric for tasks
Hold protocols to deeply examine student work with individual teachers

Which student work, representative of school-wide quality, will you be archiving from this protocol?
All that went through this round
Which student work, if any, will you be submitting to ELs Center for Student Work?
MS Pop Art Icons
Chemistry Water Filter and Testing Project/Case Study
1st grade Scientific Bee Drawings
Food Justice Expedition