I Just Don't Know.

You got that right: I just don't know.  That's right, this teacher, the bearer of knowledge, just doesn't know what to think about rubrics.  And, to be honest, up until this week, I never really thought twice about using a rubric in my classroom.  For all I knew, rubrics were sophisticated; I have spent hours in the past crafting rubrics that were organized and specific, yet loose enough for optimal student success.  I was holding myself and my students accountable.  I was showing my students what I expected of them--no secrets.  I was trying to set parameters so that my students felt like they had direction.  All of that sounds really great, right?

Well, herein lies my serious internal conflict.  I read a text this week called Rethinking Rubrics by Maja Wilson who forced me to do exactly what the title of her books says: rethink rubrics.  Go figure!  I literally held the book eagerly in my hands, mouth agape (maybe a bit of drool), as I turned the page in amazement, shock, and agreement.  Wilson reveals to her readers the birth of the rubric, which just so happened to be because of ranking in colleges.  Students needed to be quickly assessed to see how they stacked up to one another for college admission.  That concept was adopted by the creators of the SATs and then the creators of state exams.  Here, the rubric was used to be objective, quick, and, quite frankly, impersonal.  If that's the case then, why do teachers use them in their classrooms?  Yes, we prepare our students to take all of the exams just mentioned, but we're not administering those exams, so why do we use rubrics that push us to rank our students?  Wilson suggests one reason we do is to save time.  Let's face it, English teachers have to grade sometimes up to 150 papers.  And with that many students can also come many battles, from students themselves, parents, administrators.  But, if a teacher uses a rubric that clearly lays out what is expected of students, there is less room to argue.  Right?  Well, that's another idea Wilson proposes.  Wilson also suggests: "All writing teachers grapple with what we value in student writing.  We think we know it when we see it, but how do we articulate our knowing to students?  The rubric attempts to articulate this knowing, and even when we give an overall impression grade, we rely on the rubric to provide a kind of working list of what good writing is...However we map it out, we believe that these lists keep us focused on what we value" (33).  in other words, using rubrics helps to keep teachers focused on what should be assessed and accountable for that content.  Moreover, it stabilizes teachers reactions to student writing so that they are consistent and less subjective.

If those are some reasons why teachers use rubric--some of which may not sound bad to you at all--why is Wilson questioning their use or impact on students?  Simply put: they unnecessarily and unfairly rank students, as well as hold them back.  Wilson suggests that students' writing style cannot be standardized; what each student is capable of is different, and how they present their ideas will also be different.  So how can there be one rubric that can be used for all students?  Just because one student decides to take a risk with unique organization and play with literary devices that may make their writing intent a little less obvious, should they be penalized?  Can they even be compared to the writer that has perfect organization and detail clarity?  What makes one better over the other?  Inevitably, the student who has great organization and detail clarity will score well, because that is what teachers want of their students and what will probably appear on the rubric.  So what happens to the student that took a chance and perhaps had a more sophisticated writing style?  They fail.  Now, is that fair?  While I subconsciously considered that quandary when writing my own rubrics, I never broke it down in such though.  Thus I was stumped when Wilson broke it down for me.  Have I been unfair all of these years?  Have I stunted my students' writing growth?  Did I try to make my students fit a mold?  Of course my first reactions were sheer horror, embarrassment, shame.

Is there a way to make a rubric loose enough to allow for such risks? I think so, and Wilson's counterpart, Vicki Spandel thinks so too.  Herein lies part II of my internal conflict: Spandel is in defense of using rubrics, and I really find value in what she has to say about their use.  So, while I agree with Wilson and value her viewpoints, I feel the exact same way for Spandel, putting me smack-dab in the middle of the good ol' rubric debate.  Spandel says that not all rubrics are alike.  In fact, "Some are vaguely written, shrouded in jargon, more accusatory than helpful.  Some emphasize a formuliac approach to writing or focus on trivia at the expense of substance, and to the extent they influence instruction, this can have devastating ramifications" ("In Defense of Rubrics" 19).  That "sketchy" kind of rubric just described are for the teachers whose primary concern is to score someone's work, according to Spandel.  But there can be instructionally friendly rubrics, rubrics that help students learn about their writing and drive instruction.  Such rubrics teach students to read their work and revise.  Spandel asserts, "Writing is revision, after all.  If we cannot teach students to revise, we cannot, in the truest sense, teach them to write" (20).  If a rubric, however, has students question their clarity, voice, audience, etc., then students are being pushed to write with purpose and skill.  And that can look different for every student.  So perhaps what Spandel is calling a rubric is really a writing guide that urges students to revisit their work and strengthen it.  For Spandel, reading student work and using a rubric is far from impersonal: "Far from becoming robotlike in their response, good readers use criteria as reminders, then look diligently for the tiniest sparks of voice, an unexpected phrase or connection, the trail of the writer's thinking" (20).  To me, that does not sound objective, quick, and impersonal; rather, it sounds subjective, thought-provoking, which may take more time, and personal.

So, have I made strides in solidifying my pedagogical practices this week?  No.  But have I been enlightened and prompted to reflect and reconsider my pedagogical practices?  Absolutely.  While I may not have all the answers, I do know one thing for sure: a teacher that takes the time to consider multiple viewpoints, a teacher that reflects, and a teacher that is constantly revising is a teacher that puts her students first.  I don't think there is one right answer here to whether or not teachers use rubrics.  I think the most important things to consider here are: Are we putting our students first?  Are we allowing them room for individual growth in their writing?