01.19.14The Stack Audit: Bad Name Big Value
I just finished a chapter on writing in the classroom for TLAC 2.0. In the chapter I describe a scene in which some teachers and I realized we needed more powerful tools to hold students accountable for their written lives in the classroom. The solutions to that challenge are a big reason why there’s a whole chapter on writing in TLAC 2.0—one of my self-criticisms of the first version is that it’s a very good tool for managing the verbal lives of students in the classroom but not as much for managing their written lives, which are at least as important.
Re-telling the story reminded me of how much I value the tool that revealed the need for better tools in the classroom as well as about a thousand other small and useful so insights: the stack audit. I thought I’d take a few minutes to share a bit about it.
The name audit implies scrutiny and compliance but really it’s a tool we use in a climate of mutual trust and respect to understand what we do and how to improve aspects of our everyday practice. It can be done as a school, as a department or for a single teacher.
Let’s take a whole-school example. On the days I’d be visiting one of our schools I might ask the principal to gather the homework every teacher assigned over the past two days, or the most recent two tests everyone had given, or the Do Nows from all of that day’s lessons, or all of the Exit Tickets. We’d put them all in a stack in the middle of the table and myself and members of the school’s leadership team would take ten of fifteen minutes to silently read and reflect. You’d pull two or three from the pile and make some notes on strengths and weaknesses and then put them back and take a few more. As we worked we’d all keep a big T chart: What were the best things that people were doing that could be replicated across the school? What were some problem points we could fix? Then we’d go around the circle and share our best observations about bright spots—thirty second each to share one thing, then it was he next person’s turn, around and around we’d go. Then the same for trouble spots. Someone would keep a list. Finally the principal would look at the list and name a few points she thought were priorities. We’d all weigh in with feedback. She would produce a set of notes for sharing with her staff, maybe the outline of a training, maybe just an email: essentially a how-to guide for whatever the topic was: Exit Tickets or writing prompts or Do Nows or tests. Whatever it was it focused as much on strengths a anything else: “Here are 5 great things I saw; hope you can use them.” Right out of the Heath Brothers’ playbook.
A particularly useful variation was to collect not just what the teacher handed out but what students actually wrote. We collected, for example, every piece of homework students did in one of our schools one day. It was all in a big pile and away we went, subject by subject. Our big takeaway was that kids were doing minimum possible compliance. They’d get it done because they had to get it done but some kids were producing—and practicing producing every night—awful quality work: scrawled, done quickly in terrible handwriting with poor or un-grammatical sentences. A wave of reforms swept the school- teachers read exceptional homework to classes, posted exemplars, set more rigorous standards for what “done” meant. They assigned shorter but more rigorous homework with clearer expectations for what quality meant. Two weeks later I read through homework again and the results were incredible. (The process of collecting HW was easy, by the way, because at the school in question students turn their HW for that day in as soon as they hit the doors, putting it in wire baskets by subject. The baskets are on tables at the front of the school. A staff member can quickly grab the stacks and know by 9am who has to be at HW Center that evening. As a side benefit stopping and reading homework for 10 mins was always one of my most useful tools for understanding a school.)
We’d also do stack audits at the teacher level. A teacher might bring all of the writing her kids did from class that day, or the essays they’d written or their Do Nows, and we’d look through them and make observations. It was almost always up to her to decide what to take action on. We gave insight- the decision was hers and she’d send us her action steps for feedback. My sense is that people found it incredibly useful. I know I did. And now I hope it will be useful to you, too.
Since hearing about “stack audits” at the recent Math Workshop/ Champion Trainers conference, I have been obsessed with thinking about how to use stack audits and student work analysis as a coaching tool for the first year teachers I support. Do you have a “sneak peak” protocol that you might be able to share with us so that we can begin using this now? 🙂 Thanks so much!
we usually keep it pretty simple. hardest part is gathering the materials. i usually ask for those in advance so people can’t show up empty handed or forget OR i have someone central collect them all.
my ideal number of people is 4-6… plurality of ideas; few enough folks that we can have a real conversation.
We put all of the documents in a stack. I like to have lots so it feels like there’s plenty to look at. I usually set a clock for 15 minutes or so and say we’ll chack in after. When we start people just take two or three and make notes on them, then return them to the stack and grab a few more. Sometimes we use a tracker but i actually find it easier to process just by usuing a T-chart of glows and grows (or plusses and deltas). i do think it’s importnat to have participants note which document they were looking at so when we discuss they can refer to it specificaly or even show what they were talking about. Sometimes to facilitate this i number all of the documents in advance in a corner for easy reference.
anyway after 15 mins (or whatever) i check in and ask if people want more time. they usually do so we go another ten, maybe.
then for feedback we start with glows and we go “protocol style” that is we go in order around the ring with each person making one single observation and speaking for thirty seconds at most. they can pass if they want to because we go around multiple times. we also ask people not to break in to comment on other people’s observations. right now we’re just hearing what people saw and though was important. after the glows we do the grows. i often ask someone to track on a projector or a flip chart so after we can look at the list and decide what’s most important. sometimes i even let people vote, ie “choose the three ideas from the grows you think are most importnat to follow up on with our team.” aggregating the votes gives me a sense of priorities. Sometimes i’ll differentiate “quick hits” (things we can address really quickly, in an email, say) from “bigger issues” which would require some time and planning ot address. I want us to take on, say, two of each. and i always try to remember to ask for follow up on the glows too. calling attention to and replicatiing what we do well is as importnat as “fixing” what we don’t.
If we have time i take one or two of hte key takeaways and we plan our firts five action steps. one person’s usually htne in charge of tracking and reviewiing what we decide to make sure we follow up. they also send around a summary afterwards to make sure people remember and that we got it all right. that’s about it.
QQ: How frequently do you suggest doing a stack audit? Would you suggest setting goals, then setting a date to revisit the work?
I am thinking of doing it as an ongoing event recurring on our data-days, but question whether or not that is frequent enough.
JR
I have always said that in order to improve, we must “put our truth on the table.” I love this idea!