Receive updates
Learn with Two Rivers
  • Home
  • Outcomes
    • Critical Thinking & Problem Solving >
      • Effective Reasoning
      • Decision Making
      • Problem Solving
    • Character
    • Collaboration & Communication
  • Instructional Practices
    • Arts Integration
    • Critique
    • Learning Expeditions
    • Problem-Based Tasks in Math
    • Student-Led Conferences
    • Student-Led IEPs
    • Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving >
      • Define: Rubrics
      • Teach: Thinking Routines
      • Assess: Performance Tasks
  • Two Rivers Learning Institute
    • Two Rivers Learning Institute Faculty
    • Professional Development Offerings
  • Blog
  • CAREERS
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Outcomes
    • Critical Thinking & Problem Solving >
      • Effective Reasoning
      • Decision Making
      • Problem Solving
    • Character
    • Collaboration & Communication
  • Instructional Practices
    • Arts Integration
    • Critique
    • Learning Expeditions
    • Problem-Based Tasks in Math
    • Student-Led Conferences
    • Student-Led IEPs
    • Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving >
      • Define: Rubrics
      • Teach: Thinking Routines
      • Assess: Performance Tasks
  • Two Rivers Learning Institute
    • Two Rivers Learning Institute Faculty
    • Professional Development Offerings
  • Blog
  • CAREERS
  • Contact

​​​​​​​​​

​​​​​



​​​
Welcome to our blog

Student Experience the Key to Deepening Student Experience

5/22/2019

0 Comments

 
By Jeff Heyck-Williams, the director of curriculum and instruction for Two Rivers Public Charter School

Two Rivers Public Charter School recently wrapped up our first Deeper Learning Cohort, a year-long program focused on helping teachers define, teach, and assess critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Funded by the Assessment for Learning Project, the cohort brought together teachers from both DC Public Schools and the DC charter sector to grow our collective professional practice around the cognitive skills we all agree our students need. The cohort met for a three-day launch in the summer, hosted several shorter convenings during the school year, and culminated at Two Rivers’ sixth annual Evening of Learning Seminars on March 14 where members of the cohort shared their learning with the broader education community in Washington, DC.

Goals of the Cohort

Through the course of the cohort the members focused on four broadly defined goals:

       1. 
Choosing and utilizing rubrics

       2. 
Creating and implementing performance assessments

       3. 
Analyzing data

       4. 
Aligning instruction

Inspired by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins’ work in Understanding by Design, our approach to this work was situated with backwards design in mind. Building on previous work at Two Rivers, members of the cohort defined the constructs of critical thinking and problem-solving through rubrics, then developed performance assessments that could be used to determine student mastery of the skills, and only after that designed the instruction that will drive students toward these outcomes.

Defining, Teaching, and Assessing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills

The rubric design was informed by a wide range of resources including the 4C’s rubrics from PBLworks (formerly Buck Institute for Education), the Catalina Foothills School District’s rubrics for deep learning proficiencies, and the 4C’s rubrics from EdLeader21, a network of Battelle for Kids. In each case, the Two Rivers staff and cohort members were looking for language to describe the skills that we set out to teach. This functioned not just as an opportunity to evaluate where kids were in their development, but also provided guidance to teachers in defining the types of feedback that they can give to improve students’ cognitive processes.

Utilizing these rubrics, teams of cohort members developed short performance tasks that students could complete in a class period to give us a sense of where they were in developing their skills. These tasks were enhanced through a collaboration with Envision Learning Partners who provided feedback to cohort members about their assessment task design.

With each rubric and performance task, we aligned the work with a specific thinking routine. Some of the routines came straight from the work of Project Zero’s Visible Thinking project,  and others we developed at Two Rivers to address reasoning, decision making, and problem-solving specifically.

Our assumption going into the cohort was that by helping teachers define, assess, and teach toward clear definitions of critical thinking and problem-solving skills, we could deepen students’ learning.

Student Experience Is Key

What we learned through the Deeper Learning Cohort and involving more educators outside of our school was somewhat surprising. However in hindsight, it now seems obvious. If we want to change the outcomes for students, we have to put students’ experiences front and center. We discovered that the goal around aligning instruction was more important  to deepen student learning than any of the other goals for the cohort. The process of defining constructs with rubrics and designing performance tasks  helped cohort members name the targets which our students are aiming toward. However, rubrics and performance assessments become meaningless exercises—like so much other work in the assessment space—if they don’t result in positive changes to the day-to-day experiences students have in class.

Specifically, a number of cohort members focused on problem-solving routines in their classes. Drawing on a rubric for problem-solving that Two Rivers had produced, the teachers created performance tasks to assess students’ development of problem-solving skills. As educators, we can get pretty excited about our planning work, but the real test is when we put it in front of students. What the cohort members found was that their students underwhelmed them with their initial problem-solving work. The teachers realized they needed to teach the problem-solving skills more explicitly and embed them in their regular routines of the class.

Janna Huynh, a math teacher at Center City Public Charter School, articulated this explicitly when she identified that the problem-solving routine only became a routine when students started using it beyond the context of math and applied the same routines to solving social problems the class faced. Problems like how to make math groups more productive. Using the routine, students identified that everyone needed to be on-task for about 95 percent of the time and came up with strategies for solving this real problem around collaborative work.

These day-to-day applications of the cognitive skills that we were targeting make all the difference in the lives of the students that we teach.

A New Cohort

Armed with this new knowledge, Two Rivers is set to launch a second cohort of deeper learning for educators in the DC area this summer. Working with teachers across the DC education landscape, we realize that our attention needs to focus on the ways that students and teachers interact and experience school everyday. Rethinking assessments to include rubrics for providing student feedback and performance tasks are an important building block for making these shifts. However, only through paying attention to how instructional decisions are made and implemented can we hope truly to deepen learning for all students.

THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN EDUCATION WEEK'S NEXT GEN LEARNING IN ACTION BLOG.
0 Comments

Five Steps to Leading Schools with Emotional Intelligence and Accountability

3/28/2019

0 Comments

 
By David Nitkin, Chief of Staff at Two RIvers Public Charter School

Think of the best boss you’ve ever had. Did they hold you to a high standard and push you to grow? I’ll bet they did. Did they make you feel cared for and supported? I’m sure of it. But how did they strike this masterful balance of leading with love and holding incredibly high standards? And more importantly, how can we teach others to do the same?

This is the question that we set out to answer last year at Two Rivers Public Charter Schools in Washington, D.C. When our highly successful single-site school replicated and become a network in 2015, we anticipated that our increased scale might lead to challenges. We also knew that these challenges would require that we master new skills and habits to prevent our strong and accountable culture from fraying at the edges.

We’ve worked hard to build those skills in the subsequent years, and as we entered the 2017-18 academic year, we decided that we wanted to specifically focus on strengthening a culture of accountability across our multiple campuses. Issues with accountability weren’t unique to us, and we were committed to learning from those who had gone before. However, we also knew that our solutions would need to reflect our unique core values as a mission-driven organization. One core value we felt to be particularly salient was our commitment to nurturing relationships, which we define as “We make connections, build trust, have honest conversations, and care for each other.” This core value informed the way we approached our big, adaptive question: How do we strengthen a culture of emotionally intelligent accountability: a warm, caring, collaborative culture that's also strong in follow-through and execution?

We dug into this question at our summer leadership retreat and deepened our learning through expert texts like Crucial Accountability and Radical Candor. We also partnered with Matt Taylor from The Noble Story Group to adapt a five-square framework for driving accountability in a way that not just improves results but also strengthens relationships.
Emotional Intelligence Five-Square
Picture
We were excited by the ways that this framework, which The Noble Story Group built to operationalize Goleman’s (1995) work on emotional intelligence, aligned with our own Two Rivers Scholarly Habits, the character skills that we teach all of our students and expect them to master before graduating in eighth grade. These scholarly habits, which also align with the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) competencies for social-emotional learning, include:
​
  1. I know myself. This scholarly habit describes the ability to accurately recognize one’s emotions, thoughts, and values and how they influence behavior, as well as the ability to accurately assess one’s strengths and limitations. This is aligned with the top-left quadrant of the emotional intelligence five-square: what biases, triggers, and issues do we bring to peer interactions that may prevent us from connecting deeply or challenging honestly?
  2. I am independent and resilient. This scholarly habit is focused on self-management: the ability to successfully regulate one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in different situations—effectively managing stress, controlling impulses, and motivating oneself. This is aligned with the bottom-left quadrant of the five-square, in which we work to manage our own “stuff” so that we can bring our best selves to our interactions with teammates.
  3. I show compassion and embrace diversity. This scholarly habit describes the ability to take the perspective of and empathize with others, including those from diverse backgrounds and cultures. This is aligned with the top-right quadrant of the five-square, which focuses on deeply understanding the perspective of our teammates and approaching them with empathy and respect.
  4. I can connect and collaborate. This scholarly habit describes the ability to communicate clearly, listen well, cooperate with others, negotiate conflict constructively, and seek and offer help when needed. These are the skills that we leverage in the bottom-right section of the five-square, in which we actively navigate accountability conversations related to gaps between a teammate’s actions and our shared, high expectations as a school community.
  5. I act with integrity. Our final scholarly habit is defined as the ability to make constructive choices about personal behavior and social interactions based on ethical standards, safety concerns, and social norms. When teaching this scholarly habit to students, we often define it as “I do the right thing even when nobody is watching.” In the context of the emotional intelligence five-square, acting with integrity is aligned with the center rectangle, which reminds us of the power we gain when we tap into our most deeply-held values.

We were excited to have a schema that encompassed our core values, the scholarly habits that we teach our students, and research and best practices from outside experts. But our true growth only came when we got our hands dirty and started leveraging these ideas in our day-to-day work. To accelerate our learning, we utilized a structure of peer “running buddies” who met every six to eight weeks across the year to plan and reflect on difficult conversations and help one another tap into our authentic leadership voices.

We also allocated two of our leadership retreats to facilitated roleplays in which we acted out “accountability conversations” that were intentionally designed to match the real pain points we were experiencing as an organization. For example, one roleplay called upon us to confront a teammate who repeatedly missed important deadlines. Using the five-square framework, we worked to show our teammates care by affirming their good intentions and empathizing with their workloads, while also challenging them to understand the impact of their missed deadlines on the rest of the team. By balancing care and challenge, we learned to not only address the accountability gap but also leave our relationships stronger and deeper than had we avoided the conversation in the first place.
When we launched this focus on emotionally intelligent accountability, many of our leaders were apprehensive, and some felt uncomfortable with being pushed outside of their comfort zone. But as the year went on, our confidence grew as we deepened our expertise and experienced an increasing amount of success. Most encouragingly, a year after beginning this work, we have seen significant increases in our staff culture survey results, including some of our best outcomes since replicating from a single school into a network four years ago.

Building a strong culture is truly forever work, and we know that we still have much more growth and learning ahead of us. But we’re emboldened by these initial results, and mindful of the fact that achieving them required both seeking expertise from outside our team and recommitting to the core values that have guided us since our founding.

This blog was originally published in Education Weeks Next Gen Learning in Action blog.


0 Comments

5 Steps to Teaching Students a Problem-Solving Routine

1/23/2019

0 Comments

 
By Jeff Heyck-Williams

When I visited a fifth-grade class recently, the students were tackling the following problem:

If there are nine people in a room and every person shakes hands exactly once with
each of the other people, how many handshakes will there be? How can you prove your answer is correct using a model or numerical explanation?

There were students on the rug modeling people with Unifix cubes. There were kids at one table vigorously shaking each other’s hand. There were kids at another table writing out a diagram with numbers. At yet another table, students were working on creating a numeric expression. What was common across this class was that all of the students were productively grappling around the problem.

On a different day, I was out at recess with a group of kindergarteners who got into an argument over a vigorous game of tag. Several kids were arguing about who should be “it.” Many of them insisted that they hadn’t been tagged. They all agreed that they had a problem. With the assistance of the teacher they walked through a process of identifying what they knew about the problem and how best to solve it. They grappled with this very real problem to come to a solution that all could agree upon.

Then just last week, I had the pleasure of watching a culminating showcase of learning for our 8th graders. They presented to their families about their project exploring the role that genetics plays in our society. Tackling the problem of how we should or should not regulate gene research and editing in the human population, students explored both the history and scientific concerns about genetics and the ethics of gene editing. Each student developed arguments about how we as a country should proceed in the burgeoning field of human genetics which they took to Capitol Hill to share with legislators. Through the process students read complex text to build their knowledge, identified the underlying issues and questions, and developed unique solutions to this very real problem

Problem-solving is at the heart of each of these scenarios, and an essential set of skills our students need to develop. They need the abilities to think critically and solve challenging problems without a roadmap to solutions. At Two Rivers Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., we have found that one of the most powerful ways to build these skills in students is through the use of a common set of steps for problem-solving. These steps, when used regularly, become a flexible cognitive routine for students to apply to problems across the curriculum and their lives.

The Problem-Solving Routine

At Two Rivers, we use a fairly simple routine for problem solving that has five basic steps. The power of this structure is that it becomes a routine that students are able to use regularly across multiple contexts. The first three steps are implemented before problem-solving. Students use one step during problem-solving. Finally, they finish with a reflective step after problem-solving.

Problem Solving from Two Rivers Public Charter School on Vimeo.

Before Problem-Solving: The KWI

The three steps before problem solving: we call them the K-W-I.

The “K” stands for “know” and requires students to identify what they already know about a problem. The goal in this step of the routine is two-fold. First, the student needs to analyze the problem and identify what is happening within the context of the problem. For example, in the math problem above students identify that they know there are nine people and each person must shake hands with each other person. Second, the student needs to activate their background knowledge about that context or other similar problems. In the case of the handshake problem, students may recognize that this seems like a situation in which they will need to add or multiply.

The “W” stands for “what” a student needs to find out to solve the problem. At this point in the routine the student always must identify the core question that is being asked in a problem or task. However, it may also include other questions that help a student access and understand a problem more deeply. For example, in addition to identifying that they need to determine how many handshakes in the math problem, students may also identify that they need to determine how many handshakes each individual person has or how to organize their work to make sure that they count the handshakes correctly.

The “I” stands for “ideas” and refers to ideas that a student brings to the table to solve a problem effectively. In this portion of the routine, students list the strategies that they will use to solve a problem. In the example from the math class, this step involved all of the different ways that students tackled the problem from Unifix cubes to creating mathematical expressions.


This KWI routine before problem solving sets students up to actively engage in solving problems by ensuring they understand the problem and have some ideas about where to start in solving the problem. Two remaining steps are equally important during and after problem solving.

During Problem-Solving: The Metacognitive Moment

The step that occurs during problem solving is a metacognitive moment. We ask students to deliberately pause in their problem-solving and answer the following questions: “Is the path I’m on to solve the problem working?” and “What might I do to either stay on a productive path or readjust my approach to get on a productive path?” At this point in the process, students may hear from other students that have had a breakthrough or they may go back to their KWI to determine if they need to reconsider what they know about the problem. By naming explicitly to students that part of problem-solving is monitoring our thinking and process, we help them become more thoughtful problem solvers.

After Problem-Solving: Evaluating Solutions

As a final step, after students solve the problem, they evaluate both their solutions and the process that they used to arrive at those solutions. They look back to determine if their solution accurately solved the problem, and when time permits they also consider if their path to a solution was efficient and how it compares to other students’ solutions.

The power of teaching students to use this routine is that they develop a habit of mind to analyze and tackle problems wherever they find them. This empowers students to be the problem solvers that we know they can become. 

​THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN EDUCATION WEEK'S NEXT GEN IN ACTION BLOG.  
0 Comments

We Don't Know What They Don't Know: Building Equity by Building Background Knowledge

11/12/2018

0 Comments

 
By Monica Powell, English Teacher, Two Rivers Public Charter School

“Fire Ants. What do you know about them? Turn and talk to the person sitting next to you.”

My face flushed as I turned to the middle-aged stranger sitting beside me in the workshop. “Um..they sting? Or..er..bite? And it..um..hurts?” I had nothing to bring to the table, not a single bit of background knowledge to build upon. The woman sitting next to me, however, had extensive knowledge of the topic. She chatted for five minutes about a recent article she read about fire ants. I sat there, silent. I was completely disengaged.

In that moment, I experienced what so many students experience when asked to “turn and talk” with a partner about a topic prior to the start of a unit. My ability to engage in meaningful discussion was deeply impacted by my lack of background knowledge.

As teachers, we forget sometimes that we’ve taught each unit many times before. We assume that every student knows who Frederick Douglass is, or that the Underground Railroad is not in fact a real train. We do not take the time to check what background knowledge students are bringing with them into class. In other words, we don’t know what our students don’t know.

As an educator at Two Rivers Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., I am constantly thinking about equity in the classroom. I think about whose voices I’m raising up and which voices I am leaving behind. I make calling sticks, so I don’t just choose the same raised hands. I make deliberate choices about diverse texts we read. But it never occured to me that the assumptions I was making about the shared background knowledge my students were bringing into a classroom was creating an inequitable classroom environment.

If we know that the development of a schema is an essential part to student engagement, we should be more deliberate about having students build a shared understanding about a topic before deep diving into more complicated texts.

I recently attended a Teachers College Reading and Writing Program workshop facilitated by Dwight McCaulsky on lifting the level of students’ talk about books. I learned that there are simple steps all educators can take to dissolve the barriers posed by students’ lack of experience with a topic.

Here are some ways we can help build a schema of background knowledge for all of our learners:

  1. Send parents a suggested reading list prior to the start of a unit. A simple e-mail can do the trick in priming families to share their own background knowledge and encourage discussion at home.
  2. Thoughtfully and deliberately select texts for your classroom library in the weeks leading up to your unit launch. Fill your classroom library with unit texts that are easy to read and understand.
  3. Begin a unit with a low-risk “text” for students to analyze before they are asked to dive into a more challenging informational text. A video, song lyrics, or a picture book are all high-engagement tools that can help build a schema for students to then transfer to the reading of an informational text.
  4. Consider creating a board in your classroom which shows a developing understanding about a big topic or idea to help make the learning visible in the classroom for your students.

With the addition of these few simple changes, I can already feel like a fresh new energy has been added to my 7th grade ELA classroom. In our current unit, I am seeing the students go back and reference the texts, videos, and stories we used prior to the official beginning of the unit. Reading a children’s story about the Underground Railroad, for example, contributed to our lively discussions about forms of resistance during the Civil War.

When students have a basic understanding of a topic, they will feel more confident engaging with classroom discourse or tackling a difficult text. When we take the time to be thoughtful about building background knowledge, we can create a space where every student can be a powerful contributor to the classroom community.

​THIS BLOG WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE EDUCATION WEEK NEXT GEN LEARNING IN ACTION BLOG.


0 Comments

Yes, We Can Define, Teach, and Assess Critical Thinking Skills

12/15/2017

0 Comments

 
By: Jeff Heyck-Williams 
This piece was first published in Education Week's Next Gen Learning in Action Blog

​While the idea of teaching critical thinking has been bandied around in education circles since at least the time of John Dewey, it has taken greater prominence in the education debates with the advent of the term “21st century skills” and discussions of deeper learning. There is increasing agreement among education reformers that critical thinking is an essential ingredient for long-term success for all of our students.
 
However, there are still those in the education establishment and in the media who argue that critical thinking isn’t really a thing, or that these skills aren’t well defined and, even if they could be defined, they can’t be taught or assessed.
 
To those naysayers, I have to disagree. Critical thinking is a thing. We can define it; we can teach it; and we can assess it. In fact, as part of a multi-year Assessment for Learning Project, Two Rivers Public Charter School in Washington, DC, has done just that.
 
Before I dive into what we have done, I want to acknowledge that some of the criticism has merit. 
 
First, there are those that argue that critical thinking can only exist when students have a vast fund of knowledge. Meaning that a student cannot think critically if they don’t have something substantive about which to think. I agree. Students do need a robust foundation of core content knowledge to effectively think critically. Schools still have a responsibility for building students’ content knowledge.
 
However, I would argue that students don’t need to wait to think critically until after they have mastered some arbitrary amount of knowledge. They can start building critical thinking skills when they walk in the door. All students come to school with experience and knowledge which they can immediately think critically about. In fact, some of the thinking that they learn to do helps augment and solidify the discipline-specific academic knowledge that they are learning.
 
The second criticism is that critical thinking skills are always highly contextual. In this argument, the critics make the point that the types of thinking that students do in history is categorically different from the types of thinking students do in science or math. Thus, the idea of teaching broadly defined, content-neutral critical thinking skills is impossible. I agree that there are domain-specific thinking skills that students should learn in each discipline. However, I also believe that there are several generalizable skills that elementary school students can learn that have broad applicability to their academic and social lives. That is what we have done at Two Rivers.
 
Defining Critical Thinking Skills
 
We began this work by first defining what we mean by critical thinking. After a review of the literature and looking at the practice at other schools, we identified five constructs that encompass a set of broadly applicable skills: schema development and activation; effective reasoning; creativity and innovation; problem solving; and decision making.
Picture
​We then created rubrics to provide a concrete vision of what each of these constructs look like in practice. Working with the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE), we refined these rubrics to capture clear and discrete skills.
 
For example, we defined effective reasoning as the skill of creating an evidence-based claim: students need to construct a claim, identify relevant support, link their support to their claim, and identify possible questions or counter claims. Rubrics provide an explicit vision of the skill of effective reasoning for students and teachers. By breaking the rubrics down for different grade bands, we have been able not only to describe what reasoning is but also to delineate how the skills develop in students from preschool through 8th grade.
Picture
Before moving on, I want to freely acknowledge that in narrowly defining reasoning as the construction of evidence-based claims we have disregarded some elements of reasoning that students can and should learn. For example, the difference between constructing claims through deductive versus inductive means is not highlighted in our definition. However, by privileging a definition that has broad applicability across disciplines, we are able to gain traction in developing the roots of critical thinking. In this case, to formulate well-supported claims or arguments.
 
Teaching Critical Thinking Skills
 
The definitions of critical thinking constructs were only useful to us in as much as they translated into practical skills that teachers could teach and students could learn and use. Consequently, we have found that to teach a set of cognitive skills, we needed thinking routines that defined the regular application of these critical thinking and problem-solving skills across domains. Building on Harvard’s Project Zero Visible Thinking work, we have named routines aligned with each of our constructs.
 
For example, with the construct of effective reasoning, we aligned the Claim-Support-Question thinking routine to our rubric. Teachers then were able to teach students that whenever they were making an argument, the norm in the class was to use the routine in constructing their claim and support. The flexibility of the routine has allowed us to apply it from preschool through 8th grade and across disciplines from science to economics and from math to literacy.
Picture
Picture
Picture
​Kathryn Mancino, a 5th grade teacher at Two Rivers, has deliberately taught three of our thinking routines to students using the anchor charts above. Her charts name the components of each routine and has a place for students to record when they’ve used it and what they have figured out about the routine. By using this structure with a chart that can be added to throughout the year, students see the routines as broadly applicable across disciplines and are able to refine their application over time.
 
Assessing Critical Thinking Skills
 
By defining specific constructs of critical thinking and building thinking routines that support their implementation in classrooms, we have operated under the assumption that students are developing skills that they will be able to transfer to other settings. However, we recognized both the importance and the challenge of gathering reliable data to confirm this.
 
With this in mind, we have developed a series of short performance tasks around novel discipline-neutral contexts in which students can apply the constructs of thinking. Through these tasks, we have been able to provide an opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to transfer the types of thinking beyond the original classroom setting. Once again, we have worked with SCALE to define tasks where students easily access the content but where the cognitive lift requires them to demonstrate their thinking abilities.
 
These assessments demonstrate that it is possible to capture meaningful data on students’ critical thinking abilities. They are not intended to be high stakes accountability measures. Instead, they are designed to give students, teachers, and school leaders discrete formative data on hard to measure skills.
 
While it is clearly difficult, and we have not solved all of the challenges to scaling assessments of critical thinking, we can define, teach, and assess these skills. In fact, knowing how important they are for th
e economy of the future and our democracy, it is essential that we do.
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    May 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    December 2017
    August 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    November 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    June 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    January 2012
    November 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    January 2011

    Main Contributors

    Jeff Heyck-Williams, Director of Curriculum and Instruction

    Categories

    All
    Character
    Collaboration & Communication
    Differentiation
    Expeditions
    Families
    Field Studies
    Flexible Groups
    Grading
    Growth Mindset
    Homework
    Independent Centers
    Inquiry
    Math
    Mission
    Outcomes
    Play-based Learning
    Problem-based Learning
    Questioning
    School Culture
    Student-led Conferences
    Tasks

    RSS Feed

Two Rivers Public Charter School's mission is to nurture a diverse group of students to become lifelong, active participants in their own education, develop a sense of self and community, and become responsible and compassionate members of society.
Learn With Two Rivers is supported by a generous grant from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to support the dissemination of best practices with DC-area educators. 
Picture
All content on this site is subject to the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license which lets users remix, tweak, and build upon our work non-commercially, as long as Two Rivers is credited and the new creations are licensed under identical terms.

Copyright • Two Rivers Public Charter School