The ins and outs of standards-based grading.
At least once a month I hear from a journalist whose school district is moving toward standards-based grading—being measured on whether students know the content and not whether they do the work (or, for that matter, show up). Peg Tyre summed up the issue nicely in the New York Times this weekend. I think journalism on this topic, this piece included, tends to set up too simple of a dichotomy: you grade students on being friendly and compliant, or you grade them on mastery of material. It is possible, and common, to set up a traditional grading system that doesn’t credit “good behavior,” as the headline provocatively suggests.
But the piece captures the general idea, and shows through example how a reformed system works in real life. A frequent, understandable criticism of standards-based grading is that it allows students to slack on homework and other tasks, because in the end all that matters is whether they know the material. The middle school Tyre featured in the piece has come up with what seems like sensible balance. For example, homework doesn’t count toward a student’s grade, but he or she cannot retake tests for better scores unless they complete the homework.
If the districts you cover have not yet adopted standards-based grading, they are likely to consider it soon, so it is a good idea to look at how it is (and isn’t) working elsewhere.
But the piece captures the general idea, and shows through example how a reformed system works in real life. A frequent, understandable criticism of standards-based grading is that it allows students to slack on homework and other tasks, because in the end all that matters is whether they know the material. The middle school Tyre featured in the piece has come up with what seems like sensible balance. For example, homework doesn’t count toward a student’s grade, but he or she cannot retake tests for better scores unless they complete the homework.
If the districts you cover have not yet adopted standards-based grading, they are likely to consider it soon, so it is a good idea to look at how it is (and isn’t) working elsewhere.
posted by Linda Perlstein at
1:40 PM
13 Comments:
I'll have to admit my bias on this issue. Standards based grading is reprehensible. Even if I did not have a moral objection, I'd still say that its the dumbest idea since curriculum pacing. But too many reporters assume that's a good idea. Reporters need to look at the reality. And if they think its plausible, then perhaps they can actually find real world examples of differientiated instruction. I could arrange the work of all 210 to 300 students who I have year in year out, and we could agree how to rank the quality, but how could we conceivably decide on a fair grade. Some of my kids read at 2nd grade level, while other read at a college level. What society do we want, that values people who find the work easy, or people who who have character, responsiblity, and tries hard? Why encourage underachievement by many and force out others who can't learn enough, fast enough, in the chosen way? How can standardized tests provide a fairer judgement that those of people? Are we training people to take tests or live in a democratic society?
And if people are too imperfect to evaluate, then who will graduates will work with or for? Forget about standardized tests; who annointed these theorists as overlords, who dictate their own prefences over educators. This is another case where technocrats think they are so superior to the rank-in-file that they impose top-down micromaging.
We need all types of people teaching just like we have all types in people in class. Grading is politics. It always has been, and it always will be. The search for one "right" answer is simplistic. We want to teach kids to be able to come back to us and say "see, you were wrong."
If a kid doesn't want to do homework, fine, let him or her negotiate or fail to negotiate a new deal with the teachers who do or don't choose to negotiate. Let him or her choose, and let him learn about consequences in dealing with different people.
But we need more teachers, I believe, who want less grading. If our bosses don't like it, let them complain. Or let them take advantage of another political process - evaluations - to punish us, and then let us fight back.
Schools need to be a safe place for rebellion, failure, and learning from good and bad choices. Don't make grading something that hurts kids, but don't pander either. If someone doesn't like my grading, call me onto the carpet, or gossip about me in the lounge. But don't damage the sacred principles of liberal arts, free enquiry, debate, and public edication by trying to quantify the unquantifable. Dang, do they just want to turn teachers and students into quivering widgets who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
And please remember, the term "meritocracy" was coined as a nightmare scenario, a dystopia,not a moral good.
As the parent of the classic kid who's an A student in mastery of the subject matter and, well, a lot lower on compliance, cooperation, organization and diligence ... I'm really surprised to find that teachers didn't already know that a lot of kids were like mine. Obviously my view is affected by my parenting experience, but isn't this a fairly common type of student, one who frustrates teachers -- who are well aware of his actual intellectual firepower -- by not "living up to his potential"?
Linda,
You've got to kidding. Do you have any idea how many way behavior fits into grading, as opposed to standards?
Is it late? Is your name in the proper corner? Is it sloppy? Are there spelling and grammar errors in your history paper? Did you show enough of your work on the math problem? Is there a "class participation" component of the grade? Do you do group work in which student rate how they think the work was split up? Is there peer evaluation or peer editing?
And that doesn't even get into extra credit on tests, extra credit for bringing in class supplies, extra credit for bring forms to school on time and so so many others.
I've been thinking and writing about this issue for 25 years. Ted Sizer wrote Horace's Compromise about this, in part. Do you really see -- even in Coalition schools -- a real departure from these issues.
Because I do not.
My understanding is that grading for compliance is illegal. So use professional development, as we do with IDEA, to raise consciousness. Its slow and frustrating. But, standards based grading for kids on IEPs (or atheletes with scholarships on the line) is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny, either, and if you don’t have time to do something right, when will you have time to do it over?
I doubt they are opposed to compliance. If they were, they’d push for qualitative assessments. This sounds like a pr campaign to make money for Pearson testing. This sounds like an attempt to impose compliance to the central office on teachers. When teachers resisted standards driven grading in another state, the architect of the plan said “There comes a point where touchy-feely persuasion is terminally overwhelmed by ignorant opposition, and the opportunity to kick a little booty gets lost. Right now, I'm ready to conference with naysayers behind the schoolhouse inside a ten-foot ring. Can you dig it?”
Advocates of all standardized testing all the time usually aren’t that blunt. Instead they claim to want to require assessments for mastery.
I saw this grading occur in my inner city high school, and more than 300 students were pushed out in the 1st Nine Weeks. Grading is politics. Testing is politics. Life is politics. Stop seeking shortcut, become happy political warriors, as opposed to top down technocrats, and enjoy the journey. By the way, I love it when a student proclaims he will refuse to comply with homework mandates and still get an A.
As someone who formerly taught college students, I not sure that I like every aspect of standards-based grading, but it is a whole lot better than what is called 'traditional' grading. Standards-based grading ensures a fairly uniform method of grading, and it ensures that if a student gets a high grade that they actually understand the material.
The big problems with traditional grading are that the grades levels have no real meaning, and there isn't even agreement on how students should be graded. For example, a 'B' with one teacher may be a mark of sub-par performance, whereas in another class, a 'B' may indicate superior performance. Depending on the teacher, a student may be graded against set criteria, may be graded against the performance of other students, may be graded on their performance, may be graded based on effort, or based on numerous other factors.
With the current system, a student may have minimal understanding of the course material, but if they know how to play the system, they can get a good grade. I have seen plenty of these students, who were honor roll students throughout their whole life, and then were shocked to learn about new letters of the alphabet (C, D, and F) when they reached college. Many of these students were used to a high school environment where even if they didn't really grasp the course material, they could get a good grade if they behaved well, participated in class, and did extra credit assignments.
I think the real problem with grading in the United States is a cultural issue. Americans believe that any student can get an 'A' in any course if they try hard enough, and if the student doesn't do well, it is viewed as a lack of effort. This is crap -- while hard work matters, each student has areas where they are weaker and stronger. The math whiz may not be good at music, and the music virtuoso may be weak in math. In European countries that use a 1 to 5 grading scale, nobody expects kids to get 'straight 5s'.
What might be even better than either system is to go back to the true traditional grading system used before World War II where students' grades were based on their individual performance, and they were given simple, and easy-to-understand marks such as 'Outstanding', 'Satisfactory', or 'Unsatisfactory'.
As a parent of a student in a school that is participating in a trial program of standards based grading, I've made many observations which generated many questions. We all know that the reason for this type of grading is to try to improve the scores on standardized tests. Why then has this program taken a student who has scored advanced in math on proficiency tests since elementary school, into a student who can't make proficiency on even one outcome? The reason is poor implementation and teaching. Standards based grading is only standardized if the teaching and tests are uniform across the board. This is not the case, since his science class is also part of the trial and the program is implemented in a totally different manner. To further prove my point I took it upon myself to work with my son for a minimal amount of time and he achieved proficiency on all three outcomes I assisted him with. The one outcome I couldn't understand, he was unable to attain proficiency on. He has not achieved proficiency on even one outcome taught by his teacher yet this year, even after my son began staying after school once a week for help. Its pretty sad when a high school graduate who last had the subject in ninth grade, can out teach a college graduate in the subject they teach on a daily basis. My sons friend who is a mentally gifted student is complaining about his science class, while my son is having problems with the math. Explain how a child can correctly answer all of the highly proficient questions correctly on an outcome, but due to an incorrect answer on a proficient question he is given a non proficient grade. Here are some of the questions and concerns I have posed that the teachers, counselors, principal and administrators have not yet answered:
1. How many changes in new teaching methods have we experienced over the years, most of which have been discontinued due to ineffectiveness and what impact does that have on a childs education?
2. What are we really teaching our children when we eliminate the importance of punctuality, attendence, behavior, and ability to responsibly complete all assignments? (Do you want an employee or college student who comes late or not at all, starts trouble or doesn't complete assigned work?)
3. What lessons do we learn when we can redo work repetatively to reach proficiency? (Do you think college professors will allow this, what about your employer?)
4. Why is part of the requirement for a student who may be struggling, require them to stay after school to be allowed to continue trying to attain proficiency on an outcome? (Now they are putting students with financial or family obligations or those involved in activities at an advantage)
I completely agree with what John Thompson said. I couldn't have said it any better. Ask ANY high school student today what they think about not counting the formative assessment that takes place throughout the marking period and not counting homework. They will all tell you that it is a joke....They will slack off, and will probably spend more time playing XBOX instead of trying to master the skills. As a world language teacher, only practice (at home and in school) will give you that mastery. Education is about the process and the interaction that takes place in school during the years that kids are in school. They learn responsibility, perseverance, and end up realizing that consistency and effort is what will get them places. What do we do with kids who are full of themselves, who they they "know" the material but do nothing to improve? They will be the typical arrogant professionals who will think that they can step over everyone else because they are "smart" and do not have to have people skills. As a teacher for over a decade, the reality is that very FEW students have the gift of mastering something without putting effort and practicing on their own free time. Most students need the practice, the effort, the homework, the participation, to finally achieve some type of mastery. SBG is not sound, especially in a field that deals with people. As John Thompson said above, please do not "damage the sacred principles of liberal arts, free enquiry, debate, and public education by trying to quantify the unquantifiable." Teachers DID NOT become teachers to function as standardized test machines.
Mr. Thompson: Thank you so much for your eloquent defense of academic freedom. The best of us have always held students to a high standard. Can't we be left alone to do the job we know is right? I have been teaching for 36 years and have seen so much come and go, but the quality teachers have closed their doors and gotten results all along - and I don't mean just on standardized tests - I mean on helping to shape the minds of inquisitive, thoughtful, and yes, skeptical citizens of a democratic society. The Chinese may have higher math scores, but they have armies of political prisoners and undrinkable water. Which would you prefer?
As a teacher in a school that has recently started SBG, I see that it does not help the students become responsible or create a solid work ethic.
For example, I assign the students a story to read for homework to discuss in the next class period. However, only two students come to class actually having read the story. How am I going to assess their skills during the discussion, or any formative assessment for that matter, if they don't know the story? According to SBG, this is a behavior issue, and I can not include this behavior of not being prepared in their grade. So, what do I do during the class that I planned on having a great discussion? The students spend the class reading the story; I'm a day behind; the students learn that they don't have to meet deadlines, and there will be no consequences; I get reprimanded because an administrator walks in while the students are not achieving the skill on the board for the day.
That being said, I am a believer in rubrics. The major difference is that rubrics grade holistically, while SBG does not. Rubrics allow for the students to see where they are in relationship to the skills they need, create a system where all teachers grade with the same requirements in mind and allow for a a "professionalism" or "responsibility" category which does show the students that work ethic plays a part in school and their lives.
My fear is that our future society will consist of people who know the "skills", but lack the effort to do anything with them, or push the limits of what is possible, because they shouldn't have to do any extra work.
OK, I agree that a box of Kleenex shouldn't change a student's grade, and I like standardized rubrics and major assessments,
BUT
This represents a fundamental shift in the purpose of education, being imposed from the top-down, without any real-world data that the benefits of this radical approach justify the shift. (Open classrooms, anybody?)
Consider the list of things that no longer matter in SBG: *Effort (sorry, PE, Music and Art-only the talented need apply.)
*Character (one less thing to teach)
*Hard work (because it's wrong to reward children who try their hardest and yet still fall short)
*Timeliness (can I tell that to the IRS?)
*Doing it right the first time(good news for surgeons and airline pilots everywhere!)
*Getting along with coworkers and/or supervisors
I am a first year high school math teacher (I transitioned to teaching after 12+ years as a non-educator). I have only recently heard of SBG, but I tend to like it. I think an A in math should indicate that the student knows more than enough to succeed in the next math class. Why should I give an A for hard work if they don't understand the math. As a parent, I would be very angry at a school if my son gets high grades in high school, but doesn't know the material enough to do well in college.
I don't think that SBG has to take away the importance of the other stuff not included in the grade. For example:
-three tardies and you get a detention (not a lower grade).
-bad classroom behavior and you suffer consequences like staying after class, doing extra homework (not for a grade, but as an alternative to a worse consequence), sent to the office, or whatever else you want to use as a consequence.
-Group work can still be used for study techniques.
-homework/work ethic: Let me explain in a few paragraphs...
I have worked in a few different professions outside of teaching and have never been required to do homework. In other words, I never had a boss ask if I worked on something at home or not and evaluate my pay raise based on doing that. However, I know that at times I needed to do extra things off the clock in order to improve myself, or accomplish more, so that I can get a raise. Doesn't this sound like SBG when it comes to homework?
SBG doesn't say no homework. It encourages homework so that that assessments can be passed. But why would I force someone to do homework if they already fully understand the concepts? These kids go to school full time, many are in after school activities, and many have jobs on top of that. Many still need extra homework practice, but why give a smart kid busy work?
It seems to me that SBG (when it comes to not collecting a score on homework) only hurts the kids who refuse to take responsibility for their own learning. When those kids end up getting a bad grade, maybe they'll start doing the homework. If not, then they're just like the kids who never did homework with traditional grading - apathetic.
SBG seems like it teaches the kids to be more responsible. The assessments should not be made easy. There should be few kids who can pass the assessment without homework practice. The rest will grow up and realize that they need to practice to pass. It's preparing them for the real world in that sense.
Teachers need to instill work ethic and character as a value, not a requirement for a grade. If I decide to implement SBG, I will still continue to track tardies, discipline problems, homework completion, etc. Those things are important to use in conversations with parents, admininistration, and the kids themselves. I would assume that if a kid constantly does not do homework, he/she will not pass the assessment and this can be tracked and pointed out to that kid. But the homework should not be part of the grade which is an indication of future academic success.
I strongly but respectfully disagree with John Thompson's starting comment above. I am a veteran chemistry and physics teacher who has just begun using SBG as my grading paradigm. It was not imposed upon me by my district. I make the standards. I use the same assessments (mostly) that I always have, now I just key them to the standards.
The main differences I see in using SBG are these:
(1) Grading is now transparent. When a parent looks at their child's grade, instead of seeing that they got a 70% on Unit Test 1, which means nothing to the parent, the parent sees that they are proficient in Standards 1 and 3, have developing understanding in Standard 2 and have beginning understanding in Standard 4. With a quick reference to the list of standards, everyone knows precisely what concept or skill the student needs to focus on to improve their understanding and therefore their grade.
(2) I can quickly scan the spreadsheet where I keep track of the performance on standards and immediately know what I will have to re-teach to the whole group, what special review sessions I should schedule and which kids I should invite and which students need immediate concentrated attention.
(3) Grades are no longer static, nebulous and demoralizing but are informative, fluid and encouraging.
(4) When I write a letter of recommendation for a student, I can include a specific list of what skills and concepts they have mastered.
(5) Parent/teacher conferences are easy for everyone involved. When the inevitable "What does he/she need to do to improve the grade?" question comes up, I can tell the parent exactly what the student has yet to demonstrate proficiency in and what they can do about it.
(6) True differentiation emerges as students are graded not on how well they can tread water at the pace of the top students. Instead, they are graded on how much they can master at their pace. In other words time becomes the variable in the process, not learning. For example, in SBG a "C" means you mastered 70% of the possible content. In traditional grading, a "C" may very well mean that you didn't master one single standard, but that you got within 30% of mastering them all. Or not. No one knows. But with SBG everyone knows exactly what was learned and what has yet to be learned.
As to the arguments I've seen in these comments that SBG somehow diminishes the value of hard work or promptness or alternative ways of expressing knowledge, I have two responses:
First, just because the grade is based on assessment of mastery of standards doesn't mean in any way that this can only be a standardized test or even a "test" at all in the traditional sense. Now that I use SBG, I use a wider variety of assessment methods than ever before.
Second, I believe the industrial era in the USA is officially over. Learning to be good worker bees and comply with a teacher's directives to read this, fill out this worksheet, write your name exactly here, sit there, etc., etc., etc. is no longer relevant to the futures we want our children to grow into. Diplomas, degrees and resumes are no longer going to be as valuable in getting through life as they used to be. Instead, being able to demonstrate actual understanding, knowledge and (most importantly) skills will be the key to getting ahead in life. The largest employer in the US right now is Wal-Mart. They certainly value compliance, but many of their employees qualify for Medicaid and food stamps. That's the future for kids who have been trained to be compliant. I want more for my students.
I would have my child do the IB if I could afford it.
Post a Comment
Considerate comments are welcome. Uncivil remarks will be deleted. Anonymous comments -- including those unaccompanied by the author's first and last name -- are not permitted.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home