Grading has one of the most impactful influence on students' progress and learning, yet the skills for formative and summative assessment practices remains under trained, and often glossed over by teaching programs. While assessment practices tell teachers what students need and levels of understanding, the results influence lesson planning to best support students in a variety of forms. Differentiated Instruction is based on a clear reading of data that is unencumbered by human bias and flawed calculation processes.
Essentially, to assess and grade effectively, educators must let go of personal experiences "when I was a student", which perpetuates the broken model, and become a pioneer, exploring new territory with an open and fresh perspective.
There is good literature available that focus on engaging educators to reflect on the quality of current practices, and explore new ways of thinking--with an open mind.
Two books that make for a strong reflective exploration of grading are by Rick Wormeli and Ken O'Connor:
Wormeli, Rick. Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Assessing & Grading In the Differentiated Classroom. Stenhouse Publishers: 2006
Address quality elements of good assessment and grading practices based on getting an accurate understanding of student learning. Provides strategies and different views for thinking and methods for effective assessment and grading. Great for teachers and administrators. Makes for an excellent book study for schools and districts looking to build clarity in assessing student learning.
The author shows how to link grades and standards. His eight models assist teachers in designing and conducting grading practices that help students feel more in control of their academic success. This eye-opening dialog remains an exceptional way to begin a journey with even the strongest skeptics.
Ken O'Connor wrote a book that is my personal favorite because it tackles the most difficult issues. Many of the challenges that educators have difficulty digesting tend to be more about control then the deeper issues that need addressing in a constructive, positive, and clear intend for what is best for clean assessment and the development of the learner.
Teachers and school/district leaders gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved in sound grading practices. Includes: practical strategies and alternatives to help change how students are graded.
I intend to explore some of the concepts in this last book with the hope to encourage a rich dialog about where grading needs to play an effective role for student achievement.
Tonight I watched the movie, Waiting for Superman. Prior to viewing it, I've heard criticism about it as promoting charters and bashing teacher unions. Interestingly, some of the criticism came from people who had not yet seen the movie. The buzz or the hype had a skeptic flavor for what can a "movie" tell, except the agenda of the film's producers.
Having watched the movie, and being a school improvement consultant in a county containing 34 school districts and many charter schools, I found the issues and message compatible. An education system based on a 1950's model with an 1890's philosophy has a complexity of problems and multiple stakeholders that share in the responsibility for the perpetuating failures. The movie focuses on three issues:
1. Many public schools are failing to develop students to be competitive with kids from other developed countries.
Sure, the movie throws out a lot of statistics about failing public schools where students' chances of success is depressingly small. These Dropout Factories create hopelessness for students before they enter the school. There's a site that allows you to search your local schools and see how they rate.
Whether we take the movie at face value, or rather lets' be skeptical that the claim might, just might, be exaggerated, the real perception exist by parents who feel their kids are under served by their local schools. Unfortunately, school culture tends to be mystifying to parents and community, which does little to ease concerns. Just ask a child on 3 consecutive days, "What did you learn in class today?" The answer is predictable. When students, the major source for promotion of what schools accomplish, can not describe in depth what they are learning and why that learning is important to know...the negative perceptions are unsurprising.
How do we change the perception? Break the teaching and learning mold while simultaneously changing school culture to one of learner collegiality.
2. Charters serve as an alternative choice for students
The movie acknowledges that only 1 of every 4 charter schools achieve outstanding success. One could point to the 75% that do not do any better, sometimes worse than traditional school systems. Or, we can ask, What makes the 25% so good? It's not money. They get no more than traditional systems. In fact, having fewer resources is a challenge. It is the professionals in the school that reinvented themselves into a school that truly is "student first" focus. Criticize charter schools, and there is much to critique. Even point out that charter schools have flexibility that traditional schools do not. The reality is that good charter schools are successful. Student results prove this out repeatedly.
Yet what charter schools do with limited resources, traditional school districts should be able to do effectively given their greater resources. How can such resources be harnessed so that dropout factories become achievement oasis?
Charter schools must hold a lottery when there are more applicants than there are student spaces. It seems cruel to turn away students. Perhaps the bigger question is why did so many families apply for the limited spots of a charter school, instead of attending their local school district?
3. Unions need to become part of the solution
The movie does critique unions. It sites an example of the teacher's union in Washington D.C. along with the NEA and AFT. Unions serve a purpose to ensure teacher work conditions. There is nothing inappropriate about such a responsibility. Whatever side of the argument about tenure and work conditions, when it comes to children--everyone is on the same side. We, the adults, want all students to be successful. There are many issues for why not all students achieve. There are multiple stakeholders that help or create obstacles to learners learning--parents, administrators, communities, students, organizations, and teachers. Assuming that the responsibilities for support is equally held by all, or even slanted to parents, students, and communities, there are teachers who are ineffective, and should not be in classrooms.
How can the teachers union be a leader for other stakeholders to improve quality teachers are working with our children? It's not just the unions' responsibility, but far better that they lead so as to find that balance for bringing into the fold good teachers, and then keeping them in the profession.
If we agree that the purpose of education is to develop students so that they are all growing developmentally and achieving appropriate academic success, then there is little that can not be achieved in a 21st Century Global Society.
We are living during a time of culture change. Remember this day, this Summer, as when ebooks and books lurch to a tipping point. This author interview from J.A. Konrath's blog A Newbie's Guide to Publishingis an intriguing illustration. In this case it looks at the evolution of print media (books) to eBooks from one author's perspective.
It's also a slice of life about the Change process, from idea to implementation, to CULTURE Change, and then Permanence.
Here is an intriguing article that opens the premise that there is no ceiling to what a person can do. Genetics can play a role in inherent advantages such as growing over 6 foot to make dunking "easier." Yet there are those like Spud an NBA point guard who once WON the dunking contest.
The 6 keys seem interconnected. What stands out to me are how several of the pieces are recognized as part of effective teaching practice such as "Seek expert feedback" and "Pursue what you love" which I interpret in the classroom as making learning contextual to what students view as relevant.
Typically there are columns for recorded scores from a variety of assignments. The left-most column lists the names of students. Row 1 is a header that labels the type of assignment, followed in the column with the scores that recorded the work by students.
It's difficult to know what such a table of numbers tells us about students' understanding of the coursework. All that can be said for certain from what is displayed is that Summer and Thor excel in taking quizzes--thus labeled--while no clue as to what the "quizzes" are about.
What if, instead, the gradebook looked more like this:
Labels are one key to unlock understanding of achievement data. In this second example, the data has significant meaning. Isn't more important to know what the assignment focused on, then the type of assigned work? There is more to the data in these examples, but to just look narrowly at the impact of substantive labels can raise our understanding of a student's progress.
Consider this scenario: You’ve taken a skydiving class. At the end of the course, you are going to jump out of a plane with a parachute. [Note to Reality Police: Yes, beginning parachuters are typically tied to an instructor for their first jump. This is a Scenario. Work with me :) ] There are 3 professionals who pack all parachutes for course participants. You get to choose which person will pack your chute. Who would you want packing your chute: Packer #1, Packer #2, or Packer #3?
Every time I conduct this scenario, no one wants Packer #1. Sure this person started out great. Initially, scores are consistently above the Competency/Mastery Line. But on Week 6 and onward, this packer is unable to pack a chute that is safe for your jump. Choosing this packer is asking for a Once in a lifetime experience.
Packer #2 gets several votes. I’m always intrigued about why this person is picked. Here is a packer who is consistently inconsistent. The exam results are as much below the Competency/Mastery line as above. The common response is that based on the last test in week 9, this person is due for some good packed chutes. Choosing Packer 2 is for those looking to literally gamble with their lives on whether their chute will be the one packed well.
Packer #3 is an interesting story. Looking at the exam results for the first 6+ weeks, and you wonder how did this person stay employed? There is no way I’d want this person in the same room as my chute. Yet something happened beginning in week 7. Not only is this individual packing good chutes, the quality level exceeds the other packers and continues to excel to higher standards. Most people choose Packer #3. There is much to gamble with one’s life when jumping out of a plane. Having a chute packed by this professional, ensures that the focus on risk and reward is based on what you learned by the end of the course.
Interestingly, if we look under the hood of the chart at the raw scores by the packers, a different story is revealed. Traditionally supported or directed by schools and districts, teachers use a 100 percent scoring system for grades. The scores are averaged to get the reported grade. [Note: One variation is to “weigh” categories of grades, such as 30% Tests, 20% Homework, etc. Within each category the scores are averaged. More on weighing grades in a later post.]
What if the Packing Chart reflected a school course? Plug-in the class you teach or are taking. How do the results differ from a record of what students truly know and understand of the curriculum?
Packer #3 who the vast majority of teachers surveyed would risk their life on her competency has a grade of “D”, while the others who you’d really need a psych test if you chose them to pack your parachute get a “B”.
Assessment and grading practices are complex, and should be treated as such in how academic learning is evaluated. Yet, one component, averages, is a primary tool used for its simplicity in making judgments. Averages might notneed to be thrown out of the mix. What’s needed is to include other factors for analysis of student competency. Beginning with clean assessment data, add in a shift in thinking about assessment practices, and add in an educator’s professional experience about curriculum, learning, and the student, will improve students’ growth and academic achievement.
If the primary purpose of grading is to measure academic skillfulness of students, one potential long range outcome is developing and/or nurturing highly qualified future professionals. Our assessments should indicate or track progress of learners.
At the end of the day, if our approach to assessment is multi-faceted and continuously reviewed, there will be more future professionals like Packer #3, and we can help Packer #1 and #2 become more than a facade.
How does solely using Averages a potential fog to accurate grade reporting? What elements of good assessment practices do you find important? How should an educator’s expertise factor in such decision-making?
With a new school year approaching, a month from now, there is so much to prepare for in schools and classrooms. With a refreshed, often times rejuvenated, focus on the "calling" recognized as student learning achievement, this seems the time to consider how best to serve students. Much of our decision making is based on student work and the assessment and grading practices used to get as accurate a picture for meeting learner's needs.
What will follow is a series of posts focusing on grading practices. While I have a bias, which will become obvious, my intent is to offer information and examples for people with experience about grading to consider and join me on a reflective journey to discover what practices are best suited to meeting learners' needs. Those "people" include anyone who has ever been (or currently is) a student, teacher, administrator, business, and/or a parent.
To begin, what's needed is a agreed upon description for the primary purpose of grading. Much is taught from academics to citizenship, to responsibility. Yet, promotion to the next grade and graduation at the HS, MS, and Elementary** level is determined based on academic progress. While "social promotion" happens it's never been the standard by which students are expected to move forward. Our first impression on looking at a report card is that the "Grades" are indicative of academic understanding and skills based on a standards or learning objective orientated curriculum. Tom passed Freshmen English, so he's ready for Sophomore English, Susan is starting the year as a 4th grader, so that means that she has sufficient understanding of 3rd grade curriculum.
**Universities share a similar focus, and are included in this exploration. Their culture has some different challenges, grading practices share some common problems to study.**
Consider this statement, and does it, in general terms, address a commonly accepted view, your view, for the purpose of a Report Card?
The primary purpose for a Report Card grades is to represent a student's level of academic proficiency.
Primary is underlined to recognize there may be other factors which schools wish to report and/or parents want to know about in the student's development.
Academic Proficiency is underlined to emphasize that instruction and student learning expectations are keyed to academic curriculum. Look at the Common Core movement, and the impact that NCLB (wiki) has had on states developing common learning standards as proof. (ex. Michigan standards: GLCE and HSCE).
Proficiency is used instead of Mastery because expectations are not always expecting mastery. Students do need a level of proficiency which could range from recognition to mastery.
The primary purpose for a Report Card grades is to represent a student's level of academic proficiency.
Does this statement reflect or come close to your understanding for the primary purpose of grades?
