I thought it would be useful, in our discussion about grading scale, to give greater insight into the administrations current position. Our current strategic plan calls for us to begin the process of changing to a standards based grading practice. During the meeting on Tuesday, the primary debate between myself and the members of the administration that were there was about whether we needed to change our grading practice BEFORE we change the grading scale. The administrations position is that we do need to change our practices first. Mine is that we do not. Changing our grading practices to a standards based system is a HUGE undertaking and, I believe, will be very difficult to achieve. On the other hand, changing our grading scale is much more simple than, again in my opinion, then suggested by Ms. Burke-Stevenson. I came across a blog entry on the Spring-Ford School District website by Dr. David Goodin, the Superintendent, that does a great job of explaining what standards based grading is and I thought it would be useful for all who are interested to read it: Blog: Thursday, October 27, 2011 A New Way to Look At Teaching and Learning It has been said that there is “nothing new under the sun”. This is true in education as well. Much of what I will describe in this posting is not new or revolutionary; rather it is a synthesis of what I have read and studied, and subsequently, come to believe about what education should look like. Let me first start by posing a question to you. When grading a student, what does a ‘B’ represent? In algebra class, for example, if a student earns a ‘B’ for the marking period, what does that grade represent? Can anyone tell me what algorithms that student can perform with that grade? What about a student who earns a ‘D’? Can anyone tell me the difference in the skills those two grades represent? Does that grade represent how often a student completes their homework, or participates in class, or how well they score on tests and quizzes or how often they take advantage of extra credit opportunities? I believe that much of what makes up a student’s grade tells us very little about a student’s skill development. Instead, the grade represents what activities the particular teacher chooses to assign points to. These points may or may not have any direct correlation to the ability of students to perform specific algorithms. I have seen two students, each taking the same subject but with different teachers. Both students earn the same letter grade, but have very different levels of skill development. We are accustomed to getting letter grades but does that grade necessarily tell us what a student can and cannot do? As a result we have a system that promotes achievement gaps. A student who earns an ‘A’ and a student who earns a ‘D’ both get credit for the class and move to the next level but each student may or may not have the same level of skill acquisition. In contrast to this, imagine an algebra class where students progress to the next step only after they demonstrate mastery of a specific algorithm. Some students take one day; others may take several days to achieve that same level of mastery. The point is that both students can demonstrate mastery of the specific algorithm before advancing to the next level. The ‘grade’ now represents specific skills and not work habits or willingness to participate in class. That is not to say these activities are not important. Rather, they represent qualities of a learner and can be classified as such when reporting a student’s progress. This type of grading is referred to by many names: competency based, proficiency based, or standards based. No matter what it is called, the common thread is that the ‘grade’ is tied directly to skill acquisition. To facilitate this type of grading structure, a one size fits all type of instructional delivery will not work. Instruction has to be differentiated to meet the needs of individual students. Nowhere is this more important than at the elementary levels, where skill development forms the foundation for all future learning. While we readily accept that instruction needs to be differentiated to address different learning styles, the notion of differentiating to address skill development is more problematic in the classroom. That is where technology can help promote levels of remediation and acceleration based on the needs of individual students. There are many ways to differentiate instruction using technology. For example: in a typical third grade classroom of 24 students you have a variety of learning styles and levels. Using teaching stations, for example, the teacher can divide the class to provide direct instruction to one group while another group works at computer stations, while another group is working on a group project, and yet another group of students is doing individual work. In all of these groups, individual student achievement is driving learning activities. Using online resources at the computer station, students are completing math algorithms. By the time the teacher is working with that group, they have current data identifying what level each student is working and can address instruction accordingly. These groups will not be static, rather flexible depending on skill mastery. In this way, students can advance when they can demonstrate mastery of that particular skill. Learning activities are designed to give students a variety of means to demonstrate mastery. Another important aspect is the common expectations and assessments of students from one teacher to another. Having common expectations and assessments help promote a shared understanding of the skill sets necessary to demonstrate mastery, hence giving true meaning to the assigned grade. Another way of thinking about this is the driver’s test. No one ever received an ‘A’ on the driver’s test and no one ever received a ‘D’ on the test. Instead, we get a driver’s license when we demonstrate the necessary foundational skills. If those skills are not demonstrated in the first attempt, then we continue to practice and can try again. There is no penalty for needing more practice to demonstrate mastery. Would we really want to give a driver’s license to a person who earned a letter grade ranging from a high of an ‘A’ all the way down to a ‘D’? Or, would we really want there to be no real standard for what constituted driving ‘mastery’. What if each license examiner had their own rating scale and graded accordingly? Thankfully, there are standard, basic skills that must be mastered prior to receiving your driver’s license. When we think about standards based learning and grading, mastery is really what we are talking about. Does the instruction promote skill mastery prior to advancement and does the ‘grade’ really tell us what skills a student has attained? If we really believe that all students can learn, but not all learn at the same rate and pace, we would not have a ‘one size fits all’ model, nor would we have grade levels, per se. Rather, there would be greater emphasis on skill attainment as a measure of a student’s success and grades would represent the attainment of these specific skills.
Posted on: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 22:40:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015