My wife and I met in 2008 as we both began our careers in education. For both of us, it was our first year in our very own classrooms. Working in the same field as your spouse proves to have its advantages and disadvantages. The greatest disadvantage is that work often follows us home. One of the greatest advantages is that I have an amazing teacher at home that I can bounce ideas off of any time I want. I can reflect with her on educational philosophy, celebrate together when our students succeed, and identify problems in our educational environments that, together, we can develop practical solutions. We are each other’s instructional coaches, for better or for worse until death does us part.
On Friday evening after a long week in the classroom, we did
what any other married couple does to begin their weekend. We began to discuss
the culture of grading in education. Right...? No...? Okay...well maybe that’s
just us. Specifically, we had a detailed conversation on the concept of truth
in assessment. Is what we are assigning our students to complete reflective of
the skills or content we wish for our students to obtain? As teachers, can we
look at the product of our students’ labor, assess their knowledge, and provide
accurate and meaningful feedback to our students? At the end of the night’s
discussion, she decided to post the following image on her Facebook account. I
knew full well what the response would be from the Facebook community, and so
did she. However, more valuable is the conversation that needs to occur in our
schools, with our students, with our school boards, and with our parents.
I write this not to come to the defense of my wife (trust
me...she can hold her own in an argument), but instead to shed light on the
conversations that need to happen outside of just the isolated world we sometimes
live in as educators. For many teachers and parents, they support the
traditional thinking that students must be penalized for not meeting
expectations on time. There is also the belief that to assess a student’s
learning, we must total up the number of points a student has earned and come
up with an average to assign to them. Writing from experience, some become
defensive of their own grading practices rather than engaging in an open
discussion about both teacher and student growth. Despite knowing the
detrimental effect such practices have on student engagement and student
motivation the practice continues. Somehow throughout the history of modern
education, the purpose of grading has been lost, misconstrued, or arbitrarily
interwoven with behavioral expectations in the classroom. Our students’ parents
grew up under this very system and undoubtedly heard from their own teachers
growing up what I told my own students when I began my teaching
profession.
As a novice teacher, I capitulated to the same philosophy
that my own teachers invoked upon me, one that has plagued the purpose of
assessment for decades. I illogically equated assessments with student
responsibility. I equated student work with the requirements and expectations
of their future job. I equated myself to their future employer and my students
to future employees. Moreover, I equated their grade to a paycheck and
satisfied my educational philosophy by pretending that I was somehow teaching
my students real-world skills, responsibility, and in a way a sense of
duty.
This is reflective of the responses that my wife, Vanessa,
received from her post from the general public as well as some of our fellow
educators. Responses such as the following began to roll across her comments:
“Kids need to learn responsibilities. If they are late on an
assignment it's like not meeting a deadline for a job. If you continually miss
deadlines, then soon you will find yourself without a job. If you don’t pay
your Ameren bill on-time, then you’ll have to go without power, or they’ll add
a late fee. If they don’t turn in their work, they need to understand there are
consequences.”
Don’t get me wrong, I think these are all valuable skills
that students can achieve through public education, but not by the way I was
trying to do it. The response listed above is a logical fallacy and is not
supported by the research. Eleven years later in education what do I have to
say for my initial grading practices as a novice teacher? To my former
students, I offer my profound apologies.
So first, we need to take a critical look at the purpose of
grading. Truth in assessment should be the cornerstone of this conversation.
The question I ask is why do we assess student work? In short, we use formative
assessment, assessment for learning, to guide our instructional practices. It
is the way in which we read the pulse of the classroom. It is how we check for
understanding, modify our instruction, and use differentiation strategies to
ensure that our students are mastering the skills, content, and standards that
have been developed for the course. This assessment style not only is a way for
us to get feedback on student learning, but it is a way for us to measure the
success of our own implemented instructional strategy. This type of assessment
is not one we associate with grades. These assessments are designed to guide
learning, not to assess the final outcome of learning so should never be found
in a grade book anyway.
Assessments associated with grades in the grade book are
assessments of learning. These are the continual assessments of a skill,
content, or standard that is proof of mastery. In other words, when the
students are assessed, we take a look at the standards that were to be achieved
when the lesson was designed and measure whether students have met or exceeded
the teacher’s expectations. The point of the assessment is to take a look at
the learning targets and identify whether they have reached that performance
level. If they haven’t, then additional time, instruction, and resources need
to be allocated to ensure that the student has mastered the topic at hand.
Grading is a form of communication about student achievement, and should only
be considered as such. If other factors are interwoven with grading, then the
validity of the measurement of achievement becomes murky. To me, it's like
setting out to measure a board but having a tape measure that changes randomly
from metric to inches. Will you get an accurate measurement?
Let's take standards-based grading as an example. Our
building has not thoroughly adopted this practice, but I feel it is the
direction schools should shift in terms of assessment. There is a
misunderstanding or a lack of communication about how and why schools are
shifting to what parents see as “easier grading.” Schools have even been
accused of not being “tough enough” on our kids. This is absolutely not the
case. The truth is that educators who have shifted their grading practices have
used assessment the way in which they are designed, to understand the
achievement of students and to design instruction and curriculum to meet those
students’ needs. We in education are responsible for this inaccurate perception
because we often fail to communicate our intentions, why we are embracing a new
initiative and the outcomes that have served students well. We assume parents
will just understand “the how and the why” without us explicitly coming out to
explain changes in educational philosophy.
Their frame of reference is permanently fixed on their own
experiences as students, which is a mindset that cannot be altered by a piece
of paper that gets sent home. This same phenomenon was expressed by parents who
didn’t understand this “new math stuff” that teachers have been sending home, referring
to the initiative of the common core to change the fundamental way that
students understand numbers. The truth was that there were poor implementations
of instructional design methodology that compounded the problem and was
highlighted in places like social media. The truth is what we are trying to do
is to get students to come to understanding through the learning process, not
just by identifying a correct or incorrect answer. The same goal exists within
standards-based grading. We care less about the assigning of a grade as we do
about the process and what that grade tells us in terms of what to do next with
student achievement. Communication of such expectations is critical.
It is at this point in the debate, I often hear from
dissenters that we must prepare our students for the college track. While this
is true that most instructors in College maintain the traditional grading
model, again this doesn’t mean that it's right. Nor, does it mean that
educational reform should begin in grade K and ends at grade 12. I have worked
in two higher education institutions in the role of supporting instructional
design. There is room for instructional growth in this regard across the entire
spectrum of education. While I am cognizant of the fact that it will be
difficult to challenge the “old guard,” and I am not so naive to think such a
shift can be seamless and easy. This is especially true in higher education
where there is rarely observation, feedback, or instructional coaching being
implemented in these schools. However, who’s to say that a shift in educational
philosophy in K-12 won’t promote change in the way higher education assess
their own students?
Here is my attempt to highlight the purpose of such an
educational shift, and the core of what needs to be communicated to all
stakeholders. The purpose of standards-based gradings (SBG) is to create assessments that
authentically assess student performance or achievement in relation to the standard
the teacher wants their students to achieve. Such grading is guided by
instructional practices that use learning targets to create growth goals for
students, and use assessments to guide those instructional practices. A grade
is a form of communication that exists between teacher and student to allow
that student to develop their own goals and be in charge of their own learning.
The SBG is a way of providing meaningful feedback to students about their
progress towards a standard or a goal. The grade should be representative of
the skills acquired in the past, but it should also put the student on a path
of growth moving forward. SBG focuses the teachers feedback to directly relate
to what they are assessing. It provides the means for conversations to take
place between the student and the teacher to create individualized learning
goals. The focus becomes less on the accumulation of points, but the level of
mastery students have achieved. SBG forces educators to take a look at the
curriculum, instructional design and learning activities to ensure that they
serve a purpose for meeting learning goals. Homework, for example, that is not
directly related to the desired learning outcomes is irrelevant to the student
and not necessary. The focus is transitioned to learning from just the value of
grades. The result is feedback students can take action to improve their
skills.
So the typical question that comes after introducing SBG is,
“what is wrong with the way we have always done things?” While this question
typically eats away at my soul and pushes me to answer in response, “Just
because it's the way it's always been done, doesn’t make it right,” let's look
at the traditional model more closely. There are a few points I’d like to
highlight as to why the model needs to be looked at critically. Is it good for
our students?
The first assertion I would like to make is that a total
point system is created artificially and most of the time the point values
assigned are done so arbitrarily.
Take into account this coach’s conversation with a
teacher.
Coach: You do total points in your class...so how are things
classified?
Teacher: An activity is worth 20 points.
Coach: Why is it worth 20 points?
Teacher: Well there are 20 problems on the page. So, one
point for each problem they solve correctly.
Coach: Is this activity worth as much as a quiz or
assessment?
Teacher: No, quizzes are worth more than activities and
tests are worth more than quizzes.
Coach: So do your quizzes consist of 40 questions?
Teacher: No, I have 20 questions on a quiz and I just make
each question worth double. Tests are the same way, I just make them worth more
as well.
Coach: So, do you have any assessments that aren’t based on
the number of problems are on the page?
Teacher: Yes, for some activities I have created rubrics? I
usually rate each category of performance from 1-4.
Coach: So how many different components are you assessing
within your rubric?
Teacher: 4.
Coach: So the max amount a student can receive is 16?
Teacher: No, I weight the value of the rubric.
Coach: How?
Teacher: I take it x2 in the grade book.
Coach: Why?
Teacher: It just seems like the right amount to assign for
such an activity. It’s more than a quiz and less than a test.
Coach: How do you know whether the student has mastered the
learning target or not?
Teacher: By the total number of points accumulated.
By looking at this conversation, which is not an isolated
scenario, the way teachers assign point values to assessments is arbitrary and
in many cases unsupported by any logical reasoning. In this example, the
teacher just knew that they wanted quizzes to be worth more than in-class
activities and tests to be worth more than quizzes. Values were assigned to
reflect that, but there was no pre-thought into what those scores represent
once students completed the assessments. How do we know when we have an
accurate picture of mastery. Likewise, for teachers who break off their work
into percentages, in which quizzes are worth 10 % of your grade, 30% is related
to classwork and so on, again those percentages are chosen seemingly at random,
and the way that it is calculated in comparison to total points earned gives a
completely different outcome. Again, how are we to know what mastery is? The
argument is typically that classwork should be worth less than the formal
assessment of learning on a test. My question is if their classwork was showing
mastery level understanding, why is the final assessment not showing such
results? Are the class activities showing mastery of the learning targets, or
do they not relate to the skills being assessed in the final assessment? If so,
how did the student master the classwork and move all the way to the assessment?
If the assessments show that they haven’t mastered the content, what type of
instructional strategies are being put in place to achieve such a standard?
Something is wrong with this practice.
By continuing the practice of averaging students scores to
come up with a cumulative grade, we really provide no clear communication as to
what the student deficiencies are. Instead, we have just an average of all
deficiencies with no growth plan on how to rectify the content or skill gaps
for the student. Moreover, using averages inherently assumes that the best
students get things right the first time they try an activity and that the
longer it takes you to master a learning target, the less that student should
earn in point value. This has never sat right with me as an educator, even as a
novice educator who had blindly implemented traditional practices to fall in
line with the expectations of my building leadership team. The purpose of
instruction is to have the student master the skill. Why should I care how many
times it takes the student to do so? The student who struggles through the
process and finally succeeds in meeting the learning target has most likely
learned more than the student who achieved success in the first attempt. If it
took one learner a single try and another learner five tries, have both
students still met the target goal? Should it matter how many times it takes a
learner to master the skill, performance or content? We preach to our students
to persevere, to fail forward, to learn from their mistakes but then penalize
them for doing so. Why do assessments have to be punitive in nature? Can’t they
simply be opportunities for reflection and growth?
Why has grading turned into a way to punish our students for
not meeting our expectations rather than opening a growth dialogue to address a
growth mindset? This question takes me back to my wife’s post and the responses
thereafter that I share at the outset of what has now become a lengthy blog
post for me. If we are assessing learning targets, then we need to hold true to
the validity of such an assessment. Mixing in behavior expectations like late
work into an assessment of learning has unintended consequences. The assessment
becomes invalid as it no longer is a true representation of what the student
has learned. I often hear the argument, how are we supposed to prepare students
for the “real-world,” as if they are living in some other fake world, or an
alternate reality that is isolated from the world in which you and I live. This
is another fallacy. The truth is we need to stop equating academic learning
opportunities to jobs. Their grade is a piece of communication that reflects
their learning, not a paycheck. The consequence must be reflective of the
behavior, and assessment is not a classroom management tool. If you want to
assess behavior expectations in your class as part of classroom citizenship
then go ahead and assess it, but separately from their academic learning. They
are not one and the same. Again, docking points from a paper for an undesired
behavior (late work, no name) is punitive in nature and is an attempt to
threaten students to modify their behavior. That is not the purpose of the
assessment.
Finally, the research suggests that when teachers interweave
behavioral expectations with academic assessment, it has a detrimental effect
on student motivation and engagement. Why? Imagine yourself taking a class and
working your hardest to demonstrate your knowledge and mastery of a subject.
You have spent the time to make sure it was great, but were late turning it in.
How would you feel about the teacher who devalued the work you put in and
deducted 10% from your grade to “teach you responsibility?” Odds are you would
begin to shut down for that teacher and the relationship that might have
existed would completely erode. From personal experience in the classroom, this
has a drastic effect on some of our most vulnerable students. I think about the
student who has struggled to get to school, the student who has struggled with
their learning, or the student whose home life is a daily struggle. By
devaluing the students work, such a practice might be the catalyst for an
academic downturn. It might push them to the point to say to themselves, “I
just don’t care anymore.” Some would argue that allowing late work for full
credit adds an unfair workload to the teacher. I just can’t get on board with
that philosophy. Our job as teachers is to ensure our students master the
learning targets we have laid out for our kids. A better practice is to assess
the skill, address the behavior, build relationships, and develop a plan of
action with the student to promote the behavioral expectations that exist
within your class. Perhaps you may find another underlying issue for their late
work. A conversation might go a long way.
nice
ReplyDelete