Hi Everyone—
We have had a good year of looking at common formative assessments in our PLCs. In many cases this has led to even more in-depth conversations about grading. While we have come a long way in looking at how we assess students, we still have work to do to ensure that our methods of grading are in line with best practices and consistent across classrooms.
There are several resources we have looked at this past year. Teachers attended the Solution Tree workshops on Common Formative Assessments. The presenters spent time talking about the importance of summative and formative assessments and how they impact student motivation and learning. The majority of the work referenced educators whose research we are familiar with such as Stiggins, Marzano, and Reeves.
There were four books our teachers read in book studies that we would like to recommend as resources for the work we will be doing during the 2011-2012 school year:
- A Repair Kit for Grading: Fifteen Fixes for Broken Grades; Ken O’Connor; Allyn & Bacon (2007)
- Transforming Classroom Grading; Robert Marzano; ASCD (2000)
- How to Grade for Learning; Ken O’Connor; Corwin Press; 3rd Ed. (2009)
- Practical Solutions for Serious Problems in Standards-Based Grading; Thomas R. Guskey; Corwin Press (2008)
We have these books available for staff members to check out. Please let me know if you are interested.
What we learned from workshops and reading these books is to look at the effects of grading and evaluate what is working and why. We need to be clear about the purposes of grading and how they impact student learning and motivation. We need to make sure we are not using grades as a means to punish students.
We need to acknowledge that this is a departure from what we have traditionally done as educators. We don’t expect people to do this work because someone says so; we do expect everyone to be open to learning more from the work of others. This includes teachers in our building who are implementing some of these strategies. They will be the first to tell you that while it is different from what they have done in the past, it is well worth the effort. We will be learning about this work in staff and department meetings as well as in our PLCs. This will be a journey that we take together.
My part in next year’s work will be to provide you the resources needed to better understand and implement changes. I will also be the first to talk with families about the work we are doing so that they have a better understanding of the changes we are making. I would also like to take time to speak with you about any of your concerns. I can meet with you before and after school as well as during your prep. Please let me know what works best for you and I will make myself available.
Below is the summary of the work we did in one of our book groups. Beginning in Chapter 2 we identified some changes we felt this building was ready to begin making as well as some things we still needed to study. Please take a moment to read through this and let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
KW
A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades
Ken O’Connor
Chapter 1: Setting the Stage
The traditional purposes for grading were communications, fostering student self-assessment, sorting and selecting, motivation and punishment, teaching/program evaluation.
Bailey and McTighe define the purpose of grades is to communicate about achievement. Achievement as defined by O’Connor being defined as performance as measured against accepted standards and outcomes.
Four Criteria:
- Consistent: It shouldn’t matter whose class they’re in the grades should be consistent. An example is that we should be able to trade papers and grade one another’s class papers. Teachers can be considered “hard” or “easy” graders. Sometimes hard graders have more hoops or requirements.
- Accurate: This should reflect achievement. Teachers often blend achievement with behaviors. Grades should reflect the academic standards. Assessments could be of poor quality. Another example of inaccurate grading practices use of the mean to determine grades. It also can reflect practice instead of where they are as a learner at the end of the teaching period.
- Meaningful: Grade books should reflect goals and standards. The books give examples for math. Categories may include develops and uses number strategies as grade book entries.
- Support Learning: It shouldn’t be about accumulating points; it should be about the quality of the work. Formative assessments are for learning. Summative assessments should be based on the standards and should be about learning. We want students to understand that school is about learning. Grades are an artifact of learning. They should only reflect student achievement.
- Underpinning Issues:
- Fairness: “Fair does not mean equal”. We provide adaptations for students with learning disabilities and students that would benefit from it. For example, giving a test in a different format. Fairness is about equity of opportunity.
- Motivation: Grades can be discouraging. Failing grades don’t necessarily motivate students to do better. We know that sometimes it does matter. Grades can translate to college acceptance, etc. How do we balance what effects grades might have with the reality of how grades are used? Students who get good grades take risks; kids who don’t get high grades may not take challenges.
- Objectivity and Professional Judgment: Grades vary across classrooms, schools, etc. An A in one school isn’t an A in another.
When students are involved in their assessment, they have positive attitudes and have improved academic achievement.
Chapter 2: Fixes for Practices That Distort Achievement
Fix 1: Don’t include student behaviors (effort, participation, adherence to class rules, etc.) in grades, include only achievement
- For next year: Define effort and citizenship. Begin educating students and families on what these mean.
Fix 2: Don’t reduce marks on “work” submitted late; provide support for the learner.
- Proposal: We accept late work. Students will have mandatory make up times to get work done within the support systems set up (Catch-Up Café, After school homework center, Saturday School, Quarterly Activity Days).
Fix 3: Don’t give points for extra credit or use bonus points; seek only evidence that more work has resulted in a higher level of achievement.
- Proposal: Extra credit is not given.
Fix 4: Don’t punish academic dishonesty with reduced grades; apply other consequences and reassess to determine actual level of achievement.
- Proposal: This does not affect academic grade. This will impact citizenship/effort grade.
Fix 5: Don’t consider attendance in grade determination; report absences separately.
- Proposal: This does not affect academic grade. This will impact citizenship/effort grade.
Fix 6: Don’t include group scores in grades; use only individual achievement evidence.
- Proposal: Individual assessments are the only things included in the academic grade.
Chapter 3: Fixes for Low-Quality or Poorly Organized Evidence
Fix 7: Don’t organize information in grading records by assessment methods or simply summarize into a single grade; organize and report evidence by standards/learning goals.
- Proposal: We can work on this next year. This comes with alignment of curriculum and CFA’s.
Fix # 8: Provide Clear Descriptions of Achievement Expectations
- Proposal: We need to work on alignment of grading and what grades (A,B, C, etc. mean)
Fix 9: Don’t assign grades based on a student’s achievement compared to other students; compare each student’s performance to preset standards.
- Proposal: Work on next year. “Can all students get an A?”
Fix 10: Don’t rely on evidence gathered using assessments that fail to meet standards of quality; rely only on quality assessments.
- Proposal: We are working on this already. Continue for next year.
Chapter 4: Fixes for Inappropriate Grade Calculation
Fix 11: Don’t rely only on the mean; consider other measures of central tendency and use professional judgment.
- Proposal: We need to work on not using the mean and looking at summative assessments.
Fix 12: Don’t include zeros in grade determination when evidence is missing or as punishment; use alternatives, such as reassessing to determine real achievement, or use “I” for Incomplete or Insufficient Evidence.
- Proposal: We can do this next year.
Chapter 5: Fixes to Support Learning
Fix 13: Don’t use information from formative assessments and practice to determine grades; use only summative evidence.
- Proposal: We need to work on how to communicate progress made in formative that leads up to the summative evaluation.
Fix 14: Don’t summarize evidence accumulated over time when learning is developmental and will grow with time and repeated opportunities; in those instances, emphasize more recent achievement.
- Proposal: We can do this. Have conversation about formative vs. summative with Fix: 13.
Fix 15: Don’t leave students out of the grading process. Involve students; they can – and should – play key roles in assessment and grading that promote achievement.
- Proposal: This is something we work on next year. This is tied in to innovative in the Danielson Framework.