# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Leaders: Elizabeth Dowdell (physics teacher, Urban Assembly Maker Academy, Manhattan) Sarah Prendergast (math teacher, NYC iSchool)

Standards-Based Grading (SBG) begins with standards that teachers author/choose/revise and that they apply in their classrooms. Rather than a top-down directive, these standards are a helpful tool that teachers use to make expectations transparent to students. Instead of receiving a traditional letter or number grade on an assessment, SBG allows teachers to provide students with actionable feedback on their mastery of a set of specific skills and content knowledge. With SBG, conversations become more focused on learning itself rather than report card grades. SBG can also be used to help meet the demands of Common Core, Next Generation Science Standards, and Danielson's Framework (especially component 3d).

In this workshop, we will share our experiences developing and implementing Standards-Based Grading systems in our classrooms. During the first part of the workshop, we will model how standards can be developed into learning targets and influence the creation of an assessment. Participants are encouraged to bring an assessment (quiz, test, lab report, project, etc) from their own class to use to engage in this planning process. During the second part of the workshop, participants will have the opportunity to collaborate on different aspects of developing or refining Standards-Based Grading systems for their own classroom.

Liz teaches physics and Sarah teaches math; in addition to using SBG in their own classrooms, both have experience implementing SBG with interdisciplinary teams. Thus the focus of the workshop will be on a variety of disciplines, and the strategies and tools considered will be useful to any teacher, irrespective of subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standards-Based Grading - Practical Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leaders: Elizabeth Dowdell (physics teacher, Urban Assembly Maker Academy, Manhattan) Sarah Prendergast (math teacher, NYC iSchool) Standards-Based Grading (SBG) begins with standards that teachers author/choose/revise and that they apply in their classrooms. Rather than a top-down directive, these standards are a helpful tool that teachers use to make expectations transparent to students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standards Based Grading and the Game of School: Craig Messerman at TEDxMCPSTeachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Very excited to announce that my new book (co-authored with Garnet Hillman and Mandy Stalets) Standards-Based Learning in Action: Moving from Theory to Practice (Solution Tree) is now available!

Standards-based Learning in Action flips the usual script in that it's heavy on practical implementation strategies, supplemented by a synthesis of the research. Most books tend to go heavy on research, but this book is designed for practitioners looking for ways to bring standards-based learning to life in their classrooms. As well, this book is comprehensive in that it spans the breadth and depth of both formative and summative assessment; from teaching to grading and reporting. Finally, this book uniquely features sections on both directly talking to learners and parents so that teachers can effectively communicate to all stakeholders the necessary shifts to modernize assessment and grading.

With Standards Based Learning in Action, educators will understand the full scope of what standards-based learning can and will look like in their classrooms and schools. There is no one right way to implement all that encompasses standards-based learning, so it can be contextually adjusted and nuanced to effectively and efficiently put into practice. Other than grades based on the achievement of standards , teachers have the opportunity to create a learner-responsive classroom that accelerates growth toward proficiency. This book emphasizes the fact that this work is important, necessary, and feasible for those looking to create a more learning centered culture in their classrooms.

For more information, please visit the Solution Tree website ( here)

Very excited to announce that my new book (co-authored with Cassandra Erkens and Nicole Vagle) Instructional Agility: Responding to assessment with real-time decisions (Solution Tree) has now been released!

Being instructionally agile is about making seamless instructional adjustments at a moment's notice. This book takes readers back to the core fundamentals of classroom assessment. Rather than creating assessment events that require teachers to stop teaching in order to conduct their formative assessments, the focus is on the more organic process of infusing assessment experiences into any activity or strategy. The over-quantification of learning can distract teachers from fully utilizing the most powerful aspect of formative assessment, which is to in form instruction.

Whether through engineering conversations, questioning, observing, practice, or mobilizing students, teachers can transform any activity into a formative assessment that reveals what comes next for each learner.

For more information, please visit the Solution Tree website ( here).

I'm very excited to announce that my new book, Grading from the Inside Out: Bringing Accuracy to Student Assessment through a Standards-Based Mindset (Solution Tree),has just been released!

Long-term grading reform begins on the inside and works its way out; it begins with a complete rethink of the purpose of grades within the summative assessment paradigm. Developing a standards-based mindset allows teachers to begin reshaping the grading experience in their classrooms without the premature pressure of a new grading program, a new grading policy, or a new report card template. Once we shift how we think about grading we are poised to move toward more overt changes to the processes and practices of sound grading and reporting.

For more information, please visit the Solution Tree website ( here).

I'm very excited to announce that all of my assessment blogs are moving to the newly updated and relaunched Solution Tree All Things Assessmentwebsite. You can find the blog here. You can find the homepage for the website here.

This website is part of a much larger assessment center at Solution Tree. The center itself is still in development so more information will be shared as it unfolds later this year, but for now, the All Things Assessment site is live, active, and full of great assessment information shared by an array of assessment experts.

For now, this website will remain active as an information page and a way of connecting with me.

Thanks!
Tom

On Monday, December 16, 2013 I conducted a webinar entitled Accurate Grading with a Standards-Based Mindset. The archived copy of the webinar can be viewed here. (It's just under 80 min, including questions at the end.)

Please note: This webinar was presented by Pearson Education. When you click on the link above you will first be asked to provide contact information before the webinar will play. While it says "the author has requested the information" please know that it is Pearson (not me) who requires this...just wanted you to know.

Below is a brief blog post that encapsulates (but by no means covers) the essence of the webinar:

While the standards-based grading movement is in full swing, not every school, district, or state is in exactly the same place. The difference is attributable to a variety of factors including the level of the school within which a standards-based approach to grading is being implemented. Elementary school standards-based report cards often look very different from middle or even high school standards-based report cards; that's not a bad thing as the application of standards-based reporting at each level needs to be suitable for that level. The point is that schools and districts across the country are at various places along the standards-based grading continuum. While some have implemented fully, others are still exploring.

Despite this variation, the common link for all along the standards-based grading continuum is how we think about grading; what I call the standards-based mindset. This mindset represents the heavy lifting of the grading conversation. Once we shift how we think about grading, the implementation of standards-based reporting is easy, or at least easier, since the way we think about grades, how we organize evidence, and what is most heavily emphasized is different. We become more thoughtful about ensuring that a student's grade represents their full level of proficiency and not just the average of where they were and where they are now.

Adults are rarely mean averaged and certainly, it is irrelevant to an adult that they used to not know how to do something. Yet for a student, these two factors are dominant in their school experience. A student's grade (at least traditionally) is almost always a function of the mean average and a failed quiz or assignment early in the learning almost always counts against them; remember, every 40 needs an 80 just to get a 60.

The standards-based mindset shifts this conversation to a more accurate way of reporting a student's level of proficiency. Like any idea, there are always detractors who'll try to hijack the conversation by suggesting that standards-based grading is about lowering standards, making it easier for students, and letting them off-the-hook; none of that is true. Standards-based grading is about accurately reporting a student's true level of proficiency. As students learn and grow through the curriculum they should be given full credit for their achievement. When they don't receive full credit we are sending the not so subtle message that you should have learned faster!

A standards-based mindset is separate from how we report grades. With a standards-based mindset you can still report traditional grades, it's just that how you determine grades is significantly different. Teachers with a standards-based mindset eliminate the influence of non-learning factors from their gradebooks. Whether it's extra credit or late penalties, a standards-based mindset is about accurately reporting a student's level of proficiency. Another misrule about standards-based grading is that meeting deadlines, completing work, etc. are not important; they are, however, they're different. A student isn't less proficient in math because the work was handed in two days late. Attributes, habits, and college/career skills are important and with a standards-based approach they remain important, but separate.

The standards-based mindset is about emphasizing the most recent evidence of learning by allowing students to receive full credit for their accomplishments. Reassessment is not about hitting the reset button or developing a do-over generation; it's about recognizing that students have surpassed their previous levels of proficiency and giving students the opportunity to demonstrate those higher levels...and then giving them full credit for their learning. Students are still held accountable - for the learning - and not punished when they fall short of expectations. We don't need to use the gradebook to teach students to be responsible; when we do it leads to grades that are inaccurate.

Standards-based grading and reporting is about levels of proficiency, accurate information, and a reorganization of evidence. Before we can fully implement standards-based reporting we need to develop a new way of thinking about grading; we need a standards-based mindset. Whether you still report traditional letter grades derived from predetermined percentage scales or are somewhere in the midst of developing a standards-based way of reporting, the standards-based mindset is the necessary first step toward more thoughtful and meaningful ways of reporting. With a standards-based mindset, if a student used to be a 40, but now is an 80, she should get an 80, not a 60!

An updated version of this post can be found here on the Solution Tree All Things Assessment website.

Thanks for taking the time to read it!

Tom

This post is written as a precursor to my session on homework at next week's Pearson-ATI Summer Conference

You'd think by now we'd have the whole homework thing figured out. Should it be assigned? What is the purpose of homework? How much is too much? How much is too little? Should it be graded? Is it formative? What if my students don't do it? What if only half of my students do it? Why do we continue to act surprised by the fact that some students don't master the intended learning the first time they practice it? These (and so many other questions) fuel a continual debate over where the actual sweet spot of our homework routines is.

Is homework the means or the end? In other words, does homework present students with an opportunity to further advance their proficiency with regards to specific curricular standards or is it an event all unto itself? While some might be tempted to answer both, it is challenging to come up the middle on the means vs end discussion.

As a means, homework tends to be about practice. Inherent in this practice paradigm is the elimination of points and their contribution to an overall grade. In other words, as practice, homework is formative. As an end, homework is just the opposite; it tends to be an event that independently contributes (even in a small way) to a report grade. While subsequent new evidence of learning may emerge, homework as an end remains a contributor to what could eventually be an inaccurate grade. And that is the bigger point. Whatever we report about student learning - and however we determine the substance of what we report - must be as accurate as possible. Previous evidence (homework) that no longer reflects a student's current level of proficiency has the potential to misinform parents and others. When homework counts, we are emphasizing points over practice.

"...but it only counts for a small percentage of a student's final grade," some might argue, "so it doesn't really matter." I suppose on one level that might be true, however, consider a scenario where someone steals a five dollars from you and then asks you to dismiss it since they didn't steal a lot of money. Now, I do understand that making the connection between stealing and counting homework is a stretch, but my point is that if learning (and the accurate reporting of a student's achievement) is our priority, then emphasizing points clearly misses the mark. It's not how much the inclusion of homework impacts the student's final grade; it's that it does in the first-place.

Still, others may proclaim (and wholeheartedly believe) that, "...if I don't grade it, they won't do it." Again, while that might be the paradigm in a classroom, we have to ask ourselves who is responsible for creating that paradigm. We must recognize that students don't enter school in Kindergarten with a point accumulation mindset; the K student never asks her teacher if the painting is for points! So where do they learn that? Somewhere in their experience points (and grades) become a priority for the adults...so they become a priority for students. Parents and students also contribute to this mindset, but we have to acknowledge our role as well. Also, if the only thing motivating students to complete any assignment is the promise of points then we really have to consider whether the assignment is truly worth completing in the first place. Again, is homework a means or an end?

I am looking forward to sharing more on the topic of homework, practice, and assessment at Pearson-ATI's 20th Annual Summer Conference next week (July 8-10, 2013) in Portland, OR. The session on homework entitled Practice without Points will explore the biggest hurdles that prevent some teachers from eliminating the points attached to practice work, the reasons we assign homework and how those reasons fit within a balanced assessment system, and how teachers can thoughtfully respond to the trends they see between initial homework results and subsequent assessment data. You can read more on why I believe homework should be for practice and used formatively (here) rather than being used as part of a summative reporting process.

I will also be leading a session on Effective Leadership in Assessment specifically suited for those responsible for taking assessment literacy to scale and a session entitled Infused Assessment that takes participants back to the core fundamentals of formative assessment by infusing it into already existing instructional practices rather than creating summative-events-that-don't-count.

If you're unable to attend the conference, please take some time to follow the hashtag #ATIcon on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Very excited to announce that my new book (co-authored with Garnet Hillman and Mandy Stalets) Standards-Based Learning in Action: Moving from Theory to Practice (Solution Tree) is now available! Standards-based Learning in Action flips the usual script in that it's heavy on practical implementation strategies, supplemented by a synthesis of the research.

# data[].attributes.body
Standard based grading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1995 Ken developed eight guidelines for grading, and he has continued to refine those guidelines. In 2007 the same ideas were organized into fifteen fixes for broken grades. He has also designed eleven guidelines for standards-based reporting. He is now generally acknowledged to be one of a small group of leading experts on how to grade and report effectively.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning - Grading - Leadership - Assessment | Thomas R. Guskey & Associates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thomas R. Guskey, Ph.D., is known throughout the world for his work on student assessment, grading and reporting, professional learning, and educational change. Thomas R. Guskey is an international expert in evaluation design, analysis, and educational reform.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Basics of SBG

Traditionally teachers focus on teaching, the attempt to deliver knowledge. In SBG they also measure student learning, to understand the effectiveness of instruction. Instead of a single overall grade, SBG breaks down the subject matter into smaller "learning targets." Each target is a teachable concept that students should master by the end of the course. Throughout the term, student learning on each target is recorded. Teachers track student progress, give appropriate feedback, and adapt instruction to meet student needs. Figure 1 shows example report cards that highlight the differences between traditional and SBG.

Traditional grading and SBG also use different grading scales. In traditional grading, students are primarily measured by the percentage of work successfully completed. The assumption is that higher completion rates reflect greater mastery, and earn higher grades. Often 90% achieves an A, 80% a B, etc.

In SBG, grading is based on demonstration of mastery. Students attempt standards-aligned activities (projects, worksheets, quizzes, essays, presentations, etc.). Teachers assess the student output and choose the appropriate mastery level that was demonstrated.

Typical scales are 1-4 and reflect students' increasing skill. 1's indicate that students have little understanding of a concept, and consequently cannot demonstrate any mastery. When starting a new target, many students have no prior knowledge, and begin at 1. As students learn, they can demonstrate partial mastery, and score 2. Once they meet a target, they score 3. Typically 4's are used for students who exceed targets. Figure 2 shows example traditional and SBG grading scales.

Note: Even though 1-4 is popular, SBG grading scales vary widely. Scales can be 1-5, 0-4, use half points, and use letters instead of numbers. Yours may be different.

In standards-based education, teaching is responsive to learning. When starting a new target, teachers present introductory lessons. As students progress, they are offered more complex material. They continue working and learning until they reach the target. Think of SBG as a ladder, where students climb up, "a rung at a time," eventually reaching the top.

After receiving instruction, some students progress immediately, but most do not. It's common for students to be confused, and only partially complete an activity. Teachers regularly provide feedback, reteach, and offer additional opportunities to reach "the next rung." This process requires patience and practice, and is repeated until students reach the target.

SBG is powerful because it provides a framework to regularly measure student progress. When teachers have continuous understanding of students' mastery, they can adapt instruction to better meet students' needs. This causes education to be more effective and engaging.

How Does SBG Improve Education

Now that we've described the mechanics of SBG, let's look at the advantages standards-based education brings to the classroom. Many instructional changes improve student engagement and learning.

Improved Feedback

In SBG environments, better feedback accelerates learning. Instead of simply giving scores like 9/10 or 85%, teachers give feedback about the task performed and skills used. This helps students understand their current areas of improvement, and helps them reach the next level. This positive environment speeds learning and students reach higher levels of achievement -- all while being deeply engaged and enjoying school.

Student Ownership of Education

Learning targets are typically written in student-friendly language, so they can understand the goals of instruction. Targets may be further broken down by rubrics to map out the steps required to reach the "top of the ladder." This allows students to understand the path to success, and enables them to better engage in their learning. When working on an activity, they can self-assess and reflect on their own performance. They can identify areas of improvement and self-direct their activities. This leads to greater ownership of their learning. A typical rubric is shown in Figure 6.

More Relevant Instruction

In traditional classrooms, many teachers mechanically present curriculum to students -- lesson 1 on day 1, lesson 2 on day 2, etc. While there are exceptions (e.g. - early elementary reading), often there is little adjustment to instruction due to learning. Because students learn at different rates, some are bored because the pace is too slow. Others are confused because instruction is too fast. This is a daily challenge in traditional classrooms.

In SBG classrooms, teachers better understand student mastery. At any time, they know which students are at level 1, 2, or 3. This helps teachers offer level-appropriate work. Students at level 1 get activities that help them reach level 2. Level 2 students get activities to climb to level 3. Classrooms often break into smaller groups with students working independently on level-appropriate activities. This is called "differentiated instruction," or DI for short.

In this environment, students are less frustrated by poorly-fitting instruction. School is a more positive experience when course material is relevant and interesting. By improving the use of instructional time, students learn more and make increased academic progress.

Learning Provides Intrinsic Motivation

Some students may be extrinsically motivated by metrics, and strive to improve in measured areas. In traditional classrooms, this often encourages students to "chase points." Many will perform tasks that award points and raise their averages (e.g. - extra credit).

Conversely, it's common to hear students ask, "Will this be graded?" They often will skip any activity not entered into the gradebook, regardless of merit. This creates unhealthy incentives which skew student behavior and attitudes.

In SBG, the focus is on learning and mastery. Striving for mastery is an intrinsic motivator and transforms student attitudes. They learn for their own enjoyment and sustain high levels of effort and achievement.

Emotional Safety and Fear of Testing

At the beginning of each marking period, students start with 100%. Their averages fall as they make mistakes. Students with the fewest mistakes earn the highest grades. Depending on the size of the mistake (e.g. - a zero), it may be impossible to recover and earn a "good grade." This high-stakes environment can create test-taking fear and cause anxiety, which interferes with learning.

In SBG, scores go up as students learn. Final grades are reflective of mastery at the end of the course, so there's little penalty for early mistakes. No event can "ruin" their grade. This creates an emotionally safe environment where students are encouraged to stretch themselves, make mistakes, and learn.

While SBG removes the problem of zeros, it's also common for organizations to allow redo's. When a student gets a poor score, they can often work more on the topic, increasing their learning, and reassess. The ability to reach mastery is celebrated versus the focus on the number of mistakes made along the way.

Accurate Measurement of Learning

One pitfall of traditional grading is inaccuracy. Student averages are highly dependent on the difficulty of work assigned. If teachers present only low complexity activities, students can earn high scores with only a weak command of the material.

The opposite is also true. Highly demanding instructors may present very difficult work, resulting in overly low student scores. Curving and extra credit are used to adjust averages into more appropriate distributions.

In both cases SBG can improve the situation by providing clearer criteria for measuring mastery. Mastery of low complexity work yields lower grades while mastery of higher complexity work provides higher grades. Connecting grades to complexity rather than percentage completion yields more accurate and consistent grades.

How TeacherEase Helps SBG

This document was written by the team that produces TeacherEase, software for standards-based learning. We believe that successful SBG requires good technology, so we built TeacherEase to meet this need. It includes all the tools necessary: committee collaboration, learning targets, rubrics, assessments, instructional content management, data analytics, gradebook, report cards, and parent portal. For more information, check out: TeacherEase: Software for Standards-based Learning.

Additional SBG Videos

For more information, we recommend the SBG-related videos below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page is an introduction for parents and educators new to standards-based grading. It discusses benefits of SBG and positive impacts on the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following links are a snapshot of how Standards-Based Grading works in my classroom. Vision / Summary A Vision For Grading SBG Summary: A Year in Review Detailed Breakdowns Creating Concept Checklists Creating Quizzes Grading Quizzes What does it look like in the gradebook? Retake Policy Student Learning Folders Using Formative Assessment Unpacking Quizzes Growth...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Craig and Jill implemented SBG in algebra 1 and algebra 2 during the 2015-16 school year. They also used SBG to identify specific areas of concern for math lab students in algebra 1 and were able to...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Beginner’s Guide to Standards Based Grading |

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Kate Owens, Instructor, Department of Mathematics, College of Charleston

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does standards-based grading look like in science?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Something's been gnawing at me for awhile about standards-based grading (SBG). Sure, it's far and above ye 'ole traditional ABC grading which conflates effort and learning and spits out a mathematically precise but meaningless grade on a ridiculously large 100-point scale. But moving from ABC grading to standards-based grading isn't easy- it demands change on all levels of education (teaching, assessing, and reporting) and change from all parties involved (students, teachers, and parents). Changing grading is a colossal cultural paradigm shift.

If your school is like mine, it's a shift that seems to be stuck in some middle-ground grading purgatory. Yes we have standards, and yes we try to teach and assess to those standards. Where the shift seems to stall is with the reporting, which throws a wrench in the whole system. Here's a typical struggle:

It's the beginning of the trimester, and we've got our standards clearly defined for our unit. We have our assessments planned too, each carefully crafted to hit multiple standards in a meaningful way. And we're off- teaching, learning, humming merrily along. The first assessment comes along and suddenly there's a little confusion. What exactly do we mean by "meeting the standard"? "Exceeding the standard"? "Approaching the standard"? Never fear- we collected student exemplars last year, which we can show teachers and students so everyone knows what's expected. But wait- the students are all trying to replicate the "Exceeding the standard" work, going for that 4, even though most of them need to show proficiency in the standard first before trying to reach above it. Then grades go home and parents are concerned when their students are "only" meeting the standard- that's like a B right?? So we try to throw in some parent education at that point, to break their bad habit of translating 1s, 2s, 3s, and 4s into letter grades. Finally it's report card time, and in practice our new standards-based report card turns out to be a lot more complicated than it seemed on paper. What if a student exceeded on this assessment but approached on this one? How detailed should we report out on? Why do these parents keep getting upset with 3s- didn't we tell them it's not the same thing as a B??

You get the idea. Like it or not, reporting will always make or break the system, especially in the hyper-competitive, accountability-crazed world we live in. Despite the merits of SBG, the challenges of reporting out standards-based grades ( as I discussed here) is unescapable. Even my grading rebel hero who did away with points all together in favor of pure feedback is returning to a hybrid points/feedback system for the sake of efficiency. That's the reality for both teachers and parents, in addition to the wonderful details, we also crave a simple way of conveying of how a student's doing (I mean learning!).

So here's the deal: because we can't escape our need for a simple grade (letter, number, or otherwise), SBG in its present form falls short of the cultural paradigm shift it demands. Parents keep translating numbers into letters, students keep trying to exceed the standard to get the top grade, and teachers drive themselves crazy trying to agree on the meaning of it all. At the core of these tensions is a simple truth: everyone wants to be successful, but everyone is different, so success should not have the same definition for all. SBG is a huge step forward, but because it's one-size-fits all it just doesn't feel right, and our efforts continue to unravel.

How can we complete the shift? I think we need to reach a little farther. SBG shouldn't stand for standards-based grading, but student-based grading. Instead of criterion-referenced, I believe assessment and grading should be self-referenced. Is this more challenging? Yes, but ultimately I think it's this extra inch that will bridge the gap and move us to a new culture of learning and grading. Here's why:

Differentiated: We go on and on in education about differentiation, but so far I think implementation of this has been only partial. For true differentiation it needs to take place at all educational levels (teaching, assessing, reporting)- and it's last two where it usually falls short. If all students are going to be assessed and reported on the same standard, then by definition we aren't differentiating. Student-based grading frees us to adapt to student's individual learning needs, and reflects that differentiation all aspects of education.

Learning-focused: In their essence, report cards should communicate what students are learning (or not learning). With one-size-fits all standards, this may not be the case. If a student is way below or way above the standard, the report card isn't going to be very informative at all. OK, they're below the standard- but has the student made good learning gains this semester? Yay- they're above the standard- but is the student continuing to learn or are they twiddling their thumbs? Student-based grading focuses assessment and reporting on the learning that's actually taking place, whether it's above, below, or at the standard.

Goodbye norm-referencing: Even though standards-based grading claims to be criterion-referenced, if you use points it's really not. Students (and parents) will always pay more attention to the letter or number at the top than the standards or feedback below. Even if you get rid of these on assessments, for efficiency's sake you're going to use points of some sort on a report card- and then the norm comparison begins (Johnny got more 4s than Billy!). Student-based grading means the report cards are different for each student. Students are being graded on the standards and benchmarks that are appropriate learning goals for them. With individualized report cards like this comparing Johnny and Billy isn't easy- but that's the point- we shouldn't be comparing them in the first place.

Keep it simple: After thinking a lot about grading and points, I keep gravitating back to the simplest solution: the binary method (pass/fail, meets/does not meet). It's easy to understand and does not fall prey to our instinct to translate numbers into letters. The problem with using binary grading with standards-based grading is obvious: many students will be somewhere above or below the standard, so the grades are oversimplified and less informative. Student-based grading tailors the learning goal to fit the student, so a binary grade works much better- a more specific learning goal allows for a less specific grading system, and with less confusion.

Success for all: Parents can't help but want to see As (or whatever your top grade is) on the report card. So if your grading system doesn't make the top grade a realistic goal for students, you're going to run into problems. Student-based grading adjusts the learning goals for students based on pre-assessment to give them realistic challenges. So students going for the top grade or parents expecting the top grade is no longer problematic, it's exactly what they should be doing.

All set to sign up for the student-based grading movement? There's only one problem... this is just an idea. Sure it sounds great on paper, but I've yet to put it into practice (so if anyone out there is doing something similar- I'd love to hear from you!) Moving from ABC norm-referenced grading to student-based grading would be a step further than standards-based grading, because in addition to all that SBG brings to the table, the reporting benchmarks and standards themselves would need to be differentiated. In order for appropriate learning goals to be selected for students, pre-assessment would need to be very well designed. And to top it all off, the report card system would need to be flexible enough to handle individualized report cards. All these challenges however, if met successfully, would do what standards-based grading seems to be currently failing to do: to once and for all shift our grading paradigm from a culture of competitive point gaming to a culture that values individual learning.
Read Full Post "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Something's been gnawing at me for awhile about standards-based grading (SBG). Sure, it's far and above ye 'ole traditional ABC grading which conflates effort and learning and spits out a mathematically precise but meaningless grade on a ridiculously large 100-point scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does standards-based grading look like in language arts?

# data[].attributes.headline
How Can SBG be Implemented in a LA classroom?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Can SBG be Implemented in a LA classroom?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Traditional grading practices work against the natural learning process. This group is a forum for discussion surrounding the ideals and implementation of Standards Based Learning and Grading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Sarah J. Donovan, PhD on February 14, 2016

I started a discussion on Teachers Throwing Out Grades this week about standards-based "stuff" because I was concerned when I saw a book that offered teachers a how-to of standards-based grading. (I don't use "stuff" to minimize the importance of a serious discussion of standards, but, for me, the conversation around standards-based efforts has gotten muddled.) Granted I have not read this book because I am trying to, well, throw out grades, but the word "grades" is now an alarm to me, and the word standards brings to mind rows of students dressed alike being, well, standardized. This Facebook chat moved me to investigate what I am doing in my classroom and how it fits into standards-based instruction, learning, grading or maybe something different. So, I spent some time reviewing this standards-based "stuff," and I hope you all chime in to help me unravel it all for the good of our students.

According to The Glossary of Education Reform: Standards-based refers to systems of instruction, assessment, grading, and reporting that are based on students demonstrating understanding or mastery of the knowledge and skills they are expected to learn. teaching is using the standards to guide instruction. I have practiced use standards-based instruction, for the most part, to validate the other things I was teaching. For example, as an English teacher, I want students to recognize how authors represent ability difference with choices in the narrator (point of view of the character with the ability difference or a "neurotypical" narrator), the role of supporting characters (to enable or encourage), the accuracy, the plausibility, and the ending (cliché or nuanced). This language is not exactly in the Common Core State Standards and was not in Illinois State Standards when I began teaching in 2004. However, I use the following standards as I am illuminating my more literary instructional goals :

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.8.1
Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.8.2
Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of the text, including its relationship to the characters, setting, and plot; provide an objective summary of the text.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.8.3
Analyze how particular lines of dialogue or incidents in a story or drama propel the action, reveal aspects of a character, or provoke a decision.

Now standards-based learning is a bit more complicated because bound up in learning is assessment or how we know the learning is happening or has happened. And bound up in that is grading and reporting, which is how we communicate the results of the assessment to students, parents,and our administrators.

The assessments must match the standards taught so that the students can demonstrate learning. The assessments need not be in written form unless writing is a standard taught and thus assessed; the assessment need not be in speaking form unless speaking was a standard taught and thus assessed. The assessment is where/how the student demonstrates learning toward that standard.

If the assessment tool (speech, video, essay, portfolio, recording, project) assessed multiple standards, then each standard should be assessed separately. To average the results would be to muddle what was learned and what was not. By dis-aggregating the standards, teachers can offer additional support and resources to help the students learn the standard.

In a standards-based course, grading takes a variety of forms but are connected to descriptive standards, not based on test and assignment scores that are averaged together. The criteria used to determine what "meeting a standard" means is defined or described in advance. Behaviors and work habits are not part of that description: no getting to class on time, following rules, respect (unless it is being "collegial" in a group discussion as described in the standards under Speaking and Listening), turning in work on time, participation (unless questioning and responding as in the Speaking and Listening standards), effort, or creativity. Such behaviors would be reported separately as Rick Wormeli explains. The standard is not about how students got there but the evidence, and I suggest that all the evidence that teachers and students observe and document is evidence for assessing learning. It does not have to be so formal - as in a project or test at the end of the unit. The learning of a standard cannot always be so neatly contained in such terms. You may have to watch students negotiate meaning or collaborate with others to problem-solve or go through a long, extended process of research to presentation to show evidence of learning. All this is learning, and all this is assessment.

Standards-based grading, then, has the potential to constrain standards-based learning. Putting a number on learning is really not much better than putting a letter on it. That said, I think this video offers a fairly good overview of standards-based grading as compared to assessment-based grading, which is how most grading is done in schools.

In this explanation of standards-based grading, students get a separate score for each category, for each standard. The standards-based online grade book, descriptions of standards and explanation of what students need to revise or review should be clear. The report card should not have a grade for the course but a grade for each standard in that course. There should be no averaging; the standards should be separate. Many teachers and schools are using standards-based grading but then assign a single grade to the report card, which muddles learning.

I support a shift from assessment-based grading to standards-based grading, but I think we have to think carefully about what we do with the numbers we use in the grade book. In the video above, I wonder about the process of getting everyone to the 5 and if there is some evidence that surpasses that. How do teachers make time for and teach revisions or create new learning experiences to keep the learning process going? I think we have to emphasize something else in all this standards-based talk and that is standards-based "assessment." We have to see assessment as ongoing. For example, while a student may "meet" on the standard of writing an effective narrative lead, one paper cannot be the end of it and so one "meets" or "5" or "A" cannot be the end of that learning - such marks effectively end the conversation on learning.

As long as these numbers are merely place -holders or a way of communicating to students (in addition to narrative feedback) what standards need work, I will use them. However, I'd rather not replace letter scores with number scores in this standards-based grading movement. Students tend to see the 5 (or whatever score is highest) as they did the "A," and they will until we talk about learning in much more nuanced and complex ways - the ways that defy measurement and conflation of learning into a number or letter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I'd rather not replace letter scores with number scores in this standards-based grading movement. Students tend to see the 5 (or whatever score is highest) as they did the "A," and they will until we talk about learning in much more nuanced and complex ways -- the ways that defy measurement and conflation of learning into a number or letter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oh, how I long for the days when I felt actualized as an English and language arts teacher who based my grades on homework, classwork, tests, and projects. The numbers were simple, and a cumulative average was easy to calculate. Since reading the works of Ken O'Connor and Rick Wormeli, I have been plagued by the daunting and yet fulfilling challenge of making standards-based grading work and thrive in my classroom. The benefits and challenges of this process make it complicated, so I constantly reflect and revise my practice. I am encouraged as I hear other teachers begin to lean towards a standards-based method of grading, so I know this plight is worth the challenge.

To begin, let me share my interpretation of aligning my grading to standards, instead of assignments. Standards-based grading aims to communicate how a student is performing against a set of essential standards. A student is "judged" on what she knows, not how many assignments she has completed. Her grade is a reflection of her knowledge, and thus, is ever-changing. A student may score "proficient" on a standard one day, and "near-proficient" a week later-and her grade will reflect that change. Standards-based grading challenges many grading practices teachers feel very strongly about: assigning zeroes (which I no longer do), accepting "late" work (which I now always do), and allowing re-dos and re-takes (which I allow without limits). So why have I dedicated a large amount of my time and energy this school year to this alternative method of grading that calls into question so many of the grading practice norms we have relied on for decades?

Simply put, standards-based grading makes sense. It is the most accurate and honest grading method I have encountered thus far in my teaching career. Its benefits far outweigh its challenges.

So, what are some of the concrete benefits of standards-based grading?

SBG allows me to provide feedback to students on individual skills. Students are able to see a grade report that has all of the skills we have been working on, broken down, and not dependent on each other. This way, they are able to tackle the individual areas they need to improve upon, instead of re-doing all of a test or assignment they may have demonstrated mastery on in some areas.

SBG reports levels of mastery more current than those in traditional grading practices. Grades are entirely flexible-not a single number is set in stone, and the numbers constantly adjust up and down as students conquer and wrestle with new skills and content. When students, parents, or other stakeholders see a grade report from my classroom, they can count on seeing an evaluation of students' most current knowledge.

One of the largest benefits of SBG is that I am beginning to see is that my conversations with students and parents shift from "Well, what can she do to bring up her grade?" to "What are the skills and areas she should be practicing more to help her learn better?" Since implementing SBG, I have had so many more conversations focused on student learning, and fewer conversations focused on attributing a set of numbers to what a student knows.

Needless to say, changing my grading methods and practices to becoming more standards-based has not been without some great challenges. SBG is difficult when teaching processes and skills. I teach reading and writing, which are ever-developing and multi-faceted processes for students, and this makes assessment especially difficult. Even when relying more on standards than assignment completion when reporting student progress, assessments still tend to feel inauthentic and inaccurate, and are only a snapshot of a student's performance at one point in time.

In addition, even with the implementation of SBG in my school, I still have to report student progress through numbers. Assigning a number to a student's skill level or content knowledge still feels too subjective and forced. And what's worse is I still have to report a final grade for students as a cumulative average. I can break down this number into skills and individual content as much as I want, but at the end of the marking period, I still have to come up with one percentage to represent all of a student's knowledge of the content covered in my class.

Implementing SBG has been a bit of a culture shock for both students and parents, simply because it is entirely different from everything they have ever known about grades. Focusing on more quantitative and individualized feedback requires some flexibility, open-mindedness, and a lot of trust in teachers. Though this shift in mindset is certainly an initial challenge for parents and students, it is a necessary one. The benefits and progressive thinking behind SBG far outweigh the challenges of implementing the practice. We have gone long enough assigning subjective and arbitrary numbers to student performance, and it is time that our communication of student progress reflects student learning, and student learning only.

Web Only

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Putting Standards-Based Grading Into Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oh, how I long for the days when I felt actualized as an English and language arts teacher who based my grades on homework, classwork, tests, and projects. The numbers were simple, and a cumulative average was easy to calculate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Grades in a Standards-Based System | EL Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nominate an outstanding EL Education teacher or leader by May 29th for our 2019 Educator Awards

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Susan M. Brookhart and Thomas R. Guskey

Few people today question the premise that students' grades should reflect the quality of their work and not whether their teachers are "hard" or "easy" graders. But how much teacher subjectivity is involved in the grading process, and what do we know about its influence?

On the one hand, early studies of grading reliability-some dating back to the 1800s-clearly were motivated by researchers' dissatisfaction, and sometimes disdain, for teachers' unreliable practices. Our reaction to this, of course, is indignation. On the other hand, the extent of the unreliability in grading identified in these early studies was huge.

Grades for the same work varied dramatically from teacher to teacher, resulting in highly divergent conclusions about students, their learning, and their future studies.

That's not right, either.

So, we dug into 16 individual studies of grading reliability from the early 20th century, plus two early reviews of grading studies, to figure out the most important takeaways.

Early researchers attributed the inconsistency in teachers' grades to one or more of the following: the quality of students' work, the criteria for evaluating the work, teacher severity or leniency, differences in tasks, the grading scale, and teacher error.

The overall finding of these studies-that "grades are unreliable"-has given grades a bad reputation that continues to this day.

Addressing the reliability of grades is a foundational issue. Educators have struggled for over a century to reform grading with modest success. But no amount of reform in grading policies or report card formats will improve grading if the grades reported are not reliable. Despite their age, the early research findings about the reliability of grading give us several practical suggestions for today.

1. Clarify Criteria

Our biggest takeaway from the early studies was the expectation that somehow English teachers, mathematics teachers, history teachers-any teachers-would just "know" how to grade a piece of student work. In researcher Daniel Starch's 1913 analysis, one of the most important factors contributing to unreliability in grading was the difference in emphases teachers placed on different criteria.

There are three steps to solving this problem:

1. clearly define the criteria,

2. clearly specify the weight or relative emphasis each criterion should contribute to the grade for the piece of student work, and

3. apply the criteria and weights consistently.

Assessment theory has made great strides in the last century, and clarity of criteria is now an important foundation for good assessment. Our work with teachers suggests, however, that identifying and describing clear criteria is one of the most difficult things teachers strive to do. Teachers also must make sure these criteria describe students' learning (the quality of students' performance) and not simply how well they followed directions.

Starch and Edward Elliott, for example, sent mathematics exams to math teachers in 1912 with the request to simply "grade them." Today, math rubrics might contain criteria like problem-solving strategies, computation, and communication, focusing graders on specific aspects of the work. Without such criteria, most graders would approach the problem by asking, "Is it right or wrong?"

Getting Rubric Criteria Right

Rubrics have two parts: criteria, or what students are being asked to do, and performance-level descriptions, or how they did. Here, we look at the desired characteristics for rubric criteria.

2. Be Consistent

Teachers must be deliberately consistent across all possible factors that could influence grading. There are many recommendations for improving grading consistency, including these by one of us (Susan) and the University of Pittsburgh's Anthony Nitko:

Use a scoring guide, such as a rubric, checklist, or point scheme, to focus decisions on criteria and performance-level requirements. (See sidebar for more information.)

Use a model answer (or two or three to avoid being overly prescriptive) as a reference for your expectations of students. A model answer is not meant to be copied but demonstrates what good work looks like.

For constructed-response assessments, grade all students' responses to one question before moving on to the next question.

Bracket and evaluate separately (whether with a score or feedback) qualities of the work other than those in the criteria (neatness, format, grammar, and mechanics).

Grade work anonymously. For example, cover students' names when grading papers or use digital platforms that report names separately.

3. Use Simple Scales with a Few Distinct Categories

The 0 to 100 scale looks more precise than it really is. Several studies found that the probable error on the 0 to 100 scale is plus or minus five to six points or even greater. In the early 20th century, schools began to shift from reporting percentages to the familiar letter grade scale. It's better to use simpler scales with fewer categories (like A, B, C, D, and F; 4 to 0; or proficiency categories like advanced, proficient, and basic) that don't require such fine distinctions that are likely to be inaccurate.

Using fewer grade categories means educators contend with fewer borderline cases. If grades are simply Pass/Fail, only scores near the one cut-off are subject to misclassification. With letter grades, there are four cut-offs with potential for classification errors. As the number of categories increases, so do the number of borderline cases and the possibility of misclassification.

In addition, using fewer categories usually results in clearer definitions. The difference between Basic and Proficient, for example, can usually be described in a few phrases, whereas the difference between an 89 and a 90 is difficult to articulate. Fewer categories yield better explanations for why a particular grade describes a specific piece of student work. The generally accepted recommendation for dealing with borderline cases is to look at additional evidence of student learning for the standard or learning goal, such as observations of student work during class.

The current resurgence of the 100-point percentage grade scale has been attributed to the use of computerized grading programs that typically are developed by software engineers who have scant knowledge of this history of their unreliability.

Taking these steps will help educators make grades more reliable, more accurate, more meaningful, and far more defensible.

This is an adapted excerpt from the authors' book What We Know About Grading (ASCD, 2019).

Susan M. Brookhart is a professor emerita of the School of Education at Duquesne University.

Thomas R. Guskey is a professor emeritus in the College of Education at the University of Kentucky.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Grades Reliable? Lessons from a Century of Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Susan M. Brookhart and Thomas R. Guskey Few people today question the premise that students' grades should reflect the quality of their work and not whether their teachers are "hard" or "easy" graders. But how much teacher subjectivity is involved in the grading process, and what do we know about its influence?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is standards-based grading (SBG)?

- A brief description will eventually appear here. It will talk about: Multiple data points. More useful, pinpointed feedback. Remediation. Students see progress. Stress level, motivation level. Feedback instead of judgement. Etc.

My physics standards

Here is the historical list of standards (school year 2012 - 2013) for my classes. It includes lists for my Honors (sophomores and some juniors) and Regular (juniors) physics classes. The standards are grouped by model.

I am hoping to post a new list for my current classes (school year 2015 - 2016) this fall.

My particular SBG implementation

I used to use a flavor of SBG called Conjunctive Standards-Based Grading.

- A brief summary will eventually appear here.

I am currently using 5, 6, 8, 10 SBG.

Other best SBG posts on this blog

Usefulness of Test Corrections
Effort vs. Luck (Learning and Assessment Flow Chart)
Monkey Monkey Monkey (Or, will students take tests seriously if they can do them again?)
Choose your Test Flavor (On folding student choice into in-class assessments/reassessments)
Managing Extra Tests (On out-of-class assessments/reassessments)
- Original post (fall, 2011)
- Update (spring, 2012)
- Bundled Objectives (2012 school year idea)
Standards-Based Grading in a Points-Based World (Fitting SBG ideas into a system that requires points and continuously calculated grades)
Offside Assessments (How many standards do you test at once, and how do you test them?)

Student feedback (Course Evaluations)

Don't just take it from me. Hear what students in SBG physics classes think-

I think it is fair because it is really who works the hardest gets the better grade, so it is no one's fault but your own when you do badly.

It has made me become more conscious of how much I need to practice things before I move on to be able to fully understand them.

I don't feel left behind in this class because I know there are opportunities outside of class to improve my grade.

I think this grading system is good because it shows whether or not we actually understand the material. For example, you can't see what you don't understand if you get a 78%, but a 1 shows that you obviously don't have a firm grasp of the material.

I absolutely LOVE the new grading system. It's highly, highly conducive to learning. I am usually very number driven and end up putting a lot of pressure on myself to achieve a certain number; the grade is my priority. With this system, I am focused on the material - what really matters. I work harder in class because I want to understand everything fully instead of slacking off in certain places because I know that my number grade will survive it.

I love it. I never realized until this year (when I was forced to think about the logic of the class grading system), but it makes absolutely NO SENSE to get a bad grade for not knowing something perfectly when you first do it. That's just ridiculous to expect. Also, if I actually LEARN through the school year, and know the material really well by the end (LEARNING- what I thought we were encouraged to be doing), we are still brought down because we didn't, at some point, know it. Doesn't that make it seem like even if you actually improve and learn over the course of the year, you'll still be treated like you don't understand it partially? Stupid. Basically, I LOVE this grading system, despite how frustrating it can be when it doesn't work in favor of my grade because it's always in favor of my learning.

Other Links

Here is the entire SBG category archive of this website.

- Other links will eventually appear here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is standards-based grading (SBG)? - A brief description will eventually appear here. It will talk about: Multiple data points. More useful, pinpointed feedback. Remediation. Students see progress. Stress level, motivation level. Feedback instead of judgement. Etc. My physics standards Here is the historical list of standards (school year 2012 - 2013) for my classes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week I was talking with a humanities teacher, Josh, as we got coffee in the faculty room. He was lamenting the pace of class in May, as he tries to get through all of the content for his course. It reminded me of a conversation with a student we had years ago in our team-taught humanities class. We had just delivered a speed-lesson on the Middle Ages in Europe, covering in 80 minutes what historians have spent careers thinking and writing about. A student stopped us at the end of class, panicked, and said it was too fast, that there was no way she could remember it all. We told her that was okay, that the point wasn't to remember it all.

"Then what's the point?" She had asked.

I don't remember how we answered at the time, but as Josh and I walked down the hall with our coffee, we laughed about the absurdity of thinking students will truly learn all that we cover. If we define learning as being able to not only remember content for the short term, but to build knowledge and be able to use that knowledge at some indeterminate time in the future, then I imagine we would all be surprised (and a little bit depressed) by the tiny fraction of our teaching that leads to actual learning.

Most students (and some teachers) believe that all of the content in a course is of equal importance. We have trained our students to think this--sometimes implicitly (through our assessment practices), and sometimes explicitly (by saying they have to know it all).

Picture a traditional content test in a course with conventional grading practices, a test that most of us have taken (or given) in the last half century. There may be multiple choice questions, all worth the same number of points, and maybe some short answer or fill in the blank questions, also all worth the same amount of points. When we get a grade on that test (let's say an 80%), that's because we got a certain number of questions wrong (doesn't matter which questions). This assessment is implicitly telling our students that all of the content being tested is of the same importance--two students could get the exact same grade for knowing (remembering) completely different content.

But all content is not of equal importance, right? We all make choices and prioritize based on internal and/or external factors. Regardless of our discipline, we all have content that we think (or we're told) is most important or that we are most passionate about. This is where many of the conflicts come from in our departments and communities. Who decides which content--out of the vast and ever-growing pool available--is essential? What biases exist in choosing which content we select (or are told to use) for our courses? Content for science classes in Vermont and Mississippi is not the same; what students are taught in Texas about history, may be different than what they are taught in Oregon; the required reading in 8th grade in DC is likely different than the required reading in the same grade in New Hampshire. And within each of these disparate classrooms, what we each choose to spend more or less time on (and what our students ultimately take away with them) is likely part biased and part arbitrary. We are kidding ourselves if we try to argue that all of our course content is of equal importance.

So what if we were honest with our students about this? What if we were completely transparent about our content and our expectations?

Super important sidebar: Our district is standards-based, and our learning targets are skills, not specific content. It's easy to hear this and think that we don't value content, or as some have even said, that we don't teach content anymore. But the opposite is true. We value content so much that we decided to use what we know about the brain and learning to instruct and assess in a way that maximizes knowledge. Here's an excerpt from chapter 2 of The Standards-Based Classroom: Make Learning the Goal (Corwin 2018) that discusses the difference between content and knowledge, an important distinction in this discussion: "It's important to understand the difference between content and knowledge. Content is what's available, the pool of rich, engaging, relevant information, texts, examples, and events we have to choose from when determining how to best help students demonstrate understanding and skill; knowledge is what students know at the end of the learning, the content that they have made their own and will be able to use. Knowledge takes time to build. It takes activating prior knowledge, determining relationships and relevance, practicing with ideas individually and collaboratively, and deep understanding." Skills cannot be taught and practiced without content. Skills cannot be assessed without content. So the idea that it's one or the other is ridiculous. Schools that choose to have skill-based learning targets are not doing so at the expense of content; they are doing so in order to improve the content acquisition that leads to knowledge and fluency.

Okay, back to content and transparency. What if we talked to students about how content is chosen in our classes? What if we talked to them about bias in content selection? And what if we told them that not all content in our courses is created equal? In thinking about our own teaching, we came up with three distinct purposes for our content instruction or delivery. These are rough at this point, but they show what we're thinking:

Content Exposure: the goal is not to learn the content, but to be exposed to it so that you get an overall sense of the content and have the opportunity to determine specific interests that you may decide to return to on your own.

Contextual/Conceptual Understanding: the goal is to understand and remember the larger concepts of the content; you may need to look up the details later, but you will remember how this content fits into the larger picture or systems.

Depth of Learning: the goal is deep and sustained learning--you will learn, remember, and be able to use both concepts and details about this content

Imagine being able to talk with students about your course using these levels. You could assign a reading that is meant to Expose the student to a variety of content--and ask them to select a few specifics that are of interest to them for further independent exploration. You could develop an activity that has students determine the major Concepts in a set of content, or ask them to place the content in Context of previous learning. Then you could dive deeply into the content that you, as the expert, determine is most important for Depth of Learning (or that you, the person, is most passionate about); or, you could ask the students to choose content that they want to learn deeply about based on earlier Exposure). By naming the purpose for the content we are using to practice and demonstrate our skills, we may be able to target our instruction and maximize learning. This would also, of course, force us to examine our assessments to ensure that we are asking students to demonstrate their learning in a way that matches our purpose.
We're not proud of covering the European Age of Exploration in 80 minutes. But when we think about why we made that decision years ago, it was so that we could spend almost an entire quarter on the complexity of the Mongols and the historical, moral, and contemporary implications of their civilization. Because we made choices about where we would skim across the surface and where we would dive deep, we were able to slow down and fully explore one area--using vast amounts of rich, engaging content to learn and practice important transferable skills (see this link for our Mongol unit scales and benchmark sheets). If we can be more transparent with students (and ourselves) about the why and how of our content selection, coverage, and use, maybe we will have a better chance of ensuring that our teaching leads to learning.

So happy May everyone, and Josh, good luck with World War II in a Day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week I was talking with a humanities teacher, Josh, as we got coffee in the faculty room. He was lamenting the pace of class in May, as he tries to get through all of the content for his course. It reminded me of a conversation with a student we had years ago in our team-taught humanities class.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schoolwide Structures for Standards-Based Grading | EL Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A parent, a student, a teacher, and the principal from Casco Bay High School in Portland, ME, discuss the structures necessary to reap the benefits of standards-based grading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Welcome to Algebra 1 at Westerville North!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This page is to help explain SBG and Reassessment process. Please read below to answer common questions about SBG and Reassessment.

Is it what a student knew at that particular moment when they took the test, or is it a representation of what they knew from a variety of activities and assessments?

Can students recall information they've been taught?

Can they apply what they know to future problems?

Will they remember it when they leave the classroom?

Do they memorize for the test - then forget it all?

The Algebra 1 teachers wanted to change the way we are assessing student learning based on mastery of state content standards and allow students to prove they know the material. This is why we have changed our individual test format to Standards Based Grading.

Standards-based grading directly utilizes standards, benchmarks, and indicators as a checklist for the material students need to master before they leave the classroom. The teacher assigns grades that are tied specifically to each indicator as the class moves through the chapters.

Academic content standards and benchmarks form the backbone of the material taught in any given core subject. A state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states and created the standards we teach in the math classroom today. To simplify these standards into student-friendly language, the Algebra teachers transformed the standards into Essential Questions or EQs. We use EQs to assess students in the SBG classroom.

To help students (and guardians), students receive an EQ packet at the start of every chapter. That packet contains all of the EQs that will be covered on the individual test. All of these EQs are also associated to questions on the chapter closure packet to assist in review for the test.

The picture above is part of the Chapter 1 EQ document.

Check out EQ 1.3 . The "EQ" means this is an "Essential Question". The "1" means it is "Chapter 1". The "3" means it is the 3rd new EQ of the chapter. We have also provided which lesson of the text the topic is first introduced. So for EQ 1.3, you first see function notation in lesson 1.2.3. The chapter number.0 (for example in chapter 2, EQ 2.0) will always be the precision standard.

Look at the one below it: EQ 1.4 . The "EQ" means this is an "Essential Question". The "1" means it is "Chapter 1". The "4" means it is the 4th new EQ of the chapter. Identifying x and y intercepts is first addressed in section 1.2.1.

Again, these EQs are used to assess students in the SBG-classroom.

Students will acquire the necessary information in various forms from class and be assessed in a way that allows them to demonstrate what they know. For instance, let's say there is a question about finding the equation of a line given two points. Freddie Freshman completes the problem but scores a "2" on the 4-point scale.

There could be a whole slew of reasons why Freddie did not score better... such as:

a. Freddie might not have understood certain concept in the chapter.

b. Freddie may have missed several days of class.
c. Freddie might have broken up with his girlfriend.
d. Freddie could have shifted from the custody of his father to his mother the weekend before the assessment.

Here's the beauty of the SBG-System... "why?" doesn't matter any more. We don't need to concern ourselves with excuses. For whatever reason, Freddie didn't master the material.

Even though we move on to the next topic in class, Freddie will still have an opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the concepts taught in the strand.

Before we jump to the re-assessment part, let's examine how a test is scored and turned into the "1", "2", "3", and "4" scores. Click the button below for a breakdown of what each number represents. After students take such a test, their scores are calculated and placed on an "Score Card" which is shown below.

While the example above is just a partial "score card", it still shows how mastery levels are calculated. For instance, to get a "4" on EQ 1.0 , a student would have to score no lower than 11.5 points (or at least 87.5%); a "3" would require a score no lower than 10 points (or at least 75.0%); a "2" would result from scores no lower than 8 points; while a "1" would result from scores of 7.5 and lower. So, let's say a student ends up getting a "2" for that particular EQ. It is recorded in PowerSchool as such.

Another example is EQ 1.3 , which is only worth 2 points. In this case, the student either demonstrates mastery on it (2/2) or doesn't (0/2 or 1/2).

By using such a meticulous system of grading, I can guarantee an accurate reflection of a student's mastery level. (These sheets are not returned to the students directly since they can access their SBG scores on-line. However, they are always available for review should a student, guardian, or administrator make that request.)

Yes. The "old way" of grading is broken. In the old system, Freddie's failure on the test would be averaged as a 54/100 ("F").

Freddie would have never mastered the material, and the groundwork for future failures would begin to take shape. Freddie would limp into his next school year without having grasped the necessary concepts to give him a fair chance of succeeding.

In an SBG-classroom, teachers can specifically identify which EQs Freddie understands and which EQs he does not.

Parents and guardians will be able to see exactly what their child did well and where they need improvement. This helps alleviate the guess-work that goes into interpreting letter grades.

Re-assessment in an SBG-classroom is WAY more than Freddie just "retaking" the same test he failed. It is also more than Freddie doing "test corrections". His individual test was his first shot at mastery. As we saw, he didn't demonstrate mastery.

So... Freddie is given another opportunity to show proficiency/mastery of EQ 1.2.

If he chooses to accept this offer, he must do the following steps:

Step #1: Sign up on the schedule in your teacher's room. Find the day and period you are available to complete the reassessment in your teacher's room. You will need to write in your name, math class period and the EQ #s needed to be reassessed. Get a pass from your teacher immediately after you sign up.

Step #2: to the time scheduled to complete your reassessment paper. If you do not show up during the time you signed up for, you will forfeit your chance for additional points. If you come during a time you are not signed up for, your teacher can choose to not let you stay You may attempt more than 1 EQ during your scheduled time but know you may need multiple class periods to complete.

Step #3: Give all your belongings to your teacher to hold onto while you work. This includes your phone, headphones, and other electronic devices. You are only permitted to have a pencil and calculator during reassessment.

Step #4: Your teacher will give you the reassessment problems for your EQs. Write in your name and class period.

Step #5: Complete the reassessment problems for your EQ without notes, help from the teacher, or help from others. If you are seen talking to other students or using notes during your reassessment time, you will lose your privilege of reassessment and future opportunities may be jeopardized.

Step #6: The reassessment problems must be completed in the allotted reassessment time. Students will generally have TWO weeks to do this, unless a new time frame has been established.

The reassessment problems will be graded. If it is NOT a "4", it will be noted on PowerSchool. It is up to you to check PowerSchool often to know the outcome of your reassessments. Freddie can try to fix this EQ as many times as he'd like (within the two-week limit). This is why it would be wise to attempt the EQs early into the reassessment grace period. If Freddie turns in his reassessment with only a few days left, it is unlikely he will be given additional opportunities.

If a student's assessment level is changed (from a "2" to a "3"), it is adjusted in the grade book and on PowerSchool as though the first assessment never took place. (There will be a comment like "Re-assessment completed; score moved from '2' to '4'" to indicate that a student has attempted a particular EQ).

Grades are not averaged. If a student had a "2" and through re-assessment earned a "3", their grade wouldn't show as a "2.5". Half scores, like "2.5", don't exist in the scale; it's either a solid "2", a solid "3", etc.

Students also can't drop their level for an EQ if they happen to do worse on the reassessment. If Freddie tries to reassess a topic in which he got a "3" and does worse, his score remains a "3".

When a student logs on to PowerSchool, s/he is used to seeing a letter grade for a specific test. Instead of just seeing that she scored a "70%" on her Chapter 9 test, Susie will also see a slew of EQs that the test covered... all with scores of "1", "2", "3", and "4" next to each. The entire individual test grade is called the "raw score" (for example 70/100 for Susie) and will still be included in the overall grade as well as the EQs.

When students complete reassessment, their "raw score" or original score on the chapter test will not be changed. This helps hold students accountable for their initial assessment and encourages students to put in a great amount of effort for each chapter test. When students complete reassessment, the EQs will be changed in the grade book and therefore improve their overall test grade for the chapter.

This image shows Susie that she demonstrated mastery on EQ 9.2 (Level 4), EQ 9.4 (Level 3), EQ 9.6 (Level 3), EQ 9.7 (Level 4), EQ 9.8 (Level 4), and EQ 9.9 (Level 3). She failed to show mastery on the rest.

In the old method of grading, Susie would see the "70%" and move on. She might be told by her teacher to "study harder" or that she "studied the wrong stuff" . In an SBG-classroom, Susie and her teacher can identify the material that she did not master.

In an SBG-classroom, the traditional grade scale is still used to determine plusses and minuses. Percentages are NOT rounded up. In the example above, Sally's 97.5% remains an "A"... and is not rounded up to an "A+". If she wanted the "A+", then she should have re-mastered ALL of her EQs (she left EQ 9.5 at Level 3).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page is to help explain SBG and Reassessment process. Please read below to answer common questions about SBG and Reassessment. Is it what a student knew at that particular moment when they took the test, or is it a representation of what they knew from a variety of activities and assessments?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I think every teacher starts a new year with goals, for both him/herself and his/her students. I am no exception. My biggest goal this year was to find ways I could show real student progress and ensure that 100% of my kids do, in fact, progress.

In setting my goals, I already knew that there were some things I was going to do this year, for a fact:

I untextbooked fully this year with all IV levels (more posts to come)

I fully switched to culture instruction through research using the National Latin Exam syllabi

I fully switched to only using direct grammar instruction in my upper levels (more posts to come)

I reconsidered my retake policies and tutoring practices (more below)

I re-read my own post on the No Failure Classroom and considered how to make my practices more fully integrated in this idea.

I also knew, between my own research and discussions with my students, that diving into Standards Based Grading was something we all wanted. I don't want to spend this post talking about the theory, but rather how I am making it work, so allow me to give you some links to the research for your own perusal. This link takes you to my own Google Drive folder with information on Standards Based Grading. There is a PowerPoint with information and a page long list of articles, research, videos, etc.

So, how am I doing it?

In Thought

I needed to lay out exactly why I wanted to do this and what the benefits would be. So, I spoke to my kids, we brainstormed, and then I applied the research. I kept what worked and reconsidered what didn't.

1. Grades, if we are to use them, should be a measure of a student's progress with standards or goals, not their ability to complete an assignment or get something right on a first try.

1. How does this apply to the number of grades I put in a grade book?

2. How does this apply to testing and test retakes?

3. How does this apply to absences and deadlines?

2. If students are to show real progress, they must be able to make that progress when they are ready, no matter when it happens through the year.

1. Just because it is on my schedule, does that mean a student must succeed at that exact moment?

2. How do we ensure progress and not a memorisation of isolated facts, words, and ideas?

3. How do we motivate students to work towards progress and not panic when something requires extra help or instruction?

4. What happens when one, two, or three people need extra help and time vs. when an entire class needs extra help and time?

3. How do we address student, parent, and school needs and requirements while making a grade book work with standards?

1. Do we use graded numbers?

2. Do we change the weight of grades to fit needs?

3. Do we put standards in and leave them blank until the time comes?

4. How can we communicate regularly while meeting these goals?

In Practice

So, keeping these concerns and ideas in mind, off I went. I spent a good deal of my summer thinking about this, discussing it with teachers, and just when I had an idea of what to do, grading schemes were released for our school and I had to rethink it all. So, here's the final shell of my grading this year.

Grade Book Setup

I still put in grades based on assignment

One of my biggest concerns is what happens to grade books through the year. We collect and grade and collect and grade and, by the end, the final is worth very little and students who missed part of the year, came late, got sick, etc. have little to no chance of doing well, even if they do REALLY well.

One of the ideas behind SBG is that you have a set number of standards/assignments and students are constantly working to improve their grades based on their actual progress in the class. The students and I really liked this idea. It places the importance on the progress, not the grade, as it were.

So, I have separated our untextbooked curriculum into larger units. I put in each test separately (and we agreed as a group on smaller, more frequent tests), but I only collect one of each assignment that I want to. This gives a variety, but doesn't overwhelm the grade book. While we are in that unit, when we do a second assignment like one that has been graded, students may resubmit for a new grade, provided they've shown progress.

E.G. Jenny was absent when we completed a dictation, so she got an IP (in progress) in the grade book. When we did a second dictation, she submitted it for a grade.

E.G. Michael got a 70% on the story's comic strip. In our second story, we didn't do a comic strip, but we did answer questions based on comprehension. Michael asks his teacher to grade this new assignment in place of the previous one.

This limits my grading and limits their grades, making it more about progress and less about numbers.

I still put in number grades, but they are based on proficiency, NOT accuracy.

I despise how sometimes our system allows people to memorise and resubmit. They've not learned anything knew, cannot use anything in a new way, but they have the right answers.

I also hate how an accuracy system sets students up for failure. Students who make minor mistakes are penalised, even if they fully understand how to use vocabulary and language.

So, I make sure to make my expectations clear with students and assignments, and I give credit where credit is due.

E.G. Sally, a Latin I student, answered test question "mater rogavit" with "the mother asks". She gets full credit for understanding the context of the story/word, even if tense is wrong, she didn't give a subject, etc.

E.G. Mary, a Latin II student, answered test question "mater rogavit" with "the mother was asking". She gets full credit for understanding the context, and also for identifying it was past test, even if it is not fully correct.

E.G. Bobby, a Latin III student, answered test question "rogavit" with "asks". He gets partial credit for understanding the context, but as an upper level student, it was expected that he also give subject and tense.

This puts the emphasis on being proficient in the language without making it all about accuracy. Since I am not giving any multiple choice tests this year (unless I have to), I have more freedom in giving credit where it is due, as opposed to simply marking it correct for accuracy.

I allow students to resubmit/retake any and every assignment as many times as they want.

Getting it right is important to me, not WHEN they get it right.

So, retakes are done as follows

can be redone any time within a larger unit (if not, on a case by case basis).

cannot be redone before student attends a tutoring session

This ensures they hear the information again, from a different source, in a different way, and also get to hash out any issues one on one (with me or a tutor)

full credit is given where due.

E.G. Karen, a Latin I student, answered test question "mater rogavit" with "the father sees"initially, but answered "the mother asks" on a retake. -- 100% credit given

E.G. James, a Latin III student answered test question "rogavit" with asks initially, but answered "he asked" on a retake -- 100% credit give

Resubmissions are done in class.

Since I'm not putting in 1,000 grades, I simply replace the old grade with a new one, provided progress is shown.

I require all students who fail an assessment to come to tutoring and students all know that I expect them all to have an 80% or better in my class. Anything lower comes with tutoring, parent contact, and conferences.

In Actuality

So, what have the reactions been? In general, I have much more relaxed students who are performing better and take more control over their own grades. I have not been asked once this year for extra credit, or how someone can "bring their grade" up. Students are clear on expectations and they know what happens when they don't meet those expectations. I provide 100% risk proof fail safes and students have the materials and tools they need to succeed. The grade book is clear and instead of getting parent emails asking about what an assignment is or a test or what was missed, I now have only gotten emails acknowledging grade changes or making sure a student is keeping up his/her end of the bargain.

I discussed this with my parents at curriculum night and got lots of positive feedback. When it comes down to it, I am not interested in tricking my students, only in seeing them succeed. I am convinced a Standards Based Grade Book (or as much of one I can have) is part of a grander plan to do this.

Have any of you tried SBG or looked into it? How is it going?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standards Based Grading (SBG) - Making it Work in a Traditional Gradebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I think every teacher starts a new year with goals, for both him/herself and his/her students. I am no exception. My biggest goal this year was to find ways I could show real student progress and ensure that 100% of my kids do, in fact, progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Was the old way of grading "broken"? What is Standards-Based Grading? What "grades" are used in this class? What is assessment? How does assessment work in this class? How does "Re-assessment"...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Standards-Based Assessment - Modeling Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mark Schober's resources and thoughts related to Modeling Instruction in science, standards-based grading, best teaching practices, and collaborative teacher organizations.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.edutopia.org/article/7-smart-fast-ways-do-formative-assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
mobile first webpage developed by mobiletech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Teachers Are Changing Grading Practices With an Eye on Equity | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Joe Feldman contends many of the earnest practices teachers continue to use are hold-overs from how they were graded and may actually be doing harm to student learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rick Wormeli: Redos, Retakes, and Do-Overs, Part One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rick Wormeli: Formative and Summative Assessment

# data[].attributes.body
Assessment Methods

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The selection of appropriate assessment methods in a course is influenced by many factors: the intended learning outcomes, the discipline and related professional standards, the context of the course and its relationship to other courses, the level of study, the characteristics of the students, the…

# data[].attributes.headline
Formative Assessment & Standards Based Grading

# data[].attributes.subject
Formative Assessment & Standards Based Grading

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPqGjHQ-WpI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Formative Assessment & Standards - Based Grading