By Mark
'Tis the season when young'uns line up at the chair of the man with the beard and the big jiggly belly and ask gently and sweetly for a little something extra special.
That's right: there are six weeks left in the semester, so they're lining up at my desk asking for extra credit.
I do have a beard, and a bit of a belly, but I'm afraid I cannot grant all these children's winter wishes. We have about four weeks left in the semester after they return from winter break, and a few kids are realizing that the grade they are destined to receive is more a lump of coal than a shiny new bicycle.
They beg to turn in that first essay, even though it is now ten weeks late and we've moved on. They plead to submit the vocab quiz from two units ago. The cajole me to create from scratch a whole new assignment so they can reclaim the points.
It is times like these, when kids are scraping together points, that I least like my job. I want them to treasure the learning, not seek to hoard meaningless points. I suppose this is why I am drawn to the bits and pieces I keep hearing about standards-based assessment. Perhaps this is just the next new fad I will be lamenting on this blog sometime down the road, and I have had a sort of love-hate relationship with the concept of standards. But if our goal is about the learning, not the accumulation of points, wouldn't a shift to standards-based assessment make sense? Wouldn't it make more sense (and be more meaningful) if my gradebook clearly showed the accomplishment of specific skills as opposed to the amassing of points?
I think for pass/fail you could use the 25 standards met or bust, but the individual standards should be assessed individually and averaged for a grade. Some teachers use a GPA scale for grades because the difference between an A and a B is the same percentage as between a D and an F.
A = 4.0
B = 3.0
C = 2.0
D = 1.0
F = blank (must be redone)
Mathematically, this makes more sense than a 100-point scale.
(I use categories.)
The hybrid seems like the best way. Could it also work like this: there are 25 standards or proficiencies which must be demonstrated by the end of the semester… you start with a zero and move upward, with all 25 required for course credit, then the degree of proficiency/mastery makes the letter grade:
F=one or more standards not met
D=all 25 standards demonstrated, perhaps with spotty consistency.
C=all 25 standards demonstrated, with good consistency.
B=all 25 standards consistently demonstrated as proficient; some performances exceed standard.
A=all 25 standards consistently demonstrated as proficient; the majority of performances exceed standard.
Kids would start with Fs and have to prove themselves to ratchet up the steps. There are many kinks in this idea…athletic eligibility being just one of many.
Is something akin to this already in use in any secondary schools out there?
A couple problems I found with standards-based grading are similar to typical grading practices.
One idea is that students and parents have to be taught a completely new philosophy of grading, and this is quite difficult to do. Resistance is frequent, especially when homework and other practices are ungraded (not for points).
Another idea is that zeroes are not entered for missing assignments, which simply leaves a blank (an un-factored score). This means that no data may be present until the end of the semester if a student is delinquent in completing assignments. A grade could conceivably go from nothing or a high mark to an F at the end of semester within days. This doesn’t help students or parents.
Other challenges exist, but I use some aspects of standards-based in a bit of a hybrid system.