!"##$#% '()*+ ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 : Standards-Based vs. Traditional Grading Kourtney R. Betler University of Mount Union ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 ; Abstract The curricular issue of grading reform has been one of the more difficult types of reform in education to gather research and support for various philosophies. Individual teachers, administrators, and curricular practitioners within districts often have very unique ideas on the purpose of grading, making uniform adaptations difficult at the district level. Grading has been one area of education that is largely left up to each teacher’s discretion. However, the standards movement has unveiled the discourse that lies within grading systems and aims to make grading a more valid form of communication of student achievement. Standards-based grading is a form of reporting in which teachers center their grades on student achievement within each standard of their content area, provide frequent feedback, and give students the opportunity to revise and retake assessments in order to ultimately meet a proficient level of mastery within each content area. This philosophy is at odds with the traditional grading system in that student effort is not considered in reporting the student’s achievement. Research reports advantages and disadvantages to both philosophies and ultimately leaves districts and teachers to find the most balanced approach that provides a clear picture of student achievement in a way that is fair and considerate of all types of students. ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 < Last year, during the first nine weeks of the 2012-2013 school year, 60 percent of the freshman class at ABC High School had a least one failing grade. This was the first year for a “new” grading system in which grades were calculated as percentages using a points system (the system most schools have used for years). Prior to this change, students were assessed on a 4-point grading system in which all assignments and assessments were calculated to earn a final score of 1, 2, 3, or 4. Therefore, earning a 2 out of 4 on an assignment or assessment was calculated to be a “C” equivalent to the current grading system rather than its percentage, 50 percent (an F in the current system). In a nutshell, it was much easier for students to turn in fewer assignments, perform lower on assessments, and still pass courses. The grading system change, however, was a high school transition only. The middle school and elementary are still operating on the old grading system. As most can guess, this provides quite a problem when students enter high school and now what used to be an average “C” is now a failing grade. The middle school and elementary school strongly believe in assessing and giving grades for the students’ performance on each standard. Generally, they teach units with a particular standard, assess, record, and repeat. Nothing else goes in the gradebook. Typically, students are held accountable for homework by receiving detentions if homework is not completed. The high school teachers tend to believe in a combination of grading in which students earn their grade based upon homework completion and/or accuracy, assessments, projects, etc. As a result, 28% of students at the high school currently have at least one failing grade, many of them having multiple failing grades. The unofficial analysis of these results has shown that many students are failing due to missing assignments or ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 = projects that were never completed. Many of these students believe all they are expected to do is show up for school, listen to lessons, and take tests. Who is right? Which schools are getting the best representation of student understanding? Which schools are preparing students for the next phase of life, or the real world? These questions become difficult to answer as the purpose of schooling comes in many forms. This provides for the ongoing discourse between standards-based and traditional grading systems. Over the years, grades have become the focus of school for most students. Obtaining certain scores and getting an “A” drive students, even if that means sacrificing true learning along the way. This fact must force teachers to consider what their grading is communicating to their students. What kind of grading system needs to be in place to develop an authentic learning environment where true understanding is the goal of both the students and teachers? Grant Wiggins, in Educative Assessment (1998), states, “Where assessment is educative, we hear classroom and hallway conversations that are different than those heard in schools that use traditional methods. Students are no longer asking teachers, ‘Is this what you want?’ or ‘Is this going to be on the test?’ Instead, learning goals and standards are so clearly spelled out that students understand that they are expected to learn” (Wiggins, p. 1). Is the answer, then, to implement a grading a system centered on standards alone? On one side of the coin, the argument for standards-based grading begins with the concept of mastery. In the late 1960s-early 1970s, Benjamin S. Bloom coined the term mastery learning. He defined a mastery learning environment to be where “formative tests (the same tests used with the conventional group) are given for feedback followed by corrective procedures and parallel formative tests to determine the extent to which the ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 > students have mastered the subject matter” (Bloom, p. 4). Mastery learning is built upon high quality instruction, formative assessments, extensive feedback, corrective activities, and revision. The assessments should be intentionally designed to provide specific feedback on a student’s strengths and weaknesses within each standard. Grant Wiggins states, “The feedback needs to be of two kinds: in addition to better feedback after the performance, feedback must also be provided during (concurrent with) the assessment activities…” (Wiggins, p. 43). Feedback and revision are essential core components of standards-based grading. Feedback is meant to provide students with an awareness of where they can improve within each standard. Students are then typically given the chance to retake tests for a higher grade. Student grades are based purely on their progress through the standards without the inclusion of homework, notebook grades, participation, etc. These skills may be assessed in other ways in each individual teacher’s classroom. Many teachers argue that earning grades based upon effort clouds a teacher’s ability to truly monitor student progress through the content. When looking at a student’s grade on a report card, it is often difficult to draw conclusions about the student’s ability in particular content areas because an “A” is not defined in a consistent manner from teacher to teacher. Those in support of standards- based grading “contend that traditional grades are often based on vague criteria and therefore unreliable. They can be used to reward or punish students for factors unrelated to competency and don’t place enough emphasis on what is truly important: reaching proficiency in a subject so a student can pass state exams and perform well in higher- level classes” (Spencer, p. 5, 2012). Students have come to value their grades in school more than their learning in school. Many students have figured out how to play the game ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 ? of school and “get by” with minimal understanding when their homework and other high- yield skill grades are heavily influencing their academic achievement. Standards-based advocates also argue that students have lost sight of the true purpose of homework, that is, to receive feedback on their learning. Instead, students are completely homework to be rewarded for their effort (Vatterott, p. 61, 2011). For true, authentic learning, students must develop the intrinsic motivation to complete homework purely for the sake of improving their skills to perform better on the test and to demonstrate proficiency in each standard. This is difficult to accomplish in a society where students have long been programmed to view homework as a punishment or potential reward instead of a vehicle for better understanding. Grant Wiggins argues that assessments should serve as a way to educate student performance and to help students learn to “self-correct” their performance (Wiggins, p. xi). Instead of becoming self-assessors of their understanding and learning from their mistakes, students have become accustomed to the teacher taking this full responsibility or simply not providing feedback at all. Continual, diligent feedback will help struggling students to identify their strengths and weaknesses and self- monitor their progress. What it means for a student to be “proficient” in any subject matter is what can make the difference in the outcomes of standards-based grading. It is crucial for districts and individual teachers to be on the same page for what proficient actually looks like in the classroom. In order to maintain high and attainable expectations for all students, the bar of proficiency must be strategically set to adhere to each district’s needs and goals. In determining what makes a student proficient, it is vital to realize what true understanding of the content means. Wiggins argues that the current view of understanding is based ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 @ upon rote learning of shallow concepts without purposeful application. He states, “to grasp the real value and challenge of authentic assessment we must consider more carefully what we mean by ‘assessing for understanding’” (Wiggins, p. 71) He defines understanding as the ability to transfer content knowledge to new situations and applications. Mastering content, then, is not simply a recall of facts or algorithms, but is the ability to transfer a multitude of skills and knowledge to new ideas and experiences. Grades that do not reflect a student’s true understanding provide particular difficulty in post secondary education. Grade inflation, has caused the value of an “A” or “B” grade to be diminished and colleges and universities are finding it difficult to use secondary grades as predictors and indicators of postsecondary student performance. ACT and the National Center for Education Statistics studies show an indirect correlation between mean GPA and student achievement (Grodsky, pp. 259-260, 2013). There is a mismatch between a student’s reported grade point average and their achievement on standardized tests. While it appears students are making gains academically, it is difficult to pinpoint what exactly students are achieving in the learning process. Standards-based grading intends to make this picture more lucid in understanding true academic achievement. With clear learning goals, specific and frequent feedback, and more student accountability for learning, where can such a philosophy go wrong? Questions frequently asked in response to standards-based grading include: How will teachers motivate students to complete homework that is vital to the learning process? Is mastery of content the only purpose of schooling? How can teachers build necessary life skills such as time management and reliability without holding students accountable for their work? Does ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 A standards-based grading place too much emphasis on teaching to the test? Does standards-based grading encourage rote learning without providing opportunities for application? Is the traditional grading system to blame for grade inflation or individual teacher choice in grading for effort over mastery? What impact will a focus on nationally defined standards have on multicultural education? Many of these questions are still being answered as the issue of grading and reporting is unique to individual teachers, buildings, districts, and states. In a study conducted on teacher’s interpretations of grading, teacher’s first concern with grading was the idea of fairness. The study surveyed a sub-sampled of 77 teachers who taught grade 10 mathematics in a primary English-language school in Ontario. The teachers were using a standards-based grading system and were asked to reflect on their reasoning behind their grading principles. The participants “repeatedly referred to ‘being fair’ in their comments and explanations about grading” (Charland, p. 224, 2011). Even in a standards-based grading system, many of the teacher’s agreed that student improvement and effort was also a factor in their final reports showing the inherent nature to want to reward students for progress and effort. Teachers across the nation feel the students deserve to be rewarded for what they are doing in school including the effort they are putting toward learning the content. Especially in underachieving districts that are of low socioeconomic status or are made up of multiple subgroups, teachers are spending more time developing “high-yield skills” in students so they are able to engage in the learning process. Dr. Jane Pollock in Minding the Achievement Gap One Classroom at a Time (2012), presents such strategies that can be used by students and teachers to have a significant impact of learning outcomes. ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 B This group of strategies, familiar to many teachers, comprises the following: 1. Identify similarities and differences 2. Summarize and take notes 3. Recognize effort and provide recognition 4. Provide homework and practice 5. Use nonlinguistic representations 6. Use cooperative learning 7. Set objectives and provide feedback 8. Generate and test hypotheses 9. Use questions, cues and advance organizers (Pollock, p. 33-34) In a standards-based learning environment, teachers must find ways to incorporate these strategies into daily classroom work without allowing the grades to be inflated. Christine Sleeter refers to this as the hidden curriculum, “Horn (2003) defined the hidden curriculum as the ‘unrecognized and sometimes unintended knowledge, values, and beliefs that are part of the learning process in schools and classrooms’” (Sleeter, p. 10) Is it possible for this type of curriculum to be reflected on a standards-based report card? Is it possible for this type of curriculum to be reflected on a traditional report card? For some teachers, getting certain students to proficiency in a particular content area may seem daunting. Oftentimes, the greatest achievement for a student may be a simple change of attitude in the classroom or a more fervent effort in taking ownership of his or her own learning. However, this may not always immediately be reflected in their achievement with the content. What the traditional grading system provides is a more varied insight into student growth and achievement. Assessments and other forms of ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 :C measurement are intended to reflect the student’s progress through the content while an appropriate measure of homework completion and other efforts are intended to reflect a student’s progress in their social, mental, and emotional growth in other areas. However, Wiggins encourages teachers to make distinctions between growth and effort. Growth is a comparison of project gains versus actual gains. Student growth, no matter how small, should be reflected in the student’s grade in a way that is measured against a standard rather than their effort toward achievement (Wiggins, p. 255) If one were to ask any teacher what they hope their students take from their classroom/course, it would be rare to find answers like, “I want my students to know how to solve one-step equations,” or “I want my students to be able to define a verb and provide examples.” A more likely answer will be, “I want my students to recognize they are in control of their destiny and to help them become contributors to society.” Therefore, how can a grading system centered only on content area objectives communicate the true value and purpose of schooling? Is the answer to grade inflation a shift in grading policy centered on national standards alone or is there a more balanced approach? A more balanced approach in grading and reporting student achievement begins with multiple measures. It is possible for teachers to focus students on specific learning targets without completely abandoning other assessment practices and learning activities. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2009) confirms: In educational settings a decision or characterization that will have major impact on a student should not be made on the basis of a single test ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 :: score. Other relevant information should be taken into account if it will enhance the overall validity of the decision (Brookhart, p. 8) While it may not have been the intent of the system, standards-based grading has encouraged teachers to narrow their focus on proficiency so much so that classrooms have become well-oiled machines of content mastery causing a decrease in creativity and exploration. While a standards-based grading system provides the opportunity for students to re-take tests, students are not always provided opportunities to reach beyond the proficient level by developing portfolios, completing projects, or completing alternative assessments. In order to make each benchmark and standard comparable, teachers may tend to keep the type of assessment consistent for all standards rather than adjusting assessments for the students and/or standard. The mistake of many teachers in the standards-based grading system is to funnel all students toward mastery without considering factors such as student interest and the need for enrichment. What makes an assessment authentic is the ability of the teacher to mold assessments that best reflect each unique benchmark and recognizing not all standards are best assessed through one test. Teachers need to consider their audience of students and understand each student may be able to express their understanding differently, “In architecture, the primary aim is to please the client while being mindful of the constraints. In the design of school testing, however, designers too often worry primarily about satisfying their own needs (such as the need for easy-to-test and easy-to-score results) or the ‘building codes’ (that is, the technical measurement of standards) instead of serving clients’ interest” (Wiggins, p. 103) Wiggins’ belief in alternative assessment looks at providing students with opportunities to find how they best can show their understanding ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 :; of the content in a way that is meaningful to them. In many of these types of assignments, the resulting product shows a lot more than just a student’s competency in the standard. It also displays perseverance, resourcefulness, creativity, and more. Because grades are so meaningful to students and have such a great impact on their futures, they should be given the opportunity for those grades to reflect other areas in which they can excel in the content, such as creativity and design, rather than just a proficient bar of understanding. What if teachers were to report on a student’s achievement in high-yield skills such as time management, behavior, creativity, and more separate from the student’s achievement within the standards? Is it possible for teachers to communicate with parents and future employers more than just what the student may understand about reading, writing, math, science, and social studies? In the battle between standards-based grading versus traditional grading, the success of either is built upon how each individual teacher approaches the policy. It is possible for a teacher using standards-based grading to incorporate alternative assessments, interactive assessments, and enrichment projects just as it is possible for a teacher using the traditional system to report grades that are standard-focused and driven by content mastery that communicates a clear vision of student understanding. Somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum, lies a well-balanced approach to grading student achievement. It is the responsibility of the teacher to not limit assessment practices to be narrowly defined by standards or lacking validity in reporting true achievement. Wiggins acknowledges to need for more authenticity in assessment saying, “In short, we must do a better job of teaching and assessing the construction of meaning by the student (rather than testing exclusively the student’s recall and use those meanings ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 :< presented by the teacher or textbook) and his or her thoughtful use of knowledge and skill in important contexts” (Wiggins, p. 91). What is most suitable for student learning is for the teacher to create assessments mindfully, with a focus on communicate learning targets, while simultaneously providing multiple measures of understanding through learning activities that generate 21 st century skills. Authentic assessment practices pull from both the standards-based and traditional philosophies of grading so that teachers can encourage authentic learning without narrowing the vision of schooling. ,-./0.!0,12.,30 4,5 -!.06-67/.8 9!.06/9 := References Bloom, B.S. (1984). The 2-stigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16. Brookhart, S. (2009). The many meanings of “multiple measures”. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 6-12. Charland, J., Simon, M., & Tierney, R. (2011). Being fair: Teachers’ interpretations of principles for standards-based grading. The Educational Forum, 75, 210-227. Grodsky, E., Muller, C., & Pattison, E. (2013). Is the sky falling? Grade inflation and the signaling power of grades. Educational Researcher, 42(5), 259-265. Spencer, K. (2012). Standards-based grading: New report cards aim to make mastery clear. The Education Digest, 28, 4-10. Vatterott, C. (2011). Making homework central to learning. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 60-64. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.