Elements of Grading. Douglas Reeves
“Two plus two equals four, and we really don’t need to take a vote on whether that statement is agreeable to everyone.”
In a world subject to relativism in every sense—political, moral, and even scientific and mathematical—certainty seems elusive, particularly in regard to controversial topics like education practices. Nevertheless, there is an appropriate place for the definitive language of mathematics in our approach to grading. For example, when teachers use the mean, or average, to calculate a student’s grade, they reach a different mathematical result than when they focus on the student’s final scores. When teachers use a 0 on a one hundred–point scale, they reach a different mathematical result than when they use a 0 on a four-point scale. These are not matters of conjecture but simple calculation.
The first step toward reconciling debate in education, or any other matter of public policy, is for the rhetorical combatants to be intellectually honest about their claims and capable of distinguishing among what they believe, what they see, what they hear from colleagues, and what they have learned from the evidence.
Conversations About Change
There are two ways to begin a conversation with classroom teachers and building administrators about changing practices. The first is characterized by one-sided enthusiasm. Zealous advocates who adopt this method typically have goodwill, good research, and good intentions, but their audiences soon move from boredom to frustration to active opposition. What began as a collegial conversation focused on questions of practical application ultimately becomes entrenched opposition. Yesterday’s reasonable challenge becomes tomorrow’s grievances. Thoughtful dialogue and professional conversation are transformed into rancor. Colleagues become opponents, with each side wondering, “Haven’t we been down this road before?”
The second way to begin the conversation is with a question, not a statement. Rather than telling teachers and administrators what they need to do, we can ask, “What prevents you from being the very best teacher and administrator you can be?” The following are common responses to that question.
• “The kids don’t care.”
• “The parents don’t care.”
• “Many of the students don’t come to school.”
• “Students who do come to school are disengaged, inattentive, preoccupied, and angry.”
• “Administrators don’t support teachers who demand quality student work.”
• “Leaders at the system level tolerate poor teachers and administrators.”
• “Colleagues won’t cooperate and collaborate.”
The list could go on and on. Nevertheless, it is definitely a question worth asking.
This book is not a prescription. Rather, it poses a number of important questions and suggests the creation of boundaries. For example, in athletics, each contest has boundaries. No strategy, no matter how creative, is acceptable if it takes place outside of those boundaries. Officials, coaches, and athletes know the boundaries of their sport well. Within them are the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Outside of them is the zone of irrelevance. The elements of this book act as four essential boundaries for grading—remember the useful acronym FAST.
1. Grades must be fair. Gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, political attitudes, or other factors unrelated to academic performance must not influence grades.
2. Grades must be accurate. Grades must reflect the student’s performance.
3. Grades must be specific. Grades not only are an evaluation but also feedback. Students, parents, and teachers must understand the grade and also have sufficiently specific information so they can use the teacher’s feedback to improve student performance.
4. Grades must be timely. While there is, inevitably, a final grade that appears on an official transcript, particularly in secondary school, that is but a postscript to a very long story. Much earlier than the final grade, students should receive a steady stream of feedback, similar to what athletes receive from coaches, designed not merely to evaluate their performance but to improve it.
Fairness, accuracy, specificity, and timeliness—these elements are the criteria for building effective grading polices, and these are the topics explored in the pages of this book.
What’s New in the Second Edition
Since the first edition of Elements of Grading, the controversies surrounding grading practices have not been resolved but rather have escalated. The development of Twitter and the active international participation in #SBLChat (for standards-based learning) has highlighted the difficulty in establishing systemwide reform. The common themes in these discussions are that teachers who are committed to standards-based grading are largely working in isolation in an environment actively hostile to grading reform. Therefore, in the second edition, I have not only added more about the grading debate but also who should be engaged in that debate. This not only includes teachers and administrators but also parents, skeptics, and the general public.
Moreover, we must be aware of grading reform ideas that have failed—the “minimum 50” is a good example of this. In an attempt to save students from the impact of a 0 on a one hundred–point scale, some schools have tried to implement a minimum grade of 50. However, this policy runs into almost universal opposition because, critics reason, “Why should a student earn fifty points for doing nothing? If I came to work half the time, I wouldn’t get half the pay!” The second edition provides more simple and palatable reforms that answer the most basic challenges of critics: students can continue to receive letter grades; they still have a transcript for admission to college; parents have clear and accurate information about the academic progress of their children; and teachers have the professional discretion to award grades based on student proficiency rather than a computerized conclusion that may be far from the teacher’s judgment.
The second edition also includes sections on the impact of technology on grading practices, grading in the context of the Common Core State Standards, student engagement, and grading for students with special needs. Finally, this edition offers an international perspective, as public and private educational systems around the globe are dealing with the issue of improving grading policies. I hope that this book provides a source of study and guidance for faculties and administrators as they seek the best grading solutions for their schools and education systems.
Chapter 1
EFFECTIVE GRADING IN A STANDARDS-BASED WORLD
This is the paradox of standards-based education: education systems around the world widely accept standards in theory. The official embrace of standards-based education has grown dramatically, from only a dozen states adopting standards to all fifty states, along with many education systems around the world, including Norway, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Mexico, Chile, and Canada, to name a few (International Society for Technology in Education, 2015). While the standards certainly vary, including academic, technology, and teacher qualification standards, the principle of standards-based reform is global in scope.
There are surely differences regarding which standards to adopt, with much contention about the use of Common Core State Standards. Nevertheless, the central controversy involves which standards to adopt, not whether or not standards should be adopted. Despite the illusion of consensus about the value of academic standards, the reality is that standards in practice—particularly in the ways that teachers evaluate students—have been stubbornly indifferent to change. Education systems embracing 21st century standards with breathless enthusiasm continue to implement grading practices firmly rooted in the 19th century.
This chapter explores what standards mean for grading practices and policies, considers the advantages and criticisms of standards, and offers some practical advice about using standards to influence improved grading practices.
What Standards-Based Education Really Means
There