Standards Based Grading: SBG
The Educational Background:
Traditional grading is and has been arbitrary; what does receiving a B in Algebra II mean about what that student learned and what they can do? According to Marzano, “Why . . . Would anyone want to change current grading practices? The answer is quite simple: grades are so imprecise that they are almost meaningless.” In traditional grading, there are cases where grades get inflated by non-learning tasks, such as bringing kleenex in for the class. What does a box of kleenex have to do with student learning? Late work often affects a student’s grade but that is merely a matter of following a policy not a matter of what the student demonstrated he or she learned. If a student turned in a paper five days late but showed exceptional understanding on all aspects of the rubric, should they receive a lower grade? If a grade truly reflects what a student learned, then the fact that it was late should not really affect the grade. However, in most traditional grading policies, there are late work penalties.
While there does not appear to be an originator of Standards Based Grading (SBG), when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was implemented, Standards Based Reform evolved from that. According to the research by Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, “Many of the SBR systems that have been adopted in response to the requirements of NCLB had their origins in state and federal initiatives from the 1980s and 1990s” (2008, 2). Then, in 2009 Ken O’Connor wrote the book “How to Grade for Learning”. His book discusses “how to improve grading practices by linking grades with standards and establishing policies that better reflect student achievement...provides guidelines and practices for effectively implementing standards based grading” (O’Connor, 2009, 10). Ken O’Connor is known for his presentations about how to make grades meaningful and why that means SBG is the avenue for doing so.
'Parse the Educational Practice:
According to Tomlinson & McTighe, “Standards-based grading “involves measuring students’ proficiency on well-defined course objectives” (2006). The methodology in which SBG can be implemented in different classrooms can vary, but the theory must still be there. SBG is a process. First, specific and clear standards or learning targets need to be established. Teachers, ideally PLCs, should collaborate on what the standards are going to be. Depending on the school, subject, district, and state, the standards will most likely have to align to something. This may be Common Core, state standards, or aligning with standardized tests just to name a few. Teachers will need to ensure that the standards are measurable and broad; standards should not strictly be skill based but an emphasis on performance. Standards should also have a clear purpose.
This process will take some time because while developing, or simply establishing language of the standard that is agreed upon and universally understood, teachers need to establish proficiency criteria. The most common grading scale used for SBG is the 4.0 scale. Again, teachers can modify and personalize the scale how they want but here will be discussed the general rubric template for SBG.
|
Score 4.0 |
Exceeds knowledge beyond target learning goal. |
|
Score 3.0 |
Proficient, student demonstrates the knowledge of the learning target. |
| Score 2.0 | Approaching proficient but is inconsistent or shows some gaps in learning target |
| Score 1.0 | Shows minimal understanding of learning target. |
| Score 0.0 | No evidence of learning is provided. |
When teachers have established their standards, they will need to either use a rubric or some other tool to establish criteria for students to meet the standard. These should be specific and leave no room for subjectivity. Furthermore, the criteria should discuss achievement or progress towards the standard, nothing else.
Once standards and criteria (rubrics) are established, next is the shift in reporting out. Scores should be reported by standards not by units or chapters. For example, a student should not see a grade print out that looks like this:
Looking at Kay, she ended the class with a C; but, what does that C mean? What skills and content did she achieve well in, and vice versa, what were some areas of struggle? The simple letter grade does not tell a person much about the actual learning.
Below is a sample glimpse of a math SBG gradebook.
Looking at Cher, one can tell she has mastered both forms of Solving Systems of Equations but she is struggling with Linear Representations. Bono on the other hand, showed great weakness in Solving Systems in both methods, but is proficient in analyzing linear representations. If Bono’s grade was calculated and reported out without SBG format, he would average maybe a D (maybe, depends on how schools weigh things). A D is not a very good grade and may portray one who is weak in math. However; Bono showed proficiency in one standard and the data conveys what he has learned and what he needs to focus on.
In SBG, teachers and students are able to understand EXACTLY what a student can or cannot do and/or SPECIFICALLY what a student knows and does not know. When comparing a traditional grade reporting system with the SBG system, the learning is transparent with SBG.
The Underlying Educational Theory:
The overarching theory that lies behind Standards Based Grading is transforming the purpose of grading. Instead of grading of learning, shift to grading for learning. The purpose of grading should be to precisely communicate the student’s learning progress.
From the book Fair Isn’t Always Equal, author Rick Wormeli includes a quote by Thomas Guskey about the effects of the traditional grading process. “Low grades push students farther from our cause, they don’t motivate students. Recording a D on a student’s paper won’t light a fire under that student to buckle down and study harder. It actually distances the student further from us and the curriculum, requiring us to build an emotional bridge to bring him or her back to the same level of investment prior to receiving the grade.” It is more common to use grades as a motivator for students to perform well and achieve at a higher rate; however, research has shown this to not be entirely true. Here is a link to a TED talk that dives into different research about intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. The conclusion of the talk is : “Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and purpose,versus carrot and sticks, and who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout” (Pink, 2009).
Standards Based Grading changes the purpose of grades and emphasizes the learning. More often than not, a student attaches emotion and a measure of self-worth to a letter grade. This is what traditional grading perpetuates. However, if the letter grade and ambiguity is eliminated and a measure of progress towards a goal is put in place, focus on learning evolves. Furthermore, with SBG there is an avenue for meaningful communication between the student and teacher about the learning, not simply the grade. Matt Townsley discusses the positive effects SBG has on student learning:
“The relationship between student and teacher is fundamentally changed as students gain understanding of what working with standards requires and take ownership of learning, and as teachers provide the appropriate supports for learning; Assessment rubrics are explicit in what students must be able to know and do to progress to the next level of study; Examples of student work that demonstrate skills development throughout a learning continuum help students understand their own progress”.
The theme that is immersing from this is learning becomes transparent for the students. They understand what they are supposed to learn, how they are progressing towards that learning target, and a means for working towards gaps or areas of struggle.
Another underlying theory that emerges from SBG is growth mindset. I actually did my first update for this class on Growth Mindset. SBG supports the growth mindset theory in that it emphasizes learning as a progression; growth mindset is the belief that over time and with perseverance learning and mastery can occur. Growth mindset views failure as a part of the learning process; failure is part of learning and growing. SBG aligns with this philosophy of failure because it promotes learning as a progression and does not allow failure as an option. With SBG, students are constantly working towards proficiency and mastery; a student does not “fail” per se under SBG but rather simply has not reached the learning target YET. SBG promotes the opportunity to persevere and see learning as a progress and not as a end grade to achieve.
Issues of Implementation:
While the practice and theory of SBG is not directly associated with nor related to technology implementation, technology can be a tool to help support SBG. One example from a classmate’s update discusses Alt School where there are no letter grades used to assess student learning. “There are no letter grades at AltSchool. There are no desks. Students might be working in small groups, as a class, or as individuals at tables, on the carpet, in a nook. There are no weekly tests at AltSchool. The teachers and technology engineers work side by side to track and monitor student progress. Parents do not receive midterms or report cards. AltSchool has developed its own learning management system that it is piloting with its students and teachers.” As stated, this school developed its own technology system that would support and foster student progress of their learning. Everything the student is learning is connected to a standard and the technology is able to show students, parents, and teachers the learning progression of each standard.
Another connection with technology and SBG is the “how” of grade reporting. Most, if not all schools are utilizing some sort of computer based grade reporting system. These systems are most likely going to be catered towards traditional grading. While I have personal experience with different grade reporting programs, I do not believe they were the best systems to support SBG. At my old school, we did SBG with Easy Grade Pro and eSchool. Both of these systems were designed for traditional grading. To make these systems work for our SBG classes, we had to hire a programmer to do serious manipulating of the system and then it was programmed to still convert into a letter grade at the end. eSchool was frustrating more from the reporting out aspect, the way the grade printouts came were very busy and not clear. This made students following their progress extra challenging.
A classmate recommended three for SBG that I have not utilized or heard of so I decided to research and analyze their recommendations. The three SBG grade reporting systems that are going to be explored are: Active Grade, Power School, and Jump Rope. Power School is a traditional grading system that now has a SBG option. This program seems to fall along similar lines of eSchool and Easy Grade Pro, jsut a fancy conversion scale. However, Active Grade and Jump Rope are two systems designed specifically for SBG and promote the pedagogy of grading for learning, not grading of learning.
Jump Rope:
Above are two different views of what the gradebook looks like in Jump Rope. It is evident how this looks different from traditional grading in both the color scheme and bar graph summary.
JumpRope's grading and reporting tools come with an opinion: we believe in collecting data on what students have learned, as opposed to what they have done. Every score that you enter into JumpRope is aligned to a standard, and our reports are centered on standards as opposed to assessments. "Am I passing?" will soon be a question from the past; instead students will ask: "How can I demonstrate mastery on this standard?"
Active Grade:
Above are two different views of what the gradebook looks like in Active Grade. It is evident how this looks different from traditional grading in both the color scheme and bar graph summary.
ActiveGrade helps you define key learning goals for your classroom and measure student success against those goals, which creates better learners, and better teachers.
ActiveGrade's unique interface can help you understand where to tailor your instruction to the strengths and weaknesses of individual students or for the entire class. The final grade becomes a reflection of the core skills and concepts learned in Spanish class, not simply an average of test scores and assignments completed.
Critical Analysis:
Standards Based Grading has a very strong, positive approach to learning and improving education; however, in practice, it comes with several challenges. One challenge is fighting against the longstanding tradition of letter grades. For as long as structured education has been around, grades are reported out by letters; there is a universal understanding of what the letters mean. Switching the reporting system is an immense culture shock, not to mention, colleges rely on gpa for admissions. SBG in its truest form would not have a conversion scale and would simply be a long report measuring the learning progress on the learning targets for the course. However, schools need to report and hold students accountable so they will convert standard scores into a final letter and/or percentage grade. Here is an example of a high school’s conversion scale:
Ultimately, at the end of the course, SBG reverts back into a traditional grading format. Unless the county transforms the traditional educational system, there most likely is no way to avoid this conversion back to traditional grade reporting.
Another challenge that occurs when implementing SBG is homework/participation/formatives are not a part of a student’s grade. With SBG, the grade is only reflecting proficiency on a specific learning target. Teachers, parents, and students believe that homework is valuable and should be counted for a grade; this goes against the belief of SBG. Homework and other forms of formative assessment are designed for practice, not for measuring learning. Therefore, it should not be counted towards the summative grade. Be that as it may, when homework does not count for a grade, sometimes students are less inclined to complete it. When students do not complete their homework, their summative grade can suffer due to a lack of practice.
On the other hand, this is the driving force and opportunity for the teacher to shift the classroom culture to a positive, learning environment. The teacher needs to communicate the difference between formative and summative assessment and emphasize learning as a process that occurs over time. Furthermore, the teacher should discuss differentiated instruction and embrace diverse learners. Teachers need to be transparent with their students and give them regular feedback on their learning. This is one of the greatest strengths of SBG. Instead of being in a traditional mindset of assigning homework every night for practice; the teacher should design meaningful, formative assignments where they are able to give students feedback. It should not be about quality, but about quantity. The teacher needs to reevaluate the purpose of the work and answer the question: “how is this going to help my students in the learning process?”
A third challenge with SBG is separating the behavior from the grade. Without a thought, it is a common behavior management technique to punish student behavior by deducting points off in the gradebook. Behavior can also include classroom participation or refusing to do an assigned task. A teacher may want to again deduct points for the day or hand out a zero for the assignment. Now, if the assignment was a summative assignment that measured student’s learning of a target and they refused to do it, a zero would be warranted here because they did not show any evidence of learning. However, if it was a formative assignment, a student should not be punished for not doing what is asked if it is not measuring their learning. This is often a hard pill for teachers to swallow.
Once again, this challenge connects back to the classroom environment created by the teacher. Students are not always motivated by grades, even those that are extrinsically motivated, as mentioned earlier, it will not have a long lasting effect. STudents will need time to adjust to a new mindset that if they misbehave it will have an effect on their learning because they are missing out on the instruction but not because they lose 3 points for misbehavior. This is a mindshift that will take time to develop, but again, is a challenge for teachers to take on.
No penalty for late work is another pill that is hard to swallow; this goes along the next challenge of not being able to incorporate work habits into the grade. Teachers will argue that if they accept work late, it is teaching students that it is acceptable to disregard deadlines. This can be a damaging habit for to carry into the workforce or college, where they most likely will get penalized for late work. Teachers will further argue that part of their job is to teach students effective study habits, and how to be a “good” student. Consequently, they would factor study skills or habits into the summative grade as a motivator to engage in such behavior. Yet again, these things cannot go into a student’s summative grade. As with the other challenges, addressing this one comes with having conversations with students, being open and honest with them about why these skills and habits are important. Students need to understand why these behaviors are important, so that they truly become a part of who they are. If they simply act a certain way because it may affect their grade, they are not truly inheriting ways of being; they are doing it for the reward.
The final challenge with SBG is time. It takes an enormous amount of time to fine tune the standards. Then, it takes time to develop criteria and rubrics for meeting those standards. Lastly, once the teacher assesses students based on the criteria, then they need to have conversations with students, re-design instruction based on assessment results, and give students opportunities to make progress towards the standards. On the other hand, if all of those things are put into place, learning is truly transformative. The biggest strength that comes out of implementing SBG is the data collection teachers get about their students learning. “Teachers are able to reflect on instruction and evaluate if their lessons truly met the needs of their learners. Standards-based grading allows me to clearly communicate with students about why they did poorly on the previous assessment, and to offer them a chance to work harder toward gaining mastery of the material and demonstrating their ability to achieve.” (Work, 2014). The Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment cycle truly become aligned when SBG is correctly implemented. The learning targets are clear for both the teacher and students, and the assessment is directly aligned to those learning targets so that data is easily collected about what the students know and do not know. Then, instruction is student-based upon those results. It does take time, A LOT of time, but if it improves student learning, is it not worth it?
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Below is a summary chart comparing traditional and standards based grading.
The first thing one should do is reflect upon their own grading practices.
What are the principles on which your grading practices are based?
What were or are the main influences on your grading principles & practices? How do these compare with other teachers at your school?
Standards based grading is redefining the traditional meaning and purpose for a grade. I recommend that upon reflection, one reevaluates their own grading policies and thinks about how and what a shift just a step towards SBG would encompass. Here are Ken O’Connor’s 15 fixes for fixing “bad” grading practices. Reflect upon these fixes and identify ones that you do and make a goal to remediate them.
References:
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2008, December). Standards-Based Reform in the United States: History, Research, and Future Directions. Rand Corporation, 1-77. Retrieved September 28, 2016, from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2009/RAND_RP1384.pdf
Marzano, R. J., Transforming Classroom Grading, ASCD, Alexandria, VA, 2000, 1
O'Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight Professional Development.
Pink, D. (2009, July). The puzzle of motivation. Retrieved October 09, 2016, from http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en#t-398843
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTigh, J. (2006, January). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Retrieved October 09, 2016, from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/105004.aspx
Townsley, M. (2014, November 11). What is the Difference between Standards-Based Grading (or Reporting) and Competency-Based Education? « Competency Works. Retrieved October 09, 2016, from http://www.competencyworks.org/analysis/what-is-the-difference-between-standards-based-grading/
Work, J. (2014, December 04). 3 Peaks and 3 Pits of Standards-Based Grading. Retrieved October 09, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/peaks-pits-standards-based-grading-josh-work
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn't always equal: Assessing & grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, Me.: Stenhouse.