A Minneapolis middle school has done away with traditional grades in favor of “standards-based grading.” Rather than hand out traditional letter grades based on homework, tests, extra-credit and participation, the school grades students “solely on how well they understand the material.”
The system at Hazel Park Middle School tells students at the beginning of a unit what they will have to prove they know by the end. The proof can come in the form of tests, or other projects “such as writing newspaper articles or making posters.” A “4″ means they exceed proficiency; zero means they can’t demonstrate any understanding of the skills. If a student gets a 2 or less on a test or project, notes the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, they can work with the teacher to see where they went wrong, and take the test again until it’s clear they understand the material.
Under the new system, fewer students are earning top grades–or the worst, the paper reports. Students who know how to “game the system” by faithfully turning in homework and extra credit, even though they don’t understand the material, are having a harder time, says Kelly Detzler, a geography teacher who helped set up the program.
“There are a lot of kids who don’t know how to play the game of school, but they’re proficient. We were seeing a high rate of kids failing because they didn’t do their homework, even though they understood the material.”
The paper notes Hazel Park “hasn’t done well on Minnesota’s tests in recent years: In 2008, less than half the students in seventh and eighth grade were proficient on the state math and reading tests.”
There’s nothing inherently wrong with using demonstration of mastery as the basis for grading. As a teacher I experimented with a system that allowed some of my students to work independently on math skills, but they demonstrated proficiency through tests and quizzes on individual state standards. I’ll confess to a bias against relying to heavily on independent projects, which are harder to gauge objectively. There’s nothing wrong with a test, if it’s well-designed.
If you are in favor of national standards, why would there be any question whatsoever about whether standards should be the basis of assessment? What’s the argument for grades other than tradition and expediency?
Comment by Tom Hoffman — February 24, 2009 @ 9:20 am
I’d be really cautious about using projects as the primary assessment tool unless they are done in school. Some parents can resist the temptation to be “supportive.”
At the middle school level I see the logic in counting homework fairly heavily in grades; middle schools are generally trying to teach time management skills as well as study skills, and I think there’s value to that.
Comment by Rachel — February 24, 2009 @ 10:51 am
The article and the arguments are proof that what goes around comes around. In the very early 90s, outcome-based education was the hot new model: prove you’ve learned it, or go back until you’ve reached an acceptable level of proficiency. Parent reporting was a list of outcomes–kids didn’t know it, sort of knew it, had mastered it. The words are different but the processes and intentions described in the article are exactly the same. And on the face of it–outcomes-based learning and reporting is exactly what we say we want to happen: credible measurement of learning rather than hoop-jumping or gaming the system.
And what happened with outcomes-based education(and remember–this was a decade before NCLB)? Well, it got shot down violently and publicly in a couple of well-publicized “parent revolts” and kind of quietly faded from the scene, replaced by more emphasis (and argument) around “standards” (variously defined) and core curriculum and multiple measures.
My extremely cynical take on grades: parents don’t want to know what their kids really know, understand and can do. They want to compare their kids’ numbers (or grades) to other people’s kids’ numbers and grades. I thought the article was unintentionally funny, frankly–but that’s probably just more weary cynicism.
I share your reservations about capturing student learning from projects (both the worries about overly involved parents–see paragraph above–and consistent evaluation). But–I want to point out that it is also possible to game test-creation and test-taking. The inadequacies of standardized tests are well-known, but evidently we prefer them to the devil we don’t know.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — February 24, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
If students can demonstrate that they know the material but they aren’t doing their homework, that to my mind is a sign that the teacher needs to take a close look at the assignments to make sure they’re not simply “busywork”.
Comment by Crimson Wife — February 24, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Nancy:
As a parent, I am aware that there are parents who just want to know how their kid can get an A, and thereby derive some sense of affirmation for their parenting efforts. Personally, I am not moved by grades–because they mean so little. If you have to sit down with a teacher to understand that a low grade was the result of homework not turned in, despite good numbers on tests, the grade is not communicating much that is useful. I am not opposed to middle schools-or others-teaching time management, responsibility, or any of the other things that they say they are teaching by giving completion grades on homework–but I would urge them to then show me by what means they are teaching it. What re-teaching or intervention strategies are they using when a student isn’t getting it?
I would suggest that far more often, the homework completion grade is a part of a power struggle between the teacher and student (and sometimes the parent as proxy). Teachers can establish their power by issuing grades, and try to bend students to their will (do the homework that I assign) through giving good or bad grades. To fold these into a report card grade–meant to communicate something about how well the learning is going–just confuses the information. I have preferred report cards (on the few occasions that they were used in this way) that give the kind of information that Nancy describes. My son, in kindergarten, had a report card that described abilities such as being able to count/recognize numbers, recognize letters of the alphabet–as well as the hated coloring in the lines (he still prefers to draw with pencil). It was clear, I understood the work that needed to be done–it communicated.
Comment by Margo/Mom — February 25, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Well, you’re in the distinct minority here, Margo.
I agree with you. I could never understand why parents wouldn’t appreciate a list of all the things kids are supposed to learn in a marking period, with an assessment of their progress on each item.
But believe me, they didn’t–not in my school, and not in schools across the country. Parents said they “understood” grades, although all the things you pointed out are true–what constitutes a grade is pretty much a crapshoot, from teacher to teacher. And if you ever want to have a hair-tearing experience, sit in a faculty meeting where the principal has given teachers the task of designing a uniform breakdown of what goes into assigning a grade. So that parents will have a “clear understanding” of how much homework is worth, how much tests are worth, etc.. Been there–and can tell you that no matter how desperately some people want to standardize (one might say “teacher proof”) grading, any teacher can game the system to make grades come out the way they feel them, in their hearts.
What I thought was funny in the article was the parent protest about kids needing to get accustomed to grades, because they’d be getting them in high school. The “they’ll be doing this in the future” argument is a perennial one in schools. You know, first graders shouldn’t have recess because they won’t get one at the middle school, etc.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — February 25, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Elementary school report cards in NYC are “standards based” to some degree; children are scored 1 to 4 in various categories. In theory, it’s a good idea, but in practice it just invites different kinds of games. For example teachers ar often instructed not to give 3s and 4s in the first two marking periods because “no one can be at or above grade level until the end of the year.” We also are frequently told to mark all children as “promotion in doubt” until the test results are back since that’s what determines promotion.
I also have seen other variations of the “they’ll be doing this in the future” argument. Here’s my favorite: I wrote an op-ed for the NY Sun a year ago suggesting that if parents are concerned about the impact of testing (and test prep) on their children, the answer is simple: Boycott the test. Tell the principal don’t bother with test prep, because our children will be staying home that day.
It was amazing how many parents — the same ones who complained about the testing — said “Well, yes, but my kid can’t get into his first choice middle school without if he doesn’t score well on the test.”
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — February 25, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
This blog feed is completely right. Students that only see tests come their way with no real accomplishments or outcomes, will only fail the standard. Students at any age with goals and dreams will succeed much more than students without. I love this video http://thereflectiveteacher.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/bye/#comment-50556
that really excites people to the opportunity that dreams can push people to accomplish.
Azahar (EducationDynamics)
Comment by Azahar — February 26, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
The idea of a system grading a student based on real knowledge rather then on assignments is simply wonderful, being a person who could never keep up with all the home work given in school myself, on the other hand, I do believe that at some extent out-of-school assignment can teach a young person about responsability and consequence, notwithstanding the fact that it is a good idea to prize knowledge for what it is, we have to value the work done outside the classroom. “Equilibrium” comes to mind.
Comment by Gustavo Gutierrez — February 27, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
This school is actually in St. Paul, Minnesota, not Minneapolis! They are different school districts.
It will be interesting to see how the new approach affects test scores.I, too, remember outcome based education (OBE). There are just not enough hours in a day to make sure each student individually meets each standard. It’s a bookkeeping nightmare. Teachers tried it in our school and gave up after one quarter.
And I can assure you, from direct experience that a poster of “My Favorite Number” does not demonstrate proficiency in 6th grade numeration.
Finally, how about this metaphor:
“There are a lot of employees here who don’t know how to play the game of work, but they’re proficient. We are seeing a high rate of employees failing because they didn’t do the work they were told to do, even though they understood how the business runs. If they just make us a nice poster showing how the business works, we’ll know they are proficient. After all, work is just a game, we don’t expect anyone to actually do it.”
Comment by Susanne Meredith — February 28, 2009 @ 5:53 pm