1

Page:

2. How do standards based grading and reporting differ from traditional

grading and reporting methods?

3. How does a standards based report differ from a report card?

4. How will standards based reporting influence how teachers maintain

grade books?

5. How will teachers at each grade level determine levels of proficiency

quarterly and at year’s end?

6. How might standards based grading work to address issues relevant to

student frustration and stamina?

7. How can I help parents use standards based grading and reporting in

service to their children?

8. As we plan to reform our reporting practices and report card, what

important considerations should we attend to and what steps might we

follow?

9. Where can I learn more about standards based grading and reporting?

A N G E L A S T O C K M A N

Drafted by Angela Stockman, 2014. This document is protected by a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License

WNY Education Associates

WNY Young Writer’s Studio 3062 Delaware Avenue

Kenmore, NY 14217

Phone: 716-418-3730

Web: angelastockman.com

Email: stockmanangela@gmail.com

S T A N D A R D S B A S E D G R A D I N G A N D R E P O R T I N G

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

2

Question:

How do standards based grading and reporting differ from traditional grading and reporting methods?

Answer:

Standards based reporting is criterion-referenced reporting. It measures students against specific attributes of quality and predetermined performance levels. They are often defined by detailed rubrics and scoring guides. In New York State, standards based grading typically reveals how well individual students are progressing in their efforts to meet the Common Core Learning Standards, in addition to other locally defined standards. Teachers establish common practices for capturing evidence and tracking student growth throughout the year. The methods and formulas used to document and analyze evidence, determine levels of proficiency, and populate the standards based report are common as well.

Traditional Grading reveals how well individual students perform on summative assessments and class assignments, often in comparison to one another. Often, grades are influenced by non-academic tasks including the completion of homework, class participation, behavior, effort, and even extra credit. They are often influenced by student performance on formative assessments as well (a practice that is less than ideal). Traditional grading methods can inspire learners and their parents to prioritize achievement over learning and growth. Report cards are common to grade levels, but the methods and formulas used to evaluate performance, determine grades, and populate the report card often vary.

The tables below provide a quick visual comparison of standards based reporting and traditional grading.

4 Exceptional

3 Proficient

2 Progressing

1 Emerging

STANDARDS BASED REPORTING

Analyzes central idea of text.

Summarizes central idea of text.

Analyzes main idea of passage.

Summarizes main idea of passage.

GRADING

A 93-100%

B 85-92.9%

C 75-84.9%

D 64.5-75.9%

Which type of reporting system best...

…..ensures that teachers, learners, and parents can pursue targeted intervention? …..ensures consistency and therefore, equity, within and between school districts? …..inspires learners to take risks and attempt new skills without fear of failure?

3

Question:

How does a standards based report differ from a report card?

Answer:

A standards based report is a document that communicates how well an individual learner is progressing in relation to agreed upon standards and/or the sub-skills that comprise them. Performance is often determined by studying mode and/or recency rather than relying on mean. In other words, grades are not determined by averaging but instead, by noticing when a learner achieves a certain level of proficiency and/or how often. Standards based reports may also communicate when learners at a particular grade level are expected to have reached proficiency relative to standards. Behavioral performance levels are often included as well, and the descriptors, which are similar to achievement descriptors, help stake holders understand levels of proficiency and monitor this kind of growth.

Traditional report cards communicate levels of student performance by content area and in some cases, by sub-skill. Performance is often calculated by averaging grades collected from individual assignments or weighted categories of assignments. Typically, traditional report cards imply that learners are expected to reach and even exceed proficiency on their first attempts, as achieving an A or its numerical equivalent is the ideal. Behavioral performance levels are often included, and the descriptors often differ from achievement descriptors.

TRADITIONAL REPORT CARD

SUBJECT QUARTER 1 QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 QUARTER 4

MATH A B A A

SCIENCE B C F A

SOCIAL STUDIES

B B B B

ENGLISH C B B B

STANDARDS BASED REPORT Strand of the NYS Common Core Learning Standards Learners are expected to reach proficiency by Quarter 3

Q Q Q Q 1 2 3 4

I Can Read and Interpret Literature (Stories, Poems, and Plays)

I Can Read and Interpret Informational Text (Articles, Re-

1 2 3 3

search, Nonfiction Books) 2 2 3 4 I Can Recognize Print, Apply Phonics Skills, Recognize Words, and Read Fluently 3 3 3 4

I Can Speak Effectively, and I Practice Good Listening Skills

I Can Write, and I Use Proper Vocabulary and Conventions 1 1 2 3

2 2 3 3

4

Question: How will standards based reporting influence how teachers maintain gradebooks?

Photo Credit: Jump Rope, accessed February 1, 2014 via https://www.jumpro.pe/

Answer:

Rather than tracking grades according to assessment or assignment, teachers who use standards based

reporting monitor progress by standard, often over the course of time. Instead of keeping gradebooks,

these teachers keep evidence binders or use digital tools to collect and disaggregate data. Many

teachers appreciate the efficiency inherent in this kind of progress monitoring. Once free from

calculating averages, teachers have more time to study trends in performance relative to standards

and sub-skills. Color coding proficiency levels enables teachers to quickly determine which students are

progressing, which are in need of additional support, and which specific skills should be targeted.

5

Question: How will teachers at each grade level determine levels of proficiency quarterly and at year’s end?

Answer:

Proponents of standards based grading embrace the notion that proficiency must be based solely on academic achievement. Participation and effort are non-academic and while teachers may study their influence on achievement, they cannot include this data in their determination of the standards based grade. Doing so significantly clouds perceptions relevant to whether or not the learner truly met the standard under review. Similarly, using zeroes convolutes our understanding of what learners truly know and are able to do.

When determining levels of ELA proficiency on a quarterly basis, teachers who rely on standards based grading typically review each learner’s performance within each strand of the New York State English Language Arts standards one at a time. Evidence binders, aligned to the standards embedded in each strand, provide teachers ample perspective relevant to proficiency. In cases where multiple assessments of a single standard have been made, teachers may rely on mode rather than mean or median to determine levels of proficiency. Alternatively, teachers may choose to credit learners for attaining new proficiency levels the first time they do so. Both have their advantages and drawbacks.

Just as traditional grading systems enable flexibility and choice, so too does standards based grading. And just as traditional grading systems suffer from shortsighted decision making, so too does standards based grading. Regardless of the district’s choice, care should be taken to reach consensus regarding the practices, methods, and tools that teachers will use to collect and analyze data in their efforts to determine proficiency levels. Failure to do so contributes to grading and reporting systems that are arbitrary and even meaningless.

STANDARDS BASED REPORT Strand of the NYS Common Core Learning Standards Learners are expected to reach proficiency by Quarter 3

Q Q Q Q 1 2 3 4

I Can Read and Interpret Literature (Stories, Poems, and Plays)

I Can Read and Interpret Informational Text (Articles, Re-

1 2 3 3

search, Nonfiction Books) 2 2 3 4 I Can Recognize Print, Apply Phonics Skills, Recognize Words, and Read Fluently 3 3 3 4

I Can Speak Effectively, and I Practice Good Listening Skills

I Can Write, and I Use Proper Vocabulary and Conventions 1 1 2 3

2 2 3 3

6

Question: How does standards based grading work to address issues relevant to student frustration and stamina?

Answer: When learners are challenged to meet increasingly rigorous standards, reaching proficiency typically takes time. Grades often serve to punish those whose skills are still appropriately at the novice level. This type of discouragement results in unproductive levels of frustration. When learners are taught to self-assess using a four point proficiency scale, and when teachers are clear about expected levels of proficiency for the beginning, middle, and end of the school year, learners report feeling a greater sense of control and increased confidence in their potential foreventual success. Standards based grading affords learners and teachers the time and space needed to learn new things deeply, take important risks, make some mistakes, and revise their thinking and work. Challenging learners to assess changes in their frustration levels using scales like the one below supports a culture of learning as well, particularly when teachers investigate and attend to potential lcauses for shifts in frustration.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Pause at pre-determined points in the learning experience, and ask learners to reflect on these questions:

1. When did you notice your frustration level changing? 2. What caused your frustration level to change? 3. What do you need to remain at a productive level of frustration (levels 3-5)? 4. How can I help you do this?

FRUSTRATION SCALE

7

Question: How can I help parents use standards based grading and reporting in service to their children?

Answer:

When parents are included in the shift to standards based grading and reporting, and when educators take care to help parents interpret reports well, the process empowers them to help their children in a variety of important ways. Consider these possibilities:

Standards based reporting systems are aligned to specific criteria regarding quality.

Rather than receiving a general report of student progress by content area in the form of a grade, parents will know specifically which standards and sub-skills students need more support with.

Rather than creating an arbitrary ceiling for high performing learners, standards

based grading enables teachers to situate the grade level rubric or scoring chart inside a wider scale. In other words, learners reach a level 4, they can quickly can easily continue progress toward standards at the NEXT grade level. Teachers merely add columns to rubrics and dimensions or criteria to scoring charts. Likewise, it becomes much easier to support struggling learners as well. The elegance and simplicity of this modification approach is one that many parents find reassuring, particularly as they come to understand the K-12 scaffold of the Common Core Learning Standards.

Standards based grading empowers everyone—even parents—to provide high quality feedback to learners. If we know precisely where students fall in terms of proficiency and we are able to see where we need them to go next, the criteria embedded within rubrics and scoring charts enables targeted and criteria-specific conversation with learners.

Helping Parents Transition to Standards-Based Grading: Ideas to Consider

Prior to drafting, survey parents about their needs and wishes relevant to the report. Invite parents to contribute to the design of the report. Create and distribute informational fliers and VIDEOS describing the vision, process,

and procedures for SBG. See examples of videos here: http://tinyurl.com/kdnaof3 Host informational sessions that enable parents to learn more about SBG and how

your specific report card can be interpreted. Gather feedback and solicit questions from parents before, during, and after the

launch of the report card. Place the report card and evidence binder at the center of the parent-teacher

conference. Coach teachers to use the binder to inform the report so that parents leave with a criteria-specific understanding of their child’s strengths and needs.

8

Question: As we plan to reform our reporting practices and report card, what important considerations should we attend to and what steps might we follow?

Strategic Planning:

1. Identify the standards that learners should be expected to meet for each course and grade

level. What matters most? Why?

2. Establish performance indicators for each standard.

3. Determine graduated levels of quality for each standard (rely on the CCLS for lower and higher

grades to ensure alignment).

4. Establish your reporting system prior to launching a new report card.

Identify common tasks that will contribute to the standards based grade, and articulate

their alignment to the standards. Help teachers understand that standards based grades

are taken from these tasks, which are used to measure growth against a standard. Often,

these tasks live inside larger assessment moments. Demonstrate how standards

based grading requires us to study how learners are improving specific skills within a

larger assessment and not merely performance on an assessment as a whole.

Design or locate high quality rubrics and scoring charts.

Construct common evidence binders and tools for capturing data and tracking

growth.

Reach consensus relative to how the SBG will be determined. Consider the influence of

relying on mode and recency rather than mean or median.

Build teacher and leader capacity to determine standards based grades using these

common protocols and processes, and most importantly, begin critical conversations about

the potential for standards based grading to improve the quality of feedback and intervention

we provide to learners as they revise their thinking and work in order to demonstrate growth

over time.

5. Draft a report card that aligns to the data captured in the evidence binder.

6. Seek feedback on your work from those with expertise, and revise.

7. Build capacity for administrators, teachers, parents, and learners to interpret the card.

Factors that Contribute to the Difficulties in Grading and Reporting Reform

1. Those facilitating the change focus on the form of the report and the reporting system rather than

the function. 2. Leaders lack understanding of the change process. 3. Efforts center exclusively on report card reform.

Guskey, T. and Bailey, J. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

9

Question: Where can I learn more about standards based grading and reporting?

Answer: The following resources and tools contributed to my understanding of standards based grading, in addition to the texts mentioned on the last page. Compiled by Matt Townsley, this list is accessible online for easier viewing via Google Drive:

http://tinyurl.com/dy2vqac

Amundson, L. (2011). How I overhauled grading as usual. Educational Leadership 69(3).

Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10-14.

*Beatty, I. (2013). Standards-based grading in introductory university physics. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1-22.

*Brophy, T. S. (1997). Reporting progress with developmental profiles. Music Educators Journal, 84 24-27.

Campbell, C. (2012). Learning-centered grading practices. Leadership, 41(5), 30-33.

*Carey, T., & Carifio, J. (2012). The minimum grading controversy: Results of a quantitative study of seven years of grading data from an urban high school. Educational Researcher, 41(6), 201-208.

Christopher, S. (2007). Homework: A few practice arrows. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 74-75.

Clymer, J. B., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Improving the way we grade science. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 36-42.

Colby, S. A. (1999). Grading in a standards-based system. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 52-55.

*Cox, K. (2011). Putting classroom grading on the table: A reform in progress. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 67-87.

Deddeh, H., Main, E., & Fulkerson, S. (2010). Eight steps to meaningful grading. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 53-58.

Dueck, M. (2011). How I broke my own rule and learned to give retests. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 72-75.

Erickson, J. A. (2011). A call to action: Transforming grading practices. Principal Leadership, 12(1), 42-46.

Erickson, J. A. (2010). Grading practices: The third rail. Principal Leadership, 10(7), 22-26.

Erickson, J. A. (2011). How grading reform changed our school. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 66-70.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Pumpian, I. (2011). No penalties for practice. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 46-51.

*Guskey, T.R. (2013). Bound by tradition: Teachers’ views of crucial grading and reporting issues. The Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 13(1), 32-49.

Guskey, T.R. (2013). The case against percentage grades. Educational Leadership, 71(1), 68-72.

Guskey, T. R. (2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 16-21.

Guskey, T. R. (2001). Helping standards make the grade. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 20-27.

Guskey, T. R. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 670-675.

Guskey, T. R. (1994). Making the grade: what benefits students?. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 14-20.

Guskey, T.R., Jung, L., & Swan, G. (2011). Grades that mean something: Kentucky develops standards-based report cards. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 52- 57.

Guskey, T.R., & Jung, L. (2012). Four steps in grading reform. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 22-28.

Guskey, T.R., & Jung. L. (2006). The challenges of standards-based grading. Leadership Compass 4(2). Retreived from http://www.naesp.org/ resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2006/LC2006v4n2a3.pdf62.

10

Resources, Continued:

*Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment: Implications for students with special needs. Theory Into

Practice, 48(1), 53-62.

Haptonstall, K.G. (2010). An analysis of the correlation between standards- based, non-standards-based grading systems and achievement as measured by the colorado student assessment program (CSAP). (Doctoral dissertation). Available through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (3397087)

Hardegree, A. (2012). Standards-based assessment and high stakes testing: Accuracy of standards-based grading (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (3540113)

Jung, L., & Guskey, T. R. (2011). Fair & accurate grading for exceptional learners. Principal Leadership, 12(3), 32-37.

Jung, L., & Guskey, T. R. (2010). Grading exceptional learners. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 31-35.

Jung, L., & Guskey, T. R. (2007). Standards-based grading and reporting: A model for special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(1), 48-53.

*Lehman, P.R. (1998) Grading practices in music. Music Educators Journal, 84(5), 37-40.

Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.

*Melograno, V. J. (2007). Grading and report cards for standards-based physical education. The Journal Of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78 (6), 45-53.

Miller, J.J. (2013). A better grading system: Standards-based, student-centered assessment. English Journal, 103(1), 111-118.

Mohnsen, B. (2006). Assessment and Grading in Physical Education. Strategies (08924562), 20(2), 24-28.

O'Connor, K., & Wormeli, R. (2011). Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 40-44.

Pekel, K. (2013). A tale of two grades: an evaluation of Grading for Learning, a middle school grading reform (Doctoral dissertation). Retreived from http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/36771

Proulx, C., Spencer-May, K., & Westenberg, T. (2012). Moving to standards-based grading: Lessons from Omaha. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 30-34.

Reeves, D. B. (2008). Effective grading. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 85-87.

Reeves, D. B. (2011). Taking the grading conversation public. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 76-79.

Rosales, R.B. (2013). The effects of standards-based grading on student performance in algebra 2 (Doctoral dissertation). Retreived from http:// digitalcommons.wku.edu/diss/53/

*Scott, S. (2005). What's in a grade?. General Music Today, 14(3), 17-24.

Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.

*Shippy, N., Washer, B., & Perrin, B. (2013). Teaching with the end in mind: The role of standards-based grading. Journal Of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 14-16.

Souter, D.H. (2009). The nature of feedback provided to elementary students in classrooms where grading and reporting are standards-based (Doctoral dissertation). Retreived from http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_diss/62/

*Tierney, R. D., Simon, M., & Charland, J. (2011). Being fair: Teachers' interpretations of principles for standards-based grading. Educational Forum, 75 (3), 210-227.

Tomlinson, C. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Standards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational Leadership, 58(1), 6-11.

Townsley, M. (2013). Redesigning Grading―Districtwide. Educational Leadership, 71(4), 68-71.

Urich, L.J. (2012) Implementation of standards-based grading at the middle school level (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ etd/12492

Additional Texts (Books):

Guskey, T. and Bailey, J. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Guskey, T. and Bailey, J. (2009). Developing Standards Based Report Cards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.