Ugh! Grading.

Recently, I participated in an online workshop hosted by the New Hampshire Learning Initiative focused on “Grading for Equity and Deeper Learning.”

In their post-workshop post, the New Hampshire Learning Initiative shared the following:

“In our post-COVID world, New Hampshire educators in schools around the state have been heavily engaged in conversations over the need for grading practices reform. The global pandemic highlighted a number of shortcomings in schools, including the ways in which educators collect evidence of learning and report progress to students and families – grading practices are needed that support deeper learning and equity to promote high levels of achievement for all. Competency-based grading shifts students’ mindsets from ‘getting it done’ to “how well did I show what I know.’”

“To do this, educators must change their thinking…and recognize that ‘the way things have always been’ may not be good enough anymore. To engage in this work takes courage and an open mind, but educators should know that it is supported by a large body of research. The New Hampshire Learning Initiative urges educators to consider the following key points when making grading decisions:

Grades represent to what extent and to what degree a student has learned something. Grading is an exercise in judging student evidence against clearly defined criteria on well-defined rubrics. Teachers, working collaboratively, develop rubrics by having conversations about what it means to reach proficiency for a particular competency, standard, or skill. They then discuss what it means to be below or above proficient. Rubrics are continually calibrated as teachers use them to review student work. Rubrics also serve to provide students (and parents) with very clear descriptors for what they need to do to reach proficiency and beyond.

Grades are not time-bound. Students learn at different rates and the amount of time it takes a student to learn something should not influence or impact their grade. Time restrictions for grades often exist because it is more convenient for the system to track learning for large groups of students. This practice comes at the expense of promoting a growth mindset, a major driver in student engagement. Students should be provided regular, timely feedback. If they need additional time to master a skill, the system must find a way to provide them with that. Failure to do this is a failure of the system, not the student.

Grades are based on what students learn, not what they earn. They are not based on points that can be ‘taken away’ due to student misbehaviors (such as turning in an assignment ‘late’). Teachers must provide students with accurate and explanatory feedback. For example, ‘I wasn’t able to give you any grades this week because you didn’t give me any evidence of your work or thinking on this assignment. I would like to meet with you and talk through what prevented you from turning something in. Until this time, I have entered an incomplete grade for now, but this will change once you have given me something to review.’ Poor grades, or a lack of evidence must trigger a response from the teacher for an opportunity to reread, relearn, revise and refine. This is what effective teaching and learning is all about. Academic behaviors, often called success habits or work study practices, are incredibly important but must be reported as separate grades. Furthermore, educators must find ways to instruct students on work study practices. How else will they improve in these important, life-long skills? To commingle academics with academic behaviors is a slippery slope because doing so then does not allow all to know how to support students as they work towards competency.

Achievement levels, and thus, grading practices, must be fair, consistent, and calibrated across a school. Regardless of which educator is grading an assignment, the grade assigned should be consistent educator to educator. The only way to achieve this goal is to develop systems and structures to ensure that educators have time and a process to discuss in meaningful ways student work and rubrics. There is no shortcut for this.”

I would like to visit New Hampshire schools to see how their “grading for learning and equity” is really going. If those schools are able to execute on what is laid out above, more power to them.

My experience tells me that most schools are filled with independent contractors called teachers. Each teacher decides their own grading practices, and most aren’t interested in developing course or department expectations when it comes to evaluating learning.

Few teachers, especially on the secondary level, are interested in taking the time to develop quality rubrics for learner evaluation. Less are interested in training young learners how to build their own rubrics so that the young learner themselves begin to own their own learning.

As a school principal, I remember the complaints coming from my registrar whenever teachers assigned “incompletes” to students who did not properly demonstrate an acceptable level of learning within a grading period. “Incompletes” mucked up the grade reporting system, making it difficult on administrative staff, teachers, and parents alike.

Most teachers did not offer quality feedback, again mostly on the secondary level, because of the number of students assigned to them. It was, and is, easier to assign a number or letter to a student’s work, instead of figuring out what feedback might sound like to a young learner’s efforts.

I’m skeptical that “grading for equity and deeper learning” can occur in traditional schools, New Hampshire notwithstanding. It’s going to take a new system of learning in order for “equity and deeper learning” to have a chance.

Til tomorrow. SVB