Why Grading Reform is Stuck
Douglas Reeves
Are your grading reform efforts stuck? We can help you get meaningful change this year.
To partner with Creative Leadership Solutions and Dr. Douglas Reeves, contact service@creativeleadership.net.
The standards movement is now more than two decades old, yet the fundamental premise of standards – that students should be evaluated based on their performance rather than comparison – remains mired in controversy. The failure of grading reform is often a self-inflicted wound, with school systems falling victim to fads, unnecessary complexity, and silly controversies. Here are five ways to get grading reform unstuck.
First, focus on values. However, many teachers may disagree on the details of grading policies; almost all can agree on the fundamental values of accuracy and fairness. Accurate evaluations depend not on the idiosyncratic opinions of the evaluator but rather on transparent criteria on which students are judged compared to an objective standard. It is not about sympathy, effort, or parent advocacy but only about objective performance. This is how we evaluate pilots, drivers, and brain surgeons; it is the standard by which we should evaluate students.
Fairness is about consistency – the same student performance should receive the same grade. In research I have conducted around the world, the same student with the same performance – homework, quizzes, and tests – can receive grades from A to F, all as a result not of student performance but rather based on the idiosyncratic grading practices of the teachers. It is as if at every basketball game that students play, the height of the basket, the shape of the ball, and the number of players on the court are constantly changing. When students know that a game is unfair, they simply stop playing the game. That happens in schools every day when students conclude that grading policies vary wildly from one hour to the next.
Second, reject unnecessary complexity. Parents, teachers, and students deserve transparent grading systems. Yet many grading reform advocates have proposed multi-page report cards with Byzantine complexity that are burdensome on teachers and alienating to parents. These standards-based report cards convey the false impression that every standard is of equal value when teachers know that a few key standards are far more important than others. However well-intentioned complex grading systems may be – power laws, weighted averages, and the like - all parents want to know is, in the wonderful words of University of Kentucky Professor Thomas Guskey, “How’s my kid doing?” There are wonderful examples in most schools of clear and specific grades, including coding classes in which every mistake is an opportunity for learning, and the completed code, not the average of mistakes, determines the final grade.
Third, use “inside-out” change rather than top-down mandates. In the most successful grading reform initiatives, teachers drive the improvements in the system not by listening to speeches or doing book studies but rather by demonstrating that simple changes in grading lead to profoundly positive impacts for students, teachers, and schools. When, for example, teachers stop using the average to determine final semester grades but rather evaluate students based on student performance on state standards at the time the grade is awarded, the results include dramatically reduced failure rates and, as a result, new electives and advanced courses, improved classroom climate and culture, reduced absenteeism, and improved discipline.
Fourth, focus on performance, not points. The stereotype of grading reform is that it is all about reducing the failure rate with grade inflation. When grading policies re-focus on the values of accuracy, transparency, and fairness, there may be fewer failures, but there are also fewer A’s because, at long last, “A” grades mean something aside from extra credit, parental pressure, gamesmanship, and student negotiation. At the end of every semester, the controversy from the classroom to the principal’s office to the boardroom is on the difference between an 89 and a 90, the former which is a B and the latter which is an A. This turns students into mindless grade-grubbers and teachers into accountants. Effective grading reform focuses on performance – B-level performance is about making a clear claim, supported by evidence with citations (and yes, this can start in 3rd grade), followed by a compelling conclusion. “A” – level performance has a claim and counter-claim, evidence, and contrasting evidence, and then an evaluation of the credibility of the evidence to come to a compelling conclusion. In brief, the difference between an A and B is not about points, but about rigor.
Fifth, stop pointless and unnecessary arguments. Many grading changes have focused on a change from letters (A to F) to numbers (4 to 1). Parents and students ask, “But what is it really?” The fundamental values of accuracy and fairness are far more important than the nomenclature of letters and numbers. Other controversies, such as the “minimum 50” and endless retakes are all rendered irrelevant if we simply empower teachers, and not computer algorithms, to evaluate students based on their performance on academic standards.
Douglas Reeves is the author, most recently, of Fearless Classrooms: Building Resilience and Psychological Safety for Students, Staff, and Communities and Fearless Grading: How to Improve Achievement, Discipline, and Culture Through Accurate and Fair Grading. Doug is available at Douglas.Reeves@CreativeLeadership.net and 781 710 9633.
To partner with Creative Leadership Solutions and Dr. Douglas Reeves, contact service@creativeleadership.net.