Take 2

     Should we allow students do-overs? Re-dos? Re-takes? Second chances?

     Here's one lady's answer: pretty much, yes.

     Here's one lady's reasons:

     First, you'll have to agree with me (and a bunch of educational researchers and writers) on what a grade truly signifies. A grade should denote a student's level of mastery of a standard (or standards). This is what a grade means in standards-based education. Are things like participation, attendance, effort, attitude, and responsibility important? Yes, definitely. Without a doubt. BUT, when we factor these into how we assign a grade to a student, we are muddying the waters. Now, the grade doesn't really tell us the level to which the student mastered the standard. It's trying to tell us a whole bunch of things and, most likely, failing to paint a very specific picture.

     Now, there are ways to still foster effort, responsibility, and attitude without including these factors in a grade. But, for today, let's just focus on how the above definition of a grade informs the idea of student re-dos and re-takes. If we are teaching in a differentiated classroom, we are honoring the idea that not every student is going to master a standard at the exact same time, right? So, if we give a test on day X, and some students get a D or an F on this test on day X, does that mean it's over for them? They'll never learn the concept or master the standard? If we are teaching in a differentiated classroom, we know the answer to these questions is no. Of course not. These students might master the standard with some extra support a few days or weeks from now. So, they should be given a chance at that point to demonstrate this mastery to us through a re-do. The re-do may or may not be the same exact test, but it is testing the students on the same performance standard. If they can't do it on day X, but can do it on day Y (or Z, or A...), then shouldn't their grade reflect when they can do it, instead of when they couldn't?

     Also, should the opportunity to prove mastery of a standard only be extended to students who get a D or an F? What about the student who got a B? Can't they have the opportunity, if they want it, to continue their work towards this standard and, when they've mastered it, demonstrate this to us? Should we ever turn down a student's wish to continue to work toward mastery? 

     I know there are lots of issues that arise when we start to think about changing our grading practices. And I know this one blog entry does not come even remotely close to discussing those issues. But thinking about why we give grades -- and how that "why" impacts our grading practices -- is a good starting point.

     Interested in thinking more about this? Contact me if you want to investigate your grading practices and what it would mean for your students to do re-takes. Take a look at Rick Wormeli's (2006) book, Fair Isn't Always Equal: Assessing and Grading in the Differentiated Classroom.

     OR, (shameless plug alert!) you could sign up for my summer workshop (provided you teach in the same district as me) on practical approaches to differentiation in the classroom. I promise we'll get into the idea of grading and assessing in differentiated classrooms (and much, much more!).

The G Word

Disclaimer: I am about to bring up a bunch of issues that I don't necessarily have solid answers to. Consider this post a collection of ideas in the making, not a collection of solutions (just yet, although I'd LOVE to get there someday).

     The G word. Something that for many teachers, especially those practicing or considering the practice of differentiated instruction, is becoming increasingly exasperating. Grading. There, I said it. 
     Now, there are a lot of reasons why bringing up grading with teachers might be synonymous with cursing. It can feel like a never-ending process. It can take up lots of time. True, and true. But today I want to focus on what, for me -- especially in light of my recent obsession with differentiated instruction [DI] -- is most frustrating about the traditional practice of grading.
     As I read book after book and article after article on DI, I grow more and more in love with the philosophy behind it. But this little voice in the back of my head will insist on asking questions, like "I get how teachers can teach in a DI classroom, but how can they grade in one?" I am not alone in this concern. I've had several conversations with several teachers during which they express the same concern.
     Luckily for me, I just finished reading Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design by Carol Ann Tomlinson and Jay McTighe. And when I reached chapter 8, "Grading and Reporting Achievement," I became a very excited reader. What follows is what I gleaned from the chapter, my reactions to this, and some questions I think all educators need to consider if DI is truly going to function fully as a means of providing the best education to all students.
     Here's the overall problem: traditional grading and reporting practices as we have known them for decades do not mesh well with the philosophy and practice of DI. Why not? Because traditional grading practices require teachers to keep a rank book (paper or digital) in which the perception is that teachers will record a significant number of grades for the given term. I know many teachers who fret over not having enough grades in their rank book, so, trust me, the quantitative aspect of it is something teachers focus on. Sometimes the more grades one has recorded for a term in one's rank book, the more armed they feel should they ever have to defend a particular student's grade. Now, I get all that. I've lived all that as a teacher. But in embracing DI, I've had to face the ugly reality that this doesn't make sense. Why not? The biggest factor rests in the practice of beginning to assign grades to students at the very beginning of a marking quarter and continuing throughout the quarter to add more and more grades. The issue here is that, at the end of the quarter, the teacher then averages all these grades together, culminating in one final term grade. Here's the rub: Should a student's assessments from early in a term really impact his or her final grade for that term? What if they didn't understand the material during the third week of the term (thus doing poorly on assessments) but made great strides, and had come close to mastering the material by the term's end? Perhaps this student's understanding of the material during the last week of the term looks like a B+, but, when averaged in with those early assessments, the grade for the term becomes a D+. Isn't there something wrong with this? Shouldn't a student's grade be indicative of performance on summative assessments only, summative assessments which are designed to assess what the student has finally learned by a unit's end (versus the formative assessments given prior that really should only be used to inform further instruction and goal-setting)? As Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) suggest, ". . . the student should not be penalized for failure to demonstrate mastery in the second or fourth weeks. . . . In other words, what a student learns should be more important than when he or she learns it" (p. 132). 

     I did begin this post with a disclaimer, stating that I personally have no solid solutions to these problems as of yet. I recognize that changing how quarter grades are determined and how they are reported (which is currently on a report card for most districts) would be a huge undertaking for any school or district. But, Tomlinson and McTighe, as well as grading expert Ken O'Connor, have made suggestions that I think are well worth considering.

     O'Connor (as cited in Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 132) "suggests that grades should be 'determined' from various sources of evidence, rather than 'calculated' in a purely quantitative manner." He goes on to suggest that, should averaging be required by the district, teachers should use "the median or mode -- not the mean -- as the basis for arriving at a grade." 

     Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) present a total alternative to the report card as most of us know it. They recommend that schools and districts switch to using "reporting systems that support standards and differentiation" (p. 135). Rather than using a single grade to try and report "all that we need to say about a student's learning," they propose "that at least two, and preferably three, separate factors be reported: (1) grades for achievement of goals, (2) progress towards goals, and (3) work habits." When I read this, I almost fell out of my seat. This notion is so thrilling to me. I can't think of a better way to communicate a student's individual achievement and progress, not to mention placing value on work ethic. 
     So, what do you think? I'll leave you with the questions Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) share at the beginning of this inspiring (to me, at any rate!) chapter:

How will we know that we are providing high-quality feedback to parents and students?

How might we ensure that the information we transmit in the grading and reporting process is useful in supporting the learning process?

How should we grade and report in ways that encourage learner success?

Important questions! I'd love to hear what you think, readers.