Page 58 - EdViewptsSpring2020

poor achievement of many bright stu- weighted tests at 50% and written the teachers generated questions
dents, many of whom were identified reports at 0%, while the language arts they believed were about the content
as special education students. The department weighted tests at 20% and taught but were not necessarily linked
faculty recognized that these students written reports at 30%. Quizzes were to the curriculum standards intended.
significantly underperformed com- weighted at 20%, homework at 20% There was also no clear delineation
pared to their peers, even when they and class participation at 10% in both of levels of achievement of the
were able to demonstrate their under- departments. standards. There was not a system in
standing of concepts. It was the homework and class partici- place for teachers to collaborate and
A grading committee was assembled pation in the special education area, develop high-quality assessments
to examine the problem and recom- however, that caught the attention that were linked to the standards and
mend solutions. We relied heavily on of the faculty. The special education appropriately leveled.
the work of Ken O’Connor, A Repair students frequently forgot or lost home-
Kit for Grading (2011); Myron Dueck, work and received grades of 0 in that The special education
Grading Smarter Not Harder (2014); category. Additionally, ADD/ADHD was students frequently for-
Cathy Vatterott, Rethinking Grading a common element that caused this
(2015); Douglas Reeves, Elements population to score poorly on class par- got or lost homework
of Grading (2011), Rick DuFore, ticipation since they were frequently off and received grades
Whatever it Takes (2004); and Robert task or unable to follow the flow of the of 0 in that category.
Marzano, Classroom Assessment and classroom conversation. Thirty percent
Grading that Work (2006) and Trans- of their grade before factoring in test Additionally, ADD/
forming Classroom Grading (2000). achievement was below a score of 50, ADHD was a common
Discussions of the ideas put forth by failing. Their poor work habits caused
these authors helped our committee them to fail before achievement could element that caused
lay the foundational groundwork that even become a factor in their grade. this population to score
supported the changes we proposed. The 100-point scale and the 0 grade poorly on class partici-
What We Discovered: were difficult hurdles to overcome. pation since they were
Once a score of 0 was given for an
A Very Rigid System assignment, it was virtually impossible frequently off task or

The committee took an objective look for a student to attain a passing unable to follow the
at our grading practices and identified average. Take, for instance, a test. A flow of the classroom
several flaws. First, our students were student is absent and does not make
not only graded on achievement of up a missed test. The grade entered conversation.
the content standards but on the work into the computer system is a 0. If
habits they demonstrated. Second, the on the other four tests in the marking
use of the 100-point scale and the score period the student scores consistently What We Implemented:
of “0” negatively skewed grades. Third, in the 80’s with scores of 80, 82, 85, Fairness for Each Student and
students had no opportunity to improve and 88, what is his/her average for Accountable to Standards
their performance after an assessment. tests? Sixty-seven (67). The student
Finally, the assessments used to has a D average, and in our system, At PCSST, we made significant
generate scores for students were not below 70 is an F. Rather than a B changes to our grading system to
clearly correlated to the standards in the average demonstrated on the other address these issues and create a
curriculum or the instruction provided. four tests, the student has an F. system that was individually beneficial
to students and held them account-
As educators, we are bound by our Time limitations were another drawback able for achievement of the content
technology and often enslaved by it. to the grading system. Students were standards taught. First, we eliminated
Looking at the first issue, the faculty not afforded time periods established any score that did not refer directly to
determined that our gradebook in accordance with their unique needs a core content standard. Since there
software required teachers to create in which to improve their performance. was no standard for doing homework,
an omnibus grade made of multiple Learning was time limited. If students that would not be part of the achieve-
components. Not much has changed did not master the content by the time ment grade. This was considered
about this system over the course of of the test, their scores were poor. formative work and not gradable for
my career until this committee went to There was no mechanism to redo summative achievement. Similarly,
work. What went into the gradebook work unless provided at the will of the class participation was not a stan-
were a series of scores for tests, teacher. Everyone was expected to dard, so it, too, was eliminated from
quizzes, written reports, homework achieve on the same time schedule. the grading system. Since these are
and class participation. Each category Finally, the connection between still significant work habits that impact
was weighted differently by each assessments and curriculum was not student performance, they did remain
department based on the emphasis highly correlated. In examining tests part of the report card system but were
determined by the department. For and quizzes, it became clear that not part of an achievement grade.
instance, the math department heavily

Educational Viewpoints -56- Spring 2020