Issue #1: Fairness.
I used a copy of my 0-4 scoring scale (still a work in progress) as an example during my presentation. As a result of viewing this example, an audience member brought up this issue: Say you are differentiating your curriculum by ability in your classroom, and a "lower-level" student receives a 4 for different work than an "upper-level" student--is this fair? And, if you do this, does this type of modified curriculum need to be noted on any grade reports that go home?
Someone in the audience responded that fair isn't always equal, as Rick Wormeli says. I believe this, because what each child needs to succeed is different (despite what people who are trying to standardize learning into a "one-size-fits-all" education will tell you). However, who says that all students have to do the same thing for a 4? I often differentiate my level 4 choices, as seen in this rubric. I think there is an underlying assumption in this question, the assumption being that, when you differentiate, there is an "easier" choice and a "harder" choice, and that somehow the easier choices aren't worth as much as the harder ones. I don't feel that this is the case--if what we perceive as an "easier" choice is challenging for those students undertaking that task, and that task is designed to help those students master the same learning goal as other students, then why shouldn't they receive a 4 for it, if it is challenging them at their current level of ability?
One of the main tenets of differentiation is that each student is challenged at their own level, and that all students within a class should be mastering the same learning targets. As Robyn Jackson puts it in her book Never Work Harder Than Your Students, the standard (or objective, or goal) is the floor, not the ceiling, and activities should be differentiated up from the standard, not up to the standard. I do understand that some classes that contain students with IEPs where the curriculum needs to be modified (in other words, where the learning goals or outcomes must be different from other students in the class in order to ensure student success). In this case, the need to note that the curriculum was modified on a report card would probably be necessary. However, for the majority of students I think most teachers see (if I'm off-base about this, let me know), this type of notation is not likely needed--if the learning activities are designed to challenge all students at their levels, and if these activities are designed to make sure all students are mastering the same learning goals. I think the key to answering the second question lies inherently in the design of the learning activities themselves. If you know your learners (which all good teachers do), then you know what will challenge students at their level to master the targets you have for your students.
Issue #2: Getting caught up in the numbers.
Another issue that was raised after seeing my example was how I tried to make my scoring fit into an existing 100-point scale. My astute audience pointed out a lot of mathematical unfairness with my system, and not one example that was pointed out isn't one I had seen when I developed it. It's hard to be fair and accurately report learning within an outdated system that was never designed to communicate anything about learning. However, since I was piloting this alone (something I did say not to do), I still had to report out my scores within the confines of the 100-point scale and the district-sanctioned grade book software.
Here's what I think I didn't explain very well:
--The percentages for each level were assigned for each standard; I think some of them were seeing it in terms of overall grade.
--I was trying to fit the standards-based scoring square peg of grading into the round hole of traditional grading. There were compromises I had to make during the year that blurred the communication of learning, such as letting the grade book my school uses average the scores for all standards in the grade book into one cumulative overall score for report card purposes.
--The conclusion about standard-based scoring to which I have come (which I didn't get a chance to say because I ran out of time) is this: True standards-based scoring that accurately informs students and parents about learning cannot be made to fit within a 100-point system. The more you try, the more crazy compromises you end up making that you have to live with and defend to various people when they point them out to you.
I really appreciate the fact that my audience was lively and intelligent, and asked questions that made me go home and really think some things through. If you want to have a go at answering these questions or spot anything I missed, please feel free to first peruse my presentation below (the examples and handouts mentioned can be found here at the bottom of the page), and then add your voice to the comments.
**Special thanks to the following wonderful educators on Twitter who took the time to fill out my survey for this presentation: @praxisofreflect@MrScottThomas@gcschmit@enzuber@chrisludwig@Mcoaty1@bel4@stephwilson78
Their feedback (I couldn't use it all, but it was all appreciated) was very effective in the presentation, and is located at the very end.