As I passed out my syllabus at the start of this school year, I explained to my students (Biology students, a mix of 9th & 10th graders) that there would be no points in my room. Instead, they would be scored (not graded) on how well they had mastered the learning objectives on a 0-4 scale. I thought I had thoroughly described the system to them in my syllabus, and we went over the rationale and some examples of why I was doing this. I told them that this was a new system to me, as I knew it was for them, and that we would be reevaluating and revising this type of scoring system throughout the school year. I emphasized that we wouldn't be "chasing points" for a good score, but we would be, instead, "chasing learning." "Does everyone understand that?" I asked. All of them nodded in agreement.
You would assume that, after 14 years of teaching, I would have known better than to think that 28 head-nods per period meant they fully understood. I let myself be bamboozled by their appearance of understanding because I so desperately wanted this standards-based scoring experiment of mine to work. Because I knew it was ultimately good for them, because it was so focused on their learning and their progress towards learning.
While my intentions were good, my implementation was abysmal. Why? Because I didn't account for what I call the "Fundamental Laws of Grading," unwritten laws that have been pounded into everyone that has gone to school since school was invented (or, at least made mandatory so children would stop taking jobs away from adults). Below is a list of the laws I violated:
Law #1: Law of Right Answers
This law can be summed up by a phrase I have heard repeatedly this year: "But I got the question right, I deserve a 4!" This law states that, for every right answer, an A shall be given. This law was driven home to me in a parent meeting I had this year, whereby a very well-intentioned parent said to me, "You have high standards--I get that. But she got them all right, she needs to get an A. She got every question right on this test and she is getting a B? Mathematically it doesn't make sense!" Of course it doesn't--because I have no points.
All of my traditionally-formatted tests (i.e., multiple choice/short answer) are written at what I term a Level 3; this means it was written to show me if the student met the standards. A Level 4 means the student would demonstrate advanced mastery—in other words, they would show evidence of the upper-level Bloom’s taxonomy skills of synthesis, evaluation, and creation. Since it’s pretty hard to assess if a student can truly create, evaluate, and synthesize using multiple choice and short answer questions, I have a separate assessment after the traditional test to assess if students have level 4 skills using the content. But this parent just wasn’t having any of that “you have to work your way up Bloom’s taxonomy” stuff from me; she just couldn’t see past the fact that her daughter had gotten all the right answers and deserved an A. What was most unsettling to me was that this parent was also a teacher.
This attitude is very closely related to the next Law of Grading, which is....
Law #2: Law of I Can't Get a B Because I Always Get an A
We all know these types of students. They are labeled “good students.” They always get "A"s. Always. No matter what. Nothing wrong with that, except they have been getting "A"s for playing the game of school so well that they can accumulate points with an academic dexterity that is almost eerie. But if you asked them what they learned a week ago, a month ago, or even a year ago, could they tell you? Could they make connections between any of the facts they will tell you after you ask them this? Some of them could, but most, I bet, could not.
When I violated this law, I basically committed identify theft. These students were used to getting "A"s for doing very little mental work. They could memorize the most information the teacher wanted repeated from the textbook and write it down on a piece of paper. For this, they got gobs of points. This got them an A—an A+, even. This makes these students feel very very good about themselves. Lather, rinse, repeat for the rest of their academic career…that is, until they were enrolled in my class. Now, I’m telling them what they have been doing to be successful their entire academic career has to change; in order to get that A that makes them feel so good, now they have to take those facts they are so good at memorizing and put them together and create something new and original. Now they have to demonstrate higher-order thinking skills to get the A. . .which has garnered me many evil looks, e-mails, and anonymous voicemails after grade reports go home. That ugly, nasty “B” is sitting in the spot next to my name rather than that beautiful, shiny “A” that makes them feel so good, and they feel robbed—because I have robbed them of a little part of their identity, what makes them unique, what helps define them and who they are. I don't mean or even want to lower student self-esteem, but we also have to consider reality here: we will never increase student achievement just by giving students "A"s for lower-level thought. Never.
Which leads me to my Third Law....
Law #3: Law of GPAs
This one is more of a commandment to teachers rather than a law, and it states that, "Thou shalt not mess with my GPA and ruin my chances of getting into a good college, having a lucrative career and having a fabulous life forever and ever, Amen.” And, believe me, this little number on a report card has a lot of students coming to me, clutching their fragile GPAs and crying foul.
I can’t really blame them for marking me as a violator on this one; after all, isn’t this how we’ve set up the system? Why do we feel this need to rank and compare students, so school becomes not about learning and creating, but about “How can I make this little number higher than other students’ little numbers?” I think we all know of stories of students (and sometimes, their parents) who map out exactly what courses they are going to take in high school--not to maximize their learning experience, but to maximize their GPAs. I know this happens, because these students and their parents tell me on a regular basis that I am ruining their student’s chances of getting into a good school because they are getting a B in sophomore Biology and it’s wrecking the entire plan for the rest of their life. That’s right, sophomore Biology is going to cause them to have a less-than-desirable life. I can't help but sigh heavily at this, but, as I said, I can’t blame them--we created the GPA monster, after all.
You know what the common denominator is, no matter which law I happen to be violating on any given day? (And I will continue to violate them all.) These academic felonies I have committed always involve students that are traditionally known as "high-achieving" students. I think it's time we asked what, exactly, are they "achieving," and why is it considered a good thing?
As I said before, my implementation of standards-based grading was/is far from perfect, but I’m learning. I'm learning that the majority of problems with implementation come from trying to change a system that has been in place far too long. I'm learning to make adjustments, compromises, and revisions (and even revise my revisions). I am learning also that standards-based grading is a fantastic idea, the specific implementation of which has to be fine-tuned to the needs of your students at your school--it won’t look the same in every school.
So, should teachers who are truly interested on refocusing students on learning still try to implement standards-based grading, despite the problems you may encounter? Absolutely—because it just makes sense.