Grading for Learning

1. Grading for Learning Proposal (Based on findings from research and experts)

2. Proposal Carve a uniform grading policy that: • Publishes a purpose of grades statement • Identifies acceptable measures for grades • Assigns a weight for benchmarks (by strand): with the caveat that it is one of five recent summative measurements. • Eliminates the practice of trimester “Averaging” and assigning “0”s • Shifts the base of grades from type of assignments to content strands.

3. philosophy “Standards-based grading is based on the principle that grades should convey how well students have achieved standards. In other words, grades are not about what students earn; they are about what students learn.” -Brookhart, 2011

4. Main purpose ….is “to communicate achievement” -O’Connor, 2002

5. Challenge #1 What we’re using.

6. Just Plain bad practices • Including “group work” • Including non-academic factors: • Behavior and Habits • Tissue box extra credit • Projects that don’t demonstrate level of achievement towards standards

7. Just Plain bad practices • Including “group work” • Including non-academic factors: • Behavior and Habits • Tissue box extra credit • Projects that don’t demonstrate level of achievement towards standards

8. CA Science Standards: Grade 9-12 Conservation of Matter and Stoichiometry 3. The conservation of atoms in chemical reactions leads to the principle of conservation of matter and the ability to calculate the mass of products and reactants. As a basis for understanding this concept: a. Students know how to describe chemical reactions by writing balanced equations. b. Students know the quantity one mole is set by defining one mole of carbon 12 atoms to have a mass of exactly 12 grams. c. Students know one mole equals 6.02x1023 particles (atoms or molecules).

11. CA Science Standards: Grade 9-12 Conservation of Matter and Stoichiometry 3. The conservation of atoms in chemical reactions leads to the principle of conservation of matter and the ability to calculate the mass of products and reactants. As a basis for understanding this concept: a. Students know how to describe chemical reactions by writing balanced equations. b. Students know the quantity one mole is set by defining one mole of carbon 12 atoms to have a mass of exactly 12 grams. c. Students know one mole equals 6.02x1023 particles (atoms or molecules).

12. MOLE DAY PROJECT RUBRIC • STUFFED MOLE • Obituary • 1. Typed single -spaced on a 6” x 4” index card (10 pts) _________ • 2. Card is completely filled- (5 pts) _________ • 3.  The information is in obituary form (10 pts) _________ • 4.  The obituary is original with accurate data about the • Scientist- it is not plagiarized (10 pts) _________ • Stuffed Mole • 1. The mole is at least five and a half inches or larger (5pts) _________ • 2. Costuming and props are present (20 pts) _________ • 3.  The mole is original and creative. It is obvious that a lot of • time and thought was put into the making of the mole.(25 pts) _________ • 4. The mole depicts the scientist accurately and the scientist came • from either the physics, chemistry, engineering, or mathematical disciplines or inventor (10 pts) _________ • Presentation of mole • 1. The student’s name is found on the mole. (5pts) _________ • TOTAL POINTS OUT OF 100 ________LETTER GRADE _______ Just Plain bad practices

13. Challenge #2 How we arrive to the grade.

14. hodgepodge grades • MERGE and AVERAGEassignments within label • tests, quizzes, projects, homework, punctuality, participation, habits, effort, and other pieces • ASSIGN each label an idiosyncratic weight “NUMBER CRUNCHING”

15. How it’s always been “…why did we succumb to the notion that because something is easy to calculate it must be pedagogically sound?” - O’Connor and Wormeli, 2011

16. Averaging falsifies Guskey, 1996, Marzano, 2000; O’Connor, 2009, 2010; Reeves, 2010; Wormeli, 2006; Wright, 1994; “It’s unethical and inaccurate to include in a grade digressions in performance that occur during the learning process, when a grade is supposed to report students’ mastery at the end of that process.” -O’Connor, 2011

17. What we Mean is that it’s mean to use the mean.

19. Who do you want?

20. Who do You want to Pack your Parachute? 56% 100% 90% 80% 70% 72% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Feb May June Jan Mar Apr May June Created by Sandy Sanford. Used with permission

21. Adapted from O’Connor, 2002

22. Adapted from O’Connor, 2002

23. Instead… • Use the 4 most recent measurements and the district benchmark to determine the final grade. “From a mathematical perspective, at least three scores are required…from a measurement perspective, I usually recommend at least four assessments per topic per grading period, and ideally five.” (Marzano, 2006)

24. Challenge #3 What we are doing if they don’t do it.

25. Gotcha! “Teachers use zeros when students fail to submit work because teachers feel that if nothing has been submitted, the score should reflect this, and that the zero will lead to more responsible actions in the future.” -O’Connor, 2002

26. Gotcha! “No studies support low grades or marks as punishments. Instead of prompting greater effort, low grades more often cause students to withdraw from learning.” -Guskey, 2000

27. Gotcha! “Doug Reeves (2004) reminds us that a zero on the 100-point scale is six levels-six increments of 10-below a failing 60 and that this equates mathematically to a -6 on the 4.0 scale...Ben would have to climb six levels higher just to get even with absolute failure.”

28. instead Do I have enough evidence to make a valid and reliable judgment of this student’s achievements? • Yes: determine the grade without the missing piece. Use an “I” to report the missing grade and report in work habits section. • No: Assign an ‘I” and provide opportunity for completion by agreed upon date. After the contract expires, it becomes an “F”.

29. Challenge #4 How are we determining the final product?

30. hodgepodge grades • MERGE and AVERAGE assignments within label • tests, quizzes, projects, homework, punctuality, participation, habits, effort, and other pieces • ASSIGN each label an idiosyncratic weight “NUMBER CRUNCHING”

31. Magic Weights

32. instead

33. instead

34. instead

35. Questions?

36. References Brookhart, Susan M. (2011) Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69, 10-14 Guskey, T. R. (2000). Grading policies that work against standards…and how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 20-29 Guskey , T.R. & Bailey (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Marzano, R.J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA 2006 Marzano, R. J.(2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning Glenview, IL: Pearson O’Connor, K. (2007). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service. O’Connor, K. & Wormeli, K. (2011) Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, 69 Reeves, D. B. (2004). The case against zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-325. Reeves, D. B. (2008). Leading to change: Effective grading practices. Educational Leadership 65(5), 85-87. Wright, R.G. (1994). Success for all: The median is the key. Phi Delta Kappan, May, 723-725