KSD Citizens accepts that change is often important and necessary in education. Change must be beneficial and appropriate. Managing change well is essential to its’ success.
While some administrators prefer using their authority to impose change, our bias favors Democratic shared decision making which includes authentic participation by all stakeholders. KSD has the means in place to achieve this.
This article is the first of several relating the adoption of SBG in Kennewick middle schools. We believe there are lessons to be learned.
Little known or understood by Kennewick families, Standards Based Grading (SBG) is coming to Kennewick middle schools.
Proponents describe SBG as a more meaningful way to express what students know and are able to do. Skeptics say SBG is no more helpful than traditional grading and creates complicated management and scheduling for teachers.
I learned about SBG when Scott Parker, Highlands’ principal, spoke to the community last November (see KSD Secondary School Report posted November 18, 2010). He said SBG is necessary because students who fail classes in middle school are more likely to drop out of high school. SBG is intended to reduce class failures. According to Parker, SBG provides school wide grading consistency, is fair to all students and measures student performance on well defined course objectives.
SBG has been critically labeled as “compassionate grading” and “buffering the bottom”.
SBG is one element of Mastery Learning to measure a student’s progress and performance meeting KSD power standards which are derived from state standards. Only academic achievement is reported.
SBG critics point out two major issues:
• SBG is no improvement over traditional grading and creates conditions for reducing student accountability and motivation.
• Teachers say the discussion has not been about whether SBG is good for Kennewick schools but about managing its adoption. Implementation of SBG in two middle schools has not been done well.
More specifically:
• This is seen as another in a succession of educational fads brought to Kennewick schools by administrators seeking a “magic bullet” to promote student learning and reduce the number of secondary dropouts.
• In several schools implementation has lacked leadership. Instead of consensus building, principals have either assumed or declared SBG will be adopted. Building site councils have not been properly utilized to develop teacher “buy-in” which is essential for success.
• Inadequate teacher training, technology support, building resources and scheduling flexibility complicate implementation even for staff members who have accepted SBG.
• SBG is a condition/response program that promotes procrastination because students can always retake the test. Being responsible to get homework done and study done on time is irrelevant.
• Some teachers have experienced no reduction in students failing classes in middle school.
• A consequence for high schools is adding special classes to motivate students who did not develop that trait in middle school.
A Scenario
For an example of how SBG works in a Language Arts classroom follow this link:
http://ksdcitizens.org/2012/03/26/a-teachers-experience-with-standards-based-grading/#more-3117
The Situation at Middle Schools
• Staff has raised concerns about the implementation of SBG at Highlands and Horse Heaven Hills.
• Park has taken a more inclusive approach which has not aroused as many teacher objections.
• Information about Desert Hills is not yet available.
Highlands –
Principal Scott Parker says “this is the second year (of SBG) for HMS and we had A LOT of “bumps”. Mainly the “set up” of grade books.”
The first 3 quarters of this school year only test scores could count toward quarter and semester grades. Fourth quarter, it was decided to permit up to 20% of the course grade to include homework. Homework is defined to include assignments done in class.
Students earn one of nine possible numerical scores on the grading scale:
Grading Scale
4 Student exceeds standard (successful in depth inferences and applications).
3.5 In addition to students meeting standard, partial success at in depth inferences and applications.
3 Student meets mastery of standard
2.5 No major errors regarding basic information and/or processes addresses in the standard.
2.0 Student approaching standard (no major errors regarding the simpler information and/or processes BUT major errors in major and complex ideas).
1.5 Partial knowledge of the simpler knowledge and details.
1.0 Student beginning standard (with help, partial knowledge of simpler and complex details and processes.
.5 With help, a partial knowledge of some of the simple details and processes BUT not of the more complex ideas.
0 No mastery of standard even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated.
Implementation Requirements:
1. Teachers cannot put in letter grades for assignments or tests, they must put in a 4, 3.5, 3.0 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, 0.
2. Do not use Inc or I. Only use S/U to communicate that practice was/wasn’t completed.
3. HMS will use the above rubric with their grading practices.
4. IT will be setting up the default grade scale for HMS.
A primary issue, according to some, is that SBG was mandated by administration and staff was tasked with learning about and accepting SBG, then finding ways to make it work.
Students may retest for any unit of instruction. Time for re-teaching and re-testing is provided before and after school and during lunch. Students frequently do not do their best work when first tested knowing they can re-test.
When teachers use their class periods for retesting this can result in “dead time” for students who already have met or exceeded the standard.
Comparing SBG to a percent scale:
4 – 94%
3 – 84%
2 – 74%
1 – 64%
0 – 54%
A student scoring 0, 1, 2 or 3 may re-test which creates a significant additional paperwork load for teachers.
Note: See additional Highlands’ information at the end of this article.
Horse Heaven Hills –
Assistant Principal Diana Burns says “We are not doing SBG in the purest form as we will be weighting homework towards the student’s final grade and most likely will limit the opportunity for re-assessments. Our teachers are currently taking a survey so we can come to consensus on these elements and others before implementing next year. We also realize we will need to communicate our plan to students, parents and other community members and have plans to do so. “
A number of teachers who were early adopters of SBG were selected to form a committee to study implementing SBG building-wide at Horse Heaven Hills. The committee recommended SBG to the building site council. While site council has been informed about SBG there has been no vote for its acceptance. Building administration has taken the study committee recommendations as sufficient to continue implementing SBG. Staff is now being surveyed to find consensus on certain elements of SBG.
A significant concern of some teachers is that they were not given a genuine opportunity to examine SBG through consensus building. Parents on site council have registered concerns about SBG. It appears that SBG will become the building standard without, what some regard as, authentic participation by the building site council.
Another concern expressed by staff is whether SBG is holding students accountable or enabling them. Teachers have experienced reduced motivation among students to do homework assignments.
SBG complicates pacing in math and science classes. Math teachers are required to follow a specific pacing schedule for lessons. This schedule does not allow for re-teaching or adding a day or two to a unit of instruction when needed.
Staff opinion is that time for reassessments should be built into the school day and not require lunch time intervention. Student failure lists are distributed among staff which some teachers fear unfairly marks them as doing inadequate teaching. Consequently, teachers give up duty free lunch to work with students.
Teachers are assigned morning and afternoon duty to monitor students outside of the building. This assignment conflicts with the expectation teachers will be available to work with students at those times.
Eighth grade teachers have worked to prepare their students for the transition to high school where the traditional grading system will remain. Now they understand that this is no longer their concern.
Grading information from Horse Heaven Hills: After receiving feedback from the grade level meetings, this is the revised rubric we will use as a staff:
4 Advanced Student demonstrates a deep understanding of the standards at or above grade level independently, consistently and on the first attempt.
3 Proficient Student demonstrates understanding of the standards at a level expected of all students at this grade level and can perform task independently.
2 Basic Student partially demonstrates understanding and is approaching grade level standards but cannot perform task independently
1 Below Basic Student demonstrates a beginning or limited understanding of grade level standards. He or she is not prepared to advance to the next grade level.
0 Incomplete Student demonstrates no understanding of the grade level standards and is not prepared to advance to the next grade level OR the student did not attempt, did not complete and/or did not turn in required work to base assessment on.
.
At Horse Heaven Hills the percent scale is:
Grade Scale using 4 point system in PowerGrade
A 90%
A- 83%
B+ 78%
B 70%
B- 63%
C+ 58%
C 50%
C- 43%
D+ 38%
D 25%
F 24% and below
Some teachers see this lower standard as contrary to KSD’s policy of PERRR (Purpose, Engagement, Rigor, Results and Relationships), an essential element of the educational process in Kennewick Schools. Lessons are developed and delivered to students utilizing these characteristics. Superintendent, Dave Bond has stated that KSD wants to maintain high standards while enabling more students to earn passing grades in their classes. The question persists; where is the rigor?
My sources indicate that HHH administration is not truly listening to staff, that staff has not yet “bought-in” to SBG, student discipline is a growing problem and the scheduling structure is not in place to provide re-teaching and re-testing.
Additionally, SBG, as practiced, negatively impacts students’ personal accountability. The evidence is apparent in the current 8th grade population, who has been involved in this SBG model for their entire middle school career. They are confused about what grades and homework mean; they cannot discern teacher expectations. Procrastinators cannot work their way through the maze without intense adult intervention. There is a diminishing level of personal responsibility being internalized.
Note: See Horse Heaven Hills Middle School’s Standards Based Grading Survey information at the end of this article.
Park –
Principal Kevin Pierce says “Park is currently using the traditional system (A, B, C, D, F). However, we have completed two book studies as a whole staff on the topic of standards based grading and are prepared to create an action plan for next year. We have not decided as a staff whether we will implement standards based grading, as I have asked Site Council to make the final decision. Regardless of what we decide to do, we are going to create a school wide plan to improve grading because certain glaring inconsistencies must be addressed. Drop us a line toward the end of May and I’ll update you on our progress. “
Desert Hills –
Principal Steve Jones has not yet responded to my requests for information about SBG at Desert Hills. When I receive his response I will report that information on this site.
Impact on High Schools
According to one staff member, Kennewick High administrators are pushing hard for a directed tutorial to be installed into an already totally disrupted school week. If the culture created by SBG in middle schools spreads to high schools, then KSD will certainly need an additional chunk of time built into the day to accommodate all the curricular loose ends and the logistics of kids who are all operating at different speeds.
Teacher recommendations
• Initial considerations should have begun with whether SBG is developmentally appropriate and necessary for our students.
• Teachers need to be more involved in decision making and consensus building.
• There should be consistency implementing SBG among the 4 middle schools.
• Another year is needed to figure this out as teachers do not have a clear vision of how SBG works.
• Parents and the community need to be more involved in understanding and implementing SBG.
• Time for student re-assessments should be standardized within the daily schedule.
• The numerical and percentage grading scales must be standardized.
• Curriculum standards must be uniform across grade levels and content areas at the 4 middle schools.
• The workload for staff is increased by 10% or more for re-testing which should be factored into scheduling and instruction.
Other Teacher Comments or Questions
• While building staff were provided reading material and listened to speakers describing SBG, it was clear from the beginning that administration’s goal was for SBG to be adopted.
• SBG is a terrible idea in any form and should be rejected. It is creating mediocrity for all for the sake of the bottom 30%. The narrow target is “upping our graduation rates.” What about educating our kids at a higher level? With SBG we are engaging in a condition/response program that promotes procrastination because the kid can always retake the test, and being responsible to get homework done and study done on time is irrelevant. This is not consistent with the requirements of the world we live in today.
• SBG should only be adopted if schools are going to measure the success or detriment of implementation on the overall learning of students. Are students better prepared to be successful in high school or to gain employment?
• The greatest fallacy of this discussion is the assumption our current letter grades mean nothing. If we teach the standards and assess what we teach, how can our grades not reflect what the students learn? Another question; how many intrinsically motivated Middle school students have you known?
• Any positive aspects of SBG can be incorporated within the current grading system.
• Mastery Learning is a good idea but teachers need time within the daily schedule to re-teach.
• Reassessments must be planned within the daily schedule, not during lunch.
• SBG will be no more meaningful or helpful to students and their parents. Why change a system that is not broken?
• Practice assignments, reading logs, class participation, class preparation and other student work may be graded but is not included in grade reports.
• As a teacher, I cannot explain SBG and its evolving “standards” to myself. I cannot stand in front of parents and begin to explain it.
• With elementary schools and high schools not using SBG, why are middle schools adopting it?
• There have not been meaningful attempts to provide consensus on SBG before we started experimenting with our youth.
• Ten to twenty percent of students may receive a grade less than 3. The teacher has been left with a time management nightmare and most have caved and sacrificed their lunch hours for years. In the end, the teacher has taken the majority of the responsibility for the student following through for an acceptable grade.
• Historically, eighth grade teachers have worked to prepare their students for the transition to high school where the traditional grading system remains in effect. Now, they are being told that they no longer need to be concerned, that is not their job. We question this “convenient suggestion” that it is not an 8th grade teacher’s job to prepare students to transition successfully to high school and career. Someone better let the high schools know that “ain’t happenin’ in the middle schools anymore.”
Outcome
Will adopting SBG achieve the desired outcome of reducing high school dropouts? Some would argue that if the problem is students not having the knowledge and skills to be successful doing high school work the first time, the answer is certainly “No”.
Role of Building Site Councils
A concern of mine has been KSD administrators’ response to site based decision making. The contract provision for building site councils was negotiated between KSD and the Kennewick Education Association (KEA) to empower teachers and parents to engage with administration on a broad range of significant educational decisions. My observation has been that an administrator who is not comfortable sharing decision making authority can manipulate a building site council. It is the case that on some issues, a site council merely “rubber stamps” the will of the building administrator. There may only be the appearance of inclusive decision making.
In at least one building the administrator has encouraged site council to reduce the scope of issues which that site council is permitted to consider. This returns unquestioned authority for decision making to a building principal who does not want to consider staff and community input.
In the implementation of SBG we can compare the consequences of authoritative decision making at Highlands and Horse Heaven Hills middle schools with the process at Park. Kevin Pierce’s inclusive approach may take longer to achieve a consensus; however, by following the contract and honoring the professionalism of Park’s staff the outcome will arrive with greater cohesion and less turmoil.
I believe building site councils offer the best means for educators and the community to participate in shaping education in Kennewick schools. It is imperative that KSD administration and KEA monitor building site councils to assure they are operating as designed according to their charters.
Classroom teachers, as the ultimate providers of instruction and assessment for Kennewick students, must be more than implementers of policy and programs but must be genuinely engaged in forming them.
Additional Highlands’ Information
Highlands Middle School 2010-2011
Purpose: To use and administer consistent and accurate grading practices to increase student achievement.
Part 1: Categories -Teachers may set up the following categories:
• Practice (Please note what standard the practice pertains to.)
o Grade input should be an Satisfactory (S), Unsatisfactory (U), Missing (M).
Example-Homework, Participating in PE (dressing down), Reading Journals, math practice problems, etc.
• Assessments (Standard ________with description so parents understand)-
o Assessments are 100% of the grade.
o Could be Summative and/or Common Assessments
o Grade input 4, 3.5, 3, 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, .5, 0.
Example-Unit and Chapter Exams, Projects graded with a rubric, etc.
Part 2: Grading Scale
4 Student exceeds standard (successful in depth inferences and applications).
3.5 In addition to students meeting standard, partial success at in depth inferences and applications.
3 Student meets mastery of standard
2.5 No major errors regarding basic information and/or processes addresses in the standard.
2.0 Student approaching standard (no major errors regarding the simpler information and/or processes BUT major errors in major and complex ideas).
1.5 Partial knowledge of the simpler knowledge and details.
1.0 Student beginning standard (with help, partial knowledge of simpler and complex details and processes.
.5 With help, a partial knowledge of some of the simple details and processes BUT not of the more complex ideas.
0 No mastery of standard even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated.
Implementation Requirements:
5. Teachers cannot put in letter grades for assignments or tests, they must put in a 4, 3.5, 3.0 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5, 0.
6. Do not use Inc or I. Only use S/U to communicate that practice was/wasn’t completed.
7. HMS will use the above rubric with their grading practices.
8. IT will be setting up the default grade scale for HMS.
Part 3: Citizenship
Next to each student’s name is a “citizenship” box. Citizenship may be edited and changed at any time during the grading period and will show up at the top of the Parent Portal.
Citizenship (S) = Completes work on time, is prepared to learn, participates in activities and follows expectations.
Citizenship (U) = Does not follow any of the above consistently.
Part 4: Power Standard Assessments and Rubrics
Through PLC work this year, rubrics will be developed for all power standard assessments. This will help teachers understand the standards, have discussion around their curriculum and help focus instruction on student learning of the power standards.
A repair Kit for Grading-15 Fixes for Broken Grades
HMS Book Study
Purpose: 1. Collegial conversations about grading practices
2. Impact grades have on student achievement
3. Improve student learning
Introduction:
• Education is more and more standards based (WASL, common assessments, summative assessments) however grading criteria in subject areas is still widely subjective and not base on the standards.
• Grades are so imprecise that they are meaningless. Grades can vary drastically from one teacher to another and from grade level to grade level.
• Grades meet to meet four overarching criteria:
Grades must be consistent
• School Wide Performance Standards
Accurate
• Must reflect learning, not behaviors
Meaningful
Must support learning
• Formative assessments shouldn’t be calculated in grades. Summative assessments are designed to measure student achievement.
• Teachers need to allow new evidence to replace old evidence in what the student has learned.
• Purposes for grades-to communicate student achievement and provide teachers with information for instructional planning.
• Fairness-Fairness is not the same as equal. Some students may need more time on an assignment.
• Motivation-Intrinsic
• Objectivity in grading
15 Fixes for Broken Grades
Protocol: Jigsaw
For your Grading Fix, be prepared to:
1. Describe the Fix to the group.
2. Your initial thoughts on the fix
3. Self reflection on your own grading practices.
4. Present any changes to grading you are considering in your own practice.
Discuss 3-5 Fixes per meeting
Meeting Date Fix Presenter
Additional Horse Heaven Hills Information
Standards Based Grading Survey
The goal of the survey on Standards Based Grading is to help staff come to a consensus regarding certain elements of SBG; such as weighting homework, re-assessments and to find where we need to focus future professional development to support staff in our move to SBG. I [Diana Burns] will start by reviewing some rationale for SBG and also attempt to answer questions posed at the last grade level meetings.
The purpose of Standards Based Grading is to measure a student’s progress and performance towards state standards. District power standards and standards selected by PLC come from the state standards. Grades are based on academic achievement only. Other factors such as behavior, attendance and participation are reported separately. The state requires proficiency of standards in order for students to graduate from high school. This grading system reflects and informs everyone of the child’s progress towards proficiency of those standards and to what level they are prepared for success at the next grade level. SBG highlights power standards, as there are too many state standards to be covered in the course of one school year. This reporting system better informs all stakeholders of the standards a student can or cannot do at that particular point in time.
Why is Standards Based Grading important?
Traditional grading, when reporting, tends to result in a limited measure of a student’s abilities. While the A on a student’s report card might thrill parents, this grade does not convey precise performance. Standards Based Grading overcomes this problem by reporting on progress towards selected standards. Multiple scores are used to asses a student’s progress toward each standard. Rubrics with meaningful descriptors are used to help guide students, teachers and parents in understanding where the student is in their individual progress toward each standard.
After receiving feedback from the grade level meetings, this is the revised rubric we will use as a staff:
4 Advanced Student demonstrates a deep understanding of the standards at or above grade level independently, consistently and on the first attempt.
3 Proficient Student demonstrates understanding of the standards at a level expected of all students at this grade level and can perform task independently.
2 Basic Student partially demonstrates understanding and is approaching grade level standards but cannot perform task independently
1 Below Basic Student demonstrates a beginning or limited understanding of grade level standards. He or she is not prepared to advance to the next grade level.
0 Incomplete Student demonstrates no understanding of the grade level standards and is not prepared to advance to the next grade level OR the student did not attempt, did not complete and/or did not turn in required work to base assessment on.
.
The plan is to go building wide with SBG practices in 2011-2012. We will have come to consensus on the issues being surveyed and can tailor August BPD to help move us forward. As we work on our master schedule, administration continues to look at ways to incorporate re-assessment opportunities within our school day. The plan is to communicate with students and parents via a letter mailed with schedules and a video placed on our website. The tech department should have the SBG version of Power Grade so grade books can be set up to support SBG. The report card itself most likely will not be ready until 2012-2013. One suggestion was to list the standards for each subject by quarter on the back of our current report card. Since each subject would still receive one final mark for the quarter, the list of standards would inform parents of standards taught that quarter. All teachers would be expected to use SBG.
We still need to decide how to grade special education, high school credited classes and how students will qualify for the honor roll, athletics and the NJHS. The people working in each of these areas will be asked to help make those decisions. Plans are being made to meet with Park and Highlands to make these decisions.
Input is always welcome. Share your thoughts with team leaders and Site Council representatives or attend a Site Council or Standards Based Grading meeting. The SBG information has also been written into our School Improvement Plan that is emailed to everyone, giving another opportunity for input. Although the 4 middle schools have not been aligned in their grading practices in the past (What represented an A, B, C, D or F was not the same at all buildings. Honor roll expectations were even different at the individual buildings) they are dialoguing more about grading practices and attempting to be more alike than different.
The move to SBG has created much discussion regarding grading practices, what constitutes “mastery” or proficient, student work and other aspects of teaching and learning. The goal is to firm up these topics so we can better support kids who must demonstrate proficiency of state standards in order to graduate from high school.
See also:
http://ksdcitizens.org/2010/11/18/ksd-secondary-school-report/
For an update of this report go to this link:
I am really confused by some of what I read here. Standards based grading is an outgrowth of Mastery Learning (ML) and standards based education (SBE). I get the connection to SBE, but ML assumes that time is spent on a topic (standard) until individual students demonstrate mastery, at which time the individual moves on to a new standard. If the article is accurate, “Math teachers are required to follow a specific pacing schedule for lessons,” the conditions of ML cannot be met. As is often the case, a well researched practice (See Marzano, Classroom Grading that Works), is “adjusted,” Marzano might say “bastardized,” to fit local circumstance and thereby loses all integrity. Marzano’s research applies only to the model in its original form.
Interesting article.
I spent some time as a substitute teacher in a classroom at Horse Heaven Hills Middle School and found “Standards Based Grading” to be a dubious policy at best. I find it darkly humorous that in an age of “high expectations for everyone,” 63% now earns a student a B-Minus at this school.
Horse Heaven Hills Middle School is hardly exceptional. Mis-guided public education policy is endemic and I believe it is largely a fault of leadership. Public school administrators have become intellectually lazy, foolish, and easily manipulated – I say this as a former public school administrator, bureaucrat, and teacher with a couple of decades of experience. It is perverse, but from a policy standpoint, all one needs in order to push one’s program is a title that can be reduced to a three letter acronym, some exposure on the conference circuit, and a patron or two in state government and/or big business. Public school administrators have become like the Sneetches from Dr. Seuss looking to get tattoos on their bellies (“stars on thars”), enthusiastically consuming any education flim-flammery if it is deemed popular among their peers.
When things don’t work out, there are always excuses. Notice that the Horse Heaven Hills assistant principal mentions “We are not doing SBG in the purest form.” Purity – now that’s a word fit for an acolyte (to be fair, I doubt that Ms. Burns has ever been given any choice in the matter of “SBG”). Poor or inconsistent program results or unintended consequences aren’t ever the fault of the program. No, according to program designers, trainers, and proponents, problems are always a failure of not following the program correctly – wonks like to use the term “program fidelity.” What a great term: it makes those unwilling or unable to follow a program to the letter “infidels.”
And in the end, this is what public education has become: quack policy promoted with religious fervor with the negative consequences shouldered by our children and their teachers.
The full version of “The Sneetches” by Dr. Seuss is available for free viewing on YouTube. Pass the link on to any public school administrators your might know:
http://youtu.be/v3yJomUhs0g
The grade scale you’ve listed for Horse Heaven Hills is very misleading. Truly the only reason it looks like a 63% is a B- is for the simple fact that the district grading program doesn’t have the capabilites needed to implement using a 4, 3 ,2 , 1 rubric. The percentage is truly just an arbitrary number. It’s unfortunate that people are equating a percentage to a letter grade making it look like we think a B- is 63%. That is not the case at all. Using SBG you are just measuring, can your student meet the standard or not. The only reason the traditional grade scale has been altered at H3MS is to better reflect the 4, 3, 2, 1 system. Let me try to better explain what I mean. First, using SBG and a 4,3,2,1 scale we would not be using percentages or letter grades. Teachers would be assessing the state standards. So their grade book would reflect that as a 4, 3, 2, 1. Basically, can your student meet the standard or not? It is a true measure of what students are capable of at the time they are assessed. If your student was not able to meet the standard then they would get another opportunity to meet the standard. This would be after reteaching, working one-on-one or in small groups. If that student was unable to get a score on the standard in question, then that student would stay at the original score for that standard. Which would mean that that student hasn’t met that particular standard. We do not keep retesting over and over until the standard is met. Sure implementing SBG is a work in progress, and yes, teachers shouldn’t feel that they need to give up their duty free lunch to make SBG work. I agree, that retests should be built into the actual work day. However, the implementation of SBG at H3MS has not been derived by the administration as a silver bullet to fix grading practices. It is through a 2 year process that has been intentional and mindful and has included actual teachers involved in a book study. This committee was tasked with creating a schedule for implementation that was taken to our site council and shared with staff, with all intent on implementing in the fall of 2011-2012. Clearly, the state standards aren’t going away and we will always be focused on having students meet these state standards. Implementing SBG helps us to stay focused on the standards. In closing, it continues to be a work in progress as teachers and administrators work together to implement SBG and hold our students accountable to the state standards.
Boy, if I had a nickel for every time I heard “The State Standards aren’t going away” in response to criticism of educational policy, I would be a rich man. This particular straw man argument is one of the favorites used by educators to justify anything they’re doing (the other is it’s all for the children!). So what if the State Standards aren’t going away (and maybe that’s not so inevitable considering the growing chorus for national standards), there’s nothing in that statement that supports “SBG” as the best strategy or even as an appropriate strategy! There is NO argument presented here! I like the prior poster’s comparison to the Sneetches and their compulsive and mindless trendiness. Anytime your hear an educator repeating a three letter program acronym over and over (SBG! SBG! SBG!), you know they’re fully invested in the currently fashionable snake oil and there will be no quarter given. Of course this lasts only as long as the three letter acronym remains fashionable. A new flavor of the month will come around and then the educators can start all over (again) at great public expense. Next time an educator tells you that their favorite three letter acronym program is inevitable and all for the children, and that they need tens of thousands of dollars to attend conferences and train their staff, ask them to show you the data that proves it.
Public education is a great idea, but an abject failure. However it is not an inevitable failure, despite assurances to the contrary by our status-quo public educators. EDUCATION REFORM IS THE STATUS-QUO!
Enough with the three letter acronyms. GBTW educating our kids.
The explanation is even murkier to me than the original explanation. When I was much younger, I blamed myself for not understanding a complicated explanation. With time I learned that it was the responsibility of the “explainer” to clarify ideas for the consumer. I have now come to believe that an idea that cannot be explained to the stakeholders is an idea that is truly flawed. Why is SBG a “work in progress?” Why wasn’t it worked out before being dumped on students and parents? Children are not lab rats.
This is my favorite part:
What? So if the grading program could display a “3″ instead of a “B” this would make sense? That’s like taking a ruler, crossing out the numbers and replacing them with letters, and claiming that the ruler measures things differently!
So, a 63% nets a child “demonstrates understanding of the standards at a level expected of all students at this grade level” MINUS. What EXACTLY is the difference here between 4-3-2-1 and A-B-C-D?! Seems like just different labels.
And how much time and MONEY has gone into implementing this brilliant plan? What is X dollars divided by zero impact?
I would like to thank Tom for taking the time to research this issue in the Kennewick School District. I wish there were more people like him and Bob who are willing to take a stand and do the work necessary to fight the insanity that is plaguing our school system.
As a high school English teacher, I am quite familiar with a 4 point scale. Many of the rubrics I use for student writing work this way. Some are 5 point scales. Whatever the number system may be, most of us English teachers turn these numbers into good old fashioned A-F grades.
So it works like this:
Student paper is rated from 1-5 on organization, 1-5 on quality of ideas, 1-5 on sentence fluency, 1-5 on conventions. All of these criteria align with state requirements by the way, and they aligned long before the state ever had a requirement!
The 5 equals the highest quality or excellence. In my English class this doesn’t happen very often. The 4 equals above the standard but not excellence. The 3 equals meeting the standard only, and in my class this means good enough to pass the HSPE. A 2 is below the standard but approaching it. And the 1 is non-functional.
Curiously enough it is incredibly easy to turn the 5′s into A’s(100% -90%), 4′s into B’s (89-80), 3′s into C’s (79-70), 2′s into D’s (69-60), and 1′s into F’s (59-0). My course is rigorous and challenging for students at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom. When students score below my expectations or their own, the following lessons, instructions, classwork, and homework are all designed to empower them to improve their score on the next paper. And I will note here too that when I do give an F on a paper, it is usually a high F equivalent to 59 points out of 100. This is how many teachers send the message that work is nonfunctional without wiping the student out of the game. An F and an encouraging word can very often motivate and transform a student. Michael Jordan once said “I have failed over and over again in my life, and that is why I succeed.” And I guess he did ok.
If teachers are not holding a consistent standard for student work, then it is the administrator’s job I think to make sure that there is consistency in the building. The problem is that administrators can’t or won’t do this kind of supervision of teachers. More and more our administrators are middle management “bean counters” rather than master teachers who are deeply familiar with what artful and effective teaching looks like. If they do know what good teaching looks like and see that a specific teacher is not doing a good job, then we find that the administrator usually exhibits either cowardice or laziness or both of these unflattering qualities. Our union doesn’t like it when one of our members does a bad job, and that is why we have made a clear pathway for administrators to remediate and then remove a bad teacher if necessary. But they don’t want to do the work required to do this. So the teacher remains, kids get short changed and very often a fairly high grade that basically keeps parents happy and people off the teacher’s back and the principal’s back. Then the kid gets a teacher like myself with a high standard, and the grade drops from an A freshman year to a C their sophomore year. Such inconsistencies should get the administrator’s attention.
Now here is where a principal has to do some real work and figure out if I am too high or someone else is too low. But that is not something the bean counters are equipped to do. So instead of doing this difficult work, they come up with a homogenized system like SBG. They take the autonomy away from all teachers because of the few weak teachers they don’t want to deal with, and they take the concept of failure and real life accountability away from the low-achieving kids. That’s right: the tail swings the dog.
This second part about the kids is really not about the kids at all; it’s about school districts covering their backsides against the sanctions that come with not passing the requirements of Average Yearly Progress. AYP is the yardstick for success as described by No Child Left Behind Act which ironically is currently being dismantled at the federal level.
As pointed out in Tom’s article and in some of the comments, the kids will actually be conditioned to procrastinate and expect multiple chances to get something right. Does this work in real life?
Besides teaching English for the last 27 years, I have also been farming 25 acres of apples and cherries for the last 21 years. I can assure you that when my frost alarm goes off at 1:00 A.M., if I don’t get up and turn on the wind machines and light some heaters and stay vigilant throughout the rest of the morning, there will be no second chance to have a crop and maybe make a profit. If it’s going to be, it’s up to me. The quarterback who throws an interception to lose the game doesn’t get that game back.
Most of us would not be too happy to drive our car away from a garage freshly relieved of $1000 and a week of waiting and being inconvenienced just to have the car konk out again a mile down the road. We might expect the mechanic who came through the SBG system to say that he would like another try, and “maybe the car will be ready in yet another week if I do some work to develop my skills by then.”
Frankly, I don’t see how anyone can, in good conscience, support SGB. It caters to the weak on every level: weak students, weak teachers, and weak administrators. And it is a major threat to foundational American principles like timely and hard work, striving to get something right the first time, and good old fashioned excellence. That’s right–the implicit message of the SBG grading scale in any of its forms is that just meeting the standard is good enough. To hell with excellence! I have never been more embarrassed to be a public school teacher than I am right now.
Yet another reason to add to my reasons for retiring list. In elementary we train kids for their life in middle school. But then students come back and say, “It doesn’t matter if I get my work turned in on time.” I can always redo my tests for a better score. What are we teaching our kids????
I disagree with your premises that building administrators are lazy and create programs like SBG to avoid doing the work they should be doing. I agree that they are not doing the work they should be doing, but, I disagree with the reason.
I have taught many years in three different school districts (small to large), teaching several different subjects, in middle and high school. In that time and experience I’ve rarely met a lazy administrator. I’ve experienced far more overly zealous than lazy administrators.
There are two reasons building administrators are not doing the job they should at KSD; 1) Most are those who prefer building consensus for implementing a new idea and encouraging teachers to do their best but are too busy trying to increase scores on standardized tests and please district administrators who must deal with a school board dominated by a “they will do it or else” method of management, or 2) There are a few administrators who taught only a few years and now have a delusional memory of their fine teaching practices and know better than the work horses and master teachers in our schools how to best educate our students.
The former could be helpful to the cause of teaching students if working in a better atmosphere. The latter believe in the top-down methods and are often tinkerers who want to implement their tinkering on a school wide scale in an attempt at proving their genius. Neither are lazy, but, neither are they effective.
As for the rest of your comment, I agree completely.
I think this is a real problem and it’s becoming more common. I’ve seen far too many administrators who’ve spent far too little time in the classroom. School administration as a profession has become appealing low-hanging fruit for ambitious manager types – government bureaucracy is an easy gig, relatively speaking. I’ve known school administrators (in Oregon) with no teaching experience at all. This needs to change.
I appreciate J. Mateeka’s comments. They have caused me to refine my thinking a bit, and I mostly agree with his perspective on administrative motives. The point I was trying to make is that there is a path to remediating or removing bad teachers, but it takes a special kind of “hard work,” and that is the up close and personal business of telling someone the unvarnished truth about their performance. I don’t think most administrators are willing to do that kind of work. It’s much less messy to just introduce the latest educational magic dust and sprinkle it on everyone.
Trying new things is not a bad idea, but before they are dumped on real people, some questions and decision points should be set. For a major departure from the norm such as SBG, I would suggest the following:
QUESTIONS
1. Is the proposed change consistent with what we know about teaching and learning? Is there research to support the change? Is the research credible?
2. Is the proposed change consistent with district goals? Which ones?
3. Will the proposed change require substantial training for teachers? Will it change the time required to perform the task?
4. Will the proposed change add to costs, reduce costs, or cost about the same?
I could go on and on here, but these four sets of questions are a start. People often return from conferences enamored with an idea presented and see it as a solution to a local problem, but more often as a way to stay “on the cutting edge.” Unfortunately, local conditions are often not conducive to the proposed changes, they don’t fit the staff and/or students, they don’t really work as presented (even in the presenter’s school), costs are too great, etc. Some kind of screening process needs to be applied before major changes in procedures are applied to children and their teacher.
In the end, I would ask what the process was for selecting SBG. Were any of the four questions asked? Were teachers involved in the selection process? Was a pilot project carried out to test the new procedures? What will be used to measure the success of the plan?
That is very attention-grabbing, You’re a very professional blogger. I have joined your feed and look forward to searching for extra of your magnificent post. Additionally, I’ve shared your website in my social networks
Your style is really unique compared to other folks I’ve read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I’ll just book mark this web site.