Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Grading & reporting systems complete presentation

8,844 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Grading & reporting systems complete presentation

  1. 1. Presented by: Courtney Potter, Rachel Long, & Ashley Blount
  2. 2. Two Types of Grading Systems: Norm-referenced Criterion-referenced (“Standard Based”)  
  3. 3. Overall Concept:  Compares each student‟s performance to that of other students in the class. Advantage:  “Yields highly consistent grade distributions from one teacher to the next” (Guskey, 2001).
  4. 4. Disadvantages:  Learning becomes competitive- students become less inclined to help each other.  Learning becomes a game of winners and losers- with very few winners (A students) most students are losers. (Guskey, 2001) (Haladyna,1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1989)
  5. 5. Overall Concept:  “Compares each student‟s performance to clearly stated performance descriptions ……Teachers judge student‟s performance by what each student does, regardless of how well or poorly their classmates perform” (Guskey, 2001).
  6. 6. 1. Grades should have meaning.   If we are using A,B,C,D, & F grades, what do those letters represent? Do grades measure levels of proficiency on standards that are taught?
  7. 7. 2. We need to challenge the status quo.  Are our students really learning or are they just good at “playing school”? ◦ We have students that are good at playing school yet have not mastered any standard. ◦ We also have students that have mastered standards but do not complete homework.
  8. 8. 3. We can control grading practices.   “ If a teacher must use a point system…that teacher can still use a standards based system.” “The system must not allow students to mask their level of understanding with their attendance, their level of effort, or other peripheral issues.”
  9. 9. Seven Reasons for Standard Based Grading: (Scniffny, 2008) 4. Standards based grading reduces meaningless paperwork.
  10. 10. 5. It helps teachers adjust instruction. Traditional Grade Book Name Homework Average Quiz 1 Chapter 1 Test John 90 65 70 Bill 50 75 78 Susan 110 50 62 Felicia 10 90 85 Amanda 95 100 90 Objective 1: Write an alternate ending for a story Objective 2: Identify the elements of a story Objective 3: Compare and contrast two stories John Partially proficient Proficient Partially proficient Bill Proficient Proficient Partially proficient Susan Partially proficient Partially proficient Partially proficient Felicia Advanced Proficient Proficient Amanda Partially proficient Advanced Proficient Standards-Based Grade Book Name
  11. 11. 6. It teaches what quality looks like.  If we grade only on mastery of a standard and except nothing but mastery; students learn and understand what is expected for success
  12. 12. 7. It‟s a launchpad to other reforms.   It provides opportunity for academic conversations with other teachers It provides opportunities to more effectively communicate with parents
  13. 13.   It takes a lot of work (Guskey,2001) Reporting tools are difficult to develop and sometimes difficult for parents to understand (Guskey, 2001)
  14. 14.   Comes from the early European model of competition and ranking of students. In the U.S., the ranking of students is documented to have begun as early as 1785 by a Yale professor.
  15. 15.  1835-An issue of the American Annals of Education recommended a weekly report to the parents, showing punctuality, behavior, and ranking of the student.  1870-1910-Teachers struggled with giving detailed accountability as class sizes began to grow.  Nineteenth century-Students were rapidly changing levels or schools (e.g., high school to college)  The U.S. needed a systematic way to track students‟ progress.
  16. 16.  1940s-the „A-F‟ system became the dominant grading scale in schools.  Pluses and minuses for letters were used for precision and sorting.  1960s-the „A-F‟ system was considered “traditional”.  1971-the „A-F‟ system was being used in over 80% of schools in the U.S.
  17. 17.  Through the years, there had been some debate about the grading system, but schools began to depend on the letter system for: ◦ Motivation ◦ Placement ◦ Communication between the school and parents (Schneider, 2013)
  18. 18. “Inaccurate grades lead to poor instructional decisions and many teachers combine a large amount of evidence into a single summary grade.” –Ken O‟Connor (Knaack, 2012).
  19. 19.    Students are not aware of their strengths and weaknesses in a certain subject. Teachers and students have difficulty interpreting the meaning of the grade to others. Each letter means something different to each teacher.
  20. 20.     Students are compared to each other; not focused on individual achievement. Student‟s interest is diminished in what they are learning. Student quality of thinking is reduced. Students create a preference for the easiest possible task.
  21. 21. “A single zero can doom a student to failure, regardless of what dedicated effort or level of performance might follow” (Guskey, 2004).   To move from a zero to a minimum passing grade requires 6 or 7 times the improvement it would take to move from a B to an A. Students take a zero when they become discouraged; no accountability.
  22. 22.    Letter grades do not offer quality feedback. Students are not able to participate in the decision of their grade; collaboration on what they have learned. Research recommends getting rid of letter grading.
  23. 23.  Write notes on students‟ assignments- “a reaction to what they did and some advice on how they might improve” (Drier, 2011). ◦ Final grade is based on students‟ self-assessments  Replace letters with: ◦ Narrative assessments ◦ Student-teacher conferences ◦ Summaries of progress in writing or conversation
  24. 24.   Getting rid of the „A-F‟ system may not be an option for some schools. Instead, a school can provide a bar graph on measurement topics within a subject to accompany the letter grade.
  25. 25.  The graph is on a 0-4.0 scale to better track progress. 0-4.0 scale Letter scale 3.51-4.00 Teachers can include scales on homework, cooperation, and responsibility.  A 3.00-3.50 A- 2.84-2.99 B+ 2.67-2.83 B 2.50-2.66 B- 2.34-2.49 C+ 2.17-2.33 C 2.00-2.16 C- 1.84-1.99 D+ 1.67-1.83 D 1.50-1.66 D- 0.00-1.49 F
  26. 26.   The student‟s grade on the topic should not be “set in stone”. Students can improve grades of topics previously taught in past grading quarters.
  27. 27. Part 3: “Grading and Reporting Systems” Ashley Blount
  28. 28.  Administrator & teacher responsibilities in relation to positive parent & student involvement through effective reporting practices.
  29. 29. “Despite advances in grading and reporting, imprecision and lack of meaning persist” (O‟Connor & Wormeli, 2011).
  30. 30.  Report cards should be accurate and consistent (O‟Connor & Wormeli, ??).
  31. 31.  Communicate expectations, vision, & purpose of reporting with staff: ◦ Policies ◦ Consistency between teachers – Data  District/Campus policies  Perception of teacher consistency from parents (Munk & Bursuck, 2001) ◦ Consistency between campuses – District-wide data  Communicate & involve parents in reporting system explanation of terms: ◦ Ask for parent involvement in reporting effectiveness (Friedman & Frisbie, 2000). ◦ Use clear language – avoid “edu-babble”
  32. 32. Following audio, hover mouse in window & click play! Press enter to continue presentation following video!
  33. 33.  Communicate expectations, vision, & purpose with students and parents: ◦ Consistency & Fairness  Communicate reporting system and explanation with students & parents: ◦ “…[Parent Survey] Comments were directed less at the actual report card than at the parent-teacher communication surrounding the report card…communication with their children‟s teachers was very poor and that the information conveyed by the actual report card grade was not useful because the parents had no context in which to judge the comments” (Munk & Bursuck, 2001). ◦ Use clear language ◦ Relatable purpose and meaning for all grade levels
  34. 34.  Grading & Reporting Systems tie in to many ISLLC Standards: ◦ I – “…development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community.” ◦ III –“…ensuring management of the organization,…for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.” ◦ IV – “…collaborates with families…” ◦ V – “…promotes the success of all students by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.” Our vision of learning should shape an effective grading and reporting system.
  35. 35.  Anstadt, K. (2013, September 5). Standards based grading [Internet broadcast]. Perrysburg: YouTube.  Friedman, S.A. (2000). Making report cards measure up. Education Digest, 65(5), 45.      Guskey, T. (2013). The case against percentage grades. Educational Leadership, Sept 2013, Vol. 71, 68-72. Retrieved from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.yosemite.wbu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9819c4e8-8914-4d44-bf7f457de7a5806d%40sessionmgr4001&vid=3&hid=4103 Guskey, T. (2001). Helping standards make the grade. Educational Leadership, Sept 2001,Vol. 59. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept01/vol59/num01/Helping-Standards-Make-the-Grade.aspx Heflebower, T., & Marzano, R. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, Nov 2011, Vol. 69, 34-39. Retrieved from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.yosemite.wbu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9819c4e8-8914-4d44-bf7f457de7a5806d%40sessionmgr4001&vid=5&hid=4103 Knaack, S., Kreuz, A., & Zawlocki, E. (2012). Using standards-based grading to address students‟ strengths and weaknesses. (School of Education). Chicago, Illinois, United States: Saint Xavier University. Master of Arts Teaching and Leadership Program. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED531172 Kohn, A.(2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, Nov 2011, Vol. 69, 28-33. Retrieved from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.yosemite.wbu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9819c4e8-8914-4d44-bf7f457de7a5806d%40sessionmgr4001&vid=11&hid=4103  Munk, D. D. (2001). What report card grades should and do communicate. Remedial & Special Education, 22(5), 280.  O‟Connor, K. (2011). Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 40.  Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2013). Making the grade: a history of the a-f marking scheme. (College of the Holy Cross). College Park, Maryland, United States: University of Maryland. Retrieved from: http://academics.holycross.edu/files/Education/schneider/Making_the_Grade_JCS_prepub.pdf  Scriffiny,P. (2008). Seven Reasons for Standards-Based grading. Educational Leadership, Oct 2008,Vol. 66, Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/oct08/vol66/num02/Seven_Reasons_for_Standards-Based_Grading.aspx  (2009, September 17). Do Ontario report cards make the grade? [Internet broadcast]. Toronto: YouTube.

×