Heartland AEA Learning Team Provides Input on Standards-Based Progress Reporting

NOTE: This fall Heartland AEA implemented a new way of approaching professional learning within the agency. Heartland’s workgroups have formed learning teams that plan for the professional learning that is specific to their group’s needs. Groups were very creative and thoughtful as they designed plans that incorporated formats for learning that represented new ways of thinking. One learning team in particular has been studying standards-based progress reporting, a topic that has been discussed widely in local media outlets in the past few weeks. The team has prepared the article below with the purpose of reporting on some of their learning about standards-based reporting.

Response to DM Register articles regarding standards-based grading and reporting
On Monday, February 7, the Des Moines Register published an article titled, “A New Way to Grade.” Its subject was the Waukee school district’s intention of moving to standards-based progress reports in middle school and eliminating letter grades. A subsequent article appeared on March 9 regarding Waukee Board decisions. Depending on whether you read these in paper form or online, you may or may not have seen community members’ reactions to the ideas within the articles. Actions moving toward changing the way schools report student learning can be emotionally charged.

Our learning team at Heartland AEA has been studying this very issue this school year. We have investigated how standards-based grading and reporting practices might look in schools that are implementing standards, such as the Iowa Core, for example. The team is reading and studying from voices in the field and is also looking at schools and systems that are currently implementing standards-based grading and reporting practices in Iowa, the nation and even Canada. The purpose of this article is not to defend Waukee Board decisions; our purpose is to convey some of our learning about standards-based grading and reporting.

Fundamentally, a change to standards-based grading and reporting practices has at its core improved communication to students and parents regarding student achievement of learning targets. Our historical system of letter grades A-B-C-D-F has traditionally conveyed a very general sense of how well a student is doing. In this traditional system that tends to sort students, it has not necessarily been clear what an A means, or a B or an F. We usually just associate these grades with a sense of well being: “Letter grade A means doing really well; Letter grade D means doing poorly and close to failing,” etc. But traditional letter grades on a report typically tell us no more than that sense of well being. What’s included in that A? Was it pure academic achievement of standards or objectives? Or did this student bring in supplies for a charity fundraiser or bring a box of tissues for extra credit or points? Did another student have perfect attendance and really good behavior but not exhibit solid achievement of learning targets—yet received a high letter grade because behaviors were worked in? Other things to think about are our traditional methods of teachers’ using points converted to percentages converted to letter grades, often starting in late intermediate or middle grades and continuing into high school. What do these percentages mean, exactly? What does number crunching do for communication of a student’s genuine progress toward achievement of learning targets?

Our Heartland learning team has found the study of standards-based reporting and grading practices interesting and provocative. We have learned that standards-based grading and reporting helps students and parents know with much more clarity how the student is demonstrating what she knows and can do with standards (and/or perhaps other indicators) and how well. If the assumed purpose of grading and reporting is to communicate clearly a student’s achievement of learning targets, and if that achievement report is not influenced by behavior, then sometimes this is by means other than traditional letter grades—or it might be traditional letter grades along with clear, specific performance level descriptors or other indicators.

Our team has done a thorough book study of one book so far (O’Connor, 2009) and has discussed other prominent voices in the field, all of whom agree on basic principles. We offer the following recommendations for school or district study of this issue, for those schools or districts interested in pursuing better understanding of what the Waukee schools—and Ankeny and the Des Moines diocesan school communities—are undergoing in terms of standards-based grading and reporting:

Guskey, T.R. (2000, December). Grading policies that work against standards ... and how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin. Retrieved January 21, 2006 from www.looksmartwomensports.com/p/articles/mi_qa3696/is_200012/ai_n8921332

Guskey, T. R. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 670-675.

Guskey, T. R. & Bailey J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

O’Connor, K. (2009). How to grade for learning K-12: Linking grades to standards (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

O’Connor, K. (2011). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (See Chapter 8 specifically.)

Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Our Heartland learning team has found this topic to be exciting and challenging to study. We offer this article in the spirit of learning together about an issue that can draw the opinion of virtually everyone who has been through school. Since the Register articles appeared, there may have been comments or arguments in your district or school. We welcome hearing about how you may have begun discussion in this area.

Heartland Grading & Reporting Learning Team members:
Becca Lindahl, Teresa Bellinghausen, Julie Hukee, Lynn McCartney, Jennifer Riedemann, Mary Schmidt