I talked about how I currently grade (or, more specifically, how I tabulate grades) in my last post, but I don’t want to give the impression that I’m totally satisfied with the system. It was a great core idea, but is missing something.
When I first started student teaching, my mentor teacher’s school has just adopted a grading system called EASE (Equity and Access in Student Evaluation), essentially introducing me to SBG from the get-go, before I really knew what it was. Because the whole school used EASE (which had a 3-point scale: not yet proficient, proficient, and highly proficient), the report card could just display the list of standards and the proficiency level. But when it came time to send transcripts to colleges, they still needed to have final grades. So those were calculated based on the percentage of standards with a P or a HP.
However, you did not need to be highly proficient at every single standard in order to get a 100. That goal was achieved by earning HP for half the standards and P for the other half. But my current system (and possibly many SBG systems? Let me know) requires mastery of all learning goals for that A+. And that’s really hard to do! Why so we expect a student to be perfect at everything? No one is.
One way to deal with this is to weight mastery (5 on a 5-point scale) as worth more than it is. But that seems like a sloppy way of doing it. There must be something more elegant. And then I had the following thought:
Why average the standards, and then scale up to 100? Why not just add up the score? And then, if the problem is requiring all 5s to get to 100, why not just have more than 20 standards?
This requires thoughtful choices, but I think it has a lot of potential. Let’s walk through an example. Say I grade on a 5-point scale. If I have 20 standards, a 5 on each gets me a grade of 100. But what if I have 22 standards (sat, 8 standards of practice and 14 content)? Then someone who gets a 4 on every standard gets an 88, a B+. If then they turn half of those into 5s, that’s a 99, A+. Someone who has a 3 on everything, so some fatal flaw in all of their knowledge, but decent understanding, gets a 66, a D. This seems reasonable to me.
If you grade on a 4-point scale, you could have 28 standards. Unless your 4-point scale is 0-3 instead of 1-4, then you could have 40! The choice is yours exactly how you break it down. But I think the idea have potential. Am I totally off?
(To be clear, I’m not letting my grading system determine what standards I teach. I already break down complex standards and combine simple ones, until I find ones that fit my class best. Now I’m just having a target number of standards for that process.)