|
Last week a variety of news sources around the United States picked up a news story about a teacher who was fired in Port Saint Lucie, Florida, for reportedly refusing to follow the school’s policy against giving “zeroes” for missing or incomplete work.
Diane Tirado, the fired teacher, outlines a variety of reasons for her refusal - you can read more about the story by clicking HERE to visit the Newsweek article, or search for the story and read about it from a multitude of other sources.
I’m not familiar enough with the specifics of this particular case to provide much commentary on it, and there’s at least some outlets (including the Newsweek article linked above) reporting that the school district is providing additional reasons for her termination, including her unwillingness to follow IEP accommodations - which is a completely separate issue from assessment policies and one I believe worth mentioning in the discussion.
If you’re new to this topic, however, and interested in learning more, over the summer I released a couple of videos as a sort of “pilot” ...I was testing out some new equipment and I’m considering releasing more such videos in the future. One of the first topics on my mind was “The Super F”....the mathematical weight that a 0% carries on the 100 point scale. If you like, you can watch that video by clicking HERE.
The bottom line however, is that a 0% can greatly distort achievement data when averaging grades (which is a problem in it’s own right). The problems with assessment are layered and vary wildly based on local customs, but the use of “0%” on the 100 point scale is a problem that needs to be addressed anywhere it is used.
Recording 50% instead of 0% is not the sole cure for all that ails assessment in most schools, but it can at times serve as a band aid as we pursue greater changes. The power in this process comes from teachers creating proficiency scales with clearly defined learning targets divided into 3-5 different levels to measure proficiency, and in students who are able to articulate their own progress towards mastering the standards we’re outlining. THAT is Standards Based LEARNING, and is far more powerful than simply changing the symbols as a part of Standards Based GRADING.
Yet, I have a number of questions. Why do progressive school districts, incorporating the work of Dr. Reeves and others in their assessment practices, still feel obligated to use percentages at all? As much as I advocate this approach - it's still a bandage on an open wound...the problems are deeper than this and the "50%" instead of "0%" approach is still only helping to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Are we providing teachers enough professional development as we transition to these more accurate assessment practices? Do teachers understand the “why” in addition to the “what” and “how” of new grading practices? What can we do to bring communities into the assessment conversation, in addition to teachers and administrators? What additional policies were in place to support / encourage student learning and completion of missing/failing work?
My only hope in this is that no teacher who is committed to grading for learning would is deterred by this recent news story, and that any school or district given pause at the public outrage would only pause long enough to consider the above questions.
I have been fortunate enough in my career to be a part of three separate building wide implementations of Standards Based Grading and Learning. Each had different plans, different needs, and ultimately, different struggles and results. If you’re a teacher looking to grade for learning in a traditional system, or a building district looking to implement systemic changes, PLEASE allow me the privilege of assisting you. I’d love to discuss it with you.
As always, thank you so much for your time. Focus on learning, and be great this week.
-Mark
markclements@Edunators.com
www.edunators.com
facebook.com/Edunators
twitter.com/MarkClementsEdu
twitter.com/Edunators
|
