“There are four levels in our system,” Kaori continues. “Fewer levels means that students are classified more accurately. As Thomas R. Guskey points out on page 36 of his 2015 book On Your Mark, ‘essentially, as the number of grade categories goes up, the chance of two equally competent judges assigning exactly the same grade to the same sample of a student’s work diminishes significantly.’ Let’s do a little exercise.”
“We currently use a one-hundred-point scale,” John says. “Together as a group, think about an assignment you recently gave to your students.”
Joni says, “A free-response writing assignment about the Battle of the Bulge.”
“Great!” says John. “Now think about the students’ grades, and ponder this question: What is the difference between a student who gets an 85 percent and a student who gets an 86 percent? Keep in mind that in order to have an accurate and fair grading system, the assessor must be able to articulate the difference between these two percentages.”
The team is silent for a few seconds, and then Mario laughs. “I can’t,” he says. “There is no real difference between 85 percent and 86 percent.” The others agree.
“The more levels we have,” John says, “the more we run the risk of potentially giving an incorrect rating. Even worse, we give inaccurate feedback. This is why we must have the fewest achievement levels possible that still promote quality feedback. This is why we use four.”
Kaori says, “Evidence-based grading is based on achieving a level of proficiency—proficiency in a skill or proficiency in consolidating information into actionable thoughts. This proficiency is assessed by a gradation of achievement that represents an assessor’s expectations. Expectations have gradations, and you use them to evaluate the current evidence of performance. Does that make sense?”
Again, team members nod, and Kaori continues, “Therefore, we must attach levels to our expectations. We believe that there are only four levels of an expectation, nothing more. There is no such thing as a ‘super-duper’ expectation or ‘terribly, horribly not-even-close’ standards. Or, at least there shouldn’t be.”
“What about our A, B, C system? That is a five-level system, and we have been using that for years,” Maya points out.
“Yes, that’s true,” John says, “but what is the difference between a D and an F? Does a D student know a little bit more than an F student? Do schools not worry about students with D grades? When a student is doing D work, don’t we work to provide him or her with interventions?”
“So, is a 4 really just an A in this system?” Mario asks with a bit of confusion.
“That’s a good question,” Kaori says. “I believe a lot of teachers might think the same way—that evidence-based grading substitutes numbers for letters. It is hard to think this way, but the numbers 4, 3, 2, and 1 have no numerical value; they are just positional markers that communicate the location one occupies relative to an expectation. You could use checks, pluses, animals, or letter combinations … it doesn’t matter. The preponderance of evidence is what matters in the evidence-based model, not numbers and scaled ranges of accumulated points. The 4 simply represents that a student is past the expected performance level, a 3 means the student is at the expected performance level, a 2 indicates he or she is approaching the expected performance level, and a 1 indicates that the student isn’t even close.”
Shaking her head, Britney asks, “Why isn’t 4 the expectation? Isn’t that what you want a student to ultimately achieve?”
John says, “For an evidence-based model, the expectation must never be the top rung of the ladder, so to speak. There is always space to go beyond the expectation. Expectations need levels to have context, and the expected level must sit at the third rung.”
Still not convinced, Joni says, “By this logic, a B is the expectation in our current system, but we don’t think that way. Students want an A. The A is the expectation, but there is nothing past an A.”
John says, “An A+ is past an A.” He pauses as he writes out the current A, B, C, D, F model’s plus/minus scale and then says, “If A is the expectation, A+ is the above and beyond. Then it would be all B and C, and then D and F.”
The team understands that this is a societal shift in thinking, not only an educational shift.
Kaori says, “In an evidence-based model, we judge students against a criterion, meaning if they show competency in certain criteria, we deem them competent. They would get the A, or the 3, or the checkmark, and so on. If they earn it, they deserve it. Actually, we have seen very little difference between evidence-based courses and non-evidence-based courses regarding grade distribution. In fact, they are almost identical, with the exception that in evidence-based courses, there are almost no failures. And this is what we want! Success for every student!”
Britney asks, “OK, I get all this, but if we can’t use points, what do we use to grade? I can’t seem to picture how we grade without points. Do I just give students a 4, 3, 2, or 1 on everything but use a letter grade for assignments in the gradebook?”
Having heard this question before, John says, “Gradebooks are set up with learning targets, not assignments or assessments. You are simply inserting a target and a number for the proficiency a student has demonstrated on that target.”
The group still seems confused, so Kaori begins writing the following on the board. “In our gradebooks now, we see this.”
• Assignment: Score
• Assignment: Score
• Assessment: Score
• Assignment: Score
• Assessment: Score
“So it looks like the following.” She continues writing.
• Homework 1: 10/12
• Formative worksheet: 10/10
• Quiz: 23/30
• Project: 36/40
• Test: 44/50
“However, in evidence-based grading, we see the following.” She writes on the board.
• Target: Proficiency score
• Target: Proficiency score
• Target: Proficiency score
“So, it would look like this.” She finishes writing on the board.
• I can explain … 4
• I can create … 3
• I can identify … 3
Kevin, looking a bit confused, asks, “What happens to all the assignments? We don’t report them?”
“In an evidence-based system, reporting focuses on acquiring proficiency, not achieving a task. So, accumulating tasks is not necessary to report, just the most prominent or current state of proficiency.”
“So, I just replace the score based on the evidence I have to interpret?” Kevin asks.
“Yes!” Kaori says. “When you convert to evidence-based grading, your grading policy becomes the professional interpretation of evidence, nothing more. This is Guskey’s principle, and we feel it is the fairest and most accurate way to determine student grades.”
The team members like the grading policy’s simplicity, but they feel nervous about the policy’s subjectivity.
“When teams collaboratively vet expected evidence from student performance,” John explains, “they also are collaboratively vetting their expectations. This clarifies feedback and instruction for students. In terms of assessment, the curriculum team has deeply calibrated and scrutinized student performance so it is far less subjective than a non-evidence-based grading system.”
“When