Mario, the team leader, has spent a lot of time grappling with evidence-based grading’s concepts, and he is eager to work with the team and lead discussions around its implementation. Maya is in her second year of teaching and feels more comfortable with the curriculum than she did at first. Britney is in her seventh year of teaching and is indifferent to adopting a new grading system. Based on past experiences, Joni and Kevin know that a change to evidence-based grading means breaking away from years of past practices. Joni also notes that the shift isn’t just going to be hard for teachers to fully understand—it is going to be difficult for students as well. Likewise, it will confuse parents who have only ever known a points-and-percentage-based grading system.
Luckily, a couple of the content-based curriculum teams in the school have already made the shift to evidence-based grading, so our team thinks it can gather some good advice from other faculty members about how they already implemented and communicated the change to evidence-based grading. By no means does anyone claim to be an expert on the topic, but the teams that implemented the new model really like the outcome: discussing learning with students instead of confronting them about points and percentages.
Mario is excited but anxious, as team members are going to implement evidence-based grading into their subject area in a few months. At the end of May, the team gathers in a classroom to discuss its approach to implementation. John, director of assessment, and Kaori, assistant superintendent of curriculum, lead the meeting. These two school leaders worked previously with a number of teams through the challenging shift. John and Kaori welcome the team and begin to discuss evidence-based grading. They are up-front about the need to shift away from past grading practices and recognize the effort it will take. The teams that have implemented evidence-based grading continue to encourage them to move forward with the change.
“As other teachers are saying,” notes John, “once you shift to evidence-based grading, you will never want to go back.”
John and Kaori help Mario’s team by introducing a clear protocol to follow during evidence-based grading implementation. The first step is to ensure the team has a clear understanding of the purpose of making this change.
Kaori begins the meeting with two questions: “Why are we moving to an evidence-based grading system anyway? What benefit does evidence-based grading have that our traditional grading practices lack?”
The team sits silently, and Kaori, not expecting an answer, continues, “It’s important to start with understanding why we are making this change. Our mission is to ensure the most accurate and clear communication about learning to promote success for all students. Evidence-based grading principles support this mission.”
John then takes his turn. “It’s frustrating, but our current system, which we’ve been using for decades, doesn’t support our mission of clear communication. This came to me when I thought about real-life student experiences with grading and reporting practices. Let’s start with a scenario. Let’s suppose a student gets the following grades on five exams for one six-week grading period: 40, 60, 80, 90, 90. What grade does the student deserve?”
Mario replies, “I know this is not the answer we will give by the end of this meeting, but I would say 72 percent based on the way we calculate grades now.”
“Well,” John says, “a few things come to mind when I hear that. First, the student’s last two assessments yielded a score of 90, and also the student never scored in the 70s at any point during these assessments. If we look through the student’s grades, it appears that over time, he made significant improvements. The student learned over time. If we calculate the student’s grade average, aren’t we really discounting his growth? Aren’t we assigning a grade for the student based on what he wasn’t able to prove instead of what he is now able to prove?”
Maya speaks up. “I agree, but the student also has to be accountable for past mistakes. Averaging all those grades together is more accurate because the student was only at 90 percent for a short time period out of all the assessments. Therefore, a 72.5 percent, or C grade, is really a good picture of the student during the course. He didn’t do well the whole time, just part of the time.”
John says, “That may be so, but think of it this way. Do you remember learning how to ride a bike? When you learned, did you factor in all the times you fell to determine whether you could ride, or did you just finally learn to ride? You didn’t just average your ability to ride the bike and say, ‘I ride a bike at 72 percent.’”
Team members nod in agreement. John continues, “Would you consider a student who can now fluently speak another language not fluent because she made many mistakes along the way? Of course not. Or how about a student who didn’t know algebra or chemistry at the beginning of the school year but learned it by the end?”
John moves to make his point. “All learning is based on growth. In fact, that is the definition of learning. Evidence-based grading is a growth-based learning model and supports the expression of skill acquisition and knowledge. Our current system of grading does not express anything but percentages or point earnings. It doesn’t communicate learning’s growth and development.
“Let’s consider another example. Suppose a student gets the following scores: 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 100. What percentage will she receive?”
Kevin says, “Traditionally, the student would get a 50 percent. She would fail the class.”
“Correct,” John replies. “Now, how many 100 percent grades would the student need to get in order to offset all those zeros and earn an A?”
The group is slow to answer this time. Some members mumble a few answers, but nothing seems correct. John explains, “In order to get an A grade, the student would need twenty-seven more 100 percent grades in the gradebook to offset the initial three zeros. In other words, it is almost impossible to outpace a particularly low grade, especially a zero.”
“So, you are saying we shouldn’t use zeros. I get it. But what about the student who just doesn’t do the work?” asks Maya.
Kaori says, “Behavior and academics must not coexist in one single letter grade. The comingling of behavior, skills, attendance, attitude, work ethic, and skills performance creates lack of clarity about why the student gets a certain grade. We then assume a lot about what is behind the grade. Think of the letter grade B. Some parents may think it means smart but the class is hard, while other parents may think not as smart as other students in the class. Some may think that their child didn’t work hard enough. Too many assumptions cause the grade to be less accurate. Therefore, it is not aligned with our mission, which is ensuring the most accurate assessment and communication of student growth and performance.”
John says, “We see this same problem in the assessments themselves. Let’s assume you have an exam this week. One student skips the test and another gets all the questions wrong … yet they both get a zero in the gradebook. So, what does that zero represent? Does it represent a lack of effort or a lack of knowledge? You really don’t know the grade’s intent on a report card.”
The team acknowledges his point. John continues, “So, can we agree now that zeros are not effective, averages do not work, and grade information must be reported separately from behavior as a way to communicate meaningfully?”
The team understands exactly what John is saying, and each member thinks about how the years of past grading practices might not have been equitable to students.
Kaori starts the next segment. “In evidence-based grading, we assess students on a gradation of learning that has four levels. Why only four levels? Let me explain. It is essential as assessors that we possess the capability to articulate a clear description of each level of achievement as well as the differences between these levels.