Beyond the Grade. Robert Lynn Canady

is related to whether those summative assessments can judge or rank schools and teachers (Lenz & Kay, 2013; Wood, 2013). However, what those discussions often overlook is the value of formative assessments in guiding teaching practices in preparing all students to achieve grade-level content, and to successfully navigate the summative assessments. Formative assessments are the day-to-day or moment-to-moment impressions of student understanding, routine observations or conclusions about student mastery of skills or content, and adjustments in instruction that educator observations trigger. Summative assessments sum up student accomplishments and indicate mastery, and they typically take place after the usual instructional period has been completed. Summative assessments give meaning to grades because they are based on standards that are the common reference point. Therefore, grades based on summative assessments will decrease grade inflation and make college or career readiness more likely.

      Various school systems have plans to implement one of these assessment approaches.

      Assessment Options for Students With Disabilities

      Achieve (2013) is one example of a list of CCSS assessment resources designed for use with students with disabilities. The following are different assessment resources.

      ■ SBAC accessibility and accommodations (http://bit.ly/2cCxk0v) use technology to deliver assessments that fit the individual student’s needs. The technology includes different colors (for readability) and Braille, American Sign Language, and other languages.

      ■ PARCC accessibility (www.parcconline.org/assessments/accessibility/manual) assessment options address students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities’ needs.

      ■ The National Center and State Collaborative (www.ncscpartners.org) provides assessment options based on alternative achievement standards. These assessments are for students with “the most significant cognitive disabilities” (National Center and State Collaborative, 2012).

      ■ The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium (http://dynamiclearningmaps.org) developed an alternative assessment system for students with severe cognitive and sensory disabilities.

      Since states and provinces frequently discuss and sometimes change their preferences for the various assessment organizations, check your state or province’s department of education’s website or school system for the most current information. You can also find a list of states and their choices on OpenEd’s guide to Common Core standards (http://bit.ly/2cO2uMN; OpenEd, n.d.). The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (www.cmec.ca) lists standards as they vary by province. (Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction to access live links to the websites mentioned in this book.)

Summary

      In addition to professional reflection, a myriad of reasons make this the right time to reassess grading practices. The clear connection between education level and potential earnings and the clear risk of poverty associated with limited education are reasons to consider how we assess students. Grade inflation’s link to college dropout rates is another reason, as are the opportunities schools have with standardized assessment efforts.

Reflection Questions

      Use the following questions to help initiate faculty discussions and to help faculty examine the potential of changing current policies.

      1. What is the primary purpose of teacher grades?

      2. On what factors should teachers base grades? How important is predictability of grades? For instance, should course grades predict end-of-course test scores or the ability to perform on-the-job tasks? If important, what changes will increase predictability of a student’s grade?

      3. How can the practice of teaching and learning rather than sorting and selecting add meaning to grades earned by all students?

      4. What are the major arguments for having both academic and non-academic reporting instruments?

      Beyond the Grade © 2017 Solution Tree Press • SolutionTree.com

      Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction to download this free reproducible.

      CHAPTER 2

      Flawed Grading Practices and Policies

      Grades convey powerful messages. Grades can encourage or discourage students and help them set goals or simply state that they failed. Educators hear many questions and opinions about grading practices and policies. Whatever differences of opinion educators encounter, Marge Scherer (2011) reminds us that:

      There is no doubt that our society believes in grades. We look for four-star movies, five-star restaurants, top-10 colleges, and even Grade A eggs. Although we tend to think of these ratings as objective, we know that it’s important to read the full reviews—and look for cracks in the shells…. Most of us agree that if grades are going to be meaningful, they must be as accurate and fair as possible. The question before us is, How do we make that happen? (p. 7)

      In an effort to create common understandings—and to find those “cracks in the shells”—before making changes, this chapter critiques several educational and grading practices: (1) sort-and-select practices, (2) seat time requirements, (3) formative and summative assessment weaknesses, and (4) skewed averages (Guskey, 2015). (The last topic is so complex that it is discussed in detail in chapter 3 on page 29.)

Sort-and-Select Practices

      The policies and grading practices that most schools have followed for decades are based primarily on the sort-and-select practice (Lezotte, 2008). Typically, that process begins when students first enter school and are assigned to a grade level by age (or more specifically by birth date) and prior school experience, if any. From there, teachers assign students to instructional groups and then, at the end of each term, they make another sort-and-select decision—pass course for credit or fail course or fail grade level. But sort-and-select practices, on which traditional grading systems are based, do not provide sufficient flexibility given the great variety in student readiness, performance, and support.

      If we expect to graduate students who qualify for college and careers, and who in turn get and keep good jobs, we must understand and support a huge paradigm shift. That is, schools must relinquish certain aspects of the old-fashioned sort-and-select practice, whose grading approach doesn’t account for differentiation and focuses on deficits. Here, as a way of explaining the needed changes, we describe the issues associated with the sort-and-select practice. Chapter 4 (page 43), which discusses standards-based grading, offers remedies.

      Fairness Is Not Equivalent to Sameness

      Fairness is not equivalent to sameness. Robert Lynn Canady (n.d.c) notes:

      We have operated schools on the assumption that if students had to have extra support to achieve well (for example, extra time to complete a course, retake tests, or rewrite papers), then there had to be a penalty, such as averaging their low grades with their new and improved grades. This assumption is based on the belief that fairness is equated with sameness. In other words, if you want to be fair, you must treat every student the same. (p. 2)

      Thus, if teachers make exceptions such as providing supplementary materials to meet an individual student’s needs or allowing that student extra time to complete an assignment, they may be accused of being unfair to other