same reward or penalty. For example, when one team engages in flagrant rule violations, whether it is unnecessary roughness on the football field or going overtime in a speech competition, fair judgment requires that all competitors who engage in the same violation receive the same penalty. The histrionics of World Cup players notwithstanding, it is not the pleading of the players that determines the officials’ judgment but rather an objective view of the players’ conduct. The research in this book demonstrates that effective grading practices, particularly those based on standards, are more likely to be fair. Even the fiercest critics of standards might agree that fairness is a noble objective, even if it comes from different political perspectives.
Second, we agree the judgments must be accurate. By accurate we mean that assessments of student performance are based solely on the performance itself and not the heredity, wealth, or status of the student. In this book, I argue that standards-based grading is much more likely to be accurate than comparative grading. But even for people who disagree with that proposition, I hope that we can all agree that accuracy is a good thing.
Third, we agree that judgments must be specific. Under the bright lights of a Friday night game, the officials do not announce “Bad play!” or “Rule violation!” Rather, they state with specificity what the infraction was, such as “Offsides!” or “Illegal formation!” The specific imperative is hardly limited to athletic competitions. In fields as diverse as science and the creative arts, specificity is at the heart of encouraging improved performance.
Fourth, and lastly, we can agree that judgments must be timely. The requirement for timely judgments is inextricably linked to the requirement for specificity. With ambiguous rules, judgments would take the entire weekend. With specific rules, however, we must make judgments so the game ends before midnight. The fundamental reason for timely judgments is not the convenience of the observers or participants but rather the educational imperative that students use feedback to improve performance. If I know that I was offsides on the last play, I am less likely to make the same mistake on the next play.
These attempts to find common ground are not naïve. In the landmark study of negotiation, Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, 2011), even the most disputatious opponents can begin the process of negotiating an end to their quarrels when they first find common ground. It is true that the most hard-core opponents of civil conversation will not agree on these four principles. “What is fairness?” they might inquire. “It’s all in the eye of the beholder!” The possibility that some people will not engage in civil conversation does not absolve the rest of us from attempting rational engagement. The alternative, as grading controversies since well before the 21st century have shown, is gridlock. The adults involved in fierce advocacy never win, but students certainly lose.
How Standards Impact Grading
It doesn’t matter whether you are participating in the Common Core State Standards; state, provincial, or national standards; or standards established by your own school or local education system. The central issue in transforming policy into practice is not the standards’ authorship or source but rather their application to student performance as the basis for evaluation.
The impact of standards on grading practices includes the following three hallmarks.
1. Student performance is compared to objective standards: It is possible for every student in the class to earn a top mark and similarly possible for no students to achieve top marks. There is no requirement for a certain number of As, and there is no requirement for a certain number of students to perform below that level. The only criterion that matters is performance. For example, officers administering student driving tests are not required to issue passing or failing marks to a certain percentage of students every day. Instead, they compare the performance of their student drivers to objective standards.
2. The rationale behind student evaluations is clear: The essential question is not “What grade did I get?” but rather “How do I get to the next level of performance?” For example, I overheard two fifth-grade students who, in only their second week of school, were talking about their forthcoming report cards—two months away. The school uses a four-point scale to describe performance.
One student commented, “I’m OK with getting a 3, but I wish that they would tell me what I need to do to move to a 4.” It’s a fair challenge. In a standards-based grading system, the answer is crystal clear. In writing, for example, a student might say, “I earned a 3 because I wrote really good paragraphs that have clear topic sentences and supporting details. But if I want to earn a 4, I need to use more powerful vocabulary and have a stronger closing paragraph.” In mathematics, the student might say, “I earned a 2 because I got most of the answers right, but I really didn’t explain how I got them. I need to ask for help to get to the next level. Even though I think I know some of the answers, I’m not sure why they are right. I need to practice explaining my work.” In brief, whatever the level of the student, the key to effective standards-based grading, in practice, is that students can articulate their present level of learning and explain in their own words what they need to do in order to advance to the next level.
3. School- and district-level administrators model clear expectations for teachers, and teachers model clear expectations for students: For example, if they expect teachers to provide specific and timely feedback to students, then administrators must do the same after every formal and informal classroom observation. There must be no mystery about what a walkthrough or other observation means. Administrators must be clear about their criteria, for example, “This week, I’m going to be observing classrooms with a focus on feedback. In particular, I’m going to focus on the number of students who receive feedback from the teacher and, most importantly, the number of students who use that feedback to make immediate improvements in their performance.”
We do not have to agree on standards in order to embrace effective grading practices. The key to applying effective grading practices is not which standards you use but how you apply the standards that you choose to give fair, accurate, specific, and timely feedback to students.
The next chapter explores what the CCSS mean for grading.
Chapter 2
WHAT THE COMMON CORE MEANS FOR GRADING
For the most part, states have become ambivalent about the Common Core, although initially almost every state embraced this effort, which the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) support. At the writing of this book, however, the support has dwindled to about two-thirds of the states, and many state legislative chambers are clamoring for disengagement from the Common Core and the tests associated with it (Bidwell, 2014).
If you are reading this book in a state where the Common Core is not embraced or supported, you can certainly skip this chapter. But I’d like to suggest that these few pages might be worthwhile reading for any educator, administrator, or policymaker. The reason is that every set of standards—from the fifty separate state standards at the onset of the 21st century to the provincial curricula in Canada to the International Baccalaureate (IB) curricula and virtually any other state of academic expectations—has some elements in common with regard to teaching, learning, and assessing. Most importantly, an effective grading system supports many of these alternative curriculum frameworks. An ineffective grading system, however, undermines even the best academic expectations. Therefore, whether your school is committed to the Common Core State Standards, drifting away from them, or virulently opposed to them, there remains something to learn about the relationship between effective grading practices and the Common Core.
What the Common Core Says—and Doesn’t Say
The Common Core says what to teach, not how to teach it. In fact, it really doesn’t even do
