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 a team attempts to do all this outside of an evidence-focused grading system,” Kaori says, “teams must write the exam together. That’s easy, but how do they decide how many questions to put on the exam? How do they decide how many points each question is worth, and how those points relate mathematically to total points for the semester or term? How do they decide how to reward answers with points? How do they decide how to award those points as they observe performance nuances? What assumptions can the team make about borderline answers or performances? All these layers are at play in non-evidence-based grading courses.”
“More important,” John says, “as you begin your journey, we need to ensure that we calibrate all perspectives, use high-quality assessments, and give all parties the right evidence. In this way, we make feedback purposeful and useful. We work to create these elements when implementing evidence-based grading.
“Remember, we are moving to this model for two reasons: First, the traditional grading model exposes students to a false sense of mastery because it has teachers approve students’ short-term acquisition of knowledge as learning. Second, and even worse, students are not developing the skills to identify and articulate their current state of learning. We feel evidence-based grading successfully addresses both concerns.”
Kaori asks the next logical question in order to move the team
