Grading, Reporting, and Retesting

We maximize possibilities for teaching and learning when we create grading and reporting systems that are compatible with the differentiation practices we espouse.  Absent this compatibility, differentiation efforts tend to stall.  While discussing the possibility of introducing tiered assessments, a science colleague mused, “you’d have to be an idiot to put all that work into differentiating if you can’t report on it somehow.”  Anything that lessens our motivation to differentiate is hurtful to students.

Different grading and reporting structures are presented below. Most likely, you’ll like and dislike aspects of each system. I do. Each system was developed to promote and support the learning goals teachers had for their students. Learning goals were differentiated, so grading systems were conceived with this in mind.

Perhaps you’ll like one of the following systems. Perhaps you’ll devise a better one that you can share with the rest of us!

Two different systems have been successfully used by math teachers in Jakarta.

First and currently, teachers report both the challenge level students work at and the accuracy with which they work at that level. Having moved to a standards based reporting system, teachers report performance against individual learning targets, as shown below.  This has worked very well from the perspectives of teachers, students, and parents.

CLICK the image for a clearer view

Reporting BOTH Challenge Level and Mastery Against that Challenge Level

Prior to the use of standards based grading and reporting, when a traditional report card was used, teachers needed to report a single course grade at the end of a marking period.  The teachers adopted a weighted system of grading similar to the way some high schools give different weights to grades earned in regular and honors courses.  The difference in this case was that weights were assigned to every assessment offered, so students could work at a variety of color levels within a marking period AND within the same class.  This is an advantage of tiering within a class vs. tracking across classes.  Students have the opportunity to be “honors” or “regular” students on a daily basis as they select their challenge level on daily tiered practice assignments and end of unit assessments.

Regardless of the system, a question many students, parents, and teachers ask is, “What happens if students don’t do well on a summative assessment?”

JIS teachers have experimented with various retesting guidelines, from letting students retest who have worked at any color level under any circumstances to only allowing students who worked at the blue and black level of challenge retest. After trying different approaches across grade levels over a two year period, teachers realized that a blanket policy for all situations was not desirable. Teacher discretion on a case-by-case basis made the most sense for maximally advancing learning at JIS.

That being said, teachers did notice patterns in what worked well and found themselves most often denying retest requests to students who attempted green level assessments.  As teachers increasingly utilized formative assessments (thus offering multiple chances for success in every unit), they started realizing a greater need to help students develop effective learning dispositions as a priority over specific content focused outcomes. Denying retest requests pushed students, parents, and teachers to pinpoint specific learning approaches in need of improvement, which most often led to improved learning outcomes during future units.

The department’s retesting philosophy read as follows:

Ultimately, effectively dealing with the question of retesting across a large math department involves a lot of communication between teachers, students, and parents.  It’s well worth it.

Very few students ended up retesting under these guidelines.  About 40% of students try blue or black assessments, and of those, about 15% end up retesting.  A negligible number of green level attempts resulted in retests.

Most recently (2013), teachers have begun combining the three color levels into a single assessment. Students choose color levels by topic areas within the assessment, which increases choice within an assessment.  All students are expected to complete the most rigorous green level questions identified as “all” questions before moving on to choose problem solving tasks at the color level of their choice. This has eliminated the retesting rationale for students who struggle with blue or black level tasks because all students are required to tackle the most rigorous green level problems as part of the assessment. Here’s an example of such an assessment.

The grading approach used by Oakland science teachers was very different. Teachers were primarily concerned with motivating students to do their best, striving to provide as many intrinsic motivational forces as possible. Teachers emphasized efficacy over absolute achievement. Students played a big role in tracking their progress, collecting evidence of their achievement, and determining their final grade.

The following three images show examples of a goal setting sheet, a performance summary sheet students would fill out at the end of a unit, and a summary grade sheet that we would fill out together during an interview. On average, there were about 30 students in each of four science classes that were taught when this tiered system was implemented. As an example, the purple text shows what one student wrote.

circulatory-system_page_1.jpg

circulatory-system_page_3.jpg

circulatory-system_page_2.jpg

If you take anything away from this page, I hope it’s the understanding that grading and reporting systems CAN be devised that will complement your differentiated approach with students. Taking time to carefully plan out your grading system is well worth the effort.

I highly recommend two books to inform your thinking around assessment, grading, and reporting in differentiated classrooms:  How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms by Carol Ann Tomlinson and Fair Isn’t Always Equal by Rick Wormeli.

5 responses

1 10 2007
Adam

Thanks, Dave, for such an informative site. I want to throw another system into the mix that Grant Wiggins and, eventually, Jay McTighe, on whose work much of the recent assessment conversation has been built, devised some years ago. If you want to see the full system, then check out _Assessment For Learning_ by Wiggins.

Anyhow, the system breaks down in this way, a way that makes the most sense to me and is transferable amongst all subject areas: (note that there are three grades provided in this scheme for every student)
1 – PERFORMANCE. This is the cold hard grade to the standard. If a student walks in the door with major skill deficiencies, then this performance grade will almost certainly reflect poorly on that student at the beginning and end of the year.
2 – PROGRESS. Based on pre- and post-assessments, student growth is measured and reported. With this grade, the student above who has a major skill deficit will be rewarded for his tremendous progress over the course of the academic year in this grade. Additionally, the student who entered the class with extremely high skills, but who does not make progress during the school year, will no longer be able to “hide out.”
3 – PROCESS. It does matter that work is submitted on time. It does matter that assignments are complete, that homework is done, that students participate actively in class activities. These are the behaviors that breed learning. These behaviors should be rewarded, and they can be measured. Note that process is not effort. It is measurable and it is clear to students that going through the processes attached to learning are worthwhile.

This three-grade system meshes with standards-based assessment. It is transferable across subject areas. Universities like it, because it provides a beautiful snapshot of a student: a kid who is both brilliant and lazy is exposed; a kid who has skill deficiencies but is rapidly overcoming them is rewarded; a kid who works incredibly hard but isn’t making progress is able to be talked about in faculty meetings with real evidence from multiple classes. I’ve got to go teach now.

19 12 2008
Kevin

Dave,

For the last few months, we have been using three different levels of homework; last Friday, I gave my first quiz where the students could choose their challenge. During the quiz, there were no students finished in five minutes, and only one or two from all the classes needed extra time, and only a few minutes at that – excellent.

I told them as I passed out the quizzes that they were all worth equal weight – nothing more for a black run over a green, but the choice was theirs. When it came to grading the quizzes, I ran into a question: how do I handle the students who took the black or blue and didn’t do so well. On the green, which is meeting the standards, most of them would have had no problem.

I decided to let them do corrections for half credit. I told them that what was important was that they understood, so we spent the day in groups of mixed ability students and they did the corrections.

The more I thought about it, I wondered if I should offer a choice to those who blew the black or blue tests the option to do corrections for half credit, or a retake on the green level test. If they can do well on the green level tests, that is mastering the grade level concepts.

One of my concerns is that parents of those who choose the more challenging tests may complain about their child getting a lower grade.

How do you handle grading the different levels?

Cheers,
-Kevin

19 12 2008
David Suarez

Congratulations on giving your first tiered assessment, Kevin!

On our report cards, we actually report the level of challenge at which the student assessed along with the letter grade representing the level of achievement at that challege level. We define green as “standard,” blue as “advanced” and black as “highly advanced.” Students who don’t do as well as they’d like on blue or black level assessments are given the chance to demonstrate grade level proficiency by retesting at the green level of challenge. Students who earn a B on blue or black tend not to retest, while those who earn a C or below are encouaraged to retest at the green level of challenge so that we can make sure they’ve attained grade level proficiency.

I’m sure you have or will think of more questions related to grading and reporting. Feel free to keep shooting! Establishing a grading approach you’re comfortable will go along way to preserving your enthusiasm for moving forward. Grading frequently conflicts with differentiation practices when we can’t find creative ways to work within the structures in place at our schools. Good luck!

15 10 2013
ejohn

This was very clarifying — I had been wondering about how I would administer a summative assessment, for example, should it be the same for all (e.g. green)? still tiered? and what to do if it is tiered and students who chose blue who did not do so well. In a nutshell, your reply above was helpful!

6 10 2009
fred jhonson

very nice that may of the schools have started grading system this way even average students can cope up to be the best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: