In reality ‘learning’ and ‘change’ are synonymous. Change is not an issue if it makes sense to and is ‘owned’ by those involved, rather than being arbitrarily imposed. An appreciation that change is a continual process, involving confusion and difficulty, is vital for future learners. ‘It is not change that kills………… it is the transitions’.
– Michael Fullan
Are you a district or school that is starting the transition to standards based grading? If so, what should you expect? My bet is that many conversations will occur over grading behaviors, abandoning percentages, sports and activities eligibility, valedictorian, DOK (depth of knowledge), proficiency scales, and my favorite "The Big Fat Four". Never heard of it? Be patient you will.
The BFF is what we refer to in our district when defining proficiency (especially the advanced or (4)) and the four point rubric. In standards based grading you replace traditional letter grades with rubric scores of 4,3,2, and 1. In many SBG systems a 4 is advanced, 3 is proficient, 2 is emerging or "not quite there", and a 1 is no attempt or "you really don't get it".
Right now there are two schools of thought on the BFF, Marzano's camp believes you define proficiency (3) and the 4 would be "above and beyond". This sounds fine in the beginning but when your groups start to tackle defining what "above and beyond' means you quickly run into trouble. The other current theory comes out of the Guskey camp that says you define a rigorous 4 first and then decide what could still be considered proficient (3) (this can also be a challenge). Both the 4 and the 3 would be proficient in this system.
Lets use free throw shooting to illustrate both sides. We have a target that says students will be proficient in free throw shooting. The collegial/PLC group decides to use the Marzano method and the assessment will be to shoot ten free throws. The group decides that a (3) proficiency will be making 7 to 10 from the free throw line, a (2, not proficient) would be 4 to 6 out of 10 and a (1, not proficient) would be less than 4. In tackling the (4) there is much disagreement. One group member says 10 out of 10 is a (4) but other members quickly point out that this is not "above and beyond". The next idea is that a student is a 4 if they can make at least 5 out of 10 with their opposite hand which is also quickly dismissed. The group settles on the (4) being the (3) criteria (7 out of 10) plus the student can make two three pointers which is farther back from the free throw line. They decide this is "above and beyond". See the problem? Using this method you have to change the target (i.e. moving the line back to the three point area or shooting with your opposite hand) to determine a 4 (above and beyond).
The other collegial/PlC group decides to use the Guskey method. They decide that making 10 out of 10 free throws is a rigorous target and defines proficiency as follows: (4) would be 9 or 10 out of 10 (advanced) (3) would be 7 or 8 out of 10 (proficient), a (2) would be 5 or 6 out of 10 (emerging but not proficient) and a (1) would be less than 5 (novice and not proficient). Using this method you don't change the target. One issue using this method is that you might disagree defining what can be missing but still proficient.
Whichever method your district chooses just remember the key is consistency and communication. Make sure your chosen method is fully understood by all staff and that it is communicated to all stakeholders. The more time you spend defining your rubric is key - leaving any level vacant or vague will cause you a lot of grief! If you want total buy-in and understanding make sure you have all the hard conversations and take your time. Change is never easy but doing it "the way we have always done it" is not acceptable. "The times are a-changing and if we don't we will sink like a stone". 'Bob Dylan
No comments:
Post a Comment