A new type of grading that challenges the traditional 100-point scale is spreading across Washington state high schools, but teachers are divided on whether it’s a good idea.
The new approach, called standards-based grading, requires teachers to divide curricula up into a large number of “standards”, each focusing on a particular skill or specific area of knowledge. Instead of the traditional midterm exams covering a wide swath of topics, teachers utilize short, regular quizzes that students can retake.
For each individual standard, students are given a number from 1 to 4 indicating their proficiency. A “4” typically means “exceeding standards”, “3” means “meeting standards”, with a “2” and “1” both indicating below-standard proficiency. Proponents of this system claim it offers more focused and useful feedback than midterm exams using the traditional 100-point scale. Opponents claim it creates confusion, additional work for teachers, and grade inflation.
Love it or hate it, it’s getting increasingly difficult to avoid discussion about standards-based grading. Although its influence has exploded only in recent years, this form of grading has technically been around for several decades with origins stretching back to the federal No Child Left Behind Act of the early 2000s and its corresponding emphasis on standards-driven education.
As faculty and staff at Central Washington University, we recently surveyed 201 high school math teachers across the state who teach for our College in the High School Program. Our survey found that the majority of teachers (59%) either currently use standards-based grading or have discussed using it at their school. This suggests that most Washington state high school teachers have already had to grapple with the issue in their classrooms.
Ironically, teachers themselves often have little say in educational decisions, and standards-based grading appears to be no exception. Of those in our survey using the standards-based approach, roughly 40% were ordered by their principal to use it. Two-thirds received little to no training before implementation. Unsurprisingly, based on the two previous answers, the majority of these teachers questioned whether their principals understood the ramifications of the grading system.
Teachers currently using standards-based grading express mixed opinions about it. On the one hand, most (56%) agree that it enables more accurate communication with parents about their child’s learning. However, 60% of teachers also agree that this approach to grading is more time-intensive and they are split over whether it prepares students for college better than traditional grading. Despite the increased time requirement, however, 60% of teachers using standards-based grading would still recommend it to their colleagues.
Teachers not currently using standards-based grading hold a decidedly more negative view. Thirty-seven percent of them have tried the system in the past and abandoned it, citing concerns such as increased teacher time requirements, lack of support with existing gradebook technology, and implementation challenges with upper-level math classes. Only 30% of non-users expressed openness to trying it.
Given these conflicting experiences, what can we conclude? Most of the current standards-based grading research is qualitative, reporting on case studies and teacher experiences. While interesting, such studies cannot determine if the new system is beneficial for students generally speaking. The kind of research that can provide more authoritative evaluations—large-scale, randomized experiments—has yet to be performed. Even when the first large-scale, randomized experiments are performed, definitive conclusions will only be possible when additional studies replicate the same results. Until then, even the strongest opinions on standards-based grading will remain mere opinions.
For the foreseeable future then, standards-based grading will continue to be a divisive topic in Washington state public education. Whether it eventually displaces traditional grading, coexists alongside it, or fades into the dustbin of educational innovations that didn’t catch on will depend largely on the actions of parents and policymakers.
Time will tell whether the new system makes the grade.
Peter Klosterman is an associate professor of mathematics at Central Washington University who enjoys investigating how students interact with mathematics. Steve Stein is a former high school teacher and principal who now serves as a faculty liaison for Central Washington University’s College in the High School program. Kyle Carrigan currently serves as the Director of Concurrent Enrollment and Continuing Education at Central Washington University where he oversees College in the High School, Running Start, and Continuing Education.
This column was initially published by Washington State Standard.
This post was originally published on here
