The conference yesterday was not what I expected given the title of “Data to Information”. It was so much better than that title suggests. Not because the speaker was particularly dynamic, or the AV was spectacular, but because the content, the message, was so good. It was more about adapting our philosophies on education than it was about interpreting data. Tom Guskey was calling on educators to examine the way they assess their students, and to realize the impact of those assessments, both positive and negative. Dr. Guskey posed questions like; What are grades for? Why do we give them? Who benefits from them, and what are those benefits? How do assessments fit into the teaching process? Can teaching occur if learning hasn’t? He then provided insight to these questions, and suggested methods that our assessments can help kids be successful in this standards based educational world.
Dr. Guskey makes a clear distinction between accountability and assessment. These concepts are often interwoven and it is important to recognize that accountability is a political issue, while assessment is an educational issue. My thinking then is that if our assessments are done effectively, the political issue may eventually take care of itself.
*Grades reports are not essential to the instructional process, but assessment and progress checking are.
*Don’t Curve Grades
Grades should be referenced to the learning criteria, not “on the curve.”
Curving grades pits students against each other.
Curving grades does not give a true indication of mastery for a given standard.
* Eliminate Fs
Grades have some value as a reward, but no value as a punishment. The majority of students who receive F’s withdraw further from the particular class, and as a defense mechanism, will label it as unimportant or unfair.
Give Incompletes until the work is in and acceptable. This may require administrative changes. In the case of CVCC it could be that a student would get an I until they were able to pass. If they finish the year with an I then they would either change to a W and withdraw, or repeat the first year.
*Elimnate Zeros
Zeros for homework or missed assignments do not indicate what a student has learned. As suggested above. Give an incomplete and make them accountable for the work.
*Give Second chances.
Instead of a review- Try giving an initial assessment. Evaluate, instruct, and test again.
Give tests over until the student achieves the required level of mastery. We do it with Driving Tests!
*Get rid of Singular “Valedictorian” type awards. If more than one person achieves excellence, then reward them all. Like Univeristies do with Magna and Sum Cum Laude.
*Eliminate Averaging as a sole method for figuring grades
The most relevant assessment is the most recent assessment. In Karate you start out with a white belt and test your way up to a black belt. But if we averaged like we do in school then you would just have a gray belt….
One method of grading does not suit all students. I can relate to this coming from a Special Ed background.
The fastest growing and top selling educational software is electronic gradebooks. Mathmatical precision does not constitute a more accurate representation of a student’s level of understanding.
*There was some discussion of Value Added Assessment if you want detailed information click the link, but in a nutshell…Value Added Assesment measures progress toward a standard, as opposed to mastery of a standard. State required value added tests are coded by District, Building and Teacher. The state can then track the yearly progress of students towards the standards. According to Mr. Guskey, the greatest variability is not between Districts, or Buildings, but between individual teachers. Certain teachers have consistent levels of improvement each year independent of other variables, indicating that quality teachers make the biggest difference. Hence value added assessments are becoming a method of rating the competency of teachers. This seems logical, albeit controversial with the teachers union.