Elements of Grading. Douglas Reeves

13

       The Impact of Technology on Grading Practices

       Electronic Gradebooks

       A Lighter Backpack

       Collaborative Scoring of Anonymous Student Work

       Parent Engagement With Electronic Gradebooks

       Conclusion

       Inspiring Change in Grading Policies

       Engage in Extensive Community Dialogue

       Use Grading as a Tool for Improved Student Learning

       Tolerate Dissent

       Demonstrate Effective Change With Improved Student Success

       Appendix

       Reproducibles

       References and Resources

       Index

      ABOUT THE AUTHOR

      Douglas Reeves, PhD, is the author of more than thirty books and eighty articles about education, leadership, and organizational effectiveness. He has presented his work on effective grading practices to audiences around the world. His research appears in Educational Leadership, Kappan, The American School Board Journal, and many other publications. His comments on grading appeared on the cover of USA Today, and his work remains frequently cited in professional and academic publications. Douglas’s honors include the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Brock International Prize, and the Contribution to the Field Award from the National Staff Development Council (now Learning Forward). He is the founding editor and copublisher of The SNAFU Review, where he provides one-on-one support for disabled veterans whose writing and art inspire others with post-traumatic stress disorder. He is also the founder of Finish the Dissertation, a free and noncommercial service for doctoral students. He lives with his family in downtown Boston.

      To learn more about Douglas’s work, visit Creative Leadership Solutions (CreativeLeadership.net) or the Change Leaders blog (www.changeleaders.com), or follow him on Twitter @DouglasReeves.

      To book Douglas Reeves for professional development, contact [email protected].

       Preface

      FINDING COMMON GROUND

      Standards-based grading is one of the most controversial issues in 21st century education. The two sides in the debate can be contentious, even rancorous, challenging one another’s motives and concern for students. This book is not designed to tell the critics of standards-based grading that they are wrong. Rather, I attempt to seek common ground between the critics and advocates of standards-based grading to develop and promote the most effective grading practices.

      So let’s step back from the brink and attempt a more rational dialogue with the critics of standards-based grading. I’m not one to back away from a vigorous debate on important issues, but this particular debate has gone off the rails from policy disagreements to destructive monologues. We can do better. Although standards-based grading is the logical accompaniment to any system that uses standards, there remains a wide gulf between the embrace of standards and the use of standards-based grading. The policy of standards-based grading is the reality in only a small fraction of districts. Although the practice is growing, the opposition is consistent and strong. What is missing in the debate between advocates and critics is a thoughtful dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of standards-based grading.

      To begin, let’s try to find some common ground. Before making the case for standards-based grading and explaining why it’s such a great idea, we should acknowledge the legitimate concerns that the critics—particularly parents—have about changes in grading practices that affect their children. For example, you might begin the conversation by asking the following five questions.

      1. Can we all agree that grades should be fair? Two students with the same performance receive the same grade.

      2. Can we all agree that grades should be accurate? The grade reflects the actual performance of the student.

      3. Can we all agree that grades should be specific? Students and parents know exactly what is required for students to improve.

      4. Can we all agree that grades should be timely? Students and parents receive information on student performance in sufficient time to make improvements.

      5. Can we all agree that work ethic and personal responsibility are good ideas, even if we disagree about how to best achieve those goals? Some might believe that grading as a punishment system is effective, and others might believe that students respond best to constructive feedback.

      Before turning another page of this book, engage in a brief conversation with a colleague who might be a skeptic about improvements in grading policy, and ask if you could find common ground on these five ideas. If so, you will have a much better opportunity to use this book as a vehicle for positive change in your school.

Skeptics and Cynics

      I should distinguish between skeptics—resisters who demand evidence before accepting change—and cynics, for whom no amount of evidence is ever acceptable (Reeves, 2011b). In discussions of grading policies, skeptics often have sound reasons to doubt the claims of education reformers. The skeptics have seen one program after another accompanied by dubious research claims that show new ideas work miracles, only to find that the research was little more than a claim from a podium. Skeptics are the Galileos of education reform, demanding that evidence trump assertion, even when assertions are backed with authority. When it comes to grading policies, skeptics are asking the most reasonable of questions. Guskey (2002) suggests, “How’s my kid doing?”

      Similarly, teachers who believe deeply in their responsibility to shape students into people of character and responsibility know well that the student who derives pleasure only from instant gratification is not their customer. Instead, it is the student who must learn to accept difficult feedback and appreciate the value of deferred gratification. If grading-reform advocates would begin with the premise that those who challenge their positions are skeptics—teachers who care about their profession and parents who care about their children—then they have a much better chance to engage in dialogue characterized by reason and respect rather than anger and defensiveness.

      Not every opponent of grading reform is a skeptic, earnestly searching for evidence and reasonably challenging suggested changes to present practices. Some of them are cynics. The cynics and skeptics appear quite similar in their questioning of new practices, but the stark differences quickly emerge. Skeptics consider the evidence, while cynics ignore it. Skeptics listen to the other side, while cynics only seek to hear themselves and an echo chamber of like-minded people. While the skeptics demand research, the cynics find no evidence sufficient to change present practices. Skeptics look at the evidence in a nuanced manner, realizing that no research is perfect and no reform carries a 100 percent guarantee, while cynics leap on any flaw to reject an entire proposal of improved grading practices.