\\ \\ \ '\

"1 \\\ \\\

Reportin---Studen t Learning Despite advances in grading and reporting,

imprecision and lack of meaning persist.

Ken O'Connor and Rick Wormeli

Back in 2000, Robert Marzano pointed out the rationale for changing gradipg practices. "Grades," he wrote, "are so imprecis'°ethat they are almost meaningless" (p. 1). Eleven years later, despite advances in grading and reporting in many schools

and districts, this imprecision and lack of meaning persist. It's time to evolve our grading practices. We believe there

are four primary characteristics of effective grading. Grades should be accurate, consistent, meaningful, and supportive of learning. Lrt's examine why these characteristics are so impor­tant and how we can achieve them.

Accurate

The Problem with Including Nonacademic Factors Including whether a student maintained an organized note­book in his geometry grade dilutes the report of that student's geometry learning. "Organized notebook" is not a geometry standard. It's a helpful learning tool, of course, and wise teachers encourage students to take high-quality notes. How­ever, we grade against standards and learner outcomes--not

against the methods students use to achieve them. Instruc­tional decisions made on the basis of these "fudged" grade reports are suspect; the reports offer no precise documenta­tion and render descriptive feedback impossible.

The Problem with Grading Group Work Suppose students work collaboratively in a history class to analyze rhetoric, prepare for debates, or prepare a multi­media presentation that analyzes economic models. These are all methods for teaching students the history curriculum, but they are not the history curriculum itself. In addition, when students present their final report with everyone's names displayed on the opening slide, we're not sure where one student's influence ends and another's begins: To what extent does J J. know the information without assistance from Lakiesha? In both instances, we distort the accuracy of the individual student's grade for any one standard.

Some collaborative projects may provide opportunities to determine individual learning regarding a specific learner out­come, but they are rare. To be accurate, then, we must assess students outside the group project to see what each one takes away from the experience. Unless we're teaching a class on group projects, group work is only the means to an end, not the actual curriculum. For grades to he accurate and useful,

40 Ent l lTlllN\L LI' \DF.Rsllll' / NOVJ' MUER 2011

they must speak only to the posted curriculum.

The Problem with Averaging We know that averaging grades falsi­fies grade reports (Marzano, 2000; O'Connor, 2009, 2010; Reeves, 2010; Wormeli, 2006). Henry receives an Fon the first test but then learns the material and receives an A on a new assessment of the same material; unfortunately, the average of these two, a C, is recorded in the grade book. This is not an accurate report of Henry's newfound proficiency in the topic. Ifwe trust the new test as a valid indicator of mastery, Henry's ear­lier performance is irrelevant.

Although this example uses two grading extremes (A and F), averaging grades, no matter the distance between the two or more scores, decreases accu­racy. Looking at the most consistent levels of performance over time makes for a more accurate report of what stu­dents truly know, and it provides higher correlations with testing done outside the classroom (Bailey & Guskey, 2001; Marzano, 2000; Reeves, 2010). 1 •

It's unethical and inaccurate to include in a grade digressions in per~" formance that occur during the learn­ing process, when a grade is supposed to report students' mastery at the end of that process. It's also inaccurate to rely solely on single-sitting assessments for the most accurate report of what students know and can do. Instead, we look for evidence over time.

The Problem with Zeroes Determining grades using the 100-point scale is ill-suited to measuring and reporting performance against specific standards. If we're calculating grades mathematically, smaller scales with clear descriptors--such as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, in which all possible scores, including 0.0, have equal skewing influence on the overall score--create

j

Effective assessment

is revelatory; it reveals

the student's story.

a more accurate report of students' mastery. Recording a zero on a 100-point scale for a student's lack of work on an assessment not only falsifies the report of what he or she knows, but also immediately generates despair: Only a mammoth pile of perfect 1 00s can over -come the deficit and result in a passing D grade. So why bother?

When considering whether to leave a score as zero or reappoint it as a 50, 59 , 60, or higher (all still in the F range) in an effort to equalize its skewing influence, we're really deciding among variatioru, of F. Do we record the lowest, most hurtful, most unrecoverable end

of the F range--or the most hope­ful, recoverable end of that range? It's a bit silly to have varying degrees of "F-titude," when an F means "no evi­dence of the standard yet."

The larger question really is whether we're teaching to make sure students · learn the curriculum or just presenting the curriculum and documenting stu­dents' deficiencies with it. A "gotcha!" mind-set doesn't serve our mission.

Educators who consider reappointing the zero as, say, 50 may worry that students will brag to classmates, "You worked hard, but I did nothing and still got a 50!" But students are the first to realize that they don't get something for having done nothing. Unfortunately, some teachers invoke the compensa­tion metaphor here, claiming that they would not pay someone $50 for a job that he or she didn't do. In that context, this is correct, of course, but the analogy

ASCD I WWW . AS C. D . ORC, 41

has nothing to do with the problem of zeroes on the l 00-point scale.

If we're required to average grades, a single missing assignment-a zero--on the 100-point scale disproponionately skews the repon: 100 + 100 + 100 + 0 yields an average of 75, whereas a 100 + 100 + 100 + 50 yields an average of 87. 5, which is closer to the truth of overall competency if we're aggregating all assessments equally into a single, final grade. A more accurate report, . however, would declare that three stan-<lards were mastered and one was no(

~

and there would be no overall grade. Averaging muddies the grading waters, particularly with zeroes on the 100-point scale.

Doug Reeves (2004) reminds us that a zero on the 100-pomt scale is six levels-six increments of IO-below a failing 60 and that this equates mathematically to a -6 on the 4.0 scale. It would be absurd to record a -6 on a 4.0 scale when Ben does not submit an assignment; it's inaccurate and unfair. Ben would have to climb six levels higher just to get even with absolute failure. This practice is sense­less, and it voids a school's claim to be standards-based.

For higher accuracy and effective­ness in grading, separate nonacademic

42 E O I. C: A r I Cl 'I \ I. LI. A IH R~ 111 P / N n V L \I BF R

Inaccurate grades

play havoc with

students' lives and our

professional integrity.

elements from academic elements on the repon card. Provide separate scores for each major standard or outcome within the discipline. We must end grade averaging, and if forced to use it, we must look at the evidence of students' mastery over time. Make sure that no one grade has undue skewing influence on that average.

Accurate grades provide feedback, document progress, and inform our instructional decisions. Inaccurate grades play havoc with students' lives and our professional integrity.

Consistent

Students in the classroom of teacher x who achieve at the same level as students in the classroom of teacher y should get the same grade. Schools should strive for consistency in all their classrooms, and districts should strive for consistency in all their schools.

2 0 1 J

We can achieve consistency in three ways.

Through Clarity of Purpose Schools have used grades for a vari-ety of purposes: communication, self-evaluation, sorting and selecting, motivation, and program evaluation (Guskey, 1996)-and therein lies the problem. Some teachers emphasize one purpose, and some emphasize another. Consequently, they use different criteria for determining grades, which can result in students who achieve at the same level receiving different grades.

To achieve consistency, schools and districts must achieve consensus about the primary purpose of grades and then publish a purpose statement that is available to all. Our premise here is that "the primary purpose of ... grades [is] to communicate student achievement to students, parents, school administrators, postsecondary institutions, and employ­ers" (Bailey & McTighe, 1996, p. 120).

Through Performance Standards "What is good?" and "How good is good enough?" are ultimately what assessment and grading are all about, so defining the performance standards clearly, making them available to all, and ensuring that everyone understands them are essential steps to achieving consistency in grading.

A pure standards-based system would have only two levels of performance­proficient or not proficient. However, at most grade levels we may want to identify additional levels, such as above proficient, below but close to proficient, and well below proficient. This would result in a four-level system. Although there is no one right number of levels, fewer than 10 is advisable because there's a limit to how well the English language can describe different levels and how well teachers, students, and parents could understand the differ­ences among them.

The right number of levelc; is a lot closer to 2 than to 100-which is why we should eliminate the percentage system because it's incompatible with a standards-based system. The two most highly regarded high school programs in the world only use levels-advanced placement uses five levels and the Inter­national Baccalaureate uses seven. Level­based systems should become the norm.

Once there's agreement on the num­ber of levels, schools and districts need to develop and publish clear generic descriptions of each. These would then form the basis for the performance stan­dards used in the classroom-marking schemes, rubrics, exemplars, and so forth.

Teachers must also have frequent opportunities to collaboratively assess student work so they develop common understanding of the performance stan­dards. A common frame of reference decreases the subjective, relative, and inferential nature of grading and helps departments and grade levels recalibrate their common expectations when these expectations drift over time.

Through Clear Policies and Procedur;~ According to Carifio and Carey (2009),'

:)

"Many schools lack a coherent and uniform grading policy, resulting in extensive variations in student assess­ment from teacher to teacher, and even between students taking the same course with the same teacher" (p. 25). It's therefore crucial that all schools and districts have public, published poli­cies and procedures that all teachers are expected to follow and for which they can be held accountable if students, par­ents, or administrators identify concemc; with their grading practices.

Meaningful

Let's look at three hypothetical report cards. John's report card indicates he

Contrary to the emotional baggage so often

applied to grades, grades are not full descriptors.

got a Bin mathematics. Brian's report card indicates he got a B in number sense, a C in calculation, and an A in measurement. Marilyn's school uses a four-level scale: 4 for excels, 3 for profi­dent, 2 for approaching proficiency, and 1 for well below proji.dency. Her report card indicates the following1

:

Number Sense

Identifies place value to 1000s:

Reads and writes common fractions:

Reads whole numbers through four digits:

Writes whole numbers through four digits:

Orders and compares whole numbers through four digits:

Computation

Addition:

Subtraction:

Multiplication:

Division:

Uses calculator to add or subtract numbers with 4 or more digits:

Estimation skills:

4

3

3

3

1

4

3

3

1

2

4

It's obvious that Marilyn's report card has much more meaningful information than John's and Brian's report cards do and that Brian's report card provides more meaningful information than John's does. Single-suhject grades-­John's B in 1nath-provide little useful information. Providing standards­hased grades 1nakes grades meaningful because they dearly show the student's

areas of strength and areas that need improvement. This type of standards­based grading should be the norm from kindergarten to grade 12 (and beyond!) because it gives students, parents, and teachers the valuable information they need to help students achieve at higher levels.

Teachers traditionally have organized their grade books with categories for tests, projects, and assignments; the base has been assessment methods or activities. However, in standards-based systems, the base should be some struc­ture coming from the standards. The level of specificity may vary from grade level to grade level and from subject to subject. The categories may be broad, as illustrated by Brian's report card, or specific, as illustrated by Marilyn's report card.

Supportive of Learning

Grades are small symbols used as shorthand for much larger descriptors. Contrary to the emotional baggage so often applied to each one, they are not full descriptors themselves. To support students' learning, they must be infor­mative. We're mindful of each symbol's purpose in the learning process and, in particular, whether they refer to forma­tive or summative assessments.

Because we don't want to diminish the powerful effect that formative assess­ments bring to students' learning, we use scores only from summative assess­ments to determine grades. Formative assessment uses symbols or narrative commentaries that are not included in detennining grades.

ASCD / WWW.ASCD.ORG 43

-------·----------------------------

,·

my thing" when it comes to eithe1 Ifwe're living up to the promise ofteaching need honest, useful reports of stu1

every student, we could turn all summative performance on standards and ou comes. Our students' futures dept

assessments into formative ones. on it. ID

Effective assessment is revelatory; it reveals the student's story. Students need a safe place to tell that story and receive helpful feedback on its unfolding. For that feedback to be use­ful, we limit judgment and evaluation. We reflect back to students how they performed on assessments and then help them compare their performances to standards of excellence set for those tasks. If we grade the formative steps that students take as they wrestle with new learning, every formative assess­ment becomes a final judgment, with no chance for revision and improvement. Feedback is diminished, and learning wanes.

To be useful then, formative and summative reports must be distinct from one another. We set up grade books in two sections,formative and summative; or we label each a'ssessment with an "F" or "S"; or we col_pl'-code assessments accordingly, such as red for formative and green for summative. An assessment is formative or summative depending on when we give it and how we use the resulting data.

Most formative nsses..<;ments provide descriptive feedback to students, fol­lowed by opportunities to revise in light of that feedback and be assessed and accredited anew. We want to protect that learning cycle as much as we can; most professionals follow this kind of development cycle throughout their careers.

Summative assessments, on the other hand, are for evaluative declara­tions and sorting students. They do not offer much in the way of feedback ancl opportunities for revision and

reassessment. The use of formal let­ter grades and judgment symbols are appropriate for such assessments .

Interestingly, if we're living up to the promise of teaching every student, not just the easy ones, we could tum all summative assessments into formative ones. The only reason students can't redo a final exam, project, or standard­ized test after they receive feedback and revise their learning is that someone in a policy-making capacity declared it so­not because it's bad pedagogy.

We Owe Them This When did we drift into grades of unquestioned provenance becoming the legitimate currency for the next genera­tion? And why do we succumb to the notion that because something is easy to calculate it must be pedagogically sound?

With accountability measures on the rise and both businesses and colleges questioning the validity of the modem high school diploma, grading and standards are now under intense scrutiny. We can no longer afford the mind-set "You do your thing, and I'll do

1The categories used here come fro Stiggins, R. j., Arter, J. A., Chappuis, . & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom ass mentfor student learning (p. 289) . Bosl Pearson.

References Bailey,]. M., & Guskey, T. R. (2001).

Developing grading and reporting systJor student learning. Thousand Oaks Corwin.

Bailey,]. M., &McTighe,J. (1996). Re ing achievement at the secondary sc level: What and how? In T. R. Gusk (Ed.), Communicating student leamin, ASCD yearbook 1996. Alexandria, V1 ASCD.-

Carifio,j., & Carey, T. (2009). A critic examination of current minimum gr policy recommendations. The High 5 Journal, 93(1), 23-37.

Guskey, T. (1996). Reporting student l ing: Lessons from the past-prescrif for the future. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.). Communicating student learning: ASCJ yearbook 1996. Alexandria, VA: ASCl

Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming class, grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

O'Connor, K. (2009) . How to grade for I ing: Linking grades to standards . Thou! Oaks, CA: Corwin.

O'Connor, K. (2010). A repair hit for grc 15 fixes for broken grades. Boston: Pea

Reeves, D. B. (2004). The case against t; zero . Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-3.

Reeves, D. B. (2010) . Elements ofgradi11! Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. mWormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn't always eqt.

EL Online Assessment and grading in the differenti classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Learn how math teacher Laurie Amundson imple-mented standards-based grading in her classroom in the online-only article "How I Overhauled Grading as Usual," available at www.ascd .org/publications/educational-leader ship/nov11/vol69/num03/How-l­Overhauled-Grading-as-Usual.aspx

Ken O'Connor is an independent coI sultant and author who specializes in issues related to communicating stu< achievement; kenoc@aol.com. Rick Wormeli is a national education con­sultant, veteran educator, and author rwormeli@cox.net.

44 Eu l' ,H i0 1' .H l. FA D~k SltlP / Nuv nrnFR .1. 011

Done Right Allowing students to redo assignments and assessments is the best way to prepare them for adult life.

Rick Wormeli

Jarrel plagiarized one para­graph in his health class essay on the dangers of second­hand smoke. Carla came to after-school review sessions

and followed every direction, but she only scored a D on her English exam. Marco was distracted by other things when he did his history homework: It's full of incomplete thoughts and careless errors that he doesn't normally make.

All three students would like to redo their assignment or assessment properly, and they would like to receive full credit for the new versions they sub­mit. All three cases put our instructional mind-set to the test.

Many teachers reason that they are building moral fiber and preparing

students for the working world by denying them the opponunity to redo assignments and assessments-or if they do allow retakes, by giving only partial credit for redone assessments even when students have demonstrated full mastery of the content. These are the same teachers who set a deadline for submitting work and then give students who do not meet the deadline a zero, thinking that the devastating score will teach them responsibility.

In reality, these practices have the opposite effect: They retard student achievement and maturation. As hope wanes, resentment builds. Without hope-especially hope that teachers see the moral, competent, and responsible self inside them, waiting to shed its immature shell-students disengage from the school's mission and the adults

who care for them. Our education enterprise is lost.

One Speed for All? Schools that acquiesce to the fac­tory model of schooling perpetuate an ineffective, age-based curriculum: "Eleven-year-olds learn this topic; 12-year-olds learn that topic"; "No, Shadnoosh, you can't learn that until next year"; "Mike, why didn't you learn this last month like the rest of your class?" When learning doesn't hap-pen on schedule, these schools tend to blame students or circumstances.

Teachers do need schematics for moving students through the established curriculum. But as we apply sound pedagogy and respond to real students' individual needs, blind adherence to pacing mandates makes little sense.

22 £01 C Al IOl'<AL L F ADERSHIP / No H MBER 20 J 1

The goal is that all students learn the content, not just the ones who can learn on the uniform time line. Curriculum goals don't require that every individual reaches the same level of proficiency on the same day, only that every student achieves the goal. Appointing next Friday as the official test date is an arbi­trary decision made for clerical conve­nience. Teachers do this out of survival, of course; because we teach large groups of students, we sometimes subordinate effective practices because that appears to be the only realistic way to move students through the system.

Although we can't do it 100 percent of the time, allowing students to redo both assignments and assessments for particularly important standards and outcomes most of the time is highly effective. This approach reflects what we know about successful learning, and it better prepares students for the world beyond school.

Practice, Practice, Practice '• Consider the Olympic runner poised to·

begin the race for the gold medal in the final heat. The pistol goes off, and the runners push their bodies to the break­ing point, all of them dashing across the finish line within seconds of one another. Our runner comes in fourth, however, so there's no medal for him.

Does he get a "do-over" of that race? No-and that's proper at this level of competition. Remember, he's not in the learning-to-run stage of development; he's in the proficient-runner stage.

How did our runner become so competent at racing this event that he was found worthy of representing his country in the Olympics? He ran it doz­ens or even hundreds of times prior to today's race. And each time he ran it, his time was not an aggregated compilation

Irresponsible, forgetful, and inattentive students

need us to be in their face more, not less.

of all his digressions (bad times) woven together with his more successful times. Can you imagine telling a runner that his earlier 68. 7 4 seconds from two years ago would be averaged with his new and improved 51.03 seconds, and that this time mash-up would be his official label as a runner-that he would be evaluated as nothing more than the composite of his digressions and successes?

True competence that stands the test of time comes with reiterative learning. We carry forward concepts and skills we encounter repeatedly, and we get better at retrieving them the more we experience them. Why, then, would we impose on schools a policy that prohib­its such an effective practice? Doing one successful compare-and-contrast essay in 8th grade does not mean we can do one in 10th grade, especially if we never practice writing such essays in the interim. We

I I

write a lot of essays in order to become proficient in essay writing. We become adept at analyzing politics by analyz­ing a lot of politics, and we get better at playing the guitar by playing the guitar a lot, not by playing it for a week and putting it aside.

It's only sensible, then, to expect different things of students during the learning process than we expect of them when it's time to demonstrate final proficiency or became fully certified. Applying expectations for a high level of competency to students who are in the process of coming to know content is counterproductive, even harmful.

Conveyer-Belt Learning The problem, of course, is that teach­ers don't feel they have the luxury of revisiting content and skills to create that proficiency. We may believe the

best we can do is to accept a superficial and fragile

demonstration on

ASCD I WWW.AS C 0 . ORG 23

1I

a single, snapshot test and convince ourselves that the score earned is an accurate measure of the student's long­term capacity.

By some estimates, 1 it would take to grade 22 to teach the curriculum currently listed for grades K-12 in the United States. Anxious about this cur­riculum overload, we run our classes by alternating between admonishments: "Here's a bunch of stuff you have to learn; now take a test. Here's the next bunch of stuff you have to learn; now take the next test. n When students fail to learn content on this conveyor belt, we tell them, "We don't have time to go back and teach it to you. Take the low grade and move on. n This is no way

to treat a child's future or conduct our profession.

Preparing Students for the Real Adult World The teacher who claims to be prepar­ing students for the working world by disallowing all redos forgets that adult professionals actually flour-ish through redos, retakes, and do­overs. Surgeons practice on cadavers before doing surgeries on live patients. Architects redesign building plans until they meet all the specifications listed. Pilots rehearse landings and take-offs hundreds of times in simulators and in solo flights before flying with real passengers. Lawyers practice debate and

14 Practical Tip for Managing Redos in the Classroom

q u

analysis of arguments before litigating real cases. Teachers become much mo1 competent and effective by teaching th same content multiple times, reflectin~ on what worked and what didn't work each time.

LSAT. MCAT. Praxis. SAT. Bar exan CPA exam. Driver's licensure. Pilot's licensure. Auto mechanic certification exam. Every one of these assessments reflects the adult-level, working-world responsibilities our students will one day face. Many of them are high stakes People's lives depend on these tests' validity as accurate measures of indi­vidual competence. All of them can be redone over and over for full credit. Lawyers who finally pass the bar exam

1. Ask students who redo assignments to submit the original attempt w ith the new one and to write a brief letter com­paring the two. What is different, and what did they learn as a result of redoin, the work?

2. Reserve the right to give alternative versions of the assessment if you think students will simply memorize a correct answer pattern or set of math answers. Don't be afraid to make the redone ver­sions more demanding.

3. Announce to students and parents th redos are permitted at teacher discretio, This means that students and parents may not take the redo option for grantee

I 4. Require students to submit a plan of relearning and to provide evidence of th, relearning before work can be redone.

I ! This includes creating a calendar in whic

students list day-by-day what they will d to prepare.

Ii;

m 5. If a student doesn't follow through or ~ the relearning steps he or she promises

24 EDU C ATIO N AL LE ADERSHI P / NOVF.MBFR 2011

on their second or third attempt are not limited to practicing law only on Tues­days or only under the watchful eye of a seasoned partner for the duration of their careers. If an assessment of com­petence is valid, achieving its passing scores grants the assessed individual full rights and privileges thereof.

How pompous is it for a teacher, then, to declare to students, "This quiz/ writing assignment/project/test cannot be redone for full credit because such a policy prepares you best for the work­ing world." This teacher doesn't have a pedagogical leg to stand on. The best preparation for the world beyond school is to learn essential content and skills well.

to do, ask the student to write a letter of apology to you and to his or her family for breaking the trust.

6. Require parents to sign the original, poorly done versions of assignments so they're aware that their children have ·•t.

required multiple attempts to achieve · the standard. (If there is neglect or abuse in the home, of course, remove this requirement.)

7. After two or three redo attempts, consider shelving the push for mastery of this content for a few weeks. Either the student is not ready to reach the standard, or we're not creative enough to figure out how to teach him or her. Take a break and pursue this content in a later unit of study.

8. If the same student repeatedly asks for redos, something's wrong. The content 1s not developmentally appropri­ate, there are unseen issues at home, or perhaps there's an undiagnosed learning disability. Investigate.

Students hope that

teachers see the

moral, competent, and

responsible selfinside

them, waiting to shed

its immature shell.

9. Choose your battles. Push hard for stu­dents to redo anythin1;1 _associated with the most important curriculum standards and less so with work associated with less important standards_

10. Allow students who get Cs and Bs to redo work just as much as students who earn Ds and Fs. Why stand in the way of a student who wants to achieve excellence?

11. If report cards are coming up and there's no time to redo something to change the grade, report the lower grade and assure the student that he or she can learn the material the next mark-ing period. If the student demonstrates improved mastery, submit a grade change report reflecting the new, more accurate grade.

12. For the sake of personal survival, you may choose not to allow any retakes or redos the last week of the marking period as you're closing down the grade book and doing report cards. For eight weeks, you're Mr. or Ms_ Hopeful, but

The recursive nature of successful learning shouldn't be discarded because it's inconvenient or we haven't figured out how to do it logistically. (For sug­gestions on tackling the logistics, see "14 Practical Tips for Managing Redos in the Classroom.") It's too important to our society: We improve with practice, descriptive feedback, and revising our practices in light of that feedback, fol­lowed by more practice, feedback, and revision. It's the way authors write great books; it's the way scientists discover; it's the way machinists solve problems. Why would we deny these opportuni­ties to the next generation? Providing feedback and asking students to redo assignments until those assignments

for that one week, it's OK to protect your sanity. and personal life_You can allow students to learn the material and have their grade changed later.

13. Replace the previous grade or mark with the most recent one; don't average the two attempts together. The A that a student earns on his fifth attempt at mas­tery is just as legitimate as the A earned by his classmate on the first attempt.

14. Unless an assessment is complex and interwoven, allow students to redo just the portions on which they performed poorly, not the entire assess­ment. (To assist with this, consider standards-based grading on your assess­ments; record the standards or outcomes being assessed at the top of the assess­ment and provide a separate score for each standard.) Separating standards in this way saves time for both the teacher and the students. Some redos can be a 10-minute interview at the teacher's desk while the rest of the class works on something else.

ASC.D I WWW - IISC!l.llkG 25

,

I

i

I i

I Lawyers who Cmally pass the bar exam on I

their second or third attempt are not limited

to practicing law only on Tuesdays.

match the standards set for them are not optional luxuries saved for when we have time; they're the keys to thriving classrooms.

Not Soft, but Tough When we graduate from school, we gravitate toward those things we are good at doing. When we're hired, we have a skill set that matches a job's skill needs. We don't have to be good at everything the company does. To be considered successful in school, however, we have to be just as good at all subjects and skills as everyone else is, and on the same schedule. We have to be good at graphing inequalities, conjugating irregular verbs, setting up websites using HTML, identifying liter­ary devices in Dante, playing the con­certo with the right timing, d~t~rmining valence, recognizing nuance belween artists, offering pithy insights in the cafeteria, and dealing with hormonal issues while navigating the hallways­and that's all by lunch on Tuesday.

It's no wonder that, in order to meet the needs of increasingly diverse stu­dents and the demands of an overloaded curriculum, teachers sometimes need to adjust the pacing of lessons and allow students to make repeated attempts at mastery. It makes sense to grade students according to their performance on standards, not the routes they take to achieve those standards. Some students need more time building background knowledge before they learn new mate­rial, and others need a graphic organizer to help them make sense of text, but

26 Eo , AlJO',H LFADER\IIJP / NovEMUER

all grades at the end of the unit should be based on whether they understand oxidation, for example, not on how they learned about oxidation.

Suppose a teacher allows retakes frequently. Will colleagues, students, and parents consider that teacher soft in some way? No-quite the opposite. In the hallway just outside my own class­room years ago, one of my students, unaware that I was nearby, announced to a classmate, "Mr. Wormeli makes you do it over and over again until you learn it. It sucks!" (Pardon the vernacular.) My reputation was not one of being soft, but one of "Slackers, beware."

Making students redo their learning until it meets high expectations demands far more of both students and teachers than letting them take a failing grade­but it also results in far more learning. Maturation occurs in the fully credited recovery from unsuccessful attempts, not by labeling those attempts as failures. If our mission is to teach so that students learn, we don't let their immaturity dic­tate their destiny. Irresponsible, forget­ful, and inattentive students need us to be in their face more, not less.

The Supreme Goal When it comes to deciding whether to allow a student to redo an assignment or assessment, consider the alterna­tive-to let the student settle for work done poorly, ensuring that he or she doesn't learn the content. Is this really the life lesson we want to teach? ls it really academically better for the stu­dent to remain ignorant?

2011

This practice is not acceptable. To be adequately prepared for college and career, students need to learn th1 content and skills that society identifi as important. Whether a student was tially irresponsible or responsible, me or immoral, cognitively ready or not : irrelevant to the supreme goal: learnil

There are far more effective strateg for teaching responsibility than to simply label a student as immature a: deny that ~tudent learning. We can honor Carla's effort by giving her the extra time and attention she needs to master the content. We can handle Marco's sloppy homework and Jarrel' plagiarism wisely by demanding that both of them redo their work proper! These students will then realize that they get more of what they want in lii if they pay attention, keep up with th work, and do the assignments well th first time around. Scholarship dawns; there's hope. ID

1Florian, J. (1999). Tecuher survey of standards-based instruction: Addressing tim, Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement; Kendall, J. S &: Marzano, R. J. (1998). Awash in a sea o standards. Denver, CO: McREL. ·

Rick Wormeli, a 30-year teaching vet­eran, resides in Herndon, Virginia, and trains teachers and principals around ti world in a variety of education topics; rwormeli@cox.net. Further thinking on redoing assignments and assessment: can be found in his book, Fair lsn 't Always Equal: Assessment and Gradin in the Differentiated Classroom (Sten­house, 2006) and at its accompanying website, www.stenhouse.com/fiae.