New Jobs on Teachers.Net

IDEAS
Zarqa


LIFT Pre-College Progr...
College Park


Perspectives Charter S...
Chicago

AJO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIS...
Ajo


    Re: Standards Based Grading
    Posted by: Rita on 11/22/10
    (17) Comments


    I would love to see this all in action. I don't understand it at all.
    our distict is heading in this direction, but the teachers implementing
    it now have NO CLUE what to do!!! Obviously they did not do the eseach
    or inservice training.

    On 4/05/09, Head Monkey wrote:
    > Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of schools have required their
    > teachers to switch to standards-based without doing the necessary
    > research and inservicing of staff. To be realistic, it took our staff
    > almost 3 years to get our heads around this huge shift in philosophy.
    >
    > We based our system on the research of Guskey, O'Connor, Davies and
    > Cooper. We had to look at what outcomes we were assessing so our kids
    > could have clear targets. Our kids had to be educated on what the
    > clear targets were as well. When all was said and done, we came up
    > with:
    >
    > EX-excelling expectations (not exceeding) ME-meeting expectations
    > (this is a huge category and we are researching how to communicate
    > growth most effectively. We are presently saying "Johnny is achieving
    > in the lower end of the ME range ...) AP- approaching expectations LI-
    > limited knowledge of outcomes
    >
    > No number grades are ever given. Each assessment is assessed by the
    > whether the clear targets/outcomes were met. Sometimes a quiz or test
    > will receive 5 or 6 "grades" because that is how many targets/outcomes
    > were being met on the assessment.
    >
    > We have divided each subject area into a number of report card strands
    > to categorize these scores. For example, language arts has 5 strands
    > on the report card so therefore I have 5 mark sheets to enter scores
    > in and then I use the scores to come up with an overall report card
    > score.
    >
    > Sounds complicated, but with a lot of hard work, it is a very good way
    > of knowing exactly what the kids have learned. We also keep our
    > behaviours separate from our achievement scores and give lots of
    > "practice" (assessment FOR learning) before the "game" (assessment OF
    > learning).
    >
    > Remember - baby steps. And it helps to have staff members who are very
    > knowledgeable on assessment practices to help you along the way.
    > Remember - it took us 3 years to understand this! Remember to support
    > each other. Without my fellow staff members' support, I would have had
    > a very difficult time with this. Now I can't imagine
    > teaching/assessing any other way. (I have taught 18 years)
    >
    > Best of luck!
    >
    > On 4/05/09, ny/5 wrote:
    >> This is just another one of those things in education where,
    >> theoretically, it may be a good idea; but because it is explained
    >> vaguely, at best, it's interpreted differently by all. Just look
    >> at all these posts! Some are transferring 1-4 to A's, B's, C's
    >> etc.; some are using percentages and within the percentages the
    >> cutoff level of what is mastery varies. I've always thought
    >> proficiency would be a better term than mastery anyway. If the
    >> curriculum wasn't so jam packed and there were actual opportunities
    >> to bring students to levels of mastery, then that would be a
    >> different story. But when state standards require students to
    >> learn a new concept a day in math, and administrators are saying to
    >> keep the pace and don't worry if they get it or not because the
    >> curriculum spirals and they'll get it eventually, there's very
    >> little room for true mastery. And.. that's not even factoring in
    >> chronic absenteeism, lack of motivation, and developmental
    >> readiness.


    Posts on this thread, including this one

  • Quick Vent, 3/26/09, by anon.
  • Re: Quick Vent, 3/26/09, by ny/5.
  • Re: Quick Vent, 3/27/09, by anon.
  • Re: Quick Vent, 3/27/09, by call your union to explain work load,hours to principal.
  • Re: Quick Vent, 3/27/09, by ny/5.
  • Re: Quick Vent, 3/27/09, by Just Curious.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 3/27/09, by ny/5.
  • Re: anon and ny/5, 3/27/09, by teach4/NY.
  • Re: anon and ny/5, 3/28/09, by to teach4/ny from ny/5.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 3/28/09, by jmak.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 3/28/09, by questions to jmak.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 3/28/09, by teach4/NY.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 4/04/09, by L.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 4/04/09, by Teach.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 4/05/09, by ny/5.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 4/05/09, by Head Monkey.
  • Re: Standards Based Grading, 11/22/10, by Rita.