Re: Standards Based Grading

    My school is piloting a 1-2-3-4 system for grades. We don't correlate 1:1 a
    number with a letter grade. That defeats the purpose. A student is a 4 if
    he/she performs "well above grade level". That is not the same as an A. A
    student earns a 3 if he/she shows "mastery" of subject matter. To me,
    someone who earns a 70% has not "mastered" the material. A 2 indicates that
    a student sometimes demonstrates understanding of the goal/objective. I
    would give a student a 2 if he/she only understands less than 80%. Perhaps
    the essential question is, "What is mastery?" In my mind, mastery means that
    the subject matter is understood very well. There was someone who said they
    give 3s for anything above 65%. Good grief! That seems like a crock to me.
    If my child only scored 66%, I would NOT want to see a 3 on his/her
    assignment or report card. Talk about watering down the grades and setting
    the bar LOW.

    Re-teaching is an entirely different matter. I don't know how to resolve the
    problems with lack of time/resources for re-teaching concepts that students
    don't get the 1st time.
    On 3/27/09, ny/5 wrote:
    > Theoretically that was the intent of the 1, 2, 3, 4 system; but
    > realistically, do we really have the time to keep re-teaching one skill to
    > Johnny until he masters it, and Janey a different one, and Skippy yet
    > another one -- all year long for each and every standard for each and
    > every subject? All the while moving forward with the standards... We're
    > talking individualized education plans for all -- one teacher and 25
    > students. If you don't correlate the 1-4 system with grades, then how do
    > you do it? What constitutes mastery? I'm not being argumentative, but am
    > very interested in what others are doing. Also, what state are you in
    > where a "C" is not considered grade level. If all students are required
    > to have A and B averages in order to meet grade level standards, how is
    > this being accomplished? Is the curriculum watered down, do the students
    > all rise to the occasion, or is there a large failure and retention rate?
    > On 3/27/09, Just Curious wrote:
    >> If you assign letter grades and then change them to standards based
    >> assessment numbers, what is the difference? I thought the idea was to
    >> get away from grades and just show that students are mastering
    >> material. Does it matter if Johnny mastered the skill on the first
    >> try or the 12th as long as he mastered it?
    >> On 3/27/09, ny/5 wrote:
    >>> Really! I find this very interesting. Our 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's
    >>> are the same as yours, except anything above passing is considered
    >>> on grade level. The actually allow us to add pluses and minuses to
    >>> the numbers, so if your average was a D it would be a 3-.
    >>> On 3/27/09, anon wrote:
    >>>> Just curious -- I give 2's for
    >>>> 50-64% averages in math. In our state 65% is a passing
    >>>> grade. 65-95 is considered a 3
    >>>> -------------------
    >>>> In our district, 2's go to C and D averages. A three is given to
    >>>> A and B averages. A C average is not considered to be grade level
    >>>> work.
    >>>> Our district's definition for the numbers:
    >>>> 4 - above grade level
    >>>> 3 - at grade level
    >>>> 2 - approaching grade level
    >>>> 1 - below grade level