Grading that is better for students, teachers

FALLS VILLAGE — Thomas Guskey of the University of Kentucky told an audience of Region One School District parents, school board members, teachers and administrators — and at least one student — that American grading practices compare unfavorably to those of other countries for a simple reason.

A single grade, whether expressed as a letter grade or a percentage, “requires integration of diverse information,” such as academic performance, the learning process itself and the progress the student has made.

Trying to boil all that information down to a single grade, he maintained, is not particularly helpful to anyone, and has unfortunate side effects.

Guskey spoke at Housatonic Valley Regional High School on Thursday, Aug. 30, about grading practices and student achievement. 

He said that grading criteria include three elements: the product (level of achievement of learning goals at the present time, i.e. the day of the test); the process (how the student got to that level); and progress (how far the student has come).

“When you combine these things in one grade, it’s meaningless,” he said.

He showed an example of a Canadian report card, where the grade for each course includes an assessment of academic achievement; and other factors, such as completing homework on time and classroom participation. 

This is accompanied by brief remarks from the teacher, along the lines of “X did an excellent job on the tests and classroom activities, but needs to work on completing homework assignments on time.”

Guskey said this kind of grading might look like extra work for teachers, but it isn’t. 

“It’s easier than trying to combine all those things into one grade.”

And “parents love it because it gives a performance rating.”

He said the Canadian example is not a standards-based report card.

But it is a step in that direction, simply because the “non-achievement” elements are separated.

Earlier in his remarks, he said the advantages of “standards-based” grading are a “clear description of achievement” and “useful diagnosis and prescription.”

The disadvantages are it means extra work for teachers, “and may not be supported by the grade book.”

He was critical of class rankings and of picking valedictorians based on class rank.

Noting that the Latin word means, roughly, “to say farewell,” he said the class rank has nothing to do with achievement “and everything to do with competition, which is detrimental to everyone else.”

He said class rank has become increasingly less important in college admissions than other factors, such as grades in college prep courses, strength of curriculum, and what classes the applicant took during the senior year in high school.

Guskey wrapped up his roughly 80-minute presentation by emphasizing three things that schools should make sure of:

• “Begin with a clear statement of purpose. Why are we grading?”

• Grades should be “accurate and meaningful descriptions of student learning.”

• “We are grading to enhance teaching and learning, not get in the way.”

Guskey led the Thursday evening discussion and worked with all Region One teachers on Friday, according to Assistant Superintendent Lisa Carter. His fee was $12,500.

Carter wrote in an email Tuesday, Sept. 4, that a group of 26 teachers, administrators and Board of Education members went to hear Guskey speak in New Hampshire last January. 

They were impressed, and asked Carter to bring Guskey to Region One.

“We knew that he would be expensive, but he is so well-respected and his presentation is so accessible, everyone thought he would be worth the expense,” Carter wrote.