Written by Richard Muchka

For decades, WELS teachers have used the same general grading scale (A, B, C, D, and F). But what do these letters exactly mean? According to traditional grading, an A designates a superior understanding of subject matter, a B correlates with above average, a C is average, a D is below average, and an F denotes a failure to understand the particular subject matter. But how are parents to know exactly what their son or daughter knows or doesn’t know? Is there a more accurate model? Many supporters of standards-based grading would suggest this new model can provide a more accurate assessment of student learning.

Standards-based grading and reporting takes a step away from traditional grading and reporting. Rather than average grades accumulated from a variety of daily assignments, quizzes, tests, and projects, standards-based grading stems from the theory that educators must have clearly-defined learning objectives for their students, be able to determine whether the students have met those objectives, and then communicate that to students and parents (Spencer, 2012).

A standards-based report card contains an overall grade for each course as well as indicators stating the level at which a student has mastered each course’s desired learning objectives. Examples of indicators might be “exceeding standard, meeting standard, approaching standard, and below standard.” While traditional end-of-course grades are the result of many factors, including quizzes, homework, behavior, and attendance, with standards-based grading nothing matters but mastery of learning objectives (Spencer, 2012).

There are many benefits to this new method of grading. Standards-based grading can allow for a more accurate and descriptive report of what a student can do. Another benefit is improved quality of feedback provided to parents and students about student work. Standards-based grading and reporting can provide “concrete guidance and useful feedback that they (students) can use to improve their performance in specific areas” (Heflebower & Hoegh, 2014). A third benefit to standards-based grading is providing students with ownership over their own level of performance. Students who receive the learning objectives for a unit ahead of time can see what is expected of them and are held accountable for achieving those objectives. Finally, standards-based grading provides opportunities for instructors to differentiate instruction to best meet the needs of gifted and talented students as well as those who need additional assistance.

As one might expect, there are many challenges, from adoption to implementation, that come with standards-based grading. One of the biggest challenges is teacher awareness and knowledge of curricular standards and learning objectives. Teachers need to be aware of what standards students are expected to accomplish in a given subject, align assessments and grades on explicit criteria taken from these standards, and clearly distinguish among product, process, and progress criteria in assigning grades (Guskey, 2009). With all of the required preparation for a move to standards-based grading, another challenge that arises is an educator’s time and ability. Adding to this challenge, some teachers have said that the Common Core State Standards have intensified this problem. Many standards are written in difficult language, and there are simply too many to realistically track.

Despite the challenges, standards-based grading may be a realistic option for even the most traditional of WELS schools. The first step to successful implementation is clearly defining the learning objectives educators wish students to achieve during a unit. Some WELS high school federations, such as FVL Schools and Lakeshore Lutheran Schools, have already taken steps toward creating unified standards for all the associated grade schools. These curricular standards can be the launching point for further discussion on standards-based grading. Other national standards resources are available as well for all major subject areas.

The second step to implementation requires connecting these learning objectives to measurable assessments. Thomas R. Guskey, a professor at the University of Kentucky and leader in educational reform, defined three different areas of learning criteria: product, process, and progress (Guskey & Bailey, 2010). Product criteria communicate summative evaluations of students’ achievement and performance (O’Connor, 2002). Process criteria reflect not only the final results but also how students got there. Progress criteria look at students’ improvement over a period of time, rather than just where they are at a given moment (Munoz & Guskey, 2016). Educators will seek to incorporate a variety of assessments that meet each of these criteria and use these assessments to measure the level of learning objective achievement.

The third step to proper implementation of standards-based grading is proper data collection and effective and accurate reporting to both students and parents. If a teacher must use a particular grade book, that teacher can still use a standards-based system. The crucial idea is to use a system that does not average daily work, quizzes, and projects. The system must not allow students to mask their level of understanding with their attendance, their effort, or other exterior issues (Scriffiny, 2008). However, these outlying factors can still be reported through narrative grading, a brief paragraph describing students’ abilities in non-academic criteria.

Standards-based grading has many possible advantages for the WELS school system, but it also comes with a variety of challenges. With an organized, dedicated staff, a forward-minded administrator, an open-minded and educated parent base, and the blessing of the Lord, a WELS school or federation may be able to move to a standards-based grading system that contributes to a higher quality Christian education.

Rick Muchka (MLC ’05) serves as principal and teaches seventh and eighth grade at Morrison Zion-Greenleaf WI. Rick is also enrolled in MLC’s Master of Science in Education program with an emphasis in instruction.

References
Guskey, T.R. (2009). Grading policies that work against standards . . . and how to fix them. In T.R. Guskey (Ed.), Practical solutions to serious problems in standards-based grading (pp. 9-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Guskey, T.R. & Bailey, J.M. (2010). Developing standards based report cards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Heflebower, T., & Hoegh, J. K. (2014). A School Leader’s Guide to Standards-Based Grading. Solution Tree Press.

Muñoz, M. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 64-68.

O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight.

Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.

Spencer, K. (2012). Standards-based grading: New report cards aim to make mastery clear. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 78(3), 4-10.