Standards-Based Grading and Reporting

Standards-Based Grading
and Reporting
Sue Anderson
Tumwater School District
January 2011
 Tumwater SD - Context
 Why does this matter?
 Sound grading practices
 Our report card journey
 Lessons learned…so far
Context: TSD’s Focus
What do we want students to know and be able to do?
Power standards, learning targets
How will we know if they’ve learned it?
Assessment FOR learning, common benchmarks
What will we do if they haven’t?
Pyramid of Interventions – extra time and support
What will we do for those who already know it?
Why does this matter?
 The most important decision-maker about whether
or not learning will happen in a classroom is…
 Grades are motivating – for students who get good
 Many of our established grading practices do not
accurately reflect student achievement . They do
not engage students in understanding their progress
on learning targets or in improving that progress.
Sound Grading Practices:
 Grades are consistent, accurate, and meaningful,
and they support learning.
 Grades accurately reflect student progress in
mastering the district’s published learning
(with credit to Ken O’Connor)
 Don’t include behaviors or attendance in grades –
only include achievement.
 Don’t reduce scores on late work; support the
 No extra credit! Look for evidence that more work
has resulted in higher achievement.
 Don’t include group scores in grades; use only
individual achievement evidence.
Practices (continued)
 Organize and report evidence by standard/learning
goal, not by assessment method or summarized into
a single grade.
 Don’t assign grades by comparing a student’s
achievement with others; only compare it to the
standards. No “curving.”
 Don’t rely on averages to determine grades; look at
progress over time, other measures of central
tendency, and use professional judgment.
Practices (continued)
 Don’t include zeroes in grade determination when
missing work or as punishment.
 Don’t use formative/practice activities to determine
grades; use only summative evidence.
Our report card journey
 Pilot group representing all grade levels and schools
 Assessment Training Institute’s Grading conference –
Portland, December
 Skyward training
 Development of draft report cards
 First use: Fall trimester, 2010
 Feedback from pilot teachers and parents
 Revisions to draft
 Continuing pilot in 2011-12
Lessons learned…so far
 Begin with a clear statement of philosophy of standardsbased and sound grading
 Educate parents and students about this
 Allow adequate time and resources for professional
development on SB grading, Skyward
 Allow adequate time to process drafts
 Consider phasing in the transition, beginning with
kindergarten and first grade
 Understand that it is a BIG JOB when done correctly.
Key Resources
O’Connor, Ken. How to Grade for Learning, K-12. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, 2009.
O’Connor, Ken. A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades. Portland,
OR: Assessment Training Institute, 2007.
Wormeli, Rick. Fair Isn’t Always Equal. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers,
Chappuis, Jan. Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning. Portland, OR:
Assessment Training Institute, 2010.
Guskey, Thomas R. and Bailey, Jane. Developing Grading and Reporting Systems
for Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2001.
Assessment Training Institute (ATI) Grading Conference, Portland, OR.
Annual conference in December, featuring Rick Stiggins, Ken O’Connor, Jan
and Steve Chappuis, Judy Arter, and people from a number of districts around
the country and world that are changing the way they grade and report
student work. See more about this and their other resources at:

similar documents