What's The Goal

I have been reading Thomas Guskey's book, Developing Grading and Reporting Systems For Student Learning. It is about practices for grading and reporting student performance. In it he discusses the specifics of various practices used for grading students. He talks about letter grades, percentage grades, rubrics, etc. As I am reading through his book I have come to a startling realization. As educators we have figured out what grade we are going to mark on a paper or on a report card. I am wondering however, whether or not we have figured out what our real goal of instruction is. Let me explain.

If the goal of learning is to demonstrate high levels of mastery and performance, then we are going about it the wrong way. If mastery is the goal, then other things that are currently included in the process must become variables that can be manipulated. Time, for example, is not a fixed variable if you want mastery. The reality is that different people require different amounts of time and practice in order to arrive at the point of learning to mastery. Practice, the amount of repetition necessary to demonstrate mastery, is also a flexible variable. Different students require varying amounts of practice and demonstration of a skill or concept. Imperfect practice or understanding should be treated differently if mastery is the goal.

Formative or imperfect practice, with necessary correction, is assumed in this kind of Mastery Learning and Grading. In fact, many formative assessments are not graded or even figured into a summative grade in this process. This 'rubs the cat's fur the wrong way' for people who believe that grading is a function of Darwinism: separating the strongest in the herd from those that are decidedly weak. Most grading that goes on in high schools is Grading Darwinism and the separating of the 'wheat from the chaff'. If the goal is learning at a high degree of mastery and performance, this mentality on the part of educators is counterproductive. If you think about it, it is an impediment that keeps us from high performance for as many students as possible.

At this point someone is thinking, "You are just watering down the level of performance so that all students can 'succeed'! On the contrary. I am not advocating a lowering of standards of excellence at all. I am just saying that if the goal is mastery then why can't a student take a formative assessment after sufficient instruction. Then, if the student does poorly on the formative assessment, why can't they receive corrective instruction, in a different form of presentation then the initial instruction in order to correct their errors in thinking or practice. They could then take a formative assessment similar to the first one that they took initially, and if they reach the 90% or whatever the standard is, congratulate them for reaching mastery. Some teachers would do this but then destroy the positive impact on student performance by averaging the grade from the intial formative assessment with the second. Again, if the goal is mastery and getting the best performance possible, why average an initial practice with a more precise one. Some would say that it is only mastery if you reach it on the first try. Let me use an analogy from non-academic life. Many adults who have driver's licenses would not be on the road if that was the practice of the motor vehicle department. They set a standard that does not bend or change. They do give you multiple chances to reach mastery. I will write more about this topic in future blogs.

It is imperative that we get assessment right from now on. If the goal is learning then how we assess student learning has to match what we say our outcomes are. If students retake exams, how does that not help more precise practice and mastery? Vince Lombardi spoke about mastery and high performance when he said, "Practice makes permanent, perfect practice makes perfect". Students learn things incorrectly and because we are imprecise and confusing in our correction techniques, they cannot learn and give us the mastery that we desire. Some teachers have made the transition. They give formative assessments often enough and far enough into the instruction of a particular concept as to find students close to mastery. They also use assessments the same way that a dipstick functions in a car. We use the dipstick to tell us how much oil we have. Some teachers use the oil light function. The oil light only comes on if you are close to serious trouble. This is not the function of assessment. We first evaluate initial practice and understanding and then when we believe that student practice is more precise we use a more summative assessment that is entered in the grade book.

One last thing. This will call into question the number of essential concepts that we teach. You cannot use any of what I am suggesting if you need to have students master 100 concepts in a semester. This is the major difference between the American educational system and the educational systems of higher performing countries. They teach less to higher levels of mastery. We cover our many concepts a "mile wide and an inch deep". Suffice it to say that how we grade is missing the target if high levels of mastery is the goal.