Читать книгу Beyond the Grade - Robert Lynn Canady - Страница 10

CHAPTER 1

Why It’s Time to Reassess

Ranking students based on their grades became a prominent function in public schools not long after compulsory education became mandatory in 1918 (WiseGeek, n.d.). Ranking students by sorting and selecting them made sense when jobs were available even for those with very little schooling. As long as the U.S. economy was built on low-skilled labor, sorting and selecting those students who should continue on to the next level, be it grades 6, 9, 12, or college, was an important and expected role of teachers and schools.

But the world is different now. Graduating from high school has become a basic step in finding employment. Our own economic survival may well depend on our performing this function at a higher level than we have in the past. There is ample research that it makes financial sense to significantly improve literacy in grades preK–3 (Allington, 2011; Karoly & Bigelow, 2005); and that improvement is critically important if we expect to reduce the number of students struggling with deficits in literacy and mathematics. Increasing the achievement of students living in poverty could be the most cost-effective way to reduce poverty, which in turn could reduce government social services and crime (Gould, Weinberg, & Mustard, 2002). It is cyclical.

Now is the right time to re-examine teaching and grading policies. The job market is different. Education, employment, and poverty are proven to be linked. The grade inflation occurring in many high schools contributes to increased college dropouts (Goodwin, 2011). Standardized assessments make it easier to transition to this change. But first, take a look at how school’s purpose has changed over time.

Education, Employment, and Poverty

U.S. schools began using standardized grading systems during the early 20th century. During this time, attendance became legally mandatory, and the number of public high schools grew from five hundred to ten thousand (Lassahn, n.d.). Personalized descriptive student reports became less feasible. Schools began using percentages and letter grades, which introduced many grading debates around criteria variations and grading-scale variations.

With more students entering public schools and the shifting focus on efficiency, grading in essence became a selection tool to determine who would fail and who would progress to the next educational level. The sort-and-select practice was advantageous for a society that required a relatively low- or semi-skilled labor force. Sorting between the labor force and higher education levels became a public school function.

But now it’s time to reassess our grading practices. By contrast, public schools of the 21st century do not have the luxury of high failure rates. Because of the outcomes—high failure rates and a glut of uneducated employees in a high-skill market—traditional grading practices are no longer acceptable. Now schools are tasked with making more students college and career ready. Why? Because across all age, sex, and ethnicity categories, students who do not complete high school have a poorer chance of securing employment than those who complete high school or receive a college degree; students, along with the families they create, who never receive a high school diploma that prepares them for a career or college are almost guaranteed a life of poverty (NCES, 2008). Undereducated members of our society often suffer from poverty and many require social and health supports; and if they spend time in the justice system, the personal and societal costs are even greater (Greenberg, Dunleavy, & Kutner, 2007; NCES, 2008). That’s why it’s not an exaggeration to say that success in school is perhaps the most important factor enabling citizens to lead financially secure lives, unlike in the past. Educators are living and teaching in a time that demands adjustment. See table 1.1.

You can see in table 1.1 that there is a 26 percent difference in the employment rates for ages twenty to twenty-four between students who do not finish high school (51.5 percent) and those who earn a bachelor’s degree or higher (77.5 percent). Even completing high school significantly improves students’ chances of securing employment, giving them a 16.6 percent advantage over students who do not complete high school.

Table 1.1: Employment Rates Related to Education Levels*

*Expressed as percentages of the U.S. civilian population, excluding military personnel.

Source: NCES, 2008.

Table 1.2 illustrates conditions in earnings and unemployment rates according to levels of educational attainment among those twenty-five and older working full time. A person is defined as unemployed if he or she does “not have a job, [has] actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and [is] currently available for work” (United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014).

Table 1.2: Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment

Education Attained	Unemployment Rate in 2015 (Percent)	Median Weekly Earnings in 2015 in U.S. Dollars
Doctoral degree	1.7	1,623
Professional degree*	1.5	1,730
Master’s degree	2.4	1,341
Bachelor’s degree	2.8	1,137
Associate’s degree	3.8	798
Some college, no degree	5.0	738
High school diploma	5.4	678
Less than a high school diploma	8.0	493
All workers	4.3	860

*Per the U.S. Department of Labor, a professional degree applies to students who have attended school full time three or more years post-bachelor’s degree.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015a.

These tables illustrate the importance of helping students complete high school and become college or career ready, since the impact of education on their employment potential and earnings is so very dramatic.

The connection between education and employment also has an alarming effect on the U.S. economy. Education policy experts Tabitha Grossman, Ryan Reyna, and Stephanie Shipton (2011) observe the following:

By 2018, it is expected that the United States will need 22 million new college degrees and at least 4.7 million new workers with postsecondary certificates but will produce 3 million fewer degrees than needed. Unfortunately, there is evidence to suggest that significant portions of the student population in the U.S. are insufficiently prepared for postsecondary education…. In 2011, just 25 percent of high school graduates nationwide who took the ACT standardized test scored at a level that indicates readiness for entry-level, credit-bearing college coursework without remediation in all four core subject areas. A higher percentage, about 28 percent of the U.S. students who took the ACT test met none of the readiness benchmarks. (p. 4)

Grossman et al. (2011) have contrasted the growing demand for an educated workforce with disappointing data regarding student achievement. U.S. students’ low ranking on the ACT sounds a national alarm to educators, as well as to parents, since employment and earnings have connections to levels of educational attainment. The United States’ traditional social mobility has declined dramatically. Niall Ferguson (2011) reports the significance of these conditions in detail:

A compelling explanation for our increasingly rigid social system is that American public education is failing poor kids. One way it does this is by stopping them from getting to college. If your parents are in the bottom quintile, you have a 19 percent chance of getting into the top quintile with a college degree—but a miserable 5 percent chance without one.

The Benchmarking for Success report sounds similar warnings (NGA, CCSSO, & Achieve, 2008):

The United States is falling behind other countries in the resource that matters most in the new global economy: human capital…. The U.S. ranked high in inequity, with the third largest gap in science scores between students from different socioeconomic groups. The U.S. is rapidly losing its historic edge in educational attainment as well. As recently as 1995, America still tied for first in college and university graduation rates, but by 2006 had dropped to 14th. That same year it had the second-highest college dropout rate of 27 countries. (pp. 5–6)

According to figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “The U.S. has one of the highest college dropout rates in the industrialized world” (as cited in NGA et al., 2008, p. 11). That same report calls on state leaders to:

Tackle “the equity imperative” by creating strategies for closing the achievement gap between students from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds in each of the action steps…. Reducing inequality in education is not only socially just, it’s essential for ensuring that the United States retain a competitive edge. (p. 6)

It is clear that we, as educators, parents, and citizens, face new challenges in our efforts to recapture our former high rankings in educational attainment, employment opportunities, and economic stability. A critical piece of this equity imperative is adopting grading practices that are fair and clear and that give hope to students who are willing to work until their work is acceptable.

College Dropout Rates

As you’ve seen, educational attainment is closely connected to earning potential. Grades that students earn in high school are important not only for graduation rates but also in qualifying students for college admissions and scholarships. For example, most colleges require minimum grade point averages (GPAs) for admission; many states offer college scholarship money based on high school GPAs. Grades are therefore tied directly to earning potential. Qualifying for college admission can be challenging but is only the first step in achieving a college degree. Earning a bachelor’s degree typically takes the traditional four years of class attendance (either in person, online, or a combination of the two), completion of assignments, study, exams, lab work, conferences with professors, internships, and more. But the U.S. college dropout rate after freshman year is over 30 percent, and widespread grade inflation in high schools may be a causative factor in that statistic, as students haven’t truly mastered the standards necessary to excel in college (Goodwin, 2011). Grade inflation results in higher scores given for work that in the past would have earned a much lower score. Consider the following facts about grade inflation.

■ Between 1991 and 2003, the mathematics and English grade point averages of students taking the ACT outpaced the rise in their ACT scores in those subjects (Woodruff & Ziomek, 2004).

■ High school students’ scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s (NAEP) reading section declined between 1992 and 2005, while students reported an upturn in grade point average between 1990 and 2005—from 2.68 in 1990 to 2.98 in 2005. In addition, the percentage of students who reported taking college-preparatory classes rose from 5 to 10 percent during that period (Schmidt, 2007).

State legislators are moving toward funding formulas based on college graduation rates rather than on enrollment rates. Funding formulas are how legislators decide how much money a state will provide its universities and colleges. In states where funding is based on graduation rates, colleges are raising selection criteria. This change may require high schools to develop grading practices that inform colleges (and students) what students have truly mastered. When high schools provide recovery credits that do not include standards-based content mastery, such as a minimum requirement for the student to pass an end-of-course test for that particular state, it can lead to students receiving diplomas they have not earned (Center for Public Education, 2012). One study found that 47 percent of students did not actually complete a college- or career-ready curriculum (Gewertz, 2016a; Gewertz, 2016b). We believe recovery credits have a place in schools, but they need to reflect some level of content mastery, not just time spent earning credits in a computer lab. Grade inflation appears to be a major factor in creating this dilemma, as is the lack of common standards on which mastery is based. Grade inflation is detrimental and misleading to students, parents, counselors, and potential employers. Should individual teachers have the freedom to determine their own grading practices when the outcomes for students are so critical? It’s time now to reassess our grading policies.

Standardized Assessment

The Common Core State Standards, or similar standards codified by some states, are another reason to reconsider and improve assessment practices and policies by standardizing grading criteria. The CCSS offer teachers the opportunity to implement the kind of uniformity—while maintaining flexibility where it’s needed—that can change grading practices. Having a set of common standards brings greater consistency in our grading practices, as does having common assessment approaches such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, as do assessment options for students with disabilities.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers

Two different consortia, which the U.S. Department of Education funded, are implementing overall assessments of student attainment of the CCSS. Information at www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments details the plan developed for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Information at www.parcconline.org/assessments represents the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers’ (PARCC) plan. Information at www.ets.org/global relays information about standardized assessments available around the world.

SBAC and PARCC complement the CCSS and are in varying stages of implementation throughout selected states. Both offer formative and summative assessments (Grossman et al., 2011). Educators in CCSS discussions often emphasize summative assessments. Much of the controversy surrounding CCSS implementation is related to whether those summative assessments can judge or rank schools and teachers (Lenz & Kay, 2013; Wood, 2013). However, what those discussions often overlook is the value of formative assessments in guiding teaching practices in preparing all students to achieve grade-level content, and to successfully navigate the summative assessments. Formative assessments are the day-to-day or moment-to-moment impressions of student understanding, routine observations or conclusions about student mastery of skills or content, and adjustments in instruction that educator observations trigger. Summative assessments sum up student accomplishments and indicate mastery, and they typically take place after the usual instructional period has been completed. Summative assessments give meaning to grades because they are based on standards that are the common reference point. Therefore, grades based on summative assessments will decrease grade inflation and make college or career readiness more likely.

Various school systems have plans to implement one of these assessment approaches.

Assessment Options for Students With Disabilities

Achieve (2013) is one example of a list of CCSS assessment resources designed for use with students with disabilities. The following are different assessment resources.

■ SBAC accessibility and accommodations (http://bit.ly/2cCxk0v) use technology to deliver assessments that fit the individual student’s needs. The technology includes different colors (for readability) and Braille, American Sign Language, and other languages.

■ PARCC accessibility (www.parcconline.org/assessments/accessibility/manual) assessment options address students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities’ needs.

■ The National Center and State Collaborative (www.ncscpartners.org) provides assessment options based on alternative achievement standards. These assessments are for students with “the most significant cognitive disabilities” (National Center and State Collaborative, 2012).

■ The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium (http://dynamiclearningmaps.org) developed an alternative assessment system for students with severe cognitive and sensory disabilities.

Since states and provinces frequently discuss and sometimes change their preferences for the various assessment organizations, check your state or province’s department of education’s website or school system for the most current information. You can also find a list of states and their choices on OpenEd’s guide to Common Core standards (http://bit.ly/2cO2uMN; OpenEd, n.d.). The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (www.cmec.ca) lists standards as they vary by province. (Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction to access live links to the websites mentioned in this book.)

Summary

In addition to professional reflection, a myriad of reasons make this the right time to reassess grading practices. The clear connection between education level and potential earnings and the clear risk of poverty associated with limited education are reasons to consider how we assess students. Grade inflation’s link to college dropout rates is another reason, as are the opportunities schools have with standardized assessment efforts.

Reflection Questions

Use the following questions to help initiate faculty discussions and to help faculty examine the potential of changing current policies.

1. What is the primary purpose of teacher grades?

2. On what factors should teachers base grades? How important is predictability of grades? For instance, should course grades predict end-of-course test scores or the ability to perform on-the-job tasks? If important, what changes will increase predictability of a student’s grade?

3. How can the practice of teaching and learning rather than sorting and selecting add meaning to grades earned by all students?

4. What are the major arguments for having both academic and non-academic reporting instruments?

Beyond the Grade © 2017 Solution Tree Press • SolutionTree.com

Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction to download this free reproducible.