Random thoughts of an ed admin lifer

I’ve been working with a committee from our school division on developing an assessment protocol. I am wrestling with the following thoughts:

Why do we continue to try to provide assessment information to students with percentage grades? The easy answer is because our “Ministry of Education” requires the school to provide a percentage grade for credit classes in grades 10, 11 and 12 so they can be reported on the students’ official transcripts. However, the more disturbing answer is that the percentage grade is required to provide a sorting service for society. This really became apparent to me during several discussions with other educators over the past few weeks. Some of the arguments about proposed changes to our grading practices were couched in not impacting the chances of some students getting into university or impacting how scholarships are distributed. I may be cynical, but I don’t think it really maters, in the big picture, what the criterion for the sorting process is. As long as the sorting happens! Obviously this is contrary to what we strive to do in our classrooms—to provide rich assessment information to students to help them improve. How do we resolve this very strong conflict between providing sound assessment for learning information to students and parents vs. providing information for which gate-keeping decisions are based?

I have been wrestling with the issue of whether it is appropriate to include “behaviour” as part of a student’s mark.  It is common practice for teachers to award students marks for good behaviour or to deduct marks for poor behaviour.  This is done as an attempt to motivate students to do things right, like coming to class with the appropriate items, having homework done and arriving on time.  Sometimes if is very cut and dry:  Students will receive two free lates, after that, one percentage point will be deducted from the student’s final grade each subsequent late.  Sometimes it is a bit wishy-washy:  Students will receive a mark out of 10 on their classroom participation and cooperation.  Whether the practice is to reward desirable or penalize undesirable behaviour, it impacts the student’s final grade in the course.  I agree that a student’s grade should reflect how well they know the concepts, targets, objectives, learning outcomes (or whatever else they are called) of the class.  I also understand that some courses have a larger emphasis on the affective domain, physical education comes immediately to mind, and consequently it is somehow more appropriate to include this domain as part of a student’s grade.  Certainly it is not less important for a math student to come to class prepared and participate in the lesson than a phys. ed. student.  So how do we properly assess behaviour?  Do we separate the two components completely?  Can they be completely separated?  Isn’t it important for the end users of the grades–the gate keepers to post-secondary education—to know the affective characteristics of a student, as well as their level of academic achievement?  What about the “soft skills” so sought after by employers, shouldn’t a student’s marks communicate something about their capabilities in those areas?  I know, more questions than answers . . . what are your thoughts?

The impact of a zero on a student’s mark can be huge! In some cases a single zero can prevent a student from successfully completing a class. What does a zero tell us? Most obviously, it indicates that a student neglected to hand in an assignment, but little else. Is there a way we can minimize the disproportionate impact that awarding a grade of 0 has on student success and still foster accountability?!! This topic is discussed in depth in the following article: 0 Alternatives. What are your thoughts about incorporating these ideas into your practice?