Imagine for a moment an environment where the quality of one’s performance is measured against a set of expectations, opposite a clear deadline. The expectations are well-understood, the resources to ensure success are readily available, everyone in the organization is equally engaged to ensure the team’s success. Deadlines are met or an extension is negotiated up-front; deadlines are not simply missed.
What I’m describing here is essentially what I experienced on a daily basis in my previous career with a Fortune 15 company and I would sum it is typical of what occurs not only in industry, but also in businesses across the globe, from start-ups to large corporations.
Unfortunately, this type of environment is in stark contrast to the performance measurement systems seen in many schools that are firmly married to an A to F grading system.
Grading Debate
Anyone who follows current trends in education knows that there is a healthy debate regarding grades these days, with some arguing that we have outgrown a time-based model and that letter grades should be eliminated altogether, while others staunchly defending the traditional model.
Rather than re-hash those arguments here, I will start from an assumption with which I believe most educators can agree: our focus should be on student learning rather than on the indicator, traditional grade or otherwise. It is from that basis that I want to share the quite successful mastery-based grading system Tri-County Early College has had in place for the past five years as a pragmatic model that other schools could consider as a viable alternative to the traditional model.
Mastery-Based Grading System
While there are many details of our grading system, there are three overriding components that stand out:
1. All assignments must be completed at a level of competency and are in-play as long as that takes (i.e. grades are never used as a punitive measure and we zeros are never given).
By insisting that all assignments be completed, we address the learned behavior many students who come to us have developed in the traditional model: one that says it’s okay to simply opt-out of an assignment and take a zero. Our students learn early on that (1) we don’t give just “busywork” assignments and that (2) all assignments must be completed in order to obtain credit for a given course. We also realize that all students do not learn key concepts at the same pace and thus allow them to redo assignments as often as is necessary to prove a minimum level of proficiency.
2. Grades are indicated in terms of relative mastery opposite learning goals rather than arbitrary letter grades.
The second key attribute of our grading system takes square aim at the mindset of focusing only on the grade and not the learning process. This is done by eliminating the A – F scale in favor of one that is simply an indicator of student growth: in-progress, mastery or high mastery. As mentioned above, the student is expected to continue working to attain “mastery” per clear learning goals established at the beginning of each project/unit of study.
Students also know that a one-time mastery opposite a learning goal is still in play if a teacher ever has evidence that they have slipped. This helps address the unfortunate attitude of “my learning stops after I get the A” that some students have also learned. Part of my role as a teacher is to ensure this mentality is eliminated by a weaving prior topics into new content — something made easier in TCEC’s project-based learning environment.
3. We ensure that parents and students understand our grading policy up-front when they apply to TCEC.
The last significant characteristic of our grading system is that we are transparent with our approach from the very first interaction we have with prospective students and their parents. Because we are a school of choice, we clearly communicate the details of our mastery-learning policy as part of the overall approach to innovative teaching and learning found at TCEC. We also emphasize that because parents and students have 24/7 internet access to grades, the often over-emphasis on report cards is minimized.
It is worth noting that like other public schools, we are expected to fully comply with the requirements of the state’s PowerSchool system and that we also operate within a district that has a traditional approach to grading policies. And while this creates some occasional administrative difficulties, none of them outweigh the significant benefits we see in our students as they develop a growth mindset, as opposed to just jumping through the hoops to get the grade they want — good or bad — on an assignment.
Changing Culture
What I have described only represents the key features of TCEC’s grading policy and we continue to make refinements to it that are consistent with our emphasis on continuous improvement. We also realize that it, like any subjective grading system, is far from perfect. The term “mastery,” for example, is admittedly problematic. After all, how many of us are really a master of anything in the real world?
Nevertheless, by moving away from what was a rather superficial focus on grades alone to a system that stresses true mastery opposite rigorous and clearly defined competencies, we are changing the mindset of students to one that encourages grit and motivates them to increase their depth of knowledge. Poor performance (i.e. failure) is no longer an end point with a bad grade, but is now noted as a work in progress and gives me, as a teacher, a clear conduit into what type of interventions I can provide to help deepen student learning. The culture change we see in our students, from a flippant nonchalance or an unhealthy obsession on grades to a culture of assuming personal responsibility for one’s own learning, makes the view of this approach well worth the climb.
Have you seen this approach used in public schools where there is no choice of attending. What happens in your school if a student does not progress to the next “grade” at the end of the year? Are students moved independent to grade levels in the middle of the year?
Thank you, Angel, for the question. Therein lies the problem. Unless one operates within a system that allows a full implementation of mastery or competency based learning, such as what is done in New Hampshire and elsewhere (http://www.ed.gov/oii-news/competency-based-learning-or-personalized-learning), one will always bump into the traditional grading model at some point. That’s indeed where we are. Despite having the freedom to fully implement a mastery based learning model at our school, we still have to comply with traditional requirements such as report cards that show letter grades (although we do take advantage of an “incomplete” setting to show work in progress toward mastery) and ultimately at the end of the year, have to determine if a student will receive credit for a course. This determination is made based on how well the students have mastered the learning goals of the course in question per state curriculum standards and whether they have made a good faith effort on all required course assignments and activities. The good news is that the overwhelming majority of students do meet these requirements and will have proven mastery opposite all learning targets, thus qualifying them for course credit. The very few that do not (typically between 2-4 students from the entire student body), are required to attend our version of summer school, where we have an intensive program of targeted instruction to ensure they indeed meet the respective course requirements. Despite these occasional problems, we still feel our model is well worth all the hard work. The mindset change we see in the students’ approach to their academic growth is all the proof we need.
Angel, I attended a mastery learning high school, which was not a school of choice. Academic supports are critical to ensure students have numerous opportunities to be supported to mastery. Sometimes that means flex periods to allow students to work on what they need to work on, or after school or Saturday sessions targeted to particular standards, or differentiated class or homework based on in progress standards. You can also change summer school so students attend only to mastery in progress standards, not the entire course condensed. The school can determine a minimum threshold for progressing to the next level course while in progress standards are still in play.
Thank you Robin! Your response perfectly highlights the mindset shift that occurs when we focus on the growth of a student (i.e. all support options on the table to help the student on their individual journey to mastery) as opposed to a grade-focused mindset, where the learning can often either stop, is simply done by jumping through the right hoops, or enables an attitude “learned helplessness.” I remain convinced that this model can indeed work at any school, as long as the type of “whatever it takes” growth mindset exists throughout the entire organization.