How Are Some Districts Connecting Standards-Based Grading to NGSS/WSS? (Part 2 of series)

I have yet to find or figure out a standards-based grading (SBG) system that I feel fully aligns to the intent of the NGSS (or, by extension, the Wisconsin Standards for Science - WSS). That being said, several districts across Wisconsin are thoughtfully working to make this connection, and they deserve recognition for the effort. I am going to share the basics of four systems and some positive attributes of each. Unfortunately, I do not know the full implementation story of these districts, so I focus more on the end product. In each case it has been a multi-year process, with further fine-tuning typically still underway (so the documents linked below might not be their final versions). In the next post, I’ll share some ideas on how I would structure an SBG system a bit differently than the four examples below.

Example 1 - Waukesha

In the School District of Waukesha, they have emphasized “Grading for Learning” for several years, which focuses on clear student learning targets and feedback/support cycles to help students accomplish those targets. In science, they have three main learning targets, with additional sub-skills, in grades 6-12 for science:

• Learning Target (LT) 1 - Students will demonstrate effective communication skills in science through reading, writing, discussions and oral presentations.
• LT 2 - Students will develop and apply the skills of inquiry, data analysis, scientific investigations, and evaluation of models.
• LT 3 - Students will demonstrate their knowledge of scientific concepts, principles and core ideas.

Generally, the first target relates to evidence-based explanations and literacy skills within science. The second target connects to several science and engineering practices, with clear mathematical connections. The final target focuses on content (disciplinary core ideas). The scores from 0 (no evidence) to 4 (advanced) are translated into letter grades as part of entering them into the Infinite Campus system (as discussed in this overview document). It’s notable that their system aims to connect to literacy and mathematics learning while focusing on meaningful science practices.

Example 2 - Poynette

The School District of Poynette has a focus and set-up similar to that of Waukesha, with grading for learning as a framework for their approach. – https://www.poynette.k12.wi.us/parents/sbg_parents.cfm. Their rubrics for each subject area look similar to Waukesha’s. The following list notes the science rubric categories for each of their grade bands, calling out the progression they have. The titles link to the full rubric for those grades.

Grades 1-3 1. Demonstrates understanding of science concepts.
2. Collects, interprets, and applies data.
3. Supports conclusions with logical arguments. 

Grades 4-5 1. Demonstrates understanding of science concepts.
2. Collects, interprets, and applies data.
3. Supports conclusions with logical arguments. 

Grades 6-8

1. Explains the structure and function of systems.
2. Clarifies and organizes complex ideas and information.
3. Evaluates hypotheses and data and draws conclusions based on evidence
4. Analyzes and interprets science-related text. 

Grades 9-12
1. Explains the structure and function of systems.
2. Uses mathematics to support explanations and draw conclusions.
3. Applies scientific knowledge to investigate how humans impact environmental/ global systems.
4. Clarifies and organizes complex ideas and information.
5. Evaluates hypotheses and data and draws conclusions based on evidence.
6. Analyzes and interprets scientific text.

Like Waukesha, Poynette has clear connections to literacy and mathematics, particularly seen in the elementary focus on data and supporting conclusions. The literacy elements are also seen in the 6-12 standards on clarifying and organizing information, and analyzing and interpreting text. Their focus on structure and function in systems in grades 6-12 connects to important crosscutting concepts.

Example 3 - Whitnall

The Whitnall School District has taken a different approach than Waukesha or Poynette. As seen in their overview of standards-based report card categories (science on p. 4), there has not been as direct an emphasis on connections across subject areas. Instead, they have aimed to connect to more explicitly to the dimensions of the NGSS (or WSS). Their reporting categories are:

• Disciplinary Core Ideas: The student demonstrates knowledge of the grade-level science content.
• Crosscutting Concepts: The student can apply scientific knowledge to situations using key scientific concepts.​
• Science and Engineering Practices: The student performs the skills ​in which scientists and engineers engage.

Their work to date has been instituted in K-8, with 9-12 in progress, though they plan to have the same reporting categories for science from K-12. They have created a few resources for parents to explain their work, including a one-pager on moving from points to proficiencies and a one-pager on interpreting standards-based scoring and how those scores are different from letter grades. In this presentation they detail their work across grade bands and describe some initial rubric development. They acknowledge that having strong rubrics will be a critical piece of their work.

Example 4 - Marshall

The Marshall School District also has a different take on standards-based grading. Their work is being done K-12. The high school teachers spearheaded how to structure the science SBG, and middle school now uses similar rubrics. Marshall teachers decided to focus on the science practices (and not the engineering specific aspects of those practices). They narrowed the eight practices within the NGSS down to six categories for reporting:

• Questioning
• Investigating
• Modeling
• Analyzing and Interpreting Data (which builds in mathematical and computational thinking)
• Constructing and Supporting Explanations (which builds in engaging in argument from evidence)
• Evaluating and Communicating Information

These six standards became the common foundation for their high school science classes. They decided to add a seventh standard, disciplinary core ideas, to each subject as well. In the following links you’ll see their common rubrics for the six practice categories. You’ll also see subject-specific rubrics for their unique disciplinary core ideas.

• Biotechnology
• Biology
• Anatomy and Physiology
• Chemistry
• Physical Science

They created their rubrics primarily using Appendix F of the NGSS to tease out a progression of skills within each practice, and using Appendix E of the NGSS to tease out a content understanding progression for the disciplinary core ideas. They have found that having students grade their peers with these standards benefits their learning and progress tremendously, which has required ensuring student-friendly language in the rubrics and supporting materials. Additionally, having administrator support has been critical to begin SBG in other content areas and communicate the work to parents.

Final Thoughts

Considering the work across these districts and others embarking on this journey, I have a few words of caution:

• Fewer targets are better – It’s not realistic to grade 120 students in relation to 10 standards every quarter. Four or five per quarter seems more reasonable. A semester grade might have eight to ten categories (combining the two quarters).
• A clear understanding of targets is critical – Teachers need the professional learning to understand the targets VERY well. One Wisconsin district decided to use the NGSS Performance Expectations as their targets, split up into units in each quarter. While I see several issues with this approach, the biggest one for this district was an inconsistent understanding of what these targets meant and what three-dimensional instruction looked like to meet these targets.
• Rubrics need to be true progression – I see a lot of generic rubrics in SBG that are tweaked a little for different subject areas (or not tweaked in some instances). Take a look at my past post on rubric problems! Rubrics need to clue students into exactly what they need to learn and where they’re at in their progress.
• Part of a strategic assessment system – implementing standards-based grading can’t be separated from a larger emphasis on systems of assessment with significant associated professional learning. If teachers don’t know how to conduct 3D formative and summative assessments, they’re not going to be building up effective evidence toward quality SBG targets. See this year in assessment overview for a HS physical science class for some ideas on how that might work out.

Is your school or district doing standards-based grading? Please, share a link to your work in the comments below!

Why Do Standards-Based Grading? (Part 1 of series)

When I taught eighth grade in California, our administration started talking about implementing standards-based grading. I was skeptical to say the least! I could not imagine how I would manage that type of scoring for 120+ students. I moved away from those initial conversations when I came to Wisconsin to start a graduate program, and I did not find out how things progressed.

Within my graduate program, I began to see the potential of standards-based grading, but I worked in a district that made me realize the process had to be done very carefully. My Wisconsin district had “standards-based” grading. We provided students a score for assessments or assignments within four main standards categories. At the beginning of each quarter I selected two of these categories from a content standards list and two from a list of inquiry skills. When I entered student work into the computer program, I gave it a score of 0 to 4 (with 0.5 demarcation okay) on one or more of these standards. I received no formal training on how to grade students based on this system; I talked informally to other teachers about the logistics and their philosophy on what to do. On report cards, students received both a numerical score in each sub-category and an overall letter grade. I struggled with the idea that a 3, “proficient,” would be turned into a B+ on report cards—I felt that “proficient” should be an A, so I fudged that a bit. Neither the school, the district, nor the eighth grade team had rubrics to clearly delineate what each score meant.

Fortunately, work in that district did not sour me on the process. I continued having conversations with other educators and doing further research. I found several reasons to put forth the effort to do standards-based grading well:

1. Mindset - Jo Boaler’s practical interpretation of CarolDweck’s Mindset work blew my mind a few years ago. Using letter grades gives students the message that they are an A, B, C, D, or F student. It instills “fixed” beliefs rather a sense that they can get it if they keep working. Supporting a growth mindset has huge implications for student success in school and life.
2. Engagement and Empowerment – when students see a clear path of learning, and where they fall along that path, they feel empowered to direct their learning. It’s in their hands and personalized to their needs. They become more active learners when their progress is not repeatedly stopped by a letter (therefore, redos also become important).
3. Feedback – providing clear feedback to students on their work is oneof the most effective instructional strategies at our disposal. Giving a B or an 84% tells students little or nothing about their learning; it tells them about the type of person that they are. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard adults say, “I was a ‘C’ student.” On the other hand, standards-based grading, assuming there are well-articulated and properly used rubrics, provides a means to give relevant and actionable feedback to students. It tells them their effort can result in further learning and acknowledgment of that learning. A colleague once described formative feedback as a mentor and mentee relationship, and I’ve learned more from mentors than through any other means.
4. Parents and Community – standards-based grading is not an easy sell to parents or communities, but we can certainly communicate it better. Colleges decry the need for remedial classes. Parents do not know how to help their child succeed. Business leaders say that graduates do not have the necessary life/job skills. Having real data about what students can and cannot do helps to address these challenges.

Currently, with new science standards in Wisconsin, local education agencies have the opportunity to rethink a lot about their system. After a long personal journey, I now encourage educators to explore standards-based grading as part of their five-or-so-year process of evaluating and redesigning their science programs. I do warn them, however, that it has to be done carefully, and that it will not be an easy process.

Here are some questions to collaboratively dig into if you are considering or beginning the standards-based grading journey:

• Why are you doing it? How does it connect to your vision of student learning? A clear, concise rationale will be critical in discussions and communications.
• Which standards will we prioritize and why? Standards in any subject tend to be too extensive to meaningfully assess them all. Four to six standards per quarter are probably manageable.
• How are we connecting with the three dimensions of the Wisconsin Standards for Science (or NGSS or other Framework-based standards)? 
• What does our 3-5 year learning and roll-out process look like? Will it be a PK-12 system? A transition plan will be important. High school generally requires further considerations in this planning, particularly due to college entrance requirements and GPA (though having a traditional GPA is often flexible).

Part 2 will share some examples of SBG efforts in progress in Wisconsin...