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!