Why I Wouldn’t Use 3D (NGSS) Performance Expectations for Standards-Based Grading (Part 3 of Series)

In my last post, I mentioned that I would not use the NGSS Performance Expectations (PEs) as scoring categories for standards-based grading (SBG). The main concern I expressed was about the inconsistencies and confusion that generated in one district that tried it. Teachers did not agree on—or, in some cases, even understand—what the PEs meant. I wanted to share a few more thoughts on why not to use the PEs in SBG, and in my next post go into some depth on an alternative idea for SBG.

Here’s what using PEs might look like for grading categories in a first grade classroom, though other elementary grades would be similar. Middle and high school would tend to have 4-6 PEs per quarter. To create this table I used the topic progression of the NGSS to determine the PEs of each quarter.

1st Quarter	2nd Quarter	3rd Quarter	4th Quarter
·   Use materials to design a solution to a human problem by mimicking how plants and/or animals use their external parts to help them survive, grow, and meet their needs. ·   Read texts and use media to determine patterns in behavior of parents and offspring that help offspring survive. ·   Make observations to construct an evidence-based account that young plants and animals are like, but not exactly like, their parents.	·   Plan and conduct investigations to provide evidence that vibrating materials can make sound and that sound can make materials vibrate.  ·   Make observations to construct an evidence-based account that objects in darkness can be seen only when illuminated. ·   Plan and conduct investigations to determine the effect of placing objects made with different materials in the path of a beam of light.  ·   Use tools and materials to design and build a device that uses light or sound to solve the problem of communicating over a distance.	·  Use observations of the sun, moon, and stars to describe patterns that can be predicted. · Make observations at different times of year to relate the amount of daylight to the time of year.	·   Ask questions, make observations, and gather information about a situation people want to change to define a simple problem that can be solved through the development of a new or improved object or tool. ·  Develop a simple sketch, drawing, or physical model to illustrate how the shape of an object helps it function as needed to solve a given problem. ·  Analyze data from tests of two objects designed to solve the same problem to compare the strengths and weaknesses of how each performs.

The first reason I would not go with PEs as categories is that I would want my categories to represent a clearer progression of learning through the course of a year. Using PEs might encourage a focus on isolated content and skill work rather than true integration. Specifically, practices and crosscutting concepts don’t have a clear progression through this year. Patterns and making observations come up four and five times respectively, but most are once or twice. If an educator’s main goal was getting students to make observations and notice patterns, that strategy could work but would need to be explicitly spelled out.

Another reason to hesitate on PEs: I’ve been told that PEs were designed as goals to be mastered by the end of the year, not the end of the first or second quarter. If I want students to progress in data and pattern analysis, for example, it’s going to be hard to see sufficient progress in one quarter. It will be much more meaningful through a year.

Perhaps a larger PE-related issue that I have seen happening in Wisconsin is treating them as checkboxes. Educators do a lesson or two related each PE and consider that sufficient. Many instructional materials are coming out that seem to take this approach. That does not help support coherent learning, but instead encourages frenetic activity doing.

Next, what about this engineering approach? I often see engineering being done in an isolated unit. Some new materials have a unit on the “engineering design process” just like they used to have (or continue to have) units on the “scientific method.” Engineering in these standards is meant to deepen and extend science learning. The Framework and NGSS intentionally note that we’re not creating standards for a separate engineering course but connecting to science.

I would also argue that it’s worth more specifically knowing and sharing where students are struggling – is it figuring out patterns, is it making effective observations, or is it the student hanging on to the idea that given enough time they’d be able to see that object even in complete darkness? Further, with a likely desire to link categories to math and literacy standards at the elementary level, those connections become more muddled within these 3D targets. In other words, a 3D rubric would be harder (though not impossible) to tease apart for connections to math and literacy standards.

To be more specific, let’s look at PE 1-ESS1-2. Twice a month, as part of a morning calendar routine that links to mathematics, students note the sunrise and sunset times and estimate the amount of daylight. At the end of the year, they take a 30 minute science class to look at this data by month and students individually make observations of patterns in a structured (i.e. scaffolded) way in their notebook. The teacher can then assess it and say the standard is done. Check! Is that what’s intended with these standards?

What ideas do you have for standards-based grading? Anyone want to advocate for the PEs in SBG or offer additional reasons not to use them?