Confusion Reigns After Two Hour Explanation
As a military brat, I learned some very basic concepts. One of them is the idea that if you can't explain your plan in fifteen minutes or less, you don't have a very good plan. As a teacher, I learned that new information needs to be shared and explained in exact language that anyone can understand, even a recalcitrant teenager.
Geico taught us that we should make things "so simple a caveman could do it. " Our apologies to cavemen.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube
Someone should tell the Talbot County Public Schools Central Office staff. During a March 18th marathon Board of Education meeting, Robin Werner, Director of Teaching and Learning for the county and her cohorts attempted to explain planned new proposed grading policies for elementary and secondary grades. It took over two hours, and most people (including the Board members) left the meeting in a fog over what the new policy would be. Questions were not answered and explanations seemed more like complicated quantum physics.
The grading policy issue came up last fall when Principals Lisa Devaric (Easton High School) and Todd Stoker (St. Michaels High School) sent out "grading guidance" to their teaching staffs. Unfortunately, they never involved upper administration in their decision. We reported on this in the Fall:
In fact, when we asked county administration about a county-wide grading policy, we were told there wasn't one. And then we were told there was, but it wasn't consistently applied.
Parents heard about these "new" practices from their children who either told them what was going on OR who, when pressed by their parents about due dates for assignments, explained that it didn't matter if they didn't turn them in on time, or at all. They would still get full credit for late assignments or a 50% for work not done.
First, teachers were directed to give no grades below 50% even if a student did not do any work. Next, they were told that work with due dates MUST BE ACCEPTED until the end of the marking period WITH NO PENALTY. The rest of the memo, which is included in the article above, details grading for special populations, etc.
This is all part of a grading philosophy called "grading for equity." It's a philosophy most likely designed with good intent; it is a philosophy that may work theoretically with theoretical students. Unfortunately, schools don't teach theoretical students. Schools teach real, live, human students.
The county formed two committees to tackle the issue of grading policy. In the Fall, when we pointed out that most of the members of the committees were school employees, administration said that wasn't true. We checked the list of the members of the two grading committees on the TCPS website as of 3/19 at 8:15 a.m. There are 29 members on the committees. Only two are parents not employed/associated by the school system are one of the committees, the elementary committee. This despite the comment made by Werner during Wednesday's meeting that the committees involved teachers, parents and community members. Here is a link to those committees:
TCPS Committees | Talbot County Public Schools
Perhaps the county has not updated the lists. However, if one is committed to transparency, those lists should be accurate.
During the meeting last night, Werner referenced the following presentation:
One of the things I have learned from being a teacher, an administrator, etc. for over 30 years in the Talbot County Public Schools is that educators are very good at using "Eduspeak." Eduspeak is the jargon and terms educators use especially in academic papers, policy documents, teacher trainings, and administrative meetings. Eduspeak is the use overly technical and trendy, buzzwords that sound impressive and positive but lack clarity, and wordy descriptions that obscure simple ideas.
Some think it shows expertise but it usually just frustrates parents, the general public, and even teachers.
Last night was not only an endurance test, it was a master class in "eduspeak."
The eduspeak began almost immediately in the presentation as Werner explained how and why the grading policy was designed. She said it was "intentionally done and collaborative," using feedback from the "equity" and policy committees. She also sited that the committees used policy as their "North Star" and had the mission of giving feedback but aligning grading, empowering students, and acknowledging "diverse populations." In other words, they wanted to do all things for all people. Impossible.
This is the highlighted version of the "purpose of grading" according to TCPS policy.
And we thought grading meant assessing and communicating student academic achievement.
She also stated the concern the committees had for parents, teachers, and, in the true spirit of educational jargon, "community stakeholders." (That term "stakeholders" is a popular one among educators and politicians. It's used to virtue signal about "inclusivity" and it sounds more professional than "everyone involved." It's also used to avoid any idea that certain groups are more important than others. In reality it is vague, impersonal, and bureaucratic.)
Elementary Grading Policy Recommendation
The shortest part of the presentation was that done by the Elementary Grading Committee. The focus here was on K-2 and then grades 3-5. The committee decided on a "competency based" evaluation system rather than a system using "grades."
Competency based evaluation means that systems set up a list of "competencies" they want students to have and then evaluate student progress towards those competencies. Here is a resource regarding competencies:
Competency-Based Learning Definition
Here is what a competency-based report card would look like:
While there is no issue with evaluating student learning by assessing their skills or "competencies" the problem arises with the terms that describe that assessment. Looking at the box on the right displaying the evaluative terms, it's interesting to note that there four descriptions of student performance. One is "emerging" and the other three are different levels of "proficiency."
Proficiency is defined as the ability to complete a skill solidly and with reliability. It is meeting the standard. It is NOT mastery, which means a deep, advanced understanding of a skill that goes beyond the standard. The first question is why there is no category called "mastery" that can describe the performance of students who "go beyond the standard."
Also, are there actually three different levels of "proficiency" and how are they distinguishable from each other? How do you quantify how "approaching," "demonstrating" and "surpassing" proficiency are different?
Supposedly, "emerging" means a student is beginning to show the skill, concept, or behavior but still needs support, practice, and guidance. Their performance is inconsistent—sometimes they can do it, sometimes not. How is that different from "approaching proficiency?" What is the determining factor here? Is this just a nice way to soften the blow that some kids are slower learners than others or are not achieving?
And how do you explain all of that to parents?
For a system that educators claim is more "objective" these descriptions of learning seem subjective and not very helpful for a parent to determine how their child is doing in school.
The system says they want students to understand where they are on the learning continuum, but will a 4th grader really be able to do that with this grading system? In reality, the ability to assess one's own progress independently is not developed in most people until high school.
And, the main question the Board had is how will students transition from this system in grades 3-5 to middle school where letter grades will be used? What's the plan? The answer was described as "transition."
Secondary Grading Explanation
The evening took an interesting turn when the committee for the secondary grading policy presented their work. Dr. Lisa Devaric, one of the aforementioned principals who implemented a new grading policy without contacting upper-level administration, stated that current practices "don't align" with standards. She also stated that the new policy is based on THE SCIENCE OF LEARNING.
If that name sounds familiar, it's because the latest fad in teaching children to read is THE SCIENCE OF READING. Here's a link to the publication:
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
The Science of Learning includes these principles:
- Retrieval strengthens memory
- Spaced practice improves retention
- Feedback accelerates learning
- Prior knowledge shapes new understanding
- Cognitive load affects performance
- Motivation and belonging matter
- Learning is social
Basically, practice, correction, building on prior knowledge, reasonable periods of instruction, motivation and feeling safe help people learn.
In other words, things we have known and practiced for years. Currently, good teachers in any school system employ these practices. It's not magic. It's not new. It doesn't require an overhauled grading system.
The secondary committee rejected competency-based grading. This was a good decision, particularly since so many secondary students rely on grades for college, career placement, etc.
The first decision they had to make was how to "weight" formative and summative assessments (fancy names for quizzes and tests). The difference is that "formatives" can be a collection of work from the classroom and the increase of the grading weight of "formatives" over "summatives." Why?
The object is to decrease the impact of exams on a student's grade.
Then there was the comparison of the 100 pt. scale in grading. What is strange here is that the problem, as it is stated, is a problem with the grading program, POWERSCHOOL. Apparently, POWERSCHOOL puts any grade between 90% and 100% (an "A") as a 95%.
If that is the flaw in the system, why not change what POWERSCHOOL does? Are teachers only allowed to put letter grades into POWERSCHOOL instead of percentages? If so, change that. But, do you REALLY need to change the entire grading?
What came next was a grueling, long explanation of the quantum physics of the new grading system by the TCPS Local Accountability Coordinator, Lee Neild. A Local Accountability Coordinator is in charge of testing and the interpretation/reporting of test results. Werner was very excited about Neild's explanation because it is all about data, numbers, and mathematical distortion. I like data as much as the next person, but when you have to take over an hour to explain the data and how it works, it's not useful.
Here is a sample of Neild's report:
Complicated.
So let's get to the bottom line.
The committee is recommending a "hybrid" grading system. Here is what that looks like:
As soon as this was projected on the screen, I thought back to when I taught and was told NEVER to give "+ or -" grades. The idea was that there was no rational distinction between what was three different levels of a grade. The other thought was that if a teacher could give a "B+" due to one percentage point, why not just give an "A-"?
But what about "grade creep"? Grade creep is like grade inflation but instead of being a sudden jump in grades, it's an annual increase. Grades that include intervals like "plus" and "minus" are more susceptible to creep. Parents/students are more likely to try to "convince" a teacher to move a "B-" to an "A" or an "A" to an "A+" and teachers are more likely to comply with these requests.
The rest of the presentation was a compilation of graphs, formulas, etc.
The hybrid grading system may be a good solution to the grading policy problem. We admire the hard work that obviously took place to create it.
At the end of the presentation, Board members seemed more confused and frustrated than informed. One clear demand was that Werner and her committees design a "one page, elevator speech" explanation of the policy to present to parents and community. Members also said the group failed to answer the question about due dates and if late work would be penalized.
We concur.
Wednesday evening's Talbot County Board of Education meeting highlights the measures systems across the state are undertaking to try to share student academic progress with parents/communities. It may mirror Maryland's attempt to make state test scores look better through new reporting measures and designs online as well as a change in the state tests.
We also wonder how these grading policies will muddy the waters for parents and make it harder for them to accurately assess their child's academic achievement. We also wonder which students stand to gain the most from the system, since this proposed policy seems to favor those students who do not work hard.
Thor Heyerdahl said, "Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity." We would add that, in this case, the complication negates the alleged progress.
NOTES:
1.While the AR for grading was supposed to be up for discussion Wednesday evening, the Board members could not discuss it because they did not have a copy of it to review.
2. When I think back about the teachers I worked with, there wasn't one who wouldn't help a kid overcome a low grade or even a zero if that child wanted help. This policy assumes teachers won't do that.
