the Common Core and other versions of academic standards but to all standards. The elevation of literacy, for example, denies students the opportunity to pursue their interest in physical education or creative arts. Susan Ohanian (1999) joins Zhao in this general opposition.
Standards critics also include political groups who oppose any set of external standards as an imposition on local control, a term that varies widely in its implication. For some critics, a careful reading of the Tenth Amendment requires that powers not enumerated in the Constitution be reserved to the states (National Constitution Center, 2015). For others, local control means that all education requirements are the exclusive province of the local school board. For others, the same term implies that teachers rule the classroom domain and that they are best equipped to determine the curriculum, assessment, academic standards, and grading policies and practices for their classrooms.
Critics make strange bedfellows. It would be foolhardy to ignore these critics, however disparate their reasoning might be. Too often, discourse, especially political discourse, is conducted in an echo chamber in which we only consider the views of those with whom we agree, while ignoring differing opinions. The successful implementation of effective grading policies requires thoughtful and respectful engagement with critics, including all ends of the political spectrum, teachers, parents, and policymakers.
How to Separate Policy From Politics
How can we bridge the gap between the advocates and critics of standards? The first and most important consideration is to find common ground. In every education debate, it might be a good start to stipulate that those who disagree with us are neither evil nor indifferent to student needs. We can respect people of sincere goodwill who favor government intervention to support educational opportunities for all students as well as those who favor limited government and oppose any federal or state intrusion into school matters, no matter how well intentioned.
In such a politically charged environment, where is the common ground? You might find it on a Friday night at your local high school football, basketball, or volleyball game. Parents, teachers, administrators, and board members of wildly different political persuasions can agree on a few things, aside from the fact that their team is the best on the field. Where do we find common ground in athletics (or interscholastic competitions in science, music, art, debate, poetry, and many other fields)? Can we compare the judgments in athletics to those in standards-based grading? How do they compare? Again, the judgments must be FAST.
First, we agree that judgments must be fair. By fair, we mean that the same behavior merits the same reward or penalty. For example, when one team engages in flagrant rule violations, whether it is unnecessary roughness on the football field or going overtime in a speech competition, fair judgment requires that all competitors who engage in the same violation receive the same penalty. The histrionics of World Cup players notwithstanding, it is not the pleading of the players that determines the officials’ judgment but rather an objective view of the players’ conduct. The research in this book demonstrates that effective grading practices, particularly those based on standards, are more likely to be fair. Even the fiercest critics of standards might agree that fairness is a noble objective, even if it comes from different political perspectives.
Second, we agree the judgments must be accurate. By accurate we mean that assessments of student performance are based solely on the performance itself and not the heredity, wealth, or status of the student. In this book, I argue that standards-based grading is much more likely to be accurate than comparative grading. But even for people who disagree with that proposition, I hope that we can all agree that accuracy is a good thing.
Third, we agree that judgments must be specific. Under the bright lights of a Friday night game, the officials do not announce “Bad play!” or “Rule violation!” Rather, they state with specificity what the infraction was, such as “Offsides!” or “Illegal formation!” The specific imperative is hardly limited to athletic competitions. In fields as diverse as science and the creative arts, specificity is at the heart of encouraging improved performance.
Fourth, and lastly, we can agree that judgments must be timely. The requirement for timely judgments is inextricably linked to the requirement for specificity. With ambiguous rules, judgments would take the entire weekend. With specific rules, however, we must make judgments so the game ends before midnight. The fundamental reason for timely judgments is not the convenience of the observers or participants but rather the educational imperative that students use feedback to improve performance. If I know that I was offsides on the last play, I am less likely to make the same mistake on the next play.
These attempts to find common ground are not naïve. In the landmark study of negotiation, Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, 2011), even the most disputatious opponents can begin the process of negotiating an end to their quarrels when they first find common ground. It is true that the most hard-core opponents of civil conversation will not agree on these four principles. “What is fairness?” they might inquire. “It’s all in the eye of the beholder!” The possibility that some people will not engage in civil conversation does not absolve the rest of us from attempting rational engagement. The alternative, as grading controversies since well before the 21st century have shown, is gridlock. The adults involved in fierce advocacy never win, but students certainly lose.
How Standards Impact Grading
It doesn’t matter whether you are participating in the Common Core State Standards; state, provincial, or national standards; or standards established by your own school or local education system. The central issue in transforming policy into practice is not the standards’ authorship or source but rather their application to student performance as the basis for evaluation.
The impact of standards on grading practices includes the following three hallmarks.
1. Student performance is compared to objective standards: It is possible for every student in the class to earn a top mark and similarly possible for no students to achieve top marks. There is no requirement for a certain number of As, and there is no requirement for a certain number of students to perform below that level. The only criterion that matters is performance. For example, officers administering student driving tests are not required to issue passing or failing marks to a certain percentage of students every day. Instead, they compare the performance of their student drivers to objective standards.
2. The rationale behind student evaluations is clear: The essential question is not “What grade did I get?” but rather “How do I get to the next level of performance?” For example, I overheard two fifth-grade students who, in only their second week of school, were talking about their forthcoming report cards—two months away. The school uses a four-point scale to describe performance.
One student commented, “I’m OK with getting a 3, but I wish that they would tell me what I need to do to move to a 4.” It’s a fair challenge. In a standards-based grading system, the answer is crystal clear. In writing, for example, a student might say, “I earned a 3 because I wrote really good paragraphs that have clear topic sentences and supporting details. But if I want to earn a 4, I need to use more powerful vocabulary and have a stronger closing paragraph.” In mathematics, the student might say, “I earned a 2 because I got most of the answers right, but I really didn’t explain how I got them. I need to ask for help to get to the next level. Even though I think I know some of the answers, I’m not sure why they are right. I need to practice explaining my work.” In brief, whatever the level of the student, the key to effective standards-based grading, in practice, is that students can articulate their present level of learning and explain in their own words what they need to do in order to advance to the next level.
3. School- and district-level administrators model clear expectations for teachers, and teachers model clear expectations for students: For example, if they expect teachers to provide specific and timely feedback to students, then administrators must do the same after every formal and informal classroom observation. There must be no mystery about what a walkthrough or other observation means. Administrators must be clear about their criteria, for example, “This week, I’m going to be observing classrooms with a focus on feedback. In particular, I’m going to focus on the number of students who receive