Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that FCPS also believes that having teachers write “I can identify…” on the board will automatically make the student more engaged and be less distracted in the room.

+1. There is so much research about the benefit of learning targets! /s

I'd love to see a source

I read an instructional design book (I think I borrowed it from the library) a few years ago that said that publishing learning targets is only useful for the instructor and a waste of time for students.
Which makes sense to me...I remember reading those in some textbooks in college before reading the chapter and having no idea what I just read since I hadn't learned the topic yet. Zero help with reading the subsequent text.

Can we keep this thread “on target”? A learning target sentence written on the board that may or may not be effective is small potatoes when we are talking about a massive redesign of how grades are assigned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that FCPS also believes that having teachers write “I can identify…” on the board will automatically make the student more engaged and be less distracted in the room.

+1. There is so much research about the benefit of learning targets! /s

I'd love to see a source

I read an instructional design book (I think I borrowed it from the library) a few years ago that said that publishing learning targets is only useful for the instructor and a waste of time for students.
Which makes sense to me...I remember reading those in some textbooks in college before reading the chapter and having no idea what I just read since I hadn't learned the topic yet. Zero help with reading the subsequent text.

I would just love to see some sources indicating rolling gradebook is the right move. If this hasn’t been fully thought through and isn’t based on current research, why is it being implemented?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that FCPS also believes that having teachers write “I can identify…” on the board will automatically make the student more engaged and be less distracted in the room.

+1. There is so much research about the benefit of learning targets! /s

I'd love to see a source

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that FCPS also believes that having teachers write “I can identify…” on the board will automatically make the student more engaged and be less distracted in the room.

+1. There is so much research about the benefit of learning targets! /s

Don’t forget that FCPS also believes that having teachers write “I can identify…” on the board will automatically make the student more engaged and be less distracted in the room.

No need for research when the goal is equity at any cost.

I suspect Reid is disappointed that there are not more religious holidays that can be recognized so that she can achieve her goal of year round education by having an even more fragmented calendar.

Anonymous wrote:They shared a bunch of research and a grading white paper a couple of years ago. Will be on boarddocs.

My main sense from reading it back then was that educational research lacks rigor and it is easy to find a study to say whatever you want it to.

If there is “a bunch” of research that has been already shared on this topic it should be easy to find. But I’m not coming up with anything. Anyone have links to peer-reviewed, reputable research that supports the idea that this grading method is superior ?

There are so many issues with rolling gradebook. Here are a few:


Creates inconsistent performance tracking:Teachers lose a clear, cumulative picture of a student’s progress over time, making it harder to identify patterns of improvement or decline.

Increases confusion for students and parents: Constantly changing grades can be difficult to interpret, leading to misunderstandings about actual performance and standing.

Complicates grading transparency: It becomes harder to explain how a final grade was calculated when earlier scores are replaced or excluded.

Encourages strategic rather than genuine learning:Students may focus on “gaming the system” (e.g., only trying hard later) instead of maintaining consistent effort and mastering material.

Adds administrative complexity for teachers:Managing a rolling system often requires more time, tracking, and explanation compared to a traditional cumulative gradebook.

Delayed sense of progress lowers motivation: As the year goes on, each new grade has less impact on the overall average, so students may feel like their effort isn’t making a meaningful difference—making it harder to stay motivated.

“Can’t move the needle” frustration
Students who are trying to improve later in the term may feel discouraged when strong performances only result in minimal grade changes, leading to disengagement.

Reduced incentive to maintain effort at the end:Students with already high grades may feel that a few poor scores won’t significantly hurt their average, which can lead to a drop in effort or carelessness.

Perception that effort isn’t rewarded fairly:When improvements don’t noticeably shift grades, students may feel the system is unresponsive, reducing their willingness to keep trying.

Encourages apathy after reaching a “safe” grade:Once students calculate that their grade is unlikely to change much, they may stop putting in full effort, especially near the end of the course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W
Why is FCPS adopting policies that are not thoroughly researched, tested, and proven? Where is the peer reviewed educational research that clearly indicates this is the right approach for all ?

You must be new around here.
Is the 50% minimum grounded in anything other than a desire to inflate grades?
Are systematic retakes grounded in research?
Are highly permissive late policies grounded in research?
Is pushing patently unqualified students into AP classes without any guidance grounded in research?(note: the research actually says that's a complete waste of time and resources). Whatever happened to targeting a student's zone of proximal development?
Is having students do credit recovery so you can push them into more advanced classes grounded in research?

+1

Adding:

Is pushing sixth graders into Algebra grounded in research?

Is eliminating Math 7 for seventh graders grounded in research?

Is pushing all students to complete Algebra before they begin high school grounded in research?

Is reducing special education support for students with significant disabilities, and instead relying on inclusion, grounded in research?

I hate to tell you this but in most of the developed world they start algebra and geometry much earlier than that. The kids survive somehow.

They shared a bunch of research and a grading white paper a couple of years ago. Will be on boarddocs.

My main sense from reading it back then was that educational research lacks rigor and it is easy to find a study to say whatever you want it to.

Anonymous wrote:Where is the research that indicates this style of gradebook is superior to a traditional gradebook for all course types? This is being pushed out to ALL high schools starting next year and staff are raising concerns as it does not seem to be grounded in research. While there are some positives to this grading model for some courses, it does not seem suited to all content areas.

Why is FCPS adopting policies that are not thoroughly researched, tested, and proven? Where is the peer reviewed educational research that clearly indicates this is the right approach for all ?

They have compared it to the traditional gradebook and the final grade averages out to be the same. The difference is it is far easier to make assignments up with a rolling gradebook and you don’t have to worry if a student misses the last week of the quarter because the gradebook never really closes. They can make it up after the quarter ends without penalty. Grades are easily updated. It takes the worry out about hard and fast deadlines. We love it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W
Why is FCPS adopting policies that are not thoroughly researched, tested, and proven? Where is the peer reviewed educational research that clearly indicates this is the right approach for all ?

You must be new around here.
Is the 50% minimum grounded in anything other than a desire to inflate grades?
Are systematic retakes grounded in research?
Are highly permissive late policies grounded in research?
Is pushing patently unqualified students into AP classes without any guidance grounded in research?(note: the research actually says that's a complete waste of time and resources). Whatever happened to targeting a student's zone of proximal development?
Is having students do credit recovery so you can push them into more advanced classes grounded in research?

+1

Adding:

Is pushing sixth graders into Algebra grounded in research?

Is eliminating Math 7 for seventh graders grounded in research?

Is pushing all students to complete Algebra before they begin high school grounded in research?

Is reducing special education support for students with significant disabilities, and instead relying on inclusion, grounded in research?

Anonymous wrote:W
Why is FCPS adopting policies that are not thoroughly researched, tested, and proven? Where is the peer reviewed educational research that clearly indicates this is the right approach for all ?

You must be new around here.
Is the 50% minimum grounded in anything other than a desire to inflate grades?
Are systematic retakes grounded in research?
Are highly permissive late policies grounded in research?
Is pushing patently unqualified students into AP classes without any guidance grounded in research?(note: the research actually says that's a complete waste of time and resources). Whatever happened to targeting a student's zone of proximal development?
Is having students do credit recovery so you can push them into more advanced classes grounded in research?

Where is the research that indicates this style of gradebook is superior to a traditional gradebook for all course types? This is being pushed out to ALL high schools starting next year and staff are raising concerns as it does not seem to be grounded in research. While there are some positives to this grading model for some courses, it does not seem suited to all content areas.

Why is FCPS adopting policies that are not thoroughly researched, tested, and proven? Where is the peer reviewed educational research that clearly indicates this is the right approach for all ?