Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

In the video narrated by the jmhs principal on sBG, there’s an equity grading sign right at the beginning as she speaks for awhile.

The kids can't keep up either and school is for them. If they aren't understanding their grades, then what's the point?

Anonymous wrote:The preceding quarter grade can also be changed if the current quarter is higher. According to Madison's video, that is what has been used in FCPS for failing students and now it will be used for all Madison students. If a student's grade is higher in the next quarter, it does not indicate an understanding of the material from the previous quarter because the content is different. So what, if your skills improved over time but you don't understand the content.

Madison students don't have quarter grades, per se. They're on a rolling gradebook. And yes, a higher grade in Q2 can indicate an understanding of material from Q1 because reassessment can/does cross quarter end dates. For example, my kid had a test in Q1 that covered unit 1 and had 50 questions. In Q2, she'll have a test during unit 3 that has 100 questions - 50 from the current unit, and 25 each reassessing units 1 and 2. A higher score on the unit 1 and/or 2 reassessment can flip the previous grade earned in the prior quarter. In her math class, reassessment is more linear (so each test reassesses the unit prior in addition to the current unit, with one final reassessment every 3 units, so there's less change from quarter to quarter) while in other classes, they circle back months later so unit 1 from September may be on the schedule to be reassessed in February since it dovetails nicely with whatever new content is being taught then.

If that was slightly confusing, I get it. Nobody can keep up. And it's not consistent from department to department, either. At this point, I've decided I'll look at grades in May because where they are then is the only thing that matters. Right now, they change daily and aren't accurate in any case since some include practices that will be removed and some don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

This school to the letter has the same grading as Madison had before. So then can we go back to it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are Feldman's points from "Grading for Equity" Please tell me how Madison is different.

The 0-100 scale should be abandoned, and the letter grades A-F should correspond instead to a 0-4 scale.

Cumulative marking period grades should only include the most recent grade, in cases when a student shows improvement over time, and earlier test scores shouldn’t be averaged with later ones.

Homework, classwork, participation and effort should all be excluded from a course grade.

No more zeros and the death of deadlines

Test “retakes should be available whenever a students wants to improve their performance.” Earlier, lesser scores should not factor into the grade at all.

Who TF is Feldman? Some random guy who took concepts from an existing educational concept and slapped a trendy term on it.

SGB predates Feldman and is not related to "equity".
2010
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509404.pdf
2012
http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/schooling-beyond-measure/
2015
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/are-letter-grades-failing-our-students
2016
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590391.pdf

Sorry to disappoint the "anti-equity" people.

In fact, you can go all of the way back to Bush's NCLB for the origin story. From the first link:

"Developing a Statewide, Standards-Based Student Report Card: A Review of the Kentucky Initiative
Thomas R. Guskey, Gerry Swan, and Lee Ann Jung University of Kentucky
Nearly all states and Canadian provinces today have established specific standards for student learning. Developed by educational leaders and subject area experts, these standards describe what students are expected to learn and be able to do as a result of their experiences in school. Largely as a result of the No Child Left Behind legislation (2001), all states today also have developed large-scale accountably assessment programs to measure students’ levels of proficiency based on those standards. Comparisons of the results from state assessments with those from the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that the rigor of these state standards and assessments varies widely between states (Ho, 2007). Despite this variation, however, all students within a state are expected to meet the same standards.
Accompanying their assessment programs, nearly all states have developed common school report cards, based on state standards, for disseminating information to the public about school quality (Deslandes, Rivard, Joyal, Trudeau, & Laurencelle, 2009; Dingerson, 2001). Yet in every state, schools have been left on their own to develop standards-based student report cards to communicate information about the achievement and performance of individual students to parents, guardians, and others.
The paper describes a major initiative in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to develop a common, statewide, standards-based student report card for reporting the learning progress of individual students at all grade levels (K-12). Although the use of common, provincial standards-based report cards has been popular in Canadian schools for many years, especially in the province of Ontario (see: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/forms/report/1998/report98.html), Kentucky is the first state to attempt such a statewide initiative.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO
May 2010"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

If you want to be extremely literal, it is part of an overall approach to equitable grading. Even Madison used to reference Feldmans book right on that page. They took it down.

Anonymous wrote:These are Feldman's points from "Grading for Equity" Please tell me how Madison is different.

The 0-100 scale should be abandoned, and the letter grades A-F should correspond instead to a 0-4 scale.

Cumulative marking period grades should only include the most recent grade, in cases when a student shows improvement over time, and earlier test scores shouldn’t be averaged with later ones.

Homework, classwork, participation and effort should all be excluded from a course grade.

No more zeros and the death of deadlines

Test “retakes should be available whenever a students wants to improve their performance.” Earlier, lesser scores should not factor into the grade at all.

Who TF is Feldman? Some random guy who took concepts from an existing educational concept and slapped a trendy term on it.

SGB predates Feldman and is not related to "equity".
2010
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509404.pdf
2012
http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/schooling-beyond-measure/
2015
https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/are-letter-grades-failing-our-students
2016
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED590391.pdf

Sorry to disappoint the "anti-equity" people.

Anonymous wrote:A grading system does not lead to more learning.

Well it does if it's considered feedback. If you are getting regular grades on your work you are learning how your work matches the standard. If it's just grading summatives and there is no reason to go back and improve on those grades then yes, it doesn't lead much more learning unless you are sitting with someone going over correct and wrong answers. That's why more grades are better because they provide multiple data points to measure growth by.

A grading system does not lead to more learning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

It’s inaccurate and spinning up the “anti equity” people.

FCPS is making efforts around equity and it may be thrown into some of the messaging at some schools, but SBG isn’t “equity grading”. It’s a modern educational approach that has been embraced nationwide that shifts the focus towards learning.

These are Feldman's points from "Grading for Equity" Please tell me how Madison is different.

The 0-100 scale should be abandoned, and the letter grades A-F should correspond instead to a 0-4 scale.

Cumulative marking period grades should only include the most recent grade, in cases when a student shows improvement over time, and earlier test scores shouldn’t be averaged with later ones.

Homework, classwork, participation and effort should all be excluded from a course grade.

No more zeros and the death of deadlines

Test “retakes should be available whenever a students wants to improve their performance.” Earlier, lesser scores should not factor into the grade at all.

The preceding quarter grade can also be changed if the current quarter is higher. According to Madison's video, that is what has been used in FCPS for failing students and now it will be used for all Madison students. If a student's grade is higher in the next quarter, it does not indicate an understanding of the material from the previous quarter because the content is different. So what, if your skills improved over time but you don't understand the content.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Another FCPS high school also references “Equity for Grading” as the first reference for parents. SBG is part of equitable grading. I just don’t understand why you are running from that. Is equity a bad word? It is literally part of every effort for FCPS in the strategic plan.

https://edisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are telling you it’s providing less information. FCPS has specifically said it’s to help struggling students. I don’t know what battle you are fighting today. Why are you such a proponent of a grading system that has shown no long term benefit? Why are you so blind to the arguments against it and so for it when it’s been nothing but a failure at Madison and around the United States? What is your actual battle and agenda?

No one brought about this battle as a need for change other than the FCPS administration. We are fighting to bring back the previous policy since we were never made aware of a need for change, given a reason why Madison needed this change, or had any say about it’s coming about.

My “battle” is ignorance. The execution may be poor but the goal is to provide more info and shift focus towards learning/mastery. It has nothing to do with “equity” regardless of how you conflate it with other initiatives.

Not sure why you would say this.

“Grading for Equity” is a primer for this exact system of standards based grading. SBG being part and parcel of the county’s focus on equity isn’t really up for debate.

West Potomac has the same grading system and even refers to the implementation as “West Potomac's Equitable Grading Journey.”

https://westpotomachs.fcps.edu/gradingandreporting

West Potomac may be presenting that as one piece of an overall approach, but SBG itself isn't "equity grading".

This thread is about Madison -- which doesn't call it "equity grading" (because it's not):
https://madisonhs.fcps.edu/academics/grading-and-reporting

And here is a public school system in a very conservative part of Florida with a Republican school board that uses standards-based grading:
https://www.collierschools.com/Page/169

"Philosophy of Grade Reporting

We believe that students have a right to receive grades that represent an accurate
evaluation of achievement, and that thoughtful, informed assessment promotes
learning. We believe that grades
• reflect progress and mastery in meeting statewide standards, district standards,
and approved course objectives
• are earned, not given
• are based on a sufficient amount of assessed work
• are based on a logical and justifiable grading process
• are derived from variety of assessment types
• are weighted and balanced
We also believe that grades must provide clear, useful, and relevant information to
students, parents, and the community. A collaborative relationship between home and
school is essential to student success, so course grades should empower families to
track the academic progress of their students."


SBG isn't "equity grading".

Anonymous wrote:Another problem that SBG has introduced is replacing grades from practice to assessment and then changing past assessment grades. Many kids and parents have no idea what their grade is from week to week because it keeps changing. It's too hard to follow. They also may or may not get feedback on their practice work or even their assessment because each assessment has multiple grades that are hard to follow. It's a highly inaccurate grading system to follow and is meant to be inaccurate to create equity of all kids having similar grades.

This is not fully correct. A subsequent summative assessment can replace only the immediately preceding summative assessment if it is a higher grade.

Example:

Assessment 1: c

Assessment 2: b

Assessment 3: b

All are b’s (since 2 was higher than 1) and are averaged to a b.

Example:

Assessment 1: c

Assessment 2: c

Assessment 3: b

Assessment 2 becomes a b since assessment 3 was higher. The first c remains.

Average is lower than a b.