Initial studies show that the achievement gap is reduced which is quite remarkable, so less As and less Fs and more Bs, Cs, and Ds. Some school districts in fact no longer use grades at all and instead grade with language describing the level of mastery attained.

And how many kids were in these studies? Was there an objective way of evaluating the achievement gap other than the grade they received using skills-based grading? I know that my child tells me that class is less interesting and no one does the work anymore, specifically when it comes to something the kids were supposed to be prepared to discuss, but no one bothered since it doesn't count. Kids regularly show up to honors and AP classes and fail the quizzes because they don't count. Part of the problem with skills-based grading is that it teaches kids that they don't have to do the work.

I'd like to see SOL scores and compare that to before and after skills-based grading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion.

But that's not what's really happening. At Madison, content only counts as one "skill" and it gets replaced throughout the year which makes no sense to me. Just because a student gets an A on a test, it doesn’t mean the student understood the previous material, and it doesn’t mean the student will get an A in the future. You can say the focus is on skills, but there is also content. The content should be tested every single time for every single unit and the content grade should stay in the grade book. I don't understand how skills-based grading reflects what a student knows in science and math and "a purely objective fashion" would mean that none of the skills grades are dropped and replaced.

This isn't correct. There are multiple units that each have a "final" skill grade. Your grade on Unit 1 isn't replaced by your grade on Unit 7! You get a final grade on Unit 1 and it is calculated into the grade as the year goes along. It's not like you can just do the last test of the year, ace it, and get an A. Does Not Work Like That.

It's different for every class which is part of the problem. But for most classes, if you show an upward trend in a skill, the grade gets replaced.

Anonymous wrote:

The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion.

But that's not what's really happening. At Madison, content only counts as one "skill" and it gets replaced throughout the year which makes no sense to me. Just because a student gets an A on a test, it doesn’t mean the student understood the previous material, and it doesn’t mean the student will get an A in the future. You can say the focus is on skills, but there is also content. The content should be tested every single time for every single unit and the content grade should stay in the grade book. I don't understand how skills-based grading reflects what a student knows in science and math and "a purely objective fashion" would mean that none of the skills grades are dropped and replaced.

This isn't correct. There are multiple units that each have a "final" skill grade. Your grade on Unit 1 isn't replaced by your grade on Unit 7! You get a final grade on Unit 1 and it is calculated into the grade as the year goes along. It's not like you can just do the last test of the year, ace it, and get an A. Does Not Work Like That.

I hope everyone is filling out the survey

Anonymous wrote:

The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion.

But that's not what's really happening. At Madison, content only counts as one "skill" and it gets replaced throughout the year which makes no sense to me. Just because a student gets an A on a test, it doesn’t mean the student understood the previous material, and it doesn’t mean the student will get an A in the future. You can say the focus is on skills, but there is also content. The content should be tested every single time for every single unit and the content grade should stay in the grade book. I don't understand how skills-based grading reflects what a student knows in science and math and "a purely objective fashion" would mean that none of the skills grades are dropped and replaced.

Unfortunately implementation appears to be haphazard and uneven among and within school districts with the rush to do this post pandemic to account for the current racial reckoning, learning loss, inequities, etc. The intentions however are admirable. Skills based grading is still in a somewhat experimental phase in terms of what works or doesn’t, but the common thread is the end of term assessment which matters more than any other. Initial studies show that the achievement gap is reduced which is quite remarkable, so less As and less Fs and more Bs, Cs, and Ds. Some school districts in fact no longer use grades at all and instead grade with language describing the level of mastery attained.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

For the failing students, according to Feldman, the teachers would then adopt a mastery implementation plan after the end of term final. Students would be able to review and or learn areas of inadequate mastery. The teachers and those students would work together towards the goal of some level of mastery. Thus many fewer students would fail. For those students that develop some level of mastery during the end of term assessments, their final grades are baked in, and no extra credit allowed. I don’t believe those students would be allowed to retest to get a higher grade. Any initial “passing” assessment would likely be permanent.

So there’s much more work involved for teachers, hence the pushback amongst teachers. The skills based grading is also more time consuming.

Is this a thing? My kid currently has 2 Ds and 1 F. We have an IEP meeting next week and I haven’t heard of any sort of plan. Teachers keep saying he needs to come to Warhawk Time more. That’s the only plan I’m hearing about. At this point I’m looking into summer credit recovery options. I thought electives would be easier grades and he didn’t take them pass fail but they are 2/3. I really can’t understand the grading in those classes.

I just wish more studies had been done on the implementation of skills-based grading and the some data on outcomes before all of these schools started rushing to implement it. What if this actually turns out to be worse for all students?

The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion.

But that's not what's really happening. At Madison, content only counts as one "skill" and it gets replaced throughout the year which makes no sense to me. Just because a student gets an A on a test, it doesn’t mean the student understood the previous material, and it doesn’t mean the student will get an A in the future. You can say the focus is on skills, but there is also content. The content should be tested every single time for every single unit and the content grade should stay in the grade book. I don't understand how skills-based grading reflects what a student knows in science and math and "a purely objective fashion" would mean that none of the skills grades are dropped and replaced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

For the failing students, according to Feldman, the teachers would then adopt a mastery implementation plan after the end of term final. Students would be able to review and or learn areas of inadequate mastery. The teachers and those students would work together towards the goal of some level of mastery. Thus many fewer students would fail. For those students that develop some level of mastery during the end of term assessments, their final grades are baked in, and no extra credit allowed. I don’t believe those students would be allowed to retest to get a higher grade. Any initial “passing” assessment would likely be permanent.

So there’s much more work involved for teachers, hence the pushback amongst teachers. The skills based grading is also more time consuming.

You used to be able to do retakes on some tests. How is this system better for kids that are failing? Why wouldn't it be equal? It sounds like the same type of program.

Because soft skills are no longer graded. Students of color according to Feldman are more likely to have imperfect attendance, don’t participate in classroom discussions, miss deadlines, are unable to complete homework, or have behavioral issues, etc. Those no longer factor into grading. The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion. Students who initially fail are then allowed for reassessments following an implementation plan that the teacher and students work on together. So it’s not as simple as a retest. But the main difference is the elimination of soft skills.

Soft skills is attendance?

Kids like this don't care about their grades, they care about graduating. They have other needs. Deal with this issue differently and let the kids who care about selective jobs and college compete equally with other schools in the nation.

And that’s where the whole equity debate comes into play for public schools that educate across the cultural and socio economic spectrum.

I feel like they are trying to solve too many issues with grades. They need other tools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

For the failing students, according to Feldman, the teachers would then adopt a mastery implementation plan after the end of term final. Students would be able to review and or learn areas of inadequate mastery. The teachers and those students would work together towards the goal of some level of mastery. Thus many fewer students would fail. For those students that develop some level of mastery during the end of term assessments, their final grades are baked in, and no extra credit allowed. I don’t believe those students would be allowed to retest to get a higher grade. Any initial “passing” assessment would likely be permanent.

So there’s much more work involved for teachers, hence the pushback amongst teachers. The skills based grading is also more time consuming.

You used to be able to do retakes on some tests. How is this system better for kids that are failing? Why wouldn't it be equal? It sounds like the same type of program.

Because soft skills are no longer graded. Students of color according to Feldman are more likely to have imperfect attendance, don’t participate in classroom discussions, miss deadlines, are unable to complete homework, or have behavioral issues, etc. Those no longer factor into grading. The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion. Students who initially fail are then allowed for reassessments following an implementation plan that the teacher and students work on together. So it’s not as simple as a retest. But the main difference is the elimination of soft skills.

Soft skills is attendance?

Kids like this don't care about their grades, they care about graduating. They have other needs. Deal with this issue differently and let the kids who care about selective jobs and college compete equally with other schools in the nation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

For the failing students, according to Feldman, the teachers would then adopt a mastery implementation plan after the end of term final. Students would be able to review and or learn areas of inadequate mastery. The teachers and those students would work together towards the goal of some level of mastery. Thus many fewer students would fail. For those students that develop some level of mastery during the end of term assessments, their final grades are baked in, and no extra credit allowed. I don’t believe those students would be allowed to retest to get a higher grade. Any initial “passing” assessment would likely be permanent.

So there’s much more work involved for teachers, hence the pushback amongst teachers. The skills based grading is also more time consuming.

You used to be able to do retakes on some tests. How is this system better for kids that are failing? Why wouldn't it be equal? It sounds like the same type of program.

Because soft skills are no longer graded. Students of color according to Feldman are more likely to have imperfect attendance, don’t participate in classroom discussions, miss deadlines, are unable to complete homework, or have behavioral issues, etc. Those no longer factor into grading. The end of term assessments determine the grade in a purely objective fashion. Students who initially fail are then allowed for reassessments following an implementation plan that the teacher and students work on together. So it’s not as simple as a retest. But the main difference is the elimination of soft skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

For the failing students, according to Feldman, the teachers would then adopt a mastery implementation plan after the end of term final. Students would be able to review and or learn areas of inadequate mastery. The teachers and those students would work together towards the goal of some level of mastery. Thus many fewer students would fail. For those students that develop some level of mastery during the end of term assessments, their final grades are baked in, and no extra credit allowed. I don’t believe those students would be allowed to retest to get a higher grade. Any initial “passing” assessment would likely be permanent.

So there’s much more work involved for teachers, hence the pushback amongst teachers. The skills based grading is also more time consuming.

You used to be able to do retakes on some tests. How is this system better for kids that are failing? Why wouldn't it be equal? It sounds like the same type of program.

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

For the failing students, according to Feldman, the teachers would then adopt a mastery implementation plan after the end of term final. Students would be able to review and or learn areas of inadequate mastery. The teachers and those students would work together towards the goal of some level of mastery. Thus many fewer students would fail. For those students that develop some level of mastery during the end of term assessments, their final grades are baked in, and no extra credit allowed. I don’t believe those students would be allowed to retest to get a higher grade. Any initial “passing” assessment would likely be permanent.

So there’s much more work involved for teachers, hence the pushback amongst teachers. The skills based grading is also more time consuming.

Anonymous wrote:How does it help against failures? I don't see this happening. I just saw someone post their grades in this pyramid and they are all F's with less than 20% completion rate and there is no disability. They just don't do any work and are online all day gaming and chatting.

In fact I get some of the texts, not all, and received copies of over 100 of them during school in the past hour. Some of these kids I remember as decent hard working elementary school students. It's sad to watch technology take away our kid's motivations for school. Fix the technology issues before you fix the grades.