Standards Based Grading: A Qualitative Bewildering Mess

I have 2 elementary-aged kids attending a school that uses "SBG" standards-based grading. After spending 30 minutes reviewing their report cards and another 30+ minutes reading Reddit threads and links to SBG, my conclusion is... IT'S A HOT MESS. Why?

1. The old-school method of A, B, C, D F with a numeric % of correctness that correlates to a letter still holds up. Here's the thing, if the kids are "correct" by % on quizzes, tests, some assignments within a subject, the teacher (and parent) understands where a kid is struggling (or not). The cumulative letter grade may not be conclusive about mastery of the subject. But involved parents can understand the grade and if they need more input, they can have a discussion with the teacher.
   
2. As a child of the '80s, I received traditional report cards in lower level school 4x a year. High school 2x a year. Lower grade-level schools should be issuing a report quarterly. My SBG matrix display 4 terms, but really report cards are only issued 2x a year. This isn't enough to understand how well a younger child is progressing (or not) throughout the year. Look at the HW, the quizzes, the tests you say!! Guess what, those don't come home from my SBG school either. As a parent, I'm perpetually in the dark (except for parent teacher conferences).
   
3. I mentioned it took 30 minutes to go through 2 report cards and it only comes out 2x a year. WHY: There are 53 elements to review in 1 report card. 53!!!!!! That has to be overwhelming for teachers, eyeball-glazing for students and for parents - it's a mess. WHY? >> Yes it is more granular in substancel but what do the numbers "grades" mean? What does it mean???!! Ahh the core issue here.
   
4. SBG SCALE is the problem. As someone who designed qualitative research projects with subjective (messy) metrics, I understand the dark heart of this problem well. It's QUANTITATIVE VS QUALITATIVE. When you stray away from numeric hard data, quantitative data... it's all interpretation and individually (in this case teacher or district) definitions (guidelines) for the SAME number. So the same number can indicate different meanings depending on the definition. What does that mean? One teacher's 4 is not the same as another teacher's 4. One teacher's 4 = exceeds grade expectation, another's 4 = it should be almost unachievable, another = the student is doing better than the 3 I issued earlier in the year. Objectively SBG states a 4 = Advanced (my interpretation = beyond grade-level mastery). It's all interpretation.
5. SBG Scale is too vague. There is no nuance in the scale. As old-school parents we understood the difference between an A, B, or C in terms of the mastery or lack by these letters. SBG is either 4 (advanced, ie. beyond grade-level), 3 (grade-level), 2 (not mastering grade level), 1 totally failing. Your kid is either above average, average, way below average. A 3 level measurement of achievement. The old-school system using + - with letters = 15 levels of measurable achievement that correspond to a mathematical % for objective fairness. Cumulatively it's more objective and accurate reflecting student achievement.
   
6. Providing a 3-level metric across 50+ points doesn't do a better job of identifying success or failure of a student's comprehension or changes in achievement. It certainly doesn't do an adequate job of communicating academic achievement to a student. In this metric, you're raising an average kid - will my kid get into MIT being average? Or below-grade level (major troubles here). As for the exceeds grade-average sure, but isn't an A in the current grade "level" good enough? It is bewildering to a parent.
   

Submitted January 18, 2024 at 07:18PM by ATheeStallion https://ift.tt/Srel3by