A discussion that may help.
Hi Tom,
Here in the art department we are in the midst of a lovely process of attempting to revamp how we teach Color & Design. We are proudly marching forward in lockstep on new projects in which we are all doing more or less the same thing at the same time. Because this is CHS, I do need to mention a caveat out here - namely, that our part timer is not currently part of this since shared planning time is not possible. We do plan to bring her into the loving embrace of this process within a semester or two.
Why am I telling you this? Because I'm insecure and need constant reassurance, of course. No, that's really only part of the reason. As the process unfolds we are having to reach consensus on all sorts of issues, which is working out about as well as this whole peaceful transition in yonder Egypt.
The issue of the moment is trying to develop common rubrics. During yesterday's work time (which I sadly missed due to a meeting down in Manchester) the others arrived at a five point rubric. Like lots of other folks in the building (I suspect), they were unaware of the conversion norms that we have theoretically adopted as a school.
I love to crush the naive optimism of newer teachers as much as the next guy but before I do so in this case, I just want to make sure I'm clear on the parameters. Here are the specific issues:
This really is a sad state. Much of the good thinking and good change in education is ruined by the adherence to past ideas. An adherence that does not help students and as you indicate does not help new teachers.
1. Is it true that all 1-5 rubric scales should be converted according to the same conversion numbers throughout the school? I'm pretty sure about this but just wanted to confirm...
This was agreed upon last year. As you may recall some teachers were making the strict mathematical conversion of 4=80, 3=60, etc. and some were making other conversions. The idea of converting what is supposed to be a system that is helpful to and encourages learning is insane and useless but I guess necessary in high school. (You will have to add the commas :)
2. I just looked for that conversion on the assessment page but in my haste I did not see it. Can you send me the actual conversion numbers?
It is not on there because I am embarrassed to have it in such a public space. Here is what the administration agreed upon. I agree that it is imperative that students know what each grade means but I struggle with these conversions. But as a good soldier I use them. 5=100, 4=92, 3=80, 2=65, 1=50.
3. Does the conversion include halve-sies (e.g. 4.5)?
Technically it doesn't but I feel that half scores make the system easier to use for some teachers. It does not help the issue of being clear to students exactly what each grade means but it does help teachers with some flexibility.
4. If one has a rubric with let's say 4 criteria (Composition, Craftsmanship, Problem Solving, Use of Color...) is there a policy for how one deals with the differing scores for each criteria. In other words if a kid got a 4 on three of the criteria and a 1 on the fourth criterion, is there a normative practice of averaging, or perhaps eliminating the high and low, or is it a matter of personal autonomy for us to do as we see fit?
I believe in professional discretion in this area. I use many rubrics with 4 or 5 criteria and it is my job to determine the final score. Marzano and O'Connor codify this thinking in what they call a logic rule. For example: Almost all scores at 4 and no 2s or 1s. In my teaching I set this up before I grade an assignment and it seems to work fairly well. Clearly there is an important line between subjectivity and objectivity but I try to think of like minded people looking at the same evidence. I try to think about what Lyn Vinskus would think of the project, paper or assignment. Would she have major difficulties with the grade that I gave or would she say, "I might disagree slightly but I agree with your reasoning." I go for the later.
5. We are trying to incorporate an element of the reach goals into the rubric - probably under a separate section a la the CRTC (at least for the 'relate, excel, aspire' sections). Do we have a standard conversion as a school? Must we use the conversion of the CRTC or are we to make it up as we go?
There is no standard conversion so I would advise you to be leaders in this regard. I have been impressed by the Crimson Code statements but increasingly frustrated by students who do not live up to them. As I have tried to work with these goals, that are much more realistic and less ethereal than the sacred seven, I have been routinely disappointed. Students are not respectful, not on time, not helpful to other students. We are on the right track but we cannot do it individually we need to do it as a school.
6. 4 equals 92, as I recall. This seems low to me since I rarely go above a 4 (so to me a 96ish seems about right). To another member of my department, 4 seems high since, she argues, the kid is doing a little more than the minimum expected which would be a passing grade of 70. She thinks the 4 should be an 80. I know you hate this part because there is no good answer. I suppose that in a way it is easy since we have a policy. But my guess is that as that policy becomes better known, more people will be vocal in disliking it. Any thoughts on how to navigate these treacherous waters?
Frankly, the conversion to percent grades totally ruins the effect of assigning rubric scores. As you well know the idea of rubric scores is to divest percentage grading from education. The point is to tell students where they are in relation to a goal and then give them chances to attain that goal. Converting to percentages is much more useful when it comes to sorting students. Rubric scores are meant to be criterion referenced whereas percentage scores are most often norm referenced. The two systems do not go together and do not work well together at all.
My advice is to use the policy and then use .5 scores to help with individual score discrepancies.
I originally was a big supporter of rubric style grading. But given my experience over the last few years I would suggest the following grading change for high schools. Eliminate percentage grading. Adopt letter grading that has A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-, and F. These are known to parents and would not create conversion controversy. What I would do for a school is very clearly define what each of the 12 levels meant. What exactly does a C+ mean? And ideally I would use the foundation that Marzano and Reeves have discussed. They advocate systems where students know that a given score means the same thing in every class.
I'll come find you soon and we can talk more about this.
Tom
