Grading From the Inside Out: Bringing Accuracy to Student Assessment Through a Standards-Based Mindset

[00:01] SPEAKER_00:

Welcome to Principal Center Radio, bringing you the best in professional practice.

[00:06] Announcer:

Here's your host, director of the Principal Center and champion of high performance instructional leadership, Justin Bader. Welcome everyone to Principal Center Radio.

[00:15] SPEAKER_02:

I'm your host, Justin Bader, and I'm honored to welcome back to the show, Tom Shimmer. Tom is an international speaker, author, and assessment expert with the Solution Tree Assessment Center. And we're here today to talk about his new book, Grading from the Inside Out, bringing accuracy to student assessment through a standards-based mindset.

[00:35] Announcer:

And now, our feature presentation.

[00:37] SPEAKER_01:

Tom, welcome back to Principal Center Radio. Thanks, Justin. I'm glad to be here. Looking forward to our conversation this morning.

[00:43] SPEAKER_02:

So we hear a lot about standards-based grading. We know this is a shift that is taking place in our profession. A lot of schools are discussing a shift from just kind of traditional, perhaps arbitrary, or perhaps points-based grading systems, or really no consistent system at all. What did you see as the need within the profession for for this book? What's happening out there in schools that was calling for the approach that you describe in grading from the inside out?

[01:10] SPEAKER_01:

I think the bigger picture is that for the better part of two decades, even maybe a little bit longer, we have been making this continual shift in education and moving toward more standards-based instruction. I know that when I started teaching in 1991, I didn't have standards. I had a textbook and I had content, but I didn't have standards that sort of dictated what it was we were supposed to achieve in terms of an outcome. If a career aligns sort of with the 1990s, we saw the standards movement happen throughout the 90s into the 2000s, and now 20 to 30 years later, we have embedded this sort of standards-based instructional paradigm within our classrooms, and yet that move disjointed traditional grading from standards-based instruction. So we have a system right now where we are supposed to teach to standards, but we still organize evidence of learning by task type.

[02:02]

We still organize by activities. We still talk point accumulation. We still average old and new evidence. And Part of the challenge with that is that when you move to a standards-based system of instruction, you move to what's called a criterion-referenced system rather than a norming system. And as a result, meeting criteria has different routines versus how you compare to other students, which is norming. So the backdrop was the standards-based instructional movement, which disjointed the relationship between how we teach and how we report.

[02:34]

And so for me, what I recognized in many of the schools I worked in and the schools I've worked with is that that fractured relationship needs to be reconciled.

[02:42] SPEAKER_02:

Absolutely, and I think we've made the shift from understanding our role as identifying the best and brightest students and sorting all of our students into appropriate career paths. We've made that shift in understanding that our goal is now to help all students meet standards and achieve success. I think that's a shift that we, for the most part, made decades ago. But as you said, our grading systems really are still kind of all over the map. What are some of the beliefs that we have to start with? Because it seems like this is not just a practical matter of what printout do we give to parents at the end of the quarter, but it's a shift in our beliefs about assessment, our beliefs about grading and communicating with students and families and with each other.

[03:23]

So what are some of those shifts in belief that have to come first?

[03:26] SPEAKER_01:

Yeah, I think you're spot on with identifying that shifts have to happen first because it is, as I write about, the mindset first. So many of our traditional practices don't align, and we have to reconsider and rethink what grades represent, how we organize evidence of learning, and come to a place where we have grades that only represent a student's proficiency. We know that in the traditional system, grades try to be everything to everyone, where as if we're going to report accurately and we're going to give parents meaningful information about proficiency levels, we have to rethink some of these ideas. And so...

[04:01]

The big tent items would be first to think about the mindset of giving kids full credit for their learning. In a traditional grading system, an easy way to think about is that in a traditional grading system, every 40 will need an 80 just to average a 60. And that doesn't square with the notion of meeting criteria. When you meet criteria, it's irrelevant that you used to not know it. And so we have to rethink that process. We know that some kids take longer to learn, so it's hard to defend a practice where we deny kids the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and reassess.

[04:34]

Another big tent sort of idea is to redefine what we call accountability. Often accountability in the traditional sense has been code for punishment where accountability really needs to shift to a place where we don't let kids opt out of any sort of essential learning. One of the things that I missed early in my career, and I should say that early in my career I was the zero guy and I was the late penalty guy. I was that teacher and I think a lot of people can relate to that. And what I failed to recognize early in my career was that some students could absorb zeros and still have a 4.0 GPA.

[05:06]

I was calling that accountability when, in fact, I was letting kids off the hook. The other part that's challenging with the accountability with zeros and penalties, and I certainly can expand on this more, but is that so often those extreme scores, like a zero, have greater influence on the way grades are determined. So we would never let three or four you know, A-level quality assignments dictate a student's letter grade, but in a traditional system, we would most certainly allow three or four zeros to overwrite all the quality work that's been submitted and turn that grade into an F. The other third piece is the idea of repurposing homework. So in the traditional grading paradigm, Homework is graded, it's scored, it's verified, but in a balanced assessment system where formative and summative assessment have a seamless relationship, it's time to think about using homework, and many teachers do this already, but time to think about homework as practice.

[05:57]

The balance between practice and games, rehearsal, performance, practice where we focus in on feedback, we focus in on improvement. And then we take the time to verify in intervals that are natural as part of the learning process. So those are kind of the big three mindset shifts that need to happen within teachers before we try to force policy programs or report card templates on them.

[06:18] SPEAKER_02:

Well, and I think it's important to understand, as you set up for us so well, that the shift to standards has already happened. And I think when we think about changing to a standards-based report card, We often think of it as kind of an optional thing, something that will not be very well received by parents because they like the report card because it's like the one they got when they were kids. But I appreciate your point that this is a shift that's already occurred in the way we teach. And now it's the assessment and the accountability and the reporting and the communication that are actually catching up. What are some of the fears or the myths that are out there about standards-based grading that maybe hold people back from making that shift?

[06:54] SPEAKER_01:

It depends on the level. So if I started with the high school level, one of the big myths is that kids won't be prepared for college or kids will not be prepared for the so-called real world. And I got to be honest with you, two things. Well, first, it's a term I've used in the past, the kids getting out in the real world, things like that. But it is a term that I've sort of come to loathe in my more recent years because there's nothing about being a young person today that's make-believe or made-up or fake. Everything young people experience today is real.

[07:23]

It most certainly is not the adult world, but they are not adults. And so when we look at kids, we know that Not graduating from high school is real. Bullying is real. Tension is real. Anxiety is real. Poverty is real.

[07:34]

Not being able to get to school is real. All the stress at home with friends, all of it is real. There's nothing about it that's make-believe. I worry sometimes that we as educators are the ones living in that fantasy when we can't recognize how real young people's worlds are. And the other piece around the accountability or the real world piece is that so many things we cannot simply prepare for. Preparation for tomorrow is not just about replicating tomorrow's experiences because we evolve as people.

[08:04]

We change. We grow. We mature. I think if most people look back to freshman year college versus senior year college, we would recognize how different we were. Now, 15 to 25, there's a lot of space between being 15 and 25 years old. In fact, the difference between adults and kids is that as an adult, I choose my career.

[08:23]

As a 14-year-old, you force me against my will to take science. There's no choice there. I'm not suggesting we give them the choice, but it's to recognize the difference between being an adult and being a young person. For me, one of the myths at the high school level is kids won't be prepared. And from my perspective, the best preparation for tomorrow is learning how to be a learner and then closing the skill gaps that exist in kids today. So rather than spending four years of high school pointing out how someone is irresponsible, how we actually prepare kids for college is teaching the student who is irresponsible how to be a more responsible student.

[08:59]

At the middle school level, the fear is often they won't be prepared for high school. And at the elementary level, it's the fear is they won't be prepared for middle school or high school. So fear kind of keeps pushing upward. But that's one of the biggest fears. The other fears and myths are about accountability, as I mentioned earlier. You can hold kids accountable without lowering their scores.

[09:18]

Some people look at standards-based grading as more work for the teacher. And really, quite honestly, if it is, then we're doing it wrong because we need to involve kids in the assessment process. We need to help them understand that they are a part of their learning process. So there's many myths out there, but a lot of them center around the accountability piece and the quote-unquote kids getting away with stuff that we don't want them to get away with. But the punishment paradigm has never been the pathway to proficiency. So we have to rethink that whole idea of what preparation for tomorrow looks like.

[09:48] SPEAKER_02:

Well, and for you, Tom, as a starting point, what is kind of our purpose and our true north in the assessment and the reporting process?

[09:56] SPEAKER_01:

And I write about that in the book, which is great. And I appreciate you bringing that up, because for me, the true north of grading and really the true north of assessment, of course, the book is a grading book. So I mentioned as a true north. But for me, a true north is kind of a metaphorical compass that allows students. schools, teachers, principals, to know whether or not the changes they're making are in fact on point. That's one of the biggest downsides in terms of change is when we change away from what is our common practice, we're not 100% sure if what we're changing to is actually better or more appropriate.

[10:27]

So early on in my change process, I learned to develop these two ideas that serve as my metaphorical true north. First being the issue of accuracy. in the sense that our assessments need to be accurate and we need to report accurately where students are in their learning. The second piece became, it sort of came more organically, which was seeing how my assessment practices and my grading practices change my students disposition around learning. And so that became a confidence or an optimism issue. So the Grading True North became this idea that all of my grading practices have to pass the accuracy and the confidence tests.

[11:03]

So as an example, we ask ourselves the question, does this grading practice increase or decrease the accuracy of what ultimately gets reported? And two, will my students emerge with more or less optimism about learning after experiencing that grading practice? That's kind of the litmus test we can go through. So if we took a traditional grading practice like penalizing late work, and run it through that test, it becomes very clear that this is a practice that needs to change. So for example, does penalizing late work increase or decrease the accuracy of the information that ultimately gets reported about proficiency? So the answer, of course, is it decreases because I hand you something two days after you wanted it, but if you lower my score, that's kind of what you're telling people, right?

[11:47]

Second, you ask yourself the question, do I think most students will emerge with more or less optimism about learning after being penalized? It starts to become very clear that many of our traditional practices don't square with a culture of learning. So that's kind of the true north, and that's kind of how it helped me and can help schools anchor their sort of grading reform efforts, if you want to call it that.

[12:08] SPEAKER_02:

And I think about grades as a kind of predictor of how students will do on, say, a standardized test. And, you know, I think our traditional grading practices... since they have not caught up with standardized assessments, really give us almost nothing. You can have 100 students who get A's on every report card and have only a handful of them actually score at the highest level on the assessment.

[12:31]

I think we see that all the time where our A students actually don't pass the test. So, I mean, what does it actually mean to be an A student? Is it that you turned in your papers on time and that you didn't do anything to run afoul of your teacher? Or is it that you actually mastered all of the content that you were supposed to in that subject?

[12:47] SPEAKER_01:

You're spot on with that because that's where grades have, over the course of the last, say, 10 to 15 years especially, have just continued to become less and less meaningful. They've become almost meaningless because the way that grades are determined, they're more of a commodity that's acquired by kids as opposed to a reflection of proficiency. If I'm the nice kid who tries hard, if I do all my work, if I don't run afoul of my teacher, if I just follow the rules, that in the past has been an automatic B. Then if you had some quality in your work, you might push to an A. I don't love grades in the sense that I think kids don't need grades to learn and we certainly don't need grades instructionally, but we do have a responsibility to report. And the idea of summarizing achievement and letting parents in on that is never going to leave us.

[13:33]

So if we're going to be required to do this, we have to make them more meaningful and more connected. And so if the standardized tests are only about the standards, then it makes sense that our grades be about the standards. And that's the interesting thing about standards-based grading is when you say it forward, it becomes controversial, standards-based grading. If you say it backwards, there shouldn't be anything controversial about grades based on meeting standards. So the idea of grades based on standards, everybody can kind of nod their head. But as soon as you say it forward, it seems to be this emotionally charged kind of topic that everyone goes, oh, standards-based grading, all of that.

[14:08]

So it's an interesting dynamic that we go through as far as change is concerned.

[14:12] SPEAKER_02:

Let's dive into levels of proficiency. This is something that I've been thinking about a lot over the past few years as our teacher evaluation systems have incorporated levels of proficiency instead of just having, you know, basically pass, fail, satisfactory, unsatisfactory. And for our student learning standards, obviously our standardized assessments have had levels of proficiency, whether we call those one, two, three, four. Um, often those are a little bit of a black box to us and we feel like, okay, if a student gets a very high score, they're probably a four, you know, kind of a middling score is a two to a three, but I feel like there's probably more there. So take us into levels of proficiency.

[14:46] SPEAKER_01:

And levels of proficiency are different in the sense that in the traditional system, and I think it's important to always do that comparison, right? So in the traditional system, the goal was to accumulate enough points to to at least get 90% of the points available no matter how you did that. And the problem with that is that if you got off to a slow start or a low start, you would be mathematically disadvantaged. Whereas using levels, really what levels are is a sort of continuum that describes quality. And those of us who are experienced with using rubrics understand a progression that describes quality from the lowest quality, say that someone is a novice learner, all the way up to where someone is an advanced learner. And in between all of that, we have description of maybe an emerging or developing student.

[15:34]

We have description of a proficient student. And usually in most systems, we're talking about four or maybe five levels if you include the very bottom, which might be insufficient evidence. And so whether you use numbers or descriptions, it really doesn't matter. What's most interesting to me, and I think what's most critical, is how the symbols we use are determined. Because a school could be a 4-3-2-1 school, and I say to them, well, tell me what a 4 is. And they say, well, 4 is 90 to 100.

[16:03]

What's a three? That's 80 to 89. Well, they haven't really changed anything. Whereas I could go to a different school. And this is where high schools really have to think hard about whether or not they need to change the symbols. Because we could look at a school and say, you have A, B, C, D, F. How is that any different?

[16:17]

And they say, well, an A is no longer an average of 90 to 100. An A means a student has reached an advanced level of understanding regardless of how low or slow the start. So the lesson there for schools is that it's not the symbols we use to report. It's the mechanics behind the symbols that matter more. It's the way we determine how we organize evidence. That's why grading is an assessment conversation, not just a grading conversation.

[16:40]

So when we describe our levels of proficiency, we are really describing a progression that from the simplest to the most sophisticated demonstration of learning and all that's in between. And naturally, that provides students with a window into how to move to the next level as we describe in our rubrics, whether those be analytical rubrics or holistic rubrics, we describe for kids what the next step looks like and what quality would look like. And therefore, they get a bit of insight. And then with the teacher, the feedback and the criteria, we end up creating these levels, level progressions that allow kids to sort of move along their learning continuum. It's very different than ratioing the number of points available.

[17:21] SPEAKER_02:

I love that discussion that you took us through there of kind of the pace of mastery. And we do tend to reward kids for getting it quicker. If you do well on your first assignment and your next assignment all along, you might not actually learn any more than someone who really doesn't get it until right at the very end when it clicks. And yet those students are going to end up with very different grades. If one student is bombing every quiz and then suddenly it clicks at the end of the unit right before the big test, and we know with confidence because of that test that they both know roughly the same amount, they've mastered the same level of content, but the grades are going to be very different. And it introduces a problem with accuracy, but also, as you said earlier, a problem of confidence, because now that student who has worked really hard to learn just as much as the student who didn't have to work as hard, that student is actually being told it's not worth it.

[18:13]

You know, you learned what you're supposed to, but you're still being punished for not learning it as quickly as someone else. And I think that's such a destructive message.

[18:20] SPEAKER_01:

It is. And I think, as I said earlier, when you have a construct that's sort of in a process that says every 40 is going to need an 80 just to get a 60, the learners who get off to a slow or a low start have to exponentially outperform themselves and everyone else just to average to a pass. And at some point, they recognize, whether that's within a unit, within a semester, or within the entire year, they start to recognize that mathematically, it's almost impossible because two 40s will need two 80s just to get a 60. And so the notion of a standards-based mindset is coming at the grading process from a give kids full credit for their learning. So if you used to be a 40, but now you're a 60, you're a 60. You're not a 50.

[19:04]

If you used to be a 40 and now you're an 80, you're an 80. So it's that idea that, and it's very motivating for struggling students because they realize that they will be fully credited for their learning. Look, I'm not talking about giving anything away. We're not lowering standards. We're not dumbing it down. But we are saying that once a student demonstrates a level of proficiency, and there's an adequate sampling, that student should earn the level that they've been given.

[19:28]

So that's the idea of giving full credit, and that squares with the meeting of criteria. You know, the idea of doing it the other way, the traditional way, just doesn't square with the idea of meeting standards or meeting criteria.

[19:39] SPEAKER_02:

So, Tom, we've been talking about some shifts that have practical implications, that have community implications, that often involve a lot of decisions. But it seems to me that a lot of the work that we've got to do as instructional leaders up front is helping people make shifts in how they think, how they conceptualize their students, how they conceptualize the assessment and the communication process. Because it seems to me that a lot of where we get stuck with this is not in the mechanics, but in thinking. the belief system. So I appreciate the comments you made earlier on the beliefs that need to change and the process that we need to go through as adults to get our head around some of these changes. If you could make a recommendation to leaders, whether this is a curriculum leader, a teacher leader, an administrator, In order to get people in your organization, the people you work with, to start to think more progressively about some of these changes, what are some good starting points that individuals can take to start that conversation within their school and to get people's minds kind of turning toward these ideas?

[20:42] SPEAKER_01:

There's many things we can do. The genesis of this book honestly came out of not just my experience as a classroom teacher, but it really was born out of my experience as a school leader. Having done this work with my colleagues in a middle school and two high schools, what I learned in that lesson was that this change cannot be forced through external pressures like board policies, report card templates, or purchasing a new grading program. The inside-out approach is that mindset approach. And so for school leaders and district leaders and others, I think this really is a nice alignment because what developing the mindset first does is it gives teachers in the space, the context, the freedom to work where they're most comfortable. So as a classroom teacher or as a department, if we are most comfortable with the idea of repurposing homework we could start there and maybe the math department is thinking about their reassessment practices and they start there and maybe the history department is thinking about rethinking punitive practices and because there is no policy mandate

[21:43]

People have the space to try, to learn, to stumble, to rework practices, all of those things. So from a leadership perspective, when it comes to grading, I think one of the lessons I've learned over the years, both in the three schools that I've done this work in with my colleagues, as well as the several, you know, many schools, because I do this work every week with schools. It's learning that, laying the foundation of how grades can be different in terms of the shift, and then giving the space for people to come to terms with what this might look like in their classroom. What is my new routine? Leaders have to think of systems, right? So effective practices are ongoing.

[22:21]

only as good as the systems that are put in place to support the teachers using those practices. So it's easy for a leader to say, no zeros, no penalties. But when the teacher asks the question, what should I do instead, if we don't have an answer for that, I don't blame the teacher for hesitating. So from a school leader's perspective, we should be always thinking, if we want the teachers to be different with kids, We have to be different as a school for the teachers so that they feel that there's support. So as an example, if I don't penalize late work and someone doesn't meet a deadline and I try to follow through on that, am I going to get support from my principal or assistant principal or district when I'm trying to – force the issue of accountability in terms of all work is mandatory. So the systems that are put in place, and I talk a little bit about that in the book, the importance of can't dos, didn't dos, infrequent versus chronic, these are the systems and structures.

[23:13]

So as leaders are, I don't wanna say pushing an agenda, but trying to cultivate an agenda of rethinking grading practices, the back of our mind is first, let's just try to change the culture of what we think about grading. Two, let's give people the space to try and come together. Eventually, we might be able to come to some consensus, right? Eventually, we might be able to say, here's how our practices align. But at first, we want to go really wide, give people the space. And at the same time, we're thinking about what new routines, what replacement routines need to be put in place structurally to support the teacher's implementation of these new practices.

[23:50]

That's where I would begin. And I guess the last thing I would say is look for where your school is closest to adopting any one of these small principles because I think one of the critical elements of change is not just having a three- to five-year plan, but it's planning for rapid results. It's asking ourselves what's the least we could do to bring about the greatest effect because that hooks people into – the meaningfulness and the connectedness of the change, and then that builds momentum. And once you have that new mindset, once you're there in your mind, then it's easier, not easy, but easier to start talking about external changes like new report cards, grading programs. When the teachers come to the principal and say, we need a new grading program, That's a really different conversation than if the principal walks in one day and says, by the way, we're getting a new computer program. That's a totally different mindset.

[24:40]

If it's coming as bottom up as possible and they're demanding it, then it's easier to make those changes. So that would be what I would advise for leaders and certainly many other things in sort of the nuances and things that are contextually sensitive. But the big picture is to cultivate that mindset, think systems differently. And just plan for rapid results so people see that it's worth the risk in changing some of these traditional practices that have been ingrained in what we do for 15, 20, 25 years.

[25:05] SPEAKER_02:

And I appreciate your point that there are multiple entry points. There are multiple actions that people can take to get started and to start kind of experimenting with a new belief system through the lens of some new practice that maybe had a higher degree of personal urgency based on their particular interests or their particular role. rather than saying, okay, boom, here's the new report card format, you know, get your mind around that in the next 30 days, which we know is tough.

[25:28] SPEAKER_01:

The easy part when you implement those external changes is you get forced compliance. But of course, the downside of those changes is you get forced compliance. And you end up forcing people to do things they don't want to do, that they're not emotionally kind of ready for. And this topic is emotional. It elicits visceral responses. 25 years in this business, I've seen nothing elicit those kinds of responses like grading does.

[25:50]

So there is some finesse that's necessary. Being patient, pushing an agenda, but being externally patient, right? It's internal urgency. It's external patience, right? And just continuing to move forward and cultivating a new belief structure around what the purpose of grades is, how do we get grades back to a place where they are a natural outflow and reflection of learning.

[26:12] SPEAKER_02:

So the book is grading from the inside out, bringing accuracy to student assessment through a standards based mindset. And Tom, if people want to find you online, maybe talk to you about coming out and doing some work with their school or district, where's the best place for people to find you?

[26:25] SPEAKER_01:

Well, the best place to find me online would probably be, uh, uh, Twitter. Uh, my Twitter handle is at Tom shimmer. Uh, the best place to contact me as far as any PD opportunities would be through the solution tree, uh, PD department. Uh, and they certainly will get in touch with me about availability and, and sort of, uh, nurture the relationship and try to, uh, set something up if people are interested in that. So, uh, that's an easy way to get ahold of me, uh, personally. Uh, You know, through follows and DMs, we can certainly have conversations.

[26:53]

Email as well is a great way to do that if people just have questions. But as far as formal opportunities, Solution Tree would be the place to go.

[27:00] SPEAKER_02:

Well, Tom, thanks again for joining me once more on Principal Center Radio.

[27:02] SPEAKER_01:

Thanks, Justin. I really appreciated the opportunity to speak with you this morning.

[27:06] SPEAKER_00:

And now, Justin Bader on high-performance instructional leadership.

[27:10] SPEAKER_02:

So high performance instructional leaders, what did you take away from my conversation about grading with Tom Shimmer? One thing that really stood out to me as a bit of wisdom in what Tom said was this idea that behavior changes before beliefs. Tom recommended finding different entry points into this changing conversation about grading that different people can start with. And I think the key insight there is that action often comes first. When we're talking about voluntary action, when we're talking about developing a new approach to something, if people can start taking action even before they see the whole picture, if they can take that first step even before they see the whole staircase, often the beliefs will follow the practices much more effectively than if we try to start by changing people's beliefs.

[28:03]

There's an old saying that people believe in what they do much more effectively than they do what they believe. And we know that's true as far as kind of adherence to our own values. Often our values come to match our behavior rather than vice versa. So if you want to get people thinking differently about grading, if you want to actually change people's belief system, often the best approach is to find out an action that they're ready to take, a change that they want to make, and use that as an entry point into a larger shift in their thinking and a larger change in their philosophy toward that issue. If we just try to change people's philosophies, you know, we can have philosophical arguments and butt heads all day long at that level. But if we want to see change, if we want to see people come around to a different way of looking at assessment or really anything else in education, starting with behavior, starting with a small action that people are ready to take is incredibly powerful.

[29:02] Announcer:

Thanks for listening to Principal Center Radio. For more great episodes, subscribe on our website at principalcenter.com slash radio.