in the classroom often leave parents unclear about their substantive meaning ( for example , the distinction between ‘ Developing ’ and ‘ Emerging ’, or between ‘ C ’ and ‘ D ’).”
Making the grade
Are report cards assessing student achievement effectively ?
Wade Zaglas
As an indicator of progress , much time , discussion and energy is spent on how best to assess student learning and convey that information accurately to both students and parents .
But as Professor Geoff Masters argues in his latest piece for Teacher Magazine , a mismatch often occurs between how students are performing and how well both their teachers and their parents think they are progressing .
For instance , Masters cites a national survey of parents of Kindergarten and Year 8 students in the US . While 90 per cent of the parents surveyed believed their child was performing at or above year-level expectations ( Hubbard , 2019 ), the reality was that only 37 per cent of students were achieving such benchmarks ( National Center for Education Statistics , 2017 ).
Furthermore , the Hubbard survey also found that , although “ 90 per cent of American parents believe their child is on track in their learning , only 39 per cent of teachers say students begin each school year ready for the year ’ s curriculum ”. “ Why is there such a mismatch between parents ’ beliefs and students ’ performances ?” Masters asks .
“ Are American parents being lulled into a false sense of security by the information schools provide ?
Based on the research , Masters concludes that US students are receiving reports that overstate their achievement level . But what is the cause of this mismatch ?
The Australian Council for Educational Research ( ACER ) chief executive believes “ grade inflation ”, defined as the inclination to award more higher grades and fewer low grades , could be to blame .
“ For example , teachers may believe that students who conscientiously complete most class work deserve something better than a ‘ C ’ ( which is often interpreted as minimally satisfactory ),” he says .
“ Forty-eight per cent of US teachers say the grades they give reflect effort more than achievement ( Hubbard , 2019 ).”
But putting the issue of assessing more on effort to the side for a moment , Masters argues that marking solely on achievement is also problematic as “ grades are poor indicators of where students are in their long-term learning progress ”, contending that grades are insufficient as they always apply to a discrete piece of assessment or course of study .
Masters also says the language used to show different achievement levels – ‘ initial ’, ‘ partial ’, ‘ complete ’ and ‘ sophisticated ’ – is also problematic . Firstly , although it advocates a “ strength-based ” approach to reporting , it infers that every student has demonstrated at least some level of understanding , even if the student has not been awarded a passing grade and is not meeting minimum expectations .
“[ Also ], grades rarely provide detail that parents can use to support their children ’ s learning . This is because grades do not indicate the points individuals have reached in their long-term progress ,” Masters says .
“ Instead , they are performance ratings on year-level expectations and , as such ,
THE ORIGINS ( AND PROBLEMS ) OF MODERN GRADING Masters states that today ’ s grading system originated from a system that included “ large classes and a desire to treat all students equally ”, where all students are assessed in a similar fashion , moving “ along the same ‘ conveyor belt ’ at the same pace ” before completing the “ same year-level curriculum ” in preparation for a “ fresh start ” the next year .
Not only does such a system not account for the vast differences in students ’ ability levels at the same age , Masters argues that it ignores the nature of learning being “ a continuous , ongoing process ”.
“ Grades are based on an assumption that students make a fresh start in their learning every year – that all commence on an equal footing and that the grades they receive reflect only their efforts and achievements during that particular year .
“ This is almost always wrong . Students begin each year at widely different points in their long-term progress ; in many countries , the most advanced students are six or more years of learning ahead of the least advanced .”
SO WHAT CHANGES ARE RECOMMENDED ? Masters recommends more accurately indicating a student ’ s level of knowledge and skill attainment in a learning area , regardless of their year level or age . He also emphasises the need to illustrate or spell out to parents what students at this level of attainment “ typically know , understand and can do , and perhaps suggesting appropriate next steps in learning ”.
Another key recommendation is to make the student ’ s long-term growth “ visible ”, thus allowing them to see their progress over time .
“ If parents are to be effective partners in their children ’ s learning , they require accurate and usable information about the stages individuals have reached in their learning , and about the kinds of stretch challenges likely to promote further growth . By themselves , grades provide neither ,” he concludes . ■
18 | educationreview . com . au