Meeting vs Exemplifying a Standard
Common language plays an important part in a grading system. No matter what symbol or number is applied to a certain level of proficiency, expectation, or standard, as long as it is clearly communicated among teachers, students, and parents, it has more of a chance to maintain its integrity within the system.
Several years ago I was a teacher at a middle school that moved to a 4 point grading scale where by a 1 would represent "below standard”, a 2 "approaching standard”, a 3 as "meeting standard", and 4 as “exemplary.” Guskey provides a great rationale for using exemplary instead of "exceeds" in this article.
While both parents and students were a bit confused about the new system, the language used when students discussed their feedback was immediate. Instead of saying, “I got an A” or “I got a 90%,” students were now saying that they “met the standard” or were “approaching the standard.” As long as teachers were clearly explaining what the "standard" actually was, this terminology positively changed students' thoughts on their feedback. As anyone who has ever gone through this process, this phase is crucial for teachers to then determine the criteria for what below, approaching, meeting, and exemplary will actually be for each assessment.
While some common rubrics for assessments developed rather easily in math and language arts, some subjects faced more of a difficult challenge. Nonetheless, teachers soon realized that if they were to give a student a “3” according to the standard, then the criteria must be clearly communicated not only after the assessment but before. In general, teachers found it easy to determine evidence of the proficiency of the standard. Likewise, it was easy for them to see what evidence would be below or approaching the standard. More difficult, however, was how a student could become exemplary. While it would look different at various subjects, “exemplifying” a standard deemed to be tricky for some teachers.
I often tell this story when trying to explain how these two levels can be described. We once traveled with a group of students on a study trip to eastern Europe and always had the students count off when we reconvened at certain locations. Students were given a number, and they counted up to 25 so we could quickly get a count of who was or was not there. Luckily, all students were there every single time, but our numbering system was efficient for the chaperones.
Students initially struggled with the numbering. They wouldn’t listen, would be distracted by people walking by, would forget their number, or simply zone out and not answer. Over time, I began to give them a 4 point “grading” each time they counted off. After a while of getting nothing but 2’s or perhaps even a generous 2.5, students finally asked, “How do we even get a 3? Or even 4?”
We quickly rattled off the criteria for a 3:
When asked, students must begin counting one by one with their number until we clearly heard all numbers through 25.
We gave them a rough estimate of about 1 number per second; so in general, they should be finished under 30 seconds each time. However, it was more important to be clear and accurate in the counting so everyone was accounted. If they stumbled, skipped numbers, or forgot them, it would be either a 1 or a 2 based on the severity.
This became a fun way for them to try and improve their numbering through the week. But what about the 4? If meeting the standard in counting off is simply all students being clearly heard counting off to 25, how could this be “exemplified?” Exemplifying a standard suggests that students are not only meeting the criteria of the standard but applying it in new novel or authentic ways. So, because we were on the bus to another tourist location, we put our heads together and came up with this list:
Begin the numbering without being asked (independence)
Count in another language or even sign language (fluency)
Count off backwards (flexibility)
Explain the reason for counting off (reasoning)
Determine what would happen if one of the numbers was missing (problem solving)
Of important note was that no one mentioned for the students to count faster or louder. Because our directions indicated that students only need to be clear and accurate, there was no need to necessarily be faster or louder.
So, how did they do? While we never got around to their ability to do any of the “4” criteria, they were able to become consistent in earning a “3” each time the last three days of the trip. Like many standards, sometimes students simply just need more time or clarity to finish the task.
The transfer of these "exemplary" skills will become the standard and a shift I believe in education over the next 20 years. We already see these words embedded of the new curriculum standards and frameworks (CCSS mathematical practices, NGSS practices, C3 dimensions, etc.). What is left is for teachers to provide students with opportunities within their assessments and evaluations to apply these skills in an authentic situation.
Just as we were able to accomplish on the bus that day, conversation and collaboration become key factors as teachers and schools try to determine what it means to exemplify a standard.
