Why Change?
We have all had students in our classes who reportedly paid attention in class, did their homework, didn't goof off much, but could not pass most quizzes with more that a D or D+. Historically, because of participation grades and homework grades, those students may have passed the class and been moved to the next level although you secretly questioned if they were capable of doing the work at the next level. The eventual outcome of this classic scenario often leads to the famous "Why Johnny can't read" syndrome that sparked the original standards-based instruction movement back in the 80's. Let's face it, if you brought your tires to be changed and found the mechanic had mounted new tires, but not tightened the lug nuts you certainly wouldn't pay her, right? But we often send our students forward without really meeting the proficiencies.
How is Proficiency-Based Grading Different from Traditional Grading Systems?
When assessing proficiency-based work, one of the biggest departures is that everything is formative until the student has met the proficiency. That means in a true proficiency-based system students don't get a final grade for an assessment until they meet the proficiency, and more importantly they don't pass to the next level until they are proficient. Anything less than proficient means they are working toward proficiency. How this is measured varies widely from school to school. Your department, school, district or state will give you guidance toward what determines the numerical cut off for meeting the proficiency if you are bound by a numerical system. Because my current student management system translates everything to a numerical grade, I currently use an 80% as my cut off for meeting the proficiency. It is not my ideal measurement, but as my district moves toward implementing a proficiency-based system, I work within the confines of our system. For instance, if meeting the proficiency is reflected in the rubric, and students need to meet at least 4 out of 5 aspects of the rubric, it may appear that a grade of B or better meets the proficiency. There are schools that use a 1-4 system, hybrids models of grades and narrative and a few that report solely in a narrative format: Little Evidence, Progress, Nearly Meets, Meets and Exceeds. Schools often approach this differently in elementary and middle schools than in high schools since high school transcripts often have purposes that go beyond reporting proficiency.
Another significant difference is that homework and participation aren't assessed unless it is articulated as an Approach to Work or Habits of Work grade. Habits of work measure a student's timeliness, preparedness, willingness to work cooperatively, participation, and in some cases respectful behavior. In most proficiency-based models, the habits of work, if graded at all, represents no more than 15% of a student's grade. In some schools, such as Portland Maine's Casco Bay High School, the Habits of Work score impacts their ability to retake assessments. A student who demonstrates a 3 or higher in Habits of Work, would a receive an "Incomplete" for assessments where they didn't meet proficiency and would allow them to reassess for that proficiency. This creates a continued pathway for success to students who consistently complete homework, meet deadlines and participate well in class, to try to recover missed proficiencies. This retake provision also adds increased value for demonstrating strong Habits of Work. Another model for recovering proficiencies is that retakes can only occur when a plan is devised and followed for reassessment, ensuring students have made a concerted effort at becoming proficient.
The Challenge of Change
The greatest challenge in adopting a proficiency-based assessment model is that most students (and their parents) have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that not meeting the proficiencies and still passing the course is not an option; not to say the student failed, they merely haven't finished the course. Most parents were educated in a system where anything above a 60% was passing, however I am certain few of my colleagues would consider 62% proficient. It takes both education for the students, faculty and community to develop a clear understanding around how proficiency-based learning works. In actuality most parents say they want their children to be proficient so they are college and career ready, but moving to a common understanding of how proficiency is measured is a tremendous challenge for most districts.
I often use the soccer analogy with parents when approaching proficiency-based learning. If a student plays JV soccer in their freshman year, and then is still on the JV team in their sophomore year, they didn't "fail" freshman soccer. They merely needed at least another year on JV to become more proficient. Parents usually recognize that giving their child a second year on JV, resulting in additional field time, is more beneficial than having them be a bench-warmer on varsity. So, why would we want to pass a student on academically if they weren't prepared? As a world language teacher, my curriculum is so cumulative that not meeting the previous proficiencies can seriously impact a student's work at the next level. They must meet the proficiencies before they can move forward.
One of the most vocal groups against proficiency-based grading practices are the parents (and students) for whom traditional grading practices work. There is no doubt when your child is in the top 5% or has a weighted GPA of 4.68, you are reticent to see that system change to one that encourages all students to meet or exceed the standard. Parents cite fears of a watered-down transcript that does not allow their student to stand out academically as a change that would hurt their student's chance to be accepted at a highly competitive college. Some parents believe that their ability to measure their student's success against the student body gives them a better understanding of their level of proficiency, and non-numerical systems do not encourage the top students to meet their potential.I would challenge all those beliefs.
Proficiency and Differentiation vs Personalization
Although erroneous, we all expect students to arrive at the same place at the same time in their education or consider them failures, even though as parents and families, we know that just isn't true. Some students may reach or even exceed proficiency when others are only half way to meeting proficiency. By allowing for the fact that different students learn everything at different speeds, proficiency-based learning and assessment personalizes the learning for each student.
Sure, the report card, in whatever for the school has chosen, will arbitrarily report out three or four times a year, if students have met particular benchmarks, but in a proficiency-based system, students that haven't met the proficiency are incomplete. Sliding by with a D and then wiping your hands forever from that learning is no longer an option. Students have to go back and "tighten the lug nuts". At the end of the course, students who do not meet all the proficiencies receive and incomplete and have a specified proficiency recovery period during which they may go back and try to meet the proficiencies they have missed. If they don't, the grade remains an incomplete. Naturally, traditionalists who want to peg all students into a GPA and class rank have the hardest time wrapping their heads around this concept. My suggestion to schools with this concern would be to have any student with a final grade of incomplete in a course would just be left unranked.