Why Proficiency-Based Learning?

Brief Rationale for Proficiency-Based Learning

Granite School District has been moving toward implementation of Proficiency-Based Learning (PBL) K-12 for the past nine years. We began the journey in response to a number of concerns – two important ones follow:

Though the State of Utah prescribes academic standards in which students are expected to become proficient (and assesses that learning via end-of year tests), districts do not typically report to students and parents on that learning. Grades, particularly at the secondary level, are rooted in task completion, classroom compliance, penalties related to deadlines, and extra credit options.
The incongruence between student grades assigned at the classroom level and related state assessment scores in those class subjects has also become increasingly apparent. (For example, a student scores 3, proficient, in math but earns an F grade in class or scores a 1, not proficient, in science but earns an A in class.)

Granite School District is committed to student learning. Just as the State Accountability System focuses on academic proficiency for students, we acknowledge the need to differentiate proficiency from academic growth. It is also important to report to students and parents on specific learning gaps and standards and specific areas of mastery and excellence in order to maximize all students’ learning.

Committee

We began our Proficiency-Based Learning efforts in committee with representation from district departments, school administration, and our teachers’ association. We spent three years delving into research on the subject of standards-based/proficiency-based grading, reading current literature on the subject, and investigating similar efforts underway in districts across the state and country.

Pilot Program

After we created a research-based model for Granite District, we invited interested teachers at all levels to beta test the philosophical model and the Gradebook tool created to communicate with students and parents. After three years of beta testing, we made over 100 changes to our grading model in response to teachers’ suggestions and feedback. The pilot grew from 400 volunteer beta testers to over 1600 practitioners this school year.

Creating Awareness

We continue to create awareness and informational materials for teachers, administrators and parents in the form of videos, FAQs, tutorials, and community informational meetings. Support tools are continually refined for teachers and include: proficiency scales, sample assessments and associated rubrics, and targeted professional development opportunities. Proficiency-Based Learning is a frequent topic of interest in our school and district community councils, PTA, and town hall meetings, and responses from parents in these settings has been overwhelmingly positive when questions are answered and details explained.

Change is difficult to implement in any workplace; the education arena is no different. Some teachers – and likely some students and parents – will struggle with the change from traditional to Proficiency-Based Learning and grading; however, PBL is the right thing to do for students. We are confident that PBL better supports and more accurately reports on student learning and decreases the chance of students receiving failing grades when, in fact, they have met learning targets.

What is a Grade?

Although grades have served as a common and important measure for assessing students, grades have lacked a uniform or standard meaning. According to a wide array of research, secondary teachers relied on a variety of factors to determine students’ grades (Brookhart, 1993; Cross & Frary, 1999; Guskey, 2009; McMillan, 2001; Stiggins, Frisbie, & Griswold, 1989). For example, teachers utilized assessment of processes such as effort, behavior, class participation, homework completion, ability level, and growth (Brookhart, 1993; Cross & Frary, 1999; Guskey, 2009). Cizek, Fitzgerald, and Rachor (1996) observed, ‘It seems that classroom assessment practices may be a weak link in the drive toward improving American education’ (p. 162). From both the importance and subjectivity of grades emerged a movement in secondary education to grade students solely on achievement in key academic standards within a curriculum (Guskey, 2009; Marzano, 2010).

— Pollio, M. & Hochbein, C. (2015, November). The association between standards-based grading and standardized test scores as an element of a high school reform model. Teachers College Record, 117(11).

Most teachers have combined achievement with behavior to varying extents in determining grades because they believe it demonstrates what they value and will motivate students to exhibit those behaviors. McMillan (2001) noted that ‘the findings from this study, along with other results from other studies, show that this practice is still pervasive’ (p. 30). Gathercoal (2004) noted that ‘due to the excessive entanglement between achievement and behavior, achievement grades are often misinterpreted’ (p. 153).

— O’Connor, K. (2009, January). Reforming grading practices in secondary schools. Principal’s Research Review, 4(1), 1–7.

Douglas Reeves (2008) stated, ‘If you wanted to make just one change that would immediately reduce student failure rates, then the most effective place to start would be challenging prevailing grading practices.’ The most effective grading practices provide accurate, specific, and timely feedback designed to improve student performance (Marzano, 2000, 2007; O’Connor, 2007). Rick Wormeli (2006) explained what a grade ought to be: A grade is supposed to provide an accurate, undiluted indicator of a student’s mastery of learning standards. That’s it. It is not meant to be a part of a reward, motivation, or behavioral contract system. If the grade is distorted by weaving in a student’s personal behavior, character, and work habits, it cannot be used to successfully provide feedback, document progress, or inform our instructional decisions regarding that student—the three primary reasons we grade. Unfortunately, many grades do not fit this description.

— Heflebower, T., Hoegh, J. K., & Warrick, P. (2014). A school leader’s guide to standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research.

There are certainly many things that inspired teachers do not do; they do not use grading as punishment; they do not conflate behavioral and academic performance; they do not elevate quiet compliance over academic work; they do not excessively use worksheets; they do not have low expectations and keep defending low-quality learning as ‘doing your best’; they do not evaluate their impact by compliance, covering the curriculum, or conceiving explanations as to why they have little or no impact on their students; and they do not prefer perfection in homework over risk-taking that involves mistakes.

— Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge. (NOTE: Visible Learning for Teachers is based on more than 900 meta-analyses, representing well over 50,000 research articles, 150,000 effect sizes, and 240 million students.)

Why Reassessments and More Flexibility on Deadlines?

A grade is supposed to provide an accurate, undiluted indicator of a student’s mastery of learning standards. That’s it. It is not meant to be a reward, motivation, or behavioral contract system. If the grade is distorted by weaving in a student’s personal behavior, character, and work habits, it cannot be used to successfully provide feedback, document progress, or inform our instructional decisions regarding that student—the three primary reasons we grade. A student who is truly performing at the highest instructional levels with the highest marks, even though it took him longer to achieve those levels—for whatever reason—is not served by labeling him with false, lower marks and treating him as if he operates at the lower instructional levels just because it took him a little longer to get to the same standard of excellence. All decisions and responses based on such marks would be false and ineffective. He’s achieved excellence, and his digressions should not be held against him. Otherwise the grade is an inaccurate portrayal.

— Wormeli, R. (2006, Summer). Accountability: Teaching through assessment and feedback, not grading. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 14–27.

Traditional Grades Do Not Equate to Proficiency

Conley (2000) first examined the relationship between grades teachers give their students and proficiency scores given to the same students by external raters. Conley found little correlation between teachers’ grading system and student proficiency. He specifically noted that students judged proficient through an analysis of their work by external raters were not necessarily the students with high grades. ‘The stepwise regression analysis examines teacher grading systems and student proficiency scores and found very little relationship between the grading system a teacher used and whether or not a student was proficient’ (Conley, 2000, p. 18). Conley surmised that the low correlation suggested that separate constructs besides standards-based achievement were used in grading. Specifically, he noted that homework in mathematics classes and in-class assignments in English classes comprised a significant portion of a student’s grade, although these assignments might not measure proficiency on mandated standards.