What Does Mastery-Based Grading Mean in a Mastery-Based Grading System?
How do we define a 4 in a 1-4 assessment system? What does pushing beyond the 3 really look like? And if our goal is to help students attain mastery (as defined by a 3), should we even define the 4? Would it be better to let our students discover the 4 independently?
These are some of the questions teachers continually return to, and they are among my favorites for a few reasons. First, they force me to think hard about the practices that best support mastery-based grading and, more importantly, how my own practice matches up with (or falls short of) what seems to be best in a mastery-based system.
They are also among the questions that remind me to consider the several audiences we speak to as teachers and how our transparency and explicitness with those audiences act to hone our practice.
In a future blog post, I will address how to define the 4, while today’s post will examine why we should do so.
Should We Let Students Discover the 4 Independently or Define It for Them?
Without hesitation, I say that in any case where a 4 can be identified, we should – in fact, we must – identify it. Once we buy into the basic tenets of a mastery-based system, it’s easy to see that one of our primary tasks is to make our targets very clear for students.
We talk a lot about ensuring they understand the task or goal, how to accomplish it, and what it might look like once they do so. Some of my favorite authors in the field write on this topic: Susan Brookhart, Jan Chappuis, and Rick Stiggins. If we agree that we need to be transparent with our targets (defining the 3), then the logical next step is being transparent with how to go beyond the target – defining the 4.
“If we agree that we need to be transparent with our targets (defining the 3), then the logical next step is being transparent with how to go beyond the target – defining the 4.”
Of course, some students are intuitively “good at school.” They understand its structures, glean what’s important from our words and intonations, and have a strong desire to achieve at high levels. Our job is not to figure out who these students are and reward them, as is done in a traditional system that uses grades to sort students.
Rather, our job where the 4 is concerned, is exactly the same as our job where the 3 is concerned:
-
- Teach kids what high achievement looks like.
- Help students know how to strive beyond the 3.
- Ensure its attainment is accessible to all.
This is especially important for students whose lives outside of school don’t grant them the same funds of knowledge as their “school-savvy” counterparts. If we, the teachers, are responsible for determining what should be learned and ensuring our students learn it, we are also responsible for helping all of them know what an extension to that learning looks like and how to pursue those extensions.
When we coach people to improve, we do precisely what my elder child’s preschool teacher of long ago posted on the wall: “Tell me what I CAN do.” That simple reminder to the adults in the room (none of the children were yet reading themselves!) is akin to a lifeguard asking excited pool-goers to “walk, not run.” It makes perfect sense then for us to pull back the curtain on the 4, name its qualities, and steer those students who are ready or eager – or both – to it.
Transparent Academic Expectations Matter in Schools with Honors Systems
Finally, a less sexy but still important reason to be transparent with expectations for the 4 is found in schools that still use any kind of academic honors system. Schools that maintain an honor roll, class ranks, and even Latin Honors communicate the classifications for those distinctions to their students. Likewise, they should help their students know how to attain those distinctions.
“Schools that maintain an honor roll, class ranks, and even Latin Honors communicate the classifications for those distinctions to their students. Likewise, they should help their students know how to attain those distinctions.”
Historically, schools and teachers have saved the highest distinctions for a small handful of students. That small handful was typically (though not always) preordained, allowing our sorting system to work to their advantage. Doing business that way also gave teachers some cover.
We were not compelled to define the highest levels of achievement because doing so might open the gates for more and more students to reach those levels. This culture has led to one of the stumbling blocks I’ve seen in working with teachers who are striving to define the 4: We don’t always know what it will or should look like. How can we coach students toward it if we don’t know what it looks like?
Tune in soon for a post on determining the qualities of the 4.
If you’d like to learn more about how JumpRope can assist you in defining and implementing a mastery-based grading system, reach out today for a discussion.
