Curriculum and Instruction

Academic Grades

Academic grades are a reflection of learning, separate from behavior.

• Grades are reflected based on grade level goals and expectations
• Feedback is what is needed to improve student learning
• Not everything will be graded; the teacher will determine what evidence will be used to accurately determine a student’s level of proficiency

Grading

Students will be graded on a rubric-based grading scale 4 – 1 as a more accurate way of reflecting what a student actually knows or has learned.
Levels of Learning:

• 4 – Evidence of an extended understanding
• 3 – Evidence of a consolidated understanding
• 2 – Evidence of a developing understanding
• 1 – Evidence of a beginning understanding

These grading scales are rubric-based with each number representing a different degree of understanding or mastery

• 4 – 1 Scale does NOT equate to A – F, but rather indicates the level of learning or proficiency.

4 – Extended Understanding

Evidence that the student demonstrates

• an extended level of understanding of skills, concepts and evidence of applying the mastered learning independently and in complex situations
• the ability to apply multiple skills and concepts beyond what was taught and to create solutions and explain/justify them

The student is exceeding grade level goals/expectations.

3 – Consolidated Understanding

Evidence that the student demonstrates

• a level of understanding or proficiency of skills, concepts and their application with little or no support
• evidence of independently and consistently utilizing current skill and concepts to solve problems

The student is meeting the goals/expectations for the grade level.

2 – Developing Understanding

Evidence that the student demonstrates

• a partial or inconsistent understanding or proficiency of skills and concepts with little or no evidence of application
• student is progressing in learning; the skills are not yet mastered

The student is approaching grade level goals/expectations with additional support and/or intervention.

1 – Beginning Understanding

Evidence that the student demonstrates

• beginning or limited understanding or proficiency of skills and concepts taught
• evidence that even with support, student has difficulty utilizing skills, concepts and their application

The student requires significant support and/or intervention to reach grade level goals/expectations.

Beginning in 2023-24 the K – 5 Report Card indicators have changed to reflect Levels of Learning that are aligned with the secondary report card.  Those changes are as follows:

The focus is on communicating students current levels of learning or proficiency as a more accurate way of reflecting what a student actually knows or has learned, rather than levels of completion or compliance.  The intent is to report academic grades as a reflection of learning, separate from behavior, that reflect learning based on grade level goals and expectations. 

The biggest change is that the Levels of Learning (grades) given reflect the student’s learning/progress on a standard or concept at the time of reporting, rather than how they are progressing on the year end goal.  For example, a kindergarten standard (K.CC.A.1) calls for a student to “count to 100 by ones and tens” by the end of the year. If in the first quarter, the curriculum has students focused on working with numbers up to 10, and the student masters that learning, their grade could be a “3” (Consolidated) since they have shown evidence that they are proficient in this skill with little or no support, thus meeting the goal or expectation for the grade level at the time of reporting.  

Each quarter there are multiple standards that students are learning and progressing on and the majority of them are revisited multiple times during the course of a year.

• Teachers will utilize a variety of methods to assess student proficiency in both the initial assessment of learning and in subsequent opportunities. Feedback is a critical component for learning and multiple opportunities provides the condition for students to learn from mistakes, correct errors and misconceptions, etc.
• The summative/formative evidence division isn’t fixed in equitable grading; it’s flexible. That flexibility in assessment of evidence and deciding what performance is included in the grade gives us more accuracy and students more motivation. (Feldman 2019)
• No Extra Credit will be given, as the focus is on students showing evidence of learning not just completion or collection of points
• No single assessment of student learning should represent a majority of the student’s final grade for the term.
• Multiple Opportunities are not limited to tests, final projects or repeating assignments or tasks, nor is it required to complete entire assignments or tasks again to demonstrate understanding.
  • Teachers can have students only redo the parts of a task, assignment or test where they were not proficient
  • Teachers can make adjustments when evidence is gathered as a standard or concept spirals in other assignments or units
  • Teachers can gather evidence from other classroom observations
  • Teachers can create space and opportunity for students to advocate to prove understanding. Not limited to teacher only mandated retakes. (How can you show me that you have learned the concept, etc.)
• Opportunities within the quarter to allow for multiple opportunities are not intended to be the practice of repeating the task or test to get a better grade, but rather the opportunity to review mistakes or misconceptions and adjust or correct the learning.
• Multiple Opportunities are open to all students, even those with passing grades, who wish to advance their level of learning. Student grades should always reflect the highest level of learning demonstrated.

Key:
E: Exceeds Expectations
S: Satisfactory
N: Needs Improvement
U: Unsatisfactory

Although the traditional A-F and 100 point grading scale is something that many of us grew up with, a tremendous body of research over the past three decades has established many problems with regards to both its fairness and accuracy. This makes sense when you think about it. While a “C” grade (for example) can tell a student how they performed, this grade does little to communicate what the student might have accomplished within the assignment or what they can do to improve moving forward.

For this reason all assignments and course grades for the 2022-23 academic year will be evaluated according to the following levels of student learning.

• 4 – Evidence of an extended understanding
• 3 – Evidence of a consolidated understanding
• 2 – Evidence of a developing understanding
• 1 – Evidence of a beginning understanding
• 0 – Lack of evidence or insufficient evidence (no data)

These grading scales are rubric-based with each number representing a different degree of understanding or mastery. A 4 – 0 Scale does NOT equate to A – F, but rather indicates the level of learning or proficiency. Scores of 2 – 4 are considered passing; a score of 1.5 is considered credit attainment, but indicates that significant deficiencies in standards proficiency exist in the grading period. For students in grades 9-12, when final grades are stored at the end of each term, GPA points will be applied and posted within the student graduation transcript.

One of the key principles of equitable grading is that student grades should be authentic, meaning that they are based solely on what he or she knows as opposed to how the student behaves in class. Extensive research into student grading consistently shows that penalizing grades does not improve student behavior. More importantly, grades influenced by behavior often make it more difficult for teachers to make instructional decisions as the grade no longer represents what the student actually knows as it relates to learning in the class.

As a result, during the 2022-23 academic year, student behaviors will be reported in the gradebook using the following personal responsibility measures.

• Engagement & Collaboration- A reflection of how students contribute to classroom learning and positively collaborate with others.
• Self Direction/Meeting Deadlines- A measure of students’ personal responsibility as it relates to elements such as attendance and meeting deadlines.
• Self Regulation/Perseverance- This measure reflects students’ awareness of appropriate classroom behavior and their willingness to continue to improve.

Each of the previous measures will be reported at the end of each school term according to the following; E= Exceeds Expectations, S= Satisfactory, N= Needs Improvement, U= Unacceptable.

It is important for students and parents to remember that while Personal Responsibility measures do not contribute to either student grades or GPA, these scores CAN be utilized to help to re-establish eligibility for things like sports and other types of extracurricular activities.

Although we all grew up in a school system that utilized “traditional” approaches to grading, research consistently demonstrates that these systems are often inaccurate, prone to teacher bias, and undermine student motivation towards the learning.

The dramatic need to assimilate large numbers of new immigrants in the early 20th century and make them ready for the workforce lead schools to focus on efficiency and productivity. Letter grades and “curves” were designed as a way to sort students easily. This practice is not only inequitable but it no longer accurately reflects the needs of college and employers in a modern, information economy.

Mistakes are a necessary part of any learning process and yet traditional grading treats mistakes as unwanted, unhelpful and deserving of penalty.

In traditional grading, teachers judge nearly every action of a student through-out the learning process, weakening trust in the student-teacher relationship and inhibiting students from disclosing weaknesses or incentivizing dishonest means to conceal weaknesses.

Although the traditional belief is that points motivate students to learn, one of the sturdiest findings in social science is that extrinsic motivation for learning is ineffective and even harmful to students’ long-term success. Too many students have received years of low and failing grades which, for them, provide little motivation. In contrast, equitable grading practices allow for and even encourage mistake making as a means of learning.

Traditional grading practices frame grades as “performance goals” which often result in students motivated to be successful only when the task is easy, and to be motivated to avoid failure- more psychologically uncertain and stressful- when the task is challenging.

It is the extremely rare student who knows absolutely nothing about a concept that was taught, so assigning a zero almost never accurately represents a student’s achievement. The zero also disproportionately punishes students when used within a 0-100 point scale.

Averaging a student’s performance this way results in inaccurate descriptions of what a student ultimately learned and inequitably lowers grades for students who took a longer time to learn and demonstrate proficiency. Instead, a student’s most recent performance can more accurately and equitably describe their progress.

Eliminating extra credit helps us to immunize our grades from inequities, no longer rewarding or penalizing students based on their environment or resources, and adding credibility and value to the required curriculum and assignments. If the work is important, it should be required.

When we incorporate behavioral problems into a grade, we warp the accuracy of the grade to describe student academic performance. We also miss the underlying causes of the behavior- such as inadequate preparation and insufficient supports. Instead of entering a ZERO grade that effectively ends the learning, we should allow revisions and late work to be submitted when it is done and punish cheating by requiring the student to complete the assignment or assessment, perhaps with non-grade consequences.

A student’s grade should reflect their level of mastery in a subject and not their personal behavior (eg. punctuality, participation, effort…etc.) within a class. By separating student behavior from academic performance, teachers can more effectively focus on the evidence students are providing to demonstrate progress toward the mastery of the standards within that class.

While rubric scoring is designed to provide students with more accurate feedback on assignment and course performance, students will also be provided with a letter grade (A-F) for the course (based on rubric score performance) at the end of the term. Just as with the current grading system, it is the letter grade that determines the GPA. Weighted classes will also remain the same meaning if a student earns a 5 in an AP course, that 5 will be calculated into the GPA just like it has been.

Conversion from Learning Level (Teacher assessed) to GPA Weight/Calculation (Transcript)

The 4-0 rubric scale does NOT equate directly to the A-F GPA scale. The “levels of learning” scales are rubric-informed with each number representing a different degree of mastery a student has towards the standard being assessed. Each number is designed to represent a different degree of understanding. While only scores of 2-4 will be considered “passing” on assignments and courses, a grade of 1.5 or higher will be counted for “credit attainment”.

School districts across the country who have initiated a transition to more equitable grading systems have had countless conversations with college administrators to ensure that these changes don’t negatively impact students. Schools all over the country work on different types of grading scales so universities and colleges are used to interpreting different types of transcripts. The equitable grading system which SUSD is currently implementing is very similar to changes made by other Arizona high schools who have some of the highest rates of scholarship and college acceptance in the nation.

In January 2020 the district created its first equitable grading committee, extending participation to all district teachers, administrators and staff. This committee, which would continue to meet throughout the 2020-21 school year consisted of more than 80 members, representing all grade levels, schools, and content areas. After engaging in research, discussions, and collaborative conversations, this group came to a consensus that the current grading system would need to change in order to make it more equitable. As a result, Phase I changes (eliminating the zero and extra-credit) were implemented during the 2021-22 school year and phase II changes (rubric scoring and personal responsibility measures) will be implemented during the 2022-23 school year.