Why rethink standards-based grading?

As I have worked with C3 standards over the last few years, I have sought ways to combine them into “Big Tent” standards. This has simplified both the teaching and assessment of the various skills while also making them easier for parents and students to understand.

Along the way, there have still been some obstacles. The four dimensions of the C3 framework contain far more standards than can be effectively prioritized or taught; Dimension 2 contains dozens across the four specific disciplines. Even with a thoughtful prioritization I cannot escape the sense that it looks like a scattershot approach. Something important is always left out, and there is a tendency to get stuck in circular discussions about whether or not the prioritized skills are the best fit.

Students also have a habit of getting caught in the minutiae. My own anecdotal experience has convinced me that students do better when they can verbalize their understanding of both the “what” and the “why” as they apply to our units of study. This includes both the content and the prioritized skill standards. Visible Learning’s research and publications concur and offer the research-backed affirmation to my experiences. The task of helping students understand the learning path is significantly easier if I can clearly and simply explain the connection between standards and show students how they fit within the bigger picture.

Working through these difficulties over the past few years has pushed me towards competency based systems. Many of the examples I have looked at retain the philosophical core of good standards-based practices while simplifying their logistics and explanatory burden.

One of the challenges of standards-based grading systems is determining how to limit prioritization to a dozen or so standards. Similarly, one of the challenges of a competency-based system is defining the three or four core competencies that can encapsulate an entire course or discipline. The C3 framework already has a structure that can help with this process.

The four C3 Dimensions are well-organized, provide the “big picture” connection to inquiry, and offer flexibility in terms of skill selection. These dimensions can act as even larger “Big Tent” standards, or as I am now thinking of them, competencies.

Each dimension includes a variety of skills and processes that are important to “why” of social studies. At the end of the day, students need to not only appreciate the fun of our disciplines, but need to see how they apply beyond our individual classrooms. Using the dimensions in the organization and explanation of the curriculum supports that process and streamlines unit planning.

Many of my units are already designed with the inquiry process in mind. National History Day projects, embedded as they are in the curriculum, reinforce this. Using these dimensions as my grading categories just makes sense. Students have a clearer view of the goals and I have greater flexibility within each dimension to use the individual standards as a guide for instruction and assessment. All of the work I’ve done with building proficiency scales and aligning the individual standards with each other is still useful and important. Without that work I would not be able to visualize or articulate this next step.

Above is an example. Dimension one is focused around developing questions and planning inquiries. The five standards within this dimensions can be summarized by the above key aspects. Rather than choose one of them to represent my “coverage” of this dimension, I would rather integrate all of them into my instruction in a meaningful way. The students don’t lose anything by not seeing the exact wording of all five standards. However, they are better served when the full spirit of the dimension and all its components are woven into instruction instead of a single standard plucked out of context.

This dimension can spiral throughout all of my units. The added rigor in later units comes not from the task itself, but from the amount of agency and responsibility given to the student as I remove scaffolds. Student proficiency at each aspect can be easily assessed through informal check-ins, smaller assignments, or larger performative tasks. Ultimately, everything is evidence of student learning as the distinction between formative and summative disappears. Each dimension offers these same opportunities for every unit. Students are learning exciting content, which serves as the vehicle for skill acquisition, all within a context that encourages application and deep understanding. Easier said than done though.

Next Steps?

My proficiency scales are still based on individual standards or the targeted grouping of similar standards. These will continue to be the core of the teacher-side of the curriculum. The need of a teacher to think through how to scaffold the instruction of causation, contextualization, map analysis, or source analysis has not changed. However, I need to work through the examples of competency-based rubrics I have found and decide how to present expectations around the dimensions to students and parents. Handing them a packet of proficiency scales for each dimension won’t do it.

This system has benefits for vertical alignment from middle school to high school. I am looking forward to conversations with my middle school colleagues about how to use these dimensions to provide consistency across the learning progression. Then, we can discuss how to emphasize certain aspects of each dimension at particular grade levels and better differentiate grade-appropriate levels of rigor.

Doing this well requires additional work with unit design and assessment practices. Units need to offer opportunities to practice each dimension within the individual themes and chronologies. This requires a lot of work of aligning activities and assessments. My flipped classroom practices make this easier, but consistent and cohesive systems take time and work to build out.

If you are reading this and currently teach in a competency based system I would love to hear about you make it work or where you have experienced difficulties!