As educators we are constantly told that it’s not about the students’ grades; it’s about whether students master the standard being taught and whether they can demonstrate that they have the necessary knowledge and skills. The problem is that we are still required by schools, our communities and even employers to assign grades and rank students. What can we do to close the gap between testing, assessment and grading, and the idea of true student mastery?

First of all, let’s take a look at the way we have traditionally graded students. Typically, we teach a lesson, have students practice with us as we do it together and then give students some independent practice or homework such as problems, something to write or something to produce. We then grade this independent practice and assign a grade based on how well it is done or at least whether it is completed. Even if we have applied some research-based teaching techniques to our classes that require more discovery and research by students, we generally still will have students independently produce some “product” that will be assigned a grade. This grade may be a simple “daily” grade but is generally used to show “mastery” of the standard or standards currently being studied. Do these “daily” grades really reflect “mastery” of the standards and do they really reflect a student’s formative knowledge of the information at hand?

Let’s take a look at an example. An English class is working on topic sentences. The teacher has prepared a number of examples of good and bad topic sentences and after dividing the class into small groups, distributes the examples, both good and bad, to the groups. The groups are asked to analyze the topic sentences to determine which are good and which are bad and why. After this is completed, each group shares their answers and reasoning with the class and the teacher re-directs as needed. Students are then given a topic and each group is asked to collectively write a good topic sentence to share. Finally, the teacher distributes a topic to students and asks each to independently write a topic sentence, for a grade, that will allow her to assess which students understand the concept.

A couple of students choose not to write anything and receive a grade of zero. Several are completely off topic and receive low failing grades. A few more write sentences that are decent but have flaws that will need fixing. They receive passing grades but not an “A.” The rest write good to great sentences and receive an “A” or even 100 on the assignment. The next day the teacher visits with the students who didn’t write and discovers that they had not really participated with the groups that they were in the day before and didn’t understand, but after some one-on-one time with the teacher were able to write good topic sentences on their own. A couple of the off-topic sentences were corrected after an explanation and those students were able to write topic sentences on their own after that. All of the flaws were corrected on the “passing” grades and students showed great promise in writing much better sentences. Even the students who made an “A” were able to discern for themselves why they didn’t get 100. A few students still needed to come after school for a little extra tutorial time to get it right but were able to do so after a couple of days. By the end of the week most students performed well on the next assessment. Did our grading system reflect student mastery in this example?

This example was a pretty good example of formative assessment used by the teacher. The teacher looked at the individual results and adjusted instruction or completely retaught the concept as needed to reach the students who did not understand. The final result was that most students demonstrated mastery of the topic sentence. Did the grade reflect that mastery? Did we grade the assessment for mastery or did we grade it for mastery in the time limit we set? Were we really grading how quickly the topic was mastered or not mastered? Did the students who took an extra day or even a couple of extra tutorials really have any less mastery in the end than those who made 100 on the initial assessment?

If we are using an assessment formatively to determine what a student knows or does not know, we should not penalize a student for demonstrating the parts they do not know. If a grade is to be assigned to a formative assignment, in order for that grade to reflect mastery, it must be adjustable as a student shows mastery of the topic; otherwise, we a testing the speed at which a student masters a topic and not whether the student is mastering the topic. Grading is often a matter of less is more; less grades, more authentic grades. Graded assessments should be as consise and short as possible, testing only those standards that students should have mastered. Students who don’t master standards should have opportunities to learn the needed knowledge or skills and have the formative grade adjusted to reflect later mastery of the standards.

As we move toward more research-based assessments to demonstrate mastery, our grading systems must change to reflect the different ways and speeds at which students learn. Mastery should be reflected in good student grades and students who master standards should not be penalized for taking too long to master the standards. Could your students benefit by using fewer but more authetic grades that truly reflect mastery? You may find that not only does the level of student learning and retention increase dramatically but that the time used in preparing and grading assessments actually decreases, giving you more time to spend instructing students toward mastery.