1. Gary Johnston
Spring 2012

2. Rational:
 Years of “category grading” in the classroom with little
change in internal/external test scores.
 Marginal improvement in MAP test scores.
 School wide “push” for using data to drive
teaching, assessment practices.
 Earlier workshops in the year:
 David Suarez: Differentiation, Math Assessment
 Tom Schimmer: Assessment that Matters

3. Changes to the Grade 7 Math
Program
Part 1:Grading
Changes
Part 2:
Assessment
Changes
Part 3: Our
Results

5. Part 1-How we changed grading
 0% Emphasis on assignments/homework
 All entered in the grade book but are practice on the way to
mastery. (Schimmer)
 0% Emphasis on quizzes
 All entered in the grade book but are practice on the way to
mastery. (Schimmer)
 0% Emphasis on projects
 Show real world applications, but can be superficial. Students
can get help from parents, peers, and work may not be done
equally in group work. Entered in the grade book.
 100% Emphasis on summative assessments (final test)
 “Summative evaluations are not mere reflections of retained
knowledge but are the most valid and reliable indicator of
depth of understanding” (Holt)

6. Part 1 Continued: Why we changed
our grading
 Want students to become responsible
learners, not feel entitled to third and
fourth chances.
 Want to build self-discipline and self-
esteem that is deserved, not sugar coating
their poor academics
 Too many grading policies are “subjective”
and prone to bias.
 Want “Self-Improvement” through personal
assessment, not teacher-assigned work
 “Category Intensive” grading dilutes notable
achievements.

7. Part 1 Continued: How
Practice/Assignments were Assessed
 “Flipped Lessons” More time for
in-class practice.
 Answers posted in class so
students can check!
 Student’s “Self-Assess” their
work on the following 3 point
rubric:
 3 points: Well done,
complete some minor
mistakes
 2 points: majority
complete, many mistakes
 1 point: very incomplete,
many mistakes

8. Part 1 Continued: How Quizzes
were used
 Formative feedback-
Assessed by Teacher
 Procedurally low
scaffolded skill. Check-in
on basic abilities before
higher order thinking
applications
 Gave teacher opportunities
to remediate
understanding
 Entered into grade
book, but given 0%
weighting as it’s practice.

9. Part 1 Continued: How Projects
were used •Practice on the road to
higher understanding.
•Most units had a project.
•Projects tend to span many
days and have group
elements so assessment of
them is inaccurate. Who’s
work are we assessing, the
student’s, group
members, tutors or parents?

10. Part 1-How Summative
assessments were used
 “Practice Test” prior to actual
test. (Actual Test was retake)
 Policy: “Retesting is a
privilege, not a right.
Although we may deny
students the opportunity to
retest, we never deny them
the opportunity to relearn”
 “Summative evaluations are not
mere reflections of retained
knowledge but are the most
valid and reliable indicator of
depth of understanding” (Holt)

11. Other supporting resources:
 Online curriculum and practice guides with
standards, benchmarks, essential questions, target
vocabulary and a “tally sheet” that students can use to
document their understanding and make curriculum
transparent.
 Differentiation on homework, quizzes, projects, tests
 Quiz Reflection on the “nature of the mistake”
 Warm ups and tests that have elements of previous
units to keep skills sharp

13. Part 2-How we changed the quality
of our assessments
 Used opened ended tests which
scaffold up through higher order
thinking skills
(application, synthesis, analysis)
 Almost exclusively word
problems for “authentic
purposes”
 Elements of “mathematical
reasoning, critical thinking”
 Incorporated spiraling areas of
the curriculum.

15. Grade 7 Math Mean MAP Test Scores
250
245 Spring Scores
240 Fall Scores
235 *NWEA RIT
Scale Norms
230 2011 page 46
225 Both Elshoff’s
and Johnston’s
220 classes
215
*Typical Grade 7 *Typical Grade 10 SSIS Grade 7 Math
Math MAP Scores Math MAP Scores MAP Scores 11-12

16. Grade 7 Median Math RIT Increase 2010-
2012
Median Increase from Fall to Spring
6
5 Median Increase from
Fall to Spring
4
3
2
Both Elshoff’s and
1 Johnston’s classes
0
SSIS Grade 7 Math SSIS Grade 7 Math
Median RIT Increase Median RIT Increase
2010-2011 2011-2012

17. Grade 7 Mean RIT Increases 2010-
2012
250
248
246
244
242
Spring Score
240
Fall Score
238
236
234
232
2010-2011 2011-2012

18. Internal Test Grade Changes: Unit
1-Unit 7
16
14
12
10
8 Test Grades for Unit 1
6 Test Grades for Unit 7
4 *Johnston’s Class Only
2
0
F D C B A

19. Typical Scores on Assessments
76%
74%
72%
70%
68%
66%
64%
62%
60%
58%
Quiz Practice Test Final Test

20. Program Survey Questions:
1. Did the grading policy this year help you become a
better student?
2. What are the strengths of offering 2-3 levels of
“choice” Green, Blue and Black?
3. Which element of practice/assessment has helped
you learn the most?
4. How would you rate your learning of math this year
compared to other years?
5. In general, how would you rate your “stress” level of
this math course?

21. Did the grading policy this year help you
become a better student?
Number of responses
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 Number of responses
0

22. What are the strengths of offering 2-3 levels
of “choice” Green, Blue and Black?
 “The strengths of offering two or three levels of
instructional practice is that you can choose your level
for your tests. If you want to challenge yourself, you
can choose Blue test or Black tests.”
 “The strength of offering two levels of instructional
practice are for green, it helps us becomes better at the
skills that we are not good at and blue is for students
who want to take a risk of higher level skills.”
 “To let each individual student choose what level they
would prefer to be in, instead of the whole class doing
the same thing (which would be kind of boring).”

23. Which element of practice/assessment has
helped you learn the most?
Number of Responses
35
30
25
20
15
Number of Responses
10
5
0
Homework Quizzes Projects Practice
Tests

24. How would you rate your learning of math
this year compared to other years?
Number of responses
25
20
15
10
5
Number of responses
0
Much less Less than About More Much
than other average than more
other years compared other than
years. to other years other
years years

25. In general, how would you rate your “stress”
level of this math course?
Number of responses
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Number of responses

26. Key Findings
 Final tests show the highest level of understanding.
When they are administered, students have had the
most practice.
 Most students said the course was “somewhat
stressful” followed by “Neutral” and “Usually not
stressful”. Low levels of stress do increase performance.
 Designing “Practice Tests” to help students focus on
areas for remediation helped them learn the most.
 55% of respondents felt that the grading policy helped
them learn math “somewhat” and 19% said it helped
them learn math “very much”

27. Bibliography
 “Effective Grading Practices” ASCD
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Effective-Grading-Practices.aspx
 Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools (Adopted by the
California State Board of Education, March 2005 Published by the California
Department of Education Sacramento, 2006 )
 NWEA RIT Scale Norms 2011-Northwest Evaluation Asssociaion
 Student Survey: Survey Monkey
 http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=jdrbk0002ZpFyaNK
x1e%2f2ylLnJt%2fErryKohL0pMSnpI%3d