Mentor Learning LLC

Why do we love Wiley Coyote? Is it because he never learns from his mistakes? Doesn't look ahead to analyze the consequences of his actions? Reminds us of ourselves?

Whenever I speak about standards-based grading, grading linked to standards, or grading for learning, inevitably a teacher with some or many years of experience in the classroom will challenge me with the "responsibility" hack. The spirit of Wiley Coyote lives on.

I teach that formative assessment (practice) should not figure into a final grade. I teach that giving zeros is a fruitless effort to stimulate academic achievement, and is also bad statistical math. I teach that grades should report only academic achievement or lack thereof, and should not be used to punish or manipulate students (because there is absolutely no research to indicate that such manipulation is effective in raising individual achievement scores).

But regardless of how effectively I make my points -- never mind how many studies I cite -- a strong voice of experience can often be heard, apparently oblivious to the comedy of the challenge. The voice says, "But I have to teach them 'responsibility.' The real world holds them accountable, and I have to teach them responsibility!"

They don't usually foam at the mouth, but in my imagination, they always do.

And each of these teachers who think they know better than the researchers and teacher practitioners of grading for learning need to confront what I call "The Responsibility Paradox."

To put this post in perspective, let's consider the mission of a teacher. I've had a long time to think this over, and this is what I would argue is a teacher's mission…

"Facilitate learning as measured by assessments linked to state or provincial, and district standards."

The Responsibility Paradox states that "teachers who try to hold students accountable by teaching 'responsibility,' are themselves irresponsible because they neglect their mission as teachers. They introduce foreign elements into the final grade that distort the picture of achievement, and worse."

Let's see…

Teachers who add zeros and/or dock grades for a variety of behavior-related offenses (like being "late")…

…ignore the math of statistics.

…close the door on learning.

...ignore the potential damage to student/teacher classroom relationships.

…disregard the effects on student motivation.

…set poor example to students and peers by ignoring assessment, grading, and reporting research.

… refuse to learn about grading alternatives that may increase student success.

…and completely forget that "responsibility" is not in their state or provincial, and district academic standards.

That's a lot to think about, and I hope I haven't upset any of my friends out there, but this kind of discussion is what this blog is going to be about for a while.

Why? Because it's good for kids, that's why. ;)

Steve Buel, a long-time teacher and former Portland Schools board member, laments that the definition of educational achievement has been limited to high-stakes test results in core subjects. There's more to it, he says...

 Read his editorial from today's Oregonian.

 To Steve's list, I would add Driver Education and Personal Finance for the obvious reasons.

Sounds like a headline from the tabloids, doesn't it? But what a fantastic dad! Read in the Detroit News how his project to help his son turned into a series of fourteen math texts that are stirring up quite a bit of local enthusiasm.

Read the Associated Press article from SFGate.com about the recent study that also says that success in any one high school science course does not predict success in all college science courses...only in the same field of study.

Sometime back, I signed up for the Google Educator program, just for good luck, and the education folks at Google emailed me today with some news about their efforts to aid educators in their quest to tame the web and make it a useful tool for student learning (lifelong learners can use this stuff, too). If you've been to the last NECC or know someone that has, this may not be news, but it was to me.

For my own writing, I use a digital notebook that's part of The Journal, but it's not designed to keep track of the tons of info on the web, although I could venture it with cut and paste. But there's a simpler way.

David Warlick, in his book Classroom Blogging talks about digital literacy, and part of that new literacy is learning to find, filter, validate, and organize info from the web. Google has a tool that will help us do that. Funny thing, they call it a Notebook. I started playing with it today. I've already got three notebooks going. I like it.

The other tool that caught my fancy in the Google email was a tool that will allow teachers to set up dedicated search engines for their students to use in pursuit of their learning. I can only imagine it would be like a grand treasure hunt.

Google has lots more tools for educators, but you have to go there, register, and look for yourself. Best of all for teachers, everything's free! :-)