Over the last few months I have worked with a number of high schools and middle schools where the grading and assessment practices simply do not work in a world of standards. The schools are not making local assessment rigorous enough in their concern with demoralizing students through low grades. The solution is straightforward: don’t thoughtlessly translate scores into grades.
The problem. Schools have to meet standards, and local assessment should prepare kids to deal with the standards as tested by PARCC and SB. But the new tests are harder and more rigorously scored than most local tests. So, test scores will have to be low. (Anyone following NAEP results has known this for years, alas.) This seems to run headlong into a long tradition of grading whereby we do not want to punish kids with low grades (akin to the outrage over sharply-lower school scores on accountability measures this year).
Yet, there seems to be no alternative: to significantly raise local standards of performance seems to mean we have to lower student grades. Or, conversely, we can keep our current average grade of a B for students locally, but then have less rigor than is needed to prepare kids for the tests – and predict results on them (which local assessment should surely do if it is valid and useful).
Note that so-called “standards-based grading” does NOT inherently solve this problem. Just because we go to standards-based grading doesn’t mean the grading is rigorous. In fact, if you look at schools that use standards-based grading, it is rare for students to get “scores” that are vastly different from the range of “grades” in such schools previously. i.e. we are doing standards-based grading in a norm-referenced framework! The local failure was to assume that assessing against the standards was sufficient to establish rigor. But that is insufficient; it cannot work by itself.
So, what is rigor? Rigor is not established by the teaching. It’s not established by framing teaching against standards, therefore. Rigor is established by our expectations: how we evaluate and score student work. That means that rigor is established by the three different elements of assessment:
- The difficulty of the task or questions
- The difficulty of the criteria, as established by rubrics
- The level of achievement expected, as set by “anchors” or cut scores.
Many districts and schools don’t even pass the #1 criterion now. Routinely, when my colleagues and I audit local assessment, the tests are much easier than what the external tests test – even in pretty good districts. The usual explanation? The problem of fair/normed grading! [Update: new report from Princeton University in which they back down from policy of limiting # of As given – which shows the power of local norms to frame official grading policies.]
Note, too, from these three elements that even a difficult task and high-quality rubric aren’t enough to establish rigor. The task could be challenging and the criteria demanding – but if the expectations for student products or performance are very low (as established by either specific models or local norms), then the assessment is not rigorous. That’s why having a “cut” score of 40 or 50 on the state tests is a terrible solution – IF the goal is to communicate standards-based results vs. finding a way to pass most kids.
Think of the high jump or pole vault in track: you could enter a challenging event and be judged against the true criteria, but if the height you have to clear is absurdly low, then the assessment is not rigorous – even though it is “standards-based” testing and scoring.
Solution: avoid thoughtless calculations based on false equivalencies. Stick with track and field to see the solution: we need not and in fact never do calculate the “grade” for the athlete by mechanically turning the height they jump into a grade by some arbitrary but easy to use formula. To do so, would greatly lower grades and provide powerful disincentives for the less skilled athletes. On the contrary, we judge progress and performance relative to early jump heights and look for “appropriate” growth, based on effort and gains in height. (I blogged previously about this point at greater length here and here.) However, the expectations for all jumpers are high and constantly increasing.
The same solution is needed locally in academics, if genuine standards are going to be used to alert students as to where they are without discouraging them. (This is the idea behind the SLOs and SGOs in many states.)
So, numerous times a year, their work needs to be evaluated against the external standards (as established by high-quality tests and student work samples). “But we have to give grades all year in our online grade book!” I know. But instead of turning their “score” into a “grade” by some unthinking formula, we use our wisdom and judgment to factor in fairness, growth, and effort on some uniform basis.
Suppose, for example, that in a writing assessment done against national standards, we anchor the assessment by national samples culled from released tests. Further suppose that a 6-point rubric is used. Now, assume that in the first administration, say in October, almost all students get a 1 or a 2 (where those are the lowest scores on the scale). Here’s what we might say BEFORE the scores are given to students and turned into grades:
“Guys, I’m scoring you against the best writing in the state. So, your first grade this fall will reflect a fair assessment of where you are now. A score of 1 will equal a B-. A score of 2 will equal a B+. Any score above a 2 is an A – for the first semester.
“Next semester, in the winter, to get those same grades, you will have to move up one number on the scale. And by spring, you will have to move up 2 numbers to get those grades.”
This already happens, of course, in AP and IB courses. So, it should be relatively easy to do so in all courses.
We have thus solved the problem: grades become fair, standards are made clear, and there are incentives to improve over time.
A postscript: Rigor and verbs
Rigor is not established by the unthinking use of Webb or Bloom or other verbs. Here, for example, is a widely-findable chart I found on the NJ Dept of Education website, in which Webb’s rubrics have been turned into a leveled chart of supposedly-appropriate verbs:
A moment’s thought after looking over these verbs should make you say: Huh? How can the verb, itself, determine the rigor? Couldn’t the rigor of so-called high-level verbs be compromised by a simplistic task and scoring system? Vice versa: can’t we imagine some of the low-level verbs occurring in highly-challenging and rigorous assessments? (e.g. Who, what, when, and why in a complex journalism case would be rigorous work.)
Take “predict” for example. It is viewed as relatively low-level – Level 2. But what if I ask you to predict the effects on plants of using special soil, food, and artificial lights, and I score you against industry-level standards? Vice versa: suppose I ask you to critique a drawing against the criterion “pretty”. Pretty low level stuff.
You can find the rubrics Norman Webb developed below the post to see how the circle by itself completely misses the point. Note, especially, his description of what Level 4 demands in terms of cognitive and task demands.
So, just throwing some verbs around as starters for “rigorous” tasks is not enough to address the first bullet concerning the challenge of the task. Rigorous tasks are a function of cognitive demand and situational complexity, not just the verb used. Self-assess against our audit matrix to test your tests, therefore:
APPENDIX:
Webb rubric for math:
Mathematics
Level 1:Recall Level 1 includes the recall of information such as a fact, definition, term, or simple procedure, as well as performing a simple algorithm or applying a formula. That is, in mathematics a one-step, well-defined, and straight algorithmic procedure should be included at this lowest level. Other key words that signify a Level 1 activity include “identify,” “recall,” “recognize,” “use,” and “measure.” Verbs such as “describe” and “explain” could be classified at different levels depending on what is to be described and explained.
Level 2: Skill/Concept Level 2 includes the engagement of some mental processing beyond a habitual response. A Level 2 assessment item requires students to make some decisions as to how to approach the problem or activity, whereas a Level 1 item requires students to demonstrate a rote response, perform a well-known algorithm, follow a set procedure (like a recipe), or perform a clearly defined series of steps. Key words and phrases that generally distinguish a Level 2 item include “classify,” “organize,” “estimate,” “make observations,” “collect and display data,” and “compare data.” These actions imply more than one step. For example, to compare data may require first identifying characteristics of the objects and then grouping or ordering the objects.
Level 3: Strategic Thinking Level 3 requires reasoning, planning, using evidence, and a higher level of thinking than the previous two levels. In most instances, requiring students to explain their thinking is a Level 3 activity. Activities that require students to make conjectures are also at this level. The cognitive demands at Level 3 are complex and abstract. The complexity does not result from the fact that there are multiple answers, a possibility at both Levels 1 and 2, but because the task requires more demanding reasoning. An activity, however, that has more than one possible answer and requires students to justify the response they give would most likely be a Level 3 activity. Other Level 3 activities include drawing conclusions from observations, citing evidence and developing a logical argument for concepts, explaining phenomena in terms of concepts, and using concepts to solve problems.
Level 4: Extended Thinking Level 4 requires complex reasoning, planning, developing, and thinking—most likely over an extended period of time. The extended time period is not a distinguishing factor if the required work is only repetitive and does not require applying significant conceptual understanding and higher-order thinking. For example, if a student has to take the water temperature from a river each day for a month and then construct a graph, this would be classified as a Level 2 activity. However, if the student is to conduct a river study that requires taking into consideration a number of variables, this would be a Level 4 activity.
At Level 4, the cognitive demands of the task should be high and the work should be very complex. Students should be required to make several connections—relate ideas within the content area or among content areas—and have to select one approach among many alternatives on how the situation should be solved. Level 4 activities include designing and conducting experiments; making connections between a finding and related concepts and phenomena; combining and synthesizing ideas into new concepts; and critiquing experimental designs.
Reading
Level 1: Recall of Information Level 1 requires students to receive or recite facts or to use simple skills or abilities. Oral reading that does not include analysis of the text as well as basic comprehension of a text is included. Items require only a shallow understanding of text presented and often consist of verbatim recall from text or simple understanding of a single word or phrase.
Level 2: Basic Reasoning about text Level 2 includes the engagement of some mental processing beyond recalling or reproducing a response; it requires both comprehension and subsequent processing of text or portions of text. Inter-sentence analysis of inference is required. Some important concepts are covered, but not in a complex way. Standards and items at this level may include words and phrases such as “summarize,” “interpret,” “infer,” “classify,” “organize,” “collect,” “display,” “compare,” and “determine whether fact or opinion.” Literal main ideas are stressed. A Level 2 assessment item may require students to apply some of the skills and concepts that are covered at Level 1.
Level 3: Complex Reasoning about text. Deep knowledge becomes more of a focus at Level 3. Students are encouraged to go beyond the text; however, they are still required to show understanding of the ideas in the text. Students may be encouraged to explain, generalize, or connect ideas. Standards and items at Level 3 involve reasoning and planning. Students must be able to support their thinking. Items may involve abstract theme identification, inference across an entire passage, or students’ application of prior knowledge. Items may also involve more superficial connections between texts.
Level 4: Extended Reasoning. Higher-order thinking is central and knowledge is deep at Level 4. The standard or assessment item at this level will probably be an extended activity, with extended time provided. The extended time period is not a distinguishing factor if the required work is only repetitive and does not require applying significant conceptual understanding and higher-order thinking. Students take information from at least one passage and are asked to apply this information to a new task. They may also be asked to develop hypotheses and perform complex analyses of the connections among texts.
Writing
Writing Level 1: Recall of Information Level 1 requires the student to write or recite simple facts. This writing or recitation does not include complex synthesis or analysis, only basic ideas. The students are engaged in listing ideas or words as in a brainstorming activity prior to written composition, are engaged in a simple spelling or vocabulary assessment, or are asked to write simple sentences. Students are expected to write and speak using standard English conventions. This includes using appropriate grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling.
Level 2: Basic Reasoning Level 2 requires some mental processing. At this level, students are engaged in first-draft writing or brief extemporaneous speaking for a limited number of purposes and audiences. Students are beginning to connect ideas using a simple organizational structure. For example, students may be engaged in note-taking, outlining, or simple summaries. Texts may be limited to one paragraph. Students demonstrate a basic understanding and appropriate use of such reference materials as a dictionary, thesaurus, or Web site.
Level 3: Complex Reasoning Level 3 requires some higher-level mental processing. Students are engaged in developing compositions that include multiple paragraphs. These compositions may include complex sentence structure and may demonstrate some synthesis and analysis. Students show awareness of their audience and purpose through focus, organization, and the use of appropriate compositional elements. The use of appropriate compositional elements includes such things as addressing chronological order in a narrative or including supporting facts and details in an informational report. At this stage, students are engaged in editing and revising to improve the quality of the composition.
Level 4: Extended Reasoning Higher-level thinking is central to Level 4. The standard at this level is a multi-paragraph composition that demonstrates synthesis and analysis of complex ideas or themes. There is evidence of a deep awareness of purpose and audience. For example, informational papers include hypotheses and supporting evidence. Students are expected to create compositions that demonstrate a distinct voice and that stimulate the reader or listener to consider new perspectives on the addressed ideas and themes.
22 Responses
I have found Norman Webb’s work to help define the confusion around “rigor”. I have come to find the work of Karin Hess to help me understand the nuances around the Depth of Knowledge (DOK) framework. We used several different DOK tools to help teachers and teacher teams understand how to craft the “Ask of the Task” so that students are engaged in complex, cognitively challenging tasks. DOK also provides an important perspective in development of classroom-based assessment literacy…
We are so far from this in Florida- I can’t even see there is a track field for this metaphor. We are drowning in post-testing without any pre-testing whatsoever. Our district assessment directors are in chaos trying to figure out the new testing schedule for each grade level. The State is scrambling to be able to approve test items for end of course tests – which are still being cooked by districts. We have many administrators now saying that testing days account for 1/2 or more of the school days. We have a school board member (Lee County) who plans to opt his children out of the testing this next year. The first solution needs to be that we take the politics out of education. Until then, wish us luck. We are going to need it.
Sounds dreadful, but HS people still have to give grades and create tests, so that’s the area to focus on. It will always be in people’s interest to develop local tests and scoring that is predictive against wider-world standards as in AP. Indeed, in good schools that is what you see: local standards are higher than the state’s.
I’m confused by your reply here. Maybe I’m not understanding it. HS is the most dreadful and completely drowning in assessment. Local tests? Predictive scoring? AP being an example of this? Schools being able to set standards higher than the state? Grant Wiggins is on Mars and FL DOE is on Venus apparently. lol!
Here’s a few of the HS issues in FL with testing:
1. New law mandates end of course exams for every course. Test items to be approved by the state and developed by districts. But, districts do not have time/money for this so they have contracted out to buy test items. There is mass confusion about this new law. Many parents have no idea this exists (and it’s K-12). No pre-testing exists. It counts towards 30% of the grade for the course and we have no idea what will be on the test and if there is any test reliability/validity. The way the tests are scored- there must be failures. So, everyone could show that they have adequately learned the subject matter but there will be a percent that fails anyway. There will be a new round of diagnostic testing to make sure kids are in line to pass. Thus, there are (at minimum) 14 more tests (and test days) for each student in HS.
2. We have a replacement to FCAT (FSA) that promises to be very difficult. That means a new round of diagnostic tests 3 times a year.
3. Because we have to have an end of course test for each course, we are losing a lot (and eventually all) honors level courses. It’s too expensive to develop all those tests. Thus, HS students will have to choose between taking AP (not appropriate for all students) and regular level (many students are not appropriate to either).
4. Just when 11th graders thought they were done….. they now have to also take FSA (standardized test).
5. Because of all this testing, all our HS are spending a ton of $$ on computers. These computers will solely be used for all these tests. Many times, they are in the library because there isn’t other available space. So, our kids do not have access to the library from early Feb through May. Almost everyday is a test so there is no way to let kids use the library.
6. As many in HS are in mixed grade classes, a few kids will be pulled at a time for a test. The teacher will not start new material when they have kids out being tested. Learning stops. And on many days, since the testing can go on a long time, they switch to block scheduling. They watch movies during these times when students are missing to be tested. There aren’t too many “learning” days left.
7. The district mandates “black out days” due to testing. It’s half the year. Thus, kids cannot go on field trips during this time. Field trips can be extremely valuable for learning- and especially motivating for students.
If you have any political pull in our state. Well, we can use all the help we can get. I share all of this because this is the reality of the situation. I see you discuss the ideal. We are so far from it- it’s a dream really to think of what you say. The reality is that we will kill public education because parents will become so sick of this that they send their kids to private (on vouchers no less) or homeschool.
I am not out of it at all, nor is this a fantasy. It’s an ideal in the sense of a target to aim at instead of engaging in passive-agreesive behavior. Your first two points reflect the very point I am making: local assessment is key, period. Alas, if people are desperate and thoughtless, they will make unwise choices. I am writing to help sane and pro-active people make thoughtful choices – with excellent leadership providing the motivation and cover for it. If, on the other hand, people are timid and sheep-like, then nothing will change, for sure. I think you overstate the problem, however. I see the same behaviors in NJ that you describe but I also see great initiative and pro-active gaining of control of local curriculum and assessment to meet the challenge. If what you describe is universal then school leadership simply fails to exist at all.
Thank you Grant. I appreciate your efforts to establish a goal for us to strive towards. I do believe this is helpful. However, I want to share the reality of the situation. I am not mentioning some of the amazing things taking place at school. There are many. But we are in quite a mess here in FL right now. I am not overstating the issues we face this upcoming school year. It is the reality. The reason to share this on this forum? So we can see some of the things that go wrong when politics gets in the mix and what not to do.
Agreed. The current politics in many places are utterly unhelpful and inducing a timid compliance mentality. But that therefore calls for genuine leaders to step up, as a group, and say: ENOUGH! These policies are harmful and rich with dreadful unintended consequences. Where are the Superintendents and Asst. Superintendents? In TX and NY they stood up and got changes.
Good question about the superintendents. From what I can see, many feel their “hands are tied” and they are doing the best they can with little funding. We need to pressure them more to work on change. Everyone is battle weary at this point. Hopefully, after this crazy test year, we will find enough “fight” to push through.
Reblogged this on principalaim and commented:
Assessment, grading, and the question of rigor: subjects to be explored as we plan for the start of the school year, during the course of the year, and again at the end of the school year. If you are looking for ways to continue the conversation, check out Grant Wiggins latest blog post. tlb
I have been a high school educator for 16 years now and every year I struggle with grading. How do I weight this assignment? How many points should that be worth? Should I give extra credit? Should the student get points for ‘effort’? And many others….
I have constantly molded my grading philosophy and it really took shape when I started reading Dr. Marzano and Mr. Wiggins. IMHO, standards based grading is what is needed in our schools today.
Let me elaborate a little by asking a question first: what is the main purpose of high schools in America? Yes we have to be a place that teaches social norms and how to behave in society, but the main purpose is flat out academic education. Period. The best way to assess a students knowledge attained is by evaluating it using the academic content standards. We need to do this and all teachers need to use a valid rubric.
I agree with Mr. Wiggins and we must include rigor in our classrooms. If you ask my students many will say I do so, but they will also tell you about the students who get “swooped and saved” when they go “cry” to their counselors saying that I am too tough or I am mean. And let us not even get into the parent and counselor emails and phone calls I have to deal with…..
I believe we need to realize that it is OK for a student to fail. It is not the end of the world. It is a grand learning experience. Engineers don’t have “success analysis” meetings, they have “failure analysis” meetings to learn what to do to be successful! Student failure only becomes a “bad thing” when we as educators do not provide the student with every possibility and opportunity to be successful.
I would also like to add that our current grading system is completely arbitrary. Mr. Wiggins even unknowingly (or knowingly) shows an example of this in his post when he discusses how a score of 1 is a B- in one semester but you have to get a 3 in the next semester to get a B-. Why is a 1 a B-? Why not an A-, or D, or C+ or an F? Completely and totally arbitrary.
IMHO, we need to report 2 grades for students; An academic grade and an “everything else” grade. The academic grade (which is the one that counts) is standards based and uses rubrics to evaluate students. The “everything else” grade is where we can report such things as attendance, effort and turning things in on time.
It was knowingly. (I have written on this many times over the decades). As for 2 grades – totally agree: quality of achievement AND work ethic at the minimum. I disagree, however, about student being given low grades in the name of rigor. You are penalizing those kids in this world by doing so since grade inflation is the norm, colleges compare GPAs’s, and no single teacher should fight it out of fairness to kids. If a B+ is the normal grade, then let it be the normal grade. (In grad school anything less than an A- is considered bad). My whole point is that grades are norm-referenced by tradition and community expectations. It makes no sense to fail all the kids in a weak class or school simply because their work is not up to par, any more than we would fail all milers whose times are over 5 minutes. That’s not what a letter grade means in this society, which is why I proposed what I did.
Grant, weI would love your feedback on our Next Generation Curriculum model, where students are constructing, implementing, and assessing their own standards-based transdisciplinary units. We are using the DBQ portion of AP with 8th graders to benchmark growth in their argument construction and writing. There is a presentation about our model on the July 1 blog at http://nextgenerationcurriculum.weebly.com My twitter is @mbcunat @wildwoodIB. FYI Wildwood is a small public school in Chicago. I’ve been following your work for decades but this is the first time I had the courage to try to connect with you. You are my pedagogical hero.
Well, how cool is THIS? I’ll check it out this weekend and give you my feedback. But I like it already just from what you have said!!
Mary Beth: Just watched the video – How exciting! And how well articulated and presented by whomever is speaking. It’s clear from your thoughtful responses to the questions from skeptics that you have done your homework. making the students understand the standards enough to say which ones they wish to be assessed against is a nice move, too. Sign me up to be a mentor! I have a few thoughts on moving forward to avoid common problems in such initiatives as well as some specific feedback to the video. Happy to chat, either by email or phone.
Wow. I just freaked my family out with my excitement over this very encouraging feedback. I’d like to bring Aubrey in on our exchange as she is the brain behind and presenter of the model on the video. Thank you so much. This means a lot to us. Please let me know via email your availability for a call. Wow, wow, wow.
As long as school systems bombard teachers with conflicting mandates, rigor will not be attained. Follow the textbook, don’t allow anyone to fail, finish this section by the date of the common assessments, slow down and dig deep so students can understand, your students must show growth on state testing using regurgitated knowledge and must demonstrate depth of understanding for the Common Core assessments too.
Teachers (and students) will continue to struggle until expectations for genuine learning and autonomy are handed back to them. Experimentation and muddling through is unacceptable in school systems I’ve been in. Even UbD became a mandate with precise time constraints.Educational research has been very exciting for a very long time. I have yet to be supported with it (even when cited with evidence) because it didn’t meet other mandates. There is no allowable learning curve for teachers. Instead they are handed ill-equipped scripts that don’t meet the very criteria that created the criticism. It’s an endless spiral.
Well, this is depressing. It’s part of a really bad vicious circle of fear and timidity leading to abnormally mindless recommendations. We see and hear of it more and more. The only antidote? leadership. Good leaders, almost by definition, set a sensible course and protect staff from crazy political and bureaucratic waves buffeting the school. That’s why I cannot go for these reforms that merely want to empower teachers more. I have not ever see, in 35 years of doing this work, a great school that had no leadership. And that’s why it is a cornerstone of the Ron Edmunds work, the Larry lezotte work, and the work of Schlecty, Kim Marshall, and Marzano more recently.
“to significantly raise local standards of performance seems to mean we have to lower student grades”
This implies a cause and effect that simply doesn’t exist in a *meaningful* sense. That is, I’m sure research shows that high rigor increases performance “significantly” (in the statistical sense) and thus we will get higher performance if we make our classes more rigorous.
But we won’t. Some people believe that the kids in question could master the material if they just tried harder, but they’re wrong. They just don’t understand the cognitive demands of higher math and literature.
It’s not about the kids’ egos so much as it is the knowledge that keeping kids in school is better than what they’ll do if they constantly get failing grades. Which is why schools, districts, and ultimately states flinch from applying rigor.
And of course, like all questions in American education, the concerns come down to race. We don’t track by ability, which would allow us to more carefully demand rigor at a reasonable level for all kids to achieve, because the ability groupings would not be racially balanced. And we flinch from just failing everyone who can’t manage the work for the same reason.
I’m for tracking, but I won’t fail kids who are stuck in classes they didn’t choose and don’t want, regardless of race, if I can convince them to try and at least improve their understanding. I won’t give them an A. But I won’t fail them. And so long as I don’t fail them, they will be sent on to the next class, where the teacher is handed the same dilemma.
Just as some people are not good at jumping, and will never be good at jumping no matter how much they practice, the same goes for any academic subject.
Why does no one want to accept variation in children? So a child is not that interested in a subject and not that good at it. So be it. Why is he or she subject to constantly “rising expectations”?
If a child is poor and uninterested in Little League baseball, at least he or she can quit. The unrealistic assumption of schools (and testing) is that all students will somehow be above average.
Your first sentence is simply not how any educator should ever think, in my opinion. It is that very attitude that makes schools far less successful than they might be, as all transformative teachers show us. C’mon, Matt: all of us have been completely turned around at some point in our educational careers – in the face of others giving up on us. (And what does a 10-year-old know about what’s in their true interest anyway?)
Thus the second sentence does not logically follow from the first. Variation is a fact. Predicting someone’s future is unwise and rarely a good trait in a teacher.
I think that reducing the word “rigor” (as applied to assessments) to a synonym of euphemism for “difficult(y)” is unnecessary. In fact, I think it does everyone a disservice. Not only do we already have a word for “difficult(y),” but the problem you (Wiggins) is addressing can be framed more productively.
The problem is really one of **alignment**. The main issue with our traditional standardized tests is not their difficulty level, but rather is with their assignment with content standards and instruction. Put more simply, they don’t actually test what we want students to learn or what teachers (and schools) teach.
The knowledge, skills and abilities that are most important to learn (and teach) are quite difficult to assess. Writing, problem solving, argument, integration of ideas, and countless other critical lessons are notoriously difficult to assess. As a result, our standardized tests have assessed simpler skills, often skills barely related to the actual goals in our content standards. I would suggest that classroom assessment also has had issues with alignment to curricular goals and to instruction.
Thus, we can define “rigor” quite differently. That is, we can recognize that a rigorous test is one that is well aligned with standards, curricular and/or instructional goals.
If we do this, misalignment of difficulty level — by which we probably really mean proficiency level — becomes just one source of low rigor. We would also have a framework for acknowledging that moving the passing bar does *not* make a test more rigorous. We would be able to say that a low passing rate is not necessarily a mark of rigor — something often to be desired. Instead, a very difficult test with a low pass rate might simply be the product of arbitrary setting the passing bar.
I urge all to stop equating rigor with difficulty. I think it misstates the problem and lets those who design and produce assessments off the hook far too easily.
One element that I appreciate here is the distinction between rigor in standards and the need for that to directly translate into letter grades. As many of the respondents have noted, there are various factors at play in grading: attendance, work ethic, organization, as well as competency on the standards. By beginning to tease apart the understanding of what is “graded” and what traditional grades mean and are used for and what our expectations are for student performance in relation to rigorous standards, there can begin to be a dialogue about how to craft expectations for learning that are more meaningful expressions of where a student is performing in relation to standards than traditional grades are.
The range of grades does not say much about whether or not the course is rigorous.
What I think is somewhat missing from this discussion is an acknowledgement that true rigor in the classroom dwells in the teacher’s expectations for the students. What is the outcome that the teacher expects to get? How is this (hopefully) high-level thinking going to be practiced and taught? What will it look like when demonstrated?
You discuss:
“The difficulty of the task or questions
The difficulty of the criteria, as established by rubrics
The level of achievement expected, as set by ‘anchors’ or cut scores.”
However, just saying that now kids are going to be able to do “x” at this point does not make it so. I think that a lot of the frustration that educators are experiencing has to do with a lack of buy-in with the assessments that are being used to evaluate their work. I wonder what you would propose to help engage them in this change. Defining local standards as too low does not seem to be enough. If the teachers themselves are not buying in to the level of complexity and if what happens in the classroom day-to-day is not clearly headed in the direction of true rigor (such as outlined on the charts for ELA and Mathematics), then there will be gaps.
I recognize that it is an ideal that is being described, but I wonder about how it translates into something that can empower and engage the very people who need to personally hold the high expectations rather than discourage.