The Principals Role as a Leader of Change

--
Presented to the Department of Educational Leadership
and Postsecondary Education
University of Northern o!a
--
n Partial "ulfillment
of the Re#uirements for the
$aster of %rts in Education
--
&y
$adison '( Rydstrom
College Community )chool District
Cedar Rapids* %
%pril +,
th
* +-./
--
Dr( Charles $cNulty
Introduction
Prairie Point Middle School and Ninth Grade Academy stands on the precipice of a
change initiative, the change to standards-based grading. In 2010, Prairie Point leader, Nick
Proud, challenged a few of his math teachers to attend a presentation on standards-based grading
given by Matt Townsley, Director of Instruction & Technology in the Solon Community School
District. Mr. Townsley spoke of his time as a secondary math teacher and the changes he had
made in his teaching to better understand what his students were learning and how to assess their
learning. His presentation led to further discussions at Prairie Point and a small group of teachers
in the ninth grade math department to take their first steps toward standards-based grading.
Flash-forward to 2014, according to an informal survey, thirty-five percent of Prairie
Point teachers have implemented standards-based grading into their classrooms. Sixty percent of
those who do not utilize standards-based grading have said they are open to learning more.
Prairie Points leadership teams have decided to guide the staff towards standards-based grading
as a building. In the next year, Prairie Point teachers will learn more about assessment practices,
responses to interventions and reporting levels of student proficiency. An innovation
configuration map (appendix A) has been created to lead the staff through this change initiative.
Rationale for the Study
The work being done by Prairie Points building leadership team and staff will likely
create a more unified and aligned grading system where students will know more about how they
are being assessed and hopefully have a better understanding of their proficiency levels. Our
purpose for the proposed research is to look into the impact of standards-based grading when it
comes to student outcomes, specifically on high-stakes tests. In this proposal we will investigate
whether or not literacy and math teachers that are incorporate various components of standards-
based grading see any affects on student achievement on the Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) test in math and reading.
Guiding Research Question
The central research question guiding this proposed study is: Does standards-based grading have
an impact on the student achievement of seventh, eighth and ninth grade students on the MAP
test at Prairie Point Middle School and 9
th
Grade Academy?
Hypothesis
We believe we will see increased student achievements from those taught by teachers
who have implemented standards-based grading. We believe that simply reporting standards will
not be enough to increase student achievement on its own. However, it must be paired with
effective formative assessment practices that have specific feedback about what students are able
to do and what they need to improve.
Definitions
Standards-based grading: At Prairie Point, standards based grading includes components of
instruction, formative assessment, feedback and summative assessments. At this time, the
building is not actually reporting using standards. For more information, see innovation
configuration map in Appendix A.
Standard: statements for each content area that indicate what students should know and be able
to do
Priority Standard: standards deemed most crucial by content area professional learning
communities (PLCs) at Prairie Point
Learning Target: created by content area professional learning communities (PLCs) by
breaking down standards into student-friendly language.
Proficiency Scale: a document created to more clearly define levels of proficiency for a standard
by: working towards, meeting, or exceeding target.
Traditional Grading: method of grading students based on percentages of correct responses.
This type of grading would also include formative assessments, homework and other projects or
assignments not necessarily linked directly to standards.
Measure of Academic Progress (MAP): a test used by the College Community School district
to measure student growth in math and reading.
Literature Review
The traditional grading system is ingrained in our present society. It was the system used
to assess most current educators, most parents and even most of the grandparents of current
students. Surprisingly though, before the mid-nineteenth century, students were graded on their
knowledge in different content areas and the progress they made in their skills. Grades were
written in narratives or stories and had no letter associated with them. With an increase in public
school numbers the process had to be streamlined and the system we know today was born and
evolved (Hargis, 1990).
Todays that our education system is in the process of changing this long-standing
tradition. The pendulum is shifting, and although it is slow moving, there are many who are
jumping on board with a more reflective and transparent grading system. Marzano, a key player
in the standards-based movement recognizes that letter grades are not going anywhere in the near
future. But, he argues that change is needed as a single letter grade or a percentage score is not a
good way to report student achievement in any subject area because it simply cannot present the
level of detailed feedback necessary for effective learning (Marzano, 2000, p. 106).
Standards-based grading measures students proficiency on the standards as opposed to
scores on homework, projects and test. Focusing on what students should know and be able to do
allows teachers to focus on their priority standards, gather data through formatively assessing
their students and then provide effective feedback on what students specifically need to improve
on. Educator Tony Winger states, a grade that is separated into distinct components on the basis
of key learning becomes meaningful communication to students and parents alike about what
students have and have not mastered (Winger, 2005). Standards-based grading does not only
change the grade books, but also the thinking about how students knowledge is communicated.
Standards-based grading also breaks the mold of averaging scores. Matt Townsley
questions why we, as an education system, are okay with punishing students for not learning as
quickly as their peers. In his presentation to Prairie Point teachers, Mr. Townsley gave the
example of two students who showed proficient scores on a summative test. One student
received an A in the course because he had been proficient on the formative assessment, as
well as, the summative. However, the other student receives a C on her report card because she
had lower scores on the formative assessments. Therefore, both of these students have shown
they know and can do what is required of them. However, the second student receives a lower
score because she could not show it as quickly as her peer. Mr. Townsley argues that what
matters most is that students are learning and the amount of time for that learning to occur should
not be accounted for in the grade book (Townsley, personal communication, April 21, 2010).
Standards-based grading provides a platform for communication between teachers,
students and parents. A breakdown of standards into student-friendly learning targets allows
common language to be used. Furthermore, the creation of priority standards by teacher
professional learning communities (PLCs) creates focused and more directed teaching and
learning. Educators must develop reporting standards that are specific enough to communicate
the knowledge and skills students are expected to acquire but not so detailed that they lose their
utility when shared with parents (Guskey & Bailey, 2010).
With the increased focus on standards in education today, it is important that schools and
teachers find ways to communicate student progress on the standards. The literature supports
standards-based grading as a method that provides teachers, students and parents with a true
indication of ability level.
Method
We have chosen a correlational study by which to measure the impact of standards-based
grading on student achievement. Our independent variable measured will be the level of
implementation a teacher has of standards-based grading, as determined by the innovation
configuration map. The dependent variable measured will be the percentage of students (by
teacher) who meet or exceed their growth target as defined by the MAP test. For example, Mr.
Thompson may have a high level of implementation and a high percentage of students who meet
or exceed their growth target, where Mrs. Anderson may have a lower level of implementation
and a high percentage of students who meet or exceed their growth target. In this study, we plan
to use a convenience sample of all the seventh, eighth and ninth grade reading and math teachers,
along with the students they teach.
Procedures
At the end of the 2013-2014 school year, teachers will be presented with a building vision
and the innovation configuration map about standards-based grading. Throughout the school
year, the building leadership team will work its way through the six components, increasing staff
capacity and providing differentiated learning based on teachers self-reflection of their
practices. In this way, the staff will become more familiar with the innovation configuration
map and the implementation of standards-based grading. At the end of the school year, all staff
will follow a protocol to self-assess and peer-assess their practices based on the map. In groups
of three or four, teachers will first ask each other guiding questions in order to gain insights
about the teachers implementation of standards-based grading. They will each take turns in the
hot seat, with all other teachers asking questions and then recording the teachers level of
implementation from a-e on each component. Finally, after all teachers have assessed each
other, each teacher will then self-assess. The results will be reported to the building leadership
team for compilation.
The building leadership team will then assign a score out of 30 points for all reading
and math teachers, five points for each (a), four points for each (b), and so on and so forth. The
leadership team should enter the scores for each teacher into an excel spreadsheet. Each teacher
should have three to four scores (including their own), and then an average should be calculated.
The team will need to pay close attention for teachers who have high variance in the scores on
the rubric (differences greater than 10 points). Such teachers should be flagged, and marked in a
separate color.
In addition, the percentage of students meeting or exceeding their growth target will be
recorded in another column for each teacher. In this way, we will not necessarily measure the
proficiency of students, but rather if they grew. This data will be available for individual
teachers each year, and so if more information is needed, you could compare percentages to
years past.
Data Analysis
The average score on the innovation configuration map (x) and percentage of students
meeting or exceeding their growth target (y) will then be uploaded and analyzed with statistics
software. We suggest that a scatterplot will be a good way to visualize any whole-building
patterns and a good thing to present to staff. In addition, an r-value can be calculated to
determine the strength of the correlation. An r-value closer to one would indicate that higher
levels of implementation of standards-based grading is related to greater levels of growth on the
measures of academic progress test in math and reading. An r-value closer to negative one
would indicate that higher levels of implementation of standards-based grading is inversely
related to greater levels of growth on the measures of academic progress test in math and
reading. An r-value closer to zero would indicate that the two variables might not relate to each
other at all. In other words, we are hoping for a result of an r-value closer to one, indicating that
the implementation of components of standards-based grading is more likely to result in growth
of student achievement.
Internal Validity
One threat to internal validity to consider is the instruction given by the teachers
in question. Standards-based grading and its components focus on how to assess and give
feedback, but do not specify the type of instruction the students receive. This is something to
consider when looking at the achievement of the students. In other words, the leadership team
must consider the question: can the differences in achievement be accounted for by differences in
instructional practices?
We must also consider the testing conditions for students during the MAP test.
For example, was there a dance or a big basketball game on the day the assessment was given?
This type of distraction can affect the focus and attention, and therefore the scores of students.
One way to account for this might be for the leadership team to be aware of the events occurring
around the time the tests are given. Because we are measuring across math and reading for all
grades in the building, the assessments will be given over a span of about a month. Someone on
the team should be assigned the task of keeping a log of observations on the testing dates. In that
way, we could see if lower scores than usual can be accounted for because of a disruptive testing
environment.
One final consideration must be given to the score teachers receive on the innovation
configuration map. Teachers will first score each other, then score themselves on their
implementation of standards based grading and its components (as defined by the map). We are
hopeful that the dialogue between peers will allow teachers to be honest about their scores.
However, we must also consider that there might be some falsely high scores, in which teachers
scores are higher than their actual implementation. Or, there may be falsely low scores, in which
teachers are harder on themselves or each other than they need to be. Whatever the reason these
false scores occur, it must be taken into consideration. One way to counteract this, would be for
principals or members of the leadership team to bounce around between groups. In this way,
they can ask questions, facilitate dialogue, and hold teachers accountable to staying as true as
possible to the innovation configuration map. In addition, if there are any misconceptions about
the meaning of any words, phrases, or components, leadership can clear those up.
Findings and Implications
If the data on the standards based grading components are positively correlated, the
building leadership team could use that as encouragement that the vision of standards-based
grading is not misguided in its efforts. We are consistently asking in the building, What is best
for kids? Therefore, if the data were negatively correlated, then some serious consideration
would need to be given to whether or not standards-based grading was the right direction in
which to lead staff.
Additionally, regardless of the results, (positive, negative, or no correlation), the building
leadership team could look for other patterns in the data. For example, are there certain
individual components of standards-based grading that are correlated? This could be a useful
extension of the study if time allows. This would allow the leadership team to understand which
components may or may not be related to student achievement. Additionally, it could be
possible that none of the individual components shown are correlated with student achievement.
Then, it would be imperative that the leadership team studies what strategies the teachers with
higher results are implementing that is different from other teachers with lower results.
Lastly, the building leadership team could use the peer- and self-reflections on the
innovation configuration map to guide professional learning for the next year. For example, if
there is a component that has several staff members stuck at a lower level of implementation,
then the leadership team could focus their attention on how to get staff to higher levels.
Conclusion
With the whole building moving towards a more standards-based approach to learning,
assessment, and (possibly) reporting, it is clear that more study is needed in our building to
garner support for its effectiveness. Additionally, the leadership team felt a need to have a tool
that would allow for teachers to know if they were implementing standards-based grading
effectively. In this way, teachers, PLCs, and the building leadership team can assess the results
that standards-based grading may or may not have on student achievement. Oftentimes, teachers
are hesitant to stick their necks out and try something new, unless they can see the benefits for
students. While staff members self-concerns may remain, if the leadership team can report that
standards-based grading has an affect on achievement, it would be an important step to moving
our building forward in this new movement.
Resources
Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Developing standards-based report cards. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Corwin.
Hargis, C. H. (1990). Grades and grading practices: obstacles to improving education and to
helping at-risk students. Springfield, Ill., U.S.A.: C.C. Thomas
Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching a comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Winger, T. (2005). Grading to communicate. Educational Leadership, 63, 61-65.
Appendix A
IC Map