My mom is a first grade teacher and for the last couple of weeks she has come home from Standard Reference Grading (SRG) meetings frustrated beyond belief. In the elementary schools, teachers are beginning to be required to create “bodies of evidence,” or assignments, for students over each standard in the subject they are teaching, assign them a level of comprehension, and present this to parents during conferences so they are aware of the work their student is doing for each standard. Though there are some benefits, teachers only have so much time and adding all of this on is a large “ask” for them, which is where my mom’s frustration seems to be coming from. I know not all teachers feel this way about this system of learning and that it can change based on developmental level so I discussed it with Ms. Noltie a bit to get an understanding of what its like in upper level learning. Ms. Noltie explained that at Gentry they are doing a “soft, soft trial,” meaning that the only things that have really changed are that there is no extra credit opportunities for middle school students anymore, however they are able to revise their work at any time and correct mistakes, which I was surprised was extremely different than what I had imagined it would be. All in all, I had been hearing a lot about this so I wanted to do some research on the advantages and disadvantages of this style of learning and also see why the change was so great between upper level learning and lower level learning.
What is an SRG?:
Standard Reference Grading is a different way of grading that changes the normal Competency Based Grading into a more comprehensive understanding of student learning. SRG’s are more assignment based and less assessment based, and require teachers to assign a 1, 2, 3, or 4 to assignment to demonstrate the difficulty of the assignment and understanding of the student, rather than the traditional A, B, C, D and F scale. Instead of small assignments counting towards the student, the student is not assessed on those, but only their big things such as tests, quizzes, and projects.
Disadvantages:
One thing that I noticed without even looking at the article, but that was backed up by it was that this system is a huge thing to expect of teachers on top of their other time they need for lesson planning and classroom management. I think the hardest part of this type of grading system for teachers is they are required to assign each “body of evidence” that they make a certain level of comprehension, which is essentially time teachers don’t have and won’t be adequately able to fulfill. Another disadvantage in secondary school is that not everything a child does counts for a grade, so many kids don’t see a need to do it if they are not going to get a grade for it. At Rock Bridge I see it all the time is classes like Honors Chemistry or many AP classes, where students are expected to do supplemental material that helps understanding on the test, yet they fail to do this and don’t do well on their test. They are essentially failing because they were not held accountable, which is a big change for most students compared to the average grading (Competency-Based). This also moves into the next point that this is a very new idea for many students currently in the public school system. It is a big change in teaching accountability and responsibility and students are not seeming to understand that, causing more stress and reduction in grades. Lastly, one thing that I thought about that was not in the article was if the students get endless revisions on assignments, yes that helps them practice and hone their skills, but for many it is teaching a lesson that this will always be something you are able to do in life. For instance, in college it is a one and done kind of deal, and students will not have the opportunity to keep revising their work, as in most jobs. These opportunities are not always something students should be able to count on.
Advantages:
I think that this type of grading absolutely has the ability to help teachers see what students are really learning and what they need to work on. This type of program is about mastery and discipline in order to get students where they need to be with their learning. This type of learning is trying to ensure that students have a mastery of a certain skill and try to be sure no student is left behind on a big concept. It helps their instructor adequately be able to tell what the student knows or can do in their learning. In addition, parts of the SRG teach students just how they should be doing things and practicing skills as they get older. Since students are responsible for practicing their skills on their own time, or without anything counting towards what they have done, they are being taught the way you would be in college or how you would do your job. It helps students be accountable for work that they are doing and hold themselves to a standard in order to make sure they do well on big projects and concepts. It also helps teachers plan lessons accordingly to what students may need help on before one of these big assessments.
Differences in Age:
So when I get older I am hoping to teach agriculture, and my backup plan if that does not happen is elementary school, so I have two perspectives on SRGs. I think that if I were an agriculture such as my advisors in the career center, trying to teach a vocational topic and prepare my students for career readiness, this would be a really good fit for this teaching. This method of teaching models much more what life after high school will look like and how responsibility and accountability play into life. I also think it could be a really cool way to morph the class into what an actual career in agriculture may look like because maybe they get small assignments in their trade along the way but they are essentially responsible for the end project or proposal, as they would be in their jobs. However, if I ended up teaching elementary school, I think I would feel very similarly to how she feels about SRG’s. I think teachers that are working on so many subjects and lesson plans at once don’t need more to put on their plate. In elementary school you as a teacher are responsible for student engagement and memory of the concepts by making memorable and comprehensive lesson plans, and they would be much harder to plan and most likely less memorable, if half that time instead of planning interesting material, you were scoring you assessments on an SRG scale. I also think parents are not feeling the need to see so much work presented to them during conferences either. Lastly, I believe elementary school teachers already know their students are highly aware of where they are at in levels of understanding so why are we making them spend more time doing work on things they already know simply because it is at the discretion of the school district? I think SRG’s have the potential to be great but we have to look at all the possibilities and what we truly need from teachers and students before we ask so much from both parties.
Article:
Teaching Portfolio 