Lazy Students? Proficiency Based Grading and the Common Core Will Only Make it Worse.

This one isn't going to make me any friends.

Most of you know I'm a teacher, and one of the current whims in my profession is the idea of proficiency based grading (PBG). This revolutionary idea, is based on the idea that every subject has certain "cores" or "standards" that are essential for each student to know by the end of that semester. The teacher's job is to design a curriculum in which each student is tested by means of "formative" and "summative" methods to get each student to understand these essential core truths.  Think of formative testing as practice (homework, notes, worksheets, etc.) and summative as the application of that practice  (projects, tests, quizzes, presentations). The summative assessments, according to most pedagogy experts, should represent about 90% of their final grade.

This kid didn't listen when I lectured on the
societal grossness of wearing fedoras.  

So big deal, right? Education is always changing its educationalese, why should anyone care about the jargon that goes into my child's education?

Because we teachers (using PBG) are changing the value of work ethic. Many states, districts, and school boards who are jumping on the "common core" bandwagon, are claiming that this type of grading system more closely aligns with standardized testing. If kids show the aptitude to pass classes where the majority of their grade is based on summative assessments, then they will probably do well on standardized tests. Bravo. Your causation skills are correct. We have taught your student to do well on a multiple choice test. Now get ready for all the jobs that require test taking...

Oh wait, are there jobs that take tests regularly?  In my four jobs in the ten years prior to becoming a teacher, I didn't take ONE test. NOT ONE.

I did get my wood-saw certification and forklift license. Both required that I show the ability to properly operate dangerous machinery under careful observation. Maybe that was a form of testing.

However, in real life, I never penciled-in any bubbles on a Scantron sheet. Being smart almost never helped me in the real world. Saying, "Sorry I didn't do the work, it kind of felt belittling to someone of my intelligence," was never a valid excuse to any of my bosses.  Likewise, my suggestions for bettering the workplace were almost never listened to. Corporations don't want smarty-pantses, they want worker bees.

My major beef with PBG is that it places little to no value on formative assessment (in other words, the daily work). My own state of Oregon (via H.B. 2220)  claims that teachers cannot put any value on behavior as part of their final grade. They've determined that behavior includes homework (Oregon has since reversed course on this ruling, although many districts are being pressured to abandon homework as a grade criteria).

Behavior--is throwing a fit in class, or smiling nicely and sucking up. I have dealt with behaviorally challenged kids in the past. It is tempting to grade a student up or down based on their behavior, but in my seven years, I have never once docked a kid grade-wise for being a spoiled brat, being a know-it-all, having attitude, being a bigot, throwing a fit when I assign an essay, etc.  Do those behaviors affect their success?  Of course.  But if they DO THE WORK, I will grade that work unbiasedly.

However, calling homework behavior, is idiocy. Homework is a task. Doing homework (whether it is actually taken home, or done in the classroom, i.e. worksheets) is a skill. The ability to get your "job" done in a normal amount of time, is the responsibility of every student, just like doing your "tasks" at work are part of your job. Ever worked with a person who refused to do his/her fair share of work?  How long did they last?  Weeks; a month?

Exactly. Yet here we are in 2013, and the voices of change are claiming that we aren't meeting kids needs. That these poor kids are bored, stagnated by outdated curriculum and passé methodology. It's exactly this boring curriculum which encourages kids to spend 55 hours a week on television/video games/computer/texting.  What kids need is only essential information presented in a non-biased method (hopefully via technology) that is easily testable to see if the kids know the material. Great. Except what is the "essential" material? And what does non-biased mean?  Does that mean it's sponsored by The Gates Foundation?  Does that mean it's tests written by private corporations clamoring for a piece of that huge pie if education is privatized?

And if a kid can pass these tests, but doesn't do any of the work in class, they still get to move on? Are we just going to reward the genius kids who are incredibly lazy? I would've loved PBG. I always tested well. It was doing the assignments that stopped me from getting a 4.0 GPA. Showing my work on math assignments? Why does it matter if I can get the answer right...

Hey Sully, a nerd invented your duct tape. 

Because eventually I encountered problems I couldn't solve based on my own intelligence. And not being able to work with a formula left me unable to come up with any solutions. When I got to college I actually paid attention to the mathematical steps because I realized I wasn't the greatest thing since bleached bread. A strange thing happened, though...I actually became a good math student. Not just a kid who could test well by plugging in random numbers (especially if the test was multiple choice).

The other side of this argument is that kids who don't test well, those who don't have great analysis skills, etc. will not pass the class. Some of these kids are hard workers, always doing the work on time, always asking questions, always putting effort and creativity into the artistic assignments...these kids aren't going to make it in our new schools. (I'm not even going to bring in the argument of getting Special Education students, kids with learning disabilities, and English Language Learners to meet these expectations--which is NOT going to happen). Only the brightest will survive. I've always believed that there are two major types of good students: The hard working kid who is probably average on the Bell Curve, and the gifted kid who often forgets (or doesn't do) the homework.  It's the old talent vs. work ethic argument. For an example of this, watch Monster's University, which is a perfect analogy to the college sports recruiting scene.

Just Jerry Rice, running the same hill at age 49. 

Most sports fans understand that talent trumps work ethic. But that doesn't explain people like Jerry Rice who wasn't highly recruited, was small, slow, and had average hands. Yet after years of brutal practices, he trained himself into the greatest receiver (and maybe the GOAT) in NFL history.  Analogously speaking, Jerry Rice would've failed a PBG system.

America was built on the principle of hard work. Sure, we glorify innovation, creativity, and ingenuity, but if you don't work, you don't get paid. Yet here we are, in a stagnated economy and an educational crisis (or so they say), and we are teaching our kids that working isn't important. Performing well, is.

These educational gurus must've loved Allen Iverson. He usually played well when it counted. But he also thought that practice didn't make perfect...practice was well:

We're sitting here, and I'm supposed to be the franchise player, and we're talking about practice. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, but we're talking about practice...How in the hell can I make my teammates better by practicing?

Iverson was a good player, but I often wondered if he passed the ball one more time; or ran his set offense instead of lowering his head and driving the lane; or listened to Coach Brown, if the 76ers would have one more title hanging from their rafters.

But Iverson would've been wonderful at "summative assessments."