1. Differentiated Tiered Grading (DTG)
Bloom’s Taxonomy-Based, Criterion-Referenced Grading Schema

2. grades vs. rigor

5. Bloom’s Taxonomy Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application
Comprehension
Knowledge

6. Observations
It is Not Reasonable to Expect All Students to Acquire Evaluation/Creation Mastery in All Subjects
Current Grading Schemas Are Not Calibrated
Percentage Scores (i.e., A=90%, B=80%, etc.) are Arbitrary
Bell Curves Can Portray Excellence as Failure or Mask Incompetence as Success

7. Grading vs. Assessment
Assessment - the evaluation process of knowledge retention using tools such as observation, tests, portfolios, etc.
Grading - the process by which those assessments are quantified and reported.

8. Rubrics Linear Scale Useful for Formative Assessment
Rarely Justify the Point Differentiation

9. “When we consider the practically universal use in all educational institutions of a system of marks, whether numbers or letters, to indicate scholastic attainment of the pupils or students in these institutions, and when we remember how very great the stress is laid by teachers and pupils alike upon these marks as real measures or indicators of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system. School administrators have been using with confidence an absolutely uncalibrated instrument. …Variability in the marks given for the same subject and to the same pupils by different instructors is so great as frequently to work real injustice to students.” - I.E. Finkelstein (1913)

10. History of GrADING
Kevin E. Baker

11. Why did grading become necessary?
Increasing numbers of students
Social Inequity
Lack of a universal standard to compare systems

12. When did our system begin?

13. 1785: Yale
President Stile’s diary contained a footnote commenting that 58 students were present for an examination and were graded as follows:
20 Optimi (good)
16 Second Optimi
12 Inferiores (below, beneath, underneath, lower)
10 Pejores (to render worse )

14. 1813: Yale
Yale develops a record of examinations to be kept by the senior tutor of the class
A 4-point grading scale is developed

15. 1877: Harvard A 6 division system was developed
Division 1 – 90 or more on a scale of 100
Division 2 – 89 to 75
Division 3 – 74 to 60
Division 4 – 59 to 50
Division 5 – 49 to 40
Division 6 – below 40

16. 1883: Harvard
A reference in the archives of a student receiving a grade of B
First use of a letter grade

17. 1884: Harvard
According to the Annual Report of the President of Harvard, the percentage scale was retired and to be replaced with a five-group system.

18. 1886: Harvard The 5-class system is implemented Class I – 90%
Class II – 80%
Class III - 70%
Class IV – 60% (Passing without distinction)
Class IV – 59% (Failing)

19. 1895: Harvard Three-class system replaces the old five-class system
Passed with Distinction
Passed
Failed

20. 1897: Michigan Develops a five-mark system Passed Incomplete
Conditioned
Not Passed
Absent

21. 1897: Mount Holyoke Develops the first formal letter grade system
A – Excellent – 100 to 95%
B – Good – 94 to 85%
C – Fair – 76 to 84%
D – Passed – 75%
E – Failed – Below 75%

22. 1898: Mount Holyoke Changes the grading scale from the previous year
A – 95 to 100
B – 90 to 94
C – 85 to 89
D – 80 to 84
E – 75 to 79
F – Failed

23. Advantages of the Letter System
Translates between school systems
“Understood” by general public

24. Disadvantages of the Letter System
Decreased rigor falsely translates as success for some students
Extreme rigor falsely translates as failure for some students
Uncalibrated Tool
Assessment is sometimes arbitrary
Assessment is not easily duplicated

25. The DTG Method

27. Differentiating Bloom’s Taxonomy

28. Differentiating Bloom’s Taxonomy (Revised)

29. Class I Knowledge, Comprehension & Application
Vocabulary, Matching, Single-Standard Problems
Expectation for “Average” HS Graduate
Entry-Level Job
100% Success at this Level Equates to Mid-Range “C” or Equivalent Point of Central Tendency
PCSD (75% = C)

30. Class II Analysis & Synthesis
“Word Problems” (Math), 2 or More Standards
Above “Average” Performance
100% Success at Class I & II Equates to a Maximum “B” or Equivalent
PCSD (75% + 14% = 89% = maximum B)

31. Class III
Evaluation
Evaluate a Completed Problem & Describe Why it is Correct or Incorrect
Excellent Performance
Must be Consistently Competent at Class I & II Levels and Delve into Class III to Earn an “A” or Equivalent
PCSD (75% + 14% + at least 1% = 90% = A)

32. Analysis

33. Quantitative Analysis
Method was Significant (.000)
Variance was Significant (.000)
Gender was Insignificant
Minority Status was Insignificant
Home Language was Insignificant

34. Qualitative Analysis Easy to Use?
Yes…If you are familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomy
Vary rigor w/o artificially changing grades? Yes

35. Case Study – “Maria” ELL (Level 1) Historically Poor-Mediocre in Math
Would Have Failed 1st Semester in a Traditional Model
Earned a “C” Overall
Passed a High-Stakes Exam with a 33% Pass Rate

36. Benefits to PCSD

37. Allows teachers to adjust rigor without artificially inflating or decreasing grades.
Provides meaningful grades
Puts the liability for grades back on the student (where it belongs)
Easily Implemented
Adaptable to any teaching method

38. Questions?