“I don’t know how to do this,” Jenny whined. “Will you help me?”
Jenny was an eighth grader who had dealt with major health issues throughout middle school. She had a medical condition that led to frequent monitoring, some medical procedures, and lots of missed school. This resulted in lots of gaps in her knowledge and skills. By eighth grade, she needed lots of support to meet grade-level expectations.
Jenny’s situation was one that caused me to reflect on my practices as an educator. Of course I wanted to provide whatever support she needed, but I also felt compelled to nudge her toward increased independence while communicating her actual performance level as honestly as possible. Jenny did not have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that allowed for accommodations, because her skill deficits were most likely the result of chronic absence as opposed to a cognitive disability. If I continued to provide support without any documentation, it would appear that Jenny was fully capable, when the fact was she needed help. Was that a practice that would serve to support Jenny in the long run? How could I help Jenny take charge of her own needs as a learner and give her a clear path to increased independence?
I began to question my grading practices. How could my grades better reflect each student’s true performance level without squelching their motivation? What do I want grades to communicate to students?
My goal is for my students to meet grade-level expectations independently by the end of the school year. I had always operated within the mindset that this goal meant students might be partially meeting expectations or even performing a grade level behind at earlier points in the school year. However, when thinking about Jenny, it occurred to me that one pathway to reaching independent proficiency is dependent proficiency. Why not build a rubric around this pathway instead?
A typical unit assessment consists of a performance-based task where students write in response to a text. One unit assessment requires students to read the short story “The Monkey’s Paw” by W. W. Jacobs and complete an assessment task:
Task Choices (select one):
OPTION ONE
The author uses the literary technique of foreshadowing to build suspense and propel the action of the story. Identify three examples and provide analysis of how each example contributes to the overall story.
OPTION TWO
Select a character (Herbert, Mr. White, or Mrs. White) to analyze. Describe his/her journey throughout the story. Consider the conflicts the character faces, what events impact the character most, and whether or not the character changes.
I thought about what this assessment might look like if I redesigned the proficiency scale to incorporate levels of support as opposed to levels of accuracy or depth. My past rubric had been designed as a continuum of sophistication and included expectations like this one:
Beginning (60–69 points) |
Approaching (70–79 points) |
Proficient (80–89 points) |
Excelling (90–100 points) |
I attempted to state a claim about what happens or is said in the text. |
I stated a claim about what happens or is said in the text. |
I stated an accurate claim about what happens or is said in the text. |
I stated a sophisticated claim about what happens or is said in the text. |
This new rubric would have to be based on a continuum of needs instead.
I considered students like Jenny and the types of support from which they benefited. I decided a menu of support options would make the most sense, because one support does not fit all students. I wanted to offer the option to read and discuss text with a teacher, with peers, or with a teacher-led group. I also included things like teacher-created graphic organizers, prompts, and outlines. I deliberately chose supports that are different from those provided for students with IEPs, because I see accommodations based on an IEP as being a sort of ladder or step stool outside the rubric to help students reach a level of the rubric. I believe support provided for students with special needs should not affect a final performance level, as I am suggesting should be the case with this rubric.
It made the most sense to let students determine the level of support needed. So, before taking the assessment, students would be asked to select a task level that matched their needs at the time:
Beyond Excelling 100 points |
I am able to successfully complete one of the assessment tasks independently, without support. My essay demonstrates a sophisticated command of both writing and reading standards. |
Excelling 90–99 points |
I am able to successfully complete one of the assessment tasks independently, without support. |
Proficient 80–89 points |
I am able to successfully complete one of the assessment tasks with one of the following supports:
|
Approaching 70–79 points |
I am able to successfully complete one of the assessment tasks with two or more of the following supports:
|
Beginning 59 points |
I am not quite ready for this assessment yet. I need more practice with these standards. |
Next, I considered our school’s retake policy. If students receive a C or lower on an assessment, they are allowed to retake the assessment after participating in a reteaching process. It seemed to me that I needed a process for determining whether students were successful with the level of support they chose to determine if they should be offered a retake with additional support. So, I created a success checklist. Students whose checks fall mostly in the two right-hand columns will pass the test. Students whose checks fall mostly in the two left-hand columns would be eligible for a retake.
Success Criteria |
Not at All Met |
Partially Met |
Mostly Met |
Completely Met |
Response reflects accurate comprehension of text. |
|
|
|
|
Response addresses the prompt. |
|
|
|
|
Conventions are used in a way that supports meaning (and does not interfere with meaning). |
|
|
|
|
As I shifted my mindset, I became more and more confident in my ability as a teacher to help all students meet grade-level standards with varying levels of support. I thought about how I could use the results of each assessment as a tool to help me nudge students along the pathway to independent proficiency and even independent excellence.
I thought about Jenny. With this assessment, Jenny could not only get the support she needed, but also gain the benefit of honest, accurate communication of her performance level in a manner that allowed her to maintain her dignity while giving her clear steps for working toward the next level of independence as a student.
Now, before an assessment even begins, Jenny is invited to select and communicate the level of support she will need. Yes, Jenny, I will help you . . . by giving you the tools to help yourself.
Download