In the fall of 1992, the staff at Clyde Miller Elementary in Aurora, Colorado, decided it was time for an improved report card. The current reporting system no longer reflected our more comprehensive approaches to instruction and assessment.
Over the last few years, we have worked diligently to realize a performance-based approach. We've also achieved a strong focus on basic skills by developing rigorous districtwide Content Outcomes. All instruction at our school now emphasizes lifelong learning through five District Learner Outcomes (for example, Self-Directed Learner, Community Contributor, and Complex Thinker). In addition, we use a buildingwide set of rubrics to rate student progress on authentic tasks and assessments. There was just one glitch. Our instructional practice and the reporting system no longer matched.
Start with a Need
It didn't take a rocket scientist to notice the discrepancy. Teachers used the following rubrics to score all student work:N = No Attempt,1 = Getting Started,2 = Making Progress,3 = Meets Standards, and4 = Exceeds Standards.Then, for the district report card, teachers had to translate all these scores into some other system: –, ✓, or + for kindergarten; Outstanding, Progressing, and Needs Improvement for grades 1 and 2; and letter grades for grades 3 to 5. It was both confusing and inconsistent. Although Learner Outcomes and Thinking Skills were integrated into all instruction, the current report card had no place to report student progress on either of them. We were teaching content with greater rigor and depth than ever before, but there was no place to report on the details of the instruction that led to the overall subject score.
We met together as a staff to study the problem and conferred with Bob Marzano of McREL, who had worked with us the previous year in launching our authentic assessments. We also involved parents in our deliberations. It was worth taking the time to think it through. By the time we had examined our needs, we were crystal clear about how to correct the flaws of the current report card. We even prepared a prototype for our meeting with district officials. Our preparation paid off when we got the green light to pilot a new performance-based report card.
Communication Is Everything
Even after developing what we believed to be an excellent product, we knew we would have to sell it to our most important patrons: our students and parents. For students, it was a relief to have the same scoring system on the report card that they used with their performances and products daily. We wanted to promote the same level of understanding and enthusiasm with their parents.
We unveiled the new report card at a special PTA meeting. Parents who had helped to develop the new card explained it to the rest of the parents. Staff members were on hand to provide clarifications, and students as young as 1st graders filled in the details.
- a brochure that clarified the differences between the old and new cards; and
- a detailed survey designed to solicit parents' opinions and questions (we had trained students as ambassadors to explain the new report cards to their parents).
An amazing 65 percent of our parents found the new report card to be as useful or better than the previous one. As one parent put it, “The rubrics tell us more about the effort our son is putting into his work than we knew from looking at a single test score.” We were very pleased with the survey response. We still felt, however, that we had more public relations work to do, to help the remaining 35 percent see the benefits of the new card.
For the second draft, we again trained students to explain their report cards. Instead of sending the reports home with students, however, we scheduled individual parent conferences, where teachers, often in conjunction with students, explained the report cards. In this way, teachers were able to convey their personal enthusiasm for the new card and answer on the spot any questions parents might have.
Compromise, Revise, Computerize!
The majority of parents liked receiving more detailed information about how their child was progressing and appreciated getting feedback on Learner Outcomes and Thinking Skills. The language on the card was too technical, however, and they had some difficulty making the transition from letter grades to rubrics.
After modifying the report card according to parent, student, and staff suggestions, we had a product that was very user-friendly. Unfortunately, the two-page report card was time-consuming and cumbersome for teachers to complete. That was when we remembered the miracle of technology—and set up the report card on a spreadsheet. Our report card program now automatically calculates averages and comes up with total scores for each Content Outcome. Figure 1 shows standards for 3 of the 12 Content Outcomes; Figure 2 displays 2 of the 5 Learner Outcomes. Both sections are excerpted from our report card.
Figure 1. Sample Standards for Three of Twelve Content Outcomes
Aurora Public School * Clyde Miller Elementary * Student Progress Report
Student Name _______________ Student Number __________
Year _94/95 __ Quarter _____ Track _____
Teacher _______________ Grade _____
Talking With Parents About Performance-Based Report Cards-table
CONTENT OUTCOMES | Quarter I | II | III | IV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Science Literacy | ||||
| Knows How Systems Work | ||||
| Creates Models | ||||
| Interprets Patterns | ||||
| Uses the Scientific Method | ||||
| Arts and Humanities—Literature | ||||
| Evaluates Literature | ||||
| Uses Information from Literature | ||||
| Mathematics Proficiency | ||||
| Solves Problems* | ||||
| Uses Mathematical Language | ||||
| Uses Number Sense | ||||
| Recognizes and Creates Patterns | ||||
| Develops Concepts of Geometry | ||||
| Uses Probability and Statistics |
* = a proficiency that is scored every quarter
Figure 2. Sample Standards for Two of Five Learner Outcomes
Student Name _________________________
Talking With Parents About Performance-Based Report Cards-table2
LERNER OUTCOMES | Quarter I | II | III | IV |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaborative Worker | ||||
| Takes Charge of His/Her Behavior in Group | ||||
| Works with Group to Reach Goal | ||||
| Communicates Well with Others | ||||
| Shows Respect for Others | ||||
| Quality Producer | ||||
| Makes a Product that Meets a Purpose | ||||
| Makes a Product for an Audience | ||||
| Makes a Product that is Well Done | ||||
| Uses Resources/Technology |
Once we learned to avoid traffic jams by staggering the times that teachers entered their scores on the computers in our Technology Learning Center—and once a few teachers learned the hard way about the importance of a backup disk—we were off and running with our computerized report card. Ultimately, as we network the whole building, the specialists in music, physical education, and art will be able to enter scores for each student from their own work stations. Then, administrators can pull up a selected report card on their computers for reference when counseling a parent on the phone.
One, Two, Three—How Do You Get the Four?
- What is assessed when ? This is where we really learned the importance of long-range planning. Only a few proficiencies are scored every quarter (denoted with apple symbols on the report card). The rest are addressed throughout the year, often in a spiraling fashion, and only scored once, at a culminating time of year for that proficiency.
- How are the scores determined ? All scores are based on student performance compared with 38 established proficiencies. For some areas, such as weekly spelling work, the same standards are used each time. For other areas, teachers develop a unique set of standards for the particular task or set of tasks, as in an authentic assessment.Periodically throughout the school year, we offer training in authentic assessment for any interested parents and community members. Doing so provides us with a pool of raters for teachers to call on. For each authentic assessment, a teacher and two other raters evaluate student projects (for example, a lunch box alarm using electrical circuits). Teachers sometimes call on a peer or an administrator to be a rater. Other times, they may ask a trained parent or community member to come to their classrooms to fill out a rating form. The crew at Fire Station #5; employees from our business partner, SuperValu Grocery Warehouse; and staff at Aurora Community College are all valued raters at our school. Students sometimes do self-evaluations. Each rater uses the rubrics to evaluate the authentic project in three areas—Learner Outcomes, Content Outcomes, and Thinking Skills—and then computes an average. In this way, a teacher has two other assessments to consider in determining a final grade—but the teacher has the final call.Teachers arrive at proficiency scores by aggregating numerous ratings from their grade books, including daily work, authentic assessment, homework, and tests. To determine the overall Content Outcome scores for the report card, they average the proficiency scores.
- How do you manage the recordkeeping ? Teachers keep loose-leaf grade books in three-ring binders, with a separate page for each proficiency; for example, “The student reads to acquire and use information from a variety of sources.” For this standard, teachers might include data in a number of areas, including the student's progress in reading a novel or information gathered from CD-ROM and integrated into a research report. Because teachers specify the individual learning strategies and assessment tools used in their classrooms on the proficiency pages, we can be very accountable about how scores are derived, yet very flexible about the route to arriving at them.
- Which students get on the Effort Honor Roll ? This is a significant issue in our community. By limiting the Effort Honor Roll to those students who have received all 3 s and 4 s on their Learner Outcomes, we are able to point out specific behaviors to parents who have questions. Our three specialists provide feedback about each child's effort to classroom teachers so that they can consider input from all content areas in determining a student's Effort Honor Roll status.
“Going for the 4 ”
Piloting a new report card is not for the fainthearted, nor is it a one-shot undertaking. It's healthy to expect revisions down the line, because you aren't as smart now as you are going to be later. Teamwork, communication (preferably of the face-to-face variety), and shared decision making are vital.
The payoffs? As one student commented, “Me and my mom like the way there are no surprises!” Students know expectations in advance and can direct their studies to meet the requirements. They know the steps necessary to earn the rubric scores on their report cards. Rubric scores give an encouraging message about how much children have accomplished so far, rather than what's wrong with their performance.
In addition, students have the opportunity to go beyond what has traditionally been considered A work by “going for the 4,” which means exceeding the established standards. Many parents report that this is the first time their children have really been challenged during their public school career. Students also play a much more active role in parent/teacher conferences because they know how to explain to their parents the standards for the various rubrics. “Once my child explained to me how he got a 1,” remarked one parent, “I certainly couldn't argue with the teacher.”
Best of all, our reporting system now matches our school's instructional program and assessment plan. In our book, that's a rubric 4 !
