Weapons of Mass Transparency
Curves, semiotics, and report cards
Part 1: Game Over
Last winter, as you might recall, was a rough one. We missed so many days of school that midterms were canceled or voided. The 11th graders had already taken theirs, however, and that led to this post:
That wasn’t the first time a curve of some sort was applied to end-of-quarter GAP scores. Two years ago, during the first full-year run of grade abatement, there was an achievement-based boost built around “experience points,” or XP:
- The Three Pillars | This is the PDF archive of a handout detailing, among other things, what XP-earning work looks like.
- Coining Vocabulary | Scroll down to see an example of what XP and gamification looks like in a unit.
At that time, the organizing principle was gamification, which can used to incentivize any aspect of your life. Read more about it here:
There are apps and websites that make this sort of thing easy to manage, and it seemed like it would balance the intrinsic aspects of grade abatement with a reward-based system. It seemed, in fact, like this might function as the first level of a well-designed video game: Students would learn the rules, risks, and rewards just by playing.
It didn’t work. Gamification overshadowed the profile process, spawning clones of Elif Koc — kids trying to “beat” the new system. I learned that good students, even some students who otherwise embraced grade abatement, could only focus on the final number.
Part 2: Compartmentalizing with a Curve
I’ve tried to grapple with this idea in other places — here is the most recent attempt — and believe more than ever that the report card can be separated from the learning process. The more we compartmentalize the two, the more we can focus on the skills and traits of grade abatement.
To do this, we’re going to use an end-of-quarter curve. It was +5 for Q1, and it will be +3 for all subsequent quarters. The following Q&A explains the why and how of that decision.
If grade abatement is so precise, isn’t a curve unnecessary?
Many students are used to a kind of floating standard in which merely completing work earns a grade in the 90s. Doing “more than just what is required,” as the language of a GAP 8 dictates, usually earns a grade closer to 100 than to 90. Those expectations can be at odds with grade abatement, even for students who understand the precision of the different tiers and the objectivity of the evaluation process.
The hope is that a curve frees us to recognize and acquiesce somewhat to student expectations when it comes to report cards. We can compartmentalize. Students have their profiles, which are representative of the body of work produced in a given quarter; they also have their grades, which are separate from that process.
This is a another example of semiotics — the signs and symbols that communicate meaning. In this case, the numbers that appear on a report card communicate meaning about student progress. So does the number that corresponds to a grade abatement profile. If the latter is the most logical way to evaluate student progress, the former — that report card number — has its own, somewhat contradictory logic.
A curve renders a lot of this discussion moot and lets us focus on the profile itself.
Why was the curve +5 for Q1?
This quarter’s five-point curve is the same as the curve applied for the last two quarters of last year. It also bumps every student up an entire tier, e.g., from an 82 to an 87. In Q1, it was common for students to overrate themselves; as you get used to the requirements of each profile, and as you see more and more examples of students who actually earn those profiles, inflation should decrease.
The extra five points, in the meantime, makes the first profile more palatable. Students who failed to meet even basic requirements, who earned a 4, saw a 72 instead of a 67 on the report card. Both are alarming scores, but the 72 is symbolically much less traumatizing.
On the other end of the spectrum, a student who did all the work but did not show the “systemic investment in the course” required for an 8 earned a GAP 7, or an 87 — but saw a 92 on the report card. While that student adjusts to the profile’s requirements, he doesn’t have to deal with the connotations and implications of a Q1 score in the 80s.
Why will the curve be +3 for the rest of the year?
A three-point curve makes the most practical and symbolic sense. It allows us to compartmentalize learning and grades while maintaining the course’s integrity. How it will work:
- If a student fits the grade abatement profile for a 6, that profile converts to an 82. Add three points to that and the student takes home an 85 on the report card. 85 is a symbol of mastery in New York State (it is the threshold on Regents Exams that indicates mastery, at least), and it feels qualitatively better than an 82.
- If a student fits the grade abatement profile of a 7, the converted 87 is curved to a 90 on his report card. That passes the eye test of being in the 90s, which again feels qualitatively better than a score in the 80s.
- If a student fits the profile of an 8, she takes home a 95. This pushes her past the threshold, at least in our school, for High Honor Roll, which is above a 93. These numerical machinations, however — the extra three points that appear out of the aether — force us to acknowledge two things: that High Honor Roll does matter, but it’s also arbitrary.
- Finally, if a student fits the profile for a 9, she has done extraordinary work. She has learned and learned intrinsically. The number, at this point, is probably far less important to her than the recognition provided by the profile itself — but that number still matters. The three-point curve puts a 100 on the report card.
The same logic applies to scores at the other end of the spectrum. For instance, a student who is imploding like a black hole might earn a GAP 3 and still, through the three-point curve, take home a passing grade of 65.
Why not make the profiles convert to a score three points higher? Why not make a 9 equal to a 100, an 8 equal to a 95, and so on?
That 100 is a powerful and dangerous symbol in assessment. It indicates perfection. It creates a line of thinking in which anything less than 100 indicates deficiency of some kind — lost points, missed opportunities, weakness, etc.
The upper half of the profiles are built around the opposite idea: the accumulation of strength and the accrual of skills and knowledge. We should avoid equating a profile to a 100 because it contradicts that way of thinking. A 100 is pinnacle and plateau.
Remember, the goal is to compartmentalize grades and learning, using the grade abatement profiles as the mechanism. Those profiles reflect real levels of learning — discrete, discernible categories of student success. Converting a 9 into a 100 would throw off the intrinsic value.
What does the grade abatement profile of a 10 convert to, then?
I think we need to eliminate the 10 from the list of GAP scores. The language for a 10 is vague and indicates only the student has somehow “eclipsed” the criteria for a 9. That verb is imprecise, and there isn’t any language beyond that to provide direction.
Besides, we are talking about a spectrum. The superlative language (“strongest,” “most,” etc) in the profile for a 9 incorporates many possibilities, all of which preclude another level. There are many ways to earn a 9, as this other bit of feedback suggests, and each is individualized. Adding a 10 is just our version of this scene from This Is Spinal Tap:
