Proficiency Based Grading in the

Content Areas Insights and Key

Questions for Secondary Schools
Adapting Evidence Based Grading for
Content Area Teachers 1st Edition
Wendy Custable
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/proficiency-based-grading-in-the-content-areas-insigh
ts-and-key-questions-for-secondary-schools-adapting-evidence-based-grading-for-co
ntent-area-teachers-1st-edition-wendy-custable/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Interactive Notetaking for Content Area Literacy

Secondary 1st Edition Judith Goodman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/interactive-notetaking-for-content-
area-literacy-secondary-1st-edition-judith-goodman/

Collaboration for Career and Technical Education

Teamwork Beyond the Core Content Areas in a PLC at Work
a Guide for Collaborative Teaching in Career and
Technical Education 1st Edition Wendy Custable
https://ebookmeta.com/product/collaboration-for-career-and-
technical-education-teamwork-beyond-the-core-content-areas-in-a-
plc-at-work-a-guide-for-collaborative-teaching-in-career-and-
technical-education-1st-edition-wendy-custabl/

Content Distribution for Mobile Internet A Cloud based

Approach 2nd Edition Zhenhua Li

https://ebookmeta.com/product/content-distribution-for-mobile-
internet-a-cloud-based-approach-2nd-edition-zhenhua-li/

Grading for Growth : A Guide to Alternative Grading

Practices that Promote Authentic Learning and Student
Engagement in Higher Education 1st Edition David Clark

https://ebookmeta.com/product/grading-for-growth-a-guide-to-
alternative-grading-practices-that-promote-authentic-learning-
and-student-engagement-in-higher-education-1st-edition-david-
Interactive Notetaking for Content Area Literacy Levels
K 2 1st Edition Judith Goodman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/interactive-notetaking-for-content-
area-literacy-levels-k-2-1st-edition-judith-goodman/

Interactive Notetaking for Content Area Literacy Levels

3 5 1st Edition Judith Goodman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/interactive-notetaking-for-content-
area-literacy-levels-3-5-1st-edition-judith-goodman/

Content Chemistry The Illustrated Handbook for Content

Marketing Fifth Edition Andy Crestodina

https://ebookmeta.com/product/content-chemistry-the-illustrated-
handbook-for-content-marketing-fifth-edition-andy-crestodina/

Content Audits and Inventories A Handbook for Content

Analysis Paula Ladenburg Land

https://ebookmeta.com/product/content-audits-and-inventories-a-
handbook-for-content-analysis-paula-ladenburg-land/

Reading the Arab World A Content Based Textbook for

Intermediate to Advanced Learners of Arabic 1st Edition
Yehia A Mohamed

https://ebookmeta.com/product/reading-the-arab-world-a-content-
based-textbook-for-intermediate-to-advanced-learners-of-
arabic-1st-edition-yehia-a-mohamed/
PROFICIENCY-BASED
GRADING IN THE CONTENT
AREAS
insights and key questions for secondary schools

wendy CUSTABLE
justin FISK
jonathan GRICE
darshan m. JAIN
doug LILLYDAHL
eric RAMOS
anthony r. REIBEL
bradley SMITH
eric TWADELL
steven m. WOOD

edited by
ANTHONY R. REIBEL ERIC TWADELL
Copyright © 2019 by Solution Tree Press
Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are
reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.”
Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior
written permission of the publisher.
555 North Morton Street
Bloomington, IN 47404
800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700
FAX: 812.336.7790
email: [email protected]
SolutionTree.com
Visit go.SolutionTree.com/assessment to download the free reproducibles in
this book.
Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Custable, Wendy, 1975- author.

Title: Proficiency-based grading in the content areas : insights and key questions
for secondary schools / authors: Wendy Custable, Justin Fisk, Jonathan Grice,
Darshan M. Jain, Doug Lillydahl, Eric Ramos, Anthony R. Reibel, Bradley Smith,
Eric Twadell, and Steven M. Wood ; editors: Anthony R. Reibel and Eric Twadell.
Description: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018050408 | ISBN 9781947604155 (perfect bound)
Subjects: LCSH: Grading and marking (Students)--United States. | Educational
tests and measurements--Methodology. | Education, Secondary--United States.
Classification: LCC LB3060.37 .C87 2019 | DDC 371.27/2--dc23 LC record available
at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018050408

Solution Tree
Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO
Edmund M. Ackerman, President
Solution Tree Press
President and Publisher: Douglas M. Rife
Associate Publisher: Sarah Payne-Mills
Art Director: Rian Anderson
Managing Production Editor: Kendra Slayton
Senior Production Editor: Tonya Maddox Cupp
Content Development Specialist: Amy Rubenstein
Copy Editor: Evie Madsen
Proofreader: Miranda Addonizio
Text and Cover Designer: Abigail Bowen
Editorial Assistant: Sarah Ludwig

The authors intend to donate all of their royalties to the Stevenson High School
Foundation.
 We hope for all students what we hope for
our students: Kaitlyn, Lauren, Tony, Andrew,
Riley, Tristan, Miles, Julia, Carter, Colton,
Henry, Charlie, Grace, Jimmy, Alice, Anna,
Eden, Brianna, Nathan, Elena, Grace, Bryce,
Gabriella, Luke, and Hunter.
 Acknowledgments

We are grateful for our friends at Solution Tree who continue to

tell the story of continuous improvement that is occurring here at
Adlai E. Stevenson High School. Jeff Jones, Ed Ackerman, and
Douglas Rife have been especially supportive of our efforts to share
the good work that is happening here. Pulling together the thoughts
and writing of twelve authors is no easy task, and we are thankful
for the words of wisdom and advice of Amy Rubenstein and Tonya
Cupp.
Our proficiency-based grading moon shot began seven years ago.
While we are, admittedly, not quite there yet, we have made
tremendous progress over that period of time. Our administrative
team members have worked hard to build coherence and clarity and
push the flywheel of continuous improvement in our conversations
around instruction, assessment, and grading. We are especially
thankful for the service and support of our board of education
members: Steve Frost, Dave Weisberg, Terry Moons, Gary Gorson,
Sunit Jain, Heena Agrawal, and Amy Neault. Our board of education
has been steadfast in its expectation that we never rest on our
laurels and that we constantly search for new and innovative ways to
improve.
Finally, and most importantly, we must thank the faculty of Adlai
E. Stevenson High School, who have led our journey toward
proficiency-based grading. Grading reform is not easy work. There is
trial and error—two steps forward and one step back (and every
other change cliché you can think of). Yet, our teachers realized
early on that while the work was significant, the payoff was even
more so. Kids are the primary beneficiary. The nature of teachers’
conversations with students changed from one of points and
averages to one of learning and proficiency. Students started to
focus more on their own thinking, reflection, and learning, and less
on grades. Parents began to understand that a grade should be
more than just a collection of homework assignments and averaged
points. This book would not be possible without the hard work and
dedication of our faculty, who are embracing the challenge of reform
and a commitment to continuous improvement in their grading
practices. This is their story. Enjoy.

Thank you to the applied arts teachers for having the vision and
the drive to make proficiency-based grading a reality in our division.
A special thank-you goes to Sara Lohrmann for inspiring and shaping
our work as we strive to achieve success for every student in career
and technical education. —Wendy Custable

I would like to thank the teachers of our division of world

languages and English language learning for their relentless work to
innovate and drive our students’ success ever forward. —Justin Fisk

The work of developing, launching, and refining our approach to

proficiency-based grading is guided by the hard work and talent of
our teachers on the early adoption teams of algebra 1, geometry,
and algebra 2. Excellent professional learning communities foster
excellent adult learning; teachers are the first learners. Through our
teams’ persistence, innovation, and insights, we have learned to
support our students through a new learning lens. All new ideas
experience refinement that propels improvement and growth; the
mathematics chapter is guided by countless conversations with Eva
Lange, Valerie Tomkiel, Tina Nocella, David Irsay, and Eric Goolish.
Thank you! —Darshan M. Jain
 Our journey toward success for every student in English has
always been led by our tremendous teachers here in communication
arts. For this brave and thoughtful journey into evidence-based
grading, I have nothing but the highest regard and thanks for you
all! —Doug Lillydahl

I want to thank the thoughtful and dedicated teachers in the

social studies division who are tireless in their development of
student scholars, artisans, and citizens. —Bradley Smith

Several science teachers and teams have led our thinking on

proficiency-based grading within a science context. They have
certainly experimented, learned, retooled, and then taken another
shot, much like we ask of our students within this system of
assessment and reporting. We are appreciative for the insights,
examples, and mindset of the college prep biology and physics
teams. In particular, guidance, examples, and insights for the science
chapter came from Kellie Dean, Tommy Wolfe, Sara Cahill, Deanna
Warkins, and Kristy Wrona. —Steven M. Wood
Solution Tree Press would like to thank the following reviewers:

Sarah Burger
English Teacher
Northwood High School
Northwood, North Dakota

Janna Cochrane
Principal
North Greenville Elementary School
Greenville, Wisconsin
JR Kuch
Principal
Clinton High School
Clinton, Iowa

Jennifer Peterson
Director of Academic Services
School District of River Falls
River Falls, Wisconsin

Dawn Proctor
Principal
Benignus Elementary School
Klein, Texas

Matt Townsley
Director of Instruction & Technology
Solon Community School District
Solon, Iowa
Visit go.SolutionTree.com/assessment to download the free
reproducibles in this book.
 Table of Contents

About the Editors

Introduction
By Anthony R. Reibel, Eric Twadell, Wendy Custable, Justin Fisk,
Jonathan Grice, Darshan M. Jain, Doug Lillydahl, Eric Ramos, Bradley
Smith, and Steven M. Wood
A Different View of Formative Assessment
Structure of This Book

Chapter 1
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading With
Fidelity to Core Beliefs
By Anthony R. Reibel, Eric Twadell, and Jonathan Grice
Seven Core Beliefs
District-Level Versus Division- or Course-Level Decisions
Key Points

Chapter 2
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
Career and Technical Education
By Wendy Custable
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in CTE
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
CTE
 Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in CTE
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
CTE
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
CTE
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in CTE
Key Points

Chapter 3
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
English Language Arts
By Doug Lillydahl
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in ELA
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
ELA
Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in ELA
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
ELA
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
ELA
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in ELA
Key Points

Chapter 4
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
Fine Arts
By Jonathan Grice
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in Fine Arts
 Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Fine Arts
Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in Fine Arts
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Fine Arts
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Fine Arts
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in Fine
Arts
Key Points

Chapter 5
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
Mathematics
By Darshan M. Jain
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in Mathematics
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Mathematics
Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in Mathematics
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Mathematics
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Mathematics
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Mathematics
Key Points

Chapter 6
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
Physical Education and Health
By Eric Ramos
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in PE and
Health
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
PE and Health
Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in PE and Health
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in PE
and Health
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in PE
and Health
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in PE
and Health
Key Points

Chapter 7
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
Science
By Steven M. Wood
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in Science
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Science
Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in Science
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Science
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Science
 Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Science
Key Points

Chapter 8
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
Social Science
By Bradley Smith
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in Social
Science
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Social Science
Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in Social Science
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Social Science
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Social Science
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in
Social Science
Key Points

Chapter 9
Implementing Proficiency-Based Grading in
World Languages
By Justin Fisk
Reasons to Implement Proficiency-Based Grading in World
Languages
Preparation: The Commitments of Proficiency-Based Grading in
World Languages
 Incubation: The Unexpected Questions of Proficiency-Based
Grading in World Languages
Insight: The Essential Insights of Proficiency-Based Grading in
World Languages
Evaluation: The Key Questions of Proficiency-Based Grading in
World Languages
Elaboration: The Core Beliefs of Proficiency-Based Grading in
World Languages
Key Points

Epilogue
Building Efficacious Learners
By Anthony R. Reibel and Eric Twadell

References and Resources

Index
 About the Editors

Anthony R. Reibel is director of assessment, research, and

evaluation at Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
He administers assessments, manages student achievement data,
and oversees instructional practice. Anthony began his professional
career as a technology specialist and entrepreneur. After managing
several businesses, he became a Spanish teacher at Stevenson. He
has also served as a curricular team leader, core team leader, coach,
and club sponsor.
In 2010, Anthony received recognition from the state of Illinois
and the Illinois Computing Educators named him Technology
Educator of the Year. He is a member of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, Illinois Principals
Association (IPA), Illinois Computing Educators, and American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
He earned a bachelor’s degree in Spanish from Indiana University
and master’s degrees (one in curriculum and instruction and a
second in educational leadership) from Roosevelt University.
 To learn more about Anthony’s work, follow @areibel on Twitter.

Eric Twadell, PhD, is superintendent of Adlai E. Stevenson High

School in Lincolnshire, Illinois. He has been a social studies teacher,
curriculum director, and assistant superintendent for leadership and
organizational development.
Stevenson High School has been described by the United States
Department of Education (USDE) as one of the most recognized and
celebrated schools in America and is one of only three schools to win
the USDE Blue Ribbon Award on four occasions. Stevenson was one
of the first comprehensive schools designated a New American High
School by USDE as a model of successful school reform and is
repeatedly cited as one of America’s top high schools and the
birthplace of the Professional Learning Communities at Work®
process.
Eric is a coauthor who has also written several professional
articles. As a dedicated PLC practitioner, he has worked with state
departments of education and local schools and districts across the
United States to achieve school improvement and reform. An
accessible and articulate authority on PLC concepts, Eric brings
hands-on experience to his presentations and workshops.
In addition to his teaching and leadership roles, Eric has been
involved in coaching numerous athletic teams and facilitating
outdoor education and adventure travel programs. He is a member
of many professional organizations.
Eric earned a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction and a
doctorate in educational leadership and policies studies from Loyola
University Chicago.
To learn more about Eric’s work, follow @ELT247365 on Twitter.
To book Anthony R. Reibel or Eric Twadell for professional
development, contact [email protected].
 Introduction
Anthony R. Reibel, Eric Twadell, Wendy
Custable, Justin Fisk, Jonathan Grice, Darshan
M. Jain, Doug Lillydahl, Eric Ramos, Bradley
Smith, and Steven M. Wood

The first question educators usually ask us about implementing

proficiency-based grading is, “Because this is a big change, how do
you implement proficiency-based grading effectively and maintain its
effectiveness over time?” Implementing a grading system that
requires a paradigm shift in thinking and practice can easily become
frustrating, or worse, it can fail.
The second question educators ask is, “Is evidence-based
grading the same as evidence-based reporting or standards-based
grading?” Generally speaking, we acknowledge there are quite a few
similarities between evidence-based grading and reporting and
standards-based grading and reporting. However, as we note in
Pathways to Proficiency: Implementing Evidence-Based Grading
(Gobble, Onuscheck, Reibel, & Twadell, 2017), there are some
important distinctions. Both of these new approaches to grading
move us away from the collection of points, the percentage system,
and averaging. However, while standards-based grading typically
focuses on the teacher summatively assessing students’
understanding of the larger standards and learning targets,
evidence-based grading and reporting emphasizes a collaboratively
developed and calibrated proficiency and maintenance expectations
based on student evidence.
While we acknowledge that in some settings these differences
may be seen as lacking distinction, we believe that the focus on
student-produced evidence in relationship to calibrated proficiency
expectations helps teachers more effectively provide meaningful
feedback and grades. To that end, in this book we use the term
proficiency-based grading to accent our focus on students’
proficiency as the foundation for our grading and reporting practices.
In Pathways to Proficiency, we discuss the institutional
framework for implementing proficiency-based grading. We go into
further detail about how this grading system looks in the classroom
in our other book, Proficiency-Based Assessment: Process, Not
Product (Gobble, Onuscheck, Reibel, & Twadell, 2016). In this book,
we will share how to successfully implement proficiency-based
grading in different content areas.

A Different View of Formative

Assessment
The distinction between summative and formative assessment
remains difficult for some educators. Most of the assessments that
we call formative could be summative assessments in disguise. Some
teachers even consider formative assessment as merely practice or
as a summative assessment that doesn’t count—it isn’t graded or
marked. Most traditional assessments focus on students’ deficiencies
and what they don’t know. We believe that this is a backward
perspective and not how assessments should work. Authors Peter C.
Brown, Henry L. Roediger, and Mark A. McDaniel (2014) argue this
same point, saying that massed practice models simply aren’t
effective as a practice synonymous with formative assessment.
Formative assessment asks that students “learn how to better
assess context and discriminate between problems, selecting and
applying the correct solution from a range of possibilities” (Brown et
al., 2014, p. 53). In other words, formative assessment is an
experience about development, not about diagnosis. Some teachers
continually overlook this definition of formative assessment.
Formative assessment helps both the teacher and the student know
where the student is and how he or she is growing.
Another challenge to effective assessment is that many teachers
position formative assessment at either the beginning or the end of
the lesson. This makes it either a pretest or a summative
assessment, and neither is particularly helpful for giving students
authentic feedback. In a proficiency-based assessment and grading
system, formative assessments are not just central to the lesson,
they are the lesson. Placed as the focal point of instruction,
formative assessments can effectively interrupt and even block a
student from incorrectly retaining material he or she may have
misunderstood. This does not happen as effectively when formative
assessment is placed at the lesson’s bookends. This placement does
not catch students before they walk into the summative exams with
incomplete or even incorrect learning (Brown et al., 2014).
A typical assessment verifies one level of proficiency, and once
students show that competency, more assessments are typically
needed. Often teachers see this as valid practice because many
traditional assessments are based on achieving outcomes
(standards-based grading) instead of developing proficiency
(proficiency-based grading). This happens if teachers don’t align
instruction and assessments with proficiency-based targets, but
instead align them with themes and topics. This improper alignment
leads us to ultimately assess students on only part of our
expectations (Marzano, 2006), making our assessments more of a
verifier of learning than a catalyst for learning. The fact that
traditional assessment systems struggle to be more than just
verifiers of learning leads to many missed opportunities to expose
students’ thinking as they engage in the learning and assessment
process.
Data that matter most come from the thinking that takes place
during the assessment (Schoemaker, 2011). In our experience,
reflection-based assessments are very effective, and this concept is
at the heart of our proficiency-based assessment process.
We believe that our assessments should be events that assess
students on the quality of their thinking, not just the quality of their
product or the outcome (Schoemaker, 2011). Such assessments
require students to record their thinking during the assessment,
state the thoughts that went into the responses, decide between
several problem-solving strategies, and even decide how this
question relates to all the other questions (Chappuis, 2009).
“Thoughts” data allow the teacher to become more aware of student
misconceptions and how they developed, and how the teacher can
help students overcome them.
We fully acknowledge that creating and sustaining this new
culture is not easy, and it will not happen overnight—or even in a
year or two. Implementing this work should involve a carefully
thought-out approach that places teachers at the center of the
professional development and change process. Teachers using
proficiency-based assessment practices understand that discovering
a misconception’s origin is more valuable than interpreting an
outcome. The data teachers receive from a reflective assessment
helps them design instruction that meets students’ real needs and,
more important, helps them provide students with the correct
feedback to solidify and expedite the learning process.
 We assert that the long-standing research grounded in the
creative process can guide professional development. Psychologist
and author Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) is one such expert who
provides a learning framework that ensures effectively developing
initiatives and pedagogy. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) presents this
process in five phases that model the way we want to nurture
professional growth and positive changes.

1. Preparation is being curious about the topics or ideas that

interest you or have value to you. This is when individuals
are beginning to explore these new ideas or topics and
gaining the necessary foundational knowledge to proceed
successfully. Inspiration is an essential part of this phase. It
promotes the internal motivation to continue pursuing this
learning.
2. Incubation is when ideas begin to combine with other
ideas and, more importantly, with questions. When someone
begins working on a new idea, skill, or topic, new questions
emerge, inviting the learner to go deeper or explore new
areas of the concept. This stage can last indefinitely as the
individual begins to consciously toil with new questions that
emerge from his or her subconscious. By letting these new
questions incubate, or simmer, unexpected combinations
occur. These unexpected combinations form domain-
changing breakthroughs.
3. Insight is when the individual has a breakthrough
realization about the work. The insight stage is where new
learning is beginning to cement itself in an individual’s
cognitive framework. It is similar to the moment a child
grasps a new mathematics concept for the first time or
suddenly realizes the exact reason he or she couldn’t solve
the science problem. Insight is when all the incubating
concepts come together to illuminate a resolution to the
problem. Insights occur only after a lengthy incubation.
 4. Evaluation is when the individual decides if the insight is
worth pursuing. During this stage, insights are scrutinized
not only for their worth but for their logical sense. In other
words, the individual decides whether to pursue this insight
and determines whether it aligns with the desired outcome.
If he or she judges the insight worthwhile, the individual will
be more motivated to pursue the insight further. If the
creator is unmotivated, the work will never become a reality.
5. Elaboration is the phase where an individual creates a final
product and further nuances and extends his or her learning.
Throughout the creative process, pursued insights tend to
spark interest and motivate individuals to proceed further. In
this phase, work seems more like play, as new insights seem
to naturally spark excitement in the learner. During this
phase, an individual is continuously growing and improving.

Structure of This Book

Throughout this book, we will outline how each division—the
content area or grade level—in our school (Adlai E. Stevenson High
School, in Lincolnshire, Illinois) worked with the institutional aspects
of proficiency-based grading and, more important, how each division
implemented and elaborated on the aspects of proficiency-based
grading that should look different in each discipline.
This book focuses primarily on how to implement this initiative in
secondary education, although many of these principles and
concepts can apply to primary and middle school. Secondary
educators have historically struggled with the move away from
points-based grading primarily because this transactional grading
and learning system is efficient. However, we cannot substitute
efficiency for intimacy when it comes to the success of our students.
We must promote a mentor–mentee relationship with each of our
students and help them develop personal efficacy and discover their
own learning identity.
 Chapter 1 outlines what decisions should occur at the institution
level versus the division or course level, and the seven overarching
core beliefs one must hold to begin this work: (1) growth is a central
concept, (2) reperformance is essential (where to reperform means
executing a skill again in the next unit), (3) building students’
reflection abilities is essential, (4) homework has a role, (5)
communication with parents and the community is key, (6)
culminating experiences like final exams have a different purpose,
and (7) behavior can be in or out of the grade. Because core beliefs
function differently depending on content area, each chapter
discusses how those beliefs work within each.
Chapters 2–9 outline how implementing this initiative could
transpire in each of the major content areas, from core areas such
as English language arts, to electives such as fine arts.
These chapters are organized in the five professional
development and learning stages noted earlier.

• Preparation: Readers will understand the fundamental

commitment that it takes to increase the likelihood of the
initiative’s success. These commitments act more like the
necessary mindsets that one needs to create long-lasting
change and promote positive student outcomes.
• Incubation: Readers will grapple with the fundamental yet
challenging questions that can hinder or even derail the
initiative if not explored properly. The section outlines how
stakeholders can effectively engage in problem solving
around these questions as well as lets the reader see the
realities of this change.
• Insight: Readers will discover the major “aha moments”
that created key realizations and spurred future innovations.
Readers will not only understand what these insights were
but also read firsthand accounts of the impact these insights
had on teacher practice, culture, and most importantly
student learning.
 • Evaluation: Readers will engage with this initiative’s key
questions—the questions that one must continually ask
during the implementation process to ensure actual change
versus simply the illusion of it. These questions act as
guideposts that not only help guide the process of change,
but also help promote maximum impact.
• Elaboration: This section uncovers the core beliefs that
are unique to each content area as it is implemented. These
beliefs are the natural by-product of successful
implementation, but more importantly, these beliefs can
create a lasting culture of innovation.

The book’s structure addresses how proficiency-based grading

specifically appears in each content area. Each chapter follows the
same structure, starting with preparation stages of implementing
proficiency-based grading and ending with the elaboration stage.
Proficiency-based grading is not a one-size-fits-all practice. Subtleties
may appear depending on content area, but implementation phases
are the same, which is why the chapters are structured the same—
preparation, incubation, insight, evaluation, and elaboration—but
each is specific to its content area. You will see that while applying
proficiency-based grading may look different in each content area,
its core beliefs and general implementation parameters remain the
same. Every chapter ends with key points to summarize the main
takeaways.
While this book is meant for all educators, teachers will find
particular value in reading their respective content-area chapter.
Leaders can utilize all areas of the book to successfully lead a
specific team or teachers through implementation. This is a book for
all educators wishing to make long-lasting reform to grading
practices.
 Chapter 1
Implementing Proficiency-
Based Grading With Fidelity
to Core Beliefs
Anthony R. Reibel, Eric Twadell, and Jonathan
Grice,

The organizations that will truly excel in the future will

be the organizations that discover how to tap people’s
commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an
organization.
—Peter Senge

Successfully implementing proficiency-based grading hinges on a

healthy culture and shared responsibility. Mathematics teacher Eva
Lange says she noticed a change in her team: “Outside the
classroom, conversations with fellow teachers were often about what
problems we were doing in a lesson. Now the conversations revolve
around how we can help students make connections with their
learning” (E. Lange, personal communication, September 15, 2018).
In our experience, proficiency-based grading’s primary benefits
are promoting authentic collaboration among teachers and
developing student efficacy. In this grading system, the curriculum is
not organized around discrete bits and bites of content and skills.
Instead, we develop proficiency-based learning targets that focus on
transferable skills that help students become more effective learners
themselves.
To do this successfully, teachers must share and adhere to
proficiency-based grading’s seven core beliefs. We fully recognize
that these are fundamental shifts in the way that many of us
experienced school and from how many of us started in the teaching
profession. Grappling with and coming to agreement with these core
beliefs in collaborative teams is the most essential first step before a
team can proceed to implementing proficiency-based grading.
In our Proficiency-Based Assessment and Pathways to Proficiency
books, we note the irony of authors from Adlai E. Stevenson High
School (also known as the birthplace of the PLC movement) not
spending a lot of time using the language of Professional Learning
Communities at Work. At this point in our PLC journey, focusing on
learning, working together collaboratively, and focusing on results
(DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008) is so ingrained in our school’s
structure and culture that we do not need to rely on PLC acronyms
to stay focused on the right work. However, there is no doubt that
the fact that we do function as a PLC has made implementing
proficiency-based grading more effective. We hope by now that most
educators understand the benefits of working together
collaboratively. The collaborative teams within a PLC will have a
much smoother transition because they are already engaged with
one another in collective inquiry. Developing the essential tool of
proficiency-based grading—a calibrated proficiency-based
expectation—is easier for teacher teams used to working with one
another to improve their practice.
We recognize, however, that not all schools choose to function as
professional learning communities. It’s OK. While it may take a little
extra effort, schools that are not working as PLCs can implement
proficiency-based grading just as successfully. When teachers are on
their own, we encourage finding a colleague to work with, preferably
someone in the building. Even if this colleague is not in the building,
having a peer to examine your work, ask questions, and help solve
problems is extremely valuable and improves the quality of your
feedback to students. In addition, we encourage singleton teachers
to make sure they have a colleague in their field whom they can
informally meet virtually, outside the building, to get additional
support (referred to sometimes as PLCs without walls or virtual
PLCs). It is important to develop these relationships and meet at
least a couple times per year. Cloud technologies are making it
easier to share and provide feedback. Conduct meetings over the
phone or with programs or apps like Zoom (https://zoom.us).
The vertically aligned targets (that is, the same scale for learning
targets in rubrics across courses or departments) should also help
the singleton teacher. For example, all visual arts courses may have
the same learning targets. Having the same targets helps students
understand the consistency of expectations and language across
programs. Students and teachers also recognize that the curricular
rigor increases over time and as students progress through the
program.
When teachers and teams enter the implementation stage at
different periods of system refinement, they will seek suggestions,
perspectives, or improvements. Leaders must use caution and not
close the door on improvements that new participants might bring.
Proficiency-based grading, like other pedagogical and reform efforts,
must be flexible enough to accept refinement. Take caution when
considering changes to avoid undermining core beliefs or altering the
school’s agreed-on vision. To support the potential for innovative
changes and adhere to core values, leaders must provide teachers
and teams guidelines around the non-negotiables explained in this
chapter. Those include the seven core beliefs and what decisions
occur at the district level versus the division or course level.

Seven Core Beliefs

The following sections talk in depth about the seven core beliefs.
These core beliefs are essential perspectives that we have come to
learn through our experience of implementing proficiency-based
grading. While they are not an exhaustive list of beliefs by any
stretch, they do represent some of the more difficult tension points
that arise during implementation.

1. Growth is a central concept. Proficiency-based grading is

not a growth grading system, but growth is invited and
embraced. In this system, you must give students time to
grow from, reflect on, and learn from their experiences.
Creating a curriculum based on growth is a difficult but
essential task.
2. Reperformance is essential. If growth is the central
concept, then retakes or reperformance is the mechanism
that allows this concept to become a reality. It is not enough
for students to simply learn from past performances. They
must also grow from them. In order to show growth,
opportunities for reperformance and an additional
performance are essential.
3. Building students’ reflection abilities is essential.
Metacognition is not a skill that develops naturally over time.
Students need instruction to reflect on their thinking and
close any gaps in their understanding and learning. When
they receive reperformance opportunities, students begin
developing reflective habits that set the foundation for
 increasing their self-efficacy. By learning how to receive,
accept, and react to feedback, a student is poised to be a
more independent learner.
4. Homework has a role. Homework is not for compliance.
In proficiency-based grading environments, homework can
prepare students for a performance, have them experience a
performance, or be the performance itself. The teacher
decides how to use it at a given time. We must move away
from thinking that homework is just practice or the
opportunity to collect points. Instead, we must see it as
another opportunity for students to produce evidence of
learning and understanding.
5. Communication with parents and the community is
key. Consistent, transparent communication about student
proficiency and evidence is essential to a healthy grading
system. It takes some time for the concept of proficiency to
take root. Therefore, it is paramount that teachers
communicate how a student is developing prior to
communicating any evaluation. Individual students’ body of
work must be constantly visible to them and their parents,
and the teacher must be ready, willing, and able to converse
with students and parents about the evidence of a student’s
learning.
6. Culminating experiences like final exams have a
different purpose. As with homework, final exams have a
different purpose. While the traditional final exam loses its
point value in this grading system, the gathering of final
evidence does not. Teachers can decide and communicate
how they will collect evidence in the course’s last few weeks,
in the absence of a summative final exam. Final exams are
typically replaced with reperformances for standards in
which students are not yet proficient, or, in some cases,
teachers talk with students about their evidence.
 7. Behavior can be in or out of the grade. Compliant
behavior should be reported on but not be calculated as part
of a grade. In proficiency-based grading, the only behavior
included in a grade is when the behavior is a competence—a
skill the course wants to teach, assess, and develop. Any
behavior that manages classroom behavior goes in a
nonacademic area of the gradebook.

Each chapter will discuss how each content area can affect
certain core beliefs.

Core Belief 1: Growth Is a Central Concept

We want all students to grow in their knowledge and skill to
prepare them to be successful in college and careers. To help
students build those essential skills, they need student-friendly
learning targets scaled for proficiency expectations—what it means
to need improvement and to master a specific skill. Learning, and
gaining proficiency, is on a continuum. The scale isn’t a scaffold.
Instead of asking students to do different things in order, a
proficiency-based learning target “offers a gradation of learning
within one directed skill” (Gobble et al., p. 6). In this grading system,
there are competencies (typically known as standards), expectations
(typically known as proficiency scales), and success criteria (typically
known as learning targets or I can statements). Your school may use
these terms interchangeably.
Table 1.1 is an example of the difference between scaffolded and
scaled progression.

Table 1.1: Scaffolded Learning Progression Versus Proficiency-

Based Scale

Level Scaffolded Proficiency-Based Scale

Learning
Progression
1—Developing The student can The student can appropriately explain
Foundational identify vocabulary vocabulary terms in a written analysis
Skills terms. using simple stated details from class.
2—Developing The student can The student can accurately explain
Proficiency define vocabulary vocabulary terms in a written format
terms. using simple stated details from class.
3—Proficient The student can The student can accurately explain
explain vocabulary vocabulary terms in a written format
terms. using complex stated details from class.
4—Exceeds The student can The student can accurately explain
(Refined) analyze vocabulary vocabulary terms in a written format
Proficiency terms. using creative and unique details.
Source: Gobble, Onuscheck, Reibel, & Twadell, 2017, p. 5.

Students must be familiar with these scales and understand what

teachers expect them to know, understand, and do. After and during
instruction, students must receive opportunities to practice, take
risks, and learn from their mistakes. Their growth takes time,
frequent feedback, and self-reflection. As part of our teaching
responsibilities, we must give each learner the time and support he
or she needs to achieve this goal. Students learn differently and at
different rates in all content areas. Classroom work should be tied to
feedback, sometimes in the form of detailed rubrics that address
learning targets by scale or gradations. This acknowledges students’
growth.
In the gradebook, teachers score the learning targets to clearly
communicate to a student if he or she is exceeding, meeting,
approaching, or not meeting the standards. While each student
receives a number in the gradebook, the numeric score coincides
with written descriptors of the performance level. You can word
these levels many ways, including developing, not yet, mastering,
exceeds, and more. Pathways to Proficiency lists the most typical
scale structure (Gobble et al., 2017).

• Refined proficiency (level 4): Students in this category

possess fully mature, rooted competence that is highly
refined. Students in this category not only possess the
 ability to transfer competence between context and
concepts; they leverage it in a manner that maximizes
impact with high efficiency.
• Proficient (level 3): Students in this category are fully
competent. Students have a fully mature, rooted
competence that is transferable between concepts and
contexts.
• Developing proficiency (level 2): Students in this
category may be ebbing and flowing between competence
and incompetence, but overall, they are beginning to build
rooted aspects of the desired competence.
• Developing foundational skills (level 1): Students in
this category may demonstrate basic comprehension or skill
development, but show no movement toward competency.
What looks like any growth is isolated to discrete knowledge
components or skill fragments. Students at this level are still
learning the essential criteria that will later develop into a
competency.

The goal is not to use the gradebook to emphasize the student’s

grade, but rather to have the gradebook communicate the student’s
current state of proficiency and growth toward a rooted state of
competence (Jain & Reibel, 2018). Trends are evident, as the same
targets are scored multiple times. Many students begin by building
foundational skills, but as time passes, they gain more experience
and confidence with more rigorous material, with scores beginning
to reflect some 2s, with more 3s and possibly 4s. This is a typical
growth trajectory, and it provides the foundation for the proficiency-
based report card.
At the teacher and team level, the proficiency-based report card
can support the following.

• Performance analysis
• Student growth tracking
 • Individual and team goal setting
• Active steps that support students who are not meeting or
approaching standards

The active steps may include additional time to practice,

reteaching, or help outside class time. Proficiency-based grading
supports reperforming (see the section Core Belief 2: Reperformance
Is Essential) after the initial assessment so students can continue to
improve their learning and performance. Each assessment is
formative. This further emphasizes growth and de-emphasizes the
grade. It also fosters equity by not penalizing students who take
longer to learn.
Some educators may suspect that students will game this grading
system by easing up on their effort and waiting until later to perform
well. While this can be a temptation for students when they
transition away from points accumulation to evidence collection,
students and teachers soon realize it is more practical to consistently
make their best efforts. Students learn, in fact, that playing the
points game no longer works since grades are a reflection of
mastery.

Core Belief 2: Reperformance Is Essential

Early in a team’s implementation journey, members will recognize
the importance of differentiating between retake and reperform.
Clarifying those concepts and solidifying the vocabulary will help
smoothen the process. Retake means taking the same assessment.
Reperform means executing a skill again in any context. Both are
valid practices, although proficiency-based grading relies more on
reperformance. Teams should develop norms for when a
reperformance is necessary and when a retake may be more
appropriate.
We prefer reperformance because it captures a more accurate
perspective of proficiency development. Reperformance suggests
that a student develops proficiency by performing it in multiple
contexts and scenarios, not in the same scenario as the word retake
might suggest. The term reperform also helps students understand
that while the next unit may have different content, the proficiency
skill is the same and that, in general, proficiency targets and scales
are enduring skills that have a future value beyond the course and
school.
Teams must also be prepared for questions about this aspect of
proficiency-based grading. Often, teachers cite students’ lack of
preparation for the assessment not warranting a retake. This occurs
most often when students treat the initial assessment as formative
and take action based on feedback to complete the reperformance.
The remedy for this is for teachers to ensure numerous feedback
moments on student proficiency. When students have time to
practice a learning target, they should be able to predict their
performance on formal assessments. Skeptics might suggest that
reperformance does not mirror the high-stakes nature of the real
world and does not accurately reflect knowledge or a skill because
the student has already been exposed to the desired performance
and has had a chance to adapt.
Teachers will need to consider how to value more recent
evidence in light of the overall body of work. Some teachers value
recent performance more heavily, virtually eliminating some of the
assessment data from earlier in the semester. The body of evidence,
with special emphasis given to the most recent work, should
determine the final grade. Teachers should not eliminate early
evidence, but use their own professional judgment when looking at
the entire body of work.
Keep in mind that reperformance is not just for those who are
still approaching proficiency. Certainly, these students will need more
practice and feedback to move toward proficiency. Similarly, students
who have demonstrated proficiency with one learning target or
standard will need to demonstrate proficiency while exploring new
targets or standards. Reperformance reinforces the importance of
growth.
Core Belief 3: Building Students’ Reflection Abilities Is
Essential
Students are getting feedback from their teachers every day, but
that feedback quality may not always be high. We worry that, too
often, feedback is evaluative and does not point students in the
direction of closing the gaps in their learning. Students sometimes
treat teacher feedback like a set of specific directives to check off as
they fix errors, but neglect the big picture. Conversely, many
students will see lots of teacher feedback and decide it is too
intimidating to begin sifting through it to make meaning.
Feedback effectiveness depends primarily on feedback
acceptance. If students are not prepared to accept feedback, the
feedback has little to no value. A student who can reflect is more
likely to accept feedback—from the teacher, peer, or self.
We believe that feedback is not a post-assessment tool, but a
tool to utilize during the learning; it should help students reflect on
their learning and guide their next steps. When teachers clarify the
need for students to pause, reflect, and consider what actions led to
improved learning (or distracted from it), students have access to
corrective action before any cumulative effect on their learning can
occur.
To build student proficiency and efficacy, educators must
explicitly teach students to reflect on their learning by responding to
questions like, How well do I need to know this? How well am I
doing? and What will I be able to do if I am proficient? (Gobble et
al., 2016). By making reflection a key part of what happens during
learning, and by answering these specific questions, teachers help
students do the following.

• Understand and use the learning targets and standards.

• Understand and use the proficiency scale.
 • Understand and take action to extend or remediate their
learning.
• Share a common language with their peers, teachers, and
interventionists to achieve the goal.

When they accomplish these things, students become aware of

their own abilities and develop the confidence to put them to work.
This is a victory for every student who realizes he or she can apply
lessons learned to the next assignment, project, or problem. A
student may never master all the targeted skills, but learning that he
or she controls the pace toward mastery is empowering. Reflection
leads students to take more ownership of their learning, more
accurately reflect on their performances, and practice self-awareness
and self-management. Accurate reflection can also lead to a more
accurate appraisal of one’s abilities, leading to a more accurate self-
perception.

Core Belief 4: Homework Has a Role

In traditional grading, homework acts as an event that supports
learning but also as a mechanism to bolster a grade. In many
classrooms, teachers still give points for homework completion.
Students rely on these completion points to ensure a passing grade,
even if they don’t perform well in other areas of the course. In
proficiency-based grading, there are no points, so what purpose
does homework serve? Will students do homework if it’s not for
points? By stripping away points for homework completion and
similar tasks (participation, extra credit, good behavior, or even
bringing classroom supplies), teachers can ensure grades reflect
academic performance and proficiency. To make homework function
appropriately in a proficiency-based grading model, teachers must
keep in mind several things.

• Homework is tied to a learning target.

• Homework is about feedback.
 • Homework is considered evidence of learning.

Homework can be practice, proficiency development, or even

proficiency evaluation. With experience, teams will get more
purposeful and adept at assigning meaningful homework explicitly
linked to developing skills that lead to proficiency. When homework
is specifically connected to a learning target, it can play a bigger role
with in-class discussions. For example, if students write a few
paragraphs describing their weekend, the in-class conversation—
both around the content and around competency evidence—is
infinitely richer than a rote worksheet review.
However, different homework for different students is essential
for learning. Homework should always be differentiated for each
student based on his or her current proficiency level. A student who
is currently at level 1, or still developing, should get homework that
invites him or her to level 2. A student who is at level 3 should get
homework that encourages development toward level 4.
Differentiation is hard work, but is essential to ensuring that
students get what they need to close their learning gaps.
Teachers must continue to interact with students’ work and
provide meaningful feedback. While posted solutions and tutorial
videos are instructive, they do not provide the specific, eyes-on-the-
work feedback that links teachers with their students in reflective,
trusting, and interdependent relationships. Just as students need
feedback on their work, teachers need to know where each of their
students are in relation to the course expectations and growth
trajectory. The lack of graded and recorded homework does not
deter its completion; rather, it is the lack of differentiation of a one-
size-fits-all independent practice that mutes its value. Students seek
affirmation and crave feedback; while teaching students to learn to
use digital (posted homework) platforms for assessing their work, it
cannot substitute a teacher’s interpretation of his or her students’
work.
 We have found that some teachers may worry that if students
aren’t held accountable for doing homework (by receiving points for
it), they won’t do it. However, there have always been students who
don’t do homework. When creating a culture of learning centered on
student efficacy, “an individual’s belief in his or her capacity to
execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance
attainments” (Forsyth & Carey, 1998), and clear, actionable formative
feedback, students will view homework not as an act of compliance
but as a form of reflection and feedback (Bandura, 1997).
Teachers can continue to chart students’ homework completion in
a separate log to inform students, parents, and other teachers of a
student’s effort and outcomes. When retakes or reperformances
occur, teachers can point students toward missed practice
opportunities in their homework log as a first step in intervention.
Finally, students often demonstrate proficiency through a variety
of performance events—however, this doesn’t eliminate the need for
independent practice. Teachers still provide supportive guidance so
students can demonstrate proficiency. This supportive guidance will
still primarily take the form of homework.

Core Belief 5: Communication With Parents and the

Community Is Key
Research supports the widely held belief that communication with
parents and guardians is essential for student learning (Kraft &
Dougherty, 2013). Communicating with parents, guardians, and the
community (school counselors, social workers, tutors, coaches, and
so on) also helps ensure support when implementing a proficiency-
based grading system. Effective, clear communication with parents
and guardians is just as vital once proficiency-based grading is the
ingrained practice.
When using proficiency-based grading as the tool for
communicating performance and growth, students should become
experts in their learning progress. However, parents and the
community will want to know how students are progressing, and
they will ask teachers to confirm or revise feedback they get from
their children. The gradebook is accessible to interested
stakeholders, but teachers may have to explain that the gradebook
reflects the students’ performance over the course of the trimester,
quarter, or year.
It is important that we explain the new system proactively, using
numerous points of contact with stakeholders, including written
communication, forums on open house nights, and online school
resources. Communication in a proficiency-based grading system can
be easier and help reinforce the larger goal of developing
academically conscious learners schoolwide. The syllabus should list
the scaled learning targets and the success criteria behind them.
Teachers should send these criteria and targets home with students
and post them online. Teachers and school personnel better
communicate a small number of standards—usually one, but
sometimes two to four—with a few targets on a single common
proficiency scale. Here is an email from our teachers to our
community discussing the proficiency they are developing that week.
Students are continuing to develop the ability to read and
comprehend grade-level text proficiently (proficiency level 3).
We will continue developing this skill during our next unit,
mythology. Students were assigned their trimester two
independent reading project yesterday. They need to read a
mystery book and complete questions related to mystery genre
literary components to ensure they are reading at an
appropriate level. These questions are due at the end of
January. Then, students will be asked to reflect on their
comprehension ability.

Parents and guardians are used to such scores, but teachers will
need to educate them on the ideas surrounding this method. The
continual focus on a few targets and the lack of points can be
confusing. Keep messages simple and bold, and only go into the
supporting details as needed. Parents want their children to master
each of the skills, and they see that when a student falls short, it is
fair to receive a reduced grade. When teachers consistently show the
same learning targets to parents and then log progress toward
target proficiency, there is a great deal more clarity than saying
“Your child got a 75 percent on The Great Gatsby discussion.” While
the 75 percent is clear, it is not clear what the student’s actual
proficiency is. Did this student get a 75 percent because he didn’t
know one small detail and that had a cascading effect on the exam?
Did he not understand most of the text? Or did he not know the
content or have the necessary reading skills?
Teachers must decide which behaviors represent compliance—
turning in homework, being prepared for class, paying attention—
versus competence—collaborating, participating, contributing.
Compliant behavior is never included in proficiency-based grading
because compliance simply maintains an orderly learning
environment. It has no bearing on a student’s proficiency in the
course skills. Behavioral competencies (some schools call them
academic behaviors) can be included in the grade if the teacher
commits to directly developing them in the students. For example,
preparedness—being able to prepare oneself for class—is a self-
reliance skill. Teachers would set criteria for this skill, assess it,
instruct it, and give feedback on it.
Some parents question how well this system prepares students
for college. One response is that the school doesn’t want to continue
a grading system it doesn’t think is best (or simply to keep things
the same). Students will also need to adapt to numerous grading
systems, given the range of postsecondary institutions. Truly
preparing students for college and the workplace is best done by
providing grades for their learning of identified skills with clear
success criteria, the parameters and requirements to achieve
proficiency.
Be patient with parents during this process, and realize that in
most cases, the parents who reach out with the most questions and
concerns are typically very committed to their child’s learning and
long-term success. This is particularly important for high-achieving
students and their parents, since they have found comfort and
success in traditional grading systems.
Ultimately, teachers have an intimate connection with parents
through their students. Teachers can actively help parents who are
new to or hesitant about proficiency-based grading understand this
shift by recognizing and empathizing with parents’ primary concerns:
Whatever the change, will teachers form connections with my child?
Whatever the change, will teachers know how to help my child when
he or she struggles? Whatever the change, will my child be able to
understand it and still succeed? Only after addressing these primary
concerns will parents be receptive to the logistics and benefits of
proficiency-based grading.

Core Belief 6: Culminating Experiences Like Final

Exams Have a Different Purpose
Final exams have traditionally played a key part in teachers
assigning grades, and there can be value in having students
consolidate and synthesize their learning at the end of the semester.
When implementing proficiency-based grading, teams should take
the opportunity to consider the function of final exams, or an
equivalent culminating learning experience, and how best to position
these exams to align with the course proficiencies. Some teams may
view the final exam as a summative exam. Advanced placement (AP)
teams may choose to extend students’ academic exposure to
relevant content that the College Board does not formally assess.
Other teams may use final exams as opportunities for a final period
of reflection and goal setting for students. Other teams may use final
exams as an opportunity to validate (or revalidate) the breadth of
learning evidence over the semester and compare this body of work
against recent growth patterns. As part of the reflective process,
teams can provide students a choice to reperform in an area of
relative weakness even after a final exam. Students who have
displayed mastery across all targets can use final exams as a chance
to show performance that extends beyond mastery.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
PLATE XX.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.

Variation of Former Plan.—This plate shows the development

and variation of the inside houses of the block of four shown on Plate
xiv., with a superior arrangement of larder, and with projecting coals.
The long sloping roof has been hipped back to give a pleasing line,
especially in perspective.
The Long Sloping Roof.—The long sloping roof, a feature
frequently introduced at Bournville, has several advantages. If it
were not employed, and the front walls were carried up level with the
ceiling line of the bedroom, the proportions of the elevation would not
be so happy, while an additional expense would be incurred by the
extra brickwork. Such a height, moreover, would be wholly
unnecessary. In the case of cottages with the long sloping roof the
height of bedrooms to the point of intersection of roof and wall need
only be 5 ft. 6 ins. Ample ventilation is obtained by the simple
insertion of a 9 in. by 7 in. air-brick on the outside wall, and a
Sheringham ventilator or Tobin tube within, about 5 ft. 6 ins. from the
floor, the cost of the latter being about 3s., and of the former a little
more. The long sloping roof can rarely be treated tastefully without
boldly projecting the eaves. The projection gives a verandah in front
of the house which affords a pleasant shelter. Wooden posts may be
used as supports, and by training climbing plants up them, and
allowing them to festoon, a really delightful summer bower may be
formed. As the roof is broad, pantiles may be used with safety so far
as good taste is concerned: bold roof, bold covering. By omitting the
gutters at the dormer eaves a pleasing effect is gained, and gutters
are quite unnecessary with an eaves projection. The cheeks of the
dormers should be dressed with lead. The cottages in question are
whitewashed, and have a tarred plinth of about 2 ft. to prevent the
unsightliness of mud splashes.
 FRONT ELEVATION
GROUND PLAN
BEDROOM PLAN
PLATE XX.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 30.

The Large Living Room.—In view of the gain to health of one

spacious living room over the parlour plan, a number of these
cottages has been built in varying design at Bournville, and no
difficulty has been found in letting them. There has been, however,
considerable discussion with regard to their convenience to the
artisan in other districts where they have been introduced. Although
cottages in the past had no third room, there having been, as here,
one large comfortable room (often with the ingle nook) and a small
kitchen at the back—all the accommodation really required—yet at
the present time many artisans are not content without the useless
parlour, which they appear to think adds dignity to the house, but
which is used by them chiefly as a store-room for gim-cracks. There
is, perhaps, a reasonable objection to a single large living room on
the part of a particular class who let the front room to a lodger.
Nevertheless, for a model village or a garden city it is strongly
recommended that the plan should be adopted freely, and the
preference for the useless front room in small cottages discouraged.
Total cost of the example given, including all extras, £268 per
cottage.
Laying out of gardens, £10 each.
Cubical contents, 28,587 ft., at 4½d. per foot cube, £536, or £268
per cottage.
Instances of the last two types of cottages dealt with appear in the
view given on Plate iv.
PLATE XXI.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.

PLATE XXI.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 32.

The smaller cottage shown here is planned on similar lines to the

foregoing, but with the additional accommodation of an attic, and bay
windows to the two storeys. This is an instance of how a smaller
cottage may be joined to a larger one in treating a corner site, the
larger one on the corner giving importance to each road.
PLATES XXII., XXIII., I. (FRONTISPIECE), XXIV., XXV., AND XXVI.
BLOCKS OF FOUR.

PLATE XXII.
BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 32.
 PLATE XXIII.
BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 32.
 PLATE XXIV.
BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 32.

These plates show examples of cottages in blocks of four rather

larger in size than the last type, and treated in different materials.
Plate xxvi. shows the details of the cottages on Plate xxv.
 PLATE XXV.
BLOCK OF FOUR COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 32.
 PLATE XXVI.
DETAIL VIEW.
SEE PAGE 32.
PLATE XXVII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.

FRONT ELEVATION
GROUND PLAN
BEDROOM PLAN
PLATE XXVII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 33.

Plate xxvii. gives the plan and elevation of a pair of cottages also
having similar accommodation to those with the long sloping roofs
shown on Plate xx. The cost, however, is here considerably reduced
by each house having a side entrance, and by the omission of the
ingle nook, verandah and bay, while the living room, though smaller,
is not a passage room. By approaching the stairs from the lobby, not
only is more privacy secured, but the space beneath is made
available in the kitchen for a “Cabinet” bath, which is so placed as to
occupy it when in use instead of projecting into the kitchen. The
planning is simple and square, which, with the omission of bays and
the introduction of plain casements, all helps to reduce the cost.
The accommodation is:—
Ground Floor.
Living Room, 12 ft. 4 ins. × 16 ft. Kitchen, 10 ft. 3 ins. × 11 ft. 6 ins. Lobby.
Larder, w.c. and Coals.
Bedroom Floor.
First Bedroom, 12 ft. 4 ins. × 16 ft. Second Bedroom, 7 ft. 8 ins. × 11 ft. 6 ins.
Third Bedroom, 8 ft. × 8 ft. 3 ins. Linen Closet.
Total cost, including all extras, £250 per cottage.
Laying out of gardens, £10 each.
Cubical contents, 24,000 ft., at 5d. per foot cube, £500, or £250
per cottage.
PLATE XXVIII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.

FRONT ELEVATION
GROUND PLAN
BEDROOM PLAN
PLATE XXVIII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 34.

This plate shows the plan and elevation of a pair of cottages

having the parlour in addition to the living room and scullery. The
living room, which should always be the larger, is here the full width
of the house. The measurements are:—
Ground Floor.
Living Room, 11 ft. 5 ins. × 16 ft. 6 ins. Parlour, 11 ft. 4 ins. × 13 ft. 3 ins.
Scullery, Outside Larder, w.c. and Coals.
Bedroom Floor.
First Bedroom, 11 ft. 4 ins. × 13 ft. 3 ins. Second Bedroom, 8 ft. 6 ins. × 11 ft.
5 ins. Third Bedroom, 7 ft. 8 ins. × 8 ft. 6 ins. Linen Closet.
Total cost, including all extras, £230 per cottage. Cubical contents,
33,918 ft. at 3¼d. per ft. cube. £460, or £230 each. (Built in 1899.)
The stairs in this instance descend to the entrance lobby, but they
may be planned the other way about in order to avoid the necessity
of traversing the parlour to get to the bedrooms, and to insure
children crying upstairs being heard in the living room or the scullery.
This, however, would necessitate the cutting of 3 ft. off the large front
bedroom, while the respective spaces for the larder and the lobby
below would be reversed, the position of the former being
undesirable.
Ordinary roofing tiles and common bricks have been used. The
living room is boarded, and the scullery quarried.
It might be pointed out that there is but little scope for variety of
plan in these smaller cottages. The variations must be obtained in
the treatment of elevations. As already stated, to build cheaply the
main point is to get the walls as long and straight as possible.
 FRONT ELEVATION
BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES.

PLATES XXIX. AND XXX.

BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES.
 GROUND PLAN
BEDROOM PLAN
PLATE XXIX.
BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 35.

Plate xxix. and the accompanying scale-drawing give the plan and
elevation of a block of three cottages, a sketch of which appears in
Plate xxx. The inner one occupies an exact third of the land, and is
double fronted. By putting the inner one with its axis to the front, an
equal garden-space is given to all the houses without incurring a re-
division of the land.
 PLATE XXX.
BLOCK OF THREE COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 35.

The inner and left-hand houses have practically the same

accommodation, but the right-hand has several advantages: there is a
wider hall, the living room is not a passage room, while the kitchen is
reached from the hall, and the wash-house is entered from the yard.
Accommodation of left-hand and inner houses.
Ground Floor.
Parlour, 11 ft. 4 ins. × 15 ft. 3 ins. Living Room, 10 ft. × 14 ft. 6 ins. and bay.
Scullery, 10 ft. × 6 ft. and recess for Bath. Coals, Tools, and w.c.
Bedroom Floor.
First Bedroom, 11 ft. 4 ins. × 15 ft. 3 ins. Second Bedroom, 7 ft. 6 ins. × 14 ft. 6
ins., and bay. Third Bedroom, 7 ft. 5 ins. × 11 ft. 6 ins. Fourth Bedroom, 9 ft. 6
ins. × 6 ft. (middle house only). Linen Closet.

Cost of left-hand and inner houses, including all extras, £293 per
cottage. (Built in 1904.)
 The right-hand house, owing to the extra conveniences, works out
at rather more.
In the middle house the recess between the range and small
window makes a very convenient space for a writing table, especially
if curtains are dropped from a rod to screen it off, its proximity to the
range making it a warm and cosy retreat in winter. There is a bay
window to the living room of the outside houses.
Two of the houses in this block are fitted with Cornes’ Patent
Combined Scullery-Bath-Range and Boiler, described on page 52,
and the third with the “Cabinet” bath.
The elevation, with the forecourt formed by the projection of the two
outside houses, may be made very pleasing. From the perspective it
will be seen that the inner house is covered with rough-cast, making
an agreeable contrast with the outer ones of plain brickwork. Rough-
cast, while fairly economical, is very effective, and helps to brighten
the forecourt. The projection of the outer houses affords a break, the
abruptness of which does not attract attention, but which gives an
opportunity of stopping the rough-cast, which would otherwise have to
be carried round to the back of the whole block.
It is not advisable to introduce a variety of colour upon exteriors.
Colour is best disposed in masses—that is, it should be treated
broadly, not distributed in isolated portions, or in sharply contrasting
tints. (See page 59.)
The roof of this block is of green slates of varying sizes, diminishing
towards the ridge.
Aspect in the placing of the house is here studied as well as the
site. The axis runs south-west and north-east, and the front
commands a pleasing perspective of one of the principal Bournville
roads, and an admirable view of the Lickey Hills in the distance.
D E S C R I P T I O N S O F P L AT E S
XXXI.-XXXIII.
PLATE XXXI.
PAIR OF COTTAGES (SHALLOW SITE).

PLATE XXXI.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 38.

The view shown in this plate illustrates the treatment of a shallow

corner site, the block being a pair of semi-detached, double-fronted
cottages. The plan is similar to the middle house of the foregoing
block.

PLATE XXXII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
 PLATE XXXII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.
SEE PAGE 38.

A pair of cottages also planned on the same lines as the middle

house shown in Plate xxix. and the foregoing shallow-site pair, but
placed at right angles instead of lengthwise, and occupying a corner
position.

PLATE XXXIII.
PAIR OF COTTAGES.