Developing your mastery-based grading policy is a key step toward solidifying and communicating your mastery-based learning system to stakeholders. While this policy document will evolve over time, it is important to have at least a working “version 1.0” ready before the school year begins in order to build understanding among students and families, and to ensure alignment among staff. This document is organized into two parts:

• PART I: Mastery-Based Grading System Must-Haves • PART II: Tools for Navigating the Carnegie Credit World

Pre-Requisite Checklist Before you get to the drawing board to build your mastery-based grading policy, you will need to make sure the following elements of your mastery-based learning system are in place. Note that we will circle back to each of these elements as we walk through key components of your grading policy in the pages that follow.

Element Notes1 Competencies These can be in draft form; what’s important is that you’ve come to a decision

about your taxonomy: how competencies are organized (e.g. discipine-specific vs. trans-disciplinary), and how your competencies are structured (e.g. each competency is made up of a set of measurable skills)

2 Levels for advancement

You’ll need to have determined your “levels” for advancement and articulate them if these are different from the levels described in your rating system. These can be either numerical or descriptive. If you’re working within a more traditional system, it might be useful to have your performance levels match traditional grade levels, where “advancement” upon mastery may correspond to grade promotion.

3 Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs)

These PLDs for your competencies can also be in draft form, but they ideally are available in a format accessible to stakeholders by the beginning of the school year. They are important to your grading policy because they define the target for mastery of a competency, and by extension, the performance expectation for student advancement.

4 Scoring rubrics: design decision

By this point, you’ll need to have decided your design approach to rubrics. Either the language that describes performances levels on your rubrics will exactly match your PLDs (i.e. Philly’s approach), or each PLD will have its own set of possible ratings, and therefore language that describes what each of those possible ratings looks like in terms of performance (i.e. PARCC’s approach).

5 Rating system Your rating system is your your scale for assessing mastery and will be built into your scoring rubrics. In order to build your grading policy, you’ll need to have already defined your rating system: whether numerical (e.g. 1-4) or descriptive (e.g. emerging, developing, proficient, advanced)

6 Definition of mastery

This is not your philosophical definition of mastery; this is your technical definition of mastery. What does it actually mean in your model to show mastery? You’ll need to clearly answer three questions to come to your technical definition of mastery: 1) Which performance level, based on your rating system, represents a demonstration of mastery? 2) How many times does a student need to reach it in order to show mastery? 3) On which types of assessments?

Page � of �1 30

Making Mastery Accessible: Building a Mastery-Based Grading Policy

What Should be Included in Our Grading Policy Document? Here is a quick snapshot of the items you’ll want to address in your grading policy, organized as “must-haves” for your mastery-based learning system, as well as a set of additional items you’ll need to have in place if you are working within a traditional system where the Carnegie credit is the unit of learning. As we break down each item below, we’ll highlight different approaches featured in mastery-based high schools across the United States.

The following schools and/or institutions are referenced in this guide:

• Boston Day and Evening Academy (BDEA): www.bacademy.org/

• Casco Bay High School (CBHS): https://cbhs.portlandschools.org/

• Sanborn Regional High School (SRHS): http://web.sau17.org/index.php/schools-188/high-school

• The School District of Philadelphia / Building 21 Competency Model (The Philadelphia Model): www.competencytoolkit.org

• Summit Public Schools (SPS): www.summitps.org/

Page � of �2 30

Mastery-based Grading System Must-Haves

• Competencies • Defining Mastery • Assessment Types • Performance Levels, Scoring

Rubrics & Rating Systems • Portfolios of work • Student work management • Reporting Tools • Promotion Policy

Tools for Navigating the Carnegie Credit World

• Grade composition • Grade conversions • Advanced / Honors weighting • Crediting • Transcript • SIS data management protocols

Designer's Tip: Before you begin, know thy audience! Consider creating one comprehensive version of your grading policy for school staff, and another abbreviated version for parents/families.

PART I: Mastery-Based Grading System Must-Haves

Competencies Consider kicking off your grading policy with a clear and straightforward explanation of what competencies are and why they form the foundation of learning at your school. Competencies articulate your vision for a graduate, and clarify for your stakeholders the “what” of your learning system; in other words, what exactly do students need to know and be able to do at each performance level in order to show mastery and advance? This is a great opportunity to concisely express the “why” behind your model, and to help orient the reader. Take a look at these short excerpts from two grading policy documents:

Defining Mastery Your definition of mastery lies at the heart of your learning system and has significant implications for your model. In a truly mastery-based learning system, traditional course grade calculations are replaced by one or both of the following dynamic measures of learning for all competencies: performance level and growth.

By performance level, we mean: At which level is this student currently working on the learning progression for a particular competency?

By growth, we mean: How is this student progressing or advancing along the learning progression over a particular interval of time?

So how do we actually create our definition of mastery? As explained in the Pre-Requisite Checklist, there are three key questions you’ll need to answer in order to come to a clear, consistent definition of mastery that applies across learning spaces in your school:

Page � of �3 30

“At SRHS, each course shares a set of common, established core competencies that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do in order to demonstrate proficiency.”

SRHS

“Competencies are the specific skill-sets you’ll need to master in order to make sure you graduate from high school ready for the first year of college or an entry-level job.”

PHILLY

Which performance level, based on your

rating system, represents a

demonstration of evidence toward

mastery?

How many times does a student need to reach

this in order to show mastery? In other words, how much

evidence?

…and on which types of assessments?

Your technical definition of mastery — in other words, your answers to these three key questions — will lay the foundation for your entire grading policy and help us get down to the nuts and bolts of how we measure and track mastery. (We’ll talk about tools for tracking and reporting on progress later on.) Let’s start with perhaps the simplest of the three questions: On which types of assessments can students show evidence of mastery?

ASSESSMENT TYPES

It will be important to clarify for all stakeholders the role that different types of assessments play in your learning model and specifically, the unique role that performance-based assessments play in serving as evidence of student mastery. Consider providing concrete examples of different types of assessments that will be used, and explain why, how, and when they will be used in your school. If you have a working version of your overall Assessment Strategy, it will be useful to include this in the document as well.

Note that teachers are commonly trained to think about assessments as falling into one of two categories: formative and summative. This schema may be useful when conveying to stakeholders that not all types of assessments offer authentic opportunities for students to apply their skills and demonstrate mastery.

Here is a simple rule of thumb: evidence of mastery requires a performance-based assessment. Performance-based assessments or “performance tasks” serve as evidence of mastery because they require students to apply their skills and knowledge to solve complex problems and/or produce meaningful work products. Think “high” on Bloom’s taxonomy: application, analysis, evaluation, creation.

Assessment types that are best described as checks for understanding (true/false, multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank questions) don’t require students to apply their skills or create meaningful work products, and therefore do not serve as evidence of mastery. Think “low” on Bloom’s taxonomy: recall, comprehension.

This could be confusing to students and families, particularly if you’re not “crediting” quiz scores and including them in your students’ performance level or course grade calculation (if applicable). Consider the following scenario:

Page � of �4 30

Anthony brings home quizzes from science class; on average, he’s been scoring 70-85% on quizzes that assess his basic knowledge of science concepts. This looks positive to his parents. However, he has not submitted any of his written lab reports or data analysis performance tasks, and has fallen behind the minimum pacing guide set by the teacher. When quarterly progress reports are sent home, it looks like Anthony is not showing progress toward mastery. His parents are concerned, and come in for a teacher-parent conference wanting to know why what they assume is a B or C average is not “on track.” Anthony also wants to know why his quizzes aren’t “counting” toward evidence of mastery.

“Assessment becomes a learning experience in which learners are prepared to apply their knowledge, skills, and values in an integrated manner…through authentic tasks that resemble skills, activities, and functions in the real world.”

(Malan, 2000)

A

Does this situation surprise you at all? Does it seem plausible? What can we learn from this scenario?

Remember that making the shift from traditional to mastery-based learning systems involves a significant learning curve for all stakeholders. Being transparent about the model — including the types of assessments that ensure opportunities for demonstrating mastery and advancing — and reinforcing this understanding with strong communication, ongoing stakeholder learning opportunities, and helpful systems and structures (we’ll talk more about this later on) will go a long way in laying the foundation for understanding and buy-in.

Let’s take a look at an excerpt from Sanburn Regional High School’s grading policy that showcases how they discuss assessment types. It’s worth noting that SRHS devoted three full pages of its policy document to explain the different types of assessments offered, examples of each, the role each type of assessment played in the learning system, and the particular importance of performance tasks.

Page � of �5 30

ASSESSMENT TYPES The important purpose of assessment is learning. Effective assessment, therefore, both effectively guides learning and measures growth in learning.

Formative Assessments A formative assessment is an assessment for learning and can be broadly described as a “snapshot” or “dipstick” measure that captures a student’s progress [and] explains to what extent a student is learning a concept, skill, or knowledge set. In a sense, a formative assessment is “practice” and is, therefore, not heavily weighted in our grading system. [However] formative assessments have an important role to fill in identifying when a student is ready to undertake a summative assessment, such as an in-depth performance task or test. Examples…include:

• Skills checks • First drafts of writing assignments • Questions administered during instruction • Graphic organizers and worksheets • Informal observations of student work • Pre-tests • Homework • Other classwork not listed above

Summative Assessments A summative assessment is a comprehensive measure of a student’s ability to demonstrate the concepts, skills, and knowledge embedded within a course competency. A summative assessment is an assessment of learning and it is heavily weighted in our grading system. Examples of summative assessments include, but are not limited to:

• Performance tasks • Enrichment activities that support the demonstration of competency proficiency • Tests • Projects • Writings (term papers, position papers, essays, stories, lab reports, summaries) • Presentations • Problem-based inquiry tasks • Other comprehensive/cumulative assignments not listed above

SRHS

Before we move on, let’s put our critical lens to the test and identify what we can most valuably glean from this policy excerpt. Here is a shortlist of strengths we see, and questions we’d ask the designers:

What other strengths do you see? What questions might you add?

In addition to assessment types, it is also important to think about communicating policies or protocols around the following assessment-related topics:

• Turnaround time for student work: How quickly are teachers expected to rate and return work to students?

• Revision cycles: How are revision cycles structured to optimize learning and most efficiently use teacher time? How many times can a student revise and resubmit work?

• Late work: How is late work treated? Is there a place for deadlines? What about penalties?

We’ll address each of these items later on and provide some examples for your review. In the meantime, if you'd like to explore a great resource for you or your team, check out Assessment to Support Competency-Based Pathways.

Let’s move on to our second key question that will help us build our technical definition of mastery: What performance level, based on your rating system, represents a demonstration of evidence toward mastery?

PERFORMANCE LEVELS: Rating Systems and Scoring Rubrics

Performance levels set the bar for mastery. At each level along the learning progression, what should a student’s performance on competencies look like before they are ready to advance to the next level?

In Philadelphia’s competency-based model, performance levels described in the rating system were purposefully designed to match traditional grade levels. For example, once students show mastery of “Level 8” — per the Level 8 performance level descriptors in the

Page � of �6 30

[ ]Strengths we see • Clear definitions of assessment types • Specific examples of each type • A compelling statement about the role

of formative assessments in determining student readiness

Questions we have • What is the rationale for including or

“weighting” formative assessments in the final grade calculation?

• Do you define a “performance task” as something different from the examples listed (projects, writings, presentations, problem-based inquiry tasks)?

P

scoring rubrics — they advance to “Level 9.” The designers’ rationale was as you might guess: their competency-based schools operate within a large traditional district system, and they wanted to keep it simple for their stakeholders who are new to mastery-based learning systems:

“…we landed on matching the performance levels of our rating system with grade levels to keep it simple for our stakeholders, and because the numbers are, in our minds, arbitrary anyway. The performance level descriptors in our continua [scoring rubrics] are based on research-based learning standards that were pegged to grade levels by design - for example, Common Core grade level standards for reading, writing, speaking, and listening for grade 7, grade 8, grade 9-10, and grade 11-12. They describe the learning pathway toward college and career readiness. We asked ourselves: ‘Why deviate from this familiar numerical system at this early stage when we’re trying to help our stakeholders make sense of our model?’ Maybe one day we’ll move away from numerical levels and use descriptors instead, or perhaps even collapse our levels to match our rating system, which essentially has performance descriptors for every other level. For now, our current approach helps keep our message to parents and families simple: ‘Our goal for your child is that her performance level matches or exceeds her grade level. That’s how we know she's on track to graduate from high school ready for the first year of college.’”

As mentioned above, the performance levels in Philadelphia’s rating system match traditional grade levels. Here is an example continuum (scoring rubric) for one of the skills of the science competency, “Lead Scientific Investigations,” that illustrates how the rating system is based on performance levels that correspond to traditional grade levels (Note that a set of scoring rules guides teacher use of these continua when scoring work; one of these rules explains how to achieve a performance level that is in between the levels shown on the continuum.

Page � of �7 30

PHILLY

SCI.1 LEAD SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS

Level 6 Level 8 Level 10 Level 12

How well can I frame a scientific question?

I can come up with a specific, testable question.

My question can be investigated with available resources.

I can come up with a specific, testable question.

My question will help me figure out the relationships between a set of independent and dependent variables.

I can come up with a specific, testable question that requires empirical evidence to answer.

My question will help me gain more information about a model or scientific theory, or clarify or challenge a scientific argument. I can provide specific content information that supports my question.

I can state a clear rationale that explains why my question is important.

I can formulate a specific, testable, and challenging question that requires empirical evidence to answer.

My question will help me build or revise a model or scientific theory, support an explanation for observed phenomena, or challenge the premise(s) of an argument or the interpretation of a data set. I can provide specific information from additional background readings and other sources, and correctly cite my sources.

I can provide a clear rationale for my question that will convince others that my research question is both important and interesting.

I can plan and carry out a scientific investigation.

A continuum is a scoring guide. Each competency has its own continuum.

Note that Philadelphia’s scoring rubrics were built not for specific assignments, but for competencies, such that each competency has its own scoring rubric that is used to rate a student’s performance, regardless of the assessment.

At Summit Public Schools, the performance levels described in their rating system range from 1 to 8, where Level 1 represents “no evidence” of the given skill, and Level 8 represents a performance level of “professional or approaching professional” for the skill.

Each of these systems has its own unique approach to determining which performance level, based on its own rating system, represents a demonstration of evidence toward mastery.

And it’s when we drill down to the scoring rubrics that we find the language of proficiency at each performance level (“performance level descriptors”).

Let’s take Casco Bay High School as an example, which uses the following rating scale:

1 = Does Not Meet the Standards 2 = Approaches the Standards 3 = Meets the Standards 4 = Exceeds the Standards

Page � of �8 30

SPS

The chart below describes the rating system in more detail, and guides teachers on how to use the rating system not only to score individual assignments, but also to determine overall course grades.

Note that, in the CBHS system, a rating of “3 - Meets the Standard” means that the student’s work “fundamentally and competently meets the standard,” and that, as an overall evaluation, this rating represents “a passing grade”, sufficient for advancement.

While this rating system is a school-wide system that provides teachers with a guide for performance expectations, teachers themselves are responsible for developing rubrics to specify the criteria for each performance level based on the subject content and assessments.

However you approach the development of your scoring rubrics and rating system, it’s important to make sure your scoring rubrics and rating system are clearly explained in your grading policy document. Why scoring rubrics? How do they relate to your competencies and/or assessment types? What is your rating scale? Do you have any specific scoring

Page � of �9 30

“For each major assessment, teachers will develop rubrics (often with student input) that make clear the criteria that a student will have to meet in order to receive a 2, 3 or 4.

CBHS

CBHS

rules that guide the use of your scoring rubrics? It may be helpful to provide an annotated version of your scoring rubric to reinforce understanding of your system, as well as to reinforce your language of mastery.

Let’s circle back to the Philadelphia model for a different approach to defining the performance level that represents evidence of mastery. Rather than rating assignments using a rating scale, the skills that make up a competency are scored on a rubric or continuum and then averaged to generate a performance level for each competency.

As explained in Philadelphia’s Student Competency Handbook, demonstrating mastery in its three new competency-based schools has two requirements: achieving a specific overall average performance level, and fulfilling a quantified body of work or “portfolio” made up of performance-based assessments.

Note that the overall average performance level is tracked by competency, and is calculated as an average of the "best of” skill ratings (per the competency’s scoring rubric).

In Philadelphia’s model, there is no limit to the pieces of evidence a student may submit to demonstrate mastery of a competency at a particular level, and in this example, only the top two (per the evidence requirement) will contribute toward the average that makes up the performance level. This means a student’s overall average performance level for the competency is not negatively impacted by earlier assessments that perhaps earned lower ratings, because only the best ratings for the “evidence requirement” contribute to the overall performance level calculation. In other words, if the performance level were calculated as a running average over the course of the year, it is likely that early, lower ratings would pull down the average, and as a result, the performance level calculation would no longer provide an accurate and current snapshot of student performance.

Page � of �10 30

What is MASTERY?

Mastery Levels of 9-12

Performance Level, calculated as average of “best of” skill ratings Evidence requirement indicates required number of unique pieces of evidence (tasks) – shown as number of boxes

Note that the evidence requirement varies by competency. In the example history competency above, each of the four skills of the competency has an evidence requirement of two (the number of boxes), meaning that the student must complete at least two unique performance tasks in which they demonstrate each of these skills.

This example brings us to our final question that you’ll need to answer: How many times does a student need to reach the target performance level in order to show mastery? In other words, how much evidence should be required for demonstrating mastery?

EVIDENCE: Portfolios of Work

One recommendation for establishing evidence requirements for your competencies is to begin with the end in mind. What will students in their first year of college be expected to do? What types of tasks will be required of them, and how many?

For example, if your school serves students at the high school level, consider back-mapping from the performance and workload expectations of a freshman in college, and perhaps establish a smaller portfolio requirement for first- and second-year students and expand the requirement as students progress in their learning and approach graduation.

There are three basic approaches to setting the evidence requirement for mastery that we've observed in the field:

• One piece of evidence at a level of proficiency • Multiple pieces of evidence, with only one required at a level of proficiency • Multiple pieces of evidence required at a level of proficiency

If the goal is college and career readiness, then it is important to note that best practice in the field indicates that students need to engage in preparatory tasks with repetition in order to ensure they are truly ready for what will be expected of them in their first year of college.

Take a look at the graphic below. Any surprises?

Page � of �11 30

E

In 2014, reDesign scanned freshman syllabi in universities across the country - from some of the most competitive institutions to some of the most open - and found remarkably similar results. From research projects and argumentative essays, to text-based discussions and presentations, the workload was significant. reDesign’s findings are in the graphic below:

Our recommendation is that at each performance level along the way toward graduation, students are required to demonstrate proficiency multiple times, not just once. And you can use the numbers in the graphic above to think about how to most effectively scaffold the evidence requirement on the journey toward graduation. For example, you may consider in year one of high school requiring students to complete only two presentations total across all learning spaces, but by their final year of high school, requiring four or more presentations across all learning spaces.

However you approach establishing the required number of evidences, the student work portfolio is an important element of mastery-based learning, as it provides documentation of student performance and growth over the course of their learning, and also provides an important opportunity for norming expectations for mastery.

Circling Back: Student Work Management Policies As mentioned earlier, there are several more granular issues related to assessment and student work management that are important to address in your grading policy, such as turnaround time for scoring work, managing revision cycles and re-assessment opportunities, and handling of late work.

Turnaround time for student work: How quickly are teachers expected to give feedback, rate and return work to students?

We encourage you to make this decision together with your teaching team, making a determination that balances teacher workload expectations with the need to ensure students receive timely feedback that will enable them to progress in their learning without significant delay. Consider communicating upfront to students about the target

Page � of �12 30

_________ Text- Based Discussions

_________ Problem Sets

_________ examinations

_________ Lab Reports

_________ pages of Reading _________ polished Essay pages

_________ Position Papers

90-100 5,000

8 12 _________ Presentations 6

21 6 75

In my first year of college, I will be expected to complete…

Photo credits: CollegeDegrees360 under Creative Commons Attribution License

turnaround timeframe that is set for the school community so they are clear about what their own expectations can be for receiving feedback.

You may also consider creating different turnaround targets for first and second versus third and fourth rounds of teacher feedback, prioritizing first and second rounds of feedback and giving teachers more time to respond to subsequent requests for feedback.

Revision cycles: How are revision cycles structured to optimize learning and most efficiently use teacher time? How many times can a student revise and resubmit work?

It may be helpful to create a formal set of steps and protocols that guide a revision cycle and help set student expectations for the process.

For example, you may want to require at least one feedback cycle before students submit work for formal rating. This may help reduce the number of times a teacher formally enters ratings or scores into the gradebook or competency tracker, and also helps ensure that measures of growth, based on such score entries, are more accurate. For example, if one teacher has a practice of entering scores for the “first draft” of skill demonstrations, and another teacher enters a “final draft” for skill demonstrations, this may skew a growth calculation for a particular skill.

Another possible protocol to consider is to require a teacher-student conference after a certain number of feedback cycles that don’t result in expected improvements in the work. Finally, you may require in some cases that, based on a review of student work, a student must complete or repeat a particular learning sequence before he is permitted to resubmit a piece of work. While checks for understanding are ideally built into the learning process early and throughout, the first draft of a performance task may reveal a student’s misconception or lack of understanding of some of the content-related learning aims that are critical to a successful work product.

Late work: How is late work treated? Is there a place for deadlines? What about penalties?

Late work policies can be tricky. The challenge is holding in balance the offering of truly self-paced learning opportunities for students with the importance of preparing students for a world where deadlines are real and failure to meet them may result in serious consequences.

We should start with a most basic question: Is there such a thing as “late work” in a personalized, mastery-based school? The answer is unwaveringly yes! On an individual level, students should be engaged in goal-setting and building strong work and time management skills that allow them to practice setting and meeting task deadlines and reflecting on their degree of success in meeting them. On a school level, as is the case at Summit Public Schools, school-wide structures, such as the “Minimum Pacing Guide” can help give students an overall sense of monitoring their progress and work

Page � of �13 30

completion expectations over the course of a learning cycle alongside their peers. Adjustments can be made to accommodate individual learning needs.

If there is such a thing as “late work,” how should it be handled? The late work policy of Casco Bay (CBHS) strikes the balance between personalization and preparation for the professional world exceptionally well. At CBHS, students’ “Habits of Work” become the determining factor in whether or not late work is accepted. If a student has strong ratings for “Habits of Work,” she is given as much time as she needs to complete the work. If a student has low ratings for “Habits of Work” such that the student has shown a pattern of not giving a strong effort or not managing work responsibly, the privilege of time is removed from the student and late work is not accepted beyond the deadline.

One other thing to consider: if you do put in place a penalty of some kind for late work, be sure that it doesn’t impact a student’s performance or growth measure, as these numbers should remain pure representations of performance and growth that are not conflated by behavioral factors.

Reporting Tools The work of developing reporting tools for your system is an incredibly helpful exercise in solidifying what it is you are measuring and tracking, as well as how you plan to do so. It might be helpful to think about your data and reporting tools on several different levels:

Internal administrative and/or teacher tools Administrative tools include those that your school leader and/or teaching team will use internally to pull data sets, such as aggregate school-wide data, specific demographic data, or data aligned to other aspects of your Assessment Strategy tiers (specific student groupings, departments, or teacher teams), to guide data-driven decision-making.

These reporting tools may be part of the package of your Learning Management System (LMS) or gradebook of choice, or they may need to be custom-developed to meet the needs of your system. Before you consider a custom build, be sure to take the time to identify your most critical needs, and try to build a simple prototype in a spreadsheet. Also, scan the field for existing tools. It may be much more efficient to have a consultant do this for you, and report back on findings, as the ed tech landscape is rapidly changing.

One example data and reporting tool example, shown below, is a competency-based gradebook, or “Competency Dashboard,” developed by the Philadelphia-based ed tech company, SLATE, in partnership with the nonprofit Building 21 and the School District of Philadelphia. While custom builds are often not encouraged in year one, the Philadelphia team believed they needed a tool that reinforced the design of their competency model and made for easier adoption and understanding among stakeholders in year one.

Page � of �14 30

Philadelphia’s “Competency Dashboard”

The graphic above illustrates the “teacher view” of the Competency Dashboard. Here are a few key distinctive elements of this mastery-based system:

• Note that the gradebook is competency-based rather than assignment-based: It does not track grades of assignments; It tracks student performance on skill demonstrations scored using Philadelphia's rating system.

• The system allows the administrator to customize the number of required pieces of evidence for demonstrating mastery of a particular competency. In the example above, “Writing Evidence-based Arguments" has an evidence requirement of two, shown as two boxes.

• The student view is a “meta” view of her progress toward mastery; student data is not confined to a specific course, but instead captures data on a particular competency across all learning spaces, so that any teacher can score and enter skill demonstrations across all competencies.

• As soon as a student shows mastery of a competency, the cell color “flips” to the next level of mastery and the displayed data resets, allowing students to show mastery and progress at the competency level (rather than waiting for a course to end) and begin building their next portfolio of work — and making this advancement visually apparent to teachers at first glance of their gradebook.

• Note that the heat map shows student progress toward completing the evidence requirement, and the overall performance level by competency (calculated as an average of skill ratings for a competency) is also displayed in this view.

As a newly developed pilot in version 1.0 of its development, the SLATE Competency Dashboard system lacked robust reporting features needed for data tracking in year

Page � of �15 30

Ally A. Ben B. Cassie C. David D. Erika E. Fiona F. Garrett G. Hector H. Isaiah I. Just

one. For this reason, the Philadelphia team developed a set of Google-based tools to supplement the Competency Dashboard and provide the aggregate data views it found important in year one. This was completed using Google Sheets, Google Forms, and some coding or Google “scripting.”

The graphic below shows the Administrator Management Console, built out as a series of Google Sheets that provide administrators with tools for importing and analyzing the data from the SLATE Competency Dashboard system. The “Progress Filters” tool shown below allows administrators to search for students who meet a set of criteria set using the filters shown below.

One exciting part of the above Google system is that it is an infrastructure for efficient communication with both students and families. For example, this tool includes an “On-Demand” e-mail feature where each student — as well as anyone designated as an “Other Viewer” for a student — can be sent an e-mail with a hyperlink to the individual student’s online progress report and a customizable message that, for example, says online progress reports (also in Google Sheet format) have been updated. Also, educators can use a simple Google Form to add comments to the students’ online progress reports that is updated in real time.

Parent/family reporting tools Parent and family reporting tools commonly take the form of monthly progress reports that are sent home and that give parents and guardians a current view of student performance and progress. It is likely that your mastery-based progress report template is quite different from what families who come from traditional school systems are accustomed to, and therefore these reporting tools must be very user-friendly, shared frequently to build familiarity, and rolled out effectively and early on with strong messaging and multiple opportunities for parents and families to build understanding of

Page � of �16 30

the system. Remember that families may be expecting — and wanting! — monthly or quarterly course grades as a simple and familiar way to gauge how their child is doing in school. A significant paradigm shift will be required, and making the case for the “why” of this very different system sits squarely with you and your team. If you are not providing traditional grades on your progress reports, anticipate the time and strategic effort it will require to “onboard” your parents and families to your new, mastery-based system.

A word of caution: because you may be gathering much more data on student performance and growth in a much more systematic way than ever before, your temptation may be to share the whole of it with parents and families — and this may be overwhelming to those who have been content in the past with a simple letter grade.

For example, check out the following sample online progress report (again, a Google Sheet stored in Google Drive) designed by the Philadelphia team. This screenshot shows the ELA data that was displayed for students and families:

Philadelphia Progress Report Screenshot: ELA

This online progress report provides students and parents/guardians with four different data points for each competency of each subject area.

“We realized, in hindsight, this was probably a bit of data overload for parents who are used to seeing only a single letter grade or percentage for an entire course! Even though our initial focus group feedback was positive with this template, we were not successful in reaching every parent, and as a result, this proved confusing for many families. We needed to step back and rethink our approach…and think about student data in terms of a hierarchy of information. We’ve decided that we want to create “layers” of information that parents can pull back, or drill down into, whenever they want. Let's give them that single number that they’re used to — which in our world, is a student’s overall performance level rather than a traditional grade — and then allow them to drill down into that number to see what it means across a subject area, and even within a competency. We’ll let you know how it goes!”

Page � of �17 30

PHILLY

The next iteration of their progress reporting template — which is available both in online and print forms — gives parents an overview by subject area. If they want to see more, they can click on the “expanded view” to delve more deeply into the competencies of a subject area.

As you think about progress reporting, consider building on the Philadelphia team’s lesson learned and think through the “hierarchy” of student data that you will want to report on. Consider creating multiple templates that provide different views with different levels of granularity, and then test your ideas with focus groups of parents and students.

Note that while your district may require you to send printed progress reports at certain time intervals throughout the school year, it is worth exploring opportunities to take advantage of technology and perhaps even more frequently communicate and update parents and families through online communication.

Student reporting tools Technology is truly transforming students’ access to, and experience with, their performance data. A number of schools and organizations across the country are working to develop and refine internal data systems and reporting tools for this very purpose.

Let’s circle back to Philadelphia’s “Competency Dashboard.” Here is the student view that allows students to search by subject area and see their performance and progress at the competency and skill level:

Page � of �18 30

Philadelphia Competency Dashboard: Student View

Summit Public Schools has also designed and developed a robust “Personalized Learning Plan” system that shows students ongoing progress on projects, college readiness planning, and overall academic performance data.

Summit Public Schools PLP “My Dashboard: Current Projects”

Page � of �19 30

In the student PLP “Dashboard,” students can see a linear display of their current projects, as well as a list of color-coded supporting learning activities they need to complete as part of the project. Student goals are displayed in the right-hand margin. As shown below, students can also see a long-term view of their projects by course.

Summit Public Schools PLP “My Dashboard: Learning Continuum”

As you consider your own approach to getting started, consider simply drafting one or several versions of a progress report template, get feedback from your team, and then engage students and families in a focus group setting to capture their initial impressions, questions, and level of understanding. Let the prototype take shape as you analyze this user feedback.

For another example, please see the Appendix.

Page � of �20 30

Promotion Policy Let’s imagine for a moment that we’re no longer constrained in any way by the old Carnegie credit system and traditional ways of organizing learning around courses, seat time, and passing grades. In a mastery-based system, competencies become the new, modular unit of learning. This opens up a world of possibilities for instructional design, assessment models, learning contexts, and promotion policies.

From a purist’s perspective, a truly mastery-based promotion policy would likely represent one of the most significant shifts from traditional ways of thinking and doing in education.

Remember that, in the world of Carnegie credits, age-based cohorts of students are promoted from one grade to the next as long as they achieve a passing grade for a course — even when that passing grade offers little to no information about a student’s skill set or persistent gaps, growth achieved, or performance level.

In a mastery learning system, students move along competency-based learning progressions; their performance level is clearly identified and tracked by competency or by skill. Promotion, then, becomes simply about advancement through demonstrations of learning at the competency level.

What is exciting about this new level of flexibility is that, if you have the freedom to do so, you can approach your promotion policy and systems with enormous creativity.

For example, you could bundle sets of competencies and create a badging or certification system that celebrates and acknowledges students who advance in certain competencies to certain levels. You could engage students in creating their own personalized graduation pathways in which they select from required and optional competencies to build their own milestones toward graduation. If your school has a particular theme, you could establish specific milestones that are connected to your themes.

You could also take a slightly more traditional approach and still have “levels” of mastery that require a certain performance level to be achieved for a certain number of competencies or skills in order to advance. You could take a similar approach, but instead of requiring a performance level, you could require a certain measure of growth to be achieved.

There are many, many possibilities. Do keep in mind that robust tracking tools will be essential to supporting the kind of flexible promotion policies and systems described above. Also note that this might be a very difficult adjustment for students and families who are accustomed to firmly established grade levels and promotion policies.

If you are operating within the constraints of a larger, more traditional system, some of these ideas around promotion may still be worth exploring as internal ways to create and celebrate milestones of learning.

The next part of this guide will review some of the critical pieces that you’ll need to include in your grading policy if you are navigating the Carnegie credit world.

Page � of �21 30

PART II: Tools for Navigating the Carnegie Credit World If you are working within a traditional system, you will likely be expected to somehow “translate” your mastery learning system into the language and structures of the Carnegie credit world: courses, grades, report cards, GPAs, and so forth. The following sections will help you with this translation process, while also providing you with tips for ensuring your systems continue to honor the principles on which your mastery learning system is based.

Grade Composition In a true mastery-based learning system, grades are no longer relevant. As explained above, we report continuously on performance and progress. On the contrary, grades are a hallmark of the Carnegie system, and despite the enormous variance in how grades are calculated from teacher to teacher or school to school, you will likely be required to generate course grades for your students by the end of the school year. So how do we approach this conversion process?

First and foremost, grades should be based strictly on performance and learning, rather than behavioral components that are commonly built into student grades, such as class participation, homework completion, work ethic, and attendance. While these components may still be tracked and reported on, ultimately they should remain separate from the academic grade. You’ll want to communicate this clearly in your policy document, as it is likely a significant shift for your educators, students, and families. Here are two helpful excerpts that provide language for how to explain this shift to educators, parents, and families:

Grade Conversions How do you convert your student performance data into a traditional grade? In short, your task is to determine a fair and transparent way to:

1. Map your competencies to courses 2. Translate your rating system to traditional grades (letter or percentages)

Because of the sensitivity around grades, it is critical that both of the above steps are completed before the school year begins in order to avoid frustration or confusion among teachers, students, or families.

Page � of �22 30

“Our grading practices are guided by the belief that academic grades (those that measure learning, academic performance, and competency proficiency) must be separate and distinct from “behavioral” grades…[we] require that educators remove all character, citizenship, behavior, and attendance factors when calculating academic grades. Character, citizenship, behavior, and attendance factors are applied, instead, to a student’s score on each of the 21st Century Expectations for Learning.”

SRHS“Principle: Grades should clearly communicate what students know and are able to do in each class.

Practice: We report on student mastery of specific skills and concepts within a course (called “course standards”); traits like participation and effort are reported on separately.”

CBHS

Let’s take a look at a few examples. At Boston Day and Evening Academy, the rating scale (Highly Competent, Competent, Basic Competent, Exempt, Incomplete) directly converts to a traditional letter grade (not a percentage).

Click here to see BDEA's Common Grading Protocols.

The Philadelphia model generates traditional course grades by calculating the overall average performance level for all subject area competencies, then using the following conversion chart. For example, if a ninth grade student achieves an overall average performance level for all six science competencies of 8.7, this converts to a grade of 88%.

Note that the minimum performance average displayed in the conversion chart is an 8.5 for ninth grade courses, 9.5 for tenth grade courses, and so forth.

Page � of �23 30

T h i s n u m b e r

represents the minimum performance average required for showing mastery at each level. A student working on her ninth grade portfolio of work must earn an overall average performance level of 8.5 for a competency — or all course competencies, which converts to a “C” letter grade — in order to show mastery. A student working on his tenth grade portfolio of work must earn an overall average performance level of 9.5 in order to show mastery, and so forth.

Why did the designers of The Philadelphia model establish the threshold for mastery as halfway (e.g., 8.5) to the grade-level target? The reason is rooted in what we know about using an average to measure performance: the only way to achieve this “halfway point” is to at least achieve the target performance level in half your portfolio work. Think of it this way: if in the beginning of the year a ninth grade student earns 8s and by the end of the year is achieving 9s, this would average out to an 8.5 overall. If an average of 9 or above were required, then the student work that represents her progress toward on-grade-level work (e.g., the 8s earned along the way) couldn’t be valued as part of her portfolio.

Promotion and Crediting: How to Earn Course Credits You will need to determine the minimum requirements for earning course credits in your system. It may be helpful to think about this in one of two ways:

• Students can only earn credit when they show mastery at a particular level • Students have multiple pathways for earning credit that are not exclusively tied to

performance levels

If you decide on the former, then you will simply need to determine the performance level (or course grade equivalent, per your grade conversion) and the evidence requirement that together represent “mastery” in your system, and then issue course credit to students who meet these criteria. For example, students must complete their work portfolio and earn an 80% overall, per your grade conversion process, in order to achieve credit.

Page � of �24 30

Two Crediting Pathways

In order to earn a course credit, students are required to: •  Complete the portfolio (evidence

requirement) for all course competencies

•  Achieve the minimum performance

level for all course competencies. The minimum performance level is set by the grade level of the course (i.e. “8.5” for 9th grade courses)

In order to earn course credit, students are required to: •  Complete the portfolio (evidence

requirement) for all course competencies

•  Earn at least 1.2 years of growth for any competency that did not meet the required performance level, calculated as difference of ratings between first and last revised work submission

Crediting by Mastery Crediting by Growth

The second option — multiple pathways — decouples the earning of Carnegie credits from the achievement of mastery at a particular level. This is the route that the Philadelphia team took, creating two pathways for earning credit: Mastery and Growth. Both pathways require students to fulfill the evidence requirement or portfolio of work established for all competencies across subject areas.

The “Mastery” pathway requires students to show mastery at the target performance level; for example, if a student is enrolled in a ninth grade course, he must achieve an overall performance level of 8.5 or higher in order to earn credit. The “Growth” pathway requires a student to show a minimum level of growth on course competencies in order to earn credit; for example, he must show an overall growth measure of 1.2 years or higher across all course competencies in order to earn credit. In this case, the “Growth-to-Grade Conversion Chart” is used to determine the final course grade (shown in the graphic on the right).

When explaining its decision to offer two crediting pathways, the Philadelphia team points to city-wide data on the average literacy and numeracy levels of incoming ninth graders, as well as to their own incoming students’ performance data. They assert that it is unrealistic to expect that students who are several years behind grade level will be able to achieve multiple years of growth and demonstrate ninth grade level mastery in a single year’s time. Rather than penalizing students, the Philadelphia model values accelerated growth and allows this to be a pathway for earning credit.

“It means we can have honest conversations with our students and parents about where students really are in their learning, while also communicating how much we value their hard work and growth, and how there is an exciting opportunity for them to earn graduation credits based on personalized growth goals toward college and career readiness.” The Philadelphia team explains that students’ growth-based grades will eventually be based on the achievement of personalized growth goals that determine what rate of acceleration is required for a student to achieve college and career readiness, based on their incoming performance levels.

Page � of �25 30

Advanced / Honors Weighting Since most colleges and universities still strongly consider high school GPA when making admission decisions, it is important to think about how students in your mastery-based learning system will have opportunities to earn advanced or honors credit that will weight their GPA.

In the Philadelphia model, advanced and honors credit are represented in the Grade Conversion Chart and are simply based on students’ performance level over and above the target performance level for a particular grade level of work.

Page � of �26 30

Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

Grade 9 Course Grade 10 Course Grade 11 Course Grade 12 Course

Course Grade

Mastery Course Grade Conversion Chart:Performance Level To Course Grades

SDP GPA ConversionCourse Competency Average

80% 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 2.7081% 8.525 9.525 10.525 11.525 2.8082% 8.55 9.55 10.55 11.55 2.9083% 8.575 9.575 10.575 11.575 3.0084% 8.6 9.6 10.6 11.6 3.1085% 8.625 9.625 10.625 11.625 3.2086% 8.65 9.65 10.65 11.65 3.3087% 8.675 9.675 10.675 11.675 3.4088% 8.7 9.7 10.7 11.7 3.5089% 8.725 9.725 10.725 11.725 3.6090% 8.75 9.75 10.75 11.75 3.7091% 8.775 9.775 10.775 11.775 3.7392% 8.8 9.8 10.8 11.8 3.7693% 8.825 9.825 10.825 11.825 3.7994% 8.85 9.85 10.85 11.85 3.8295% 8.875 9.875 10.875 11.875 3.8596% 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 3.8897% 8.925 9.925 10.925 11.925 3.9198% 8.95 9.95 10.95 11.95 3.9499% 8.975 9.975 10.975 11.975 3.97

100% 9 10 11 12 4.009.025 10.025 11.025 12.025 4.019.05 10.05 11.05 12.05 4.029.075 10.075 11.075 12.075 4.039.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 4.049.125 10.125 11.125 12.125 4.059.15 10.15 11.15 12.15 4.069.175 10.175 11.175 12.175 4.079.2 10.2 11.2 12.2 4.089.225 10.225 11.225 12.225 4.09

(Advanced) 9.25 10.25 11.25 12.25 4.109.275 10.275 11.275 12.275 4.119.3 10.3 11.3 12.3 4.129.325 10.325 11.325 12.325 4.139.35 10.35 11.35 12.35 4.149.375 10.375 11.375 12.375 4.159.4 10.4 11.4 12.4 4.169.425 10.425 11.425 12.425 4.179.45 10.45 11.45 12.45 4.189.475 10.475 11.475 12.475 4.19

(Honors) 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 4.20

For example, if a ninth grade student earns an overall performance level of 9.25 for a particular set of course competencies, the student will be re-rostered to the “Advanced” version of the same course (per the district’s rostering system) and will then earn a higher GPA.

At Casco Bay High School, “meeting the standards” — per the rating system — was deemed equivalent to a GPA of 3.0. Students have the opportunity to earn a GPA of 3.75 when they consistently “exceed the standards” and earn credit “with honors,” as explained below in the excerpt from their grading and assessment guide for parents and families:

As you think about your approach to this process, we encourage you to consider a standardized approach that makes the expectation for earning advanced or honors credit fully transparent to your stakeholders.

Final Report Cards and/or Transcripts Once you have determined your process for generating course grades — which involves both mapping competencies to courses, and determining your grade conversion process — creating a traditional final report card or transcript will be a straightforward process. You may simply be required to enter your final course grades in your district system, and a final report card and/or transcript will be generated for you. If not, you may want to model your school transcript or final report from what is commonly used in your district system so that it is familiar to your stakeholders.

If you are sending these final report cards or transcripts home, consider attaching your competency performance/progress report along with the report card or transcript to reinforce your mastery-based learning system with parents and families, along with a concise, user-friendly explanation — or better yet, a reminder — for how final course grades were calculated.

Page � of �27 30

CBHS

SIS Data Management Protocols If you are working within a traditional system, you will likely be required to comply with a number of different reporting protocols while interacting with district student information systems, such as:

• Rostering all students to traditional courses, using only courses offered in the district course catalogue

• Entering quarterly or end-of-year course grades • Managing student transfers and providing a grade conversions midyear

We strongly advise you to be proactive in meeting with relevant district departments (if applicable) to understand any compliance issues that may arise during the school year so that you can plan accordingly. Just as important, we also encourage you to advocate for flexibilities within the system — and be particularly prudent in fact-finding to determine which compliance issues are grounded in state or federal law, and which compliance issues may be derived from district-level systems that may be up for negotiation.

Finally, consider developing a list of thoughtful questions to take with you to your meetings with district departments.

For example, if you are required to enter final course grades by the end of the school year, but a student works over the summer to revise work and submit missing work, are you able to update the student’s grade in the district system’s archive? Or, because you have clearly quantified the body of work required for a course credit — per the evidence requirement for course competencies — will you be granted the flexibility to offer half-credits to students when they complete half of the portfolio?

These types of questions will help build understanding for your mastery learning system and give you the opportunity to communicate your needs and the rationale behind them. As you continue to build your case, and build relationships along the way, you may have the opportunity to not only secure much-needed flexibilities for your mastery learning system, but also to influence the evolution of the larger system over time.

Page � of �28 30

APPENDIX A: REPORTING TOOL “autoCrat”

autoCrat, an application designed by New Visions Cloud Lab, is a Google Sheet add-on that enables you to run online mail mergers using Google Docs and Google Sheets. You can even automate personalized e-mail blasts with PDF or Google Doc attachments to an e-mail list in a spreadsheet. Check it out here: http://cloudlab.newvisions.org/add-ons/autocrat The graphic below shows the Google Doc template that was created to update parents/guardians on their child’s status for earning credit.

Sample autoCrat Mail Merge: Google Doc Template

A Google Sheet that includes student name, parent/guardian e-mail, and student performance/growth/work completion data can then be merged with the template and, with just a few clicks, sent to each student’s parent/guardian as an e-mail attachment in PDF or Google Doc format, as shown below.

Sample autoCrat Mail Merge from Google Sheet Data

Page � of �29 30

APPENDIX B: BDEA COMPETENCY TRACKING SYSTEM

Boston Day and Evening Academy’s online competency tracking system is shown below. Each competency is made up of a set of benchmarks, and students are scored using their rating system (i.e., “H” for Highly Competent; “C” for Competent; “N” for Not Competent).

The “Condensed Progress Report” displays students’ progress toward completing competency benchmarks, organized by subject area.

Page � of �30 30