Open Letter to Arne Duncan

Dear Mr. Duncan,

First of all, Congratulations!

And next, I am not looking for a job, but realize you should have some idea of my background: I have taught (and occasionally administrated) for over 35 years in the USA, Portugal, Syria, Japan and Hong Kong. I am retired.

I have a practical suggestion to assist in the improvement of High School education throughout the country. It is a simple concept but would require some retraining of teachers, and some reeducation of administrators and parents. Consider replacing traditional grading systems with progressive outcome-based systems. I have done this in my classes in my last three positions and have found the results to be unfailingly excellent. The effect on all students has been measurable improvement. Parents have appreciated and approved the informative and supportive nature of the system and administrators have often asked me to teach the system to other teachers.

This sort of grading is not new. In essence most grammar schools use a form of it. It is likely that many high-school teachers and administrators will resist it at first, as it requires an initial expenditure of time and effort and challenges tradition. However, the costs are small, consisting of some professional development and a tweak to existing programs.

It is a system that requires more attention not only to how we teach but what and how we genuinely measure the results. It results in genuine assessment, greater student motivation, less time spent negotiating grades with parents and students, greater parental awareness of their child’s educational needs and more efficient and effective teaching and learning.

Here is an overview.

The Current Cumulative System - Student’s grades are averaged over a semester and a final grade assigned that does not reflect the actual learning or final skill level.
In this system an above average student enters a class working above grade level in most skill areas and achieves “A” on early assessments. This student continues to receive “A” throughout and ends with an “A” for the term reflecting no growth and no challenge.
A below average student enters working below grade level and receives “D” or “F” on most early assessments. Hopefully, by the end of the term the student is consistently achieving “B” and gets a B+ on the final reflecting both growth and improved skill levels. This student ends with a “C-” for the term that does not reflect their true growth and is not an accurate indicator of the student’s current abilities. .
Worse, because the reporting system focus is entirely on the numbers with no reflection of what those numbers truly mean other than the student got a “50” on a test, parents ask, “what happened?” or “Why did he get a low grade?” and the students beg for another few points (or tenths of a point) to achieve a higher class standing rather than look at what the grade may be indicating. Students tend to see the system as one of arbitrary reward and punishment. No one is entirely certain, at the start of the next school year, what the student’s actual strengths and weaknesses are.

The Progressive Outcome-based System - Students are assessed by determining initial levels in specifically defined areas and individualized assessments are based on these. No more “I got an “A’ on my math test, but I got an “A” in formulae but a “C” in computation. Grades grow with the student’s demonstrated growth in each area. In other words, if a student is achieving a “D” level on basic math computations but eventually masters these at a “B” level, the final grade will be a “B” in that area. Final grades are a genuine reflection of improvement and actual skill levels.
In this system, an above average student enters the class and is determined to be working above grade level in most skill areas. The teacher uses testing to determine where weakness may lie and focuses ongoing assessment on those areas, while setting higher standards where appropriate. This student may find themselves receiving less than the usual “A” at first but is motivated to improve weaknesses and learn new skills
The below average student who has entered with weaker skills still has low grades at first but is motivated by the knowledge that real improvement will lead to substantially better grades and a greater awareness of what those grades mean. Also, this sort of grading can easily include non-subject specific skills such as organization, scheduling, listening skills, etc. leading to motivated improvement in study skills, conduct and effort.
This system makes it much more difficult for a student to focus only on the number of points that make up a particular test or the final grade and will shift the attention from numbers to what the numbers actually mean. Both the student and the teacher know exactly what skills and content a specific assignment is evaluating.
This system makes it easier to create and apply consistent rubrics to every assignment - indeed it demands it. Thus the expectations are always clearer and the means to achieve them as well.
It goes a long way to answering those pesky parental questions, “What is this Grade based on?” “What can my child do to improve?” “Is this an objective Grade?” “Is teacher #1’s teaching consistent with teacher #2”
While it requires a large effort to set up it ultimately makes assessing most assignments quicker and easier.


Since this system is evidently so much better why haven’t more schools and teachers adopted it already?
It clearly takes a great deal of extra time to set up a new system and adapt it to each teacher’s specific assessment tools
It requires changing hearts and minds about traditional grading.
It only works when specific skills and levels of expectations for each subject have been identified and rubrics developed.
It requires adaptation of the way in which grade books or computer based grading systems are set up and grades are reported.
It requires more time spent on revision process and individuation of assessment goals.

Finally, I understand that this proposal is for only one aspect of a wide-ranging change that needs to take place in the way our schools perceive what they do and ultimately requires a whole system change that focuses on actual ability to accomplish genuine tasks. However, I strongly believe it is the best starting point. I have been through many years of “school improvement” committee meetings, curriculum writing and rewriting, benchmark identification, vertical alignment, cross curriculum goals and objectives and so on. All of these have value but without a clear method to assess what we are trying to accomplish they all too often appear to teachers as just another new way of doing what we have always done. However, if we begin with what it is we truly expect and how it is we measure that, the rest seems to make more sense.

Sincerely, Ted Guhl

The Coming Year