What do you think?
Rate this book
Grades Don't Matter
Tony Donen and teachers from his high school, Fairview High School,transform their school through standards-based grading. Teachers from all core areas and electives discuss their process.
168 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2010
3 people are currently reading
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 7, 2017
There is power in questioning your methods and revamping, especially in a large organization that you hope to follow suit. That's what makes this book powerful: the willingness to reflect one's practices given the opportunity, especially when it comes to something delicate to four major education parties (administrators, teachers, parents, and students): grades.
Education, like I'm sure all professionals, have their best practices and emerging research revitalization movements. This are necessary and welcome. But the most powerful thing one can have is the permission to experiment and improve, and I think that's why I like the narrative arc of this book. The testimony of improvement and trying things out is a powerful thing.
It's bold to experiment with grading. There is a lot of discussion and rationalization to be had. But to have that support test best practices or try something new, trusting professionals completely in the process, is a wonderful thing.
Education, like I'm sure all professionals, have their best practices and emerging research revitalization movements. This are necessary and welcome. But the most powerful thing one can have is the permission to experiment and improve, and I think that's why I like the narrative arc of this book. The testimony of improvement and trying things out is a powerful thing.
It's bold to experiment with grading. There is a lot of discussion and rationalization to be had. But to have that support test best practices or try something new, trusting professionals completely in the process, is a wonderful thing.
August 11, 2016
Our faculty is reading this as a professional book study, and I wanted to read through it ahead of time so I could be "in the know" as we delve into the ideas behind the philosophy piece by piece.
As for the philosophy that drives the book, it is pretty interesting and I agree with many of the ideas. For example, why am I giving points for participation and completion? I've been doing it forever -- checkmark assignments that track a student's process through the steps leading up to the Big Assessment at the end of thematic units. Why? Because without points attached to an assignment, why would a student bother doing it? But isn't that a bit bass-ackwards? This suggests that I as the teacher get some reward for them doing the assignments, but in truth the "reward" for doing the assignment is the increased knowledge the student receives that enables them to ultimately pass the assessment. I also provide these checkmark grades as a buffer to lessen the impact for students to do poorly on the tests; this book has made me re-see that I am not truly doing my students a service by making things easier in this way.
I do see several problems with the philosophy, many of which are addressed in the book (fortunately). For example, grades are going to drop phenomenally as students have to adapt the new mindset that they will not be rewarded for mere assignment completion. This means a great deal of parent complaints (as grades drop), and unless the entire school gets behind the idea it's not going to work. Another problem: the burden on the teacher becomes massive; the book talks about assigning lunchtime detention for students who have not yet achieved mastery of the skills as well as afterschool detention. Another problem: students are allowed to retest to achieve higher levels of mastery; this actually sounds like a good idea, but the teachers and must come up with different tests for each time a student retests. It's not just a matter of redoing the same test, but doing a different test that covers the same material. If I were a math teacher, this might be easy enough; as an English teacher, I feel this may be difficult.
But I also think that if the program were adopted and fully implemented, the ideas would in fact increase student achievement. Students would be issued one of four grades: Non-Mastery, Initial Mastery, Mastery, Advanced Mastery (these translate to numeric grades of 0, 70, 85, and 100, respectively). Definitive rubrics would have to be established, and these would allow the students know exactly where they had mastered or failed to master skills and concepts. As I said earlier, students would have the opportunity to retest to achieve higher levels of mastery.
It will be interesting to see how our conversation develops as we engage in this book study. I am very proud of our administration for requiring this professional reading; I think teachers should engage in professional reading and I appreciate this opportunity to engage in dialogue with my fellow colleagues.
Finally, a brief critique about the book's style. Most of the book consists of several teachers writing about their experiences implementing the program in their school, and I think this is very good. There is, however, a significant section of the book where the style descends into something I have criticized in my other professional reading recently: made-up scenarios and anecdotes that attempt to illustrate a situation. In this case, they make up a few different students (who are obvious archetypes) and then provide supposedly written comments by as well as the student and his or her parents. It's obviously fake, and I think it detracts from the book.
As for the philosophy that drives the book, it is pretty interesting and I agree with many of the ideas. For example, why am I giving points for participation and completion? I've been doing it forever -- checkmark assignments that track a student's process through the steps leading up to the Big Assessment at the end of thematic units. Why? Because without points attached to an assignment, why would a student bother doing it? But isn't that a bit bass-ackwards? This suggests that I as the teacher get some reward for them doing the assignments, but in truth the "reward" for doing the assignment is the increased knowledge the student receives that enables them to ultimately pass the assessment. I also provide these checkmark grades as a buffer to lessen the impact for students to do poorly on the tests; this book has made me re-see that I am not truly doing my students a service by making things easier in this way.
I do see several problems with the philosophy, many of which are addressed in the book (fortunately). For example, grades are going to drop phenomenally as students have to adapt the new mindset that they will not be rewarded for mere assignment completion. This means a great deal of parent complaints (as grades drop), and unless the entire school gets behind the idea it's not going to work. Another problem: the burden on the teacher becomes massive; the book talks about assigning lunchtime detention for students who have not yet achieved mastery of the skills as well as afterschool detention. Another problem: students are allowed to retest to achieve higher levels of mastery; this actually sounds like a good idea, but the teachers and must come up with different tests for each time a student retests. It's not just a matter of redoing the same test, but doing a different test that covers the same material. If I were a math teacher, this might be easy enough; as an English teacher, I feel this may be difficult.
But I also think that if the program were adopted and fully implemented, the ideas would in fact increase student achievement. Students would be issued one of four grades: Non-Mastery, Initial Mastery, Mastery, Advanced Mastery (these translate to numeric grades of 0, 70, 85, and 100, respectively). Definitive rubrics would have to be established, and these would allow the students know exactly where they had mastered or failed to master skills and concepts. As I said earlier, students would have the opportunity to retest to achieve higher levels of mastery.
It will be interesting to see how our conversation develops as we engage in this book study. I am very proud of our administration for requiring this professional reading; I think teachers should engage in professional reading and I appreciate this opportunity to engage in dialogue with my fellow colleagues.
Finally, a brief critique about the book's style. Most of the book consists of several teachers writing about their experiences implementing the program in their school, and I think this is very good. There is, however, a significant section of the book where the style descends into something I have criticized in my other professional reading recently: made-up scenarios and anecdotes that attempt to illustrate a situation. In this case, they make up a few different students (who are obvious archetypes) and then provide supposedly written comments by as well as the student and his or her parents. It's obviously fake, and I think it detracts from the book.
September 15, 2012
I'm intrigued by standards-based grading -- holding kids accountable for their learning. I've looked at the standards and objectives for ELA and tried to envision how to transform my gradebook so it truly reflects what kids have been able to master. I've read, I've reflected.
This book comes closer to encouraging me to try, even in my last year of teaching.
Donen and his colleagues at Fairview High School discuss what grades should show and what they shouldn't...they should not reflect behavior, promptness, neatness. They should not reflect 'working hard' but not getting the concepts. Too many of our grade books do just that.
The alternative still makes me nervous...homework and practice, formative assessments, don't count in the gradebook, only test, summative assessments. Students earn grades by hitting the standards, and only receive 100, 85, 70, or 0...students can retake the summative assessments until a desired grade is earned.
The 'yes but's fly in my head: my daily work IS my backbone for understanding what my students know. What about the kids who doesn't do any of the home work and then aces the test? Bombs the test? How do we make all this work in ELA? How will a teacher provide multiple forms of a summative assessment? Will tests look more like bubble tests or authentic assessments?
I was gratified to read Donen's teachers had those same questions, and more. They struggled and were very honest about the struggles. They continue to revise their policies as they find out what does work and doesn't work in the real world.
I really appreciated the English teacher address the very fundamental differences in our discipline and others. In ELA, we address the same standards, literary elements, writing standards, over and over with each new work of literature. A student is never finished looking for metaphors or irony. A student will never 'check off' theme or symbolism. We encounter these elements over and over in each new work, and our job begins anew.
I almost have a handle on how I can assess my Logs, not just for completeness and participation, but for hitting the holistic standards that reading, comprehending, analyzing, writing all reflect. Then the job overwhelms me and I stare off into space.
This has made me think, made me assess my own practice, and that's a good thing. Not finished with this idea, by any means.
This book comes closer to encouraging me to try, even in my last year of teaching.
Donen and his colleagues at Fairview High School discuss what grades should show and what they shouldn't...they should not reflect behavior, promptness, neatness. They should not reflect 'working hard' but not getting the concepts. Too many of our grade books do just that.
The alternative still makes me nervous...homework and practice, formative assessments, don't count in the gradebook, only test, summative assessments. Students earn grades by hitting the standards, and only receive 100, 85, 70, or 0...students can retake the summative assessments until a desired grade is earned.
The 'yes but's fly in my head: my daily work IS my backbone for understanding what my students know. What about the kids who doesn't do any of the home work and then aces the test? Bombs the test? How do we make all this work in ELA? How will a teacher provide multiple forms of a summative assessment? Will tests look more like bubble tests or authentic assessments?
I was gratified to read Donen's teachers had those same questions, and more. They struggled and were very honest about the struggles. They continue to revise their policies as they find out what does work and doesn't work in the real world.
I really appreciated the English teacher address the very fundamental differences in our discipline and others. In ELA, we address the same standards, literary elements, writing standards, over and over with each new work of literature. A student is never finished looking for metaphors or irony. A student will never 'check off' theme or symbolism. We encounter these elements over and over in each new work, and our job begins anew.
I almost have a handle on how I can assess my Logs, not just for completeness and participation, but for hitting the holistic standards that reading, comprehending, analyzing, writing all reflect. Then the job overwhelms me and I stare off into space.
This has made me think, made me assess my own practice, and that's a good thing. Not finished with this idea, by any means.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews