Blogs

Check out Seven Practices for Effective Learning from the November 2005 edition of ASCD's Educational Leadership.  This is a great description of how to use assessment to promote learning.

Followers of this site will find the 7 practices outlined in the article to be quite familiar.  They are:

1. Use summative assessments to frame meaningful performance goals.
2. Show criteria and models in advance.
3. Assess before teaching.
4. Offer appropriate choices.
5. Provide feedback early and often.
6. Encourage self-assessment and goal setting.
7. Allow new evidence of achievement to replace old evidence.

Members of this site will appreciate the way middle school principal, Ryan McLane, has described the importance of Mastery Grading.  Read his Education Week article at: http://mobile.edweek.org/c.jsp?DISPATCHED=true&cid=25983841&item=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.edweek.org%2Few%2Farticles%2F2013%2F06%2F05%2F33mclane.h32.html%3Ftkn%3DZLCCITACcBCfR8CBWbOW%252BWRaeYRQ%252BrwJbqnf%26cmp%3Dclp-sb-ascd

Why do you assess your students? A teacher's answer to this question reveals much about what that teacher values.  

For example, if a teacher's answers to the question center around determining a student's grade for a report card or transcript or around figuring out how much a student learned at the end of instruction, then it's obvious the teacher places a great emphasis on grading.

On the other hand, if a teacher's answers center around providing the teacher and the student with feedback so that more appropriate instructional and learning decisions can be made, then it's obvious the teacher places a great emphasis on learning.

This post is written to provide those teachers who care more about learning than they do about grading with an analogy that will help them productively focus their assessment efforts.

At a recent Salem High School faculty meeting, SHS Welding Teacher, Joshua Graham, shared with his colleagues the assessment tools and practices that he and his fellow Trades and Industrial teachers use to help them help students learn.  He spoke about several software programs they use to assess student progress and to provide students with descriptive feedback to help them focus their study habits.  He talked about using assessment data to evaluate his teaching and to enable him to make more student-centered decisions.

The content of Josh's presentation was insightful and the strategies shared exemplary.  Near the end of it, though, he shared with us a rather simple analogy that has profoundly impacted the way I now view an educator's assessment role.

Josh shared with us that, along with other women in their church, his wife was reading a book entitled Leading and Loving It.  The book included an analogy that Josh took and applied to assessment.  It was the analogy of The Thermometer v. The Thermostat.

The Thermometer

Think about what a thermometer does.  A thermometer gives you a temperature at a certain point in time.  Let's pretend you have a thermometer in your home.  By checking its reading, you will know the air temperature in your home.

What does the thermometer do FOR the temperature in your home?  Nothing.  While a thermometer is a useful tool, it simply provides us with information.  It does nothing to alter or change that information.

The Thermostat

Now consider the thermostat.  Like the thermometer, the thermostat also checks the temperature at a certain point.  In fact, by checking the thermostat in your home you can find out the air temperature in your home just like you could with a thermometer.

But the thermostat also does something FOR the temperature in your home.  The thermostat takes the temperature, compares that to the DESIRED temperature outcome, and then makes adjustments to increase or decrease the temperature accordingly.

While a thermometer is a useful tool, a thermostat is a much more powerful tool and a much more impactful tool.  With only a thermometer you would be able to verify the fact that your house was too hot, too cold, or just right.  But with a thermostat you can actually control the temperature outcome.

Josh explained this analogy and then applied it to assessment by encouraging his colleagues to be thermostats - not thermometers.  Being a thermometer is fine if our goal for assessment is to determine a grade.  We can teach a unit of content, asses our students to see how well they learned it, record that "temperature", and move on.  

But if our goal for assessment is to increase learning, then we have to be thermostats.  The thermostat teacher is constantly assessing so he or she knows where his students - collectively and individually - are in the learning process.  Then the thermostat teacher makes the necessary adjustments in teaching so that the "temperature" changes appropriately.  The thermostat teacher trains students to be thermostats as well, always self-assessing and analyzing feedback to determine what adjustments need to be made at their end.  

Simply put, the thermometer teacher can document IF students learned.  The thermostat teacher increases learning.

So why do you assess?  If it is to increase learning, then consider how the analogy of The Thermostat might be applied to your classroom.

Thanks, Josh! 

Kudos to Salem High School math teacher, Erin Stenger, for thinking to put a sign like this right next to her doorway where students will see it each day as they leave her class.

It has been noted before on this website that for AFL to truly have its greatest possible impact, the students need to be using assessment-elicited feedback to measure their own progress and guide their own learning. Like most things that we want students to do, though, we must train them to do it. This is especially true for AFL since most students (just like most parents and most teacher) tend to look at grades from a summative position.

If we want students to view grades as feedback that guide their learning rather than just get averaged together to determine a grade, then we must 2 things:

1. We must grade and assess in a formative manner rather than just collect a bunch of scores to average.

2. We must train our students.

This picture in Mrs. Stenger's room is a subtle but important example of this. Most importantly, it reveals the fact that AFL is a core philosophy that permeates the way Mrs. Stenger runs her classroom.

Here are some other blog posts that deal with the same idea of students knowing what they know:

1. Do They Know If They Know?

2. Did AFL Guide My Instruction Today?

3. Assessment FOR Learning - A quick and easy indicator

4. AFL - It's about students taking ownership of learning

After studying Assessment FOR Learning pretty intensely for the past few school years, I am now beginning to think that we might do ourselves a favor if we would change some of our terminology.  Specifically, I think it's time to stop using the words "grading" or "grade" as often as we do and replace them - at times - with "scoring" or "score".

You don't have to go very far down the AFL road to realize that traditional grading practices often get in the way of our attempts to use AFL strategies.  Traditional grade books and grading strategies typically average together all of a student's grades for the grading period to determine a final grade.  Therefore, practice assignments such as homework and classwork will have an impact on the student's grade.  Since the concept of assigning lots of practice so that students and teachers can receive the feedback necessary to increase learning is central to AFL (see Heart of AFL), averaging practice grades into a student's overall grade becomes obviously problematic.  What if the additional practice helps a student learn but also lowers the student's grade?  The natural reaction to this problem is for teachers to feel that they should not grade practice assignments.  For more on this topic see:

• I Want to Be the Starting Tailback - a football analogy about grading practicing interfering with assessment
• Why is Allen Iverson on Assessment FOR Learning? - An explanation of the "Practice" video
• Of batting averages, grading, and MVP seasons... - Are you ruled by an inaccurate grade book average?

So the philosophy of AFL naturally leads to teachers feeling as though they should not grade practice assignments.  This is where Newton's third law of motion comes into play: "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction."  When students realize that some things are graded and some things are not, they react by asking before most assignments, "Is this going to be graded?"  Implied in their question is the idea that if the answer is "Yes" then they will work harder than if the answer is "No".  As a result, teachers are reluctant to not grade assignments - even if they agree with the philosophy of practice assignments not lowering a grade - for fear that students won't work hard and, therefore, won't learn as much. 

So we're left with a quandary.  We don't want to let practice impact the student's final grade but we want students to work on each assignment as though their final grade depended on it.  Part of this quandary is of our own making.  As explored previously in What we WANT students to do v. What we TRAIN students to do, we wish that students worked for the love of learning but we then use points and grades as a Sea World trainer uses a fish.  It's difficult to argue that students should not be motivated by grades when we, in turn, use grades as motivators.  We have to find a new way.  Perhaps our new AFL philosophy requires some new terminology.

What would happen if we started "scoring" all assignments and "grading" only a few?  The term "grading" implies the following:

1. The teacher will assess how well the student did on the assignment.
2. The student will receive feedback on well they have mastered the content.
3. The grade will go into the grade book to be used to help determine the student's final grade.

"Scoring" could be the new tool needed to help us out of our quandary.  The difference between scoring and grading is in implication #3 from the list above.  Both scoring and grading provide the teacher with feedback and both provide the student with feedback.  However, a score on an assignment may or may not be used by the teacher to determine the final grade.  Here's how I envision scoring working in a typical AFL classroom:

1. The teacher assigns practice everyday.
2. The teacher provides feedback on all practice.  While this feedback is often provided very informally, the majority of feedback given formally is in the form of a score.
3. The score looks very similar to a grade.
4. The score goes into the grade book.
5. The students understand up front that the teacher will be looking over all of a student's scores - and grades - to determine what the appropriate final grade is for the student.  While graded assignments are the few that will definitely count toward the final grade, they will be much fewer in number than the scored assignments.  Rather than being tied down to averaging all graded assignments, the teacher who uses scoring will now be able to study the evidence and arrive at the most appropriate final grade.

The point here is that every score counts toward helping the teacher determine a grade.  When students ask, "Is this graded," what they really means is, "Does this count?"  With scoring, the answer to that question is:

"Yes, it counts.  Everything counts.  As the teacher, I will be analyzing ALL the evidence - just like a good detective - before arriving at a conclusion (your grade).  How it counts could be different for each of you, depending on how you perform, but ALL assignments count."

Scoring satisfies our desire to be AFL-ish:

• teachers receive feedback
• students receive feedback
• practice doesn't have to lower - or overly inflate - the final grade

At the same time, scoring doesn't entice students to fall into the trap of only working "when it counts."

What do you think?

Good Teaching is a Lot Like Coaching a Mule!

If you’re reading this and are from Salem, VA you might have a clue what that statement means.  If you’re not from Salem you’re probably wondering what the heck I’m talking about.

A little background: High school football is a pretty big deal in Salem, just like it is in so many small towns across our country.  But in Salem, Virginia, football might be a slightly bigger deal than in most towns.  The Salem Spartans have had great success on the football field for many years.  In the past 26 years, they’ve won 17 district, 13 region, and 6 state championships.  There have been many reasons for that success, but one consistent throughout all those successful years has been the tough blue-collar play of the offensive line.  And that offensive line is collectively known as The Mules.

From 2000-2004, I had the privilege of being a coach in Salem’s football program.  I was at the bottom of the totem pole – middle school assistant coach – but it was tons of fun to work with the kids and to learn from the amazing coaches in the system.  Willis White, the Virginia High School League Hall of Famer, was the head coach for the high school team.  He liked to remind me that he had “holes in his underwear older than me.”  A buddy I coached with once told me that Larry Bradley, the head coach of our middle school team, had forgotten more football than I’d ever know.  There were so many excellent coaches in the program, but the one I learned the most from was Billy Miles, the coach of The Mules.

As a former high school offensive lineman who had already coached a middle school offensive line at another school, I thought I had a pretty good grasp of what it took to be a successful offensive line coach.  When I was hired to coach for Salem, I sat down with Coach Miles so that he could teach me how to coach Mules.  As I came to appreciate the way The Mules were coached, I also came to realize that I had a lot to learn! 

The Mules were taught higher level thinking.  They learned rules and philosophies which they then applied to the thousands of different situations they might encounter.  They made calls, did combo blocks, read the defense, talked to one another, and changed their plans and assignments all within a matter of seconds depending on how the defense was lined up.  Their ability to apply their knowledge was evident on Friday nights (and Saturdays in the playoffs) as game after game the Spartans were able to pound the ball behind The Mules and right down the opponent’s throat.  Coach Miles was a phenomenal coach and an even better teacher.  I had a never been around a high school offensive line that operated on that cerebral a level. 

As Coach Miles taught me how to play like a Mule – a prerequisite to being able to coach Mules – I’m sure he could see that I was getting excited.  I couldn’t wait to take all that I was learning and share it with the Mules of the future at our middle school.  It was then that Coach Miles reminded me of something: Before I could get my players to this high level of play, I had to make sure they mastered the basics. 

Coach Miles told me to stay away from teaching them how to read the defense and make calls until they could first get in a stance and could make the appropriate first step.  And he told me that I needed to refresh the basics with my players every single day. 

So that’s what we did.  We practiced getting into a three point stance.  We did it over and over again until they had mastered it.  Then we did it some more.  We got into three-point stances and took our first steps until they could do it in their sleep.  Then we did that some more.  As the season went on, we practiced the basics a little less than we did earlier in the year.  After all, I needed to teach my guys how to apply their knowledge to game situations, and that takes time.  But there wasn’t a single practice where we didn’t focus at least a little bit on the basics.

Occasionally I would go up to the varsity practice field to watch Coach Miles and his Mules.  Man, did they work hard!  If you think Marine Corps drill sergeants are tough, you must never have watched Coach Miles!  He made the Marine Corps look like Sunday School!  But Coach Miles loved his Mules and they respected him.  It was a joy to watch them put into practice all he had taught them. 

But even The Mules practiced the basics every day.  That’s right – The Mules, who could read a defense and adjust their blocking schemes in a matter of seconds, still practiced getting in their stance and taking the correct first step every single day. 

Coach Miles never assumed they were beyond the basics.  Therefore, there was no way they would ever forget the basics.  You really can’t become a cohesive and dominant offensive line if you don’t have the basics down.  I suppose Coach Miles could have skipped the basics and assumed that as a varsity coach he was above that.  I suppose when a player messed up the basics he could have bemoaned the woeful and inadequate coaching the players received at the middle school level.  But instead, Coach Miles recognized that without the basics his team would never get to the higher level.  Instead, he took the responsibility on himself to make sure his players had the skills they needed.

See how this applies to teaching? 

Great teaching is just like coaching The Mules.  The goal is higher level thinking.  The goal is to take what has been learned and then apply it to new situations.  But it all starts with the basics.  Students newer to the content (like my middle school linemen) need more time focusing on the basics, but ALL STUDENTS need to continually refresh the basics if they’re going to truly reach mastery.  Students more familiar with the content might not need as much time refreshing the basics, but they still need to revisit them to some degree on a regular basis.

I think sometimes we educators overlook the importance of the basics.  We feel like we have too much to cover to spend time going over the basics.  For example, an Algebra 2 teacher might not feel like he should have to focus on addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and using fractions.  A US History teacher might not feel like she has time to focus on vocabulary not directly related to her state standards.  A Science teacher might not feel as though she should have to routinely revisit proper lab procedures.  And these teachers would be (in my opinion) incorrect.

I routinely hear teachers point out that a lack of basic skills prevents students from mastering their course content.  I think those teachers are correct.  Students often lack the basics which in turn prevents higher level mastery.  My response, though, is to copy Coach Miles.  If the basics are what are preventing students from having success, then focus on the basics.  Perhaps part of the reason students are lacking the basics is that we have a tendency to assume they should have been learned already and as a result move away from them.

Consider your own content area for a moment.  Would your students have more success if they had a better level of mastery of the basics?  Would you have a greater chance of helping them reach higher levels of application if they knew the basics better?  If the answer to either or both question was “yes” then the only acceptable next step (assuming you want your students to have success and to reach higher levels of application) is to figure out how to work regular reviews of the basics into the fabric of your classroom.

This is how you coach The Mules, and this is how you teach students.

Recently, several letter writers to the Forest City Summit, an Iowa newspaper, have disparaged standards-based grading.  Specifically, they disparaged Rick Wormeli's work in that field.  As a result, Mr. Wormeli wrote a response to those letter-writers, and the newspaper agreed to run it.

While I am personally unfamiliar with the events in Forest City Schools, IA that led to these letters being written, public arguments like this over grading issues always cause me to wonder if the school division employed too much of a top-down method of improving assessment strategies.  

At its heart, standards based learning really shouldn't be controversial.  Learning should be measured against standards and communicated in terms of standards so that grades actually represent learning and, more importantly, so teachers and students know where to focus their instructional and learning efforts.

When individual teachers implement solid and well-communicated SBL strategies, students tend to appreciate the descriptive and helpful nature of the feedback.  Students tend to appreciate knowing where their strengths and weaknesses are so that they can then focus on improving where necessary.  And typically, when students appreciate what is going on in class and feel like it helps them learn, parents are supportive.

However, when policies are implemented at the division-level and then required or mandated it is not uncommon to create controversy where none need exist.  I would encourage schools and divisions to focus on a meaningful professional development journey - to take the long view approach - instead of looking to change practices by changing policy.

Again, I do not know what exactly went on in this Iowa school district, but I do know that educators exploring the merits of standards based learning would benefit from reading Mr. Wormeli's letter.  

Here's a link to the letter in its original form on the Forest City Summit's website: 

http://globegazette.com/forestcitysummit/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/article_937be5bc-b62a-5874-aec1-d4053dfff9f3.html

Below is the same letter copied and pasted into this blog:  

To the editor:

This analogy has provided me with a variety of new perspectives on assessment as well as some criteria to evaluate my own assessment strategies. I have become a better teacher by practicing this concept and I hope it gives others some valuable insight too.

Grading and assessment are two distinct yet overlapped topics.  This site is dedicated primarily to assessment - the getting and giving of feedback that helps teachers adjust their teaching and students adjust their learning.  However, it is impossible to talk about assessment without occasionally discussing grading.  Therefore, grading posts and resources pop up on this site from time to time.  As a way to help members find these resources, this blog post has been created as to serve as a collection of grading links.  Anything posted on this site related to grading can be found on this blog.

Also, please note that as more examples are added to this site, they will also be added to this blog.

Videos:

• We're Talkin' 'Bout Practice - a good reminder that sometimes practice should just be practice
• I Want to Be the Starting Tailback - a football analogy about grading practicing interfering with assessment

Blog Posts:

• Fantasy Football and the Problem with Averaging
• Your Expertise is More Valuable Than a Formula: Provide Descriptive Feedback Rather Than Fractions
• Grading in 3D by Pawel Nazarewicz
• Response to an Email Question about Late Work, Grading, & Responsibility
• Why Grades Should Reflect Mastery, Not Speed by Ryan McLane
• New Terminology: Scoring v. Grading - is it time to add a new tool to our tool bag?
• Of batting averages, grading, and MVP seasons... - Are you ruled by an inaccurate grade book average?
• AFL, Art Class, and Failure Management - Does your grading practice allow for failure?
• What we WANT students to do v. What we TRAIN students to do - Do we unintentionally train students to care too much about grades?
• An AFL Homework Practice - One teacher's plan for grading HW in an AFL manner 
• Why is Allen Iverson on Assessment FOR Learning? - An explanation of the video listed above
• Does AFL lead to grade inflation? - A discussion about higher grades as a result of AFL strategies
• Using AFL to Overhaul Your Grading System - ED Leadership article
• Assessing Student Performance in Online Classes - using marks for formative assessments
• Response to a Parent (from Rick Wormeli)
• Grade Like A Torpedo
• AFL Teachers Reporting Progress in an SBL Method (using PowerSchool)

Pictures:

• Extra Credit on Instagram

Stories in the News:

• Father Sues Over Daughter's Zero Grade

Faculty Meeting Conversations

• 11/12/14 - Pretend You're A Grade Coach
• 2/24/16 - Using AFL/SBL to Analyze a Common Assessment Practice: Earning Points Back on a Test
• 1/11/17 - Applying SBL Philosophy

There's no other way to put it...  This is good stuff!

As schools and teachers adopt the philosophies of Assessment FOR Learning, it's only natural that grading practices will begin to change. (Click here for more info on grading as it relates to AFL.)  We need to realize that some of those changes will seem strange to some of the parents of our students.  It's important that we can articulate why we make the grading decisions we do.

Rick Wormeli has composed an excellent and thoughtful response to concerns a parent had about grading practices that reflect the philosophy of AFL and Standards Based Grading.  This response is recommended reading for all teachers. Not only will it prepare you to respond to people in your community who might question your practices, it might also help you explain to colleagues who are confused by such practices as well.

Click on the following link to read Rick's response: http://www.adams12.org/files/learning_services/Wormeli_Response.pdf

Sometimes when you're learning a new skill or trying to figure out how to apply a new philosophy, it helps to watch that skill or philosophy being used or implemented in a totally different arena.  Thinking outside the box and adopting new ideas can be difficult when you're extremely familiar with your own domain.  Observing the skill or philosophy at work in someone else's domain is less threatening.  Once you are able to see the benefit of the skill or the power of the philosophy it might be easier to figure out how to include it into your personal realm of familiarity.

I think this might hold true for the application to the classroom of the philosophies of Assessment FOR Learning, Standards Based Grading, and Measuring Student Growth.

Below is a recent article Sports Illustrated article about the Oklahoma City Thunder's Kevin Durant.  As I read it I was struck by just how much sense it makes to assess for the purpose of learning (not grading), to grade and assess based on standards, and to intentionally and meaningfully measure growth.  It just makes so much sense when it comes to improving in life, as evidenced by this article about Durant's attempts to improve as a basketball player.  I wonder why it doesn't always make sense in the classroom where we educators are working tirelessly to get students to improve?

Read the article below for yourself, and as you do, pay attention to the intentional steps Kevin Durant has taken to improve his shooting.

1. He is constantly - daily - assessing himself.
2. He has broken down shooting into "standards" based on different locations on the floor.
3. He is using the feedback from the assessments to determine what "standards" he needs to practice and where he needs to grow.
4. His improvement is constantly being charted so that he and his personal trainer/shot doctor/video analyst/advance scout can keep adjusting the learning plan for maximum growth.

It just makes so much sense for him to do this.  Durant wants to grow, and this is how one intentionally sets out to grow.  

Likewise, it makes sense to me that every teacher would want to:

1. Constantly - daily - assess students.
2. Break down learning into standards based on content knowledge and skills.
3. Use assessment feedback to determine which standards individual students need to focus on in order to grow.
4. Constantly chart improvement so that learning plans can be adjusted for maximum growth.

So read the article below, look for the examples of Assessment FOR Learning, Standards Based Grading, and Measuring Student Growth, and then consider how you could better apply them to your classroom.

HOW 'BOUT THEM APPLES?

Copied from http://www.sportsillustrated.com and written by Lee Jenkins (@SI_LeeJenkins)

On the day after the Heat won their 27th game in a row, Kevin Durant sat in a leather terminal chair next to a practice court and pointed toward the 90-degree angle at the upper-right corner of the key that represents the elbow. "See that spot," Durant said. "I used to shoot 38, 39 percent from there off the catch coming around pin-down screens." He paused for emphasis. "I'm up to 45, 46 percent now." Durant wore the satisfied expression of an MIT undergrad solving a partial differential equation. You could find dozens of basic or advanced statistics that attest to Durant's brilliance this season-starting with the obvious, that he became only the seventh player ever to exceed 50% shooting from the field, 40% from three-point range and 90% from the free throw line-but his preferred metric is far simpler. He wants what Miami has, and he's going to seize it one meticulously selected elbow jumper at a time.

The NBA's analytical revolution has been confined mainly to front offices. Numbers are dispensed to coaches, but rarely do they trickle down to players. Not many are interested, and of those who are, few can apply what they've learned mid-possession. Even the most stat-conscious general manager wouldn't want a point guard elevating for an open jumper on the left wing and thinking, Oh no, I only shoot 38% here. But Durant has hired his own analytics expert. He tailors workouts to remedy numerical imbalances. He harps on efficiency more than a Prius dealer. To Durant, basketball is an orchard, and every shot an apple. "Let's say you've got 40 apples on your tree," Durant explains. "I could eat about 30 of them, but I've begun limiting myself to 15 or 16. Let's take the wide-open three and the post-up at the nail. Those are good apples. Let's throw out the pull-up three in transition and the step-back fadeaway. Those are rotten apples. The three at the top of the circle-that's an in-between apple. We only want the very best on the tree."

The Thunder did not win 27 straight games. They did not compile the best record. Durant will not capture the MVP award. All he and his teammates did was amass a season that defies comparison as well as arithmetic. They scored more points per game than last season even though they traded James Harden, who finished the season fifth in the NBA in scoring, five days before the opener. They led the league in free throws even though Harden gets to the line more than anybody. They posted the top point differential since the 2007-08 Celtics, improving in virtually every relevant category, including winning percentage. Their uptick makes no sense unless Durant was afforded more shots in Harden's absence, but the opposite occurred. He attempted the fewest field goals per 36 minutes of his career. He didn't even take the most shots on his team, trailing point guard Russell Westbrook, and he seemed almost proud that his 28.1 points per game weren't enough to earn the scoring title for the fourth consecutive year. "He knows he can score," says Thunder coach Scott Brooks. "He's trying to score smarter."

Durant is lifting Oklahoma City as never before, with pocket passes instead of pull-ups, crossovers instead of fadeaways. He remains the most prolific marksman alive, unfurling his impossibly long arms to heights no perimeter defender can reach, but he has become more than a gunner. He set career marks in efficiency rating, assists and every newfangled form of shooting percentage. "Now he's helping the whole team," says 76ers point guard Royal Ivey, who spent the past two seasons with the Thunder. "Now he's a complete player." The Thunder are better because Durant is better. Of course, the Heat will be favored to repeat as champions, and deservedly so. But Oklahoma City has been undercutting conventional wisdom for six months.

NBA history is littered with stars who languish in another's shadow, notably Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing and Reggie Miller through the Michael Jordan reign. Oklahoma City lost to Miami in the Finals last June, and Durant will surely be runner-up to LeBron James in the MVP balloting again. Durant is only 24 and is as respectful of James as a rival can be, but he's nobody's bridesmaid. "I've been second my whole life," Durant says. "I was the second-best player in high school. I was the second pick in the draft. I've been second in the MVP voting three times. I came in second in the Finals. I'm tired of being second. I'm not going to settle for that. I'm done with it."

Justin Zormelo doesn't have a formal title. He is part personal trainer and part shot doctor, part video analyst and part advance scout. "He's a stat geek," Durant says, expanding the job description. Zormelo sits in section 104 of Oklahoma City's Chesapeake Energy Arena, with an iPad that tells him in real time what percentage Durant is shooting from the left corner and how many points per possession he is generating on post-ups. After games, he takes the iPad to Durant's house or hotel room and they watch clips of every play. Zormelo loads the footage onto Durant's computer in case he wants to see it again. "If I miss a lot of corner threes, that's what I work on the next morning before practice," Durant says. "If I'm not effective from the elbow in the post, I work on that." Zormelo keeps a journal of their sessions and has already filled two notebooks this season. Last year Zormelo noticed that Durant was more accurate from the left side of the court than the right, and they addressed the inconsistency. "Now he's actually weaker on the left," Zormelo says, "but we'll get that straightened out by the playoffs."

Zormelo, 29, was a student manager at Georgetown when Durant was a freshman at Texas, and they met during a predraft workout at Maryland that included Hoyas star Brandon Bowman. Durant embarked on his pro career and so did Zormelo, landing an internship with the Heat and a film-room job with the Bulls before launching a company called Best Ball Analytics in 2010 that has counted nearly 30 NBA players as clients. Zormelo kept in touch with Durant, occasionally e-mailing him cutups of shots. They bonded because Zormelo idolizes Larry Bird and Durant does, too.

Durant left a potential championship on the table in 2011, when Oklahoma City fell to Dallas in the Western Conference finals. About two weeks after the series, Durant scheduled his first workout with Zormelo in Washington, D.C. "I didn't sleep the night before," Zormelo remembers. "I was up until 4 a.m. asking myself, What am I going to tell the best scorer in the league that he doesn't already know?" They met at Yates Field House, where Georgetown practices, and Zormelo told Durant, "You're really good. But I think you can be the best player ever." Durant looked up. "Not the best scorer," Zormelo clarified. "The best player." It was a crucial distinction, considering Durant had just led the league in scoring for the second year in a row yet posted his lowest shooting percentage, three-point percentage and assist average since he was a rookie. He was only 22, so there was no public rebuke, but he could not stand to give away another title.

"He was getting double- and triple-teamed, and in order to win a championship, he needed to make better decisions with the ball," says former Thunder point guard Kevin Ollie, now the head coach at Connecticut. "He needed to find other things he could do besides force up shots. That was the incentive to change his pattern." Over several weeks Zormelo and Durant formulated a written plan focusing on ballhandling, passing and shot selection. They were transforming a sniper into a playmaker. Growing up, Durant dribbled down the street outside his grandmother's house in Capitol Heights, Md. He played point guard as a freshman at National Christian Academy in Fort Washington. He watched And1 DVDs to study the art of the crossover. "Where I'm from, you got to have the ball," Durant says. "That's how we do it. We streetball." But he sprouted five inches as a sophomore, from 6'3" to 6'8," and suddenly he was a forward. Though his stroke didn't suffer, his handle did. "I still had the moves," Durant insists, "but I dribbled way too high."

He could compensate in high school, and even during his one season at Texas, but the NBA was changing to a league where the transcendent are freed from traditional positions and boundaries. When Portland was deciding between Durant and Ohio State center Greg Oden before the 2007 draft, Texas coach Rick Barnes copped a line that Bobby Knight used when the Blazers were debating between Jordan and center Sam Bowie in 1984. "He can be the best guard or he can be the best center," Barnes told G.M.'s. "It doesn't matter. Whatever you need, he'll do." The Trail Blazers selected Oden and Durant was taken second by Seattle, where coach P.J. Carlesimo started him at shooting guard. "Kevin could be all things," Carlesimo says, but back then he was too gangly to hold his spot or protect his dribble. Brooks replaced Carlesimo shortly after the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City the following season and wisely returned him to forward.

This season Durant is averaging two fewer field goals and nearly two more assists than he did in 2011, and he has practically discarded two-point shots outside 17 feet. Brooks tells him on a near nightly basis, "KD, it's time. I need you to shoot now." Says Brooks, "To extend the apple metaphor, I'm now able to put him all over and get fruit." He isolates Durant at the three-point line, posts him up and uses him as the trigger man in the pick-and-roll. When defenders creep too close, Durant freezes them with a crossover at his ankles or deploys a rip move that former Thunder forward Desmond Mason taught him four years ago to pick up fouls.

"Remember when tall guys would come into the league and people would say, 'They handle like a guard!' but they never actually did handle like a guard?" says Thunder forward Nick Collison. "Kevin really does handle like a guard." Durant has become both facilitator and finisher, shuttling between the perimeter and the paint, stretching the limits of what we believe a human being with his build can do. If his progression reminds you of someone else's, well, that's probably not an accident.

Without Harden, Oklahoma City needed a new playmaker, and Durant had spent more than a year preparing for the role. He just didn't realize it at the time. "They were looking for somebody else to move the defense and handle the ball in pick-and-roll," says a scout. "It turned out to be him." When Durant was 20, the Thunder asked him to act 25, and now that he is nearly 25, the plan for his prime has come to fruition. He is the NBA's best and perhaps only answer for James. "I've given up trying to figure out how to stop him," said Celtics coach Doc Rivers. "And I'm not kidding."

On Nov. 24, four weeks after Harden left, the Thunder were a respectable but unremarkable 9-4 and nursing a five-point lead with one minute left in overtime at Philadelphia. Durant posted up on the right wing, bent at the waist, a step inside the perimeter. Dorell Wright, the unfortunate 76er assigned to him, planted one hand on Durant's rib cage and another on his back. "What do I tell a guy in that position?" asks an NBA assistant coach. "I shake his hand and say, 'Good luck.'"

Durant faced up against Wright, tucked the ball by his left hip and swung his right foot behind the arc, toe-tapping the floor like a sprinter searching for the starting block. Durant had scored 35 points, but on the previous possession he fed Westbrook for a three, and on the possession before that he set up a three by Kevin Martin, who had arrived from Houston in the Harden trade. It was time for the Durant dagger, but before he shimmied his shoulders and unfurled his arms he spotted guard Thabo Sefolosha, ignored in the left corner. Sefolosha was 1 for 6, and in the previous timeout Durant had told him, "You're going to make the next shot." Durant could have easily fired over Wright and finished the Sixers, but he let his mind wander to the ultimate destination, seven months away. I'm going to need all these guys to get to the Finals, he thought.

Durant took one dribble to his left, and center Lavoy Allen rushed up to double him at the free throw line. He dribbled twice more, to the left edge of the key, and two other Sixers slid over. Surrounded by four defenders, Durant finally shoveled to Sefolosha, so open that he feared he might hesitate. He didn't. Durant jabbed him in the chest as the ball slipped through the net.

How about them apples?

While assessment and grading are two distinct topics, they often intertwine.  Occasionally something comes along to remind us that poor grading practices can end up negating effective assessment practices.  That's why Allen Iverson is on this site - to remind us that we need to give and assess practice, but to remember that when we do so, we're just talkin' 'bout practice!  That's also why we have this video about a player who becomes the best tailback ever but can't start because his poor practices earlier in the season were counted against him.  Now the world of sports has brought us another example of how allowing practice grades to average into the overall grade can give a misleading perspective.  

Thanks to AFL member, Dr. Keith Perrigan, for sending us this softball story from Tri-Cities.com.  It's about Kelsey, a high school softball player, who, after a great season last year, had an almost season-long batting slump this year.  However, in the last few weeks of the season her bat came alive.  As a result, her team has a great chance to win the state championship.  (Read the full article here: http://www2.tricities.com/sports/2011/jun/10/prep-softball-nave-bearcats-ms-june-ar-1098004/)

At the time of the article, Kelsey's batting average was .265.  Not terrible, but not exactly the stuff of all-stars.  However, based on her ability - as demonstrated in the past - and based on her incredible run at the end of the season, she would be anybody's pick for a spot on an all-star team.  In fact, she'd be a no-brainer all-star except for one thing - her batting average.  Softball doesn't allow for a batting average to start over once a player gets hot; therefore, it's not uncommon for a batting average to tell an incomplete, or even incorrect, story.  Kelsey is the hottest player in the league, but her batting average is, well, average!  Should her coach player her?  Should other teams pitch around her?  If they're smart, the answer is "yes".  If they put all their stock in an average, then the answer is a very foolish "no".

So why do we educators put so much stock in averages?  We know they often don't tell accurate stories.  We know they rarely indicate the true measure of a student's learning.  We know that they also distort the impact of our teaching on students' learning.  Yet when push comes to show we will often swear by them.  We will cling to the argument that the average produced in our grade book is the absolute truth when it comes to a student's performance.  We will be offended and become indignant when someone suggests that a student's grade should something other than the average we derived.

Why is this?  Why do we cling to averages?

I suppose that part of the reason is that it's what has always been done.  Perhaps using a grading system that doesn't rely on averaging together a bunch of grades might seem too radical to some.  I guess there is also a certain amount of comfort and safety in relying on an average.  If a student or parent complains about a grade, the teacher can always use the grade book average as a justification. 

But what if Kelsey's coach decided to bench her?  What if his coaches in the past had always played the players based on batting average?  What kind of coach would he be?  Probably a fired one.  While batting averages are fun for us sports junkies, they aren't a reliable resource upon which to make all coaching decisions.  The same is true for grade book averages.  They might provide some useful data or feedback, but they are not a reliable enough resource upon which to base our grading decisions.  Teachers should feel free to act like Kelsey's coach.  Use the batting average as feedback, but assign a grade based on mastery - not solely on the average.  

Who is in charge of the team - the coach or the batting average?

Who is in charge of the classroom - the teacher or the grade book average?

Any thoughts?

Educators steal from one another all the time.  It's how we get better.  

The following post is stolen from Matt Townsley (@mctownsley) and his MeTA Musings Blog - a great resource for AFL and Standards Based Grading ideas.  You can read the article in its entirety at: http://mctownsley.blogspot.com/2013/04/sbg-is-more-than-teach-test-reassess.html

In working with educators around the country I have found that most seem to cognitively grasp the concepts of Assessment FOR Learning.  However, many have difficulty putting those concepts into practice.  I think this often happens as a result of not planning with AFL in mind from the get go.  Sometimes educators will teach as they have always taught and then try to attach AFL principles after the fact.  To be most effective, AFL should be embedded into the lesson from the beginning.  For some folks that might mean starting over from scratch.  For others that might mean a few tweaks.  But it must be intentional.

The following post that I copied from MeTA Musings gives an example of how not to practice AFL.  Mr. Jones tries to apply AFL after the fact to this Math classroom.  It then gives an example of how a lesson or unit might look if AFL is there from the start.  This image (https://salemafl.ning.com/photo/sbgflowchart) goes along with the example below.

I'd love to hear any feedback you might have.

Here's an example of how SBG should not work in a middle school math class:

Mr. Jones teaches the area of a triangle on Monday and assigns some practice problems to complete in and outside of class.  Some of the students complete all of the practice problems.  Some of them do not. All students are provided the answers ahead of time on the board.  Mr. Jones teaches the area of a circle on Tuesday and assigns some practice problems to complete in and outside of class.  Again, students are provided the answers to the practice problems ahead of time.  Some of the students complete the practice problems and some do not.  On Wednesday, Mr. Jones gives all students a quiz on these two standards.  After Mr. Jones looks at the quizzes, he sees that about half of the class still doesn't understand how to find the area of a triangle or the area of a circle.  He thinks to himself, "Well, I'm really glad we have standards-based grading, because these students can reassess."  The next day, he hands back the quiz and tells students what they need to do before they can participate in a reassessment.  When only a few students show up for a reassessment opportunity during the next week, Mr. Jones becomes flustered and wonders why students aren't taking advantage of reassessments.

When I look at the visual above and think about Mr. Jones' SBG practices, I believe he's missing the "classroom feedback and informal assessment" part of the flowchart.  Mr. Jones appears to think standards-based grading is merely teaching, testing and offering reassessment opportunities. 

Here's an example of what SBG might look like in a middle school math class:

Mr. Johnson teaches the area of a triangle on Monday.  Before he assigns some practice problems, he asks each student to complete a problem on their small whiteboard and hold it up in the air.  Mr. Johnson can quickly see which students are still struggling to understanding the concept.  Rather than assigning everyone the same practice problems to complete it and outside of class. Mr. Johnson makes a quick adjustment and groups together several students who appear to still be struggling.  They will be working with Mr. Johnson for some of the remaining class time and will also be completing different practice problems than their classmates.  The next day, Mr. Johnson asks each student to view a solution to a completed practice problem that is already written in the board.  Each student must write a brief paragraph explaining if the solution is correct or not and evidence to support their reasoning.  Mr. Johnson walks around the room while students are writing their paragraphs.  Next, Mr. Johnson asks students to pair up and share their paragraphs with each other.  Finally, he asks several students to share their written responses aloud and the class collectively decides what the correct solution is to the problem.
Mr. Johnson teaches the area of a circle to round out the class period on Tuesday.  Rather than assigning practice problems from the text, he asks each student to find the area of a circle found in their home.  Each student will be asked to share their findings tomorrow in class.  On Wednesday, Mr. Johnson decides to administer a quiz that he knows will never land in the grade book.  He uses the quiz as an opportunity to provide written feedback to every student, but only after each student has once again self-assessed themselves in pencil against the standards.  Mr. Johnson writes comments by many of the students' solutions and then circles where each student is on a continuum of understanding for each standard.

Mr. Johnson asks students with relative strengths and weaknesses to pair up for seven minutes during class on Thursday.  Josie understood area of a triangle at a high level, but stunk it up on the area of a circle.  She'll be conferencing with Alex who didn't have a clue on the area of a triangle, but dominated the area of a circle.
Later in the week, all students complete another assessment, but this time it goes into the grade book.  Mr. Johnson feels pretty good about the assessment results, because he had the opportunity to see and hear students' thinking during class and was able to provide them with structured feedback through the ungraded quiz prior to the most recent assessment.   Reassessment opportunities are offered to students after the most recent assessment as well.

This fable is far from the ideal classroom, however I think it illustrates an aspect of standards-based grading that I believe deserves more attention in my own conversations with fellow educators: less grading and more feedback.