# The 6 C’s of Claims-Based Grading

For the past three years, I have been using a claims-based grading system in my math classes. Rather than using the traditional categories of Tests, Quizzes and Homework, or the standards-based categories such as A.REI.1 or Solving Linear Equations, my grade book is now comprised of the following claims-based categories that I refer to as the 6 C’s:

• Concepts & Procedures
• Critical Thinking
• Communicating Reasoning
• Constructing Models
• Creativity
• Collaboration

I call these “claims” because the first four of the six draw directly from my state of California’s testing system, The Smart Balanced Assessment Consortium. The SBAC exams and reports are based on four Claims for Mathematics Summative Assessment:

I figured that since the signers of my paycheck now expect me to impart these four abilities to students, that maybe my grade book should reflect these capacities as well.

I also know that the famous 4 C’s of 21st Century Learning are important skills for students to possess when they graduate our schools, therefore I thought that should be reflected in my grade book as well.

Two of these 21st Century C’s overlap with the SBAC claims. By choosing the phrasing “critical thinking” over “problem solving” and tweaking the SBAC phrase of Modeling and Data Analysis just a bit, I had my own 6 C’s of Claims-Based Grading.

This new grading system has demonstrated terrific benefits in the classroom for both my students and myself…

###### Student Focus & Reflection

Having the picture shown above displayed as a poster at the front of the classroom serves as a constant reminder to students as to why they are in the course. There is much more to math the just busting out algorithms. If they never have to solve an equation in their adult life, hopefully, they will understand the mathematical principles that they hear about in the news, be able to think and communicate in a quantitatively manner, interpret data and represent the story that the numbers tell, solve problems creatively and work collaborative to meet a goal.  Claims-Based grading keeps these ultimate purposes front and center in the students’ minds.

My students also have a grade sheet that reflects the 6 C’s on which they record the scores they received on each assignment. Any given assignment may have more than one score on it, much like what is done with standards-based grading, with each score being based on a 5-Point Rubric (to be shared in a future post). In other words, after each assignment, students are required to look at how they performed in terms of, say, critical thinking or constructing models, rather than studying for a test.

The portfolios in the class are structured around the 6 C’s as well, with the first six of the eight sections being the 6 C’s themselves. After each assignment is recorded, it gets filed in their portfolio in one of the sections that it was graded on. For example, if an assignment was scored on Communicating Reasoning and Creativity, then the student gets to choose into which of those two sections the assignment will be placed.

While a Traditional grading system focuses student attention on study habits, and Standards-Based grading focuses them on specific skills, Claims-Based grading focuses them on broader capacities that will serve them well as adults.

###### Teacher Focus &  Reflection

The greatest benefit of the Claims-Based grading system is how much it reminds me to teach and assess the capacities that I often forget. I naturally teach to conceptual understanding, critical thinking, communicating reasoning, and collaboration, but I need to be frequently nudged to present students with tasks that require them to construct models and create unique examples or solutions. For example, a group quiz will pose several claims-based problems on the same mathematical topic with a few cumulative questions as well.

The Collaboration grade is always a self-assessed grade by the group, with me holding the power to veto. Quite often, though, they accurately score themselves. This is not surprising since we score it according to the school-wide norms on collaboration.

Reflecting upon the results of the Claims-Based grading has great value to me also. Take my end-of-semester results for one class, for example. (Note, there appears to be a large number of assignments, but remember that each assignment may have multiple scores, like the quiz example above.)

With the exception of the collaboration grade, the scores appear to be fairly consistent. This is interesting since individual students do not show this consistency. They usually have a claim or two that lags the others. The numbers that give me the most pause are the number of items. The few number of collaboration scores is not a concern, because most of the assessments are individual anyway. However, I am assessing procedures twice as much as critical thinking, three times as much as communicating reasoning and constructing models, and five times as much as creativity. I’m not convinced this is an issue, but I’m not convinced that it is not one either.

There is another interesting phenomenon that has me reflecting on my practices. The final exam scores are far less correlated under this system than with my traditional system. In previous years, I would have only a handful students whose final exam score was different from their classroom grade significantly enough to raise or lower their course grade, and most of those would be an improvement in the grade. Under my new system, there is about a 45% volatility. That means that nearly half of the students score differently enough to change their course grade, with the number being split between raising or lowering the grade. I think this is because the district finals are so heavy on the procedural side, with absolutely no questions addressing modeling or creativity. Students who are strong or weak in the Concepts & Procedures category will then see a gap between their course grade and the final exam grade. I am keeping a careful eye on this dynamic as I move forward with the new grading system.

###### Moving Forward

For all the reasons that I have shared, I will be keeping this Claims-Based grading practice for a while. l see myself adjusting the system less, and using it to improve my instruction more.

###### Future Posts on Claims-Based Grading
• The Claims-Based Grade Book
• The 5-point Rubric
• Value-Based Grading

# Tiger Woods Gets a C- in Golf

My district is seriously looking into standards-based grading. I have dabbled in it and see both the value and the pitfalls. Interestingly, I wrote the article below in 2002, long before SBG came into vogue and before the Common Core started flirting with Performance Tasks. While Tiger may not be the top golfer in the world anymore, it speaks directly to my hopes and concerns. I invite some push back here from the SBG gurus.

***********************************************************
Earl Woods? Hello sir, thank you for coming to my classroom to speak with me about your son Tiger. Yes sir, I know that he appears to be doing well at home, but Mr. Woods, to be honest with you, Tiger is in danger of failing golf.

Currently his grade is a C-. I can show you the grade breakdown if you like. Certainly. As you know, there are approximately two hundred professional golfers. Each is ranked in various skill categories. Your son, Tiger, ranks as follows.

 Driving Distance 2nd Driving Accuracy 72nd Greens in Regulation 1st Putting Avg. 159th Eagles 132nd Birdies 2nd Scoring Avg. 1st Sand Save Avg. 4th

As you can see, Tiger does very well in most skill categories, but appears to perform poorly in two. Now, failing in two out of the eight leaves him with a score of 75%. There is a third category in which he is only slightly above average; therefore, he only gets partial credit. This diminishes his seventy-five percent to a 70%, and thus, he gets a C-.

My concern is that if Tiger were to falter in any one of these eight categories, he would surely fail golf. However, there is plenty of room for him to improve in these problem areas. He has an excellent work ethic, so I am confident that with a little more effort, Tiger will succeed. Mr. Woods, thank you for your support in this matter.

Can you imagine ever having this conversation regarding Tiger Wood’s ability as a golfer? How does the best golfer in the world get a near failing grade in golf? The answer is in the assessment.

The rankings given in the previous scenario are true. Furthermore, from this list, the All-Around Rankings of each professional golfer is determined by adding the golfer’s relative rank in each category. The lower the score, the better. Adding Tiger’s categorical rankings places him 10th in the “All-Around Rankings.”

In other words, there supposedly are  nine other golfers in the world better skilled than Tiger Woods. Being in the top five percent of all golfers in the overall skill category would certainly raise his grade in golf to at least a B, if not an A. However, he still does not rank as the top All-Around player in the world.

If we change the assessment, though, Tiger fares much better. For instance, Tiger is the richest golfer in the world. He is number on in season earnings and is the all-time career money winner. His is also number one in the World Rankings. The World Rankings are based on how well a golfer finishes in tournament play in comparison with the strength of the field. In other words, how well does the golfer compete?

Tiger wins the most tournaments and wins the most money. In my mind, and that of many others, that makes Tiger the bets golfer n the world. Yet, I am basing my opinion on his performance as a golfer rather than his skill as a golfer. Analyzing two other golfers can show the difference between the value of skill and that of performance. Do the names Cameron Beckman or John Huston ring a bell to you? No? Me, neither, and I am an avid golf fan. The reason that you do not know these names is that these two people are average golfers in the World Rankings. (They don’t win much.)  Yet, they both outrank Tiger in the All-Around (2nd and 9th respectively). According to certain forms of assessment, Beckman and Huston are better than Tiger Woods.

We can see this scenario being played out in our classrooms. The Beckmans and Hustons get higher grades than the Tiger Woods, because too much of our assessment is based on individual skill rather than on mathematical ability. The Tigers excel in the performance assessments that we occasionally offer, but these are so out weighed by itemized tests that the All-Around Ranking (skill) wins out over the World Ranking (performance),

A more appropriate balance of skills, testing and performance assessment in our classes may send our most underachieving mathematicians to the head of the class.