Failing at Passing

“What’s your failure rate?”

That’s a question principals, department heads, and other interested parties may be asking teachers in upcoming weeks. It’s a question that causes anxiety, tension, and cognitive conflict for many teachers. The expected or “right” answer to that question had better be a really low number or, preferably, zero. It’s the teacher’s responsibility to make sure everyone passes, right? No child is left behind. We don’t let kids fail.

Receiving messages like these--ones teachers may interpret to mean they are not allowed to have any Fs in their gradebooks—causes angst because not letting kids fail isn’t as simple as it seems. When teachers look at their gradebooks and notice that students are failing, they’re faced with a dilemma that seems resolvable through several pathways:

• Devise some sort of do-over plan (or, in the case of some students who are missing assignments, a “do” plan), which could involve retaking tests and/or amnesty for incomplete or missing work.

• Add in a few “extra” assignments that struggling students are sure to do well on to counterbalance low grades already in the gradebook. This solution typically involves participation grades or “creative” assignments with low standards for success.  

• Lower their standards. Make tests and assessments easier. Grade work for completion rather than accuracy. If students can’t reach the bar, lower it.

• Do some gradebook magic tricks that cause some assignments to simply disappear and some grades to rise on their own. Presto! No more failing students!

Each of the these solutions is problematic, and some are completely unethical. But we all know that when feeling trapped in a no-win situation, sometimes people make poor choices.

The thing that frustrates and frequently infuriates teachers faced with the mandate to eliminate student failures is that it’s hard to give a passing grade to a student who has put forth no effort in class. This student doesn’t deserve to pass. He’s done absolutely nothing all semester. One problem with the no-fail classroom is that some students have learned to work the system. They know that the teacher is going to reach a point of desperation and are hedging their bets that things are going to get easier for them so that they can pass without earning the grade.

Here’s the truth as I see it:  A student who hasn’t mastered the objectives and standards for a course shouldn’t pass the course.

Here’s the caveat that accompanies that truth: Most gradebooks measure things other than objectives and standards. If a student is failing a teacher’s class because of factors unrelated to objectives or standards, that failure is difficult to defend.

In other words, if the student is failing because of a lack of compliance but knows and can demonstrate what he or she is supposed to know, that student deserves to pass. If passing a class hinges on completion of activities and assignments that don’t relate to the state standards, teachers ought to rethink what they are putting in their gradebooks.

I can’t find a Texas state standard that says that students have to demonstrate the ability to complete work on time. There aren’t standards that stipulate that students color maps neatly in social studies class. I’m pretty sure that following a correct heading format isn’t a state objective, nor is having a parent sign a syllabus, letter, or reading/practice log. Anything related to actual classroom behavior should be off-limits in a gradebook. Finding words in a word search? Nope. Baking a cake or cookies should probably only count for a grade in Family and Consumer Science classes as there isn’t a state objective in academic classes that involves food preparation, procurement, or consumption. And there’s no objective that says students must donate tissues, paper towels, or other classroom supplies.

In my days as a student, I received grades or suffered numerical penalties for every one of those things at some point, and I have given grades or deducted points for many of them over the years as a classroom teacher. I’m sure most of us have. But when we know better, we have to do better.

Before I knew better, some students failed my class who probably had mastered the objectives of the course, and other students received inflated grades in my class because of their compliance, their art skills, and their participation, not because of their high-level mastery of the objectives. Looking back, both of those bother me.

Gradebooks have one job: to communicate whether a student has mastered the objectives of a course. Recording grades based on completion or on aspects unrelated to standards misleads parents and students about students’ progress. It also unfairly penalizes students who know the content and skills but can’t be bothered to jump through the extraneous hoops.

A student, then, who doesn’t master the objectives of a course might receive a failing grade. But what about that lingering refrain that says, “We don’t let students fail”? Educators should be relentless in their efforts to teach students so they can master objectives. That doesn’t mean that teachers give up on students, saying, “If they’re not going to try, then that’s their decision.” Students are not adults and don’t get to make that decision. It also doesn’t mean lowering the bar—as long as the bar is at the level expected by the state, not a bar set at an extra-high level because teachers believe they are teaching a grade much higher than the one they actually teach.

This whole discussion about grading and assessment is a thorny one, and most of us are still struggling to find the answers. As we search for solutions and try to reach a shared understanding, it’s essential that teachers talk with one another and with administrators about practices and expectations. What grades are needed to provide an accurate and reasonable picture of a student’s learning? What do we want our gradebooks to communicate? What are the standards to which we intend to hold our students accountable? How are we measuring progress toward those standards? What is acceptable evidence of mastery? What role does daily work play in the gradebook?  What does an A mean? What does a C mean? How are we encouraging our students to become learners rather than performers and completers? What legacy practices are we holding onto that violate what we claim to believe about assessment?

Assessment that is not meaningful is a waste of effort for students and a waste of time for teachers. And discussion about failure rates is only meaningful when teachers, parents, administrators, and students understand what passing and failing truly mean and when teachers focus on learning goals instead of compliance.

Incredibly Credible

There’s nothing worse than being stuck with someone who seems incompetent: the Uber driver who asks you for directions, the doctor who has to consult Web MD mid-visit, the waitperson who looks at you blankly when you inquire about a specific menu item, the car salesman who reads off the brochure to tell you the features of a new auto, the Starbucks barista or bartender who asks, “What’s in that drink?”

For students, being stuck in a classroom with a teacher who doesn’t seem to know what he or she is doing can be excruciating and potentially hazardous to student achievement. In fact, researcher/professor John Hattie, whose meta-study determined the factors most crucial to student achievement, ranked “Teacher Credibility” as the #2 teacher attribute leading to student success (#1 was “Teacher Estimates of Student Achievement,” whether the teacher can accurately tell how a specific student is doing). Credible teachers inspire students, but, as Hattie said, “If a teacher is not perceived as credible, the students just turn off.”

I’m assuming we are all wanting to be viewed as credible rather than incompetent, but we may be uncertain about what “teacher credibility” entails. Hattie identifies four factors that can help us out.

1. Trust: Students need to know they can trust you. They need to know they are in good hands and that you aren’t going to lead them astray, leave them lost and confused, or ask them to do something they aren’t capable of doing. Hattie says the best way to gain students’ trust is to show trust toward them. It’s hard to trust someone who doesn’t trust you back. Another way to achieve trust with your students is to talk to them. Not talk at them. Not talk for them. To them. Having authentic conversations with your students and getting to know them as individuals, letting them know you see them for who they are, and allowing them to see you for who you are develops bonds of trust that will allow you to take your students farther than they thought they could go.   

2. Competence: Teachers who project the image that they know what they are doing are perceived as more competent than those who bumble confusedly through class. There’s no substitute for coming to class prepared for your day. Students shouldn’t get the idea that you’re making up plans as you go along. A competent teacher knows the subject matter, has prepared and proofread any written documents or visual aids, manages people, time, and materials efficiently, has a clear sense of purpose and direction for the lesson, and can answer questions with confidence. Inevitably, a student will stump the teacher from time to time with a question the teacher can’t answer. Rather than looking at that as a failing, this is a prime opportunity for the teacher to model learning along with the students. When leading class discussions, the competent teacher has prepared questions to ask at the appropriate moment; the teacher who struggles to develop questions on the spot risks looking unprepared, a sure sign of questionable competence.    

3. Dynamism: A dynamic teacher exudes credibility. The teacher has to be “on” from the beginning of class until after the students leave the room. Developing a confident speaking style that avoids fillers, such as “ums” and “likes,” helps the teacher deliver the message without distractions. I suggest videorecording yourself from time to time (horrifying as it is to watch) to evaluate your own dynamism. Are you someone students listen to because you command their attention (Commanding is different from demanding.), or are you losing your students because your delivery is tentative or confusing?

4. Immediacy: Some teachers like to barricade themselves behind a desk, hide behind a podium, or set some other boundary between themselves and their students. Teachers who develop credibility, according to Hattie, eliminate as many of those barriers as possible and teach in proximity to the students. Evaluate the arrangement of your classroom to make sure there are plenty of places for teacher mobility, and use all of them routinely. Reducing the distance between you and your students makes you more approachable and accessible, which adds to the perception of credibility.

If you’re like me, you can remember some of the teachers in your past who failed to convince you that they knew what they were doing. You can recall those who made you feel you weren’t really in good hands. You might be able to think of a few that you were pretty sure were winging it every single day of the year. Those teachers are probably memorable for the wrong reasons.

You can probably also think about the times when you knew you were in the classroom of a master teacher. I think of teachers who trusted us to take charge of the learning, who connected with us as people (even if we were decades younger than they were), who seemed passionate about the content and well-prepared for instruction every day, and who thoughtfully designed learning experiences that stretched us as thinkers. Those were the teachers with credibility.

Take a tip from Hattie, and think about your own credibility in the classroom. He outlined some pretty basic traits that are attainable for all of us. Pick one (or all of them) and make those a resolution for your upcoming new semester. You have the power to become one of the teachers students will remember for all the best reasons.