This summer, I listened to an anthology of stories about ungrading edited by Susan Blum (currently free on Audible). I have read similar books before, but this time it just felt like something I needed to do. I saw so many connections to what we do in language classrooms! I decided to cobble together some of my favorite ideas into something actionable in my classroom. I want to share it with you both in the hopes that you’ll join me in the ungrading experiment and in the hopes that I can share some data as I go that will drive future iterations of my idea.

One thing that I loved was that the teachers all mentioned that this idea is not for us, it is for the students. This is a way to not penalize them for the process of growth they progress through in our classrooms.

Another thing I loved was that based on what we know about proficiency from nationally normed tests, our level 4 students are, by and large, scoring at intermediate low-mid on their writing. Take a moment to look at the descriptors of what writing at that level looks like! Early intermediates are a mess. Sometimes only their teacher can understand them when they attempt to create with their acquired base of language. If the data is true, AND if Lyster and Ranta’s study on corrective feedback in 1997 is true, we’ve been grading all wrong. Explicit correction seems to produce zero student generated repair in language production, so how do we assimilate that information?

I am going to try “ungrading” but with a grade (because it’s school and it’s what’s expected of me). On Wednesday, tomorrow, each student in levels 2-4 will get this survey sheet. They will have the option to select 1-3 goals for the school year. If they select only 1, every written assignment they turn in will be graded based on their growth in that area. If they select three, they can choose which goal they believe is reflected in the writing on a particular assessment. They will write on this paper so that it’s easy for me to see which goal I am monitoring for growth.

After our first written assessment (the baseline), I will watch these goals all year and as long as they are making forward progress toward their goal, they will get an A. If they do not progress or they don’t take their goal setting seriously, we’ll revert back to the normal rubric.

Why I think this is ok:

• I already grade speaking on a completion = 100% grade and my classes still kill it on our STAMP/AAPPL testing at the end of the year. They actually say MORE when they know they’re being advised, not judged.
• These are intermediate kids. They’re in the error making stage. Having one clear thing to work toward is a really reasonable ask.
• Goal setting puts the onus on THEM to work to improve. If they do not follow their plan, I have the option to go back to the original rubric. If they DO improve in their goal area, I feel like it is going to ripple across some of the other areas as well.
• The goals I selected are very differentiated. For a student who is just here because they love language, they may just want to be braver using the language in class. For a student who is shooting for the seal of biliteracy, they can shoot for grammar and vocabulary improvements.

If you’d like to join me experimenting in ungrading, let me know! We’ll talk it all out together this year as we go. If you would rather see how it goes for me first, I promise to update you. If you think I’m crazy, you’re probably right. 🙂

Hope your back to school has been amazing (or IS amazing if you start back next week). We are already in the second half of week two! It goes so fast once it gets going.