Cards On The Table
The scene is set in Dona LeBouef’s kitchen, where three women are gathered around the table. These women are not your typical rebels; they appear more like P.T.A. moms, dressed in coordinated outfits. Despite their polite demeanor, they are preparing for a campaign against the pilot report cards introduced by the local public school system. This new format aimed to provide more detailed information about students by eliminating traditional letter grades. However, the group of mothers, including Jean E. Germani and Dona LeBouef, were shocked by this change as they had been accustomed to the A-B-C format for the past three decades.
In response, these concerned parents formed a group called Parents for Quality Education to challenge the district’s decision. They believed that these report cards were a symptom of broader changes in the school curriculum and met regularly to strategize how to combat this. Their efforts yielded some success in opposing the new report cards.
Meanwhile, teachers who had dedicated significant time to the pilot program, working with parents on a district committee, felt frustrated and disheartened. The breakdown in trust between parents and the education system was deeply concerning. Albert Benetti, a father of two young children, expressed his reservations about the report cards and emphasized the need for clear communication and alignment of interpretation between parents and educators. The ongoing criticism from different groups has been overwhelming for teachers and has even made some consider private schooling for their own children.
All of this controversy unfolding in Cranston has surprised its residents. This town is not known for engaging in heated ideological debates about education. As the third-largest city in Rhode Island, it prides itself on being largely immune to big-city problems. The predominantly Catholic, middle-class families that have resided here for generations hold a strong sense of community pride and support for the school system. However, the topic of report cards has ignited passionate arguments, pitting parents against teachers and even dividing parents amongst themselves.
At the heart of this dispute lies the tradition of using letter grades to convey student achievement in American education. Letter grades have assumed great importance, serving as shorthand for parents to understand their children’s progress. They determine who makes the honor roll or becomes the class valedictorian. Positive grades bring pride, while poor grades are often swept under the rug. Schools use these grades to assess student mastery, determine educational opportunities, motivate students, and guide improvement efforts. Consequently, tampering with grades challenges fundamental beliefs about schooling and competition in America.
Despite this, educators across the country are reevaluating the use of letter grades on student report cards, driven by practical and philosophical considerations. Embracing a more child-centered approach that allows students to develop at their own pace in kindergarten and primary classrooms raises questions about the appropriateness of letter grades at such young ages. Educators, such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children, advocate for a closer examination of report cards for children aged 5 to 8, to ensure that they reflect growth over time and focus on students’ strengths.
When educators in Cranston began questioning their grading practices, they found themselves in good company. Superintendent of schools, Edward J. Myers, recalls that there were no red flags in his mind. In 1987, the school system made changes to its literacy curriculum to align with state mandates and educational research. The definition of literacy expanded to include not just spelling, handwriting, and reading comprehension, but also writing, speaking, and listening. The classroom started incorporating more high-quality children’s literature, and teachers were trained in process writing, which involved encouraging students to revise and rewrite their work for different audiences. At the same time, the district updated its mathematics curriculum to meet the standards set by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
By 1990, a few schools had already begun to modify their kindergarten report cards to reflect the new approach. Teachers now assessed students’ skills based on whether they were showing "satisfactory development" or "improvement needed." There was also space for narrative comments. The reaction from parents and teachers was mostly positive, and there were no major concerns raised.
In 1992, a committee comprising more than 25 teachers and administrators started rethinking the report cards for grades K through 6. In the fall of 1993, they conducted a pilot program in seven schools, but it only included grades kindergarten through 3. The committee had few parents participating in the process.
The previous report card had rated students in important categories, such as reading, spelling, and handwriting, using a scale ranging from A for "outstanding performance at instructional level" to E for "does not meet instructional level standards." Under each category, teachers could check off specific skills or effort that needed improvement.
The revised report card for grades 1-3 implemented a three-level grading code. C represented "consistently successful," M stood for "making progress," and I indicated "improvement needed." The kindergarten report card now asked teachers to rate whether students demonstrated a particular skill or concept "most of the time" or "not yet."
The report card had a special section that indicated whether the teacher had adjusted their instruction or expectations to accommodate students with special needs or limited English proficiency. The purpose was to demonstrate the students’ gradual improvement in specific skills required by the curriculum over time. As long as the students mastered the required skills by the end of the marking period, they could earn a 5, indicating that they had achieved their goals, regardless of how quickly or slowly they learned.
In the spring of 1994, the committee members made a crucial decision that they would later regret. They decided to implement the pilot report cards across all 18 elementary schools in the district, including the well-received kindergarten report card and the new report cards for grades 1 to 6. This decision was influenced by the district’s parent-advisory committee, who believed that all parents should have the opportunity to experience and provide feedback on the new format. The plan was to pilot the report cards twice during the school year, once in the fall and again in the winter, and then gather input from parents and teachers. Although the Cranston school board was aware of the progress made by the committee, they did not vote on the plan.
Maureen T. Kirby, the chairwoman of the report-card committee and the principal of William R. Dutemple Elementary School, reflects on the naivety with which she and her colleagues approached the implementation of the new format. Kirby, a petite blonde who lost 10 pounds in the past year due to worry, explains that they aimed to create a report card that catered to the diverse needs of individual students. She felt that using the traditional A, B, C grading system was no longer sufficient to meet the needs of the student population.
Prior to the start of the school year, the district administrators introduced the pilot report cards to teachers. However, some 3rd, 4th, and 5th-grade teachers were unhappy with the change, particularly because they had not been using the literacy curriculum for as long as their colleagues in grades K-2. They also received less training and support. Janice Santos, a 5th-grade teacher at Hope Highlands Elementary School and a committee member, explains that many teachers struggled to explain the new format to parents because they lacked confidence in it. Although they appeared supportive, they did not fully believe in the changes.
In response to the parent-education advisory board’s request, the school district decided to hold parent workshops on the pilot report cards in August. Despite advertising the workshops through newsletters and mailed information, attendance was low. The first session at the public library had only nine participants, and the second had seven. Despite the small turnout, Kirby saw the parents’ interest and concern and felt that they were willing to work together on this initiative.
In the fall, the school district produced a half-hour show about the report cards for the local cable television system. Two weeks before the release of the pilot report cards, six additional workshops were held in elementary schools across the town. The first of these workshops went smoothly, but when educators reached Hope Highlands, they faced challenges.
Hope Highlands Elementary School, located on the western side of town, is known as the "castle" and is the school of choice for many affluent families in Cranston. It boasts a separate kindergarten wing and a large central foyer. It is a school favored by parents who describe themselves as high achievers and who strive for the best for their children.
Jean Germani, a parent who helped launch Parents for Quality Education, is one of those parents. She and her husband own a dry-cleaning business in town. Germani was upset that the school system had been working on a pilot program for two years without providing parents with details until the last minute. She considers herself part of a moderate group but believes that the A-B-C grading system is universally understood and provides objective information about where children stand academically.
Some parents who supported the pilot report cards share the same perspective. Lynn Aberger, a parent at Waterman Elementary School, is the president of the parent-teacher organization (P.T.O.) and has children in first and sixth grade. She joined the report-card committee in the spring after other parents at the school expressed concerns. According to Aberger, there were parents who believed that the change in the numerical grading system implied a change in the curriculum. She clarifies that this was not true, but many parents still worried that it was a step towards outcomes-based education, with no objective standards and purely subjective evaluations for the students. They were alarmed by the idea that this change was part of a bigger trend and wanted to put a stop to it.
Additional events in the district contributed to the anxiety. During the pilot phase, the elementary school principals decided to suspend honor rolls for a year due to the changes in the report cards. Furthermore, the district was planning to transition from junior high schools to middle schools, leading many parents to believe that the elimination of letter grades in elementary school was a sign of what was to come in the middle schools. Aberger recalls parents claiming that all tracking would be eliminated in the middle schools because of this, expressing various unfounded concerns. The overreaction from some parents was significant.
However, Aberger personally approves of the new report cards. She believes that by the time students reach junior high and high school, they are closer to the real world, which contains diverse career paths and interests. She disagrees with categorizing a child as incapable of learning based on their performance in second or third grade. In her opinion, the old reports perpetuated that kind of labeling.
On December 12, 1994, the Cranston School Committee, consisting of five members, listened to over two hours of passionate and acrimonious testimonies from individuals representing both sides of the debate. In search of a compromise, the school board unanimously decided to reintroduce letter grades to the pilot report cards for grades 1-6, effective from the January marking period. They also instructed the district to conduct a survey among parents of first through sixth graders. The surveys were sent out during Christmas week and asked parents if they wanted to continue with the new report card, add letter grades to it, or suggest further changes. However, the option to return to the old system was not included in the survey.
Approximately 2,000 of the 5,000 parents who received the survey responded by January 4. Among them, 1,501 parents expressed their opposition to continuing with the new report card that their children received at the end of the first quarter. Moreover, 1,638 parents indicated their preference for adding letter grades to the pilot system. The majority of teachers in grades 3-6 supported the addition of letter grades, while those in grades 1 and 2 did not.
He argues that there is no valid reason why the current system cannot be converted into a letter grading system. He believes that if the community desires it, it should be implemented. However, teachers, in particular, feel that their hard work and opinions have been disregarded in favor of a small group of parents who have exerted excessive pressure on the school board. They are especially upset that the experiment was changed before it was given a fair chance.
Superintendent Myers expresses his concerns about the teachers’ diminished enthusiasm for joining committees and offering their time due to the perception that their opinions will be ignored if a pressure group intervenes. The recent committee meeting, following the controversy, was poorly attended by teachers. Only one teacher showed up initially, and a week later, only three out of the more than twenty teachers who had previously served on the committee attended. D’Aguanno recalls explaining to them why the teachers were not present, emphasizing that the teachers worked diligently and were not abandoning the committee because they didn’t get their way. Rather, they felt humiliated by the proceedings and the unpleasant comments made during the public hearings. The overall sentiment was that they did not want to subject themselves to such negativity.
Deborah Boehm, a second-grade teacher at Woodridge Elementary School and the chair of the state’s whole-language association, is one of those teachers who felt insulted and demeaned by the parents’ reactions. Her classroom is filled with bins of children’s books, and during a recent reading session, she engaged her students in discussing stories inspired by traditional fairy tales. They demonstrated an impressive knowledge of high-quality children’s literature and could articulate the concept of literary models. Boehm proudly displays large books that her students have authored and illustrated based on popular children’s stories. She even creates book bags for parents, complete with stories, journals, and interactive materials. She is a dedicated teacher who would make a valuable contribution to any committee discussing literacy and its assessment. However, her negative experience with some parents has left her feeling disheartened and offended.
To the educators who served on the committee, the recently introduced report cards were seen as a significant advancement, despite their imperfections. These new report cards provided parents with a greater level of detail about their child’s progress, and relied on a variety of evidence to make informed assessments. Many teachers claim that they would never want to return to the old system, as they now have a much better understanding of their students. They are now keeping thorough observational notes, creating portfolios of their students’ work, developing performance assessments that require the application of knowledge, and designing scoring rubrics for classroom use. "The documentation was where the core of everything was," states Kirby, the committee chair. "We held workshops with teachers to show them how to establish rubrics and criteria. Unfortunately, this was never shared with parents."
When teachers reviewed portfolios with parents during conferences and explained their assessment process, it seemed to alleviate their concerns. However, in general, many parents still struggled to grasp what grade-level achievement looked like under the new criteria. This was further complicated by the fact that each teacher had the freedom to choose the evidence they collected and how they judged it.
In hindsight, many individuals agree that Cranston should have proceeded with caution. After all, the report card system had not undergone significant changes since 1981. Teachers now suggest that they should have initially piloted the program in a few volunteer schools. They also propose starting with grades K-2 and gradually implementing the changes throughout the system. Perhaps, they should have dedicated more time and energy to showcasing the portfolios and classroom work that formed the foundation of the report cards, rather than solely focusing on altering the report card itself.
Cranston’s experiences are not unique. When the Houston Independent School District introduced narrative report cards for grades kindergarten through 3, a negative article in the Houston Chronicle gained nationwide attention. The changes faced criticism from sources such as CNN and Rush Limbaugh. "What we learned from that," explains Lynn Barnes, an assessment specialist with the Houston district, "is that we needed to consistently involve parents, especially those who were not in favor of the changes. So, we actively engaged vocal parents and worked with them throughout the previous year and during the summer." The district also made the new report card system voluntary for schools and it is now in use in 70 out of 176 elementary schools.
In 1992, when Elmhurst, Illinois, an affluent community located about 15 miles west of Chicago, eliminated letter grades from its elementary schools, some parents were outraged. As a response, the school system added a grid to the 4th and 5th-grade report cards informing parents about their child’s progress in relation to their classmates in terms of effort and learning pace.
My main emphasis in my writing, as well as others’, is that reporting should prioritize effective communication rather than just documenting achievements. Therefore, if the report card forms become too complex for parents to understand, or if they fail to derive meaning from them, then they are not fulfilling their purpose effectively.
In Cranston, there is a clear divide. Germani and Dulude are advocating for a return to letter grades based on numerical scores. Germani is the only member of the new report-card committee who voted against continuing the pilot program in its modified form.
Kirby drives around with an audiotape of Alfie Kohn in her car. However, she acknowledges that Cranston is not yet prepared for Kohn’s campaign to completely eliminate grading. She has come to the realization that she will never convince individuals like Germani. She questions, "Should this group of parents hold more validity than others? I don’t believe they should." She also believes that more parents are beginning to come around and that there is enough goodwill to continue working towards finding a solution.
At least some of the parents who opposed the changes to the report cards seem willing to cooperate with Kirby. Michael Anthony, a father of two children at Dutemple Elementary School, found the pilot report cards "very confusing." He felt that they were disregarding the established and effective system.
"I myself experienced traditional education," notes Anthony, who was born and raised in Cranston. "A, B, C’s. And if you received a D, you knew you could not watch TV and had to focus on studying. I believe this report card was designed to address self-esteem issues. For a child who receives a D, it’s almost as if you can’t tell them to study harder because it would make them feel so despondent. I don’t understand that approach."
Taking his own initiative, he reached out to the U.S. Education Department and obtained a list of its "blue-ribbon" schools. He then requested their report cards, which he keeps in a large manila folder. He spoke with around 15 schools, from Alabama to Minnesota, before finding one that utilized a system similar to the proposed one in Cranston.
However, Anthony, a young and exceptionally polite insurance salesman, reiterates that he does not simply want to criticize the changes from the outside. He has remained committed to the report-card committee. "I think it will require effort. I think it will take time. But I believe they can achieve it," he affirms.
At this point, nobody anticipates Cranston abandoning letter grades in the upper elementary school in the near future. Nonetheless, many proponents of the changes are hopeful that they can refine and expand upon the subcategories of the pilot report cards, as well as the alterations made in grades K-2.
"I strongly believe in academic freedom for teachers," says Ventetuolo of the school board. "They have the right to do whatever falls within their jurisdiction, and they must be protected. However, when they are reporting to parents, they need to translate their methods and language into terms that parents can comprehend. Failing to convert from educational jargonese will only create problems."
"As someone who has been involved in education since the 1950s," he adds, "we used to do our own thing. At the end of the day, we submitted our report. The parents accepted it. Back then, we were seen as almost godlike figures. But nowadays, parents want to be involved. You really have to keep the flow of information consistent on a daily basis. The only way to overcome this challenge is by inundating the airwaves with as much information as possible."
Ultimately, report cards are all about providing information.
Author
0