For Districts and State Networks
Mastery-based and proficiency-based grading depend on two claims that most districts cannot check: that different teachers reading the same work reach the same level, and that support before a resubmission is counted the same way from classroom to classroom.
The gap
A district adopts a four-level scale. Teachers norm on student work once or twice a year. The conversation is valuable, but it leaves no record: no agreement number, no date, no log of what the team decided to change. A year later, nobody can say whether the scale is being read more consistently or less.
Revision and retake policies vary by classroom. One teacher counts a conference plus a second attempt as evidence of proficiency. Another requires an unaided demonstration. Both record a 3. A parent comparing two report cards has no way to know the decisions rest on different rules.
The tools below address both problems, on paper, without an account, and without student data leaving the school.
Free tools, CC BY 4.0
A 40-minute session that ends with two agreement percentages and a date. Run it monthly on one learning target, and the team can see whether its consistency held from October to May. The log never records which scorer gave which score.
Download the protocolOne page that states how eight kinds of support before a resubmission count toward a proficiency decision. Students can read it, colleagues can share it, and section 8 checks twice a year whether students marked proficient held the level on their next unsupported demonstration.
Grounded in a preregistered analysis of 12,716 students and 985,813 scored events showing that crediting assisted work inflated measured mastery by 21 percentage points. Read the preprint
Download the templateType the grid instead of writing it. Computes exact and adjacent agreement, keeps a running log in the browser, and exports to CSV. Nothing is sent anywhere. Works offline.
Open the calculatorWhat a district gets
Exact and adjacent agreement logged monthly with a date. A board member asking whether the math scale is consistent gets a number, not an anecdote.
Every classroom's credit rule on one page, in a form students can read. No more 'it depends on the teacher.' The rule is public and checkable.
Section 8 of the template: pull five students marked proficient and look at their next fresh demonstration. If most held the level, the rule is working. If not, section 3 needs tightening.
The scoring sheet records levels. The log records team numbers. Neither records names. The tools work on paper and need no account, no software, and no network connection.
Getting started
Choose a learning target that two or more teachers assess, and the proficiency scale you already use for it. Three to six scorers is enough.
Bring four to six pieces of recent student work, names removed. Follow the eight steps. Log the two numbers and the one decision.
In the same team, fill in the revision credit rule template. Section 3 is the part worth discussing: how each kind of support counts.
Section 8 takes ten minutes. Five students marked proficient, their next fresh demonstration. If most held the level, the rule is doing its job.
After one semester on one target, the team knows whether the tools are worth adding a second target. The log tells you; a pilot report does not.
Both tools are free, licensed CC BY 4.0, and downloadable now. The how-to guides cover schools, coaches, and measurement professionals.