Rethinking Retakes

Pushing toward more learner-centered and equitable practices requires shifts in practices, methodologies, systems, and mindsets.  And shifts are hard.  While I would like to say that it is because systems are the limiting factor, my 20+ years in the field have shown that it is because our own beliefs- what it means to prepare students for the future, how students learn, and even about our role as educators- need to change and that is the challenging, time-consuming work.   Assessment practice is one of those places where being more learner-centered and equitable is truly pushing beliefs and systems to evolve  In a world where we desire to act upon the core belief that learning is the constant, time is the variable- and we embrace the messiness inherent within learning- educators must wrestle with rewriting long standing traditions within the assessment arena.  One of the most passion-filled, and time-consuming wrestling matches going on in schools across the country has a common contender: the “retake”

I have experienced this particular wrestling match as both an observer and a participant. While the details have changed from round to round, the core arguments have remained mostly the same.  In theory, retakes honor the idea that learning is iterative and if a learner is able to demonstrate their learning in a subsequent attempt, that learning should be recognized.  In reality, the retake may invite a lack of initial effort, reinforce poor habits and potentially allow for academic integrity to be compromised.  In this wrestling match, team “Theory of the Retake” believes that they are holding learners accountable for the learning, while team “Reality of Retakes” believes that they are fostering responsibility in the learning process.  And both teams are working toward the best interest of kids and making our students future-ready.

In my role with 2Revolutions, I have the opportunity to work with educators across the country as they do the challenging work to shift beliefs and transform their schools.  During a recent coaching session, I was able to have a candid discussion with an emerging leader around existing practices and struggles.  At this particular school, retakes were a new practice, and individual teachers were grappling with how to find balance between theory and reality. Based on what they had learned through their pilot and from reviewing other examples from the field, teachers proposed a compromise.  They would offer retakes in grades 9 and 10, but not in grades 11 and 12, as the latter courses were considered “college prep”.  The exceptions would be Honors and AP classes- which would never allow retakes, and “foundation level” courses which would always allow for retakes.  This emerging leader was reflecting on potential implications of this plan- from the perspective of an individual learner navigating their day to day learning, to colleges interpreting their transcript and everything in between.  I share this example not to call it out for its messiness, but because first, it is representative of what is happening in so many schools and second, to celebrate the ongoing wrestling.  In this case, the educators were unwilling to compromise between accountability and responsibility- they were trying to ensure that their wrestling match would defy the rules and end in a draw.  The question is, by intending to accomplish everything, would their plan actually accomplish anything?

For educators looking to learn from others, a quick search on retake practices will reveal that there is not a ton of consensus- which affirms the ongoing struggle.  Common practices vary widely in requirements for qualifying for retake, time limitations, what the process looks like, and how it impacts the overall grade.  There is one common strategy, however, and that is some kind of a contract, or self-reflection, on the part of the learner.  Many of these contracts ask the learner to identify gaps in their learning or misconceptions that emerged through the assessment, and to reflect on their approach to learning leading up to the assessment.  I worked in a system that used one of those contracts, with varying degrees of success.  Upon reflection, my utilization of retakes was significantly more effective, and frankly needed less often, before I even had a formal process or contract.  What was different?

Many years ago when I was new to the field, working in a very traditional district and fully embraced the philosophies and methodologies of the school.  Despite the no late work policy and strictly timed assessments (did I mention that it was very early in my career… my, how I’ve grown), I found myself trying to diagnose an unexpectedly low performance on an assessment by a particular student.  All of the data I had up to that point told me that this learner should have performed better.  In the end, it was 2 separate issues- the student had a single misconception that I had missed as part of the learning and formative feedback process, and the learner was sick- that came together to create an absolute disaster.  We each owned our part.  We filled in the learning gap, scheduled a second assessment and never looked back.  If it was that simple over 20 years ago, before “retakes” were even part of my vocabulary, why is it so complicated now?

Complicated is often a symptom of trying to do too much at a time.  Using a final culminating assessment to effectively demonstrate learning, hold learners accountable for learning and ensuring a responsible approach to learning might simply be too much.  What if we were to rethink that expectation and separate those out?  What if the culminating assessments only served to effectively demonstrate learning, and the accountability and responsibility were shifted to the process leading up to culminating assessment?  What would that mean for retakes?

It would mean that retakes would be for teachers, not just students.   

In order for this shift to happen, educators would need to change how they see their role.  Rather than being those who give assessments, educators need to transform into gatekeepers of assessments.  In this model, educators serve to provide ongoing and meaningful feedback- data- around what the learner has, and has not yet mastered.  It is only with sufficient and compelling evidence of readiness that the educator allows the learner to engage in the culminating assessment.  The learner, too, will need to shift how they see themselves.  The learners are responsible for acting upon the data and to hold themselves accountable for the learning.  In the rare instance that the learner is unsuccessful in performing successfully on the assessment, it would be up to the educator to evaluate the break-down in the gatekeeping process and to make adjustments. 

Let’s take getting a driver’s license as an example. (Admittedly, it is likely overused, but in this case, I am using it a bit differently.)  If the culminating assessment is the road test, learners are not allowed to even schedule that assessment until they have submitted documentation of taking a prep class, completed a specified number of supervised driving hours and passed a written test.  Attending a class and practice arguably contribute to readiness and even though the written exam is nothing more than DOK 1 and 2 multiple choice questions, it would be unrealistic to expect a learner to be able to apply those rules while driving if they don’t first know those rules.  Yet, despite these meaningful checkpoints, there are still a good number of aspiring drivers who are unsuccessful in meeting expectations of the road test.  I would argue that this is evidence of insufficient gatekeeping!  What would happen if the expectations were shifted to have the supervisors themselves actually sign-off on specific driving skills?  This changes the data that the educators provide to the learners- and holds them accountable for the development of the desired skills while positioning them to be responsible for engaging in the work necessary to be truly, and compellingly, ready. 

The reality is, learners are not always going to be successful on assessments, and we need to create strategies to minimize those instances and routines for responding when it happens.  Retakes as a strategy to support students are likely in the toolbox for the long-term. But, we can still take on the approach of being better gatekeepers. The change will certainly be time-consuming, as it has implications beyond the retake itself.  I fully concede that this approach will absolutely have ripple effects into instructional strategies, formative assessment practices, learner dispositions, how we structure time in schools and grading systems to name a few.  And that is the point.  If retakes are needed so often that we can’t address the rare occurrence and never look back, then we may have to do the hard, time-consuming work of shifting our own thinking first.