Standards-based grading as the course spine
In Dr. Hopperâs course design, standards-based grading with extensions is not a side feature at the end of a unit. It is how the whole learning environment is organized. Instead of students collecting points from separate tasks, everything is framed around clear âI canâ statements that are tied to program standards and unpacked on a proficiency scale. Lang and Townsley (2021) describe standards-based systems as ways of communicating where learners are in relation to a standard, not how many marks they have earned. Proficiency scales move teacher judgment away from a simple âmeets / does not meetâ decision and toward a continuum of growth, which then supports ongoing feedback and reflection (Lang & Townsley, 2021). In Hopperâs structure, those same ideas show up in the way each unit has a small set of big outcomes that are revisited across a season, rather than being tested once and forgotten.
The assessment work in elementary physical education gives a useful parallel. James, Griffin, and France (2005) found that when a PE teacher used performance-based tasks and clear criteria linked to standards, students and parents could better understand what was being learned and how achievement was being judged. At the same time, the study showed that simply having rubrics is not enough. Students only really âgot itâ when the teacher took time to explain the criteria in student-friendly language and connect them to actual activities (James et al., 2005). Hopperâs use of âI canâ statements and visual rubrics does this type of translation work all the time. The language and levels are designed to be read by learners, not just adults, which is important when thinking about transferring this structure into a social studies classroom.
Extension as Built-in Deeper Learning
A key feature of Hopperâs approach is the idea of âextensionâ. Once students reach the expected level for a standard, there is always another layer available that deepens or widens the same outcome. This is not extra credit that sits outside the curriculum. It is written into the top end of the proficiency scale as an extension level. Lang and Townsley (2021) argue that growth-oriented scales should describe excellence as something that builds on proficiency, not as something mysterious or reserved for a small group. Extension tasks do exactly that. They make it visible what it looks like to go beyond the baseline, and they invite students to choose a path to that deeper level.
Self Determination Theory adds another lens here. Fernåndez (2011) explains that students are more motivated when learning environments support their need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Clear standards and scales support competence because learners can see what success looks like and track their movement over time. Extension levels support autonomy because students often have meaningful choices about how they will demonstrate higher levels of understanding and what kind of challenge they want to take on. When these choices happen within stable groups or teams, the social side of the work can also support relatedness, which is especially important in subjects like social studies where discussion and collective inquiry matter (Børhaug & Borgund, 2018; Fernåndez, 2011).
Sport Education, Records, and Standards
Sport Education gives one more layer for understanding why standards-based structures with extensions work so well. Siedentop (2002) describes how Sport Education seasons use records and roles as part of the learning design. Record-keeping is not only about competition. It is used as feedback, as a way to notice improvement, and as a way to build team traditions and identity. Wallhead and OâSullivan (2005) argue that when these structures align with valued outcomes, such as tactical awareness, fair play, and participation, they help students become competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons. In Hopperâs classes, the standards-based rubrics and extension levels function like those records. They focus attention on what matters, give language for progress, and create shared goals for the group.
Translating the Structure Into Social Studies
To translate this into social studies, the same structural ideas can be applied to disciplinary skills and understandings. Instead of a series of unrelated assignments that all receive percentage grades, the course can be organized around a small number of âI canâ statements that describe what it means to think and work like a social studies learner. Each statement then has a progression that includes an extension level. For example:
| Social studies âI canâ statement | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Extension |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I can use evidence to support a historical argument. | Restates information with little or no evidence. | Uses one or two pieces of evidence but connections to the claim are unclear or general. | Uses relevant evidence and explains how it supports the claim. | Selects and evaluates evidence from multiple perspectives, anticipates counter-arguments, and revises the claim based on that evaluation. |
| I can explain how power and inequality show up in a local or global issue. | Names a topic but focuses mostly on surface details. | Identifies some groups or institutions but with limited explanation of power. | Describes how specific groups, institutions, or policies shape opportunities and outcomes. | Critically analyses the issue using concepts like privilege, structural inequality, or colonialism, and proposes realistic actions different groups could take. |
| I can engage in respectful discussion about controversial issues. | Shares opinions without listening or responding to others. | Listens to others but struggles to respond respectfully when there is disagreement. | Uses discussion norms, asks clarifying questions, and responds to ideas instead of attacking people. | Helps the group stay on track, invites in quieter voices, and uses evidence or concepts from the course to move the discussion forward. |
This kind of table does a few important things. First, it makes the standards visible in language that students can actually understand, which is consistent with what James et al. (2005) identify as a key part of effective assessment practice. Second, it defines extension as a deeper or more critical engagement with the same outcome instead of as extra work that is unrelated to the core goals. In the example above, extension levels ask students to work with multiple perspectives, critique structures, and think about action. That connects directly to research showing that social studies motivation is especially strong when students can engage with issues that matter to them and explore both existential questions and critical analysis of society (Børhaug & Borgund, 2018).
Seasons, Teams, and Extensions in Social Studies
Building extension opportunities into the standards framework opens up practical ways to combine Hopperâs organizational structure with social studies content. In a Sport Education style season, teams might collect evidence of their progress on key âI canâ statements across a unit on a theme like âCitizenship and protestâ. Each team could have roles such as discussion leader, researcher, historian, and community liaison. Proficiency levels would anchor daily activities, while extension tasks could include designing an inquiry project, creating a public-facing product, or facilitating a class debate.
The underlying idea is the same as in Hopperâs PHE classes. Standards-based grading with extensions gives the course a clear spine. Students know what they are working toward, how they can grow, and what it looks like to go further, which can support both stronger learning and stronger motivation in social studies (FernĂĄndez, 2011; Lang & Townsley, 2021; Siedentop, 2002; Wallhead & OâSullivan, 2005).