Grading and Reporting

Student Learning

Thomas R. Guskey
Professor of Educational Psychology
College of Education
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506
Phone: 859-257-5748
E-mail: [email protected]
 Thomas R. Guskey
College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
(Phone: 859-257-5748 E-mail: [email protected])
Dr. Guskey is Professor of Educational Psychology in the College of Education at the University of Kentucky, and widely
known for his research in education reform, professional development, assessment, and grading. A graduate of the University of
Chicago, he has taught at all levels, served as an administrator in Chicago Public Schools, and was the first Director of the Center
for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning, a national educational research center. His books have won numerous awards and
his articles have appeared in prominent research journals as well as Educational Leadership, Kappan, and School Administrator.
Dr. Guskey served on the Policy Research Team of the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, on the Task Force
to develop the National Standards for Staff Development, and recently was named a Fellow in the American Educational Research
Association, one of the Association’s highest honors. He co-edits the Experts in Assessment Series for Corwin Press and has been
featured on the National Public Radio programs “Talk of the Nation” and “Morning Edition.” As a consultant to schools
throughout the world, he helps bring clarity and insight to some of education’s most complex problems.

Publications on Grading and Reporting

Developing Standards-Based Report Cards “Efficacy of Online Reporting”. Alberta Assessment
(with J. Bailey). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2010. Consortium Communiqué, p. 2. Also available at:
http://www.aac.ab.ca/freenews.html
Practical Solutions for Serious Problems in Standards-
Based Grading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2009. “‘It Wasn’t Fair!’ Educators’ Recollections of Their
Experiences as Students with Grading. Journal of
How’s My Kid Doing? A Parents’ Guide to Grades, Educational Research and Policy Studies, 2006, 6(2),
Marks, and Report Cards. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2002. 111-124.
Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student “Making High School Grades Meaningful.”
Learning (with J. Bailey). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2001. Phi Delta Kappan, 2006, 87(9), 670-675.
Implementing Student-Led Conferences “The Problem of Grade Inflation.”
(with J. Bailey). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 2001. Principal Matters, 2006, 66, 38-40.
Communicating Student Learning. Alexandria, VA: “The Challenges of Standards-Based Grading” (with L. Jung).
Association for Supervision and Curricular Development, 1996. Leadership Compass, 2006, 4(2), 1-5.
Presentation Digest XI: Developing Grading and “Mapping the Road to Proficiency.”
Reporting Systems for Student Learning (with Bailey). Educational Leadership, 2005, 63(3), 32-38.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
“A Historical Perspective on Closing Achievement Gaps.”
Development, 2003.
NASSP Bulletin, 2005, 89(64), 76-89.
Grading and Reporting Student Learning – Professional
“The Communication Challenge of Standards-Based
Development Inquiry Kit (with Marzano). Alexandria, VA: Reporting.” Phi Delta Kappan, 2004, 86(4), 326-329.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2002.
“Zero Alternatives.” Principal Leadership, 2004, 5(2) 49-53.
“Grading exceptional learners” (with L. Jung).
Educational Leadership, 2010, 67(5), 31-35. “How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning.”
Educational Leadership, 2003, 60(5) 6-11
“Getting Curriculum Reform Right. The School Administrator,
2009, 66(11), 38. “Computerized Gradebooks and the Myth of Objectivity.”
Phi Delta Kappan, 2002, 83(10), 775-780.
“Forget Minimum Grades: Get Rid of Percentages.” What’s
Working in Schools: Online Newsletter of the HOPE “Grading Practices in Schools.” In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.),
Foundation, October 1, 2009, 2(10), 2. Also available at: Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.). New York:
http://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/1243740da55f4135 Macmillan, 2002.
“Grading and Reporting in a Standards-Based Environment: “Helping Standards Make the Grade.”
Implications for Students with Special Needs” (with L. Jung). Educational Leadership, 2001, 59(1), 20-27.
Theory Into Practice, 2009, 48(1), 53-62. “High Percentages are Not the Same as High Standards.”
“Grading Policies and Standards-Based Reforms: Conflicts Phi Delta Kappan, 2001, 82(7), 534-538.
and Solutions.” In S. Mathison & E. W. Ross (Eds.), “Grading Policies that Work Against Standards … and How to
Battleground Schools: An Encyclopedia of Conflict and Fix Them.” NASSP Bulletin., 2000, 84(620), 20-29.
Controversy. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2007.
“Making Standards Work.” The School Administrator,
“Standards-Based Grading and Reporting: A Model for Special 1999, 56(9), 44.
Education (with L. Jung). Teaching Exceptional Children,
2007, 40(2), 48-53. “Making the Grade: What Benefits Students?”
Educational Leadership, 1994, 52(2), 14-20.
 Developing Standards-Based Report Cards
by Thomas R. Guskey & Jane M. Bailey

© 2010 248 pages

Paperback ISBN: 9781412940870

Hardcover ISBN: 9781412940863

Awards:
2010 Association of Educational Publishers Distinguished Achievement Award Finalist
"Guskey and Bailey offer realistic solutions to improving how educators communicate a
student's academic progress to all stakeholders. Their work provides a faculty with the research,
step-by-step guidelines, and reporting templates to begin the dialogue to develop a standards-
based report card. Without a doubt, this work is a model for schools that want to improve their
system of grading and reporting. It certainly has transformed ours!"
—Jeffrey Erickson, Assistant Principal, Minnetonka High School, MN

Develop standards-based report cards that are meaningful to students, parents, and educators!

Although schools have moved toward standards-based curriculum and instruction, grading
practices and reporting systems have remained largely unchanged. Helping school leaders gain
support for transitioning from traditional to standards-based report cards, this book guides
educators in aligning assessment and reporting practices with standards-based education and
providing more detailed reports of children's learning and achievement.
A standards-based report card breaks down each subject area into specific elements of learning to
offer parents and educators a more thorough description of each child's progress toward
proficiency. This accessible volume:
 Provides a clear framework for developing standards-based report cards
 Shows how to communicate with parents, students, and other stakeholders about changes
 Illustrates how to achieve grading consistency without increasing teachers' workloads or
violating their professional autonomy
Filled with examples of standards-based report cards that can be adapted to a school's needs, this
practical resource shows district and school administrators how to establish reporting practices
that facilitate learning.

Copyright © 2000-2010 Corwin Press (www.corwin.com)

2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Telephone: (800) 233-9936, Fax: (800) 417-2466
Practical Solutions for Serious
Problems in Standards-Based Grading

Edited by Thomas R. Guskey

Implement standards-based grading practices that accurately and

equitably report student achievement!

Standards-based education poses a variety of challenges for grading

and reporting practices. This edited volume examines critical issues
in standards-based grading and provides specific suggestions for
improving policies and practices at the school and classroom levels.
The chapters:

x Describe traditional school practices that inhibit the implementation of standards-based

grading
x Address how teachers can assign fair and accurate grades to English language learners and
students with special needs
x Examine legal issues related to grading
x Discuss why report card grades and large-scale assessment scores may vary
x Offer communication strategies with parents

Table of Contents
1. Introduction (Thomas R. Guskey) / 2. Grading Policies That Work Against Standards...and How
to Fix Them (Thomas R. Guskey) / 3. The Challenges of Grading and Reporting in Special
Education: An Inclusive Grading Model (Lee Ann Jung) / 4. Assigning Fair, Accurate, and
Meaningful Grades to Students Who Are English Language Learners (Shannon O. Sampson) /
5. Legal Issues of Grading in the Era of High-Stakes Accountability (Jake McElligott, Susan
Brookhart) / 6. Fostering Consistency Between Standards-Based Grades and Large-Scale
Assessment Results (Megan Welsh, Jerry D’Agostino) / 7. Synthesis of Issues and Implications
(James H. McMillan) / Index

August 2008, 136 pages, 7" x 10"

Paperback: $25.95, D08727-978-1-4129-6725-9
Hardcover: $56.95, D08727-978-1-4129-6724-2

Helping Educators Do Their Work Better

“A very well-written, well-researched work with excellent documentation. It is obvious the contributors are
experts and have the ability to communicate their expertise well.”
—Randy Cook, Chemistry and Physics Teacher
Tri County High School, Morley, MI

“The book combines research, critical issues, and creative solutions in a concise and easy-to-read manner. While
there is little doubt that educators today face a myriad of critical issues, this book allows educators to believe that
they can be agents of change for students and for the profession.”
—Sammie Novack, Vice Principal
Curran Middle School, Bakersfield, CA

“Anyone with authority and influence over student grading policies should read this book. Educators have to be
courageous and confront the inherent problems of traditional grading practices that are not working and that are
harmful to students. Doing so requires a proactive approach to problem solving, which this book exemplifies.”
—Paul Young, Science Department Coordinator
Penn Manor High School, Millersville, PA

D08727

D08727-978-1-4129-6725-9 Paperback $25.95

D08727-978-1-4129-6724-2 Hardcover $56.95

Add appropriate sales tax in AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, ID, IL, MD, MA, MN,
NY, OH, PA, TX, VA, VT, WA. (Add appropriate GST & HST in Canada)

$5.95 for first book, $1.00 each additional book

Canada: $11.95 for first book, $2.00 each additional book
 Grading & Reporting
Student Progress to
Enhance Learning
With Thomas Guskey
New assessments and standards demand better reporting systems that
are meaningful to both parents and students and have the capability
to impact learning. This program will feature a variety of ways to report
student progress and alternative forms of parent conferences. Policies
“Think about the purpose of
and practices that negatively impact students will be examined. grading. Don’t use grades
as weapons. They do not
• Consider the importance of changing traditional assessment and serve that purpose well and
grading practices.
• Examine the role of daily and culminating assessments as tools
never will. We know that
for learning. grading and reporting are not
• Identify the purposes for grading and the need to clearly state it. essential to the instructional
• Explore various ways to report student learning, including report process. Teachers teach and
cards and student-led conferences.
• Design reporting systems to better communicate and involve
students learn in the absence
parents in student learning. of grades. You need to decide
• Consider the impact of negative policies and practices to be avoided. the purpose.” –Thomas Guskey
Stock 903 - $395, includes two DVD programs, a guidebook for dis-
cussion, and a CD Soundtrack.

Stock No. Description Qty Unit Price Total

PR 903DVD Grading & Reporting Student Progress to Enhance Learning $395

Shipping & handling 6% in US

Grand Total

Name___________________________________Title____________________________ Call Now!!!

School__________________________________________________________________ 1 800 572-1153
District__________________________________________________________________
Address_________________________________________________________________
City, State, Zip____________________________________________________________
Phone( )___________________________Fax( )______________________
P0#____________________________________or Visa MC AMEX
School Improvement Network
Card#___________________________________________________________________ 32 West Center Street
Midvale, Utah 84047
Exp._______________Signature_____________________________________________
Fax 888 566-6888 or 801 566-6885
Email Address____________________________________________________________ www.schoolimprovement.com
Questionnaires
and
Activities
 GRADING AND REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE
© Thomas R. Guskey

Name (Optional) __________________________ Grade Level ________________

Years of Teaching Experience _______________ Subject(s) __________________

Directions: Please read each question carefully, think about your response, and
answer each as honestly as you can.

1. What do you believe are the major reasons we use report cards and assign grades to
students’ work?
a. __________________________________________________________________
b. __________________________________________________________________

2. Ideally, what purposes do you believe report cards or grades should serve?
a. __________________________________________________________________
b. __________________________________________________________________

3. Although classes certainly differ, on average, what percent of the students in your
classes receive the following grades:

A ____ B ____ C ____ D ____ E or F ____

4. What would you consider an ideal distribution of grades (in percent) in your classes?

A ____ B ____ C ____ D ____ E or F ____

5. The current grading system in many schools uses the following combination of letter
grades, percentages, and/or categories:

A 100% - 90% Excellent Exceptional

B 89% - 80% Good Proficient
C 79% - 70% Average Basic
D 69% - 60% Poor Below Basic
E or F 59% - Failing

If you could make any changes in this system, what would they be?
a. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
b. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

6. Is there an established, uniform grading policy in your school or district?

Yes _____ No _____ I don’t know _____

1
 How well would you say you understand those policies?
Not at all Somewhat Very well
1 ------------ 2 ------------ 3 ------------ 4 ------------ 5

7. Grades and other reporting systems serve a variety of purposes. Based on your beliefs, rank
order the following purposes from 1 (Most important) to 6 (Least important).

___ Communicate information to parents about students’ achievement and performance in

school
___ Provide information to students for self-evaluation
___ Select, identify, or group students for certain educational programs (Honor classes, etc.)
___ Provide incentives for students to learn
___ Document students' performance to evaluate the effectiveness of school programs
___ Provide evidence of students' lack of effort or inappropriate responsibility

8. Teachers use a variety of elements in determining students' grades. Among those listed
below, please indicate those that you use and about what percent (%) each contributes to
students’ grades.
___ Major examinations ___ Oral presentations
___ Major compositions ___ Homework completion
___ Unit tests ___ Homework quality
___ Class quizzes ___ Class participation
___ Reports or projects ___ Work habits and neatness
___ Student portfolios ___ Effort put forth
___ Exhibits of students’ work ___ Class attendance
___ Laboratory projects ___ Punctuality of assignments
___ Students’ notebooks or journals ___ Class behavior or attitude
___ Classroom observations ___ Progress made
___ Other (Describe) ______________________________________
___ Other (Describe) ______________________________________

9. What are the most positive aspects of report cards and the process of assigning grades?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

10. What do you like least about report cards and the process of assigning grades?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

2
 Grading Formulae: What Grade Do Students Deserve?
© Thomas R. Guskey

The table below shows the performance of seven students over five instructional units. Also
shown are the summary scores and grades for these students calculated by three different
methods: (1) the simple arithmetic average of unit scores, (2) the median or middle score from
the five units, and (3) the arithmetic average, deleting the lowest unit score in the group.
Consider, too, the following explanations for these score patterns:

Student 1 struggled in the early part of the Student 4 began the marking period poorly,
marking period but continued to work failing the first two units, but with
hard, improved in each unit, and did newfound interest performed excellently
excellently in unit 5. in units 3, 4, and 5.
Student 2 began with excellent performance Student 5 began the marking period
in unit 1 but then lost motivation, excellently, but then lost interest and
declined steadily during the marking failed the last two units.
period, and received a failing mark for
Student 6 skipped school (unexcused
unit 5.
absence) during the first unit, but
Student 3 performed steadily throughout the performed excellently in every other unit.
marking period, receiving three B’s and
Student 7 performed excellently in the first
two C’s, all near the B – C cut-score.
four units, but was caught cheating on
the assessment for unit 5, resulting in a
score of zero for that unit.

Summary Grades Tallied by Three Different Methods

Student Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Average Grade Median Grade Deleting Grade
Score Score Lowest

1 59 69 79 89 99 79.0 C 79.0 C 84.0 B

2 99 89 79 69 59 79.0 C 79.0 C 84.0 B
3 77 80 80 78 80 79.0 C 80.0 B 79.5 C
4 49 49 98 99 100 79.0 C 98.0 A 86.5 B
5 100 99 98 49 49 79.0 C 98.0 A 86.5 B
6 0 98 98 99 100 79.0 C 98.0 A 98.8 A
7 100 99 98 98 0 79.0 C 98.0 A 98.8 A

Grading standards: 90% – 100% = A

80% – 89% = B
70% – 79% = C
60% – 69% = D
– 59% = F

Questions: Which grading method is best? Which is fairest?

What grade does each student deserve?
Copies of Slides
 Grading and Grading and
Reporting Reporting
p g
Student Learning Questionnaire
Thomas R. Guskey

Guiding Questions Purposes of Grading

1. What are the major reasons we use report 1. Communicate the Achievement Status of Students
to Their Parents and Others
cards and assign grades to students’ work?
2. Provide Information for Student Self-
Self-Evaluation
2. Ideally,
y, what p
purposes
p should report
p cards or 3. Select, Identify, or Group Students for Certain
grades serve? Educational Programs
4. Provide Incentives for Students to Learn
3. What elements should teachers use in
determining students' grades? 5. Document Students’ Performance to Evaluate the
Effectiveness of Instructional Programs
(For example, major assessments, compositions,
homework, attendance, class participation, etc. ) 6. Provide Evidence of Students’ Lack of Effort or
Inappropriate Responsibility

Grading Elements
 Major Exams or  Homework Completion General
Conclusions from
Compositions  Homework Quality
 Class Quizzes  Class Participation
 Reports or Projects  Work Habits and

the Research on
 Student
St d t Portfolios
P tf li N t
Neatness
 Exhibits of Students’ Work  Effort Put Forth
 Laboratory Projects  Class Attendance
 Students’ Notebooks or
Journals
 Classroom Observations
 Punctuality of Assignments
 Class Behavior or
Attitude
Grading
 Oral Presentations  Progress Made
 #1 Grading and
Checking is Essential !
Reporting are NOT
Essential to the  Checking is Diagnostic
- Teacher is an Advocate
Instructional Process
 Grading is Evaluative
 Teachers can teach without grades. - Teacher is a Judge
 Students can and do learn without grades.

Purposes of Grading
#2 No One Method 1. Communicate the Achievement Status of Students
to Their Parents and Others

of Grading and 2. Provide Information for Student Self-

Self-Evaluation
3. Select, Identify, or Group Students for Certain
Reporting Serves Educational Programs
4. Provide Incentives for Students to Learn

All Purposes Well ! 5. Document Students’ Performance to Evaluate the

Effectiveness of Instructional Programs
6. Provide Evidence of Students’ Lack of Effort or
Inappropriate Responsibility

Architecture:
Solution:
Form Follows Function. Multiple Purposes Require a

Education:
Multi-Faceted,
Multi-Faceted
Method Follows Purpose! Comprehensive
Reporting System!
 Letter Grades Percentage Grades
 Advantages:  Advantages:
1. Brief Description of Adequacy 1. Provide Finer Discriminations
2. Ge
Generally
e a yUUnderstood
de stood 2 Increase Variation in Grades
2.
 Disadvantages:  Disadvantages:
1. Require the Abstraction of Lots 1. Require the Abstraction of Lots
of Information of Information
2. Cut
Cut--offs are Arbitrary 2. Increased Number of Arbitrary Cut
Cut--offs
3. Easily Misinterpreted 3. Greater Influence of Subjectivity

Steps in Developing
Standards--Based
Standards Standards--Based Grading
Standards
(Checklist of Skills)
1. Identify the major learning goals or standards
 Advantages: that students will be expected to achieve at each grade
1. Clear Description of Achievement level or in each course of study.

2. Useful for Diagnosis and Prescription 2 Establish

2. E t bli h performance
f indicators
i di t
for the learning goals or standards.
 Disadvantages: 3. Determine graduated levels of performance
1. Often Too Complicated for Parents to (benchmarks) for assessing each goal or standard.
Understand 4. Develop reporting forms that communicate teachers’
2. Seldom Communicate the Appropriateness judgments of students’ learning progress and culminating
of Progress achievement in relation to the learning goals or standards.

Challenges in Determining

Narratives
Graduated Levels of Student Performance
1 . Levels of Understanding / Quality
Modest Beginning Novice Unsatisfactory
Intermediate Progressing Apprentice Needs Improvement


Proficient Adequate Proficient Satisfactory
Superior Exemplary Distinguished Outstanding
Advantages:
2. Level of Mastery / Proficiency
Below Basic Below Standard Pre
Pre--Emergent Incomplete 1. Clear Description of Progress and Achievement
Basic Approaching Standard Emerging Limited
Proficient
Advanced
Meets Standard
Exceeds Standard
Acquiring
Extending
Partial
Thorough
2.
2 Useful for Diagnosis and Prescription
3. Frequency of Display
Rarely
Occasionally
Never
Seldom
 Disadvantages:
Frequently Usually
Consistently Always 1. Extremely Time
Time--Consuming for Teachers to Develop
4. Degree of Effectiveness 5. Evidence of Accomplishment 2. May Not Communicate Appropriateness of Progress
Ineffective Poor Little or No Evidence
Moderately Effective Acceptable Partial Evidence 3. Comments Often Become Standardized
Highly Effective Excellent Sufficient Evidence
Extensive Evidence
 Grades with Comments are
Methods can be Better than Grades Alone!
Alone!
Combined to Grade Standard Comment
A Excellent ! Keep it up
up.
E h
Enhance their
th i B
C
Good work. Keep at it.
Perhaps try to do still better?
Communicative D
F
Let’s bring this up.
Let’s raise this grade !

Value ! From: Page, E. B. (1958). Teacher comments and student performance:

A seventy-
seventy-four classroom experiment in school motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
Psychology, 49
49,, 173-
173-181.

Solution: #3 Grading and

1. Determine the Primary Purpose of each Reporting Will
Always Involve
Grading and Reporting Tool.
2.
2. Select or Develop the Most Appropriate
Method for Each Tool.
Some Degree of
3.
Subjectivity !
Develop a Multi
Multi--Faceted,
Comprehensive Reporting System!

In General,
Reporting is More However, More
Subjective: Detailed and Analytic
 The More Detailed the Reporting Method. Reports
R t are B
Better
tt
 The More Analytic the Reporting Process.
 The More ‘Effort’ is Considered.
Learning Tools !
 The More ‘Behavior’ Influences Judgments.
 Challenge: #4 Mathematic Precision
To Balance Does NOT Yield
Reporting Needs with Fairer or More
Instructional Purposes Objective Grading!

Grading Formulae
Student Achievement Profiles:
Student Unit Unit Unit Unit Unit Average Grade Median Grade Deleting Grade
Student 1 struggled in the early part of the marking period but continued to work 1 2 3 4 5 Score Score Lowest
hard, improved in each unit, and did excellently in unit 5.
Student 2 began with excellent performance in unit 1 but then lost motivation, 1 59 69 79 89 99 79.0 C 79.0 C 84.0 B
declined steadily during the marking period, and received a failing mark for unit 5.
2 99 89 79 69 59 79.0 C 79.0 C 84.0 B
Student 3 performed steadily throughout the marking period, receiving three B’s and
two C’s, all near the B – C cut
cut--score.
3 77 80 80 78 80 79
79.0
0 C 80 0
80.0 B 79 5
79.5 C
Student 4 began the marking period poorly, failing the first two units, but with
newfound interest performed excellently in units 3, 4, and 5. 4 49 49 98 99 100 79.0 C 98.0 A 86.5 B
Student 5 began the marking period excellently, but then lost interest and failed the
last two units. 5 100 99 98 49 49 79.0 C 98.0 A 86.5 B
Student 6 skipped school (unexcused absence) during the first unit, but performed
6 0 98 98 99 100 79.0 C 98.0 A 98.8 A
excellently in every other unit.
Student 7 performed excellently in the first four units, but was caught cheating on the 7 100 99 98 98 0 79.0 C 98.0 A 98.8 A
assessment for unit 5, resulting in a score of zero for that unit.

Alternatives to Averaging
Questionable Practices: Inconsistent Evidence on
Student Learning:
 Averaging to Obtain a Course Grade
 Giving Zeros for Work Missed or  Give priority to the most recent evidence
evidence.
Work Turned in Late  Give priority to the most comprehensive
 Taking Credit Away from Students evidence.
For Infractions  Give priority to evidence related to the most
important learning goals or standards.
Alternatives to Giving Zeros :
Grading requires
 Assign “I” or “Incomplete” Grades.
Include specific and immediate consequences. Thoughtful and
 Report Behavioral Aspects Separately.
Separate “Product” (Achievement) from “Process” and “Progress.” Informed
 Change Grading Scales.
Use Integers (A=4, B=3, C=2, …) instead of Percentages.
Professional Judgment!

#5 Grades have Some Message:

Value as Rewards,
Do Not Use Grades
but NO Value as
as Weapons !
Punishments !

#6 Grading and Reporting Grading Criteria

should Always be done
in reference to 1. Product Criteria
Learning Criteria , 2. Process Criteria
Never “On The Curve” 3. Progress Criteria
 Standards-Based Grading in Inclusive Classrooms
(Jung, 2009)

1. Establish Clear Standards for Student Learning

Distinguish Product, Process, & Progress Goals #7 Grade Distributions
Reflect Both
Both::
2. Does the Standard Need Adaptation? No. The student has the ability to
achieve this standard with no changes

Yes. The student will likely need

adaptations to achieve
achie e this standard
standard. No change in reporting is required

3. What type of adaptation is needed? Accommodation

The change needed does not alter
the grade level standard.
 1. Students’ Level of Performance
Modification
The standard needs to be altered.
No change in reporting is required
 2. The Quality of the Teaching
4. Develop Modified Standards 5. Grade on Modified Standards
Write IEP goals that address the appropriate Assign grades based on the modified standards
level standards. and note which standards are modified.

Forms of Reporting
#8 Report Cards are to Parents Include:
but One Way of  Report Cards  Personal Letters
 Notes with Report Cards  Homework
 Standardized Assessment  Evaluated Assignments
Communicating with Reports
 Weekly / Monthly
or Projects
 Portfolios or Exhibits
Parents ! Progress Reports  School Web Pages
 Phone Calls  Homework Hotlines
 School Open Houses  Parent
Parent--Teacher Conferences
 Newsletters  Student
Student--Led Conferences

In Reporting to Parents:
1. Include Positive Comments.
Comments. #9 High Percentages
are NOT the same as
2. Describe Specific Learning Goals or Expectations
(Include Samples of the Student’s
Student s Work)
Work).
3. Provide Specific Suggestions on What Parents
Can Do To Help. High Standards!
4. Stress Parents’ Role as Partners in the Learning
Process.
 #1 Begin with a
Guidelines for Clear Statement
Better of Purpose
Practice 

Why Grading and Reporting Are Done?
For Whom the Information is Intended?
 What are the Desired Results?

#2 Provide Accurate #3 Use Grading and

and Understandable Reporting to Enhance
Descriptions of Teaching and Learning
S d
Student Learning
L i  Facilitate Communication Between
 More a Challenge in Effective Communication Teachers, Parents, and Students

 Less an Exercise in Quantifying Achievement  Ensure Efforts to Help Students are

Harmonious

An Important Distinction: For Help or Additional Information:

Managers know how Thomas R. Guskey

to do things right. College of Education
University of Kentucky
Leaders know Lexington, KY 40506
the right things to do! Phone: 859-
859-257-
257-5748
E-mail: Guskey @ uky.edu
Readings
September 2001 | Volume 59 | Number 1
Making Standards Work Pages 20-27

Helping Standards
Make the Grade
Thomas R. Guskey
When reporting on student work, educators need a clear,
comprehensive grading system that shows how students are
measuring up to standards.
September 2001

The issue of grading looms on the horizon for standards-based

education. With standards and assessments now in place, educators face the daunting task of how
best to grade and report student learning in terms of those standards. Most educators recognize the
inadequacies of their current grading and reporting methods (Marzano, 2000). Few, however, have
found alternatives that satisfy the diverse needs of students, parents, teachers, school
administrators, and community members.

Standards don't lessen the responsibility of educators to evaluate the performance of students and to
report the results. Nevertheless, the focus on standards poses unique challenges in grading and
reporting. What are those challenges, and how can educators develop standards-based grading and
reports that are accurate, honest, and fair?

Criterion-Referenced Standards
The first challenge is moving from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced grading standards. Norm-
referenced standards compare each student's performance to that of other students in the group or
class. Teachers first rank students on some measure of their achievement or performance. They
assign a set percentage of top-ranked students (usually 10 to 20 percent) the highest grade, a
second set percentage (perhaps 20 to 30 percent) the second highest grade, and so on. The
percentages typically correspond to an approximation of the bell-shaped, normal probability curve,
hence the expression "grading on the curve." Most adults experienced this type of grading during
their school days.

Criterion-referenced standards, in contrast, compare each student's performance to clearly stated

performance descriptions that differentiate levels of quality. Teachers judge students' performance by
what each student does, regardless of how well or poorly their classmates perform.

Using the normal probability curve as a basis for assigning grades yields highly consistent grade
distributions from one teacher to the next. All teachers' classes have essentially the same
percentages of As, Bs, and Cs. But the consequences for students are overwhelmingly negative.
Learning becomes highly competitive because students must compete against one another for the
few high grades that the teacher distributes. Under these conditions, students see that helping others
threatens their own chances for success. Because students do not achieve high grades by performing
well, but rather by doing better than their classmates, learning becomes a game of winners and
losers, and because teachers keep the number of rewards arbitrarily small, most students must be
losers (Haladyna, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Strong evidence shows that "grading on the

1
curve" is detrimental to relationships—both among students and among teachers and students
(Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996).

In a standards-based system, grading and reporting must be criterion-referenced. Teachers at all

levels must identify what they want their students to learn and be able to do and what evidence they
will use to judge that achievement or performance. Grades based on clearly stated learning criteria
have direct meaning and communicate that meaning.

Differentiating Grading Criteria

A second challenge is to differentiate the types of grading criteria that teachers will use. Although
teachers and students generally consider criterion-referenced grading to be more fair and equitable
(Kovas, 1993), the specific grading criteria that teachers use may be very diverse. We can classify
these criteria into three broad categories: product, process, and progress (Guskey, 1996).

Product criteria relate to students' specific achievements or levels of performance. They describe
what students know and are able to do at a particular point in time. Advocates of standards generally
favor product criteria. Teachers using product criteria base students' grades or reports exclusively on
final examination scores; final products, such as reports, projects, or portfolios; overall assessments
of performance; and other culminating demonstrations of learning.

Process criteria relate not to the final results, but to how students got there. Educators who believe
that product criteria do not provide a complete picture of student learning generally favor process
criteria. For example, teachers who consider student effort, class behavior, or work habits are using
process criteria. So are those who count daily work, regular classroom quizzes, homework, class
participation, punctuality of assignments, or attendance in determining students' grades.

Progress criteria relate to how much students actually gain from their learning experiences. Other
terms include learning gain, improvement grading, value-added grading, and educational growth.
Teachers who use progress criteria typically look at how far students have come rather than where
students are. Others attempt to judge students' progress in terms of their "learning potential." As a
result, progress grading criteria are often highly individualized among students.

Because they are concerned about student motivation, self-esteem, and the social consequences of
grading, few teachers today use product criteria solely in determining grades. Instead, most base
their grading on some combination of criteria, especially when a student receives only a single grade
in a subject area (Brookhart, 1993; Frary, Cross, & Weber, 1993). The majority of teachers also vary
the criteria they use from student to student, taking into account individual circumstances (Truog &
Friedman, 1996). Although teachers do so in an effort to be fair, the result is often a hodgepodge
grade that includes elements of achievement, effort, and improvement (Brookhart, 1991).
Interpreting the grade or report thus becomes difficult for parents, administrators, community
members, and even the students (Friedman & Frisbie, 1995). An A, for example, may mean that the
student knew what the teacher expected before instruction began (product), didn't learn as well as
expected but tried very hard (process), or simply made significant improvement (progress).

Measurement experts generally recommend using product criteria exclusively in determining

students' grades. They point out that the more process and progress criteria come into play, the
more subjective and biased grades are likely to be (O'Connor, 1999; Ornstein, 1994). How can a
teacher know, for example, how difficult a task was for students or how hard they worked to
complete it?

Many teachers, however, point out that if they use product criteria exclusively, some high-ability
students receive high grades with little effort, whereas the hard work of less-talented students is
seldom acknowledged. Others say that if teachers consider only product criteria, low-ability students
and those who are disadvantaged—students who must work the hardest—have the least incentive to

2
do so. These students find the relationship between high effort and low grades unacceptable and, as
a result, often express their displeasure with indifference, deception, or disruption (Tomlinson, 1992).

A practical solution to this problem, and one that increasing numbers of teachers and schools are
using, is to establish clear indicators of product, process, and progress, and then to report each
separately (Stiggins, 2001; Wiggins, 1996). Teachers separate grades or marks for learning skills,
effort, work habits, or progress from grades for achievement and performance. Parents generally
prefer this approach because it gives them more detailed and prescriptive information. It also
simplifies reporting for teachers because they no longer have to combine so many diverse types of
information into a single grade. The key to success, however, rests in the clear specification of those
indicators and the criteria to which they relate. This means that teachers must describe how they
plan to evaluate students' achievement, effort, work habits, and progress, and then must
communicate these plans directly to students, parents, and others.

Reporting Tools
A third challenge for standards-based education is clarifying the purpose of each reporting tool.
Although report cards are the primary method, most schools today use a variety of reporting devices:
weekly or monthly progress reports, open-house meetings, newsletters, evaluated projects or
assignments, school Web pages, parent-teacher conferences, and student-led conferences (Guskey &
Bailey, 2001). Each reporting tool must fulfill a specific purpose, which requires considering three
vital aspects of communication:

• What information do we want to communicate?

• Who is the primary audience for that information?

• How would we like that information to be used?

Many educators make the mistake of choosing their reporting tools first, without giving careful
attention to the purpose. For example, some charge headlong into developing a standards-based
report card without first addressing core questions about why they are doing it. Their efforts often
encounter unexpected resistance and rarely bring positive results. Both parents and teachers
perceive the change as a newfangled fad that presents no real advantage over traditional reporting
methods. As a result, the majority of these efforts become short-lived experiments and are
abandoned after a few troubled years of implementation.

Efforts that begin by clarifying the purpose, however, make intentions clear from the start. If, for
instance, the purpose of the report card is to communicate to parents the achievement status of
students, then parents must understand the information on the report card and know how to use it.
This means that educators should include parents on report card committees and give their input
careful consideration. This not only helps mobilize everyone in the reporting process, it also keeps
efforts on track. The famous adage that guides architecture also applies to grading and reporting:
Form follows function. Once the purpose or function is clear, teachers can address more easily
questions regarding form or method (Guskey & Bailey, 2001).

Developing a Reporting Form

The fourth challenge for standards-based education is developing the centerpiece of a standards-
based reporting system: the report card. This typically involves a four-step process. First, teams of
educators identify the major learning goals or standards that students are expected to achieve at
each grade level or course of study. Second, educators establish performance indicators for those
learning goals or standards. In other words, educators decide what evidence best illustrates students'
attainment of each goal or standard. Third, they determine graduated levels of quality for assessing
student performance. This step involves identifying incremental levels of attainment, sometimes

3
referred to as benchmarks, as students progress toward the learning goals or standards (Andrade,
2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Finally, educators, often in collaboration with parents, develop a
reporting form that communicates teachers' judgments of students' progress and achievement in
relation to the learning goals or standards.

Identifying Reporting Standards

Identifying the specific learning goals or standards on which to base grades is probably the most
important, but also the most challenging, aspect of standards-based grading. These learning goals or
standards should stipulate precisely what students should know and be able to do as a result of their
learning experiences. In earlier times, we might have referred to cognitive skills, learning
competencies, or performance outcomes (Guskey, 1999). Teachers frequently list these learning
goals in their lesson plans, make note of them on assignments and performance tasks, and include
them in monthly or weekly progress reports that go home to parents.

A crucial consideration in identifying learning goals or standards is determining the degree of

specificity. Standards that are too specific make reporting forms cumbersome to use and difficult to
understand. Standards that are too broad or general, however, make it hard to identify students'
unique strengths and weaknesses. Most state-level standards, for example, tend to be broad and
need to be broken down or "unpacked" into homogeneous categories or topics (Marzano, 1999). For
grading and reporting purposes, educators must seek a balance. The standards must be broad
enough to allow for efficient communication of student learning, yet specific enough to be useful (see
Gronlund, 2000; Marzano & Kendall, 1995; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).

Another issue is the differentiation of standards across marking periods or grade levels. Most schools
using standards-based grading develop reporting forms that are based on grade-level learning goals
or standards. Each standard has one level of complexity set for each grade that students are
expected to meet before the end of the academic year. Most parents, however, are accustomed to
grading systems in which learning standards become increasingly complex with each marking period.
If the standard states "Students will write clearly and effectively," for example, many parents believe
that their children should do this each marking period, not simply move toward doing so by the end
of the academic year. This is especially true of parents who encourage their children to attain the
highest mark possible in all subject areas every marking period.

To educators using such forms, students who receive 1 or 2 on a 4-point grading scale during the
first or second marking period are making appropriate progress and are on track for their grade level.
For parents, however, a report card filled with 1s and 2s, when the highest mark is a 4, causes great
concern. They think that their children are failing. Although including a statement on the reporting
form, such as "Marks indicate progress toward end-of-the-year learning standards," is helpful, it may
not alleviate parents' concerns.

Facilitating Interpretation
Many parents initially respond to a standards-based reporting form with, "This is great. But tell me,
how is my child doing really?" Or they ask, "How is my child doing compared to the other children in
the class?" They ask these questions because they don't know how to interpret the information.
Further, most parents had comparative, norm-based reporting systems when they were in school and
are more familiar with reports that compare students to their classmates. Above all, parents want to
make sense of the reporting form. Their fear is that their children will reach the end of the school
year and won't have made sufficient progress to be promoted to the next grade.

To ensure more accurate interpretations, several schools use a two-part marking system with their
standards-based reporting form (see example). Every marking period, each student receives two
marks for each standard. The first mark indicates the student's level of progress with regard to the

4
standard—a 1, 2, 3, or 4, indicating beginning, progressing, proficient, or exceptional. The second
mark indicates the relation of that level of progress to established expectations at this point in the
school year. For example, a ++ might indicate advanced for grade-level expectations, a + might
indicate on target or meeting grade-level expectations, and a – would indicate below grade-level
expectations or needs improvement.

The advantage of this two-part marking system is that it helps parents make sense of the reporting
form each marking period. It also helps alleviate their concerns about what seem like low grades and
lets them know whether their children are progressing at an appropriate rate. Further, it helps
parents take a standards-based perspective in viewing their children's performances. Their question
is no longer "Where is my child in comparison to his or her classmates?" but "Where is my child in
relation to the grade-level learning goals and expectations?"

The one drawback of the two-part marking system is that expectations must take into account
individual differences in students' development of cognitive skills. Because students in any classroom
differ in age and cognitive development, some might not meet the specified criteria during a
particular marking period—even though they will likely do so before the end of the year. This is
especially common in kindergarten and the early primary grades, when students tend to vary widely
in their entry-level skills but can make rapid learning progress (Shuster, Lemma, Lynch, & Nadeau,
1996). Educators must take these developmental differences into consideration and must explain
them to parents.

Example of a Double-Mark, Standards-Based Reporting Form

Elementary Progress Report

Reading 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Understands and uses different skills and 1+ 2++

strategies

Understands the meaning of what is read 1++ 2+

Reads different materials for a variety of 1- 2-

purposes

Reading level 1++ 2+

5
Work habits S S

Writing 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Writes clearly and effectively 1+ 2++

Understands and uses the steps in the writing 1++ 2++

process

Writes in a variety of forms for different 1+ 2-

audiences and purposes

Analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of N 1+

written work

Understands and uses the conventions of 1- 2-

writing: punctuation, capitalization, spelling,
and legibility

Work habits S S

Communication 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Uses listening and observational skills to gain 1+ 2-

understanding

Communicates ideas clearly and effectively 1- 2+

(formal communication)

Uses communication strategies and skills to N 1+

work effectively with others (informal

6
 communication)

Work habits U S

This report is based on grade-level standards established for each subject area. The
ratings indicate your student's progress in relation to the year-end standard.

Evaluation Marks

• 4 = Exceptional

• 3 = Meets standard

• 2 = Approaches standard

• 1 = Beginning standard

• N = Not applicable

Level Expectation Marks

• ++ = Advanced

• + = On level

• - = Below level

Social Learning Skills & Effort Marks

• E = Exceptional

• S = Satisfactory

• U = Unsatisfactory

Choosing Performance-Level Descriptors

Standards-based reporting forms that use numerical grading scales also require a key or legend that
explains the meaning of each numeral. These descriptors help parents and others understand what
each numeral means.

A common set of descriptors matches performance levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the achievement labels
beginning, progressing, proficient, and exceptional. If the standards reflect behavioral aspects of
students' performance, then teachers more commonly use such descriptors as seldom, sometimes,
usually, and consistently/independently. These labels are preferable to above average, average, and
below average, which reflect norm-referenced comparisons rather than criterion-referenced
standards.

Such achievement descriptors as exceptional or advanced are also preferable to exceeds standard or
extending to designate the highest level of performance. Educators can usually articulate specific
performance criteria for an exceptional or advanced level of achievement or performance. Exceeds

7
standard or extending, however, are much less precise and may leave students and parents
wondering just what they need to do to exceed or extend. Descriptors should be clear, concise, and
directly interpretable.

Many reporting forms include a fifth level of not applicable or not evaluated to designate standards
that have not yet been addressed or were not assessed during that particular marking period.
Including these labels is preferable to leaving the marking spaces blank because parents often
interpret a blank space as an item that the teacher missed or neglected.

Maintaining Consistency
A final challenge is consistency. To communicate with parents, most schools and school districts
involved in standards-based grading try to maintain a similar reporting format across grade levels.
Most also use the same performance-level indicators at all grade levels so that parents don't have to
learn a new set of procedures for interpreting the reporting form each year as their children move
from one grade level to the next. Many parents also see consistency as an extension of a well-
designed curriculum. The standards at each grade level build on and extend those from earlier levels.

While maintaining a similar format across grade levels, however, most schools and school districts list
different standards on the reporting form for each level. Although the reporting format and
performance indicators remain the same, the standards on the 1st grade reporting form are different
from those on the 2nd grade form, and so on. This gives parents a clear picture of the increasing
complexity of the standards at each subsequent grade level.

An alternative approach is to develop one form that lists the same broad standards for multiple
grades. To clarify the difference at each grade level, a curriculum guidebook describing precisely what
the standard means and what criteria are used in evaluating the standard at each grade level usually
accompanies the form. Most reporting forms of this type also include a narrative section, in which
teachers offer additional explanations. Although this approach to standards-based grading simplifies
the reporting form, it also requires significant parent training and a close working relationship among
parents, teachers, and school and district leaders (Guskey & Bailey, 2001).

Advantages and Shortcomings

When we establish clear learning goals or standards, standards-based grading offers important
information about students' achievement and performance. If sufficiently detailed, the information is
useful for both diagnostic and prescriptive purposes. For these reasons, standards-based grading
facilitates teaching and learning better than almost any other grading method.

At the same time, standards-based grading has shortcomings. First and foremost, it takes a lot of
work. Not only must educators identify the learning goals or standards on which grades will be based,
but they also must decide what evidence best illustrates students' attainment of each goal or
standard, identify graduated levels of quality for assessing students' performance, and develop
reporting tools that communicate teachers' judgements of learning progress. These tasks may add
considerably to the workload of teachers and school leaders.

A second shortcoming is that the reporting forms are sometimes too complicated for parents to
understand. In their efforts to provide parents with rich information, educators can go overboard and
describe learning goals in unnecessary detail. As a result, reporting forms become cumbersome and
time-consuming for teachers to complete and difficult for parents to understand. We must seek a
crucial balance in identifying standards that are specific enough to provide parents with useful,
prescriptive information, but broad enough to allow for efficient communication between educators
and parents.

A third shortcoming is that the report may not communicate the appropriateness of students'

8
progress. Simply reporting a student's level of proficiency with regard to a particular standard
communicates nothing about the adequacy of that level of achievement or performance. To make
sense of the information, parents need to know how that level of achievement or performance
compares to the established learning expectations for that particular grade level.

Finally, although teachers can use standards-based grading at any grade level and in any course of
study, most current applications are restricted to the elementary level where there is little curriculum
differentiation. In the middle grades and at the secondary level, students usually pursue more diverse
courses of study. Because of these curricular differences, standards-based reporting forms at the
middle and secondary levels must vary from student to student. The marks need to relate to each
student's achievement and performance in his or her particular courses or academic program.
Although advances in technology, such as computerized reporting forms, allow educators to provide
such individualized reports, relatively few middle and high school educators have taken up the
challenge.

New Standards for Grading

As educators clarify student learning goals and standards, the advantages of standards-based
grading become increasingly evident. Although it makes reporting forms more detailed and complex,
most parents value the richness of the information when the reports are expressed in terms that they
can understand and use. Reporting forms that use a two-part marking system show particular
promise—but such a system may require additional explanation to parents. Teachers must also set
expectations for learning progress not just at the grade level, but also for each marking period.

Successfully implementing standards-based grading and reporting demands a close working

relationship among teachers, parents, and school and district leaders. To accurately interpret the
reporting form, parents need to know precisely what the standards mean and how to make sense of
the various levels of achievement or performance in relation to those standards. Educators must
ensure, therefore, that parents are familiar with the language and terminology. Only when all groups
understand what grades mean and how they are used to improve student learning will we realize the
true value of a standards-based approach to education.

References
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational
Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.

Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues

and Practice, 10(1), 35–36.

Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of

Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123–142.

Frary, R. B., Cross, L. H., & Weber, L. J. (1993). Testing and grading practices and
opinions of secondary teachers of academic subjects: Implications for instruction in
measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 23–30.

Friedman, S. J., & Frisbie, D. A. (1995). The influence of report cards on the validity of
grades reported to parents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(1), 5–26.

Gronlund, N. E. (2000). How to write and use instructional objectives (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Guskey, T. R. (1996). Reporting on student learning: Lessons from the past—Prescriptions

for the future. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: 1996 Yearbook of
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 13–24). Alexandria, VA:

9
 ASCD.

Guskey, T. R. (1999). Making standards work. The School Administrator, 56(9), 44.

Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for
student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Haladyna, T. M. (1999). A complete guide to student grading. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and
research. Endina, MN: Interaction.

Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1995). The systematic identification and articulation of
content standards and benchmarks: Update. Aurora, CO: McREL.

Kovas, M. A. (1993). Make your grading motivating: Keys to performance-based

evaluation. Quill and Scroll, 68(1), 10–11.

Krumboltz, J. D., & Yeh, C. J. (1996). Competitive grading sabotages good teaching. Phi
Delta Kappan, 78(4), 324–326.

Marzano, R. J. (1999). Building curriculum and assessment around standards. The High
School Magazine, 6(5), 14–19.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

O'Connor, K. (1999). How to grade for learning. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight.

Ornstein, A. C. (1994). Grading practices and policies: An overview and some suggestions.
NASSP Bulletin, 78(559), 55–64.

Shuster, C., Lemma, P., Lynch, T., & Nadeau, K. (1996). A study of kindergarten and 1st
grade report cards: What are young children expected to learn? Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Tomlinson, T. (1992). Hard work and high expectations: Motivating students to learn.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education.

Truog, A. L., & Friedman, S. J. (1996). Evaluating high school teachers' written grading
policies from a measurement perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Council on Measurement in Education, New York.

Wiggins, G. (1996). Honesty and fairness: Toward better grading and reporting. In T. R.
Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: 1996 Yearbook of the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 141–176). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Thomas R. Guskey is Professor of Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation, College of Education, University of
Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506; [email protected].

Copyright © 2001 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

10
February 2010 | Volume 67 | Number 5 | Pages 31-35

Grading Exceptional Learners

Lee Ann Jung and Thomas R. Guskey

This five-step model provides fair and accurate grades for

students with disabilities and English language learners.

February 2010
Every nine weeks, teachers in many U.S. schools face the dreaded
task of completing report cards. Translating each student's performance into a letter
grade can be a challenge— and inevitably, the most troublesome questions relate to the
fairness and accuracy of the grades given to exceptional learners.

Students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs) often differ from their
classmates in the ways they engage in and contribute to learning activities. Assigning a
failing grade to a student who has not met course or grade-level requirements because
of a disability or difficulty with the language seems inherently unfair—especially if the
student has worked hard, turned in assignments on time, and done what the teacher
asked. At the same time, assigning a passing grade to a student who has not met the
performance criteria for the grade level clearly provides an inaccurate picture of that
student's achievement.

Teachers have received little guidance on how to assign fair grades to exceptional
learners, and a number of common myths cloud many educators' thinking about this
task (see Myths About Grading Exceptional Learners, p. 32). Most teachers make their
own individual grading adaptations—for example, assigning extra points for effort or
improvement, basing grades solely on an individual's goals, giving different weight to
assignments, or using an altered grading scale (Gottlieb, 2006; Polloway et al., 1994;
Silva, Munk, & Bursuck, 2005). But considering the consequences for honor roll status,
class rank, and participation in athletics, teachers and students alike generally regard
such adaptations as unfair (Bursuck, Munk, & Olson, 1999).

Do teachers have to choose between fairness and accuracy when assigning grades to
exceptional students? Can the grades for such students ever be both fair and accurate?

Start with High-Quality Reporting

Before schools can develop and implement policies for assigning fair and accurate
grades to exceptional learners, they must ensure that they have a high-quality grading
and reporting system for all students. Such systems have two basic characteristics.

1
First, effective grading and reporting systems base grades on clearly articulated
standards for student learning. This changes the meaning of a grade from a single,
overall assessment of learning (How did this student perform in language arts?) to a
description of the student's performance on an explicit set of skills (How well did the
student master the ability to identify the plot, setting, and characters in reading
passages?) (Jung, 2009; Jung & Guskey, 2007).

Assigning grades on the basis of precise levels of performance with regard to standards
makes the task of grading more challenging (Thurlow, 2002). Nevertheless, it gives
students and parents more meaningful information to use in recognizing
accomplishments and targeting remediation when needed.

Second, high-quality grading and reporting systems distinguish three types of learning
criteria related to standards (see Guskey, 2006):

 Product criteria address what students know and are able to do at a particular
point in time. They relate to students' specific achievements or level of
proficiency as demonstrated by final examinations; final reports, projects,
exhibits, or portfolios; or other overall assessments of learning.
 Process criteria relate to students' behaviors in reaching their current level of
achievement and proficiency. They include elements such as effort, behavior,
class participation, punctuality in turning in assignments, and work habits. They
also might include evidence from daily work, regular classroom quizzes, and
homework.
 Progress criteria consider how much students improve or gain from their
learning experiences. These criteria focus on how far students have advanced,
rather than where they are. Other names for progress criteria include learning
gain, value-added learning, and educational growth.

The most effective grading and reporting systems establish clear standards based on
product, process, and progress criteria, and then report each separately (Guskey, 2006;
Stiggins, 2007; Wiggins, 1996). Although this may seem like additional work, such
systems actually make grading easier for teachers. They require the collection of no
additional information and eliminate the impossible task of combining these diverse
types of evidence into a single grade (Bailey & McTighe, 1996). Parents generally
prefer this approach because it gives them more useful information about their
children's performance in school (Guskey, 2002). It offers parents of both students in
special education programs and English language learners specific feedback about their
child's achievement on grade-level standards as well as essential information on
behavior and progress. This information is helpful for making intervention and
placement decisions (Jung & Guskey, 2007).

A Model for Grading Exceptional Learners

With a high-quality grading system in place, schools can develop fair and accurate
procedures for reporting on the achievement of exceptional learners. The following

2
five-step model for grading exceptional learners provides a framework for
accomplishing that goal. (For a flow chart showing the model, see online at
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el201002_jung.pdf) It also provides an
excellent tool for educators and families as they prepare for individualized education
plans (IEPs), 504 plans, and ELL meetings.

Step 1. Ask whether the standard is an appropriate expectation without

adaptations.

For each reporting standard, the key question is, Can we expect the student to achieve
this standard without special support or changes to the standard? If the answer is yes,
then no change in the grading process is needed, and the teacher grades the student with
the same "ruler" he or she would use with any other student in the class.

Some exceptional learners, however, may not achieve certain grade-level standards
without special services and supports. For example, an IEP team may decide that a high
school student who has a learning disability in the area of written expression needs
extra supports to reach standards that depend on this skill. When an instructional team
determines that the student will not be able to achieve a particular standard without
special support, they move to step 2.

Step 2. If the standard is not appropriate, determine what type of

adaptation the standard needs.

For each standard that will require support, the instructional team asks, Which is
needed—accommodation or modification?

Accommodation means that the content of the standard remains the same, but the
method for demonstrating mastery of that content may be adjusted. For example, to
meet science standards, a student may require an audiotape of lectures in science class
because of difficulty in taking notes. In addition, he or she might need to take a social
studies end-of-unit assessment orally. Although the format for answering questions
would be different, the content of the questions would remain the same, and the student
would be judged, like all other students, on the content of his or her responses.

Modification, in contrast, means changing the standard itself. A 3rd grade English
language learner, for example, may have strong oral communication skills, but may not
be ready to work on the grade-level standards for writing. For this student, the
instructional team may decide to provide additional support in the area of writing and to
expect the student to master 1st grade writing standards.

To determine whether a particular type of support is an accommodation or a

modification, the instructional team must consider the circumstances of its use. An
accommodation in one subject area might actually be a modification in another subject
area. For example, consider extended time on assessments, one of the most common
adaptations. If the purpose of the assessment is to measure the student's knowledge and

3
understanding of particular concepts, then extended time is an accommodation. But if
the assessment is designed to measure the student's speed in problem solving, as is
sometimes the case with certain math assessments, then the provision of extra time
would likely be considered a modification.

If the instructional team determines that a student needs only accommodations to reach
a particular standard, then no change in the grading process is required. But if
modifications are deemed necessary, the team goes through the remaining three steps of
the model for this standard.

Step 3. If the standard needs modification, determine the appropriate

standard.

The appropriate standard is what the instructional team believes the student could
reasonably achieve by the end of the academic year with special supports. The team
records these modified standards as goals on the student's IEP, 504 plan, or ELL plan,
along with other goals the student may need to achieve in order to function in daily
classroom routines.

A student with cognitive impairment, for example, may not be ready to work on 4th
grade science standards in mineral identification. The IEP team may choose to develop
science standards on the skill of sorting and classifying that are fundamentally related to
the 4th grade science standards but are also developmentally appropriate for this
student.

Similarly, a 9th grade English language learner's ELL plan may call for 7th grade
vocabulary standards rather than 9th grade standards. Or a physically injured student
may have a goal on a 504 plan that requires her to demonstrate an understanding of the
rules of a particular sport orally or in writing, but not through actual participation.

Step 4. Base grades on the modified standard, not the grade-level

standard.

It would be futile to grade a student on an academic standard everyone agrees the

student will probably not meet. Take, for example, the student who has cognitive
impairment and who is working on sorting and classifying objects by simple
characteristics rather than working on the grade-level expectation of mineral
identification. There is no need to report a failing grade in science based on the
student's inability to identify minerals. Nor would it be fair or meaningful to simply add
points for effort or behavior.

Instead, the teacher should grade the student on the standard the team determined was
appropriate (for example, Student will sort objects in science by size, shape, and color
with 80 percent accuracy). The same is true for the English language learner who is
working to build 7th grade vocabulary in a 9th grade class. Rather than adding points
for homework or promptness in turning in assignments, the teacher should grade the

4
student using the same "ruler," but on the 7th grade vocabulary standards that the
instructional team deemed appropriate.

Step 5. Communicate the meaning of the grade.

Finally, teachers need to provide additional information for modified standards,

communicating what was actually measured. The report card should include a special
notation, such as a superscript number or an asterisk, beside grades that reflect
achievement on modified standards. The accompanying footnote might be worded,
"based on modified standards." The report card should direct families to a supplemental
document, such as a progress report, that lists the modified standards on which any
grade was based and a narrative of progress on each. This lets everyone know, as
federal legislation requires, how the student performed on appropriately challenging
learning tasks.

Useful Information for Instructional Decisions

The model described here offers a fair, accurate, and legal way to adapt the grading
process for exceptional learners. Using this model, instructional teams agree up front on
the achievement standards that are appropriate for the student and report on these
separately from progress and process indicators. Then, the school clearly communicates
the grades' meaning to exceptional learners and their families through a practical and
understandable reporting system. This system provides the information parents and
instructional teams need to make effective intervention and placement decisions for
students with disabilities and English language learners.

Myths About Grading Exceptional Learners

To ensure that the grades assigned to exceptional learners are both fair and
accurate, we need to dispel these widespread myths:

Myth 1: Students with individualized education plans, students with

504 plans, and English language learners cannot legally receive a failing
grade.

Fact: Any student, exceptional or otherwise, can legally fail a course. Legal
provisions stipulate that individualized education plans (IEPs) must give
students with disabilities the opportunity to receive passing grades and
advance in grade level with their peers. If appropriate services and supports
are in place and the appropriate level of work is assessed, then the same
range of grades available to all students is applicable to exceptional learners.

5
 Myth 2: Report cards cannot identify the student's status as an
exceptional learner.

Fact: According to guidance recently provided by the U.S. Department of

Education's Office of Civil Rights (2008), a student's IEP, 504, or ELL status
can appear on report cards (which communicate information about a
student's achievement to the student, parents, and teachers) but not on
transcripts (which are shared with third parties—other schools, employers,
and institutes of higher education) (Freedman, 2000). Even on report cards,
however, schools must carefully review whether such information is
necessary. There would be no need, for example, to remind the family of a
student with multiple disabilities every nine weeks that their child qualifies
for special education.

Myth 3: Transcripts cannot identify the curriculum as being modified.

Fact: This is perhaps the most common of all reporting myths. Under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 and 2004,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, transcripts cannot identify students as qualifying for
special services or accommodations— supports that provide access to the
general curriculum but do not fundamentally alter the learning goal or grade-
level standard. However, schools can legally note curriculum
modifications—changes that fundamentally alter the learning goal or grade-
level expectation (Freedman, 2000, 2005).

Myth 4: Higher grades equal higher self-esteem.

Fact: Probably the most dangerous myth is that students' self-esteem

increases with higher grades. Most evidence, however, indicates that this is
true only when grades accurately reflect students' achievement. When
students receive inflated grades based on material that is not appropriate to
their skill level, they actually lose motivation (Ring & Reetz, 2000).

References
Bailey, J., & McTighe, J. (1996). Reporting achievement at the secondary level: What
and how. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: 1996 Yearbook
of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 119–140).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bursuck, W. D., Munk, D. D., & Olson, M. M. (1999). The fairness of report card
grading adaptations: What do students with and without disabilities think?
Remedial and Special Education, 20, 84–92.
Freedman, M. K. (2000). Testing, grading, and granting diplomas to special education
students. (Special Report No. 18). Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.

6
Freedman, M. K. (2005). Student testing and the law: The requirements educators,
parents, and officials should know. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Gottlieb, M. (2006). Assessing English language learners: Bridges from language
proficiency to academic achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Computerized grade-books and the myth of objectivity. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(10), 775–780.
Guskey, T. R. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan,
87(9), 670–675.
Jung, L. A., (2009). The challenges of grading and reporting in special education: An
inclusive grading model. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Practical solutions for serious
problems in standards-based grading (pp. 27–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Jung, L. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2007). Standards-based grading and reporting: A model
for special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(2), 48–53.
Office of Civil Rights. (2008, October 17). Dear colleague letter: Report cards and
transcripts for students with disabilities. Available:
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20081017.html.
Polloway, E. A., Epstein, M. H., Bursuck, W. D., Roderique, T. W., McConeghy, J. L.,
& Jayanthi, M. (1994). Classroom grading: A national survey of policies. Remedial
and Special Education, 15, 162–170.
Ring, M. M., & Reetz, L. (2000). Modification effects on attribution of middle school
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
15, 34–42.
Silva, M., Munk, D. D., & Bursuck, W. D. (2005). Grading adaptations for students
with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 87–98.
Stiggins, R. J. (2007). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students: The promise of
standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 195–202.
Wiggins, G. (1996). Honesty and fairness: Toward better grading and reporting. In T.
R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: 1996 Yearbook of the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 141–176).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Lee Ann Jung ([email protected]) is Associate Professor in the Department of Special

Education and Rehabilitation and Thomas R. Guskey ([email protected]) is Professor
in the College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Copyright © 2010 by Lee Ann Jung, Thomas R. Guskey

7
A Model for Grading Exceptional Learners

For each reporting

standard ask:

1. Is this
an appropriate
expectation without
adaptations?

Yes. The student can No change

No. The student will need
achieve this standard with in grading is
adaptations in this area.
no supports or adaptations. required.

2.What type Accommodation. The No change

of adaptation is required adaptations do not in grading is
needed? alter the standard. required.

Modification. The required

adaptations fundamentally
change the standard.

3. Determine the 4. Grade based on 5. Report the meaning of

modified standard. modified standard. modified grades.
Change the standard to Use the same grading Add a notation to the
include appropriate “ruler” as for the report card and the
skills and criteria for class, but on the transcript, and connect to
this student. appropriate standard. a progress report.

SOURCE: Jung, L. A. & Guskey, T.R. (2010). Grading exceptional learners. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 31-35.
Available online at: www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el201002_jung.pdf