GRADING AND

REPORTING OF
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
Overview:
It is easy to confuse from grading, but they are apparently
different. One difference is that assessment centers on the
learner. Assessment gathers information about what the
student knows and what he/she can do. Grading is part of
evaluation as it involves judgment made by the teacher.

In this chapter, we shall look into the grading system in the

Philippines – the weighted grading system and final rating.
The different reporting shall also be discussed. A short
segment on progress monitoring is includes to provide you
with an idea of how to track student
progress through formative assessments.
GRADING
Grading is a progress of assigning a numerical value,
letter or symbol to represent student knowledge and
performance. These are called grades, etymologically a
“degree of measurement” according to Gus key (2004),
grading serves six roles:
(1) to communicate achievement status of students to
parents and other stakeholders;
(2) to provide information to students for self- evaluation;
(3) to select, identify or sort students for specific
programs;
(4) to provides incentives for students learn;
(5) to evaluate effectiveness of instructional programs;
and
(6) to provide evidence of a student’s lack of effort or
inability to accept responsibility for inappropriate
behavior. Because Gus key’s study involved teachers,
it is not surprising that effort, which is a non-
academic factor, was considered among grading
purposes.

Measurement expert recommend that it should not be

a component of grading (McMillan, 2007). The
purposes of grading can then be
summarized into four:
(1) communication;
(2) feedback; (3) sorting; and
(4) accountability (Musial, Nieminen & Brurke, 2009).
ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT DATA

Musial, Nieminen, Thomas & Burke (2009) wrote that a grade

has two critical elements; analysis of assessment data and
interpretation and communication of grades. In analyzing
assessment data, teachers must make sure that grades
reflect student learning and performance.
Assessment data may become distorted for a number of
reasons. Providing incentives for perfect attendance,
extracurricular activities and good conduct in class may
inflate a learner’s grade. Problem arises when their scores in
national standardized tests do not compare with their
classroom performance. But a problem also occurs when
teachers do not recognize student’s efforts and
class participation.
Their grades may turn out to be
low but high in standardized
tests. To prevent issues
concerning marking, one should
remember that the basis for grading
should only be the student’s scholastic
performance. This is a policy contained
in section 144 of the
manual of regulations for private basic
“The final grade or rating given to a pupil or student in a subject
should be based solely on his scholastic performance. Any addition or
diminution to the grade in a subject for co-curricular activities,
attendance, or
misconduct shall not be allowed, except as may otherwise be explicitly
provided by an individual school in an appropriate issuance or
publication and provided further that such adjustment is relevant to
the subject content and requirements. In the elementary level, the
misconduct of a pupil may affect his grade in character education”.
A similar provision is found in the manual of
regulations for private education (Sec.107, CMO
40, s.2008). Non-cognitive students characteristic
like punctually and conducts are also important,
but these should not be mixed with test scores
and other indicators of academic achievement in
a single grade (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2010; Nitko &
Brook hart, 2011). As commonly practiced, marks
for conduct and traits in the basic education level
are recorded separately.
INTERPRETATION AND COMMUNICATION OF GRADES
The main purpose of grading is to communicate information to
students and parents about student’s achievement or goal
attainment (Nitko & Brook hart, 2011). Parents have the right to
know about the goal attainment of their children. Teachers
must be able to effectively communicate this. However,
teachers and parent are not in sync in their understanding of
the meaning of grades. This is due to the multifaceted nature
of grades. Waltman & Frisbie (1994) explained that a grade can
be achievement at ascertain marking period. It can
focus only on academic achievement or reflect non-academic
characteristic like disposition and neatness.
Grading Systems According to
Kubiszyn & Borich (2010),
marking systems have two
dimensions: types of
comparison and types of
symbols. For them,
marks are “cumulative grades
that reflect academic
achievement “(p.246). You may
come across other resources
that say the opposite.
A.
Types of Comparisons
Thus far, you have learned that a student’s performance is
interpreted in relation to the performance of other student (norm) or
established standards (criterion). In grading, the same references
are used. Norm-referenced grading focuses on performance of
one’s peers, while criterion-referenced grading focuses on defined
learning targets (Nikko & Brook hart, 2011).Norm-referenced
grading is grading with relative standards. There is a pre-
determined grade distribution.
For example, the top 10% of the class may be
given an A; the next 25% gets a B. and so on. The issue with this
model is that it could promote unhealthy competition among
students. Still, some institutions employ this to control grade
inflation. Another issue is that high grades are given to “top”
students even though they may not have achieved the required
level of mastery or proficiency.
Because teachers advocating this approach are grading on the curve, there
would always be students with poor or low grades. This happens even is cases
when low-ranking students
have attained an acceptable level of competence. The risk is that their self-
esteem mat be affected. However, relative grading is useful
when the composition of students and the teacher’s instruction efforts vary.
Pop ham (2011) pointed out that teachers find this
approach flexible because grading expectations are not always the same from
class to class. Curving can also be used as a tool to
adjust grades on poorly-constructed tests. Nevertheless, many educators
prefer criterion-referenced or absolute standards grading.
Grades reflect student’s achievement of the learning targets as specified in
the curriculum. There are no grade quotas.
 However, criterion-referenced grading also has its pitfalls.
First, expectations of student. Second, there are those who
are accustomed to norm referenced grading and may still
operate on that basis. Some teachers water-down the
performance of student because of the view that only a
small percentage of students deserve high grades. Similarly,
the notion that only a small percentage of students should
have low grades influences some teachers to assess
students at lower cognitive levels to compensate for
previous assessments which
students found difficult.
Recognizing the need for some flexibility in grading.
Johnson (1993) remarked that a compromise approach
employing both absolute and relatives approaches
would be desirable. He added that while teaching and
testing for mastery may allow most students to master
a task, individual differences would still be evident in
other task, hence the need to reconcile both grading
approaches .In a study conducted by Walt man & Frisbie
(1994), a significant number to teachers and parents
believe that grades carry both norm and criterion-
referenced meanings.
Kubiszyn & Borich (2010) identified three
other comparisons where grades are based
from. These are comparison with aptitude;
potential improvement and efforts.
Nitko & brook hart (2011) combined
comparison with aptitude and potential
improvement and called it self-
referencing.
In aptitude based (ability-referenced) grading system, the
question is “How high/low is the student’s grade
with respect to what he/she can do?” this means a student’s
achievement is compared to his/her own potential. And so a
learner receiver a high grade if his/her achievement level is
congruent or better than his/her aptitude level. However, it
may not be a fair system because low-students would get
high grades because it is expected that they will perform at
or above their expected level. In a system that compares
achievement with effort, the questions to address are “How
much work did the students put into the test
/assessments?”
Because effort is emphasized, learners who have low scores
in test may still acquire high grades if they have exerted a
great deal of effort in the preparation and conduct of the
assessments. This can lead to greater motivation among low-
ability students.
However, may not be the case for average and high-ability
learners. Furthermore, questions surround the definition of
efforts and how it can be measured. Finally, comparison with
improvement (growth-referenced) puts premium on
student’s progress. It focuses on the
question. “Did the students improve?”
A learner who obtains a considerably higher score
in a post-test compared to his/her pre-test
willget a high grades. Again, this system favors
low-ability students. Because student’s progress
is emphasized, bright students tend not to
perform their level best during the pre-test.
B. Approaches to Grading
Local and international schools offering basic and tertiary education use codes in reporting
student’s progress and achievements. There are several types of grade notations. Below are
the common ones

1. Numerical grades (100, 99, 98, …). The system of using

numerical grades is popular and well-understood. They are
preferred
because they conveniently summarize over all students performance. Averaging is
possible. However, some teachers may still find it difficult to give meaning to
numerical grades especially on differences between values (e. g. 75 and 76).
Interpretations may vary among teacher, subjects and schools. Additionally,
numerical grades do not actually describe the strengths and weakness of learners.
2. Letter grades (A, B, C, etc.). Letter grades
have the same advantages and
disadvantages of numerical grades.
They appear to be less intimidating compared to numerical
grades. However, they lack granularity because the codes do
not differentiate two
numerical grades that have the same letter symbol. Letter
grades are typical in American grade school and high schools.
3. Two-category grades (Pass-Fail;
Satisfactory-Unsatisfactory). This is less
stressful to students because they need
not fear about low grade point averages.
However, some students may tend to aspire for just a
minimum level of competence to pass the subject/course.
Another drawback is the lack of information this system
provides regarding students strong and weak points.
4. Checklists. A checklist may be simple or
elaborate. In a dichotomous checklist, the
teacher simply places a check mark next to
observed performance statements.
In a checklist of objectives with scales of performance, rating of
student performance ismade indicating the extent of attainment
of the learning objectives or outcomes. Checklists are common in
the elementary level
and can very well replace or supplement traditional grading and
reporting system.
5. Standard-based (Advanced, Proficient,
…, Beginning or Similar). Standard-based
grading requires teachers to base grades
from definite learning,
and compels them to distinguish product, process and
progress criteria in assigning grades (Gus key, Swan and
Jung, 2011). Standard are broader and at a higher level than
“criteria of performance” (McMillan, 2007).
In the, Philippines, the K to 12 rating system is standard-
based as it measures how students are able to reach the
standards in terms of content and performance. Student’s
achievement is measured on three components.
Numerical values are used to measure student progress. A transmuted
grade of at least 75 means the learner passed the subject. In the higher
education, many schools follow the grade-point system of 1.0 – 5.0 where
1.0 and 5.0 are the highest and lowest possible grade, respectively. In
some other institutions, their grading system is patterned after
American universities using grade points of 1.0 – 4.0 where 1.0 means poor
and 4.0 is excellent.
Some educators insist the grades are harmful claiming that
grades only foster competition reward conformity and punish
less able students pressuring some to cheat
(Nitko & Brook hart, 2011). The non-graded system may be
the answer to such criticisms. It should not
surprise you that there are primary and secondary schools
that do not enforce grades. These non-graded
schoolsemerged in response to individual differences among
children.
GRADING ISSUES
Nitko & Brook hart (2011)
mentioned seven issues concerning
summative grading. These issues must be
addressed to make valid inferences and
evaluation of student performance.
1. Consider what type of student
performance you need.
Formative assessments do not carry a grade. They
are used to improve learning
and prepare students for summative assessments.
Teachers should identify the grading variables which
must be assessed and
reported.
2. Consider how to make marking scales
consistent throughout the marking period.
Scoring scales in assessments should be
carefully chosen.
Scores from different cannot be directly added. In the K to 12
rating system, raw and rubric scores are transformed to
percentage scores. These are fine-grained scales that show
differences in learning levels of students. The final rating may
then be converted using a coarse-grained scale.
3. Decide on the grade components and their
respective weights. In the basic education level,
there are weights for mean assessment
component.
In the tertiary level, it is instructional. Nonetheless, teachers are
chiefly responsible in providing quality classroom
assessments- those that are valid, reliable and fair.
4. Consider the standards or boundaries for letter grade. Once
identified, these should be followed across all subjects to maintain the
same standards of quality and for comparability.
4. Consider the standards or boundaries
for letter grade. Once identified, these
should be followed across all subjects
to maintain the same standards of
quality and for comparability.
5. Decide on borderline cases. Nitko & Brook hart (2011)
asserted that raising (or lowering) asserted that raising (or
lowering) grades is valid when additional assessment evidences
support it. They reasoned that assessment results contain
measurement errors. Thus, the grade of a student who is point
away from the passing mark or another student whose grade is
at the boundary between two grades may be adjusted if there
is additional achievement information that such modification.

6. Be concerned with the issue of failures. Nitko & Brook hart (2011)
explained that failure may be one of two things failing work or failing to
try. When a student receives a failing mark/grade, it means that the
student consistently displayed poor performance in comparison to the
learning targets or stated standards. For a student who failed to try, i. e.
the learner was not able to submit or accomplish an assessment; it is not
valid to assign a failing/ grade. This is because the learner’s failure to try
may be due to some reason not reflective of this ability or achievement.
Nonetheless, the learners neglect or failure to complete or submit school
requirements has to be reported to the parents.
7. Be concerned with the practice of assigning zero for a mark. The issue of assigning a
zero for missed assessments is whether or not it is a fair practice that results to an
accurate mark of student performance. Teachers employ this practice to penalize
irresponsible students and elicit acceptable behavior (Gus key, 2004). The impact of a
zero varies depending on the weight of the component.
McMillan (1999) and Nitko & Brook hart (2011) presented alternatives to zero marking:
(a) substitute the lowest possible or bottom of the grading scale (e.g. 60 or 65) for
missing assessments; (b) base the grade only on those turned in; or (c) substitute zero
for the missing assignment but use the median rather than the mean since the former
is not sensitive to outliers (extreme data values). Meanwhile guskey (2004) suggested
giving an “incomplete” or reporting multiple grades on different aspects of student
performance.
REPORTING
A report card is a common method of reporting a learner’s abilities and progress. It
contains a learners numerical grades plus other
relevant information. It is periodically submitted by a school to parents. Note that
grade books and report and report cards may vary in
format.
In the Philippines, the report card is known DepED from 138-E. It is issued two weeks
after the rating period and returned duly signed
by the parents. It contains the rating per grading period and the final rating of each
learning area. It also contains an attendance record and
a report on the learners observed values. Academic rating is also contained in the
student’s permanent record (Form 173-E).
There are other ways to report student performance and
accomplishments. Parent-teacher conferences can supplement written
report. The face-to-face encounter is an efficient way to share
information with parents, iron out any misunderstanding between home
and school, and plan together a program that would help students improve
their status (Miller, Linn & Gronlund, 2009). However, this may
prove to be time-consuming and some parents may not arrive for the
conference. This can resolve through letters to parents (guardians),
though this method is still laborious on the part of the teachers. Clarity and
tact are needed to avoid misinterpretation.
PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE GRADING AND REPORTING
Tomlinson & McTighe (2006) discussed six key principles for fair and
effective grading and reporting. By following these principles,
students may become more motivated to learn as grades accurately
describe their actual performance.
1. Grades and reports should be based on clearly specified learning
goals and performance standards. Grades should reflect
achievement of learning standards. They should have qualitative
descriptions of the quality of work students have shown or
produced.
2. Evidence used for grading should be valid. Students should be assessed on
what they are taught. Grades should not be influenced by non-academic
criteria like attendance, social behaviors, and attitudes, among others. These
muddle the final grade reducing the validity of interpretation. This is known
as hodgepodge grading (Nitko & brook hart, 2011). Additionally, a student’s
grade should not be based on a one-time assessment that spells either
success or utter disaster for students.
3. Grading should be based on established criteria. Instead of using a norm-
reference system, grades should mirror how learners have
attained the learning targets. Teachers should work towards ensuring that
students in the class achieve mastery.
4. Not everything should be included in grades. As mentioned in the previous
segment, assessment for formative purposes is all about feedback. They are
documented as evidences of progress. Summative assessments are the
accountability measures that determine what students can or cannot do after an
instructional unit.
5. Avoid grading based on averages. O’Connor & Wormeli (2011) claimed that
averaging grades (or scores) falsifies grade reports. Deviations in performance
that occur during the learning process should not be included. Suppose a student
obtained a low score in the first test but was able to get a high mark in a second
test on the same topic. It would be incorrect to average them out, but instead
choose the second assessment as a valid indicator of mastery.
6. Focus on achievement and reported other factors
separately. It was already pointed out that academic
elements should be reported separately from non-
academic factors (Allen, 2005; O’Connor & Wormeli, 2011;
Kubiszym & Borich, 2010; Guskey, 2004). Although
separate, non-academic factors can be used to support
student learning.
CURRICULUM-BASED ASSESSMENT (PROGRESS MONITORING)
Considering the value of formative assessment, this segment has been
included to provide information on how to go about progress
monitoring. It is crucial that student progress is documented to aid in
communication with parents. Progress monitoring is described as a
formative process to assess student performance and evaluate the
effectiveness of instruction (Vannest, Soares, Smith & Williams, 2012).
It is vital in individualized education and special education. This
technique is oftentimes integrated in a response to intervention (RTI)
model.
RTI is a method of academic intervention. The two popular progress
monitoring models are curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and
mastery measurement. In CBM, all skills are assessed by each test.
In mastery measurement, skills are assessed one at a time in a pre-
determined instructional sequence.
Demo (2003) conveyed the effectiveness of this technique in making
educational decisions such as screening, pre-referral evaluations,
placement in remedial and special education programs, formative
evaluations and evaluation of reintegration and inclusion.
Unlike traditional assessments, progress monitoring focuses on learners
acquired skills through repeatable and brief probes (Luckner & Bowen, 2010).
These skills may be about reading comprehension and fluency,
mathematical calculations, writing skills, spelling among others. Targeted
and systematic innervations are conducted to address student’s needs. For
instance, the teacher when necessary may engage on a one-on-one or
small group instruction reteach the material or provide more drills and
practice (Safer & Fleischman, 2005). Graphs are constructed to track
student progress data from request but brief assessments are charted over
time, and the slope is examined
to gauge the extent of improvement.
Consider a Grade 2 pupils who had difficulty applying the rules of addition
and subtraction involving whole numbers. Twenty short equivalent tests or
probes were given during the course of ten weeks. The students’
percentage scores were recorded and graphed 11.1 is a progress graph
patterned after Demo’s (2003) in his article. The line graph reveals that the
student’s performance did not improve during the first four weeks. For this
reason. The teacher decided to provide additional assignments in the form
of worksheets for the child to accomplish at home. The pupil’s questions
were entertained after fewer periods. The intervention provides to be
affective.
The [probes from week 5 to 10 displayed an increasing (upward) slope which means that test scores
improved. Note that a bar graph may also be used (Vanbest, Soares, Smith & Williams, 2012).
STEPS IN CONDUCTING PROGRESS MONITORING
Luckner and Bowen (2010) listed the general steps in progress monitoring.
1. Determine the level of implementation whether individual, small or large
group, classroom, grade or school level.
2. Decide on what measures to undertake. Create or select appropriate
short tests or probes (1-3 minutes). The test should sample a wide
range of skills to be mastered throughout the year (Safer & Fleischman,
2005).
3. Collect screening or baseline data. Administer and score the test or probe.
To ensure validity, frequent testing or probing should be done.
4. Decide on short-term objectives or outcomes.
5. Set and articulate long-range goals.
6. Decide when and how often to monitor.
7. Graph the scores. Graphs can visually describe how learners
are doing. Data results and graphs can inform instruction.
8. Make instructional decisions. Adjust pedagogical strategies
when needed.
9. Continue monitoring.
10. Report progress to students, parents (guardian) and
stakeholders.
Progress monitoring is said to be a valid and reliable
predictor of subsequent assessment performance (Demo,
2003). It was also reported that progress monitoring
improves student motivation, but there is also a downside
as to the amount of time it requires (Vannest, Soares,
Smith & Williams, 2012; Luckner & Bowen, 2010).
Nonetheless, teachers can involve students in monitoring
their own progress.
PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION RATING SYSTEM
The grade components for grade 1-10 and senior high school (SHS) effective SY 2015-2016 are shown in table 11.1.
Different sets of weights are now followed.
The weights in the new grading system (NGS) range from 20%-40% for written
work; 40% - 60% for performance tasks and 20%-30% for quarterly assessment.
Notice how performance tasks constitute a substantial percentage of a student’s
grade. Essential, PTs assess a learner’ ability “to do” which makes learning
dynamic and realistic. When scoring tests and other assessments, the raw scores
are totaled in each level of assessment then the percentage scores are
calculated. After that, the corresponding percentage weights are applied. As a
case in point, suppose a grade 2 student acquired a total score of 64 in science out
of 80 points especially on WW. The percentage score is 80. This was calculated
by dividing the total raw score by the highest possible score, multiplied by 100%.
To get the weighted score (WS), we take 40% of the PS which is equal to 32.
The same procedure is applied to other components.
After the weighted scores for all three components are obtained, the initial grade
iscalculated. This is simply the sum of the weighted scores of the WW, PT and QA. Finally,
the initial grade is transmuted using a standard transmutation table. Refer to table 11.2.
The NGS does not follow a zero-based system. The passing grade is 60 which is equivalent to
75. The floor grade is 60, meaning a score of zero not convert to an equivalent grade of zero
but 60. In the tertiary level, the cut-off grade is not uniform for all schools. the passing
grade varies from 50 to 75 percent.In the old grading system, grades were described in the
report card by levels of proficiency as shown in table 11.3.

Letter codes appeared in the report cards and not numerical equivalents. For instance, a
student who obtained a grade of 81% in science in the first quarter means his/her
performance was approaching proficiency, and so “AP” was reflected card. DepEd reverted
back to numerical ratings. There are associated descriptors printed in the report card but
these are not explicitly specified in each learning area. Remarks are indicated at the end
grade level. An exception is extended though to kindergarten. Teachers report learner’s
progress and achievement using anecdotal records or narrative reports, and checklists.
Weighted Score (WS) = Percentage score x Weight of the component

In the 11.4, the percentage scores for WW, PT AND QA are 73.33, 78.33 and 66.67,
respectively, for the indicated learning area (mathematics) and grade level (4), the
weights are as follows: 40% for WW, 40% for PT, and 20% for QA.
Refer to table 11.1. To get the weighted score of each component, we obtain the
product of the percentage score and its respective weight. The initial grade is the sum
of
the weighted scores. I.e. 29.33+31.33+13+13.33. This yields 73.99. Using table 11.2, we
find that the transmuted grade is 83.
THANK YOU