Middle School
Standards-Based Grading and
Reporting Handbook
Teacher’s Guide
Updated June 2015
Committee Members
Location
Baker, Deborah
Horton, Anna
Peach, Rachel
Quick, Taryn
Rencher, Stephen
Richards, Aaron
Sullivan, Derek
Dimmitt Middle School
Dimmitt Middle School
Dimmitt Middle School
Dimmitt Middle School
Dimmitt Middle School
Dimmitt Middle School
Dimmitt Middle School
Bailey, Kathleen
Bylsma, Pete
Campbell, Tammy
Chandler, Monica
Zikopoulos, Stephanie
District Office - KEC
District Office - KEC
District Office - KEC
District Office - KEC
District Office - KEC
Williams, Kathy
Facilitator
Cooper, Craig
Hawthrone Heyel, Alecia
Hundelt, Teresa
Jones, Kelly
Jones, Wendy
Kovacs, Gerald
Olsen, Sharon
Page, Denie
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
McKnight Middle School
Barut-del Fierro, Renee
Crow, Michael
Falk, Colin
Johnson, Erin
Lebaron, Abigail
Riley, Allison
Ritchie, Rebecca
Schneidmiller, Haley
Stith, Megan
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Nelsen Middle School
Martz, Allison
Mitcham, Beth
Parent
Parent
Kiel, Cami
Renton Education Association
Lower, Stephanie
Secondary Learning Center
1
Table of Contents
Section One
RSD’s SBGR Purpose and the Reasoning for SBGR
3
Section Two
Principles of Grading
4
Section Three
Grades Defined
6
Section Four
Overview of Content of Achievement Criteria for Grading
7
Section Five
Special Education and SBGR
8
Section Six
Homework for Practice, Preparation, and Integration
10
Section Seven
Grading Based on Most Recent Evidence
12
Section Eight
Multiple Assessment Opportunities and Retakes
14
Section Nine
IE Replaces the Zero
16
Section Ten
Honor Roll, Honor Society and Athletic Eligibility
18
Section Eleven
Report Card Comments
20
Section Twelve
Glossary
22
Section Thirteen
Resources
23
Sample Report Card
43
Student’s Guide to Standards-Based Grading
45
2
Section One
The Purpose of the Report Card and Reasoning for SBGR
The purpose of a report card is to communicate with parents/guardians and the student
regarding progress toward district identified learning standards, effort and community
skills. It indicates the student’s learning strengths and where additional practice is
needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The research and experts in the field have asserted that standards-based grading and reporting
allows us to align our grading and reporting practices to our standards-based instructional
practices. When implemented, standards-based grading and reporting (SBGR) allows us to more
accurately and consistently report student achievement to students and parents/guardians as it
relates to state and local standards.
Grades are the ultimate form of feedback to a student about their progress toward mastery of
standards. Grades need to be accurate and meaningful. Students and parents/guardians need a
precise picture of what has been learned and what still needs to be learned. Grading and
reporting around specific standards, while using the accompanying strategy of formative
assessment with feedback related to progress toward mastery of standards, has been shown to
significantly boost achievement and motivation for students. Research by Black and Wiliam
(1998) and Hattie (2009) demonstrates that high quality formative assessment and feedback
have a powerful impact on student learning. The effect size (the impact on student learning see
Glossary page 16) of formative assessment and feedback on standardized tests is between 0.4
and 0.7, which is larger than most known educational interventions. As students’ progress in
their mastery of standards, they feel motivated and more successful because enhancing
perceived competence is motivating in and of itself. Students begin to think about grades and
other assessments that teachers use to provide informational feedback as helpful toward their
success.
References
Guskey, T. & Baley, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
O’Connor, K. (2009). How to grade for learning (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tomlinson, C. & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappa, 80(2), 139-149. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York: Routledge.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta
Kappa, 80(2), 139-149. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. New York: Routledge.
3
Section Two
Principles of Grading
Renton School District’s Principles of Grading…A Filter for Our Work
Renton Principle 1 – Grades and
reports should be based on clearly
specified learning goals and
performance standards
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reporting Standards
Create assessments and rubrics
Assess students and collect
evidence
Report student performance
Used in Grading
Renton Principle 2 – Evidence used
for grading should be valid
 Summative assessments
 Demonstrated skill
based on standard
 Performance/Productbased assessments
 Application of learnings
 Differentiation for ELL
and Special Education







Should Not Influence
Grading
Homework
Limited technology
Late work
Daily formative
assessments
Penmanship
Extra Credit
Citizenship
Q1
Renton Principle 3 – Grading should
be based on established criteria
SCIENCE
Systems – Students can use systems to
simplify and analyze complex situations
including choosing system boundaries,
determining if a system is open or closed,
measuring the flow of matter and energy
through a system, and applying systems
thinking to complex societal issues
involving science and technology.
LANGUAGE ARTS
Reading for Key Ideas and Details –
Students can identify the main ideas and
most important details in a text and
summarize the text.
CHOIR
Music Knowledge – Student understands
time/key signatures, interprets the
tempo/dynamic markings and musical
symbol.
4
Q2
Q3
Q4
Assessment Snapshot
Principle 4 - Not everything should be
included in grades
Students are scored as they learn but
only assessed after learning has occurred
Pre-test
Worksheet
Quiz 1
Presentation
Repeat Pre-test
Quiz 3
Exit Ticket
Unit Test
Assessment
Type
Formative
Formative
Benchmark
Summative
Formative
Formative
Benchmark
Summative
Sub-Standard Grade
Grade
1*
2*
4
4
3*
3*
3
4
4
* Not used for academic grade
Assessment #1
Principle 5 – Grade a standard based on
most recent work, not the average
Principle 6 – Report achievement and
other factors separately
Writing
arguments
to support
claims
Assessment #2
Assessment #3
Assessment #4
Assessment #5
Final grade is
determined by
the most recent
summative
assessments
2
0* Missing
2
3
3
2
Average
(mean)
2
/* Missing
2
3
3
3
Most recent
Achievement
Non-Academic Indicators
Science: Systems - Students can use
systems to simplify and analyze
complex situations including choosing
system boundaries, determining if a
system is open or closed, measuring
the flow of matter and energy
through a system, and applying
systems thinking to complex societal
issues involving science and
technology.
Development of skills and
behaviors that support
achievement:
Language Arts: Reading for Key Ideas
and Details - Students can identify the
main ideas & most important details
in a text and summarize the text.
Choir: Reading Music - Student understands time/key signatures, interprets
the tempo/dynamic markings and
musical symbol.
5
+ Participation
+ Preparation
+ Work completion
Properly dressed for activity
Section Three
Grades Defined
Academic Grades
4 Exceeding Standards
Consistently meets most requirements for exceptional work
related to course standards and demonstrates a deep level of
knowledge and skill for this point in the school year
3 Meeting Standards
Consistently meets most requirements for proficient work
related to course standards and demonstrates grade level
knowledge and skills for this point in the school year
2 Approaching Standards
Consistently meets some requirements for proficient work
related to course standards and demonstrates some grade level
knowledge and skills for this point in school year
1 Attempting Standards
Consistently meets few requirements for proficient work related
to course standards and demonstrates little grade level
knowledge and skill for this point in the school year
IE Insufficient Evidence
Insufficient evidence has been gathered to indicate an accurate
grade
NA Not Assessed
This component was not assessed during this marking period
M Modified Grade
Progress indicated that reflects student achievement based on a
modified standard
P Pass
Not calculated in grade point total
NC No Credit
Not calculated in grade point total
Notes


When a student has partial success at the next higher level, a .5 decimal may be
added to the grade
Courses that earn high school credit must use traditional A‐F grading
Non‐Academic Indicators
(not calculated into the academic grade)
Community Skills
Accepts responsibility, shows active listening skills, respects
personal/public property, respects the voice of others, values
instructional time
Effort
Is prepared and follows the class routine, completes classwork
and homework, shows focus during class time
Grading Scale
4 Consistently
3 Often
6
2 Sometimes
1 Rarely
Section Four
Overview of Academic Grading Criteria
Level 4 Exceeding Standard represents a student who is able to independently extend their
knowledge through transference of learning to more complex content and thinking (not new
content), including deeper conceptual understanding and application. For example, students
can:
 Create analogies and/or find connections, integrating areas of study
 Apply concepts or procedures in a complex situation
 Plan, devise, construct or create new situations that illustrate or use the concept
 Transfer concepts or procedures to unfamiliar settings
Level 3 Meeting Standard represents those students who understand the standards and are
able to independently use the content, details, concepts, vocabulary, processes, procedures
and skills that relate to the standard. These students understand not just the "what," but can
correctly explain and/or demonstrate the "how" and "why." For example, students can:
 Justify/explain a process or procedure
 Solve problems in familiar contexts
 Analyze situations and decide whether a concept/procedure applies
 Compare, contrast, and distinguish a concept from related concepts
 Summarize, conclude, predict and infer
Level 2 Approaching Standard represents a student who has foundational understanding of
the content and concepts explicitly taught in class. At Level 2, a student understands or can
use the more simple concepts, vocabulary, skills, procedures, and/or details. Students at Level 2
may require support as they are trying to make connections among ideas. For example,
students can:
 Identify or recall important information or processes
 List parts of a concept, process or procedure
 Complete simple procedures or algorithms
Level 1 Attempting Standard represents a student who consistently requires help and support
to understand foundational content and concepts explicitly taught in class. At Level 1, students
are beginning to understand simple concepts, vocabulary, skills, procedures, and/or details.
Students at Level 1, require support as they are trying to make connections about ideas. For
example, students can:
 Identify or recall some information or processes
 Identify parts of a concept, process or procedure
 With support, may be able to complete simple procedures or algorithms
7
Section Five
Special Education and SBGR
Collaborative Framework for Teachers
Do
Plan
Reflect
Adjust
Plan
In order to meet the needs of all students, effective general and special education teachers plan
collaboratively to implement instruction through identified goals and learning targets based
upon student IEPs, coursework, assessments, and other informative data. During planning,
conversations include the implementation of accommodations and modifications, power
standards, IEP goals, and learning targets to achieve the agreed upon outcome.
Do
Educators seek to individualize instruction through differentiation of the content that is
accessible based on students’ learning needs, the products students produce that demonstrate
their learning, and the processes by which students may attain learning goals, with a focus on
maximizing students’ opportunities to engage in learning within an inclusive environment.
Reflect
The purpose of standards based grading for students receiving services in Special Education is
to provide meaningful information to parents/guardians, students, and teachers regarding the
student’s progress toward district identified learning standards, as well as effort and
community skills. This progress identifies the student’s learning strengths and areas that may
require additional practice.
Adjust
The student’s progress toward district identified learning standards is then used to inform IEP
teams so that meaningful adjustments to instruction, accommodations, and/or modifications
may be implemented.
8
Accommodations and Modifications
Adaptations
Accommodations and modifications are types of adaptations that are made to the environment,
curriculum, instruction, or assessment practices in order for students with disabilities to be successful
learners and to actively participate with other students in the general education classroom and in
school-wide activities.
Accommodations
Modifications
Adaptations that provide access for any student
to the general curriculum but do not
fundamentally alter the grade-level standard or
proficiency level.
Adaptations to the curriculum that fundamentally
alter the grade-level expectation, but do not
fundamentally alter the content standard.
Modifications typically include reducing the
cognitive load (content), methodology or delivery
of instructions (process), and/or adjusting the
performance criteria (product) and occur over
time defined in the IEP.
Changes HOW a student accesses information or
demonstrates learning.
Changes WHAT standard a student is expected to
learn.
Alignment with the IEP
Students will demonstrate progress toward identified standards, whether grade level or
alternative, with alignment to pertinent IEP goals in qualifying areas.
IEP teams will determine how students will access grade-level content via accommodations or
below grade-level content (alternative standards) via modifications to meet a particular
standard. For example, a grade of 3 (Meets Expectations), can be achieved via accommodations
for grade-level content. A grade of 3 given on an alternative standard is achieved via
modifications.
Modified standards are clearly communicated on a report card through the use of an asterisk
(*) identifying "Modified Standard."
9
Section Six
Homework for Practice, Preparation and Integration
The purpose of homework or classwork is to provide meaningful independent practice
opportunities, background information, or enrich classroom experiences. Homework is used for
practice, to prepare students for upcoming learning, and to reinforce and extend learning, but
never to learn material for the first time.
Homework or classwork can be a productive practice when it is generated as a result of
responding to the needs of a specific class or student. Meaningful practice is short, frequent,
and accompanied by feedback related to specific standards. It aims to reinforce learning, not to
construct new learning. “Homework is practice, not a demonstration of mastery, and grades are
saved for declarations of mastery” (from Fair Isn’t Always Equal by Rick Wormeli).
Practice – although a useful tool for learning – should not have an impact on a student’s
academic grade within a standards‐based grading and reporting system because it is practice
aimed at increasing the student’s capacity to meet standard. Additionally, it is not possible to
verify that the student who is assigned the homework completed the homework. As a result,
homework will be used for formative feedback only and will not be included in the formulation
of the academic grade.
Examples of Types of Homework (from “How to Grade for Learning” by Ken O’Connor):
For practice:
 Must be related to instructional objectives
 Reviews and reinforces newly acquired skills of knowledge
 Gives independent practice for a new concept/skill
 Should have an allowance for mistakes as part of the learning process
 Should be commented on or spot-checked but not counted as part of the academic grade
 Demonstrates effort, not mastery of concept
For preparation:
 Provides background information for upcoming lessons
 Indicate with completion effort, not outcome mastery
For integration:






Are frequently long-term continuing projects that parallel classwork
Enrich classroom experiences and deepen the student’s understanding
Provide opportunities for problem solving and critical thinking
Integrate skills applying many different skills and knowledge sets to a task
Require students to apply previous learning to complete these assignments
Require project expectations and grading procedures for the assignment to be clear to
students and parents
10
FAQs
Q. How can teachers encourage students to do homework if it is not part of their grade?
A. Homework is best used as a means for students to practice so that students can
apply what they have learned in class. When this practice leads to greater
understanding of standards and success on concepts taught in classroom, students
are more likely to see the value in homework. It is important for teachers to
intentionally make this connection for students.
Q. Are teachers expected to provide feedback on all assigned homework?
A. No, teachers will not be expected to provide feedback on ALL assigned homework.
However, there may be those select homework assignments that a teacher will
want to provide feedback to students that supports key concepts taught in class.
Q. What can I say to students who don’t think homework/practice matter?
A. Everything counts. Completed work is practice as well as a way to show
commitment or effort. This work can lead to re-take opportunities.
You learn and grow through your effort.
References
Cooper, Harris. Homework. White Plains, NY: Longman. 1989.
Guskey, Thomas. Grading Policies that Work Against Standards. NASSP Bulletin. Print.
O’Connor, Ken. A Repair Kit for Grading: Fifteen Fixes for Broken Grades, Allyn & Bacon, Assessment Training
Institute, Inc., 2010.
Marzano, Robert. Classroom Assessment & Grading that Work, Alexandria Virginia, ASCD, 2006.
11
Section Seven
Grading on Most Recent Evidence
Accurate grades are based on the most recent and consistent evidence.
When computing a final grade, we will look at the pattern of achievement and rely more on the
most recent scores, not just compute the simple average of all the scores. This means giving more
weight to the more recent scores to determine a summative grade. The method for calculating
the overall grade is called a “weighted mean.” Skyward automatically computes the overall
grade based on the grades and weights that are assigned to each event.
Consider this set of grades that Aaron received for a particular “skill” (standard).
Event
Assignment #1
Assignment #2
Quiz
Assignment #3
Chapter Test
OVERALL GRADE
Grade
1
2
2
3
3
Weight
0
0
1
1
2
4
3 (rounded up from 2.75)
Points
0
0
2
3
6 .
11
In this example, the first two events were formative and were given no weight. More weight was given
to later events, and the Chapter Test was given extra weight. The total weight was 4 (as if there were 4
total events). The total points added up to 11. The weighted mean is 11/4, or 2.75. This was rounded up
to 3 for the overall grade.
Terms
Weighted Mean (Average): The total of all of the points divided by the number of weighted
assignments.
Weighted Grades: Assigning more credit to certain types of assessment. For example,
homework or formative assessments have no weight and summative assessment have heavier
weights than other assignments.
References
Dedah, H., & Ratzlaff Fulkerson, S. (2010). Eight steps to meaningful grades. Phi Delta Kappan, V91.N7, 53-58.
Guskey, T. (2000). Grading policies that work against standards...and how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin. 84(620),
20-27 Marzano, R. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Reeves, D. (2008). Effective grading practices. Educational Leadership. 65(5). 85-87.
Reeves, D. (2004). The case against the Zero. Phi Delta Kappan. 86(4), 324-325.
Schmoker, M. (2001). Results fieldbook: Practical strategies from dramatically improved schools. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
(2010, February 24). Standards-Based grading revisited. Education, Retrieved April 1, 2011, from
http://thehurt.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/standards-based-grading-revisited/
Walker, K. Role of zero in grading. Principals’ Partnership. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from www.rockhill.k12.sc.us/assessmentandgrading/articles.aspx?file_id=1564
12
RSD Weighting Protocol
1. Identify the standards you are teaching in the current unit:
2. Identify the approximate amount of time spent on each standard/skill within the current
unit. You may also want to consider if the standard(s) have been taught already or will
be taught again. By how much do you want your assessments to increase in weight over
time (e.g., double, triple, etc.)?
3. How will you decide when to shift from formative to summative assessments?
4. What is your PLC’s plan for offering multiple assessments of each standard? Will you
spiral standards from one assessment to the next, offer retake opportunities, embed
retakes into regular class periods, etc.?
Next steps:
____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
13
Section Eight
Multiple Assessment Opportunities and Retakes
An important piece of standards-based grading includes multiple assessment opportunities for
each content standard taught in the classroom. When students do not meet standard, they
need opportunities to retake assessments in order to show their own growth in their learning
over time. All teachers in the Renton School District middle schools will allow some form of
retake opportunity for each reporting standard. The teachers will use their discretion to
determine the exact nature of the retake opportunity, the timing of the retake opportunity, and
the range of standards needing to be re-assessed.
In order to assist teachers in developing effective retake opportunities for students, guidance is
offered based on tips provided in the article “Redo’s and Retakes Done Right” written by Rick
Wormeli. Staff members are also encouraged to collaborate with their PLCs to develop
common and consistent retake protocols.
Suggested Strategies for Retakes
 Ask students who redo assignments to submit the original attempt with the new one and to
write a brief letter comparing the two. What is different, and what did they learn as a result
of redoing the assignment? Teachers are encouraged to use this strategy of error analysis to
assist students’ in strengthening their ability to self-assess and self-correct their
assessments. Teachers may also have the student create a SMART goal for how the standard
could be reassessed.
 Choose your battles – Push hard for the student to redo anything associated with the most
important curriculum standards and less so with work associated with less important
standards. This is an integral piece of standards-based grading. Teachers are encouraged to
focus their retake protocol on their summative assessments, and/or the portions of their
assessments addressing a specific standard. For example, on an assessment that tested four
standards, if a student meets expectations in three out of four, the teacher is encouraged to
offer a retake opportunity in just the one remaining standard. Some retakes can be a 10
minute interview at the teacher’s desk while the rest of the class works on something else.
• Reserve the right to give alternative versions of the assessment, especially if you think
students will simply memorize a correct answer pattern or set of math answers. Teachers
are encouraged to develop retakes based only on the standards not yet met by the student.
Teachers may set parameters regarding the timing of the retake opportunity.
• Teachers may choose to employ a spiral assessment protocol that allows the students
multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency on each standard. This option allows all
students to re-take each standard on in-class assessments without having to stay after
school.
14
Spiraling example:
Quiz 1 assesses Standard 1 and Standard 2.
Quiz 2 assesses Standard 1, Standard 2 and Standard 3.
Quiz 3 assesses Standard 1, Standard 2, Standard 3 and Standard 4.
The final assessment assesses all previous standards.
Optional: If students earn a 4 consistently on one standard, that 4 carries forward and the
student does not need to complete that standard on the final assessment.
Philosophical Reasoning for Retakes

As part of the District Improvement Plan’s focus on increased parent involvement in student
achievement, teachers are encouraged to maintain open communication with parents and
families. Students’ access and appropriate use of retake opportunities is more likely to
occur when families also know about the opportunities for retakes and the protocols for
accessing these opportunities.
• Teachers are encouraged to require that students must complete all the practice (including
homework) for a particular standard prior to accessing the retake opportunity for that
standard.
• Teachers may choose not to allow any retakes the last week of the marking period while
closing down the grade book and doing report cards. This timing is at the teacher’s
discretion and must be explained in classroom procedures to students and parents.
Teachers also have the option to change a previous grade to reflect the student’s updated
level of performance, or represent this growth as a score in the new grading period.
• Given the amount of time required for planning, designing, implementing, and scoring
retake assessments, students who score at the proficient level (score of 3) and still wish to
retake an exam to attempt to earn a 4 must initiate the process and develop a method
(idea) for the new measure that will allow them to demonstrate exceeding the standards.
• “Ultimately, appropriate sampling for grading is about having enough of the right type of
assessment information to make high-quality decisions about summarizing student
achievement” (See How to Grade For Learning K-12 by Ken O’Conner, page 178). O’Conner
goes on to advise that the right number of assessments is 3 to 5. While Marzano agrees, he
also states that “The less certain you are about a student’s true score on a given topic, the
more assessments you should collect.
References
O’Connor, K. (2009). How to grade for learning (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Wormli, Rick. Redos and Retakes Done Right. Educational Leadership/November 2011. Print.
15
Section Nine
IE Replaces Zero
Insufficient Evidence (IE) indicates that not enough data has been gathered to accurately give a
score to a student on an individual standard. A teacher does not need to wait until the end of a
grading period to enter IE. Entering an IE earlier in the grading period may help better
communicate missing work/assessments to both parents/guardians and students.
Zeroes were previously used to represent two things: zero percent or a missing assignment. In
standards-based grading, the zero is replaced with an IE (Insufficient Evidence). Zeroes will no
longer be used to record missing assignments or assign a grade. They do not reflect a student’s
understanding of the standard or academic achievement.
Think about this ...
Zeroes have a powerfully negative impact on the overall grade and a debilitating effect on
student motivation (effort, optimism). Including zeroes also fails to accurately communicate
what students really know and can demonstrate.
Standards Based Grading
Traditional Grading
Consider this series of scores that Aaron
received:
The challenge of averaging a zero into a
grade in a traditional 100-point grading scale:
Assessment Measures
Grade
2,3,3,3,IE
3
Do the Math
Consider this series of scores that Aaron
received:
IE,IE,IE,3
IE
2,3,IE,3, IE
Assessment Measures
Grade
IE or 3
(2 + 0 + 3 +4) /4
(based on professional judgment)
2
Think about this ...
Teachers will be using scores from multiple assessments to measure the learning of a student.
This practice provides multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate achievement toward
learning targets. Assigning zeroes to missing work gives a value where in fact there is no data to
grade.
“A zero has an undeserved and devastating influence, so much so that no matter what the student does,
the grade distorts the final grade as a true indicator of mastery.”
-Rick Wormeli, 2006
16
Reporting standards, sub-standards, and eventsHow does it all work?
Overall Class
Grade
Reporting
Standard #1
Reporting
Standard #2
Reporting
Standard #3
Reporting
Standard #4
Reporting
Standard #5
Sub-Standard #1
Sub -Standard #2
Sub -Standard #3
Assessment
Score #1
Assessment
Score #2
Assessement
Score #3
(Event #1)
(Event #2)
(Event #3)
Overall Class Grade=
Weighted average of all reporting
standard scores
Reporting Standard Score=
Average of all sub-standard scores for
that reporting standard
Sub-Standard Final Score=
Weighted average of all assessments
(events) for that sub-standard
Assessment/Event Scores=
It is recommended that 3-4 pieces of
evidence are collect per sub-standard
17
Section Ten
Honor Roll, Honor Society, and Athletic Eligibility
Honor Roll Eligibility
Students must meet the following criteria to be eligible to make honor roll in middle school in
the Renton School District.
1. The student must accumulate a minimum of eighteen (18) academic grade points.
For example:
Science Academic Grade:
3.0
Math Academic Grade:
2.5
Choir Academic Grade:
3.0
Language Arts Academic Grade:
3.5
Social Studies Academic Grade:
3.0
Art Academic Grade:
3.0 .
Total:
18.0 points – Eligible (3.0 GPA)
2. Buildings who want to honor students above the minimal honor roll requirements have
that option. Example may include:
Three Levels
Bronze Level
Silver Level
Gold Level
18.0 points (3.00 GPA)
19.0 points (3.16 GPA)
20.0 points (3.33 GPA)
Honor Society Eligibility
Students must meet the following criteria to be eligible for Honor Society in middle school in
the Renton School District.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Honor Society eligibility will be determined by 2nd quarter grades.
Students must earn a minimum of 3.0 for each academic grade.
Students must earn a minimum of a “B” in classes giving a letter academic grade.
Students must earn a minimum of 3.0 for each community skills grade.
18
Example of a student who is eligible for Honor Society:
Physical Education
Academic Grade:
Community Skills Grade:
3.5
3.0
Algebra
Academic Grade:
Community Skills Grade:
B
3.0
Science
Academic Grade:
Community Skills Grade:
3.0
3.0
Technology Education
Academic Grade:
Community Skills Grade:
3.5
4.0
Language Arts
Academic Grade:
Community Skills Grade:
3.0
3.0
Social Studies
Academic Grade:
Community Skills Grade:
3.5
3.5
Athletic Eligibility
Students must meet the following criteria to be eligible to participate in athletics in
middle school in the Renton School District.
1. The student must receive an academic grade higher than one (1) in a minimum of
five (5) out of six (6) classes.
2. The student must accumulate a minimum of 15 effort skills points.
For example:
Science Effort Skills:
Band Effort Skills:
Math Effort Skills:
PE Effort Skills:
Language Arts Effort Skills:
Social Studies Effort
Skills:
Total:
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
17 points – Eligible
19
Section Eleven
Teacher Comments on Report Cards
Teacher comments on report cards are a useful form of feedback to students and parents. The
comments can be general or specific, depending on a teachers’ judgment and a school’s
standard practice, and they can relate to the class as a whole (e.g., what material has been
covered) and the individual student. Comments are encouraged but are not mandatory.
Guidelines for Effective Teacher Comments
Comments can clarify students’ strengths and challenges and explain what was achieved during
the grading period. When applicable, comments can point out learning problems and offer
practical and manageable suggestions about how the problems can be addressed. Relate
comments to specific learning goals or standards. Focus on effort, persistence, and work
quality. Be specific – noting that a student’s “writing is clearer and more expressive” is better
than saying that “writing has improved.”
Some types of comments should be avoided. Don’t include negative statements about
students’ behavior or character. Utilizing comments like “lazy” or “difficult” are not effective in
gaining the positive attention and partnership of students and parents and may be viewed as
demeaning and create barriers between parents and teachers. Try to avoid using words such as
unable, can’t, won’t, always, and never for the same reason. Instead, use tactful language to
report misbehavior. While suggestions for improvement are desirable, they don’t outweigh the
need to be sensitive to students’ well-being. Also avoid making comparisons with other
students and commenting about a student characteristic that cannot be changed.
Standardized vs Teacher-Created Comments
In the past, teachers have selected standardized comments from a Skyward menu to provide
feedback. However, research has found that parents believe these types of comments are
inadequate, impersonal, and imprecise. Parents notice that the same comments are sometimes
made by multiple teachers, which makes the comments “highly impersonal.” Parents want
more specific and individualized comments that note students’ particular strengths and offer
concrete guidance on what students can do to improve. Some research has found that parents
are more interested in the comments than the grades. Although creating individualized
comments adds time when preparing report cards, their inclusion helps the student and parent
understand what has occurred and the concrete steps that need to happen in the future.
References
Guskey, T. & Baley, J. M. (2010). Developing standards-based report cards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Shafer, S. (1997). Writing effective report card comments. New York: Scholastic.
20
When writing report card comments remember…
“The most effective teacher comments focus on the specific standards or learning goals
students are expected to attain, but they convey information that might not be explained
completely by the mark on the report card” (Guskey p. 126).
 Guidelines for including teacher comments on report cards: (Guskey p. 128)
o Focus on the goals, not the learner
o Provide detailed comments
o Offer small, manageable suggestions for improvement
o Relate comments to specific learning goals or standards
o Avoid comparisons with other students
Why change the way we communicate comments with parents?
“Parents in particular criticize the menu-based comments as too impersonal and imprecise.
They want much more specific and more individualized comments that offer guidance on what
can be done to bring about improvement” (Guskey p. 129).

Comments will help us to meet our purpose of communicating the progress students
are making toward learning, effort, and community skills in each class.
How can we go about this?
Create a common message with your PLC:
 Limit comments to 200 characters or less
 Create a group of comments with PLC members that describes student progress in your
class for the grading period that is being reported.
 What specifically has been taught in your class?
o Try not to make it so narrow it couldn’t be applied to many students.
 Create a concise description of what effort and community skills look like in your
classroom in case you want to provide specific feedback on those areas.
Example Comments (may only be 200 characters in Skyward)
 Formative assessments and/or practice work are missing. Completion will assist in
raising student’s scores.
 Student works respectfully and contributes to the classroom atmosphere during
independent and/or partner work time.
 During this grading period, student has shown consistent growth through formative and
summative assessments in his/her application of grade-level math in a variety of realworld situations.
21
Section Twelve
Glossary
Adaptations – Procedures for customizing the instruction, assessment and grading system to
meet individual students’ needs, which may include accommodations, interventions and
modifications.
Accommodations – Adaptations that provide access for any student to the general curriculum
but do not fundamentally alter the grade‐level standard or proficiency level.
Alignment – The directness of the link among standards, district curriculum, instructional
practices, and assessments.
Averaging Scores – A method to compute a final grade. Grades may be inaccurate when they
result only from the calculation of the mean in contexts where extreme scores distort results.
They can be repaired by considering other measures of central tendency (mode, median),
weighted averages, and using professional judgment.
Cut Scores – Cut scores are selected points on the score scale of a test. The points are used to
determine the level of performance.
Effect Size - Effect Size is simply a way of quantifying the effectiveness of a particular
intervention. Hattie’s research places particular emphasis on programs with effect sizes above
0.4 as worth having and those lower than 0.4 as needing further consideration.
Formative Assessment – Purposeful, ongoing collection of information about how students are
learning while there is still time to improve. Both teacher and student then use the information
to guide continuous improvement toward the intended learning.
Grade ‐ A letter, number, or other symbol assigned to summarize the quality of student
performance.
Interventions ‐ Interventions are intentional actions that a school team/teacher implements
when a student is not reaching grade level standards. The purpose is to accelerate academics
performance so that each student meets or exceeds standard.
Mark – The “score” (number or letter) given on any single assessment or performance task.
Modifications – Adaptations to the curriculum that fundamentally alter the grade‐level
expectation, but do not fundamentally alter the content standard. Modifications are provided
only to students who qualify for special education services or highly capable students.
Modifications typically include reducing the cognitive load, methodology or delivery of
instructions, and/or the performance criteria.
Modified Grade – A progress indicator that reflects student achievement based on a modified
standard.
22
Modified Standard – An expectation for student performance that is challenging for eligible
students, but is less difficult than the grade-level academic achievement standard. Modified
academic achievement standards must be aligned with academic content standards for the
grade in which a student is enrolled.
Multiple Assessment Opportunities – Evaluations that provide more than one way for students
to demonstrate attainment of a standard. Students need to be provided with multiple
opportunities to perform in relation to standards. Multiple opportunities to perform can apply
to the assessment approach (open ended questions vs. close‐ended questions), format
(constructed response, multiple choice), or context (on‐demand vs. over time, the setting, the
purpose of the assessment).
On‐demand assessment – Assessment that takes place at a predetermined time and place. On‐
demand refers to a task that is done at a point in time and over a limited amount of time. The
task must be doable in the time provided. The MSP, district common unit assessments, SATs,
and final exams are examples of on‐demand assessment.
Open‐ended task – A task with no single correct response. Open‐ended tasks are used to
determine how students use what they know, how they demonstrate a skill or process, how
they communicate what they understand, or how they apply what they know in a new context.
Proficiency – Having or demonstrating an expected degree of knowledge or skill in a particular
area.
Standard – The broadest, most general form of learning expectation from which more specific
grade level curriculum is developed. Content standards describe what students should know and
be able to do.
Standards‐Based – A descriptor that suggests how a clear and direct relationship exists among
any combination of activities, materials, instructional processes, and assessments and that all
relate to each other and to identified standards.
Standards‐Based Assessments – Assessment in which the criteria for evaluating student
achievement are taken directly from the standards.
Standards‐Based System – A system in which the classroom curriculum is designed to help
students attain defined standards. There is congruence among a focus on standards, the
learning‐teaching activities and materials selected to engage students, the assessments used to
document student attainment of the standards and the grading and reporting of student
attainment of these standards.
Summative Assessment – A culminating assessment at the end of an instructional period that
measures the extent a student has learned a specific set of content or skills.
Zeroes – A score that implies the total absence of learning. Missed tests, scores attained by
cheating, or assignments not handed in do not offer data about level of learning.
23
Section Thirteen
Resources
Reporting Student Learning by Ken O’Conner and Rick Wormeli
O’Conner and Wormeli present four characteristics of effective grading (accurate, consistent,
meaningful, and supportive learning). Each of the four characteristics is examined to guide
teachers in implementing effective grading strategies.
Redos and Retakes Done Right by Rick Wormeli
Wormeli examines the importance of providing students multiple opportunities to demonstrate
understanding and knowledge of a particular standard. In addition, he provides teachers with
14 practical tips for managing retakes in the classroom.
Grading Exceptional Learners by Lee Ann Jung and Thomas R. Guskey
Jung and Guskey provide guidance for grading students with disabilities and English language
learners through a process of a five step model for grading exceptional learners.
24
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
November 2011, Volume 69, Number 3
Expecting Excellence Pages 40-44
Reporting Student Learning
Ken O'Connor and Rick Wormeli
Despite advances in grading and reporting, imprecision and lack of meaning persist.
Back in 2000, Robert Marzano pointed out the rationale for changing grading practices. "Grades," he
wrote, "are so imprecise that they are almost meaningless" (p. 1). Eleven years later, despite advances in
grading and reporting in many schools and districts, this imprecision and lack of meaning persist.
It's time to evolve our grading practices. We believe there are four primary characteristics of effective
grading. Grades should be accurate, consistent, meaningful, and supportive of learning. Let's examine why
these characteristics are so important and how we can achieve them.
ACCURATE
The Problem with Including Nonacademic Factors
Including whether a student maintained an organized notebook in his geometry grade dilutes the report of
that student's geometry learning. "Organized notebook" is not a geometry standard. It's a helpful learning
tool, of course, and wise teachers encourage students to take high-quality notes. However, we grade
against standards and learner outcomes-not against the methods students use to achieve them.
Instructional decisions made on the basis of these "fudged" grade reports are suspect; the reports offer no
precise documentation and render descriptive feedback impossible.
The Problem with Grading Group Work
Suppose students work collaboratively in a history class to analyze rhetoric, prepare for debates, or
prepare a multi-- media presentation that analyzes economic models. These are all methods for teaching
students the history curriculum, but they are not the history curriculum itself. In addition, when students
present their final report with everyone's names displayed on the opening slide, we're not sure where one
student's influence ends and another's begins: To what extent does J. J. know the information without
assistance from Lakiesha? In both instances, we distort the accuracy of the individual student's grade for
any one standard.
Some collaborative projects may provide opportunities to determine individual learning regarding a
specific learner outcome, but they are rare. To be accurate, then, we must assess students outside the
group project to see what each one takes away from the experience. Unless we're teaching a class on
group projects, group work is only the means to an end, not the actual curriculum. For grades to be
accurate and useful, they must speak only to the posted curriculum.
The Problem with Averaging
We know that averaging grades falsifies grade reports (Marzano, 2000; O'Connor, 2009, 2010; Reeves,
2010; Wormeli, 2006). Henry receives an F the first test but then learns the material and receives an A on a
new assessment of the same material; unfortunately, the average of these two, a C, is recorded in the
grade book. This is not an accurate report of Henry's newfound proficiency in the topic. If we trust the new
test as a valid indicator of mastery, Henry's earlier performance is irrelevant.
25
Although this example uses two grading extremes (A and F), averaging grades , no matter the distance
between the two or more scores , decreases accuracy . Looking at the most consistent levels of
performance over time makes for a more accurate report of what students truly knows, and it provides
higher correlations with testing done outside the classroom (Bailey & Guskey, 2001; Marzano, 2000;
Reeves, 2010).
It's unethical and inaccurate to include in a grade digressions in performance that occur during the
learning process, when a grade is supposed to report students' mastery at the end of that process. It's also
inaccurate to rely solely on single-sitting assessments for the most accurate report of what students know
and can do. Instead, we look for evidence over time.
The Problem with Zeroes
Determining grades using the 100-point scale is ill-suited to measuring and reporting performance against
specific standards. If we're calculating grades mathematically, smaller scales with clear descriptors-such as
1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, in which all possible scores, including 0.0, have equal skewing influence on the overall
score-create a more accurate report of students' mastery. Recording a zero on a 100-point scale for a
student's lack of work on an assessment not only falsifies the report of what he or she knows , but also
immediately generates despair : Only a mammoth pile of perfect 1OOs can overcome the deficit and result
in a passing D grade . So why bother?
When considering whether to leave a score as zero or reappoint it as a 50, 59, 60, or higher (all still in the F
range) in an effort to equalize its skewing influence, we're really deciding among variations of F. Do we
record the lowest, most hurtful, most unrecoverable end of the F range-or the most hopeful, recoverable
end of that range? It's a bit silly to have vary in degrees of "F-titude," when an F means "no evidence of the
standard yet."
The larger question really is whether we're teaching to make sure students learn the curriculum or just
presenting the curriculum and documenting students' deficiencies with it. A "gotcha!" mind-set doesn't
serve our mission.
Educators who consider reappointing the zero as, say, 50 may worry that students will brag to classmates,
"You worked hard, but I did nothing and still got a 50!" But students are the first to realize that they don't
get something for having done nothing. Unfortunately, some teachers invoke the compensation metaphor
here, claiming that they would not pay someone $50 for a job that he or she didn't do. In that context, this
is correct, of course, but the analogy has nothing to do with the problem of zeroes on the 100-point scale.
If we're required to average grades, a single missing assignment-a zero-on the 100-point scale
disproportionately skews the report: 100 + 100 + 100 + 0 yields an average of 75, whereas a 100 + 100 +
100 + 50 yields an average of 87.5, which is closer to the truth of overall competency if we're aggregating
all assessments equally into a single, final grade. A more accurate report, however, would declare that
three standards were mastered and one was not, and there would be no overall grade. Averaging muddies
the grading waters, particularly with zeroes on the 100-point scale.
Doug Reeves (2004) reminds us that a zero on the 100-point scale is six levels-six increments of 10-below a
failing 60 and that this equates mathematically to a -6 on the 4.0 scale. It would be absurd to record a -6
on a 4.0 scale when Ben does not submit an assignment; it's inaccurate and unfair. Ben would have to
climb six levels higher just to get even with absolute failure. This practice is senseless, and it voids a
school's claim to be standards-based.
26
For higher accuracy and effectiveness in grading, separate nonacademic elements from academic
elements on the report card. Provide separate scores for each major standard or outcome within the
discipline. We must end grade averaging, and if forced to use it, we must look at the evidence of students'
mastery over time. Make sure that no one grade has undue skewing influence on that average.
Accurate grades provide feedback, document progress, and inform our instructional decisions. Inaccurate
grades play havoc with students' lives and our professional integrity.
CONSISTENT
Students in the classroom of teacher x who achieve at the same level as students in the classroom of
teacher y should get the same grade. Schools should strive for consistency in all their classrooms, and
districts should strive for consistency in all their schools.
We can achieve consistency in three ways.
Through Clarity of Purpose
Schools have used grades for a variety of purposes: communication, self-evaluation, sorting and selecting,
motivation, and program evaluation (Guskey, 1996)-and therein lies the problem. Some teachers
emphasize one purpose, and some emphasize another. Consequently, they use different criteria for
determining grades, which can result in students who achieve at the same level receiving different grades.
To achieve consistency, schools and districts must achieve consensus about the primary purpose of grades
and then publish a purpose statement that is available to all. Our premise here is that "the primary
purpose of ...grades [is] to communicate student achievement to students , parents , school
administrators, postsecondary institutions , and employers" (Bailey & McTighe, 1996, p. 120).
Through Performance Standards
"What is good?" and "How good is good enough?" are ultimately what assessment and grading are all
about , so defining the performance standards clearly, making them available to all, and ensuring that
everyone understands them are essential steps to achieving consistency in grading .
A pure standards-based system would have only two levels of performance-proficient or not proficient.
However, at most grade levels we may want to identify additional levels, such as above proficient, below
but close to proficient, and well below proficient. This would result in a four-level system. Although there is
no one right number of levels, fewer than 10 is advisable because there's a limit to how well the English
language can describe different levels and how well teachers, students, and parents could understand the
differences among them.
The right number of levels is a lot closer to 2 than to 100-which is why we should eliminate the percentage
system because it's incompatible with a standards-based system. The two most highly regarded high
school programs in the world only use levels-advanced placement uses five levels and the International
Baccalaureate uses seven. Level- based systems should become the norm.
Once there's agreement on the number of levels, schools and districts need to develop and publish clear
generic descriptions of each. These would then form the basis for the performance standards used in the
classroom- marking schemes, rubrics, exemplars, and so forth.
27
Teachers must also have frequent opportunities to collaboratively assess student work so they develop
common understanding of the performance standards. A common frame of reference decreases the
subjective, relative, and inferential nature of grading and helps departments and grade levels recalibrate
their common expectations when these expectations drift over time.
Through Clear Policies and Procedures
According to Carifio and Carey (2009), "Many schools lack a coherent and uniform grading policy, resulting
in extensive variations in student assessment from teacher to teacher, and even between students taking
the same course with the same teacher'' (p. 25) . It's therefore crucial that all schools and districts have
public, published policies and procedures that all teachers are expected to follow and for which they can
be held accountable if students, parents, or administrators identify concerns with their grading practices.
MEANINGFUL
Let's look at three hypothetical report cards. John's report card indicates he got a B in mathematics.
Brian's report card indicates he got a B in number sense, a C in calculation, and an A in measurement.
Marilyn's school uses a four-level scale: 4 for excels, 3 for proficient, 2 for approaching proficiency, and 1
for well below proficiency. Her report card indicates the following:1
Number Sense
Identifies place value to 1000s:
Reads and writes common fractions:
Reads whole numbers through four digits:
Writes whole numbers through four digits:
Orders and compares whole numbers through four digits:
4
3
3
3
4
Computation
Addition:
Subtraction:
Multiplication:
Division:
Uses calculator to add or subtract numbers with 4 or more digits
Estimation skills:
4
3
3
3
2
4
It's obvious that Marilyn's report card has much more meaningful information than John's and Brian's
report cards do and that Brian's report card provides more meaningful information than John's does.
Single-subject grades-John's B in math-provide little useful information. Providing standards-based grades
makes grades meaningful because they clearly show the student's areas of strength and areas that need
improvement. This type of standards-based grading should be the norm from kindergarten to grade 12
(and beyond!) because it gives students, parents, and teachers the valuable information they need to help
students achieve at higher levels.
Teachers traditionally have organized their grade books with categories for tests, projects, and
assignments; the base has been assessment methods or activities. However, in standards-based systems,
the base should be some structure coming from the standards. The level of specificity may vary from grade
level to grade level and from subject to subject. The categories may be broad, as illustrated by Brian's
report card, or specific, as illustrated by Marilyn's report card.
28
SUPPORTIVE OF LEARNING
Grades are small symbols used as shorthand for much larger descriptors. Contrary to the emotional
baggage so often applied to each one, they are not full descriptors themselves. To support students'
learning, they must be informative. We're mindful of each symbol's purpose in the learning process and, in
particular whether they refer to formative or summative assessments.
Because we don't want to diminish the powerful effect that formative assessments bring to students '
learning, we use scores only from summative assessments to determine grades. Formative assessment
uses symbols or narrative commentaries that are not included in determining grades.
Effective assessment is revelatory; it reveals the student's story. Students need a safe place to tell that
story and receive helpful feedback on its unfolding for that feedback to be useful, we limit judgment and
evaluation. We reflect back to students how they performed on assessments and then help them compare
their performances to standards of excellence set for those tasks. If we grade the formative steps that
students take as they wrestle with new learning, every formative assessment becomes a final judgment,
with no chance for revision and improvement. Feedback is diminished, and learning wanes.
To be useful then,formative and summative reports must be distinct from one another. We set up grade
books in two sections, formative and summative; or we label each assessment with an "F" or "S"; or we
color-code assessments accordingly, such as red for formative and green for summative. An assessment is
formative or summative depending on when we give it and how we use the resulting data.
Most formative assessments provide descriptive feedback to students, followed by opportunities to revise
in light of that feedback and be assessed and accredited anew. We want to protect that learning cycle as
much as we can; most professionals follow this kind of development cycle throughout their careers.
Summative assessments, on the other hand, are for evaluative declarations and sorting students. They do
not offer much in the way of feedback and opportunities for revision and reassessment. The use of formal
letter grades and judgment symbols are appropriate for such assessments.
Interestingly, if we're living up to the promise of teaching every student, not just the easy ones, we could
turn all summative assessments into formative ones. The only reason students can't redo a final exam,
project, or standardized test after they receive feedback and revise their learning is that someone in a
policy-making capacity declared it so-not because it's bad pedagogy.
We Owe Them This
When did we drift into grades of unquestioned provenance becoming the legitimate currency for the next
generation? And why do we succumb to the notion that because something is easy to calculate it must be
pedagogically sound?
With accountability measures on the rise and both businesses and colleges questioning the validity of the
modern high school diploma, grading and standards are now under intense scrutiny. We can no longer
afford the mind-set "You do your thing, and I'll do my thing" when it comes to either. We need honest,
useful reports of student performance on standards and outcomes. Our students' futures depend on it.
29
References
Bailey, J. M., & Guskey, T. R. (2001) . Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bailey, J.M., & McTighe, J. (1996). Reporting achievement at the secondary school level: What and how? In T. R.
Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: ASCD yearbook 1996. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Carifio, J., & Carey, T. (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy recommendations. The
High School Journal, 93(1), 23-37.
Guskey, T. (1996). Reporting student learning: Lessons from the past-prescriptions for the future. In T. R. Guskey
(Ed.), Communicating student learning: ASCD yearbook 1996. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
O'Connor, K. (2009). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
O'Connor, K. (2010). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades. Boston: Pearson. Reeves, D. B. (2004) .
The case against the zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-325. Reeves, D. B. (2010). Elements of grading.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Wormeli, R. (2006) . Fair isn't always equal: Assessment and grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
30
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
November 2011, Volume 69, Number 3
Effective Grading Practices, Pages 22-26
Redos a
Done- -RightAllowing students to redo assignments and assessments is the
best way to prepare them for adult life.
Rick Wormeli
arrel plagiarized one paragraph in his health class essay on the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Carla came to after-school review sessions and followed every direction, but she only scored a
D on her English exam. Marco was distracted by other things when he did his history home
work: It's full of incomplete thoughts and careless errors that he doesn't norm ally make.
J
All three students would like to redo their assignment or assessment properly, and they would like to
receive full credit for the new versions they submit. All three cases put our instructional mind-set to the
test.
Many teachers reason that they are building moral fiber and preparing students for the working world by
denying them the opportunity to redo assignments and assessments-or if they do allow retakes, by giving
only partial credit for redone assessments even when students have demonstrated full mastery of the
content. These are the same teachers who set a deadline for submitting work and then give students who
do not meet the deadline a zero, thinking that the devastating score will teach them responsibility.
ln reality, these practices have the opposite effect: They retard student achievement and maturation. As
hope wanes, resentment builds. Without hope-especially hope that teachers see the moral, competent,
and responsible self-inside them, waiting to shed its immature shell-students disengage from the school's
mission and the adults who care for them. Our education enterprise is lost.
31
One Speed for All?
Schools that acquiesce to the factory model of schooling perpetuate an ineffective, age-based curriculum:
"Eleven-year-olds learn this topic; 12-year-olds learn that topic"; "No Shadnoosh, you can’t learn that until
next year"; "Mike, why didn't you learn this last month like the rest of your class?" When learning doesn't
happen on schedule, these schools tend to blame students or circumstances.
Teachers do need schematics for moving students through the established curriculum. But as we apply
sound pedagogy and respond to real students' individual needs, blind adherence to pacing mandates
makes little sense.
The goal is that all students learn the content, not just the ones who can learn on the uniform time line.
Curriculum goals don't require that every individual reaches the same level of proficiency on the same day,
only that every student achieves the goal. Appointing next Friday as the official test date is an arbitrary
decision made for clerical convenience. Teachers do this out of survival, of course; because we teach large
groups of students, we sometimes subordinate effective practices because that appears to be the only
realistic way to move students through the system.
Al though we can't do it 100 percent of the time, allowing students to redo both assignments and
assessments for particularly important standards and outcomes most of the time is high y effective. This
approach reflects what we know about successful learning, and it better prepares students for the world
beyond school.
Practice, Practice, Practice
Consider the Olympic runner poised to begin the race for the gold medal in the final heat. The pistol goes
off, and the runners push their bodies to the breaking point, all of them dashing across the finish line
within seconds of one another. Our runner comes in fourth, however, so there's no medal for him
Does he get a "do-over" of that race? No-and that's proper at this level of competition. Remember, he’s
not in the learning-to-run stage of development; he's in the proficient –runner stage.
How did our runner become so competent at racing this event that he was found worthy of representing
his country in the Olympics? He ran it dozens or even hundreds of times prior to today's race. And each
time he ran it, his time was not an aggregated compilation of all his digressions (bad times) woven
together with his more successful times. Can you imagine telling a runner that his earlier 68.74 seconds
from two years ago would be averaged with his new and improved 51.03 seconds, and that this time m
ash-up would be his official label as a runner-that he would be evaluated as nothing more than the
composite of his digressions and successes?
True competence that stands the test of time comes with reiterative learning. We carry forward concepts
and skills we en counter repeatedly, and we get better at retrieving them the more we experience them.
Why, then, would we impose on schools a policy that prohibits such an effective practice? Doing one
successful compare-and -contrast essaying 8th grade does not mean we can do one in 10th grade,
especially if we never practice writing such essays in the interim. We write a lot of essays in order to
become proficient in essay writing. We become adept at analyzing politics by analyzing a lot of politics, and
we get better at playing the guitar by playing the guitar a lot, not by playing it for a wee k and putting it
aside.
32
It's only sensible, then, to expect different things of students during the learning process than we expect of
them when it's time to demonstrate final proficiency or become fully certified. Applying expectations for a
high level of competency to students who are in the process of coming to know content is
counterproductive, even harmful.
Conveyer-Belt Learning
The problem, of course, is that teachers don't feel they have the luxury of revisiting content and skills to
create that proficiency. We may believe the best we can do is to accept a superficial and fragile
demonstration on a single, snapshot test and convince ourselves that the score earned is an accurate
measure of the student's long-term capacity.
By some estimates, it would take o grade 22 to teach the curriculum currently listed for grades K-12 in the
United States. Anxious about this curriculum overload, we run our classes by alternating between
admonishments "Here's a bunch of stuff you have to learn: now take a test. Here's the next bunch of stuff
you have to learn; now take the next test. "When students fail to learn content on this conveyor belt, we
tell them. “We don't have time to go back and teach it to you. Take the low grade and move on." This is no
way to treat a child’s future or conduct our profession.
Preparing Students for the Real Adult World
The teacher who claims to be preparing students for the working
world by disallowing all redos forgets that adult professionals
actually flourish through redos, retakes, and do overs. Surgeons
practice on cadavers before doing surgeries on live patients.
Architects redesign building plans until they meet all the
specifications listed. Pilots rehearse landings and take-offs hundreds
of times in simulators and in solo flights before flying with real
passengers. Lawyers practice debate and analysis of arguments
before litigating real cases. Teachers become much more competent
and effective by teaching the same content multiple times, reflecting
on what worked and what didn't work each time.
lSCT. MCAT. Praxis. SAT. Bar exam. CPA exam . Driver's licensure. Pilot's licensure. Auto mechanic
certification exam. Every one of these assessments reflects the adult level, working-world responsibilities
our students will one day face. Many of them are high stakes: People's lives depend on these tests' validity
as accurate measures of individual competence. All of them can be redone over and over for full credit.
Lawyers who finally pass the bar exam on their second or third attempt are not limited to practicing law
only on Tuesdays or only under the watchful eye of a seasoned partner for the duration of their careers. If
an assessment of competence is valid, achieving its passing scores grants the assessed individual full rights
and privileges thereof.
How pompous is it for a teacher, then, to declare to students, “This quiz/ writing assignment/project/test
cannot be redone for full credit because such a policy prepares you best for the working world.” This
teacher doesn't have a pedagogical leg to stand on. The best preparation for the world beyond school is to
learn essential content and skills well.
The recursive nature of successful learning shouldn't be discarded because it's inconvenient or we haven’t
figured out how to do it logistically. (For suggestions on tackling the logistics, see "14 Practical Tips for
33
Managing Redos in the Classroom.") It's too important to our society: We improve with practice,
descriptive feedback, and revising our practices in light of that feedback, followed by more practice,
feedback, and revision. It's the way authors write great books; it's the way scientists discover; it's the way
m machinists solve problems. Why would we deny these opportuni-ties to the next generation? Providing
feedback and asking students to redo assignments until those assignments match the standards set for
them are not optional luxuries saved for when we have time; they're the keys to thriving classrooms.
Not Soft, but Tough
When we graduate from school, we gravitate toward those things we are good at doing. When we're
hired, we have a skill set that matches a job's skill needs. We don't have to be good at everything the
company does. To be considered successful in school, however, we have to be just as good at all subjects
and skills as everyone else is, and on the same schedule. We have to be good at graphing inequalities,
conjugating irregular verbs, setting up websites using HTML, identifying literary devices in Dante, playing
the concerto with the right timing, determining valence, recognizing nuance between artists, offering pith
y insights in the cafeteria, and dealing with h hormonal issues while navigating the hallways and that’s all
by lunch on Tuesday.
It's no wonder that, in order to meet the needs of increasingly diverse students and the demands of an
overloaded curriculum, teachers sometimes need to adjust the pacing of lessons and allow students to
make repeated attempts at mastery. It makes sense to grade students according to their performance on
standards, not the routes they take to achieve those standards. Some students need more time building
background know ledge before they learn new material, an d others need a graphic organizer to help them
make sense of text, but all grades at the end of the unit should be based on whether they understand
oxidation, for example, not on how they learned about oxidation.
Suppose a teacher allows retakes frequently. Will colleagues, students and parents consider that teacher
soft in some way? No-quite the opposite. In the hallway just outside my own class- room years ago, one
of my students, unaware that I was nearby, announced to a classmate, "Mr. Wormeli makes you do it over
and over again until you learn it. It sucks!" (Pardon the vernacular.) My reputation was not one of being
soft, but one of "Slackers, beware."
Making students redo their learning until it meets high expectations demands far more of both students
and teachers than letting them take a failing grade- but it also results in far more learning. Maturation
occurs in the fully credited recovery from unsuccessful attempts, not by labeling those attempts as
failures. If our mission is to teach so that students learn, we don't let their immaturity dictate their destiny.
Irresponsible e, forgetful, and inattentive students need us to be in their face more, not less.
The Supreme Goal
When it comes to deciding whether to allow a student to redo an assignment or assessment, consider the
alternative-to let the student settle for work done poorly y, ensuring that he or she doesn't learn the
content. Is this really the life lesson we want to teach? Is it really academically better for the student to
remain ignorant?
This practice is not acceptable. To be adequately prepared for college and career, students need to learn
the content and skills that society identifies as important. Whether a student was initially irresponsible or
responsible e, moral or immoral, cognitively ready or not is irrelevant to the supreme goal: learning.
34
There are far more effective strategies for teaching responsibility than to simply label a student as
immature and deny that student learning. We can honor Carla's effort by giving her the extra time
and attention she needs to master the content. We can handle Marco's sloppy homework and
Janel's plagiarism wisely by demanding that both of them redo their work properly.These students
will then realize that they get more of what they want in life if they pay attention, keep up with the
work, and do the assignments well the first time around. Scholarship dawns; there's hope.
' Floria n ,]. (1999). Teacher survey of standards -based instruct ion: Addressing time. Washington, DC: Office
of Educational l Research and Improvement; Kendall,]. S. & Marzano , R. ]. (1998). Awash in a sea of standards.
Denver, CO: McREL
Rick Wormeli , a 30-year teaching veteran, resides in Herndon, V irginia, and trains teachers and principals
around the world in a variety of education topics; rwormeli@cox.net. Further thinking on redoing
assignments and assessments can be found in his book, Fair Isn 't Always Equal: Assessment and Grading in
the Differentiated Classroom (Stenhouse, 2006) and at its accompanying website, www.stenhouse .com/fiae.
35
14 Practical Tips for Managing Redos in the Classroom
1. Ask students who redo assignments to submit the original attempt with the new one and to
write a brief letter com- paring the two. What is different, and what did they learn as a result of
redoing the work?
2. Reserve the right to give alternative versions of the assessment if you think students will simply
memorize a correct answer pattern or set of math answers. Don't be afraid to make the redone
versions more demanding.
3. Announce to students and parents that redos are permitted at teacher discretion. This means
that students and parents may not take the redo option for granted.
4. Require students to submit a plan of relearning and to provide evidence of that relearning before
work can be redone. This includes creating a calendar in which students list day-by-day what
they will do to prepare.
5. If a student doesn't follow through on the relearning steps he or she promises to do, ask the
student to write a letter of apology to you and to his or her family for breaking the trust.
6. Require parents to sign the original l. poorly done versions of assignments so they're aw are that
their children have required multiple attempts to achieve the standard. (If there is neglect or
abuse in the home. of course, remove this requirement.)
7. After two or three redo attempts, consider shelving the push for mastery of this content for a
few weeks. Either the student is not ready to reach the standard, or we're not creative enough to
figure out how to teach him or her. Take a break and pursue this content in a later unit of study.
8. If the same student repeatedly asks for redos, something's wrong. The content is not
developmentally appropriate, there are unseen issues at home, or perhaps there's an
undiagnosed learning disability. Investigate.
9. Choose your battles. Push hard for students to redo anything associated with the most important
curriculum standards and less so with work associated with Jess important standards.
10. Allow students who get Cs and Bs to redo work just as much as students who earn Os and Fs.
Why stand in the way of a student who wants to achieve excellence?
11. If report cards are coming up and there's no time to redo something to change the grade, report
the lower grade and assure the student that he or she can learn the material the next marking
period. If the student demonstrates improved mastery, submit a grade change report reflecting
the new, more accurate grade.
12. For the sake of personal survival, you may choose not to allow any retakes or redos the last week
of the marking period as you're closing down the grade book and doing report cards. For eight
weeks, you're Mr. or Ms. Hopeful, but for that one wee k, it's OK to protect your sanity and
personal life. You can allow students to learn the material and have their grade changed later.
13. Replace the previous grade or mark with the most recent one; don't average the two attempts
together. The A that a student earns on his fifth attempt at mastery is just as legitimate as the A
earned by his classmate on the f first attempt.
14. Unless an assessment is complex and interwoven, allow students to redo just the portions on
which they performed poorly, not the entire assessment. (To assist with this, consider standards based grading on your assessments; record the standards or outcomes being assessed at the top
of the assessment and provide a separate score for each standard.) Separating standards in this
way saves time for both the teacher and the students. Some redos can be a10 -minute interview
at the teacher’s desk while the rest of the class works on something else.
36
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
February 2010, Volume 67, Number 5
Meeting Students Where They Are 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.
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.
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).
Assign in 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):
37
 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 teaming gain, value-added teaming, 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 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/el201002jung.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 neededaccommodation or modification?
38
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 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.
39
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 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.
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)
40
(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 modificationschanges 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.
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), 775780.
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/lisUocr/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. Leaming Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 34-42.
41
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 (ljung@uky.edu) is Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation
and Thomas R. Guskey (guskey@uky.edu) is Professor in the College of Education, University of Kentucky,
Lexington
42
Sample Report Card
43
44
Student’s Guide to Standards-Based Grading
Your teachers will use standards-based grading in your classes to provide you with feedback on
your progress towards meeting the district-identified learning standards. In order to do this,
you will be graded in three categories: Academic Standards, Effort, and Community Skills.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS
These learning standards represent the important knowledge and skills you will develop in each
course. You will get specific feedback in 4-6 areas per class, to identify your strengths and
where you need to continue to focus your efforts.
Why is this important? Measuring your learning against a set of standards will show what you
know and are able to do at each grade level, to make sure you are prepared to move forward.
EFFORT
This will show how well you are prepared and follow class routines, homework completion, and
your focus during class time.
Why is this important? Working hard and putting forth effort will not only help you perform
well on your assessments, but will also help you establish valuable work habits that will pay off
for the rest of your lives.
COMMUNITY SKILLS
This will show how well you are able to accept responsibility, show active listening skills,
respect personal/public property and the voice of others, and how you value instructional time.
Why is this important? Getting along with others, promoting a positive learning environment,
and learning to work in diverse groups is critical to academic success and success in life.
Grade *
4
3
2
1
IE
NA
M
WHAT DO ALL THESE NUMBERS MEAN?
Academic Standards
Grade Effort/Community Skills
Exceeding Standards
4
Consistently
Meeting Standards
3
Often
Approaching Standards
2
Sometimes
Attempting Standards
1
Rarely
Insufficient Evidence
Not Assessed
Modified Standard
* When you have partial success at the next higher level, a .5 decimal point may be
added to your grade.
Your goal should always be to earn at least a 3 and then push yourself to continue to grow as
a learner. You will have multiple chances to work towards earning a 3. Learning is a process
and your commitment to ongoing practice will support your success. For example if you want
to be better at shooting free throws you have to PRACTICE. If you have met the middle school
standards, you can be confident you will be prepared for high school.
45