guskey&jung. fair and accurate grading exceptional learneers

8/14/2019 Guskey&Jung. Fair and Accurate Grading Exceptional Learneers

1/7

Lee Ann Jung and Thomas R Guskey

Fa^A^ccurate^Gradingfor Exceptional Learnersespite the many changes in education over the past century,grading and reporting practices have essentially remained the same.In part, this is because few teacher preparation programs offer any guidanceon sound grading practices [Brookhart, 1999; Stiggins, 2002). As a result, mostcurrent grading practices are grounded in tradition, rather than research on bestpractice. Teachers continue to average scores to calculate grades; combine indica-

tors of achievement, behavior, and progress into a single grade; and grade on thecurve, despite evidence showing the detrimental consequences of these practices[Brookhart, 20 11; Guskey, 2002, 2006, 2 009).

In recent years, the field has turned toward standards-based approaches toteaching and learning. All students enrolled in a course are expected to dem-onstrate specific competencies and skills, often through state-designed,end ofcourse examinations. What many schools are finding, however, is that the gradesstudents earn in their courses often are not good predictors of how they willperform on those exams [Welch D'Ago stino, 2009; Willingham, PuUack,Lewis, 200 2). This discrepancy uncovers a long-hidden truth : historically, gradeshave not been reliable indicators of what students know and are able to do.Standards Based GradingIn an effort to develop a process that leads to accurate and meaningful grades,many schools are moving toward standards-based grading. In this approach, threetypes of evidence are gathered and reported separately: product, process, andprogress [Guskey, 2006; Guskey Bailey, 2010).

32 Pr in cip al Le ad er sh ip I NOVEMBER 2011


2/7

Product grades come from evi-dence of what students know and areable to do at a particular point in time.Educators in 44 states are working toalign such evidence with tbe Com-mon Core State Standards (Council ofChief State School Officers Natio n-al Governors Association Center forBest Practices, 2010). Product gradesmay be determined from tbe results ofstudents' performance on summativeexaminations; final products, sucb as

reports, projects, and exhibits; overallassessments; and other culminatingdemonstrations of learning.

Process grades focus on thestudent behaviors needed to reachachievement goals. Responsibility,effort, study skills, work habits,homework completion, participation,and punctuality are all examples ofprocess bebaviors. Progress gradessumm arize tbe cbange or growtb instudents' knowledge and skills over

Standards-b ased grading is themost accurate m ethod to assessstudents abilities.Exceptional learners may requiremodifications or accommodationsto effectively determine what theyhave learned and can do.How to grant credit, report grades,and ensure eligibility are alsoconsiderations wh en adoptingequitable grading practices.

tbe reporting period.After establishing explicit criteria

for indicators of product, process,and progress, teacbers assign separategrades to each. Teachers gather thesame evidence on student learningtbat tbey always have but no longermust decide how to combine thatevidence in calculating an overallgrade. In this way, grades or marks forresponsibility, learning skills, effort,work habits, or learning progress arekept distinct from grades tbat reflectachievement and performance (Gus-key, 2002; Stiggins, 2008 ). Tbe intentis to provide a comprehensive pictureof what students accomplish in school.Grading Exceptional LearnersAlthough standards-based gradingcorrects many of the fundamentalerrors of traditional grading practices,it also bigblights othe r challengeswben grading students wbo are un-able to achieve grade-level standards.This includes not only students witbdiagnosed disabilities but also Eng-

N0VEMBER2011 Prin cip al Le ad er sh ip i 33


3/7

lish language learners and any otherstudents who, for reasons known orunknown, fall significantly behindtheir peers in mastering essential skills.Taken together, those groups of excep-tional learners make up about 20 oftbe student population, but 100 ofteachers face this challenge.

The topic of grading exceptionallearners is rarely covered in teacherpreparation, and few policies orregulations specifically address theissue. Nevertheless, nearly all teach ersmake grading adaptations for excep-tional learners (Polloway et al., 1994).Teachers add points for effort, changegrading scales, weight assignmentsdifferently, and g rade on t he basis ofprogress (Silva, Munk, & Bursuck,200 5). They m ake those adaptationsin an effort to motivate students whohave serious difficulty and give the m ashot at success.

The result, however, is usually theopposite. W hen studen ts' grades areinflated and not clearly connected toachievement on well-defined out-comes, students begin to believe thatgrades are not about what they do, butabout who they are. Such adaptationsto grades actually lead to a decrease inmotivation (Ring & Reetz, 2000).

In addition, grading adaptations donot work in a standards-based envi-ronment. To assign accurate achieve-men t grades, the question teachersmust answer is no longer. How did thestudent perform, behave, and progressin class? They must be able to answer.How well did the student demon-strate specific skills? Questions aboutacademic skills cannot be answeredwith indicators of behavior.Inclusive rading Mode lTo address the challenges in gradingexceptional learners, we developed aprocess (Jung, 2009 ; Jung & Guskey,

2007, 2 010, in press) that enablesteachers to assign fair, legal, and ac-curate grades to exceptional learners.This p rocess includes five steps. (Seefigure 1.)S T E P O N E D E T E R M I N E W H E T H E R E A C HEXPECTATION IS ATTAINABLEFor each reporting standard, instruc-tional teams should ask. Can weexpect the student to achieve thisstandard without special support orchanges to the standard? If the answeris yes, then no change in the gradingprocess is needed, even if the studenthas a diagnosed disability. When an

instructional team determines that thestudent will notbe able to achieve aparticular standard without specialsupport, they move to step two.STEP TWO DETERM INE THE TYPE OFADAPTATION NEEDEDFor each standard requiring support,the instructional team must determinewhether an accommodation or modifi-cation isneeded.Accommodations arechanges thatprovide access: they levelthe playing fieldfor exceptional learn-

ers (Freedman, 2000, 2005). Thosechanges and supports do not lowerthe grade-level expectation for theskill being measured. Just as a studentwould not be penalized for wearingglasses to complete an assignment, astudent who requires any other ac-commodation would not be penalized.

To meet science standards, forexample, a studen t may requ ire anaudiotape of lectures in science classbecause he or she has difficulty takingnotes. In addition, the stu dent mayneed to take a social studiesend ofunit assessmen t orally. Altho ugh theformat for answering questions wouldbe different, tbe content of the ques-tions would remain the same, and hisor her responses would be judged thesame as all other students' responses.When accommodation is required,the student is graded as every otherstudent with no penalty for the ac-commodation.

Modifications, on the other hand,change the game (Freedman, 2000,2005). Modifications oalter thegrade-level exp ectation. A ninth-gradeEnglish language learner, for exam ple,may have strong oral comm unica-tion skills but may not be ready forthe grade-level standards in writing.The instructional team may provideadditional support in the area of writ-ing and expect the student to mastersixth-grade writing standards for thecurrent academic year. If modifica-tions are necessary, the team proceedsto step three.S T E P T H R E E D E T E R M I N E T H E M O D I F I E DEXPECTATIONFor standards requiring modification,the approp riate, modified expectationis the highest criterion the instruc-tional team believes the studen t couldreasonably achieve during the currentacademic year. The team then records

34 I Pr inc ip al Le ad er sh ip i NOVEMBER 2011


4/7

Figure1A M odelforGrading Exceptional Learners

Is this an appropriateexpectation without

support?

No thestudent w ill fneed support in ;this area.

What typeofsupport

is needed?

Modification:the support needed

lowersthe expectation.

Yes thestudent hastheabilitytoachieve this

standard withoutsupport.

No changeinreportingisrequired.

Accommodation:the support neededdoes not lower the

expectation

No changeinreportingis

required.

Determinethemodified standard.

Grade on the basis of themodified standard.

Note that the standardwas modified.

Change the standardto include appropriate

criteriaUse the same ruler

on theappropriatestandard.

Add anotationto thereport card andthe

transcript.

ources Jung.L. A.. &Guskey. T.R. 2007). Standards-based grading and reporting:Amodeiforspeciai education.Teaching xceptionalChildren 40 2). 48-53. Jung,L. A., &Guskey. T.R. 2010). Grading exceptional iearners. ducationalLeadership 6/ 5), 31-35. Jung.L.A.,&Guskey, T.R. in press).Grading exceptionaiand strugglingiearners Tiiousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.

NOVEMBER 2011 I P r i n c ip a l L ead e r s h i p i 35


5/7

It makes little sense to grade astudent on an academic standardthat everyone agrees that thestudent probably will not m eet

those expectations as annual goals.For students with disabilities, thesebecome IEP goals.

A student who is experiencingdifficulty in vocabulary develop-ment, for example, may not b e readyto work on particular ninth-gradelanguage arts standards for vocabulary.After examining the student's pres-ent level of performance and growthover the previous year, the team maydeterm ine th at sixth-grade vocabularystandards are appropriate.STEP FOUR: BASE GRADES ON THEMODIFIED EXPECTATIONSIt makes little sense to grade a studenton an academic standard that every-one agrees that the student probablywill not meet. Rather than use thecommon approach of simply addingpoints for behavior or progress, teach-ers should instead grade the studenton the modified expectations that theinstructional team deemed appropri-ate. For example, if the ninth-gradestudent achieved all sixth-gradevocabulary expectations and is work-ing on seventh-grade vocabulary, andif an A means exceeds the standard,then the student has earned an A,even though he or she has not met theninth-grade standards.STEP F IVE: COMMUNICATE THEMEAN ING OF THE GRADEThe final step in the process is thesimplest, but it's just as important asthe p revious four. To com mun icatewhat was measured, teachers shouldinclude a notation beside any grade

on the report card that was based onmodified expectations. A progress re-port then should be included with thereport card to outline the modifiedexpectations and progress on each.

For secondary school educators,noting that a grade was based onmodified expectations means alsoincluding the notation on the stu-dent's transcript. It is imp ortant thatthe notations on transcripts in no wayidentify a studen t as having a disabil-ity. Such word ing as based on IEPgoals is no t legal, bu t noting th at agrade was based on modified expecta-tions is legal (Freedman, 2000, 2005;Office of Civil Rights, 2008).

As long as modifications are avail-able to all students who need them,such as English learners and others re-ceiving special intervention, then suchnotions are not only legal but alsogood practice. Notations make clearthe necessary distinction betweenstudents w ho earned passing grades onthe basis of grade-level standards andthose whose performance was assessedagainst different standards.

Policy mplicationsAlthough all educators face the chal-lenge of determining how to gradeexceptional learners, secondary educa-tors also face policy issues involvingsuch things as course credit, GPA, andathletic eligibility. Th e key to successand legality in addressing those issuesrests in determining policies that arecommunicated clearly to studentsand families and then impleme ntedconsistently.

C O U R S E C R E D I TSecondary schools must first makedecisions about course credit whenimplementing the inclusive gradingmod el. The essential q uestion is.Towhat extent can expectations be mod-ified and a student still receive creditfor the course? For some students,only one, relatively minor area of thecourse will require modification. Forothers, modifications may be neededfor nearly all of the course standards.

The heart of the question aboutcourse credit is where to draw th eline. Some schools may decide that ifany standard is modified, course creditis not granted. Others may craft aformula for modifications or a list ofminimum criteria that students mustmeet. Still others may develop a pro-cess for considering students individu-ally. And some schools may decide togrant course credit only when studentspass end-of-course exams.

For students with disabilities, thedecisions that schools make aboutcourse credit will affect the decisionsthat students and their families makeduring IEP meetings. For example, astudent who is entitled to modifica-tions might attempt to pass course re-quirements if it affects whether he orshe earns course credit or a diploma.G PACalculating GPA is the second majordecision secondary school leaderswill face. How will a student's GPAbe determined when some gradesare based on modified expectations?Schools may decide not to includein the calculation any grades that arebased on modifications. Or schoolsmay include all grades but place anasterisk or other mark by the GPA toindicate that some grades were basedon modifications. Still another optionis to reduce the am ount of credit

36 P rin cip al Le ad er sh ip NOVEMBER 2011


6/7

given for grades that were based onmodifications. Clearly, every optionhas advantages and disadvantages, anddecisions about GPAs will have long-term practical and legal impUcations.

THLETIC ELIGIBILITYAnother related issue is athleticeligibility. Students who must spendadditional time on academics to catchup may be hampered in their progressif they devote many hours to a sport. ntheotherhand, a school cer-tainly does not want to deny Englishlanguage learners or students withdisabilities access to participation inathletics.

Although athletic eligibility maynot hold the same political visibilityor high-stakes implications as GPAs orcourse credit, it may be just as impor-tant. Participation in athletics mightbe the only time at school that somestudents do not feel the effects ofadisability. Participation in athletics alsocan foster stronger school affiliation.No matter what strategy is chosenfor determining GPAs, the academicrequirements for athletic eligibilityshould be based on students perfor-mance on standards that are consid-ered appropriate for their level.

on lusionAlthough it may seem like this processfor grading exceptional learners opensthe door to new challenges, in real-ity all of these challenges exist now.Implementing the grading process wedescribed results in more-transparentgrading procedures and thus revealsthe urgency of making purposefuland thoughtful policy decisions forexceptional learners. By implementingthis grading process in a standards-based environment, school leaderscan ensure that grades for all studentsare fair, legal, and clear to teachers.

students, their families, employers, andinstitutes of higher education. PLREFERENCES Brookhart, S, M, [199 9], Teaching aboutcomm unicating assessment resultsandgrading.EducationalMeasurement:Issuesand Practice, i 8 ( l } , 5-13. Brookhart, S. M. (20 11).G rading andlearning:Practicesthatsupportstudentachievement. Bloomington, IN: SolutionTree Press. Councilof Chief State School Officers National Gove rnors Association Cen terfor Best Practices, (2010),Commoncorestate standards initiative.Retriev ed fromwww,corestandards.org/the-standards Freedman, M, K. (2000),Testing gradingan dgranting diplomastospecial educationstudents: Individuals withdisabilitieseduca-tion lawreport (Special Report No. 18).Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. Freedman, M. K. (2005),Studenttestingand the law: Therequirementseducators,parents, andofficialsshould know.Horsham,PA: LRP Pu blications, Guskey,T.R.(2002), Computerizedgradebooks and themythof objectivity.Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 775-780. Guskey,T.R.(2006). Making highschool grades meaningful.Phi DeltaKappan,87(9), 670-675. Guskey,T R,(Ed.) (200 9),Practicalsolutionsforserious problems in standards-basedgrading.Thousand Oaks, CA: CorwinPress, Guskey,T R., Bailey, J, M. (2010).Developing standards based reportcards.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Jung, L. A, (2009). Th e challengesofgrading andreportinginspecial educa-tion: An inclusive grading model. In T.R.Guskey (Ed.),Practical solutionsforseriousproblems instandards based grading(pp,27-40),Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Jung, L. A,, Guskey, T.R.(2007).Standards-based gradingandreporting:A modelforspecial edu cation.TeachingExceptionalChildren,40(2),48 -53 , Jung, L. A., Guskey,T.R.(2010).

Grading exceptional learners. EducationalLeadership, 67[5),3\-35. Jung, L. A., Guskey,T R. (inpress).Gradingexceptionala ndstrugglinglearners.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Office ofCivil Rights. (2008 , O ctober17).Dearcolleagueletter:Report cardsa ndtranscriptsforstudentswith disabilities.Retrieved from www2.ed,gov/about/ofBces/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20081017.html Polloway, E. A,, Epstein, M. H. Bursuck,W. D,, Roderique,T.W., McConeghy, J.L., Jayanthi, M. (19 94). Classroom grading:A national survey ofpolicies.Remedial andSpecialEducation, 15,162-170. Ring, M, M., Reetz,L.(200 0), Modifi-cation effects onattributionofmiddleschool students with learning disabilities.Learning Disabilities ResearchandPractice,75,34-42, Suva, M., Munk, D. D,, Bursuck, W.D.(2005). Grading adaptationsforstudentswith disabilities.InterventioninSchoola ndClinic, 41,8 7 - 9 8 . Stiggins,R.(2002). Assessment crisis:The absenceofassessmentforlearning.PhiDelta Kappan, 83{\0], 7SS.m Stiggins, R. J. (2008 ).Student involvedassessment for learning (5th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice. Welch, M.E., D'Agostino, J. (2009 ).Fostering consistency betwee n standards-based gradesandlarge scale assessm entresults. InT.R.Guskey (Ed.),Practicalsolutionstoserious problemsin standards-based grading(pp. 75-104 ). ThousandOaks, CA: Corwin Press. Willingham,W.W., Puliack, J. M,,Lewis,C.(2002). Gradesandtest scores:Accounting forobserved differences.Journalo fEducationalMeasurement 39(1),1-37.Lee nn Jung [email protected]) is an associateprofessor in tiie D epartmentofSpeciai Educationand Rehabilitation Counseiing atthe University ofKentucky.ThomasR Guskey s professor in theDepartment ofEducational, Counseling, and SchooiPsychoiogy at the UniversityofKentucky

NOVEMBER 2011 Princ ipa l Leade rship i 37


7/7

Copyright of Principal Leadership is the property of National Association of Secondary School Principals and

its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

guskey&jung. fair and accurate grading exceptional learneers

Documents