On Your Mark by Solution Tree

CHALLENGING THE CONVENTIONS OF GRADING AND REPORTING

ON YOUR

MARK

K–12 teachers and administrators will: • Identify the purpose of grading and make sure school and classroom visions, practices, and policies support it

ON YOUR

n Your Mark: Challenging the Conventions of Grading and Reporting by Thomas R. Guskey asserts the need to align grading and reporting practices to truly reflect what students are learning in K–12 classrooms. The changes this book outlines might be controversial—adjusting any system that has been in place for centuries will cause tension—yet we owe it to our students to make sure grades accurately communicate their progress and help them improve. Rather than continuing down the wrong path out of delusion, fear, or tradition, we must use research to boldly move forward and better serve our students.

ON YOUR

• Implement research-based grading and reporting practices that promote accurate, useful accounts of student learning • Understand why traditional practices, such as grading on the curve and offering plus or minus grades, don’t fully report students’ academic performance to stakeholders

— D O U G L A S B. R E E V E S, Founder, The Center for Successful Leadership; Author, Elements of Grading

solution -tree.com

“Guskey gives us not only a masterful synthesis of what’s known about grading but also a powerful plea for educators to do battle with America’s student-harmful grading practices. His rationale is clear, his arguments are persuasive, and his call to battle is almost irresistible.” — W. J A M E S P O P H A M , Professor Emeritus, UCLA

T H O M A S R. G U S K E Y

“In this brilliant book, Thomas Guskey takes on one of the most controversial issues in education: grading. With more than two decades of evidence along with the practical insight of a teacher and parent, Guskey considers the arguments about grading and provides practical answers for all stakeholders. If our common ground is finding educational practices that cause the best results for student achievement, then this powerful and practical book will lead the way.”

T H O M A S R. G U S K E Y

Copyright © 2015 by Solution Tree Press All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction of this book in whole or in part in any form. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790 email: info@solution-tree.com solution-tree.com Printed in the United States of America 18 17 16 15 14

1 2 3 4 5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Guskey, Thomas R. On your mark : challenging the conventions of grading and reporting / Thomas R. Guskey. pages cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-935542-77-3 (perfect bound) 1. Grading and marking (Students)--United States. 2. School reports--United States. 3. Educational evaluation--United States. I. Title. LB3060.37.G895 20145 371.27’2--dc23 2014017325 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO Edmund M. Ackerman, President Solution Tree Press President: Douglas M. Rife Editorial Director: Lesley Bolton Managing Production Editor: Caroline Weiss Proofreader: Elisabeth Abrams Text and Cover Designer: Laura Kagemann

Table of Contents About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 An Enduring Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Essential Beginning Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Impor tance of Being Bold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 1 Define the Purpose of Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Shared NaivetĂŠ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The Purpose of Grading and Repor ting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Impor tance of a Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Key Questions in Defining the Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 The Repor t Cardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Purpose Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Chapter 2 Challenge the Use of Percentage Grades . . . . . . . 23 A Brief Histor y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 M odern Resurgence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Logistic Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Accurac y Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Percentage Grades Versus Percent Correct . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Zero and Minimum- Grade Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter 3 C hallenge Plus and Minus and Half-Grade Increments . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Illusion of Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Research on Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

ON YOUR MARK

Chapter 4 Challenge Bell-Shaped Grade Distributions . . . . . 47 Cur ving Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Prescribing Grade Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Negative Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51 Grade Inflation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Perspectives on Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Chapter 5 Challenge the Computation of Class Rank . . . . . . 59 Why Do We Compute Class Rank? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Class Rank for College Admissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 The Selection of Class Valedictorian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 What Becomes of High School Valedictorians? . . . . . . . . 66 Alternative M ethods of Selecting the Class Valedictorian . . . 67 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6 Challenge the Use of a Single Grade . . . . . . . . . . 71 Sources of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Hodgepodge Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 Purposes and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Conflicting Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Multiple Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Chapter 7 Challenge the Use of Mathematical Algorithms . . 83 Electronic Gradebooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 M athematical Precision Versus Valid Grades . . . . . . . . . 85 Questionable Grading Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Chapter 8 C hallenge Practices That Confound the Meaning of Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Grades as Rewards and Punishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Grades to Ensure Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Summar y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

About the Author

Thomas R. Guskey, PhD, is a professor of educational psychology in the College of Education at the University of Kentucky. A graduate of the University of Chicago, he began his career in education as a middle school teacher, served as an administrator in the Chicago Public Schools, and was the first director of the Center for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning, a national research center. Dr. Guskey is the author/editor of twenty books and numerous book chapters, articles, and professional papers on educational measurement, evaluation, assessment, and grading. He coedited the Experts in Assessment series. His articles have appeared in prominent research journals, as well as Educational Leadership, Phi Delta Kappan, and School Administrator. Dr. Guskey served on the Policy Research Team of the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future and on the task force to develop the National Standards for Staff Development, and he was named a Fellow in the American Educational Research Association—one of the association’s highest honors. He was recently awarded Learning Forward’s Distinguished Contributions to the Field Award and is the only person to have won that group’s Book of the Year Award twice and its Article of the Year Award three times. He also has been featured on vii

viii

ON YOUR MARK

the National Public Radio programs Talk of the Nation and Morning Edition. In his work with educators throughout the world, he helps teachers and school leaders understand the important implications of research in education and offers practical solutions to some of educationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most challenging problems. To learn more about Dr. Guskeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work, visit http://education.uky .edu/EDP/guskey or follow him on Twitter @tguskey. To book Dr. Guskey for professional development, contact Solution Tree at pd@solution-tree.com.

Introduction

ou just opened what may be the most challenging and unsettling book you will ever read about any education topic. This book is not for anyone who’s comfortable with the status quo in education. It’s not for those who trust in traditions and find it easy to ignore research evidence that challenges those traditions. It’s not for the weak of spirit. This book won’t be an easy or comfortable read. The school leaders, professors, teachers, instructors, board members, community members, and parents who read this book won’t be talking about it in calm and casual tones. More likely, they’ll be engaged in heated arguments and impassioned debates. Some readers will find the ideas described in this book to be so difficult to accept that they’ll dismiss them outright. A handful may even suggest that the very premise of these ideas is ridiculous. Others will acknowledge the validity of the ideas but feel they’re helpless to do anything about it. Still others will experience a profound sense of sadness and guilt when they realize that dedicated educators have unwittingly ignored the adverse consequences of policies and practices related to these ideas for decades. But hopefully among readers there also will be a few who recognize the truth in these ideas, see the compelling need for change, and are willing to take the bold and courageous steps required to make improvements. With any luck, you are among them.

ON YOUR MARK

Why would a book about a topic in education prompt such intense but dissimilar emotional responses? How could any book in education be so controversial? The reason is simple: We are going to challenge some of education’s deepest and longest held traditions. We’re going to call into question ideas that many people consider to be basic tenets of our education system. Specifically, we’re going to take a long, hard, honest, and uncensored look at the way we grade students in schools and report their learning progress. Many aspects of grading and reporting reflect traditions that have been a part of our education system since the time our great-grandparents were in school. These traditions are entrenched in our education culture and are a part of nearly everyone’s school experiences. Some of our experiences with grades were distinctly positive, especially when a grade provided affirmation of a job well done. But more often than not, these positive memories are overshadowed by recollections of negative experiences that evoke feelings of disappointment, embarrassment, and sometimes shame. Our negative experiences with grades profoundly affect us and sometimes are life altering. Ironically, the problems associated with grading and reporting have been recognized for decades. Consider the following perspective on grades offered by I. E. Finkelstein: When we consider the practically universal use in all educational institutions of a system of marks, whether numbers or letters, to indicate scholastic attainment of the pupils or students in these institutions, and when we remember how very great stress is laid by teacher and pupils alike upon these marks as real measures or indicators of attainment, we can but be astonished at the blind faith that has been felt in the reliability of the marking system. School administrators have been using with confidence an absolutely uncalibrated instrument. Only within a very few years have serious attempts been made to scrutinize the theory of marking or to test by statistical and experimental procedure the degree of precision that could be expected in its use. (p. 1)

Finkelstein went on to add: Few teachers stop to consider what the marking system under which they work really implies; that the variability in the marks given for the same subject and to the same pupils by different instructors is so great as frequently to work real injustice to students. (p. 6)

Introduction

Few people would argue with the accuracy of Finkelstein’s observations or their relevance to education today. What most would find surprising is that these statements come from Finkelstein’s master’s thesis written at Cornell University in 1913—over a century ago!

An Enduring Problem The problems associated with the way we grade and report student learning are certainly not new. Education scholars have recognized these problems and noted their seriousness for well over a century. So then why, if we’ve known about these problems for so long, have we not found a solution? With all that we have learned about education over the past hundred years, why have grading and reporting continued essentially unchanged? Oddly, part of the explanation may rest in the seriousness of the consequences attached to grades and the fear that changing grading might disrupt the traditions that yield those consequences. For more than a century, grades have remained the primary indicator of how well students performed in school and the basis for making important decisions about students. Grades largely determine whether or not students get promoted from one grade level to the next. They are used for determining honor roll status, membership in honor societies, and enrollment in advanced classes. High grades are required for admission to selective colleges and universities, and low grades typically are the first indicator of potential learning problems or disabilities that may require special intervention. Because the relationship between grades and these consequences is so powerful and so direct, changing the way we grade could disrupt that relationship and confound crucial decision-making procedures. In addition, over the years, grades have served well the sorting and selecting purposes of schools. Historically, schools have functioned to identify, and in some cases to accentuate, the differences among students. Those few students with innate talent and ability generally received high grades, continued in school, went on to college, and became leaders in professions, government, business, and industry. The majority of students received more mediocre grades and learned only what was needed to gain meaningful employment and contribute in an industrial

ON YOUR MARK

society. Schools ranked students on the basis of their grades to make this selection process easier for colleges as well as for potential employers. Today, however, our society has changed. We no longer are educating students for an industrial society and its associated jobs. Modern technology has made most of those jobs obsolete. Instead we must educate students for a continuously evolving information society that demands flexibility, creativity, and initiative. We cannot afford to have only a few students learn well and reach high levels of competence or proficiency. To remain competitive in our increasingly complex and technologically sophisticated world, we need all students to learn well. Educators must do their best to help every student develop the advanced knowledge and 21st century skills necessary to enter college or be ready to begin a career that requires creativity, collaboration, advanced reasoning, and problem solving. Instead of being concerned with selecting the talented few, we must be committed to developing the unique talents of all students. In the modern educational reform initiatives that move us in this direction, grading and reporting remain the one element still pitifully misaligned. In recent years, educators at all levels have become more focused in their efforts to clarify student learning goals. The Common Core State Standards Initiative in the United States represents an excellent example of the progress made in this challenging task (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices [NGA] & Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2010). Significant advances also have occurred in the development of authentic forms of assessment that tap the more complex student behaviors related to application, analysis, and problem solving. Grading and reporting, however, continue to be a mainstay of traditional practice, seemingly immune to reform efforts. Even report cards, the primary device educators use to communicate information about student learning to parents and others, look much the same today as they did a century ago. All that has changed is that in earlier times, teachers completed report cards by hand, and today they use computers.

Essential Beginning Steps Efforts to make grading and reporting more effective and to bring it more in line with other reform initiatives can take many different directions. The efforts that succeed, however, typically begin with three

Introduction

initial steps. These beginning steps provide the necessary foundation for all other work. They are also essential prerequisites for the other steps described in this book. Although taking these three beginning steps will not guarantee success, experience indicates that reform efforts that proceed without them are pretty much doomed to failure. The first beginning step, and probably the most important, is clarifying the purpose of grades and grading in every classroom and in every school (Brookhart, 2011a). That will be our focus in chapter 1, where I will describe this process in detail and offer specific examples. To succeed in implementing grading and reporting reforms, teachers at all levels of education must begin by reaching consensus about what grades mean, for whom they are intended, and what results or actions are expected from them. Until we are clear about our purpose, no change in grading method or reporting format will make much difference (Guskey & Bailey, 2001, 2010). The second beginning step is to align all classroom and school policies and practices related to grading with the stated purpose. Policies and practices that are well aligned with the purpose must be clearly stated and transparent to everyone. Those found to be misaligned should be challenged and revised or abandoned completely. The third beginning step is to ensure that any proposed change in grading and reporting procedures comes from research-based evidence on effective practice. Revisions in grading and reporting should not come from conjecture or forcefully argued opinions. They also should not be initiated based on “what everyone else is doing.” Instead, they should originate from careful examination of the research evidence on grading and our accumulated knowledge base of what works best for students (Guskey, 2009). When taking these three essential beginning steps, leaders in grading and reporting reform must be particularly cautious of well-intentioned consultants whose ideas may be intuitively appealing but are actually more opinion based than research based. Passionately argued opinions may win the favor and support of some. But as many experienced and battle-scarred leaders have discovered, opinions are an inadequate substitute for evidence when challenges arise. Thus, when charismatic consultants preface their statements with the phrase “Research says,”

ON YOUR MARK

they should be immediately asked, “What research?” And they should be expected to offer detailed answers with specific citations that can be verified. Most important, leaders who want to reform grading and reporting must recognize that trustworthy research evidence is unlikely to come from blogs, newspaper articles, Google searches, or social media sources such as Twitter or Facebook. Instead, they must look to credible resources of research evidence, such as the Education Resources Information Center—ERIC (http://eric.ed.gov), an online library of education research and information sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education—or JSTOR, short for Journal Storage (www.jstor.org), a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. The What Works Clearinghouse (http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc), also sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, is another valuable resource. Before committing time, resources, and their credibility to any change in policy or practice, leaders must make sure that trustworthy evidence validates their chosen approach. To succeed in tearing down the many old traditions associated with grading, we must have new traditions to take their place. But we must ensure that those new traditions are based on solid evidence of their effectiveness. In particular, we must be certain that our new traditions support student learning and enhance students’ perceptions of themselves as competent learners (Guskey, 2011). Those familiar with the articles and books I’ve written on grading and reporting will see similarities in some of the steps described in these chapters and the ideas presented in earlier works. Those similarities and overlaps are noted throughout the book. I apologize to any readers who find such reemphasis annoying. My intention in including those ideas among the steps described here is not

Introduction

to sing an old song again. Rather, it is to stress the crucial importance of these ideas and to show their relatedness in comprehensive, systemic reform efforts. Returning to these ideas also provided the opportunity to update what we know about them and their potential impact on students and teachers.

The Importance of Being Bold Accomplishing these three beginning steps requires dedication and hard work. Taking the additional steps outlined in this book that build on these beginning steps requires something more. It demands even greater dedication, much harder work, and tremendous boldness. To challenge traditions that have been a part of education for more than a century means going against the grain. It involves presenting those who support the old traditions with quality research evidence that demonstrates the detrimental consequences of such traditions for the majority of students—students whose voices are seldom heard in these discussions and who too often suffer in silence. It means taking a stand against policies and practices that don’t align with our shared vision and goals for improvement. It means working to ensure that grading and reporting always serve to enhance both teaching and learning, and never stand as impediments to student success. The steps described on these pages are presented in a purposeful order. Earlier chapters describe changes that are likely to be less controversial and can be accomplished with relatively modest effort. The changes described in later chapters undoubtedly will present a greater challenge. The difficulties you face with each step largely depend on the context. Some steps can be accomplished in particular settings with comparative ease while others will require a more serious undertaking and will demand significant work. It will be obvious that some steps clearly must precede others—but that’s not always the case. In addition, although some overlap in these steps exists because the issues addressed are related, each chapter is designed to stand on its own. In this way, chapters can be used individually as study guides or as references for those embarking on a specific area of change. Please keep in mind that the changes described in these steps are likely to prompt controversy and debate. When these debates arise, turning to the research evidence described in each chapter that supports

ON YOUR MARK

the change may prove helpful. In some instances, however, steps are presented from the perspective of what is most logical and in the best interest of students. While certainly not confirmatory, it’s hoped this approach will provide the basis for questioning tradition-based practices and for thinking about those practices in new ways. Optimally, such questioning and new thinking will lead to meaningful change. Hopefully, too, these changes will be thoughtfully investigated through carefully designed research studies and rigorous evaluations to gain valid evidence of their effects. The stakes in this battle are high. They involve the professional integrity of teachers and school leaders, as well as the academic success and well-being of students. Those with the boldness to question and defy these long-held traditions are unlikely to be the most popular or well-liked leaders in their schools or districts. They might even be labeled as radicals, agitators, or troublemakers. But true leadership in education isn’t about being popular or well liked. It’s not about maintaining the status quo, mindlessly following traditions, or just getting by. It’s not about justifying antiquated policies and practices with the simple rationalization “We’ve always done it that way.” Rather, true leadership is about doing what’s right to make a positive and lasting difference in the lives of young people. It means taking a stand on what is best for students instead of thoughtlessly adhering to traditions that have long outlived their usefulness. Sometimes that means stirring things up, asking hard questions, pushing for change, and as a result, sacrificing one’s popularity. That’s where the courage required to be a true educational leader comes in. To challenge these enduring traditions in grading and reporting requires that kind of bold and courageous leadership. Moving schools toward better and more effective grading policies and practices won’t be accomplished without it. For those bold enough to take on that challenge and to press for thoughtfully reasoned and purposeful change, I hope this book helps. Results won’t come easy, but they are sure to be worthwhile and could be quite remarkable.

C H A P T E R

Define the Purpose of Grades

odern education reforms take many different approaches and address a variety of educational issues. Yet despite this variation, all share the same common goal of improving student learning in school. More specifically, modern education reforms seek to have all students gain the advanced knowledge and skills necessary to enter college or to begin careers that require advanced reasoning, creativity, collaboration, and problem solving. The first movement in these reform efforts typically involves the articulation of clear and rigorous goals or standards for student learning. The Common Core State Standards Initiative in the United States, for example, attempts to provide consensus across states about what all students should learn and be able to do as a result of their experiences in school (NGA & CCSSO, 2010). With standards for student learning clearly specified, reformers next turn to gathering evidence on student learning through various assessment procedures. This involves deciding what evidence best reflects student achievement of the established learning goals or standards, how such evidence should be gathered, and how best to summarize that evidence in order to facilitate improvements in both teaching and learning. A final consideration—and one that many reformers neglect—is how best to judge the adequacy of students’ performances and then communicate the results of those evaluations to students, parents, and others. This involves the process of grading and reporting. 9

ON YOUR MARK

The reasons for this lack of knowledge are well documented. Few educators at any level today have any formal training on grading and reporting. Undergraduate courses in education rarely include in-depth discussions of grading. Graduate courses seldom explore the topic. And aside from sessions designed to help teachers learn how to use newly adopted grading software and online grading programs, professional development experiences hardly ever consider grading issues. As a result, school leaders and teachers typically know little about the different grading methods, the advantages and shortcomings of each, or the effects of different grading practices on students (Brookhart, 2011a; Brookhart & Nitko, 2008; Stiggins, 1993; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2011). Being unaware of the accumulated knowledge on grading and reporting, most teachers base their classroom grading and reporting practices on what they remember from their personal experiences in school. In other words, they do what was done to them when they were students (Frary, Cross, & Weber, 1993; Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Troug & Friedman, 1996). Because recollections of these experiences vary from one teacher to the next, so do the grading policies and practices teachers employ (Guskey, 2006a). The result is immense variation among teachers in their particular grading policies as well as the endurance of traditions that have remained unquestioned in schools for decades. Even school leaders who have some knowledge of effective grading policies and practices typically find it difficult to challenge these long-held and deeply entrenched grading traditions.

Shared NaivetĂŠ Educators bold enough to take on the challenge of reforming grading and reporting almost always start in the same way: they begin by revising the report card. This makes good sense, of course, since the report card is the primary instrument teachers and schools use to

Most school leaders recognize the many inadequacies of current grading and reporting policies and practices. They know that teachers assign grades in highly idiosyncratic ways and use methods for determining grades that are rarely well aligned with the standards for student learning and related assessment procedures. Nevertheless, few school leaders or teachers know what specific adaptations would improve grading methods or how to implement effective change.

Define the Purpose of Grades

communicate information about students’ learning progress to students, parents, and others.

To begin its work, the committee holds a series of meetings at which members discuss their many frustrations with the current reporting form and the specific changes they would like to see in its content and structure. Following this discussion of frustrations, one or two committee members are assigned the task of searching the Internet for examples of report cards developed in other schools or school districts that might guide the committee’s work. Based on their findings, they assemble a collection of twenty or thirty different models and forms. Committee members then review these sample forms, identifying the elements they like and do not like. Finally, they assemble a hybrid version of their own reporting form, based on an amalgamation of elements drawn from the forms they collected and reviewed, and post their version online. What most Report Card Committee members fail to recognize, however, is that nearly all of the report cards they collected through their Internet search were developed in exactly the same way. Few, if any, of the forms are the result of a thorough review of the research on grading and reporting. Rarer still are forms that have undergone a systematic evaluation of their impact or their perceived effectiveness by teachers or parents. So rather than shared expertise, most forms result from shared naiveté at best or shared ignorance at worst. The result is inescapably predictable: When the Report Card Committee members present their work to other staff members and parents, they encounter a multitude of unexpected questions, unanticipated controversy, and sometimes stern opposition. Compromises that dilute the committee’s intent are made to appease critics. So in the end, what they have is a report card that no one really likes but few staunchly oppose. In the worst cases, the opposition is so great that reform efforts are abandoned entirely, and the school or school district returns to the traditional reporting forms and policies that have been in place for years.

Most educators also go about revising the report card in much the same way: they begin by forming a Report Card Committee. This committee is composed of teachers, school leaders, and sometimes parents from the district. Its charge is to come up with specific recommendations for change in the district’s current report card or general reporting system.

ON YOUR MARK

Another influential factor is that leaders in these reform initiatives typically lack an in-depth understanding of the change process, particularly when it involves an area as important and as public as grading and reporting student learning. Specifically, most school leaders neglect the powerful influence of tradition and the importance of communicating fully with the broad range of stakeholders involved in the grading and reporting process. They proceed in a politically charged environment with little more than vague conventional wisdom to guide their efforts. The problem with this approach is that while conventional wisdom and common sense are important, they often turn out to be wrong or at least simplistic, especially when it comes to grading and reporting (Guskey, 1999). A third factor contributing to the difficulties experienced in grading and reporting reforms is that most of these efforts focus on the report card alone. Everyone recognizes, of course, that report cards are an indispensable component in grading and reporting at any level of education. But far too often educators try to accomplish too much and serve too many purposes with this single reporting device. The result is a reporting form that serves no purpose particularly well. And because the focus has been on form rather than function or purpose, the report card becomes a target of discontent and a lightning rod for controversy.

Several factors account for these difficulties. One is that reformers typically place too much emphasis on form and not enough on function. In other words, they concentrate on the structure of the report card alone and ignore the primary purpose of reporting. Enamored by the appeal of new technology and the reporting forms generated by new reporting software, these leaders neglect vital dimensions of the communication process. In particular, they go forward with their efforts unaware of critical shortcomings inherent in many of the new reporting formats and the numerous interpretation problems they can create for parents and others. In many cases, for example, forms either offer insufficient detail for parents who are seriously concerned with helping their children or provide so much detail that it creates a bookkeeping nightmare for teachers and overwhelms parents with information they may not understand or know how to use. As a result, foreseeable difficulties arise that thwart even the most dedicated attempts at reform.

Define the Purpose of Grades

The Purpose of Grading and Reporting

Researchers who have asked teachers and school leaders these questions generally find that their answers can be classified in six broad categories (see Airasian, 2001; Feldmesser, 1971; Frisbie & Waltman, 1992; Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Linn, 1983). As described in Developing Standards-Based Report Cards (Guskey & Bailey, 2010), these categories include: 1. To communicate information about students’ achievement in school to parents and others. Grading and reporting provide parents and other interested persons (for example, guardians, relatives, and so on) with information about their child’s achievement and learning progress in school. To some extent, they also serve to involve families in educational processes. 2. To provide information to students for self-evaluation. Grading and reporting offer students information about the level and adequacy of their academic achievement and performance in school. As a source of feedback, reports also serve to redirect and hopefully improve students’ academic performance. 3. To select, identify, or group students for certain educational paths or programs. Grades and report cards are the primary source of information used to select students for special programs. High grades typically are required for entry into gifted education programs and honors or advanced classes. Low grades are often the first indicator of learning problems that may result in students’ placement in special needs programs. Report card grades on transcripts are also used in determining admission to selective colleges and universities.

The key to overcoming these difficulties is to begin the entire reform process by focusing on the purpose of grading and reporting (Brookhart, 2011a; Guskey & Bailey, 2010). Before considering any change in the format or structure of the report card, reformers must consider what the report card’s purpose is. In other words, why do we assign grades or marks to students’ work, and why do we record those on report cards?

ON YOUR MARK

5. To evaluate the effectiveness of instructional programs. Comparisons of grades and other reporting evidence are frequently used to judge the value and effectiveness of new programs, curriculums, and instructional strategies. 6. To provide evidence of students’ lack of effort or inappropriate responsibility. Grades and other reporting devices are also used to document the inappropriate behaviors of students. In addition, teachers sometimes threaten students with poor grades in order to coerce more acceptable and suitable behavior. While educators generally agree that all of these purposes may be legitimate, they seldom agree on which purpose is most important. If asked to rank-order these purposes in terms of their importance, school leaders and teachers often vary widely in their responses—even when they are staff members from the same school (see Guskey, 2013a). And that is precisely the problem. When educators don’t agree on the primary purpose of grades, they often try to address all of these purposes with a single reporting device, usually a report card, and end up achieving none very well (Austin & McCann, 1992). The simple truth is that no single reporting instrument can serve all of these purposes well. In fact, some of these purposes are actually counter to others. Suppose, for example, that the educators in a particular school or school district work hard to help all students learn well. Suppose, too, that these educators are highly successful in their efforts and, as a result, nearly all of their students attain high levels of achievement and earn high grades. These positive results pose no problem if the purpose of grading and reporting is to inform parents about students’ achievement or to provide students with self-evaluation information. The educators

4. To provide incentives for students to learn. Although many educators debate the idea, extensive evidence shows that grades and other reporting tools are important factors in determining the amount of effort students put forth and how seriously they regard learning or assessment tasks (Brookhart, 1993; Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 1996; Chastain, 1990; Ebel, 1979; Natriello & Dornbusch, 1984).

Define the Purpose of Grades

from this school or school district can take pride in what theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve accomplished and can look forward to sharing those results with parents, students, and others.

The Importance of a Purpose Statement Most of the difficulties schools experience in their efforts to reform grading policies and practices can be traced to the lack of a well-defined and commonly understood purpose. When leaders charge ahead, changing the form and structure of the report card without reaching consensus about the purpose of grades, their efforts lack direction because what they want to accomplish remains unclear. Method follows purpose. Clarifying the purpose of grades and the report card always must come first. All related changes in policy and practice can then be guided by that agreed-upon purpose statement (Brookhart, 2011a; Guskey & Bailey, 2010). This is not to imply that clarifying the purpose of grades or the report card will be easy. As we described previously, differences abound regarding the purpose of gradesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as do explanations for those differences. Some suggest that these differences stem from the conflicting opinions of different groups about what grades mean and for whom they are intended. Others argue that such differences run much deeper and arise from fundamental tensions in values and educational philosophies. One side points to the need to discriminate and differentiate levels of student performance in order to make accurate decisions about what students have achieved. The other side emphasizes the desire to treat all students as capable of high levels of performance (Hiner, 1973;

This same positive outcome poses major problems, however, if the purpose of grading and reporting is to select students for different educational paths or to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional programs. Selection and evaluation demand variation in grades. They require that the grades be widely dispersed in order to differentiate among students and programs. How else can selection take place or one program be judged as better than another? But if all students reach the same high level of achievement and earn the same high grades, there is no variation in the grades. Determining differences under such conditions is impossible. Thus while one purpose was served well, another purpose was not.

ON YOUR MARK

Trumbull, 2000). These tensions can be particularly problematic in developing standards-based report cards because the process usually begins from the premise that all students can and should learn well (Bloom, 1976; Guskey, 2006b; Guskey & Bailey, 2010).

Grades on report cards and transcripts, however, are usually considered more permanent and summative. They represent teachers’ culminating judgments about students’ competence or level of achievement at a specific point in time. As such, they are rarely subject to change. If differences between grades on individual assignments or assessments and grades recorded on report cards and transcripts exist, this distinction should be made clear in the purpose statement.

Key Questions in Defining the Purpose In earlier work, Jane Bailey and I identified three key questions that need to be answered in defining the purpose of grades on a report card (see Guskey & Bailey, 2010): 1. What information will be communicated in the report card? 2. Who is the primary audience for the information? 3. What is the intended goal of the communication? or How should the information be used? After these key questions about the purpose are answered, other critical issues about the form and structure of the report card become much easier to address and resolve.

In addition, educators sometimes distinguish differences in the purpose of grades on individual assignments or assessments versus the grades recorded on report cards and transcripts. Grades on assignments or regular classroom assessments often are seen as more tentative and formative. They provide students with feedback on the teacher’s judgment of their performance on a particular learning task or segment of an instructional unit. Individual assignment or assessment grades typically are used by teachers to inform students about the adequacy of their performance and how well their performance matches specific expectations for their learning. As such, they often are subject to change, depending on follow-up actions taken by students.

Define the Purpose of Grades

What Information Will Be Communicated in the Report Card?

Some grading reform advocates suggest that when deciding what information will be communicated in the report card, a distinction must be drawn between assessment grades and standards-based grades (O’Connor, 2013). In other words, are the grades recorded on the report card based on assessment results or on standards? In nearly all instances, however, this distinction relates to the scores or grades that teachers enter into gradebooks—not to the grades they put on a report card. It also adds irrelevant and unnecessary complication to a purpose statement. Regardless of their structure, all standards-based grades are derived from the results of assessments of student learning. Those assessments may take a variety of forms. They may, for example, be traditional penciland-paper instruments that include selected-response items (such as true/false, matching, or multiple-choice) and/or constructed-response items (such as short answer or essay). But they also may be compositions, skill demonstrations, projects, reports, or any means by which students can demonstrate what they have learned. The only distinctions relevant to grading are: (1) whether the assessment results are recorded in the gradebook as a rubric score or a percentage correct, and (2) whether a particular assessment is designed to measure a single standard or multiple standards. In standards-based environments, assessment results recorded in gradebooks should describe students’ performance based on a clearly defined rubric. For example,

While other reporting devices often contain widely varied types of data, the information included in a report card is quite specific. The best report cards clearly communicate what students were expected to learn and be able to do, how well they did those things, and whether or not that level of performance is in line with expectations set for this level at this time in the school year. The information should be specific enough to communicate the knowledge and skills students were expected to gain but not so detailed that it overwhelms parents and others with data they do not understand or know how to use. Parents want to know how well their child is doing and whether or not that level of performance is in line with the teacher’s and school’s expectations. If it is not, then they want to know what they can do to help their child so that minor learning difficulties can be remedied before they become major learning problems.

ON YOUR MARK

If the report card is standards based, this information from the gradebook would then be summarized by teachers to determine what grade would be most accurate and appropriate to record for each standard listed on the report card (see Guskey & Bailey, 2010). Regardless of the structure of the report card, however, all this information comes from assessments of student learning. Hence, the distinction between assessment grades and standards-based grades makes little sense and serves no purpose in this context.

Who Is the Primary Audience for the Information? The second question considered in defining the purpose of the report card is the primary audience for the information. Again, while the audience for other reporting devices may vary, the audience for a report card is almost always parents or other adults, such as guardians or relatives, and/or the students themselves. Elementary educators rarely debate this matter. For them, the primary audience is definitely parents, guardians, and other adults. Because of the nature of most elementary classrooms, teachers regularly communicate with their students about each individual’s learning progress. They let students know when they are doing well and when additional work or study may be needed. Report cards are designed to bring parents up to date and keep them abreast of their child’s achievement and learning progress in school. When queried about the purpose of the report card, parents express similar consistency in their perspectives: they believe the report card is for them. Parents see report cards as their primary communication link

scores might be recorded as 4, 3, 2, or 1, indicating exemplary, proficient, progressing, or struggling performance by the student. In addition, if the assessment measures multiple standards, then multiple grades based on each of those standards should be recorded in the gradebook. In other words, instead of recording a single grade for a total assessment, teachers should record multiple grades, each grade based on how well students performed on the aspect of the assessment related to that specific standard. In scoring students’ mathematics assessments, for example, teachers may record separate scores or grades for basic computational skills, mathematical reasoning, and problem solving (Brookhart, 2013).

Define the Purpose of Grades

with teachers and the school regarding their child’s learning progress. Why else would they be asked to sign the report card to ensure that they received it?

College and university report cards represent the one exception in which the primary audience is exclusively students. Even when parents are funding the student’s education program and may demand to see the grades, colleges and universities generally recognize students as adults and make report cards directly available only to them. In some instances, educators decide that the primary audience is parents and students. While completely appropriate, this heightens the communication challenge. When the audience is both parents and students, steps must be taken to ensure that both groups understand the information included in the report card and can use it to guide improvements when needed. Some educators suggest that other possible audiences for the report card include college and university admission departments, scholarship committees, automobile insurance companies, and potential employers. But that is true of transcripts—not report cards. Transcripts are official records that may be shared publicly with a variety of agencies, including other schools, colleges and universities, government and civil service organizations, and prospective employers. Report cards, however, are considered private documents of communication between schools and parents and/or students. In most cases, transcripts also record students’ cumulative academic histories, whereas report cards typically include information about performance during a single term or academic year.

Middle-grade and secondary-level educators tend to be more divided. Many believe, like elementary educators, that the primary audience remains parents. To these educators, report cards serve to inform parents and other adults about their children’s academic performance. Other secondary educators argue, however, that older students should be taking increased responsibility for their own achievement and accomplishments in school (see Guskey & Anderman, 2008). For these educators, report cards also serve to inform students about their teachers’ formal judgments of how well they have met established learning goals and expectations.

ON YOUR MARK

What Is the Intended Goal of the Communication?

The Report Card’s Purpose Statement To ensure everyone understands the report card’s purpose, Guskey and Bailey (2010) further recommend that it be printed directly on the report card. The purpose statement should be spelled out in bold print in a special box on the front of the card or at the top of the first section. This will help identify the report card’s intent, the information it includes, and the targeted audience. It also helps minimize miscommunication and misinterpretation. Even though they include the common elements noted earlier, statements of purpose can vary widely. An example is: The purpose of this report card is to describe students’ learning progress to their parents and others, based on our school’s learning expectations for each grade level. It is intended to inform parents about learning successes and to guide improvements when needed. (Guskey & Bailey, 2010, p. 35)

Note that this statement tells the specific aim of the report card, for whom the information is intended, and how that information might be used. Another example is: The purpose of this report card is to communicate with parents and students about the achievement of specific learning goals. It identifies students’ levels of performance with regard to those goals, areas of strength, and areas where additional time and effort are needed. (Guskey & Bailey, 2010, p. 36)

Finally, the purpose of the report card should offer guidance regarding how the information it includes ought to be used. In other words, the report card communicates with intent. Obviously, the best use of that information will depend on the primary audience. The report card may, for example, provide parents and others with information about their children’s academic strengths and difficulties so that successes can be celebrated and specific steps taken to remedy any problems. For students, it might recognize their accomplishments and identify areas where additional study is needed. The key point is that rather than offering a culminating, final evaluation, the report card should be seen as part of a continuous and ongoing reporting process. Above all, the report card communicates information to facilitate improvements in student learning.

Define the Purpose of Grades

This statement identifies both parents and students as recipients of the report card’s information. The second part of the statement also makes clear how that information should be used.

Summary Reform initiatives that set out to improve grading and reporting procedures must begin with comprehensive discussions about the purpose of grades and of the report card. These discussions should focus on the message to be communicated through grading and reporting, the audience or audiences for that message, and the intended goal of the communication. Once decisions about purpose are made, other critical issues about the form and structure of the report card, as well as issues related to broader grading and reporting policies and practices, will be much easier to address and resolve.

The statement of purpose that works best will vary depending on the context. Differences across education levels also are common. The purpose of an elementary report card, for instance, may differ slightly from that of a middle school or high school report card. At all levels, however, it’s essential that the purpose be clearly stated to everyone involved in the grading and reporting process—teachers, parents and guardians, students, and administrators—so that all understand its intent and can use it appropriately.

CHALLENGING THE CONVENTIONS OF GRADING AND REPORTING

ON YOUR

MARK

K–12 teachers and administrators will: • Identify the purpose of grading and make sure school and classroom visions, practices, and policies support it

ON YOUR

— D O U G L A S B. R E E V E S, Founder, The Center for Successful Leadership; Author, Elements of Grading

solution -tree.com

T H O M A S R. G U S K E Y