Grades and Report Cards

This article focuses on grades and report cards in the K-12 public school system and the various types of grading systems available. Information on the validity and purposes of grading and reporting is offered. Considerations for implementing new grading systems are also included.

Keywords Class Rank; Grading Systems; Learning Styles; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Norm- Referenced Grading; Portfolio Grading; Report Cards; Rubric; Standardized Testing; Standards-Based Education

Testing & Evaluation > Grades & Report Cards

Overview

The purposes of grading are varied. Grading can be used to affirm and calculate mastery of subjects and specific abilities; to indicate the effort students put forth; to analyze students in terms of their adequacy, progress, and motivation; to recognize students' learning strengths and weaknesses and group them for instructional purposes; to determine a program's effectiveness; to motivate students to learn; to provide feedback to students, parents, districts, states, and policymakers; to determine grade level promotion, graduation eligibility, honors, awards, and student rank; and to determine accountability in student achievement (Salend & Garrick Duhaney, 2002).

Report cards can convey a multitude of varying information. Ideally, report cards would communicate student achievement; provide information about a student's progress toward exit-level standards; be easy to read and interpret by students, parents, and instructors; provide an accurate description of a student's learning; register student growth over a predetermined period of time; be formatted in such a way that a student's attendance, any special services received, promotion, and grade levels are all easily discernable; and include a key or accompanying sheet that clearly explains key skills and a description in detail of performance expectations for grade-level skills and concepts in all content areas (Aidman, Gates, & Sims, 2000). In short, the perfect report card would be all things to all people (students, parents, teachers, schools, districts, states) and provide a full report of all aspects of student learning in an easily understood and readable format.

There are many different grading systems in use in public school systems throughout the country. In selecting a grading system, it is important for schools and school districts to determine the purpose of grading their students. For example, if it is to differentiate between them by looking only at their academic performance, then a letter or numerical grading arrangement may be used. If the purpose is to document progress in a variety of areas, then a checklist system can be used. However, grading needs are not necessarily always so simple, so a multifaceted grading system may be in order to meet the needs of students, schools, and school districts.

Applications

According to Salend (2001), some of the more popular grading systems in use today include:

• Numeric / Letter System: In this system, teachers assign a numeric value (generally 0-100) or letter grades (usually A, B, C, D, F) based on students' performance on tests, quizzes, and other learning activities.

• Checklists / Rating Scales: In this system, teachers develop checklists and rating scales that spell out what is expected to be accomplished with their classes and then calculate each student in relation to their mastery of each competencies. There are many different scales that can be used, and some are more descriptive than others. Among the scales are:

• 'Independent' 'Developing,' 'Beginning,' 'Not Yet Evident'

• 'Independent' (without assistance), 'Guided' (some assistance), 'Dependent' (frequent assistance)

• 'Consistently Successful,' 'Making Progress,' 'Improvement Needed'

• 'Significant Progress' (independent work), 'Capable Progress' (successful work with minimal support), 'Shows Progress' (is developing with guidance and support), 'Minimal Progress' (needs significant guidance and support)

• 'Consistently Demonstrates,' Adequately Demonstrates,' Occasionally Demonstrates'

• Descriptive/portfolio grading: In this system, the teacher writes “descriptive comments regarding students' skills, learning styles, effort, and growth and provides strategies to improve student performance. The comments would be included with examples of students' work as part of portfolio grading” and to help justify and validate the teacher's conclusions (Salend & Duhaney, 2002, p. 9).

• Pass / fail grading: In this system, minimum course competencies are detailed. Students who display expertise of the majority of the competencies receive a P grade, and those who come short of meeting the minimum competencies receive an F grade. This system has been further defined in some instances to include passed with honors (HonorP), high pass (HP), and low pass (LP).

• Mastery level / Criterion Grading: In this system, students and teachers meet and divide the skills and activities according to the analysis of personal needs and skills. After finishing each educational activity, students then take a quiz or perform the task to display their mastery of it. If successfully completed, credit is received; and the process is repeated with the next skill to be addressed. If not successfully completed, the student continues to work on the skill.

• Progressive Improvement Grading: In this system, “students take exams and engage in activities and receive instruction based on their performance throughout the grading period. Only performances on cumulative tests and learning activities during the final weeks of the grading period are used to determine students' grades” (Salend & Duhaney, 2002, p. 11).

• Level Grading: In this system, instructors use numbered subscripts to signify how difficult students' grades are based. For example, C8 would be indicate a student is performing in the C grade range at an eighth-grade level. This system can also be used to show that students are performing at, above, or below grade level.

• Individual Education Program (IEP) Grading: In this system, teachers assign grades that show a student's progress in meeting their IEP goals and performance criteria (as cited in Salend & Garrick Duhaney, 2002, p. 11).

Grades and other reports are now readily available electronically for parents in some districts and schools. Computer software and interactive websites make it possible for parents to log on with a user name and password and have access to their children's school account where they can see grades, test scores, attendance, discipline reports, and other information (Sturgeon, 2006). This allows parents to be continually updated and involved in their child's learning and to provide assistance or contact the teacher if their child is not progressing in certain subjects or competencies before the grade report is due. This removes the uncertainty and tension that report card time can sometimes bring to households. Students can also log on, check their progress, and see if it matches their own perception of their learning experience.

In a recent survey by Guskey (2002) regarding grades and grade distribution, teachers at the elementary school level tended to believe that an ideal distribution of grades would have most students receiving the highest grades possible. Teachers at other levels and most students had similar ideal distribution patterns, but parents had more mixed ratings. Parents of elementary school students thought students would attain high grades, and parents of older students expected a more even distribution of grades. As the grade level progressed, “teachers, parents, and students all tended to rank communicating with parents as a less important purpose for grading and providing feedback to students as a more important purpose” (Boston, 2003, ¶ 3). As grade levels increase, teachers tended to rank the selection purposes of grades as less important, but parents and students both rank selection as increasingly important. Teachers at higher grade levels tend to rank the incentive value of grades as less important, while parents and students rank incentive value as increasingly important. Among teachers, grade level was significantly correlated with ratings of exams, compositions, quizzes, reports, portfolios, exhibits, labs, attendance, and punctuality. In all cases, teachers at higher grade levels rated these elements as more important. Parents of children in lower grades rated reports, portfolios, notebooks, classroom observations, neatness, and effort as more important. Students showed mixed results with increases in grade level related to increased importance attached to exam, compositions, quizzes, reports, oral presentations, homework, punctuality, and behavior (Guskey, 2002).

Boston (2003) cites a 1997 College Board survey of 3,000 high schools which determined that 91 percent of the schools used a more normal grading system based on A-F or numeric grades, 90.1 percent reported grade point averages, and 81.3 percent calculated high school class rank. “Nearly 85 percent of high schools surveyed reported that their teachers may award any distribution of grades depending on student performance. Only 6.6 percent required teachers to follow general guidelines or strict guidelines (3.5 percent) regarding grade distribution. Considering the differences in grading policies and curriculum across schools, districts, and states, there can be great differences between students' grades and student achievement as measured by test performance” (Boston, 2003, ¶ 4). As Boston (2003) also noted, the U.S. Department of Education reports that students in high-poverty schools “who received mostly A's in English got about the same reading scores as C and D students in the most affluent schools, and students who received A's in math in high-poverty schools scored about the same” mathematics scores as D students in the most affluent schools (Boston, 2003, ¶ 4).

One way to determine the level of student performance is using standardized test scores instead of grades. Scores differ from grades in that “no mitigating factors are considered; the performance is scored in reference to fixed criteria and standards through rubrics, anchors, or specifications. In standard referenced scoring there should be no predictable curve. A performance test should give valid and reliable scores based on consistent administration. Letter grades are a separate judgment” (Wiggins, 1994, p. 29). With the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act, more and more schools and school districts are leaning toward a more standards-based education, and some grading practices can be detrimental to achieving that goal. “Grading on a curve and using low grades as a form of punishment for students” who do not do as expected, do not turn in their work on time, or are found to be cheating on an exam does not show how each student is progressing (Boston, 2003, ¶ 10). A different approach is to require students to resubmit their work until it meets stated standards, providing remediation if necessary. Also, determining grade distributions based on how students do relative to each other puts the emphasis on competition and success/failure and not on learning (Boston, 2003).

Further Insights

In view of the No Child Left Behind Act and federal and state reporting requirements, schools and districts that rely solely on a letter grade (A-F) or number percentage (0%-100%) reporting system will be looking at their current grading system to determine whether or not it is still an appropriate system to use. Others will be revisiting their systems to ascertain whether or not they are still fulfilling the needs of their students, the school, the district, and the state. According to Salend & Garrick Duhaney (2002), there are several steps that can be taken to make the process a more fluid, effective undertaking. Schools should:

• Form a committee to review the current grading policies and procedures.

• In reviewing the current policies and procedures, the committee should look at them in terms of when they were first adopted, any revision dates, the philosophy behind their adoption, the types of policies and procedures addressed, and how often the policies and procedures have been revisited.

• The committee should then identify what the various constituencies would like concerning the different aspects of grading and grading systems.

• The committee should be sure it understands the legal guidelines for grading.

• In deciding which grading policies are to be implemented, it is important to choose those which are acceptable to all represented groups and are flexible and practical for teachers to use, work well with a variety of instructing styles and students' needs, and provide helpful knowledge to students and their parents.

• Once decided upon, teachers must be supported and encouraged to instruct in such a way that the learning standards that will be covered by the reporting system are taught in class and take into consideration the different learning styles and levels of all students.

• To be truly meaningful, grades need to be interpreted and understood by everyone the same way. Therefore, once adopted, the new grading system and policies must be clearly disseminated to everyone affected by the change-parents, students, instructors, and schools.

• After the new grading system has been implemented, it is important to evaluate it periodically to make sure that it continues to meet the needs it was originally intended to meet and that there is a willingness to revise it as necessary to make sure it continues to be an effective system (Salend & Garrick Duhaney, 2002).

Schools and districts that keep the above guidelines in mind and demonstrate a willingness to critically review their current grading system will help create a learning environment where students can see what they have accomplished and what they still need to work on to improve, parents will have a better understanding of their children's progress and be able to help them focus on the competencies they need to work on to be successful, and instructors will be able to more closely align their instruction with what will be reported on report cards and discussed at conferences with parents and students.

Viewpoints

In order for a report card to be a truly useful instrument for students, parents, teachers, schools, districts, and states, the report needs to be put in the context of 'compared to what?' A single letter grade and even a more detailed, informative grading process cannot really do the job because those concerned still do not know whether what is reported is a relative or absolute achievement when comparative data is not provided in terms of school, state, and/or national norms. Simply using class, school, or district norms can be misleading because there is no way of determining whether or not each student's performance level is suitable or if the accomplishment is just superior in that class, school, or district but may be subpar when examined in contrast with students in the best schools in the country. For example, according to Boston (2003), the U.S. Department of Education found that “students in high-poverty high schools (in which more than 75 percent of student body receive free or reduced-price lunches) who received mostly A's in English got about the same reading scores as C and D students in the most affluent schools, and students who received A's in mathematics in high-poverty high schools scored about the same mathematics scores as D students in the most affluent schools” (Boston, 2003, ¶ 4). These stark facts show why it can be important to have more contextualized information on report cards. This can occur by having performance samples, curriculums, and instructor comments/narratives so students and parents can see exactly where students stand when compared with others nationwide. This is not the same as each teacher individually monitoring a student's progress and performance, which can be very subjective.

Another drawback of using a single grade report system is that students and parents can be misled when low performing students who are extremely compelled and diligent are graded as achieving at high levels, which is what can happen when student progress and effort have to be represented in a single grade. It becomes very difficult to grade fairly when an instructor must use one grade to evaluate a very gifted student and a special needs student who has been thrust into the mainstream of education. Most people looking at the grades would assume that they refer to the same body of work. Not separating the quality of the work produced and the difficulty of the tasks renders the grade meaningless in such circumstances. Grading on a curve or any form of it is also misleading because those grades have no clear relation to performance, criteria, or standards of any kind and cannot really show the value and status of any student's educational achievements. According to Wiggins (1994), students and parents also need to know exactly what constitutes superior work, which can help in the understanding of report cards. If schools compile a body of work that shows what superior work is, then it will be easier for students to see what they need to do to achieve higher grades; and parents will have a clearer comprehension of the quality of work that their children need to do to meet such standards. Having teachers include a narrative with the grade report, along with a portfolio of the student's work, helps pull everything together and gives it meaning. Rubrics and the examples of outstanding work further help the process (Wiggins, 1994).

Report cards that simply give a grade in mathematics, English, reading, history, etc. do not show students or parents how students are doing and what they may need help with. Focusing on skill areas instead of major areas requires more effort on the part of teachers because instead of simply assigning a grade in mathematics, instructors can give an overall grade and then have specific skills broken down beneath the major subject area. Using mathematics as an example, skill categories can include concepts; problem-solving skills; ability to calculate fractions, including addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division; and including the same breakdown for decimals and percentages. Language arts can be broken down into independent reading, understanding of texts, following written directions, and understanding vocabulary. Writing can include ability to write independently, organize ideas, choose appropriate words, and understanding of the mechanics of writing. All subjects can be broken down into subcategories detailing specific competencies. There can also be a section that details students' personal work ethic, commitment to learning, and style: completes assignments in a timely manner, follows directions, completes work, neatness, effort, obeying rules, responsibility, and other areas of behavior with a determination of whether the student demonstrates the behavior/competency consistently, adequately, or occasionally. This type of report card allows far more particularized information than simply noting a grade or percentage, but it can be incredibly time consuming for the teacher (Whittle, 1997).

Terms & Concepts

Class Rank: Class rank is the relative numerical position of a student in his or her class, calculated on the basis of grade-point average.

Learning Styles: Learning styles are the various ways people learn. Most students prefer to learn through visual means, while others learn better through hearing, touching, or any combination of the three.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the latest reauthorization and a major overhaul of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the major federal law regarding K-12 education.

Norm-Referenced Grading: “All students are evaluated using the same standards, and their grades are based on their performance in comparison to the performance of others” (Salend & Duhaney, 2002, p. 3).

Portfolio Grading: A grading system based on a portfolio -- a systematic collection of teacher observations and student work representing the student's progress and activities of a particular class. It may also contain projects that are not yet complete, which help to show what an assignment looks like at different stages of its development.

Rubric: A rubric is a set of ordered categories to which a given piece of work can be compared. It is a guide that shows how what learners do will be assessed and graded.

Standardized Testing: Standardized testing is the use of a test that is administered and scored in a uniform manner, and the tests are designed in such a way that the questions and interpretations are consistent.

Standards-Based Education: Standards-based education is where “all students are evaluated based on their mastery of previously established standards or curriculum, and student performance is not compared to others” (Salend & Duhaney, 2002, p. 3).

Bibliography

Aidman, B., Gates, J., & Sims, E. (2000). Building a better report card. Here's How, 19 , 1-4. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/24/3a/43.pdf

Boston, C. (2003). High school report cards. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/2a/3a/82.pdf

Guskey, T. (2002). Perspectives on grading and reporting: Differences among teachers, students, and parents. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/0d/e1/46.pdf

Guskey, T., Jung, L., & Swan, G. M. (2011). Grades that mean something. Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 52-57. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66478284&site=ehost-live

O'Connor, K., & Wormeli, R. (2011). Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, 69, 40-44. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66901499&site=ehost-live

Salend, S. & Garrick Duhaney, L. (2002). Grading students in inclusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34 , 8-15. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5995640&site=ehost-live

Schwei, A. (2011). Grades should reflect student achievement. Educational Leadership, 69, 92-93. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66901523&site=ehost-live

Sturgeon, J. (2006). Self-serve report cards. District Administration, 42 , 96. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21349468&site=ehost-live

Whittle, S. (1997). Report cards: Stepping away from tradition. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/11/32/7b.pdf

Wiggins, G. (1994). Toward better report cards. Educational Leadership, 52 , 28-37. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9411032013&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Azwell, T. & Schmar, E. (1995). Report Card on Report Cards: Alternatives to Consider. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Guskey, T. & Bailey, J. (2000). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hargis, C. (2003). Grades and Grading Practices: Obstacles to Improving Education and to Helping At-Risk Students. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Walvoord, B, Johnson Anderson, V., & Angelo, T. (1998). Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment. Hoboken, NY: Jossey-Bass.