Running head: GRADING PRACTICES 1

A Deeper Look into Secondary Grading:

What are Effective Grading Practices for Students with and without Disabilities?

A PLAN B PORTFOLIO AND PAPER

SUBMITTED TO THE INSTITUTE FOR TEACHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT COLLEGE OF

EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MANOA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF EDUCATION IN TEACHING

Jasmine Sinenci

Honolulu, HI

April, 2020

____________________________________

Program Advisor: Dr. Paulo Tan

____________________________________

Reader: Dr. Rhonda Black

GRADING PRACTICES

2
ABSTRACT

This systematic literature review focuses on views of students, teachers, and parents

regarding the process of grading students with and without disabilities in general education

settings. Studies focusing on personalized grading practices (PCP) and adaptations will show

different strategies schools have used in the grading process. Findings indicated that although

this is a controversial topic, when grading adaptations are implemented, student success is

shown in report card grades throughout secondary general education settings for students with

and without disabilities.

GRADING PRACTICES

3
CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Many students and teachers in general education find a struggle in grading practices and

adaptations for students with disabilities. In this literature review, I aim to examine how

educators and schools adapt grading plans or practices for students with or without disabilities

across the curriculum in secondary inclusive education classrooms. From my experiences, I

have found that there is not only a need for coherent grading plans and practices, but a balance

between how the schools develop and support a grading plan in the inclusive setting. Before

you can create a grading plan or adaptation, you must first know your state and school grading

policies. After familiarization with the policies, the next step might be, especially for students

on an individualized education program (IEP), to meet with the IEP team to define what grades

mean to each member of the team and what adaptations match to service the student's needs.

Finding a grading plan for students on an IEP is only one of the problems in special education

not only for the students but for the teachers. Another issue in designing grading plans or

practices is the need to have a set basis/definition of what inclusion will look like in the school.

This research aimed to inform grading, standard adaptations, and modifications. Through this

study, I gathered information on how teachers decide on grading students with IEPs in multiple

settings and how students with disabilities, their parents, and special education teachers in

inclusive classrooms are included in this process.

GRADING PRACTICES

4
CHAPTER TWO

History, Theory, and Literature

Historical Foundations of grading practices for students with Disabilities

In an article by Silva, Munk, and Bursuck, (2005), the authors take a deep look at how

students with disabilities are graded. More specifically, students, their parents, and teachers

examine the nature of the disability and the student's strengths and weaknesses. They make a

plan that outlines the specific ways in which the teachers grade these students. This plan builds

on the relationship between students with IEP's and the struggles they face in an inclusion

classroom setting. The authors propose a solution called grading adaptations. Silva et al. (2005),

define grading adaptations as "procedures or strategies that can be used to individualize the

grading system for a student with disabilities" (p. 88). This system is broken down into five

types of grading adaptations. Silva et al. (2005), define these five adaptations, “(1) progress on

IEPs, (2) improvement over past performance, (3) performance on prioritizing content and

assignments, (4) use of process and effort to complete the work, and (5) modified weights and

scales" (p. 88). The first step to finding a grading adaptation that will work for the student is to

collaborate with teachers, parents, and students. The process starts with the general and

special education teacher, where they address specific questions that look into how they meet

the student's adaptation needs.

Silva et al. (2005) found that in the PGP Model, “teachers (a) identify a student who

might benefit from a PGP; (b) identify the student’s strengths and challenges that affect

performance in the general education classroom; (c) clarify what aspects of student’s

performance teachers and parents want grades to reflect; (d) review and evaluate different
GRADING PRACTICES

5
types of grading adaptations to select those with the most potential benefit to the student; and

(e) develop a PGP that includes a description of types of adaptations, responsibilities for each

team member, and a plan for monitoring and reporting the student’s progress with the PGP” (p.

88).

The article takes the reader through the steps that each member goes through to put

together the grading adaptations. Silva et al. (2005) stated, “Grading adaptations can make the

grading process more meaningful and fair for included students with disabilities” (p. 98). The

results are having students with disabilities successfully succeeding in the general education

classroom instead of struggling and never measuring up to the expectations and requirements.

In an article by Carey and Carifio (2012), they look into the implementation of minimum

grading and its effects on student success. This intervention was conducted n a high school in

Massachusetts with seven years of data, and 343,425 complete or partial sets of grades from

over 10,000 students. The study monitored assigned grades, grade sets that ended with passing

final grades, grade sets that ended with failing final grades, grading sets with other outcomes,

sets that began with minimum grading of 50, and grade sets with a final passing grade after

minimal grading. Carey and Carifio (2012), define minimum grading as "raising catastrophically

low student quarter or term grades to a predetermined minimum--- typically a 50 on the 100-

point scale" (p.201). This study looked into the data and was able to form evidence to support

minimum grading with positive outcomes for students. There was also data collected on

mandated state-wide assessments. Carey and Carifio (2012) found that minimum grading

helped to keep students engaged while improving motivation.. The results from this study not

only show a positive, but they confirm that having a grading plan is enforced schoolwide.
GRADING PRACTICES

6
In conclusion, Carey and Carifio (2012) found the following:

“The results here dramatically show that after adjusting for grade point average, the

students who had received minimum grades were outperforming their peers who had never

received a minimum grade on the state exams that measure academic achievement. These

results, far from revealing evidence of grade inflation, are instead consistent with views that,

even after minimum grading has taken place, the grades assigned to the struggling students are

still under-reporting the academic achievement of these struggling students when compared to

the grades assigned to their better-performing peers” (p. 202). The findings in this studybring

light to the fact that struggling students without proper interventions or adaptations are well

below better-performing students and their grade point averages will continue to be at the

bottom if nothing is done in the grading system.

An article by Guskey and Jung, (2009) reviews steps that can provide a clear way to

connect IEP goals and objectives with curriculum standards while grading. "For the students

with disabilities who are fully included in the general education classroom; however, the

division of grading responsibilities is less clear" (p.53) This study breaks down steps that can be

taken towards grading adaptation that allow students with disabilities to be successful with not

only the standards for the curriculum, but in meeting their IEP objectives, and properly

monitoring progress towards these goals. Within this study, there are three distinct types of

learning criteria, product, process, and progress. Guskey and Jung (2009) report, "High- quality

grading and reporting systems establish clear indicators of product, process, and progress

criteria and then report each separately"(p.53). Within this study, they designed an inclusive

grading model that has five steps, "1. Determine whether an accommodation or modification is
GRADING PRACTICES

7
needed for each grade level standard. 2. Establish the appropriate modified standard for each

area requiring modification. 3. Outline any additional goals pertinent to the child's academic

success. 4. Apply equivalent grading practices to the appropriate standards. 5. Communicate

the grades' meaning" (p. 53). Within these steps, there are many other working parts to make

this inclusive grading model successful. One of the most important being the collaboration

between special education, general education teachers, students, and parents or guardians.

The conclusion the authors stated (2009), "Educators at all levels desperately need clear and

specific guidance in developing grading, and reporting, policies and practices for students with

disabilities who are included in general education classes"(p. 64). This study just begins to

scratch the surface of the intervention needed in today's grading system to make all our

students successful.

Eisenman,Pleet, Wandry, and McGinley’s 2011) study is done in a new high school

that redefines the meaning of inclusion. Within the secondary school's administration, teachers,

and even students are being pushed towards inclusion and co-teaching to help meet the law

requirements to meet the needs of students with disabilities. This study takes a new approach

and looks into the collaborative-consultation model. This study is by Eisenman et al. (2011),

which is a "5-year case study built on interviews, observations, student records, and other

document reviews" (p. 91) This study redefines the role of special education teachers and

includes 21 general education teachers, ten administrators, eight focus students, and four

parents. The studybrok down the findings into three themes: responsibilities, relationships,

knowledge/skills, and support. A large role within the school system was the learning support

coaches these individuals helped redefined special education in this school system. These
GRADING PRACTICES

8
coaches not only mentored the students but mentored the teachers. All staff and learning

support coaches met twice weekly for 30 minutes and would discuss learning problems and

instructional techniques. Another exciting part that is built into the schedule is coaches meet

with the IEP students for 12 minutes every day in the homeroom, they help guide the student

and teach them who to write their own IEP goals and begin to advocate for themselves and

now their own goals and strengths. Eisenman et al. (2011) found the following:

I see co-teaching as not really working that well. I think that it's really difficult to have

two people, strong personalities, in which teachers tend to be in the same classroom

and that to be an equal situation without one person or the other feeling like it’s not

their classroom…” (p. 92).

This school found that adapting this model not only made gains academically and socially for

IEP students but all students at the high school. The focus that came from this study was “the

school culture established that the primary problem to be solved was implementation of

effective instruction for all students, with problem solving on behalf of individual students

playing supportive role” (Eisenman et al., 2011, p.93) This study reviews data about grading

adaptations, report card grading fairness and perceptions from students, teachers, and parents.

Grading practices and adaptations in general and special education have limited research and

depend on the teacher and their perceptions of fairness and necessity. This has become an area

of concern and in need of clarifications with the growth of inclusion classrooms across the

country. In the present study, I will provide in-depth details on grading practices and

adaptations for students with and without disabilities and show the importance of personal

grading practices, models, and techniques.

GRADING PRACTICES

9
Purpose and Research Questions that Guide this Literature Review

The purpose of my systematic literature review (SLR) is to analyze and synthesize

research studies that have examined grading practices for secondary school students (6-12)

with disabilities. The research questions that guided my review are as follows:

RQ 1. What are effective grading practices and adaptations for students with and

without disabilities?

RQ 2. How fair or important are grading practices, adaptations, and report cards in

providing feedback on academic performance for secondary school students?

GRADING PRACTICES

10
CHAPTER 3

Methods

Definition of Terms

I have included a list of definitions of key terms used in this literature review:

1. Grading practices: The term grade in the western dictionary states, giving a mark to (as

student or piece of work). Practice is defined as the actual application or use of an idea,

belief, or method to theories relating to it.

1. Grading Adaptations: “Grading adaptations are procedures or strategies that can be used to

individualize the grading system for a student with disabilities.”(Silvia, p. 88)

2. Special Education: “The term “special education” means specially designed instruction, at

no cost to parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—

● (A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions,
and other settings; and
● (B) instruction in physical education.”(Section401)
3. Students(Child) with disabilities: A student who is identified as having a disability under

IDEA (as well as previous incarnations of current IDEA law). “Child with a disability

● (A) In general, the term “child with a disability” means a child—

○ (i) with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness),
speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness),
serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this chapter as “emotional
disturbance”), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other
health impairments, or specific learning disabilities; and
○ (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related
services.”(Section401)
4. Inclusion classroom: This is a classroom in a general education setting that includes students
GRADING PRACTICES

11
with and without disabilities in the least restrictive environment(LRE). LRE is defined as, "To

the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or

private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled,

and special classes, separate schooling, or other removals of children with disabilities from

the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the

disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary

aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” (Section401)

5. Secondary school: “The term “secondary school” means a nonprofit institutional day or

residential school, including a public secondary charter school, that provides secondary

education, as determined under State law, except that it does not include any education

beyond grade 12.”(Section401)

Search Procedures

To initiate the research process I conducted an electronic search of existing articles

through the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM) Hamilton Library database. The articles that

I determined through specific search terms were then subjected to multiple rounds of review and

systematic synthesis. Using the UHM Library One Search option, I was able to enter key terms

that searched through over 435 online databases. The majority of articles reviewed were from

EBSCOhost databases.

Step 1: Initial search. I searched for articles using the UHM Hamilton online search

engine. I typed in the terms, grading secondary special education inclusion all in the same line.

Then I clicked on the search button allowing the search engine to search all articles, books, and

more. This pulled up over 55,697 results. The parameter dates were then set to 1920-2020. I then
GRADING PRACTICES

12
clicked peer-reviewed journals, which drop the results to a little over 6,400. To refine the search

more, I then clicked available online, which dropped the results to 4,792. From this, I went to the

subject field and clicked on special education, secondary, and this made the article count drop to

263 articles.

Step 2: Title and abstract review. To narrow down the field of articles that resulted

from this search, I first began by reading all 263 and titles and pinning them to my favorites

based on if they included students with disabilities, grading, secondary, or adaptations. Then I

went into my favorites board by clicking on the image of the thumbtack. I had 27 results in my

favorites. At this time, I reread through titles, and brief descriptions, this narrowed my findings

down to 21 results. When reading titles, I looked again for the words I had put into the search

bar at the beginning but focused on the word grading and inclusion. Then I downloaded each

article to my google file and created a work cited page. Next, I read the abstract of all 21 articles

I looked for information about grading students with disabilities in secondary education

inclusion classrooms. During this process, I eliminated eight articles, and I excluded three

articles because they focused on grading in college, three articles focused on curriculum, one

was a duplicate, and three articles because they focused on the co-teaching inclusion model.

The inclusion criteria for the 11 articles that remained were that they focused on grading in

secondary and looked at either grading students with disabilities or both with and without

disabilities. After reading the abstract and the introduction I was looking to see if there was

data gathered. This process disqualified three articles, leaving me with seven articles.

Step 3: Full criteria review. First, I read through the seven articles and did a summary

of each article, what it was focusing on, the setting, participants, what was measured, and how
GRADING PRACTICES

13
the data were collected. I used the following inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies

that qualified for my systematic literature review:

1. Studies including grading practices in forms of grading adaptations, report cards,

purposes for grading, implementation of grading plan model, and differences between

grading practices and grades. I retained two studies that looked specifically at the

perception of teacher’s grading practices because they only covered this area and not

the other areas needed to qualify.

2. Studies including students (children) with disabilities according to the IDEA law and

definitions cited above in selection terms.

3. Studies including secondary education, general and special education, in public or

private schools.

4. Studies including student and or teacher-related data collection.

Of the seven articles, five met the criteria listed above. I then began to analyze and evaluate

each study into the results section listed below.

Framework for Reporting Data and Coding Information from Grading Practices

The framework used to describe the data used in grading practices and adaptations

studies have been put into Table 1-4. I defined variables of interest that are labeled in the

column heading in Table's 1-4. There are a total of 5 articles that qualify for the review of

grading practices and adaptations of students in secondary education with and without

disabilities. Articles range from 1995 to 2001 and can be grouped into two categories grading

plans and practices (2 articles) and adaptations and report card grades (3 articles). For this

review, I will review studies in the order listed below:

GRADING PRACTICES

14
1. Munk, Bursuck, 2001a

2. Munk, Bursuck, 2001b

3. Munk, Bursuck, 1999

4. Bursuck, Munk, Olson, 1999

5. Struyk, Epstein, 1995

GRADING PRACTICES

15
CHAPTER 4

Results

Research design, Impact, Measures, and Results of Grading Practice Plans

The first study by Munk et al. (2001a), was designed to create and collect data on

personal grading plans for individual students with disabilities that need grading adaptations

based on their current GPA on their report card. The development of the grading plan required

collection of data by the first author who met with students and parents in their home than

with teachers at the school to review students' disabilities, grading policies, possible grading

adaptations, and any assignments teachers might assign over the grading period. The first

author then summarized the data, which led to a team collaboration meeting that consisted of

the student, parents, teaching team. First, one general education and one special education

teacher to have the first author view summaries form data collect and form the personal

grading plan for each of the four students with one student receiving two plans in two different

subjects. Each grading plan consisted of in-depth detail as to why the plan was warranted,

specific action and adaptations, curriculum and instructions, as well as roles and

responsibilities, with a statement of the agreement signed by all participants.

The results for this study by Munk et al. (2001a), focus on each of the four student's

PGP's in five content areas; please see table 4 in-depth details of each of the summarized

results. Problems addressed in the PGP range from low grades on tests and quizzes, with an

extended amount of time spent on homework to incomplete homework and other longer

assignments, not reflecting effort and negatively impact motivation. From the student's specific

problems, individualized adaptations were created and implemented, with the majority being in
GRADING PRACTICES

16
changing the grading weight or scale. The efficacy rating of the grading process survey

completed by teachers and parents showed a mean of 4.5-5.13 with moderate to high positive

statements regarding the PGP process. The biographical form returned by teachers showed

teachers on teaching teams had an average of 60% of 3 or less years teaching, held a

bachelor's, had taken college class on grading adaptations, and have used grading adaptations.

The monitoring form, demands on teachers, broke downtime spent implementing PGP with the

five teams ranging from 4-10 minutes per day with one team spending a one time 15, 30

minute time period building materials for implementation. Report card grades for students

before implementation and after implementation of PGP generally show an increase or remain

the same when they would have dropped lower if adaptations hadn't been made. Lastly, the

outcomes evaluation of the PGP's by students, 4 out of 5 viewed themselves as having high

grades, a better understanding of grading adaptations, and how they were graded. Parents had

a combined mean of 3.2-5 and teachers a combined mean of 3.4-5.8 in regards to positive

grading outcomes in PGP's see table for details.

The second study, Munk et al. (2001b), tested social validity by having the surveys first

draft field-tested by high school parents for comprehensiveness and clarity and then the revised

draft field-tested by three parents. Of the 560 surveyed parents, 163 returned their surveys; six

were disqualified due to improperly filled out or being damaged. Authors reviewed the report

cards from the past seven years and categorized them by achievement level with the largest

return rate of 61, 39% of received student surveys in the high GPA range of 4.0-3.25 and the

lowest return rate of 18, 11% from the average range GPA of 3.24-2.5, including 32, 20% return
GRADING PRACTICES

17
rate from students in special education. From this data, authors categorized the written

comments into seven themes, plus one category of others (Munk et al., 2001b).

The results of this study can be seen in table 4 Munk et al. (2001b), it shows the mean of

Parents ranked the importance and effectiveness of report card grades for students with and

without disabilities. Results show that the two purposes rated most important and effective are

purposes 1, communicate academic achievement and quality and purpose 2, communicate

effort and work habits. With significant differences from parents without disabilities finding the

purpose in communicating the academic quality of work and ability for postsecondary and

employment. There were differences between purposes from parents of students with different

achievement levels ranging from high purpose to proceed to postsecondary and average for

communicating the need for help, see a complete breakdown in table 2.

The third study by Munk et al. (1998), looks into common grading adaptations from

changing grading criteria, changing a letter to number grades, and alternative to letter and

number grades. Changing grading criteria can consist of varying grading weights, modifying

curricular expectations, use of contracts and modified course syllabi, and grading based on

improvement. In changing letter or number grades, the use of written comments, information

from student activity log, or information form portfolios and performance-based assessments

might be used. An alternative to letter and number grade can be pass or fail grades and

competency checklists.

The results section of Munk et al. (1998), indicates the perceived use and fairness of

grading practices and adaptation from teachers and students. Teachers found that letter,

number/percentage grades to be fair for students without disabilities and pass/fail for students
GRADING PRACTICES

18
with disabilities, While it is reported that 80% of the school districts require letter grades,

Useful adaptations range from basing grades on improvement, meeting IEP objectives, meeting

academic/behavioral contracts, giving separate grades for effort, and adjusting grade weights.

Teachers reported that adaptations based on less content, modified grading scales, and passing

students no matter what we're not useful. A majority of students felt making adaptations for

only students with disabilities as unfair; table 2 shows the breakdown from must fair to least

fair. A total of 70% of students felt weighted systems are fair if they give more weight to harder

classes but found it unfair if the weight of all classes were the same no matter the difficulty

level.

In the fourth study by Bursuck et al. (1999), social validity was tested by first plot-tested

using a group of college students enrolled in a special education course and then a small group

of special education teachers. Of the 275 surveyed students, 84 were selected for a follow-up

interview of which, 39 admin selected, and 15 returned consent. A total of 11 attended

interviews with four females and seven males from multiple grades and achievement level;

please see table 1.

The results for Munk et al. (1999), give the feedback from students and their ideas

about report card changes and adaptations. Students rated fairness by achievement levels, with

a majority agreeing that all adaptations rated as unfair. Achievement levels found 4 out of 9

adaptations had significant differences; you can find a detailed list of these in table 2.

Differences seen by students with and without disabilities in three adaptations were grading on

improvement, changing grade weights, and changing grading scale. Students included

adaptations that were most fair with a majority believing effort should be rewarded and that all
GRADING PRACTICES

19
students have different abilities and should be treated differently in report cards. Students

found the least fair to be passing students no matter what, and that grading systems should

treat students equally no matter what. Follow-up interviews with 11 students found that most

students felt grading adaptations were being made at their school, but they had never been

explained. Students also shared their perception of calculating GPAs, how the grading system

can be made fair, and suggestions they had for teachers who all can be seen in the fifth row of

table 2.

The fifth study by Struyk et al. (1995), lists the three surveys returned by general

education teachers that were required to teach students with disabilities. The survey

categories were homework, grading, and testing. Homework received the most with 394, 76

middle/junior high, and 67 high schools and the least from the grading survey of 352 with 63

middle/junior high and 54 high schools. Leaving the survey on testing in the middle with 385, 81

from middle/junior high, and 74 from high school with all three surveys response rates having a

nearly even return rate between 30-43% and the majority of secondary teachers identifying

with middle/junior or high school.

The results from Struyk et al. (1995), break down the three surveys from teachers in the

areas of homework, grading, and tests. Homework was given the majority of the time 2-4 times

weekly, with 57% having the length spent on assignment less than 30 minutes and 41% 30-60

minutes. Teachers found homework to be most useful when preparing for a test or practice

skills in checking levels of understanding at the start of class. Grading survey for grading

adaptations shows the highest weight in test/quizzes with 35% in special education and 40% in

general education and the second highest in classwork/homework with 25% in special
 GRADING PRACTICES

20
education and 30% in general education. The most helpful in the use of checklists and written

comments. Most of the teachers put communication with the parents quarterly with 45% from

special education and 53% form general education; see table 2 row 5 for more details. The test

survey showed teacher's perceptions for special education adaptations on tests 92%-96% in

extended time, student feedback, and open-book/notes.

Table 1: Research Design and Responses.

Author & Research Design & Responses

Year

Munk, DEVELOPMENT of GRADING PLAN:

Bursuck, I. Collecting Data for Grading Plan.
1. Consent. Consent for Participation Form
2001a 2. Meeting with Student/Parents/1st Author: At student’s home.
a. Open-ended questions regarding students' disability and how it affects performance in classes.
(specifically target class, and how grading systems in the past had effectively reflected grading
performance.)
b. Parents- completed instrument on 10 purposes for report card grades.
c. 1st author reviewed districts grading policies with parents, with a table of common grading
adaptations.
d. Students and parents encouraged to consider what if any time of grading adaptation might be
helpful.
3. Meeting with Teacher Teams/1st author: Each team (2 teachers) for each student met at the campus.
a. Teachers respond to open-ended questions regarding the nature of the student's disability and
how it affects performance and report card grades.
b. 1st Author reviewed districts grading policy and table of common grading adaptations.
c. Teachers completed the survey- 9 purposes for report card grades based on perceived
importance.
d. Teachers completed worksheets, describing all assignments and responsibilities that would be
used in calculating the student’s report card grade, providing weight for each assignment and
responsibility.
II. Summarizing Data and Preparing for Development of Grading Plan.
1. Data summarized from meetings.
a. Audiotapes of questions were transcribed and code transcripts.
III. Collaborative Development of the PGP.
1. Teachers, Students, and Parents meet at school to develop personalized grading plans.
2. The 1st Author presents summaries from previous meetings:
a. Team description of disability.
b. assignments/ responsibilities for targeted classroom.
c. How students' disabilities might interact with classroom demands and limit achievement and
report card grades.
d. curricular and instructional adaptations currently provided.
e. Students' current grade in the class.
 GRADING PRACTICES

21
f. Top four ranked purposes for students report card grades.
g. Potential for grading adaptation to produce high, more accurate, more effective grades.
3. The 1st Author led each team through a discussion summarizing information; teams added information.
a. Listing possible adaptations, benefits, and limitations.
b. The team agrees on one or more adaptations.
c. 1st Author developed PGP and team members before implementation signed it.
IV. PERSONALIZED GRADING PLANS (PGPs)
1. Rationale that summarized why the team had determined that a PGP was warranted.
2. Detailed description of specific actions/adaptations to be undertaken.
3. Summary of related curricular and instructional adaptations that were identified.
4. List of roles/responsibilities of teacher, parent, student, and investigators.
5. Statement of agreement signed by all participants.
● Biographical Form: Characteristics of Participant Teachers.
● 5 teams: 1 SPED, 1 General Ed teacher on each student team, 1 team for each content area/student.

Munk, *Survey Draft: Field-tested with a group of high school parents led by colleagues; feedback regarding
Bursuck, comprehensiveness and clarity.
*Revised Draft: Field-tested by three parents, no further changes.
2001b 163 Surveys Returned:
● 6 Disqualified
Achievement Level:
61, 39% High (GPA 4.0-3.25)
18, 11% Average (GPA 3.24-2.5)
46, 29% Low (GPA below 2.5)
32, 20% Special Education
* Authors reviewed the report cards sent by the school for the past seven years. (letter grade and up to 3
comments from a list of 15)
Written Comments:
*No specific questions or structure=variety of responses.
*First author categorized into seven themes. (Review the second reader, add other categories)

Munk, Common Grading Adaptations (See Table 1)

Bursuck, 1.Changing Grading Criteria:
a. Vary grading weights.
1998 b. Modify curricular expectations.
c. Use contracts and modified course syllabi.
d. Grade based on improvement.
2. Changes to Letter and Number Grade:
a. Add written comments.
b. Add information form the student activity log.
c. Add information from portfolios and/or performance-based assessments.
3. Alternative to Letter and Number Grades:
a. Use pass/fail grades.
b. Use competency checklists.

Bursuck, * survey instruments were plot-tested by administering to a group of college freshmen enrolled in a special
Munk, education course, asked to clarify directions. Then the survey was administered to a small group of special
education teachers, who provided the final round of changes.
Olson,
1999 Survey: Students Ideas About Report Card Changes (3 part) 275 Students
 GRADING PRACTICES

22
Student Follow-up Interviews:
● 84 students selected possible participation.
● 39 selected by assistant principal
● 15 students returned their consent form.
● 11 Attended interview:
○ 4 females, 7 Males
○ Grade level: 2 freshmen, 2 sophomores, 7 juniors.
○ Achievement level: 3 low, 3 average, 3 above average, 1 high.

Struyk, Of the three different Surveys returned:

Epstein, (394) Homework Survey: 76 Middle/Junior high teachers, 67 High school teachers.
1995
(352) Grading Survey: 63 Middle/Junior high teachers, 54 High school teachers.

(385) Testing Survey: 81 Middle/Junior high teachers, 74 High school teachers.

Table 2: Impact, Measures, & Results.

Author & Impact, Measures, & Results

Year

Munk, PERSONALIZED GRADING PLANS (PGPs):

Bursuck, Andy: MATH
Problems to Address: Low grades on tests/quizzes, and amount of time spent on homework.
2001a PGP:
1. Change grade weights of self-passed assignments from 35%-50% of the final grade. (Changing grading
scale by 2-3 percent)
Mitchell: SCIENCE
Problems to Address: Low grades, risk of going lower due to the proportion of grade tests/quizzes. Grades do
not reflect individual growth.
1. Design individualizing learning objectives. The teaching team and students would meet to develop 2-3
learning objectives before the start of a unit.
2. Provide students with a worksheet of objectives and grading rubric.
3. The grading scale reduced for each grade by 2-3 percent.
Mary:
LITERATURE:
Problems to Address: Incomplete homework and other longer assignments not reflecting her effort, negatively
impact motivation.
1. The grading scale was lowered by 3%.
2. Bi-weekly notes sent to parents to provide feedback.
3. Homework communication form, checkmarks from students, teachers, and parents.
HISTORY:
1. Daily Planner- assignments, due dates. SPED teacher provides a schedule. Extra point when
assignments were written down.
2. Review on a planner, SPED teacher daily, Gen. teacher weekly, added to participation grade.
Jason: GEOGRAPHY
Problems to Address: Grade was negatively impacted by homework. (Lack of self-management skills)
1. Increase the contribution of homework/projects from 20-25% to 30%.
GRADING PRACTICES

23
2. The weight of participation was increased by 10%.
3. Daily self-management of portfolio. (computerized)
4. Extra-credit: assignment completed independently and accurately, presenting portfolio weekly.
(treated as a separate category.)

Survey- Efficacy Rating for Grading Plan Process:

TEACHERS & PARENTS:
● Moderate to high: Positive statements regarding steps in the PGP’s process.
● 4.62 mean; first step collection of family and teacher interview data.
● 4.8 mean; second step completion of grading purpose survey, review of school policy, review of
potential grading adaptations.
● 5.13 mean; third step team met at school to develop PGP.
● 4.5 mean; Overall series of entire processes improving communication and leading to identification
and resolution of important problems.

Biographical Form:
● Years Teaching- 60% 3 years or less.
● Degree- 60% have a BA, 40% have MA
● Training on adaptations- 20% none, 60% college courses, 20% in-service training.
● Training on grading adaptations- 90% no, 10% yes
● Made adaptations- 40% no, 60% yes
● General ED years in inclusion- 50% N/A, 40% 3 years or less, 10% 6 years.

Monitoring Form: Demands on Teachers:

IMPLEMENTING PGP’s:
Andy’s Team: MATH
● 7 min. per day SPED assisting Andy in recording his grades on self-monitoring form.
● 5 min. per day General Ed. Modifying homework.
Mitchell’s Team: SCIENCE
● Bulk(1 hour each teacher for each plan): Developing goals at the beginning of each unit.
● 4 min. per day both teachers implementing PGP.
Mary’s Team:
LITERATURE:
● 5 min per day SPED,
● 10 min. per day General Ed.
HISTORY:
● 5 min per day SPED,
● 10 min. per day General Ed.
Jason’s Team: GEOGRAPHY
● 30 min General Ed. developing computerized portfolio systems.
● 15 min. SPED designing the spreadsheet, monitors grades.
PROBLEMS REPORTED BY ALL TEAMS:
● MOST: Difficulty learning how to enter modified weights and scales into the district computer system.
● LEAST: Lack of follow-through on parent monitoring homework completion.
Report Card Grades:
Andy: MATH
● B before implementation on PGP
● C when the grading plan was developed
● A at 1st marking period with PGP.
Mitchell: SCIENCE
● C before implementation on PGP
 GRADING PRACTICES

24
● C for 1st and 2nd marking periods.
● Teachers: Would have been lower had the PGP not involved a revised grading scale.
Mary:
LITERATURE:
● C, 80% before implementation on PGP
● B, 86% 1st marking period with PGP.
● C+, 78% at 2nd marking period with PGP.
○ A large part of the poor performance on the final exam.
HISTORY:
● C-, C two semesters before implementation on PGP.
● B, 86% with PGP.
Jason: GEOGRAPHY
● C+, 78%, B+, 88% two marking periods before implementation on PGP.
● B, 86% in the marking with PGP.
Outcome Evaluations:
Student: Individual responses regarding outcomes for their PGPs.
● 4 out of 5 received a high grade.
● All 5 understood how they were graded.
● All 5 happier with grades.
● 4 out 5 better-understood adaptations their teachers made.
Parents: Range of 3.2 to 5 mean, moderate to high agreement with positive statements regarding outcomes for
PGPs.
HIGHEST RATINGS(5):
● Overall satisfaction with services.
● The extent to which the grading adaptation led to grades that met the purpose identified.
LOWEST RATING(1):
● Andy's parents were generally satisfied with the plan, but Andy was transferred to a different class
based on ability.
Teachers(SPED & Gen. ED: Combine group mean 3.4 to 5.8.
MODERATE TO HIGH RATINGS:
● Positive statements regarding the outcomes of PGPs.
● Increased communication between special and general educators.
LOWER RATINGS:
● Increased communication with students and parents.
*Grading adaptations that led to grades that met the purpose identified by the team: Mean of 4.8- General
Education, Mean of 5.0 Special Education.

Munk, The Mean Ranking of the Most Important & Effectiveness Rating of Report Card Grades by Parents of
Bursuck, Students With and Without Disabilities: (See Table 1)
Most- Important by Both groups:
2001b ● Purpose 1: Communicates general achievement and quality of work on the high school curriculum.
● Purpose 2: Communicates your child's effort and work habits.
● Purpose 6: Communicates your child’s strengths/needs and provides feedback on how to improve.
○ Parents of students with disabilities giving more importance to purpose 6.
Most- Effectiveness: (Highest mean rating)
● Purpose 1: Communicates general achievement and quality of work on the high school curriculum.
● Purpose 2: Communicates your child's effort and work habits.
● Purpose 3: Motivate your child to keep working.
○ Parents of students without disabilities assigning a high rating to purpose 4, communicate
progress on individuals’ goals or mastery of specific content.
○ Parents of students with disabilities giving more importance to purpose 10 provide
 GRADING PRACTICES

25
information to teachers about which students may need special help or programs.
Significant Differences: (Between the two group means)
● Parents of students without disabilities perceived report cards to be more effective for communicating
general achievement and quality of work on school curriculum and for conveying their children's
abilities to postsecondary schools or employers.
Differences Between Achievement Levels of Students Without Disabilities: (Means compared using Kruskal-
Wallis one-way analysis of variances by rank test)
● Parents of high achievers, more importance to grades as conveying information to post-secondary
schools or employers.
● Parents of high and low achievers, grades did a better job of communicating their child's effort and
work habits, than parents of average achievement.
● Parents of average achievers felt grades were more effective in communicating the need for help and
programs than parents of high achievers.
● Parents of high achievers felt grades were more effective in communicating to postsecondary schools
and employers than parents of low and average achievers.
Written Comments:
● 41, 26% Responses about rank and effectiveness ratings. (see column to the left for thematic
description and response.)
Thematic Category:
1. 13, 19%Lack of individualization in grading and report card systems.
2. 8, 12%Grades not used by teachers as an impetus to help students.
3. 7, 10% Current system of grading makes sense or cannot be improved.
4. 7, 10%Information conveyed by grade is not accurate.
5. 5, 7% Inconsistent grading procedures across teachers.
6. 5, 7%Information conveyed by grade is not accurate.
7. 5, 7% Teachers don't communicate with parents regarding ongoing student performance.
8. 18, 26% Other

Munk, Teacher Responses: Use and Perceived Fairness of Grading Practices and Adaptations:
Bursuck, ● Letter and number/percentage more useful for students without disabilities.
● Pass/fail more useful for students with disabilities.
1998 ● Other: Written comments, competency checklists, and symbols equally helpful for all students.
○ 80% of school districts require letter grades.
Particularly Useful Adaptations:
a. Basing grading on improvement.
b. Basing grading on meeting IEPs objectives.
c. Giving separate grades for effort.
d. adjusting grading weights.
e. Basing grades on meeting academic and behavioral contracts.
Not Particularly Useful Adaptations:
a. Basing grades on less content.
b. Using modified grading scales.
c. Passing students no matter what.
● 73% felt that making report card adaptations only for students with disabilities was unfair.
○ Most felt this because adaptations were made only available to students with disabilities.
○ 50% reported using specific adaptations for students without disabilities.
○ Teachers may be quite flexible when adaptation is beneficial to students.

Student Perception Regarding Fairness of Grading Adaptations:

(See Table 2)
● The majority of students felt making adaptations for students with disabilities alone was unfair.
 GRADING PRACTICES

26
○ The grading system should treat everybody equally.
Most- Fair:
a. Raising grades when students tried their hardest.
b. Giving two grades - one for how hard they tried and one for how well they did.
Least- Fair:
a. Changing grade weights.
b. Using a different grading scale.
c. Passing students no matter what.
Fairness of weighted and unweighted systems of determining students GPAs:
● 70% Students felt that weighted systems,
○ Fair, if they give more credit for difficult classes.
○ Unfair if they count all classes the same, no matter difficulty.

Bursuck, Survey: Students Ideas About Report Card Changes:

Munk, FAIRNESS RATING: Grading Fairness by Level of Achievement.
*All grading adaptations were rated unfairly by a majority of students.
Olson, Unfair by greatest margin:
1999 ● 95% Giving students a passing grade no matter what.
● 87% Grading some students using a different scale.
● 86% Giving some students a higher report card grade because they show improvement.
Unfair by smallest margin:
● 64% Giving two grades for each subject (one for how hard they try and one for how well they did).
ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS: Fairness of various grading adaptations by achievement level.
Significant difference among achievement groups in 4 out of 9 adaptations:
1. Changing how much certain things count towards the report card grades of some students.
2. Grading some students using a different grading scale.
3. Giving some students a passing grade no matter what.
4. Grading some students on a pass or fail basis.
*Low achievers were significantly more in favor for 4, than high achieving classmates. Also, low to average were
more likely to find weighing all classes the same regardless of difficulty as fair and were less likely to think of
giving higher weights to more difficult classes, as fair.
DISABILITY: Students with and without disabilities were compared using chi-square analysis.
Students with and without disabilities differed significantly on the following adaptations:
● Giving someone a higher report card grade for showing improvement.
● Changing how much certain things count towards report card grades
● Grading someone using a different grading scale.
*Students with disabilities were more likely to think it was fair to make adaptations for some students but not
all.
MOST AND LEAST FAIR ADAPTATIONS: Students indicate which adaptations are most fair or least fair, and why.
MOST FAIR:
● 21.9% Giving higher report card grades if students do their best.
● 17.8% Giving two grades, one for performance and one for effort.
● 13.7% Passing students as long as they try hard.
● 17.8% Felt none of the adaptations were most fair.
● 54% Effort should be rewarded.
● 26% of students have different abilities and should, therefore, be treated differently in the report card
process.
LEAST FAIR:
● 27.6% Passing students no matter what.
● 18.4% Grading students on a different scale.
● 11.84% Grading on a pass-fail basis.
 GRADING PRACTICES

27
● 13% All grading adaptations were equally unfair.
● 26% Adapting grades would make the other students not try as hard.
● 25% Grading system should treat all students equally.
● 11% Adaptations distorted communication.
● 10% Adaptations prevented students from learning important life lessons.
Student Follow-up Interviews:
1. Most students interviewed felt that grading adaptations were done at their school.
○ It was never explained or in their syllabi.
2. Perception of calculating student GPAs.
○ Students that felt all courses should count equally, felt self-satisfaction involved in taking
harder classes was its reward.
○ Students should not be punished just because they could not place in a high-level class.
○ Students that felt harder classes should count more generally, believed that students worked
harder so they should be rewarded.
3. The grading system made to be fair.
○ Made fairer by rewarding effort and improvement, having different level classes, one grade
scale, and giving two grades one for trying and one for achieving.
4. Suggestions they had for teachers concerning grading and grading adaptations.
○ Treat everyone equally, adaptations such as counting assignments more than tests, giving
credit for effort, using portfolios to show teachers how much students learned.

Struyk, 1. Homework Survey:

Epstein, Frequency of Homework:
1995 ● 8 Teachers(6%): None
● 19 Teachers(13%): Once a week.
● 100 Teachers(70%): 2-4 times a week.
● 16 Teachers(11%): 5 times a week.
Amount of Homework:
● 77 Teachers(57%): Less than 30min
● 58 Teachers(41%): 30- 60 minutes
● 3 Teachers(2%): 1- 1 ½ hours
Helpfulness of different types of homework:
Moderately Helpful: Preparation for test and practice skills already taught.
Least Helpful: Enrichment activities and preparations for a future class.
In Class-Structures:
Most Helpful: Checking levels of understanding at the start of class. Using a homework sheet or notebook.

2. Grading Survey: Grading Adaptation

Grade weight Components of Report Card Grades:
Highest: Tests/Quizzes
(35% for SPED, 40% for General ED)
Second Highest: Classwork/Homework
(25% for SPED, 30% for General ED)
Most Helpful: Checklists, Level of competence and skills, Written comments.
Communication of student performance to parents:
Semesterly: 2% of all students.
Quarterly: 43% SPED, 53% General ED students.
Monthly: 37% both SPED and General Ed students.
Bi-Weekly: 10% SPED, 3% General ED students.
Weekly: 8% SPED, 4% General Ed students.
GRADING PRACTICES

28

3. Testing Survey:
Teachers perceptions for SPED adaptations:
-Ease of making test adaptations, Helpfulness of test adaptations, Use of test adaptations.
a.Extended Time- 92%.
b.Feedback to individual students during the test- 94%.
c.Openbook/notes- 96%

Format, Delivery, Instrumentations, and Implementation of Grading Practices

This section breaks down the format, delivery, and instrumentation details. The first

study has multiple steps and delivery formats from in-person and mailed surveys, interviews,

forms, and questionnaires; most of the information is gathered by the first author. They

consisted of like-scaled items, open-ended questions, and numeric rating. These led to team

meetings with students, parents, teachers, and the first author all to form a personal grading

plan (PGP) for each of the four students in this study (Munk et al., 2001a). The second study

was delivered by mail, which consisted of a numerical rating of purposes for report card grades

to be completed by parents with an incentive to win a gift certificate if completed and returned

(Munk et al., 2001b). The third study reviewed previous studies, specifically a teacher national

survey and student survey looking at common grading practices, teachers use and perceived

fairness of grading practices and adaptations, and students perceived fairness of grading

practices and adaptations (Munk et al., 1998). The fourth study contained a three-part survey

distributed at school by the author with open-ended questions with follow up interviews with

selected students. This study survey aimed to assess students' ideas of fairness of report card

grading adaptations, perception of different ways to figure GPA's and requested written

comments on which adaptations were most and least fair (Bursuck et al., 1999). The fifth study
 GRADING PRACTICES

29
consisted of three different surveys delivered through the mail to teachers using open-ended

questions, single response statements, and dichotomous statements to identify school

practices in grading, testing, and homework (Struyk et al., 1995).

Table 3: Format/Delivery, Instrumentation

Author & Format/Delivery Instrumentation: Details

Year

Munk, 1. Survey: Mail or delivered by the 1. Survey- Efficacy Rating for Grading Plan Process: Teachers
Bursuck, first Author and Parents.
● Likert-scale items, open-ended questions. 21 items, numerical
2001a 1-6(1 strongly disagree to 6 strongly agree).
● Complete 3-14 days after the grading plan was finalized.

2. Questionnaire: Mail 2. Biographical Form: Teachers experience within inclusive

education.

3. Surveys: 3. Survey- Perceived Outcomes for Grading Plans:

● Student Form: Completed by ● Student Form- 11 statements (Y/N), Two follow-up questions.
having the first author meet ● Parent Version- 9 statements, 9 items about satisfaction 1-6(1
with students and parents at strongly disagree to 6 strongly agree), 3 follow- up questions.
their home in person. ● Teacher Version- 9 statements of students outcomes, 9 items
● Parent Version: Completed regarding satisfaction 1-6(1 strongly disagree to 6 strongly
cooperatively. agree), 3 follow-up questions identical to parent version.
● Teacher Version: Independently
and returned by mail to the first 4. Consent for Participation Form: Parents, and Teachers.
author.
5. Monitoring Form: Demands on Teachers. Recorded bi-weekly
4. Mail meetings. record activities, common problems, and estimated
time spent implementing each grading plan.
5. Recorded by the first author at
school. 6. Student Report Card Grades: For the marking periods before
and during the implementation of grading plans.

6. Report Card: Grades given by 7. Outcome Evaluations: Parents, Students, and teachers. (First
teachers. marking period of grades)

7. Survey: By Mail, in person for

students with the first author.

Munk, Survey/ Mailed: Perception of Parents of Secondary Students Regarding the Purpose
Bursuck, -Page 1: Cover letter, explaining purpose for Report Card Grades.
and procedures. (Due 18 days from date ● 2-page survey: 10 possible purposes for report card grade,
2001b survey mailed out) with space to rank the purposes by importance(1-10), and a 6
-Page 2: Informed parents they could point scale to rate how effective grades met a purpose.
 GRADING PRACTICES

30
win one of three gift certificates by ○ Respondents based their judgment on experiences
returning the page with their name and with their children's report card grades.
phone number. (3 weeks later the first ○ The bottom asked for comments on the
author notified winners). effectiveness rating.

Munk, Common Grading Adaptations (See Table 1)

Bursuck,
1998 National Survey- Teachers Teacher Responses: Use and Perceived Fairness of Grading Practices
and Adaptations

Surveyed- Students Student Perception Regarding Fairness of Grading Adaptations (See

Table 2)

Bursuck, ● Three-part Survey: Survey: Students Ideas About Report Card Changes:
Munk, ● Distributed in a school (Students were read directions)
classroom setting by author. ● Part 1: Assess the fairness of report card grading adaptations.
Olson, (12-15min.) ● Part 2: Students' perception of different ways to figure out
1999 ● open-ended questions GPAs.
● Part 3: Requested written comments on which of the
● Students elaborate on their adaptations were most fair and least fair, and why.
survey answers. Randomly
selected, with consent form. Student Follow-up Interviews: Voluntary interviews of students.
● Conducted by first and second
authors. In-person, at campus.
● Open-ended questions.

Struyk, Mailed 3 Different Surveys.

Epstein,
1995 Identified School Practice’s:
Grading, Testing, and Homework.

Format:
Open-ended responses, single response statement, dichotomous
statement.

Participants

Within the five studies, there were a total of 2,418 participants. The first and smallest

study focused on four middle school students, three males and one female with 3 in eighth

grade and 1 in seventh grade. This study included ten teacher participants, five special

education, and five general education that worked in teams of 2, one form each category

(Munk et al., 2001a). The second study included an original 560 students, 35 from each grade
GRADING PRACTICES

31
level 9-12, and each academic achievement level (high, average, low, and special education)

these participants had up 23% of the high school population. Of those 560, 163 students

returned parent surveys in general and special education, with six being disqualified (Munk et

al., 2001b). The third study looks at 368 general education teachers from elementary and

secondary and 274 high school students with and without disabilities (Munk et al., 1998). The

fourth study is based on data from a sample size of 275 students, 134 male and 141 female of

which 72 were freshmen, with seven special education, 73 sophomores, five special education,

65 juniors, 65 seniors, two special education (Bursuck et al., 1999). The last and largest study

making up 54.7% of the five studies includes an original sample size of 1,678 principles of which

708 or 36.3% responded of which they then randomly choose 3 teachers (must be teaching

students with disabilities) with an original sample size of 2,124 of which 1,324 or 62.3%

responded (Struyk et al., 1995). For a visual breakdown of the participants, demographics, and

setting please see table 4.

Demographics/Settings

Participate demographics vary across the five articles, starting with article one, mid-

sized high school with a student population of 1300 in the far northern suburb of a major

metropolitan midwest city (Munk et al., 2001a). The second study consists of a stratified sample

in a midwest midsized high school with an enrollment of 2,447 students with a majority of 78%

white, 22% minority, and under 2% low income and eligible for bilingual services (Munk et al.,

2001b). The third study has combined demographics from 4 different studies (Munk et al.,

1998). The fourth study is a medium-sized high school with an enrollment of 2,034 students in a

far suburb of a large midwestern city with a student population of 82% white and 18% minority
 GRADING PRACTICES

32
(Bursuck et al., 1999). The fifth study used the U.S. DOE index to create a list of schools

providing educational services within 9 census regions, which had 650 school districts and then

randomly selected 3 schools from each district equally 1,950 schools of which the 1,678

principles responded (Struyk et al., 1995). Please see table 4 below for a breakdown.

Table 4: Participants, Demographics, Setting

Author & Original Sample’s Gender: Role: Teacher/ Demographic Information/

Year Sample Collected M(Male) Teacher/ Student: Setting
Size F(Female) Student/Admin. General/Special
(Grade level) (SPED)
Education

Munk, 11 4 3M Students: SPED -Mid-sized high school.

1F -3 Eighth Graders -1300 students
Bursuck, -1 Seventh Grades
5 Special -Far northern suburb
2001a Teacher- Seventh & -Major metropolitan midwest city.
10 10 N/A Eighth Grade Education
5 General
Education

Munk, 560 163 N/A 9-12 Grades: Both SPED and -Stratified Sample
Bursuck, 23% of *6 were 35 students from General Ed. Midsized high school Midwest.
the disqualified each grade -Enrollment 2,447 students:78% White,
2001b school (incomplete/ (9,10,11,12) 7% Black, 8% Hispanic, 7% Asian/Pacific
populatio damaged by and each Islander, 0.7% Native American.
n. mail) achievement level. -1.3% Low- income
(high, average, low, -0.4% Eligible for bilingual services.
SPED)

Munk, 274 274 N/A Students: 9-12 Both SPED and *Results review 4different studies: See
Bursuck, General Ed. References from this study.
1998 Teachers:
368 368 Elementary/Second General Ed.
ary

Bursuck, 275 275 134 M Students: 15 SPED: -Medium size high school (enrollment=
Munk, 141 F 72 Freshman 7 freshmen, 2,034)
73 Sophomores 5 sophomores, -Far suburb of a large midwestern city.
Olson, 65 Juniors 2 seniors, -Student population:
1999 65 Seniors 1 not indicated. 82% White, 18% Minority.

Struyk, 2,124 1,324 N/A Teacher, General U.S. DOE index.

Epstein, Response Secondary: Middle Education Stratified randomly Selected.=15,713
Rate: 62.3% and High School (Teachers must
1995 be teaching Within 9 Census Regions:
students with
GRADING PRACTICES

33
1,678 708 Principals: disabilities.) 650 School Districts
Response Randomly select 3 -Randomly selected 3 schools from
Rate: 36.3% Teachers. each district: 1,950 schools
GRADING PRACTICES

34
CHAPTER 5

Discussion

Nature and Focus of Grading Practices

This literature review confirms that there is still limited research related to

implementation, perceived importance and efficacy, and fairness of grading practices,

adaptations, and report card grading for students with and without disabilities in secondary

education. There is a need for more studies on personal grading plans with larger sample sizes

as well as educating teachers, students, and parents on district grading policies and grading

adaptations. Through my findings, I have found that there are many different studies and views

on grading practices and especially on adaptations. These articles bring to light that many

schools have not found the balance between special education and general education. In the

article by Eisenman et al. (2011), there is much to be learned about successful inclusion. Munk

et al. (2001a), (2001b), (1998), in all three of these articles, my synthesis shows the importance

of understanding report card grading and grading adaptations and the connection that it has

between teachers, parents, and students. Finding a connection between the five articles I

reviewed and the many more out there about specific curriculum and linking what's taught and

graded to adaptations that are agreed upon. Silva et al. (2005), gives steps that teach teachers

how to adapt grading and standards to help students meet attainable goals and objectives.

Guskey et al. (2009), developed an inclusive grading model that allows teachers and schools to

form a clear and specific grading model. Carey et al. (2012), looks at the grading minimum, and

it allows the students that are in the well below grade point average a chance to grow and

improve from the mid-point.

GRADING PRACTICES

35
Implications for Future Research on Grading Practices

Based on the current gathered research on grading practices, the one thing that can be

taken away from all these articles is that there is not only a need for grading plans but a balance

between how the schools develop and support a grading plan and inclusive setting. From these

findings and research, grading plans for students with IEPs is only one of the problems that are

faced in the line of special education and teaching. The balance between general education,

special education, and grading shines through not only for the teachers but for the students on

report cards and guidebooks.

Conclusions

In conclusion, there are many challenges found in forming grading plans, but they are

needed, and the data showed that it improved students' academic ability and parents,

students, and teachers all gave positive feedback and reviews Munk et al. (2001a). At the same

time, there needs to be a set basis for inclusion. Especially, if you are looking at a school like the

one I teach at where there is a 98% inclusion rate and based off of report cards is not

successfully supporting students with or without IEP's. These articles have proven that

adaptations are needed when grading students with and without disabilities to improve

academic fairness and effectiveness. This synthesis has inspired me to learn more about

grading, standard adaptation, and modification. I have been asking colleges, administrators,

and special education specialists about grading rules and laws for the state of Hawaii. I found

what I call the "gray area" that the state has not clearly defined or put clear guidelines of

grading. I hope through my research that I am able to bring light to these gray areas and train

staff on grading adaptations and personalized grading plans.

GRADING PRACTICES

36
References:

Alm, F. & Colnerud, G. (2015). Teachers’ experiences of unfair grading. Educational Assessment,

20(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.1028620

Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. The Future of Children, 22(1),

97–122. Retrieved from

https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/future_of_children/v022/22.1.aron.html

Bursuck, W. D., Munk, D. D., & Olson, M. M. (1999). The fairness of report card grading

adaptations: What do students with and without learning disabilities think? Remedial

and Special Education, 20(2), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259902000205

Guskey, T., & Jung, L. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment:

Implications for students with special needs. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 53–62.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577619

Carey, T., & Carifio, J. (2012). The minimum grading controversy: Results of a quantitative study

of seven years of grading data from an urban high school. Educational Researcher, 41(6),

201–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12453309

Eisenman, L. T., Pleet, A. M., Wandry, D., & McGinley, V. (2011). Voices of special education

teachers in an inclusive high school: Redefining responsibilities. Remedial and Special

Education, 32(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361248

Guskey, T., & Jung, L. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment:

Implications for students with special needs. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 53–62.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577619
GRADING PRACTICES

37
Munk, D., & Bursuck, W. (2001a). Preliminary findings on personalized grading plans for middle

school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(2), 211–234.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700206

Munk, D., & Bursuck, W. (2001b). What report card grades should and do communicate:

Perceptions of parents of secondary students with and without disabilities. Remedial

and Special Education, 22(5), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200503

Munk, D., & Bursuck, W. (1998). Report card grading adaptations for students with disabilities:

types and acceptability. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33(5), 306–308.

https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129803300508

IDEA, Section 1401. (2019, November 7). Retrieved February 23, 2020, from

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-i/1401

Silva, M., Munk, D., & Bursuck, W. (2005). Grading adaptations for students with disabilities.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 87–98.

https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512050410020901

/Struyk, L., Epstein, M., Bursuck, W., Polloway, E., Mcconeghy, J., & Cole, K. (1995). Homework,

grading, and testing practices used by teachers for students with and without

disabilities. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas,

69(1), 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.1995.10114269