Grading Students in Inclusive Settings

P LP Grading Students in Inclusive Settings

HonorP Spencer J. Salend HP Laurel M. Garrick Duhaney

✔ Based on his success in being mainstreamed for mathe- Although he had learned many of the concepts in his matics, Victor was placed in a general education class- native language, Rafael began to struggle in school and room on a full-time basis. Victor was excited about his failed several classes because of his limited knowledge of new placement and looked forward to being in class with English. Embarrassed by his poor grades, Rafael consid- his friends. His parents and his teacher were impressed by ered leaving school. Victor’s effort as he put in extra hours working on his ✔ Mr. Jones, a high school science teacher, and Ms. assignments and studying for tests. Unfortunately, his Washington, a special education teacher, recently began grades on assignments and tests were not commensurate to work together as a cooperative teaching team. They with his effort, and Victor was disappointed when he were beginning to adjust to each other when it was time received Cs and Ds on his report card. His parents and to grade students for the first marking period. Mr. Jones teacher were heartbroken when they heard him say, “I felt that it was his responsibility to grade all the students. worked so hard and this is what happens. Why bother?” He also felt that it was only fair to grade all students in ✔ The Smiths were pleased that their daughter Mary was the same way, because their averages and class ranking being educated with her peers in the general education would determine their eligibility for honors and awards classroom. Although they wanted Mary to develop her and their admission to college. Though he recognized the academic skills, they viewed this placement as an oppor- importance of classroom-based assignments, he felt that tunity for Mary to make friends, have the same experi- students’ grades should be based on tests because all stu- ences as other children, and learn to be independent, dents would ultimately have to pass the statewide assess- goals which were listed in Mary’s individualized educa- ments; and he felt that some of the students had received tion program (IEP). They were pleased that Mary was special help from Ms. Washington to complete their happier, more confident, and making new friends, but assignments. Ms. Washington believed that she should they were disappointed when her report card focused collaborate with Mr. Jones in grading students, and that only on letter grades for academic subjects and did not grades should be based on multiple assessment measures reflect Mary’s development in other areas. and not just tests. She felt that students with special ✔ Before recently moving to the United States, Rafael had needs should not be penalized for receiving her services, been an A student in his native country and was on his because these services allowed them to learn and demon- way to fulfilling his family’s dream that he attend college. strate their mastery of the class content, based on their On arrival in the United States, Rafael was placed in a unique learning needs and styles, and did not violate the 10th-grade general education class and received the serv- integrity of the curriculum and standards. ices of an English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teacher. , Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 8-15. Copyright 2002 CEC. 2002 34, No. 3, pp. 8-15. Copyright , Vol. As these situations demonstrate, the important issue for all students; but it is tor is the conflict between the move- issue of grading students is multifaceted especially important for students with ment toward more “rigorous standards” and has implications for students, fami- disabilities educated in inclusive set- and the movement to educate all stu- lies, and educators. These scenarios tings, who tend to receive lower grades dents in general education settings indicate that grading is more complex than their general education peers (Hendrickson & Gable, 1997). Another than selecting alternative grading sys- (Munk & Bursuck, 2001). factor is the limited number of districts tems to assign report card grades to Issues related to grading are further that have specific policies to guide edu- individual students. Grading is an complicated by several factors. One fac- cators in grading students (Polloway et TEACHING Exceptional Children TEACHING

8 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN al., 1994). Finally, the grading of all stu- ✔ The philosophical and legal frame- dents is hindered by the limited training work on which they are based. Form a grading-policy that educators have received regarding ✔ The types of grading policies and committee that includes a the use of effective and legally sound practices addressed. grading practices (Guskey, 1994). ✔ The procedures for modifying grad- diverse group of As a result of these factors, many ing for individual students. students, family school districts lack current grading ✔ The ways in which individuals are policies that are consistent with in- informed about the policies and members, educators, and creased academic standards, best prac- trained to implement them. community members. tices in grading, and legal guidelines for ✔ The frequency with which they are grading all students. evaluated (Polloway et al., 1994). This article offers guidelines for determining equitable, accountable, and 3. Identify the preferences of stu- veys to identify the district members’ effective grading practices and policies dents, families, educators, and preferences in terms of the purposes of community members concerning for all students that balance the need for grading. Figure 1 shows the varied pur- various aspects of grading. a common set of standards and the poses of grading. individual needs of students. Though The committee gathers information by Interviews and surveys also address the article is based on the literature on interviewing or surveying students, the district members’ reactions to the best practices and legal guidelines for families, educators, and community different types of referent grading sys- grading of students with special needs, members to identify their feelings and tems: norm-referenced systems, criteri- it examines these issues within the experiences regarding various aspects of on-referenced systems, and self-refer- broader context of improving grading grading (Marzano, 2000). Frequently, enced systems, as follows: for all students. the committee uses interviews and sur-

Guidelines on Grading

Figure 1. Purposes of Grading 1. Establish a diverse committee to examine, develop, and evalu- 1. Achievement: To certify and measure mastery of curricular goals ate the district’s grading policies and specific skills (e.g., learning standards). and practices. 2. Progress: To indicate progress in learning over a specific period of Initially, the school district can form a time. grading-policy committee that includes 3. Effort: To acknowledge and indicate the effort a student puts forth in a diverse group of students, family learning. members, educators, and community 4. Comparison: To compare students in terms of their competence, members. The inclusion of family and progress, and effort. community members helps the commit- 5. Instructional Planning: To identify students’ learning strengths tee focus attention on local preferences. and needs, and to group students for instruction. To provide access to a wide range of perspectives on grading, the committee 6. Program Effectiveness: To examine the efficacy of the instructional program. should include high- and low-perform- ing students and their family members, 7. Motivation: To motivate students to learn, to reward learning, and to promote self-esteem. community members who represent the diverse groups that reside in the district, 8. Communication: To provide feedback to students, families, and and individuals who have knowledge of others. the legal guidelines related to grading, 9. Educational and Career Planning: To aid students, families, learning standards, educational assess- and school districts in determining the courses and educational servic- ment, curriculum and instruction. es needed by students, placing students who enter the school district from another school district, and planning for the future (e.g., facilitate 2. Review the district’s current student advisement and career planning). grading policies and practices. 10. Eligibility: To determine eligibility for graduation and promotion, The committee begins its work by and rank students in terms of their eligibility for certain programs and awards (e.g., honors programs, participation in extracurricular activi- reviewing the district’s current grading ties, grants, scholarships, rankings for college admission). policies and practices. Specifically, the committee examines the district’s grad- 11. Accountability: To provide measures of student achievement to the community, employers, legislators, and educational policymakers (e.g., ing, policies, and practices in terms of grades provide employers with a point of reference concerning the apti- the following: tude and job skills of prospective employees). ✔ The date they were adopted.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2002 ■ 9 ✔ In norm-referenced grading systems, example, the committee should examine all students are evaluated using the guidelines for confidentiality that are Legally, a modified same standards; and their grades are specified in the Family Educational grading system can be based on their performance in com- Rights and Privacy Act. parison to the performance of others. Although congressional acts, such as used if it is available to ✔ In criterion-referenced systems, all the Individuals with Disabilities Educa- all students. students are evaluated based on their tion Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the mastery of previously established Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and standards or curriculum, and student the Americans with Disabilities Act performance is not compared to oth- (ADA), focus on people with disabili- ✔ Guidelines and criteria for ranking ers. ties, they provide legal guidelines that students or granting awards or hon- ✔ Self-referenced systems evaluate all affect the grading of all students. ors cannot arbitrarily lessen or students based on their growth in Whereas the IDEA does not specifically exclude the grades of students receiv- comparison to their past perform- mention individual grading, it mandates ing special education services. ance, ability levels, effort, and special that the IEP include a statement of how Weighted grading systems are per- needs. often the student’s family will be regu- missible as long as they are predicat- The committee should also identify larly informed of their child’s progress, ed on “objective rating criteria” (e.g., and take into account the feelings of dis- which must occur at least as often as computing grade point averages trict members about the factors affect- families of children without disabilities based on assigning points to grades ing student grading—and the extent to are informed of their progress. Section according to the degree of difficulty which educators should consider these 504 and Title II of the ADA, however, of the content studied). The use of factors. Such factors include academic which are under the legal authority of core courses for awarding honors, performance, effort, behavior, participa- the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), contain ranking students, or allowing partici- tion, and attendance (Marzano, 2000). language that addresses grading. pation in specific activities is permis- In addition, the committee should When reviewing educational policies sible as long as those courses are collect data to assess district members’ and practices, OCR evaluates them in open and available to all students. satisfaction with existing grading sys- terms of the principles of disparate ✔ Although general designations or tems, policies, and practices. Surveys treatment and disparate impact, as fol- labels that do not indicate a student’s and interviews should identify the con- lows: participation in special education are cerns and benefits associated with the ✔ Disparate treatment refers to treating permissible, special education classes district’s grading policies, as well as students differently because of their cannot be listed on transcripts to components and practices of the dis- characteristics and membership in a show that a student received adapta- trict’s grading policies that appear to be particular group. tions in the general education class- effective or in need of revision. ✔ Disparate impact examines whether room. Committee members also should solicit the similar treatment of students has ✔ School districts can employ symbols feedback regarding possible solutions different outcomes for certain groups or terminology on a transcript to indi- and resources to address concerns and of students. cate a modified curriculum in general practices in need of revision. Applying these two principles to education as long as the grades and Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, OCR courses of all students are treated in 4. Learn about and understand the (LRP Publications, 1997) has specified a similar way. For example, terms legal guidelines for grading. the following: such as “basic” or “practical” can be Because grading policies and practices ✔ School districts cannot treat students used on transcripts as long as they must be consistent with legal guide- with and without disabilities differ- refer to courses or programs that stu- lines, the committee will need to learn ently in terms of grades, class rank- dents without disabilities also may about legal guidelines for grading. For ing, honors, awards, graduation, and take. Caution should be used with diplomas. A modified grading system terms that are associated with pro- Self-referenced systems can be used, however, if it is available grams solely or typically for students to all students. with disabilities such as “resource evaluate all students ✔ If a student with a disability takes a room,” “homebound instruction,” based on their growth in general education class for no credit and “special opportunity school.” or for reasons other than mastery of ✔ School districts are permitted to des- comparison to their past the curriculum, it is allowable for the ignate special education courses on a performance, ability student to be graded using proce- transcript to a postsecondary institu- dures that are different from the class tion in cases where the parent and levels, effort, and special at large, and evaluated based on the the student have been informed and needs. objectives in the IEP. have provided their consent in writing.

10 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 5. Select grading policies that are consistent with the legal guidelines and the district’s prefer- Figure 2. Grading Systems ences and that are acceptable ✔ to students, teachers, and fami- Numeric/Letter Grades: Teachers assign numeric or letter grades ly members. based on students’ performance on tests or specific learning activities. ✔ Checklists/Rating Scales: Teachers develop checklists and rating The committee uses the information scales that delineate the benchmarks associated with their courses and and data collected to select policies that evaluate each student according to mastery of these benchmarks. Some ✔ Are flexible and practical for teachers school districts have revised their grading systems by creating rating to implement. scales for different grade levels. Teachers rate students on each skill, ✔ Foster individualization and address using a scale that includes “not yet evident,” “beginning,” “developing,” a wide range of teaching styles and and “independent.” student needs. ✔ Anecdotal/Descriptive and Portfolio Grading: Teachers ✔ Communicate useful and positive write descriptive comments regarding students’ skills, learning styles, information to students and families effort, attitudes, and growth, and strategies to improve student perform- to improve student learning. ance. These comments can be included with examples of students’ work Figure 2 shows possible grading sys- as part of portfolio grading. tems to be considered by the committee. ✔ Pass/Fail Systems: Minimum course competencies are specified As mandated by legal guidelines, the and students who demonstrate mastery receive a “P” grade, while those grading systems selected should be who fail to meet the minimum standards are given an “F” grade. Some applied to and be sensitive to the needs schools have modified the traditional pass/fail grading system to include of all students. The grading systems such distinctions as honors (HonorP), high pass (HP), pass (P), and low selected also should be compatible with pass (LP). the district’s preferences regarding the ✔ Mastery Level/Criterion Systems: Students and teachers meet purposes of grading, the different types to divide the material into a hierarchy of skills and activities, based on of referent grading systems to be used, an assessment of individual needs and abilities. After completing the and the factors to be considered in learning activities, students take a posttest or perform an activity to determining grades. For example, if the demonstrate mastery of the content. When students demonstrate mas- district’s purpose of grading students is tery, they receive credit for that accomplishment and repeat the process to compare them solely on the basis of with the next skill to be mastered. their academic performance, then a ✔ Progressive Improvement Grading: Students take exams and norm-referenced grading system such as engage in learning activities, and receive feedback and instruction based letter or numerical grades can be select- on their performance throughout the grading period. Only performance ed. on cumulative tests and learning activities during the final weeks of the Conversely, if the primary purpose of grading period, however, are used to determine students’ grades. grading is to document student progress ✔ Multiple Grading: Teachers grade students in the areas of ability, in a variety of areas, a criterion-refer- effort, and achievement. Students’ report cards can then include a list- enced grading system such as a check- ing of the three grades for each content area, or grades can be comput- list system can be chosen. Because ed by weighting the three areas. many school districts may view grades ✔ Level Grading: Teachers use a numeric subscript to indicate the as having multiple and often contradic- level of difficulty at which the students’ grades are based. For example, tory functions (e.g., motivation versus a grade of B6 can be used to note that a student is working in the B range comparison, or competence versus at the sixth-grade level. Subscript systems can also be devised to indi- effort), however, the committee should cate whether students are working at grade level, above grade level, or recognize that there is a need for use of below grade level. multifaceted grading systems, such as ✔ Contract Grading: Teachers and students agree on a contract out- level or multiple grading. lining the learning objectives; the amount, nature, and quality of the The district’s policy also should pro- products students must complete; and the procedures for evaluating stu- vide teachers with flexible guidelines dent products and assigning a grade. regarding the basis for assigning grades, ✔ Individualized Education Program (IEP) Grading: which also contributes to the type of Teachers assign grades that acknowledge students’ progress in meeting grading system selected. Specifically, the students’ IEP goals and performance criteria. the policy can address the extent to which grading should be based on aca- Note: From Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices demic performance measures, effort, (4th ed.; p. 438) by S. J. Salend, 2001, Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice behavior, attendance, participation, atti- Hall. Copyright 2001 Merrill/Prentice Hall. Reprinted by permission. tude, and other variables that support

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2002 ■ 11 learning (O’Connor, 1995). In addition, difficult to implement a checklist or committee should consider an incom- the policy can assist teachers by defin- anecdotal recording system because plete grade policy that allows teachers ing the grading factors in sufficient preparing grading checklists of learning to assign students incomplete grades detail so that they are able to be meas- outcomes and writing grading narra- and specify what students need to do to ured more accurately and equitably tives of student performance require a complete the assignment successfully. (Hendrickson & Gable, 1997). significant amount of teacher time The district’s policy also should The purposes of grading may change (Guskey, 1994). Similarly, using such address procedures for determining as students progress through school; grading terms as “not yet evident,” grading adaptations for all students who thus, the committee should consider “beginning,” and “developing” rather are not working on general education adopting different grading systems for than “poor,” “needs improvement,” and goals and learning standards and will different grades. At the elementary “unsatisfactory” are preferable to stu- not participate in statewide assess- level, an anecdotal grading system can dents and their families because they ments. Whereas grading adaptations for be used to communicate academic communicate information about stu- students with disabilities are often gains, as well as social and develop- dent performance in a more positive determined by the multidisciplinary mental accomplishments. manner. team and listed in students’ IEPs, grad- In high schools, where grading is Grading policies also should address ing alternatives for students without used to rank students to determine their and be adaptable to a range of situa- disabilities can be specified by the eligibility for programs and awards, the tions that students and teachers may school’s prereferral team. committee may need to consider poli- encounter. Therefore, the district’s grad- Munk and Bursuck (2001) developed cies for weighting grades. These weighting policies also should address such a collaborative model that the multidis- ing policies must be based on an objec- issues as cooperative teaching arrange- ciplinary team can use to personalize tive rating scale that is applied to all ments, incomplete grades, and students grading plans that involves selecting, students and that treats their grades in whose educational needs require grad- implementing, and evaluating grading the same manner. For example, if the ing modifications. alternatives that address the individual- grading policy specifies that grades for Because many school districts ized needs and grading purposes of stu- courses are weighted based on their employ cooperative teaching arrange- dents. For example, a student like Mary level of difficulty, all courses must be ments as part of their efforts to educate might benefit from use of an IEP grading open and available to all students. students in inclusive settings, the com- system, in which the goals and per- mittee also will need to address issues Further, the designation of courses on formance criteria on her IEP serve as related to collaborative grading. Such transcripts also needs to be addressed the basis for her grades. policies minimize the confusion that so that it does not indicate student par- teachers like Mr. Jones and Ms. 6. Encourage teachers to use effec- ticipation in special education (e.g., Washington experience when working tive practices that support the Resource Room Math), but rather refers collaboratively by clarifying each team teaching, learning, and grading to modified or advanced courses (e.g., member’s role and responsibility in processes. Basic Physics, Advanced English) that grading students, and specifying that Although the district’s policies will pro- all students may take. students should not be penalized for vide teachers with flexible parameters When selecting appropriate grading receiving and benefiting from special- for grading students, teachers will need systems and policies, the committee ized services. Christiansen and Vogel to use practices that foster the use of dif- also should consider their acceptability (1998) offered a decision model that ferentiated instruction, enhance student to students, teachers, and their families. teachers working in cooperative teach- learning, and facilitate the grading For example, many teachers may find it ing arrangements can use to resolve process (Tomlinson, 2001). The adop- conflicts in their grading practices, and tion of such practices helps teachers Transcripts of grades make grading students a collaborative balance the principles of disparate treatment and disparate impact by establish- should not use terms like process. The district’s policies can also cover ing learning standards for grading all “resource room,” the assignment of incomplete grades. In students and providing all students with “homebound instruction,” addition to assigning incomplete grades varied learning activities and multiple to students who have unusual circum- ways of demonstrating their under- and “special opportunity stances (e.g., frequent absences because standing and mastery of learning stan- school” that are of medical conditions or treatments, or dards. These varied learning activities absences because of family difficulties), and assessment measures should associated with programs incomplete grades provide all students address students’ unique learning solely or typically for with the time and opportunities they needs, strengths, and styles, as well as need to demonstrate their mastery of their experiential, cultural, and linguis- students with disabilities. the learning standards associated with a tic backgrounds (see box, “Effective specific course of study. Therefore, the Instructional Practices”).

12 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Effective Instructional Practices

Effective practices that support the teaching, learning, and assessment, and curriculum-based measurement grading processes include the following: (Bradley & Calvin, 1998). By using performance assess- ✔ Communicating Expectations and Grading Guidelines. ment, teachers grade students on authentic products Student performance is enhanced when teachers clearly (e.g., creating and making things, solving problems, communicate their expectations to students and families responding to simulations, giving presentations, per- and share their grading guidelines and criteria with forming experiments) that demonstrate their skills, them (O’Connor, 1995). For example, at the beginning of problem-solving abilities, knowledge, and understand- a grading period, many teachers offer students and fam- ing of the learning standards. Similarly, student portfo- ilies a review of the factors, assignments, and criteria lios and curriculum-based measurements that are linked that they will employ when grading students. to the learning standards serve as tools for grading stu- ✔ Informing Students and Families Regarding Grading dents and guiding the teaching and learning process. Progress on a Regular Basis. Providing students and ✔ Providing Feedback on Assignments and Grading their families with ongoing information concerning cur- Students After They Have Learned Something Rather rent performance and grades helps all involved parties Than While They Are Learning It. Before grading stu- understand the grading guidelines. Ongoing sharing of dents on an assignment or a test, teachers should pro- students’ grading progress facilitates the modifications vide a range of appropriate learning activities and give of instructional programs so that students and families nongraded assignments that help students practice and are not surprised by the grades received at the end of the develop their skills (O’Connor, 1995). As students work grading period. It also prompts students to examine their on these assignments, teachers should give them feed- effort, motivation, and attitudes and their impact on back and additional instructional experiences to their performance and grades. improve their learning of the material, which is then For example, the disappointment experienced by assessed when they have completed the learning cycle. Victor, his teacher, and his family may have been less- ✔ Involving Students in the Grading Process. ened if they had examined his grades during the grad- Instructional rubrics provide students with a framework ing period, and made revisions to the instructional pro- for self-evaluating their performance on an ongoing gram to promote his performance. basis and facilitate the grading and feedback process for ✔ Reviewing Exemplary Models of Classroom students by clarifying and communicating their teach- Assignments. A good way for teachers to help students ers’ expectations (Whittaker et al., 2001). Because understand their grading expectations for assignments is rubrics give students greater responsibility over their to review exemplary models of classroom assignment learning, they help foster a relationship of trust between with students (Whittaker, Salend, & Duhaney, 2001). students and teachers, which supports the teaching and When reviewing exemplary assignments, teachers ask learning process. Students also are actively involved in their students to identify the qualities associated with the assessment and learning process by teaching them exemplary models of an assignment, and then discuss to use self-management strategies and self-evaluation the qualities that will be considered when grading the checklists, providing them with opportunities to grade assignment. themselves and others, and incorporating their sugges- ✔ Using a Range of Assignments That Address Students’ tions into grading assignments and tests (Bradley & Varied Learning Needs, Strengths, and Styles. Rather Calvin, 1998; Tomlinson, 2001). than assigning grades based solely on test performance ✔ Avoiding Competition and Promoting Collaboration. or a limited number of assignments, many teachers While grading on a curve results in a consistent grade determine students’ grades by weighing a variety of stu- distribution, it hinders the teaching and learning process dent assignments (e.g., tests, homework, projects, extra by promoting competition among students (Guskey, credit, class participation, attendance, behavior, and 1994; Kohn, 1999). Therefore, educators minimize com- other factors; O’Connor, 1995). They weight assign- petition by grading students in reference to specific ments in terms of their importance and the nature of the learning criteria and refraining from posting grades skills that they cover with respect to the learning stan- (Bradley & Calvin, 1998). dards. Teachers also promote collaboration among students ✔ Employing Classroom-Based Assessment Alternatives by structuring learning and assessment activities so that to Traditional Testing. Whereas grades are frequently students work together and are graded cooperatively determined by students’ performance on tests, they also (Salend, 2001). For example, some teachers use a two- can be based on classroom-based assessment tech- tiered cooperative system, where students work in niques, such as performance assessment, portfolio cooperative groups to perform an assessment task or

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2002 ■ 13 Effective Instructional Practices (continued)

take a test, and each student receives the group grade. ✔ Teaching Test-Taking to Students. Instruction in test- After the groups complete their work, each student taking skills helps students perform at their optimal lev- works individually on a second product or test that cov- els by reducing testing anxiety and assisting them in ers similar material. Students are then graded by receiv- feeling comfortable with the format of the test (Berendt ing two separate grades, averaging their two grades & Koski, 1999). Therefore, teachers should offer instruc- together into one grade, or selecting the higher grade. tion to help students develop their test-taking skills for ✔ Giving Separate Grades for Content and Style. use with all types of items, as well as those for use both Although some students may master the content of an before and during testing (Salend, 2001). assignment or a test, they may encounter difficulties ✔ Using Extra Credit Judiciously. Extra credit is often presenting the products of their learning (Salend, 2001). used to motivate students to expand their understanding For example, although Rafael understood the material, of concepts and to assist students who need additional his English skills limited his ability to demonstrate his points to raise their grades from one level to another mastery of the material. Therefore, when grammar, (e.g., moving from a 75 to an 80). But because extra spelling, and punctuation or other stylistic factors are credit should not be used to help students compensate not essential elements to be assessed, teachers may near the end of the grading period for work they failed choose to give separate grades for content and style. In to do, it should be used judiciously. addition, when it is appropriate, students can use draw- ✔ Using Median Scores to Compute Grades. Although ings, demonstrations, dramatizations, models, and visu- most teachers use an average to convert a series of als to demonstrate their mastery of the content skills scores on tests and assignments into a grade, averaging being graded. tends to accentuate the effect of a poor score (Guskey, ✔ Designing Valid Tests and Providing Students with 1994). Similarly, giving zeros because of frequent Appropriate Testing Accommodations. Teachers absences, tardiness, or misbehavior makes it nearly enhance the value of their tests and promote student impossible for some students to receive a good grade performance by developing valid tests and providing and often serves to discourage future learning. students with appropriate testing accommodations Therefore, teachers should consider using the median to (Elliott, Kratochwill, & Schulte, 1998). In designing valid determine students’ grades (O’Connor, 1995). tests, teachers select the content of the test so that it ✔ Using the Internet to Communicate with Students and relates to the learning standards, the manner in which Families. The Internet serves as a way for teachers to the content was taught, and the amount of class time communicate with students and families and support devoted to the topics on the test. Teachers also carefully student learning (Salend, 2001). For example, teachers examine the format and readability of their tests, and can post grading criteria and guidelines, current grades, provide students with the testing accommodations out- exemplary models, and instructional rubrics on the lined on their IEPs. Further, advances in technology and Internet so that students and families can access them at multimedia allow teachers to use technology-based test- their convenience. Because some students and families ing to assess students’ responses to authentic situations may not have access to the Internet, teachers should and modify the presentation and response modes of also use alternative communication strategies. items to tailor tests to the unique needs of students.

7. Communicate the grading sys- (Guskey, 1994). The training also can 8. Evaluate the impact of the grad- tem and policies to students, address the fairness of the grading poli- ing policies and practices on families, and educators; and cies for all students by reviewing the students, family members, edu- offer training to help these legal and philosophical framework on cators, the community, and the groups understand and imple- which the policies are based, and offer- curriculum on a continuous ment these policies. ing educators strategies for responding basis and revise accordingly. Once the school district has formulated to concerns about fairness (Welch, Schools and districts must continually grading policies, the committee should 2000). Training for teachers also should evaluate and refine their grading poli- share them with students, families, and include the use of varied assessment cies and practices if these policies are to teachers. These groups also should strategies and differentiated instruction achieve their intended outcomes and be receive training so that they understand that supports the learning of all stu- useful to all the audiences for which the policies and how to implement them dents. they are designed. Therefore, it is in a fair and consistent manner important to examine their effect on stu-

14 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN References com/teaching/. Use VISA, M/C, AMEX, or The committee should Berendt, P. R., & Koski, B. (1999). No short- Discover or send check or money order + examine guidelines for cuts to success. Educational Leadership, $4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add’l item) to: 56(6), 45-47. Clicksmart, 400 Morris Avenue, Long Branch, confidentiality that are Bradley, D. F., & Calvin, M. B. (1998). NJ 07740; (732) 728-1040 or FAX (732) 728- Grading modified assignments: Equity or 7080. specified in the Family compromise? TEACHING Exceptional Spencer J. Salend (CEC Chapter #615), Children, 31(2), 24-29. Professor; and Laurel M. Garrick Duhaney, Educational Rights and Christiansen, J., & Vogel, J. R. (1998). A deci- Associate Professor, Department of sion model for grading students with dis- Educational Studies, State University of New Privacy Act. abilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, York at New Paltz. 31(2), 30-35. Elliott. S. N., Kratochwill, T. R., & Schulte, T. Address correspondence to Spencer J. Salend, R. (1998). The assessment accommoda- Department of Educational Studies, State tion checklist. TEACHING Exceptional University of New York at New Paltz, 75 South dents, educators, family members, and Children, 31(2), 10-14. Manheim Blvd., New Paltz, NY 12561 (e- community members. Primarily, Guskey, T. R. (1994). Making the grade: mail: [email protected]). schools and districts should assess the What benefits students? Educational Leadership, 52(2), 1-20. TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 34, effect of the policies on student learning Hendrickson, J., & Gable, R. A. (1997). No. 3, pp. 8-15. by examining data such as increased Collaborative assessment of students with mastery of learning standards, changes diverse needs: Equitable, accountable, Copyright 2002 CEC. in students’ grades, and improved per- and effective grading. Preventing School formance on classroom-based activities Failure, 41, 159-163. Kohn, A. (1999). From grading to degrading. and statewide exams. High School Magazine, 6(5), 38-48. Information on the perceptions of LRP Publications. (1997). Grading. Indivi- students, educators, and family mem- duals with Disabilities Education Law bers regarding the grading policies is Report, 25(4), 387-391. Web Seminar: also helpful in examining their overall Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming class- A Principal’s room grading. Alexandria, VA: Association effectiveness and acceptability. For for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- Guide to example, the committee can ask teach- ment.* (ERIC Document Reproduction ers to reflect on the effect of the policies Service No. ED 446 072) Special on the teaching and learning process, Munk, D. D., & Bursuck, W. D. (2001). Education including the following: Preliminary findings on personalized grading plans for middle school students ✔ Fostering student performance. with learning disabilities. Exceptional Presented by David Bateman ✔ Assessing students’ strengths and Children, 67, 211-234. and C. Fred Bateman learning needs. O’Connor, K. (1995). Guidelines for grading ✔ Supporting differentiated instruction. that support learning and student success. ✔ Communicating with students and NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 91-101. Wednesday, Polloway, E. A., Epstein, M. H., Bursuck, W. families. February 27, 2002 D., Roderique, T. W., McConeghy, J., & ✔ Evaluating and grading student work. Jayanthi, M. (1994). Classroom grading: A 2:00-3:30 Eastern Time Students, family members, and edu- national survey of policies. Remedial and cators can also provide information to Special Education, 15, 162-170. To register or for more identify successful and unsuccessful Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices aspects of the grading policies and make information, please visit (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice recommendations for improving them. Hall.* www.cec.sped.org/pd/ Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Grading for success. or contact Final Thoughts Educational Leadership, 58(6), 12-15. The grading of students in inclusive set- Welch, A. B. (2000). Responding to student [email protected] tings is controversial and shaped by a concerns about fairness. TEACHING or call Exceptional Children, 33(2), 36-40. number of factors. School districts need Whittaker, C. R., Salend, S. J., & Duhaney, D. 1-888-775-7654 to employ grading policies and practices (2001). Creating instructional rubrics for that are consistent with best practices inclusive classrooms. TEACHING Excep- and legal guidelines and that support tional Children, 34(2), 8-13. mastery of academic standards. We need fair, accountable, and effective grading policies and practices that help all students achieve higher academic *To order the book marked by an asterisk (*), standards within the context of the gen- please call 24 hrs/365 days: 1-800-BOOKS- NOW (266-5766) or (732) 728-1040; or visit eral education classroom. them on the Web at http://www.clicksmart.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ JAN/FEB 2002 ■ 15