Running head: DASD GRADING PRACTICES

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT ELEMENTARY
GRADING PRACTICES AND DETERMINING PERCEPTIONS OF A
STANDARDS-BASED REPORT CARD IN THE DOVER AREA SCHOOL
DISTRICT

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Bobbie M. Strausbaugh
California University of Pennsylvania
June 2022

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

ii

© Copyright by
Bobbie M. Strausbaugh
All Rights Reserved
June 2022

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

iii

California University of Pennsylvania
School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

We hereby approve the capstone of
Bobbie M. Strausbaugh
Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Education

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

iv
Dedication

I dedicate this work to the students and families of the Dover Area School
District. An anomaly in this day and age, my entire educational career has been with a
single school district: the Dover Area School District. I have had experiences and built
relationships that have enriched my life over the years of work in the district. It has been
an honor to complete this work and I hope the district benefits from the research results.
I also dedicate this work to the memory of my mother, Gloria Mitzel. Although
not able to witness a majority of my educational career, her desire and passion for me to
dedicate myself to a career serving others started me on my educational journey. She
taught me that everything else would fall in place when you put people first, and my
ongoing desire is to make her proud. To this day, she inspires me to stay strong while
also being vulnerable and accepting of challenges that allow me to grow and learn. I hope
she is proud of this work.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

v
Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the support of others to whom I
owe thanks and gratitude. I want to acknowledge the Dover Area School District for
consenting to be the setting for this research. Also, thank you to Dr. Todd Keruskin and
Dr. Laura McCusker for serving as doctoral capstone committee chairs. Their support and
feedback were invaluable throughout the capstone process.
Next, I need to acknowledge and thank my former colleague and forever friend,
Laurie Heyer, for her friendship and much-appreciated editing assistance. To Kathy
Guyer, I also extend my gratitude. Our collegial discussions and reflections always help
us grow as professionals, and I am thankful for your compassion, support, and friendship
throughout this journey.
Finally, I must thank my family. To my father, Larry Mitzel, I thank you for
modeling a solid work ethic, supporting my many endeavors, and for your unconditional
love. To my sister, Terrie Goodling, thank you for the check-ins and the unique support
only a sister can provide. To my daughters, Casie and Sammie, thank you for
understanding the time commitment for this work. I hope this work serves as an example
to set lofty goals, never stop dreaming, and never stop learning. I love you both!

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

vi
Table of Contents

Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

v

Table of Contents

vi

List of Tables

x

List of Figures

xi

Abstract

xii

CHAPTER I. Introduction

1

Background

2

Capstone Focus

3

Research Questions

3

Expected Outcomes

4

Fiscal Implications

4

Summary

5

CHAPTER II. Literature Review
History of Grading
Origins of Grading

7
9
9

European and University Influences

10

British and Prussian Influences

12

Horace Mann and American Grading Systems

12

Letter Grades and Percentage-Based Grades
Concerns for Letter Grades and Percentage-Based Grades
Standardized Testing

15
18
21

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Perceptions of Traditional Grading Practices

vii
24

Teachers’ Perceptions of Traditional Grading Practices

25

Parents’ Perceptions of Traditional Grading Practices

27

Effective Grading Practices

30

Standards-Based Grading

32

Interviews With Schools Using Standards-Based Grading
Summary
Chapter III. Methodology

35
39
41

Purpose

42

Setting and Participants

45

Research Plan

47

Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection

53

Validity

61

Summary

64

Chapter IV. Data Analysis and Results

66

Data Analysis and Results

66

Research Question 1

67

Knowledge of Current Grading Practices

67

Grade-Level Consistency

68

Mastery of Curriculum and Eligible Content

75

Research Question 2

76

Teachers’ Perceptions

76

Parents’ Understanding

78

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Research Question 3

viii
80

Discussion

81

Summary

84

Chapter V. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions

86
86

Effectiveness

87

Applications

93

Implications

95

Limitations

100

Recommendations for Future Research

102

Summary

103

References

105

Appendix A. Survey #1 Informed Consent

113

Appendix B. Survey #1

115

Appendix C. Survey #2 Informed Consent

118

Appendix D. Survey #2

120

Appendix E. Survey #3 Informed Consent

124

Appendix F. Survey #3

126

Appendix G. Interview Questions Informed Consent

129

Appendix H. Interview Questions

131

Appendix I. District Letter of Support

132

Appendix J. District Consent to Access Data

133

Appendix K. IRB Approval

134

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

ix

Appendix L. Educational Research Course Certificate

135

Appendix M. Conflicts of Interest Course Certificate

136

Appendix N. Grade Books Summary Tables

137

Appendix O. Grade Books Analysis Spreadsheets

142

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

x
List of Tables

Table 1. Number of Teachers’ Downloaded Grade Books

48

Table 2. Participants in Survey #1, Appendix B

50

Table 3. Participants in Survey #3, Appendix F

52

Table 4. Breakdown of Questions: Survey #1, Appendix B

55

Table 5. Breakdown of Questions: Survey #2, Appendix D

56

Table 6. Breakdown of Questions: Survey #3, Appendix

57

Table N1. Summary of Grade 1 Grade Books

137

Table N2. Summary of Grade 2 Grade Books

138

Table N3. Summary of Grade 3 Grade Books

139

Table N4. Summary of Grade 4 Grade Books

140

Table N5. Summary of Grade 5 Grade Books

141

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

xi
List of Figures

Figure 1. Grade Book Sample of Types of Student Work

68

Figure 2. Grade Book Sample of Assessment Categories and Numbering

70

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

xii
Abstract

This research project evaluated the effectiveness of elementary grading practices in the
Dover Area School District, focusing on English language arts and math in the first
through fifth grades. The study was critical because the district did not have clearly
defined elementary grading guidelines, and it was unknown if consistency existed in
grading practices. Also, it was not known to what extent grades measured or reflected
students' mastery of content. Research questions guided the project. Research question
one questioned the effectiveness of grading practices by investigating current knowledge,
consistency, and how grading practices measured mastery of content. The goal of the
second research question was to determine teachers' perceptions and parents'
understanding of grading practices. The third research question determined
administrators' and teachers' understanding of standards-based report cards. Mixedmethods action research gathered data from teachers' grade books and three surveys. The
first research question used data from grade books and a survey, with results minimally
supporting effective grading practices. The second research question was answered using
survey data and indicated most teachers and parents were confident in their knowledge of
grading practices. However, teachers and parents were less confident that grades
illustrated students' mastery of skills. The third research question used survey data and
indicated that administrators and teachers had a solid understanding of standards-based
report cards. The research suggested knowledge of grading practices, but they were
inconsistent in several ways, including how they measured and reflected students'
mastery of skills and content.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

1
CHAPTER I
Introduction

Behn (2003) wrote, “ ‘What gets measured gets done’ is, perhaps, the most
famous aphorism of performance measurement. If you measure it, people will do it.
Unfortunately, what people measure often is not precisely what they want done” (p.599).
In education, performance is measured by what students can demonstrate they have
learned, and education communicates learning through grading. Therefore, grading can
be considered a source of communication and a measure for improvement.
This research project will examine the effectiveness of the current Dover Area
School District (DASD) elementary grading practices, emphasizing English language arts
(ELA) and math in first through fifth grades. DASD elementary grading practices refer to
the grading practices in the district’s four elementary schools. The researcher defines the
effectiveness of current grading practices as knowledge of current grading expectations,
consistent grading practices across all elementary buildings, and grading practices that
reflect students’ mastery of state standards.
The Literature Review chapter will summarize what literature reveals about the
history, perceptions, and effectiveness of grading and provide information on standardsbased grading. The Literature Review chapter will also include information from
neighboring school districts using standards-based report cards.
The research questions will guide the data analysis portion of the project. The data
analysis will determine the effectiveness of current DASD elementary grading practices,
gather perceptions and understanding of current elementary grading practices, and
determine current knowledge of standards-based grading. Action research will use a

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

2

mixed-methods approach, using surveys to collect quantitative and qualitative data from
teachers, administrators, and parents. The action research will also include the data
analysis of elementary grade books. The research project will conclude with a summary
of findings and recommendations for potential changes to the current DASD elementary
grading practices.
Background
The current DASD elementary grading practices are not clearly defined or
articulated to teachers, students, and parents. The district does not have a written guide or
manual for elementary grading practices. Therefore, this raises several concerns for the
current DASD elementary grading practices.
First, it is unknown if there is consistency in current DASD elementary grading
practices across the four elementary schools. This potential inconsistency means the
district does not have a common way to compare student performance across the four
elementary buildings. Also, the district does not have common performance indicators to
guide elementary instruction. Additionally, the district does not know to what extent
grading practices assess students' mastery of state standards. Finally, the district does not
know if current practices provide families with a clear understanding of their child's
learning.
There are other reasons why this research is essential to the district. First,
the district's current comprehensive plan includes a district goal that ensures consistent
implementation of standards-aligned curricula across all schools for all students. This
goal consists of the development and implementation of common, standards-aligned
assessments. Also, with the recent secession of a township from the DASD, there may be

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

3

redistricting and possible reconfiguration. Therefore, the investigation of current DASD
elementary grading practices is timely with other work in the district.
Capstone Focus
This research focuses on analysis, not necessarily recommendations for change.
The researcher plans to complete the research project, present the findings, and
recommend potential changes. However, after the research, the district will make
decisions based on other district work, circumstances, and needs.
This research project will coincide with other work in the district, namely a review
of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and resources. Therefore, the research project will
occur when the district is receptive to evaluating its current elementary grading practices.
Finally, the researcher desires this research to be informative for anyone seeking
guidance on grading. The researcher is passionate that the work is meaningful, regardless
of whether or not the DASD decides to act upon the findings.
Research Questions
A reflection on the needs and purpose of the research project resulted in the
following research questions:
1. How effective are the current DASD elementary grading practices in ELA and math?
The definition of effective is knowing current grading expectations, grade-level
consistency across all buildings, and grading practices that reflect students' mastery of
curriculum and eligible content of Pennsylvania grade-level state standards.
2. What are DASD teachers’ perceptions and parents’ understanding of current DASD
elementary grading practices?

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

4

3. What are DASD administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions and understanding of
standards-based report cards?
Expected Outcomes
The potential impact of the research project will depend on the research results,
answers to the research questions, and the status of the district upon research completion.
As a result of the project, the researcher anticipates three potential changes to the DASD
elementary grading practices. The first option will maintain the current elementary
grading practices in ELA and math for grades K–5 and improve the grading practices by
developing and implementing common assessments in grades K–5. The second option
will be developing and implementing common assessments in grades 3–5 and a
standards-based report card in grades K–2. The third option will to develop and
implement a standards-based report card for all grades. Upon completing the research
project, the DASD may decide not to act upon any recommendations.
Fiscal Implications
The first option of improving the system by developing and implementing
common assessments in grades K–5 will require a three-day summer workshop to
develop common assessments at an estimated cost to the district of roughly $57,000. The
second option of improving the system by developing and implementing common
assessments in grades 3–5 and a standards-based report card in grades K–2 will cost
roughly $60,000. The third option of improving the system by developing and
implementing a standards-based report card for all grades also has an estimated cost of
approximately $60,000. In all cases, the costs are primarily due to teachers’ salaries at a
per diem rate of compensation.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

5

The second and third options could have additional technology costs if the current
school information system cannot generate standards-based report cards. These additional
anticipated costs are anywhere from $6000 to $13,000.
The researcher understands that the research could result in no change. The
research results may not justify a need for change, or considering change may not be
practical based on the district’s circumstances at the time of project completion. The
researcher recognizes that the research could result in the district wanting to make
changes, but the financial implications may create a barrier to any recommended changes.
It is worth noting that the variation in the costs of the three options is minimal. The
researcher is confident that if the district decides to proceed with any recommended
changes, the district will be able to choose an option based on need, not on costs.
Summary
The research will answer three research questions related to the DASD
elementary grading practices. Answering the research questions will provide insight into
the effectiveness of current DASD grading practices. Answering the research questions
will also provide summaries of teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of current grading
practices and teachers’ and administrators’ current knowledge of standards-based report
cards.
The project will begin with a review of literature related to grading practices.
Understanding the history of grading practices, reasons for changes over time, and the
philosophies and opinions of critics and advocates provide a foundation to evaluate the
effectiveness of current grading practices.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

6

The project will continue with data collection and analysis. Data collection and
analysis of information from grade books will provide additional information to evaluate
the effectiveness of current grading practices. Further data collection and analysis from
surveys will help determine perceptions of current grading practices and current
knowledge and understanding of standards-based report cards.
Answering the research questions will provide the DASD with valuable
information about current elementary grading practices. The researcher does not
necessarily intend for the research to provide recommendations. The intent is to provide
helpful information to make decisions about elementary grading. Additionally, the
researcher has acknowledged the desire for this research to be informative for anyone
seeking guidance on grading. The aspect of the research that has the potential to be most
applicable to others outside the DASD is the information found in the following
Literature Review chapter.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

7
CHAPTER II
Literature Review

This review of literature about school grading practices will include historical
research and a comparison of grading practices. The Literature Review chapter begins
with a historical perspective of grading practices. This historical research will reveal
abundant "history repeats itself" findings. These findings will draw attention to the
drawbacks of grading practices and help determine how to make grading practices more
effective. Although not a significant aspect of the research, the historical research will
occasionally reference how the emphasis has changed from assessment to grading over
time.
Often the terms assessment and grading are used interchangeably, but there are
differences between the two terms. The goal of assessment is to improve learning. The
purpose of grading is to evaluate learning (Carnegie Mellon University, 2021). More
specifically, Schneider and Hutt (2014) describe assessment compared to grading as "two
different processes—that of internal communication oriented towards pedagogical
concerns; and that of external communication oriented towards system-building" (p.
203). The research journey into the history of grading practices tracks how grading
changed over time and shows how the emphasis changed from assessment to grading.
The review of the literature will compare different grading practices. The research
will look at standards-based reporting as an alternative to traditional grading systems.
The literature looks at standards-based reporting as a possible system to break the history
repeats itself cycle and approach grading more effectively. Since standards-based grading
is a reasonably recent approach, not much research is available. Therefore, the researcher

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

8

will interview schools presently using standards-based reporting and summarize the
findings in the Literature Review chapter.
The majority of the review of literature looks at a historical perspective, using
historical perspectives to help define what is more effective, and interviewing those who
are already trying something new. The review of literature and answers to the research
questions will guide a summary of the research.
The Literature Review chapter begins with research on the history of grading.
Next, the chapter provides research about the traditional grading practices of letter grades
and percentage-based grades and the emergence of standardized testing. The chapter
continues by examining perceptions of and concerns about traditional grading and a look
at what makes effective grading practices. The Literature Review chapter closes with an
investigation of standards-based grading.
Curriculum and instruction are vital if we want students to succeed. Determining
if students are learning is an equally essential step in assessing the effectiveness of our
schools and systems. Whether referred to as assessment or grading, it follows:
While school leaders often think that pedagogical and curriculum improvements
will provide the most leverage for systemic change in school reform efforts,
innovative educational leaders are coming to understand the critical role that
assessment plays in the teaching and learning process. When failing to close the
loop, so to speak, or thinking about improving the grading/assessment piece, the
optimism of reform efforts may not come to fruition and schools most likely will
continue to spend money, time, and effort searching for the next “silver bullet.”
(Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020, p. 1)

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

9

History of Grading
Assessment is a way of knowing and understanding people and has endured over
time (Walsh & Betz, 2001). Therefore, it is no surprise that assessment and grading found
their way into schools. It is difficult to imagine schools without assessment and grading,
and it is natural to assume assessment and grading have always been a part of learning.
However, Hargis (2003) wrote:
Grades are such an ingrained part of our educational system we assume they have
always been with us. This, however, is not the case. Grades are a relatively new
phenomenon. There is not much evidence of their use prior to the mid-nineteenth
century. (p. 13)
Hargis’s perspective that grades are a relatively new phenomenon does not reduce
the significance of researching grading history. The grading history will include the
origins of grading, European and university influences, British and Prussian influence,
and Horace Mann and American grading systems.
Origins of Grading
Searches into early schooling back to the Greeks reveal that the key to learning
was the relationship between the teacher and student and the learner's feedback from the
teacher. Assessments were typically in the form of oral exams, and most assessments
were qualitative. Searches into early United States education reveal that biographies of
scholars often mention under whom the learner studied. The act of scholars identifying
their teachers illustrates the value placed on the relationship between the teacher and
student, not an evaluation system. Hargis (2003) explains:

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

10

Until about 1850, most schools were of the rural, one-room variety. Students of
all ages were mixed together and most students did not stay in school beyond the
most elementary levels. The curriculum content was simple. The students
generally demonstrated their competencies by reciting. Progress was indicated
descriptively; the teacher would simply write down the skills a student had or had
not acquired. (pp. 13–14)
European and University Influences
European styles of schooling and grading influenced early American schools.
Grades and grading systems began to arise due to several events at the college level.
Early references to school grading practices were from well-known institutions such as
Cambridge, Yale, and Harvard.
Two historically-noted landmarks of grading at the college level were the grading
practices of William Farish and Ezra Stiles. Depending on various research viewpoints,
either man can be credited or blamed for beginning a transition from assessment to
grading. The choice between crediting or blaming the men for this transition depends on
whether researchers saw the transition from assessment to grading as a positive change.
“In 1792, William Farish, Professor of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy at Cambridge,
developed the concept of grading students' work quantitatively” (Stray, 2001, as cited in
Kellaghan & Greaney, 2019, p. 51). Similarly, in 1785, Ezra Stiles, then President of
Yale, used a system similar to the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos examination (Dexter,
1901). The mathematical Tripos exam has been called “the grandparent of every
university examination in the world" (Kellaghan & Greaney, 2019, pp. 51–52).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

11

William Farish realized that evaluating his students’ understanding of
mathematics was challenging using the accepted grading practices of his time. He
discovered that assessing mathematics required analysis of more written work and a
deeper assessment of students' reasoning. Also, Farish was worried about subjectivity and
partiality in prior forms of evaluation. Therefore, he shifted grading to a more
quantitative approach. This approach changed the emphasis to grading right-answer
questions and grading understanding in specific subject areas. This grading concept
started a trend in universities of scoring more specialized information at the university
level (Madaus & O'Dwyer, 1999).
According to Hargis (2003), "Yale was the first university in America to use a
grading system” (pp. 14–15). Ezra Stiles was the president of Yale. In 1785 he
documented the exam results of 58 students in a diary. Of the 58 students, he recorded 20
as Optimi (“best”), 16 as second Optimi (“second best”), 12 as Inferiores (Boni) (“less
good”), and 10 as Prejores (“worse”). According to Durm (1993), "In all probability, this
was the origin of the 4.0 system used by so many colleges and universities today" (p.
295).
Following Farish and Stiles were grading practices by instructors at Harvard who
continued to influence grading in America. At Harvard, between 1877 to 1895, grading
systems such as divisions, letter grades, percentages, classes, and pass or fail systems
developed over time. As a result, Mount Holyoke College, in 1898, designed a system
that combined various approaches. The college used a system of letter grades based on
percentage ranges. The system assigned "A" to grades between 95% and 100%, "B" for

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

12

90%–94%, "C" for 85%–89%, "D" for 80%–84%, "E" for 75%–79%, and an "F" for
failing. This system became a model for college grading systems (Durm, 1993).
British and Prussian Influences
College-level grading practices trickled down to the high schools and younger
learners. Also, many American school masters migrated from Britain, so university
philosophies and British schooling practices influenced the development of American
schools. Schneider and Hutt (2014) reference an 1824 book by British teacher John
Shoveller. In the appendix of Shoveller’s book is an example of calculating a week’s
worth of work. There is a table with columns for each class, each student, and each day of
the week. Each day of the week had a specific point value. The teacher totaled the earned
points at the end of the week. Based on the total at the end of the week, the teacher
leveled the students as Optimé, Bené, Malé, or Pessimé. These descriptions share some
similarities to Ezra Stiles’ previously referenced grading categories. Despite being
printed in 1824, the table shares a shocking resemblance to a modern-day teacher’s grade
book (Shoveller, 1824).
Horace Mann and American Grading Systems
In the 1830s, Horace Mann, a Massachusetts legislator and secretary of the state's
board of education, began to advocate for public schools to be funded by the state. Mann
advocated for free public schools available to all children. Mann and other supporters
referred to these schools as common schools. Mann and his supporters stood on the
platform that public investment in education would benefit the nation by teaching
children to be literate, moral, and productive citizens (Center on Education Policy, 2020).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

13

As Mann advocated for common schools, he also became intrigued by the
Prussian school systems. Napoleon defeated the Prussians in 1806. The Prussians felt
they lost in the battle of Jena because soldiers did not follow orders. As a result, Prussian
school systems changed. The Prussians decided to educate only a tiny percentage of
citizens fully. This small percentage of citizens, the elite, so to speak, were educated to a
level of independent thinking. The rest of the citizens, the majority, were educated to
learn harmony, obedience, and the ability to follow orders. As a result, Prussian schools
introduced a grading system that emphasized compliance with pedagogical learning and
decreased the importance of independent thinking. This schooling system appealed to
Horace Mann and others (Sundeen, 2018). Prussian schools organized curriculum into
grade levels, and students could work at their own pace through the grade levels. As a
result of Horace Mann's influence on schools, grading became a way to relay pedagogical
learning and organize schooling and learning. Prussian school models and Mann's
common schools were particularly applicable to rural schools that lacked record-keeping
systems. Students in these smaller schools had inconsistent attendance, and students of
various ages still attended schools together (Schneider & Hutt, 2014).
While Prussian school models and Horace Mann's influence were taking hold, the
Lancasterian, or monitorial model, was also gaining attention. Developed by Joseph
Lancaster, founder of an elementary school for the poor in London, the monitorial system
began as an inexpensive way to teach many students. The teacher taught lessons to
students who earned high test scores. These students were called monitors, and the
monitors had many responsibilities in the school. Monitors managed classroom materials,
taught lessons to students of all ages, administered exams to other students, and made

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

14

decisions about promotions to new classes. Students became monitors through a rank
system. They rose to the rank of monitors by acing exams. Monitors were given special
privileges, earned badges, or rewarded with small prizes (Blakemore, 2018). The
monitorial model was used more often in urban schools with higher attendance and
enrollment. However, concerns developed over the emphasis of competition in this
system and a de-emphasis on learning (Schneider & Hutt, 2014).
Horace Mann continued to influence education in the 1830s and 1840s and
beyond. In his pursuit to design an education system, he also recognized some downfalls
of the Prussian and monitorial models. Mann was concerned about the students'
motivation, acquisition of knowledge, and abilities to think. He was worried students
would become so focused on the resulting grades that learning and thinking would be
compromised. He adjusted his philosophies over time to graded steps, periodic quizzes
and written exams, and the use of monthly report cards. The report cards kept a running
record of each student's work (Schneider & Hutt, 2014).
According to some research, in 1845, Horace Mann's implementation of grades
and report cards was the first recorded use of a grading system in United States public
schools. Students took exams with right and wrong answer choices. The students earned
percentage grades on the exams. This grading system worked alongside the ranking
system for which Mann earlier advocated. However, Mann hoped to reduce teacher
inconsistencies and partiality by using percentages (Tocci, 2008).
In summary, the early and mid-nineteenth centuries saw changes in American
schools that moved the focus from assessment to grading. Early influences on grading
came from Europe and the university level. As Horace Mann introduced common

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

15

schools, rural schools changed their grading practices to follow Prussian models. Urban
schools that followed the monitorial system needed to reduce competition and organize
more at the systems level. These events also coincided with the American industrial
revolution, which marked a time in American history of increased population and the
desire to industrialize and seek efficiency. Bringing all these things together created
continued changes for education. Schneider and Hutt (2014) summarize:
Taken together, these developments show how much American grading systems
diverged from their early European origins. As the system of common schools
took root in America, reformers recognized the need for grades to act as important
internal organizational devices—to maintain student motivation while minimizing
competition and emphasizing the accretion of knowledge.
But though reformers were coming to a general consensus about the
purpose of grades, they had yet to standardize the practices themselves. That was
a task that would take on increasing importance as both the public education
system and society, as a whole, grew more complex in the last decades of the
nineteenth century. (p. 207)
Letter Grades and Percentage-Based Grades
In the late nineteenth century, the needs of school grading continued to change.
Because of the increase in public schools, there was a need to educate more children.
Grading practices needed to become more standardized so one school could share grades
with other schools. The most common grading systems to arise were systems using letter
grades and percentage-based grades. Research credits Harvard in 1883 and Mount
Holyoke College, as previously noted, with starting the use of letter grades. The systems

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

16

assigned "A" to grades between 95% and 100%, "B" for 90%–94%, "C" for 85%–89%,
and "D" for 80%–84%. Originally a letter grade of "E" was assigned to 75%–79%, and a
letter "F" represented failing. The systems eventually dropped the letter grade "E" with
no single agreed-upon theory. Assigning letter grades to percentage ranges led to versions
of the familiar 4.0 grading system (Durm, 1993; Schinske & Tanner, 2014).
Finkelstein (1913) investigated and studied a variety of grading systems. He wrote
of a two-division system using divisions of "passed" and "not passed." He looked at a
three-division system using divisions "inferior" and "mediocre" and "superior." He wrote
of seeing no justification in a four-division system and proposed a variety of five-division
systems using letter grades. The five-division system used five letters and divided them
into "A," "B," "C," "D," and "E" or "A," "B," "C," "D," and "F." The letters became
associated with descriptors such as excellent, superior, average, inferior, and failure.
However, Finkelstein became more interested in the natural distribution of the students'
grades over the percentage-based ranges. He found more students' grades fell in the
middle "C" interval, and he documented this observation in his book with a variety of
drawings that resembled bell-shaped curves.
Finkelstein (1913) recorded drawings and reflections that led him to recommend
distributing grades over a five-system distribution. He felt a pre-determined number of
students should fall in each distribution interval, similar to what we refer to as the
standard curve. In other words, there were opinions that the grading system should force
more grades into the average "C" letter grade category and less into the other grade
categories. He showed 12% of the students in the lowest category, 19% in the following

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

17

category, 45% in the middle category, 21% in the following category, and 3% in the
highest category. Finkelstein (1913) summarized his work with this recommendation:
In our judgement it would be in every respect desirable for Cornell University,
and any other institution of like character, and probably also for the secondary
schools as well, to adopt a five-division system of marking with the express
provision that, in the long run, the marks given by any instructor must not deviate
widely from the distribution just indicated. (p. 33)
Over time, there were many variations in letter grade systems and percentagebased grade systems. Some systems attached a letter grade to particular intervals of
percentage-based grades, such as a grade between 90% and 100% earned the letter grade
"A" and so on for other percentage-based categories. The distributed letter grades could
result in various distributions depending on how the teacher designed the intervals.
Other systems called for the use of the standard curve in assigning letter grades.
Using the standard curve meant that only small percentages of students should earn
extremely low or extremely high grades. The standard curve, or normal distribution,
means that more students are average, and the grade distribution should reflect more
average grades. This grading approach required distributing the letter grades to the
students based on a pre-determined number of students earning letter grades in each
category. One such distribution was to force grades to fall into five categories, with
approximately 7% of the grades falling in the lowest category, 24% in the next lowest
category, 38% in the middle category, and 24% and 7% in the highest two categories
(Hargis, 2003).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

18

The use of letter grades has continued over time. Townsley and Buckmiller
(2020) refer to the 1925 work of Chapman and Ashbaugh. Chapman and Ashbaugh
collected 436 report cards from various grades across the country. More than half of the
report cards reported grades using letter grades or percentages. This 1925 work illustrates
the continued use of letter grades and percentage grades on report cards (Chapman &
Ashbaugh, 1925; Townsley & Buckmiller, 2020). According to Schneider and Hutt
(2014):
Although the A–F grading system was still not standard by the 1940’s, it had
emerged at that point as the dominating grade scheme, along with two other
systems that would eventually be fused together with it: the 4.0 system and the
100 percent system. (p. 215)
Letter grades are still in use today. However, percentage-based grades have
recently become more popular due to the impact of technology. With the development of
grading software and programs, it has become easier to document and calculate grades
using percentages (Guskey, 2013).
Concerns for Letter Grades and Percentage-Based Grades
Concerns for letter grades and percentage-based grades have surfaced for as long
as the systems have existed. Leaders, teachers, students, and parents have all expressed
concerns. Research back to the monitorial system shows that parents were already
expressing concerns. The concerns were on behalf of the parents of the student monitors.
The parents were concerned that while their sons were spending time being monitors,
they lost time as learners (Murray, 2013).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

19

In 200 years, the concerns about letter grades and percentage-based grades have
not changed all that much. Some of the most consistent and reoccurring concerns include
misinformation to families, distortion by including zeros, pressure on students, grading to
encourage compliance, and grading inconsistencies. There are concerns that criteria used
to determine letter grades and percentage-based grades are not apparent to students and
parents. Critics have said that grades can misinform students and parents, and grades can
even be deceiving (Jongsma, 1991; Schinske & Tanner, 2014; Spencer, 2012).
The use of a zero for grades and the distortion of resulting averages is also a
common concern. Basic knowledge of averaging shows a single zero can significantly
lower and possibly distort a student's overall grade. The question becomes what the grade
is trying to communicate. By allowing one score of zero to lower the overall percentage
significantly, the concern is whether that grade appropriately reflects learning (Guskey,
2013; Jongsma, 1991).
Another concern for letter grades and percentage-based grades is the pressure they
place on students to succeed. Students are known to become competitive and overwork
themselves to earn better grades. Students may cheat, and they can exchange authentic
learning for whatever it takes to get a good grade (Hargis, 2003; Schinske & Tanner,
2014; Schneider & Hutt, 2014). Students often ask, "Is this going to be graded?" or say,
"Just tell me what I need to do to get a good grade."
The use of grades to gain compliance or punishment is a concern for letter grades
and percentage-based grades. Grades can reward or punish students for things unrelated
to mastery of content. Students can earn higher scores for participation and lower scores
for poor behavior. Homework completion is often a point of contention in deciding how

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

20

much influence homework grades should have in calculating overall grades (Jongsma,
1991; Spencer, 2012).
Grading inconsistencies are a final concern for letter grades and percentage-based
grades. Inconsistencies exist in applied grading scales and teachers' grading practices
(Guskey, 2013; Jongsma, 1991). Most research related to letter grades and percentagebased grades mentions concern for subjectivity in grading. Guskey (2013) cites a 1912
study as significant research that questioned the reliability and accuracy of percentagebased grades. The research started with analyzing the grades of 147 papers in an English
class. Scores on a first paper ranged from 64–98, and scores on a second paper ranged
from 50–97. The wide range of scores placed grading practices in question. Thinking this
was an isolated situation, researchers also analyzed geometry papers. These 128 papers
found an even more significant variation in grades. Some teachers only gave full credit,
some partial credit, and others considered other aspects of work, such as neatness and
spelling (Starch & Elliott, 1913).
Although focused on a single school district, the research of Cox (2011) sheds
light on the many inconsistencies of letter grades and percentage-based grades. His study
took place in the Lincoln Secondary School District, a pseudonym for a district consisting
of five comprehensive high schools, a continuation school, and an adult education
program. The district was primarily Hispanic, challenged by poverty, and needed reform.
District reform resulted in consistent standards-based instruction, common assessments,
curricular pacing charts, and data-based collaboration meetings. Cox's study included
interviews with focus groups and nine individual teachers that revealed a concerning
number of inconsistencies in grading. In interviews with focus groups and individual

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

21

teachers, Cox found that some teachers emphasized the students' effort in their grading
practices. Other teachers placed homework above all else. Some teachers felt students
should not earn a grade better than "C" if they did not complete homework, regardless of
test grades. At the same time, other teachers overlooked incomplete homework if test
grades and end-of-year finals indicated students learned the content. Some did the same
for successful scores on standardized tests (Cox, 2011). Although these inconsistencies
resulted from one study in a single district, the results would probably be similar in many
more schools across the country.
For the reasons listed above—distortion of grades by including zeros, pressure on
students, grading to encourage compliance, and grading inconsistencies—these same
concerns continue today.
Standardized Testing
In addition to evolving grading practices, the start of the 20th century also saw the
initiation of standardized testing practices. Several factors contributed to the development
of standardized testing. As the country experienced increased immigration, schools
experienced increased enrollment (Grodsky et al., 2008). Increased enrollment and
compulsory attendance laws created a need for increased school efficiency. One way to
be more efficient was sorting students and assigning them to ability tracks as a way to
individualize instruction (Hoff & Coles, 1999).
Additionally, advocates called for educational decisions based on merit, not race
or social class, and testing to better match students with specific skills. The use of
standardized testing was a way to meet these needs. A final factor in the development of
standardized testing was the work of psychologists in the study of cognitive abilities. This

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

22

work impacted schools, resulting in the development of intelligence testing (Grodsky et
al., 2008).
There are various events credited with initiating and sustaining the use of
standardized testing. In 1904, in Paris, French psychologist Alfred Binet designed a test
to predict how well a child could learn (Hoff & Coles, 1999). Around the same time, Sir
Francis Galton, a polymath from England with interests in science and psychology, was
also recognized as a pioneer in intelligence testing. Galton's work focused on those
displaying the top echelons of intelligence (McCreadie, 2017). While Galton focused on
the intelligence of the gifted, American psychologist Lewis Terman concentrated on
intelligence testing to identify special education students. In other words, standardized
testing started to be a way to sort students by cognitive ability (Grodsky et al., 2008). At
that time, Terman was a Stanford University professor. In 1916 he modified Binet's test,
and it became known as the Stanford-Binet scale used to measure intelligence (Hoff &
Coles, 1999). By 1925, there was evidence that many elementary schools were using
standardized testing to group students by ability (Grodsky et al., 2008).
The United States Army also found the need for standardized testing during
World War I and began using the Army Alpha test. The Army desired a way to identify
potential officers. American psychologists Arthur Otis and Robert Yerkes created a
multiple-choice test to measure soldiers' mental abilities. The test needed to be efficient,
becoming a model for future standardized tests. Since the Army valued efficiency, Otis
and Yerkes also designed efficient scoring and interpretation techniques of the
standardized test results (Gallagher, 2003).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

23

In 1919, Terman looked at the potential of the test for school children. These tests
were National Intelligence tests. The Army Alpha test and National Intelligence tests
opened the door to standardized testing's potential to measure more than just intelligence.
In 1923 the Stanford Achievement Tests were published and administered to elementary
students. In 1929, the first statewide achievement test, the Iowa Test, was administered
voluntarily. The Iowa Test remained in use for years (Gallagher, 2003).
The use of standardized tests continued to evolve and expand. Soon the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) and American College Testing (ACT) were developed, and starting
around the 1930's standardized testing started to become a business from which to make a
profit. By the 1960s, millions of students were taking the SAT (Hoff & Coles, 1999).
The most recent use of standardized testing is in high-stakes testing intended for
accountability. Standardized testing determines if schools qualify for federal programs,
such as the Title I program. Similarly, these tests are an accountability tool for a variety
of federal education policies such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No
Child Left Behind Act, and Every Student Succeeds Act (William, 2010).
The No Child Left Behind Act was a significant step in solidifying the use of
standardized testing as a school accountability measure. In 2002, President George W.
Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act initially
mandated that states conduct standardized testing in reading and math in grades three
through eight, extending to more subjects and grade levels over time. Under No Child
Left Behind, state departments of education were responsible for developing standardized
tests and testing procedures. The test scores would establish if students, and subgroups of
students, were making adequate annual progress towards meeting state standards. Not

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

24

meeting the requirements for sufficient growth meant particular consequences for the
schools. Additionally, the act required standardized test results to be aggregated by
student groups and all test results released to the public (Hursh, 2005).
Standardized testing has impacted education, and there are various ways to use
the results. The brief research provided shows standardized testing originated as a means
of efficiency and is now a form of accountability. Just as grading practices resulted in
concerns and criticisms, so does the use of standardized testing. One of those concerns is
the way we use standardized test results (Hanson, 1993). Hanson summarizes the
concerns as follows:
In a very real sense, tests have invented all of us. They play an important role in
determining what opportunities are offered to or withheld from us, they mold the
expectations and evaluations that others form of us (and we form of them), and
they heavily influence our assessments of our own abilities. Therefore, although
testing is usually considered to be a means of appraising qualities that are already
present in a person, in actuality the individual in contemporary society is not so
much measured by tests as constructed by them. (p. 40)
Perceptions of Traditional Grading Practices
Kunnath (2017a) writes, “Grades matter, and the future lives of students are in
many ways dependent on teacher grading practices” (p. 53). Grading practices can be
controversial as more individuals become advocates for grading reform (Kunnath,
2017b). Considering the perceptions of teachers and parents is a way to understand the
controversy better and potentially call for reform of grading practices.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

25

Teachers’ Perceptions of Traditional Grading Practices
Research directly gathering information on teachers' perceptions and beliefs of
traditional grading is not abundant. Research that has analyzed teachers' grading practices
will represent their perceptions and beliefs. There are several researchers for whom there
are frequent references when researching this topic. These researchers are well known
and respected for forming the picture of teachers' perceptions and beliefs of traditional
grading practices.
The research of school grading practices is relatively consistent in identifying
common themes in school grading. For this review of literature, these themes will serve
as a summary of teachers' perceptions of traditional grading practices. The research
suggests a few common findings (Brookhart et al., 2016).
The first common finding is that teachers use a variety of factors in determining
grades. Teachers use both achievement and nonachievement factors in their grading
practices, and they see grading as a way to document academic performance and motivate
students (Brookhart et al., 2016). The phrases "hodgepodge" or "kitchen sink" have
described various grading approaches. These descriptions emphasize the unpredictable
nature of grades, both in what grades represent and the wide variety of factors used to
calculate grades (Chen & Bonner, 2017). For emphasis, Brookhart et al. (2016) stated,
"teachers [idiosyncratically] use a multitude of achievement and nonachievement factors
in their grading practices" (p. 828). Teachers often base grades on a variety of school and
district policies and personal beliefs and values (Chen & Bonner, 2017). Teachers often
feel it necessary to include nonachievement factors in grading such as effort,
improvement, and conduct (McMillan et al., 2002). Some research suggests elementary

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

26

teachers' grading varies from secondary teachers. Elementary teachers tend to see grading
as a communication tool between schools and families and often individualize and
differentiate the assignment of grades (Guskey, 2009).
A second common finding is that teachers consider student effort to be necessary
when assigning grades (Brookhart et al., 2016). Teachers want their grades to be fair,
they want their grades to account for both effort and achievement, and they want their
grades to motivate. Teachers place value on effort and motivation, and they adjust their
expectations based on perceived levels of their students' abilities (McMillan et al., 2002).
Similarly, research suggests that teachers factor attitude and conduct into grades to
manage student behavior (Cross & Frary, 1996). Therefore, even though effort is a
nonachievement factor contributing to inconsistent grading practices, it appears to be
essential in teachers’ eyes.
A third common finding is that teachers advocate for students by helping them
earn better grades than they would earn based on only achievement. Sometimes teachers
value grades based on what the grades can do for individual students. Teachers use their
understanding of individual students and their circumstances to make grading judgments.
Again, this illustrates the degree of variety in grading practices and suggests that grading
can vary even within a single classroom (McMillan et al., 2002). This topic leads to more
specific research into grade inflation and changing grades. Research by Taylor (2007)
was isolated to one school, and was not enough research to prove or disprove grade
inflation or the frequency of grade changing. However, the research indicates that
teachers feel pressured to inflate or change grades. The pressures come from various
sources—parental pressure to the point that teachers inflate grades to avoid parent

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

27

conferences and administrative pressure due to teacher accountability systems (Taylor,
2007).
Specific teacher perceptions of traditional grading practices are hard to identify.
However, due to the research identifying such a variety in grading practices, teachers do
not share one common perception. It is also clear that teachers feel that factors other than
academic achievement have an essential role in determining grades. Last, teachers, to
some extent, may feel the need to use their role in grading to help some students. In other
words, teachers may feel they experience conflicts of interest regarding grading practices.
Cross and Frary (1996) help summarize it best when discussing controversies in grading.
They expressed the conflict on the part of teachers when they wrote, "the conflict in roles
arising when teachers [have to] serve as [both] advocates and judges" (p. 3). In other
words, teachers may feel they experience conflicts of interest regarding grading practices.
Parents’ Perceptions of Traditional Grading Practices
There is not much research directly gathering information on parents' perceptions
and beliefs of traditional grading. The best understanding of parents' perceptions of
traditional grading practices is to research parents' feelings towards changes to traditional
grading. This investigation leads to the research of schools and districts changing to an
alternate form of grading, often standards-based grading. Furthermore, organizing
research on perceptions of standards-based grading requires collecting and generalizing
investigations into individual schools' and districts' experiences. Therefore, there is no
guarantee that these generalizations will transfer to other schools and districts, but the
research summary is still valuable to the review of literature.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

28

There are various reasons for changing from traditional grading to standardsbased grading. Scriffiny (2008) identifies some reasons for the change as the desire for
grades to have a more apparent meaning, gain better control of grades, reduce
meaningless paperwork, and define quality work. Guskey et al. (2011) also explain the
need to change from traditional grading practices to standards-based practices to establish
clear criteria for grading. Additionally, standards-based reporting is a way to separate
content grading from other factors that sometimes distort or confuse traditional grades
(Guskey et al., 2011). These are all practical reasons to make the change. However,
change is hard, and some parents support change while others do not. Most consistently,
parents resist the change from traditional grading practices because of competition,
components of grading, and familiarity.
Often, traditional grading practices are what parents prefer. They want to see
traditional grading practices that use letter grades or percentage grades to compare
students and schools. Comparisons in public settings have announced some schools as
winners and others as losers. This practice is appealing for the winners. Some think this
feeling of competition creates motivation to win (Brookhart, 2013). Research has gone
so far as to arrive at equations that connect individual student achievement to family
characteristics and purchased inputs. Purchased inputs refer to the ability of some
families to provide rewards to students, pay for tutors, or purchase gifts for teachers.
They are items of privilege not available to all families. This suggests efforts and rewards
are ways to earn grades, so the traditional grading system is appealing for those who have
access and can afford the inputs (Bonesrønning, 2004).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

29

Preference for traditional practices also stems from parents' value on grades
reflecting more than mastery of content. Parents are critical of grading reform such as
standards-based grading because the grades do not include factors such as students’
responsibility or work ethic. Parents argue that grades teach students accountability and
responsibility, and they go on to prepare students for jobs (Will, 2019). The use of
traditional grading can be considered the currency of our educational system. Grades
indicate achievement in a language that all can understand, and for that reason, parents
are not willing to easily abandon the traditional approaches (Brookhart, 2013).
The most substantial reason parents prefer traditional grading practices is because
of familiarity. Traditional letter and percentage grades are familiar to parents. They think
they know what these grades mean. The confusion comes from parents perceiving
familiarity as understanding. Just because parents are familiar with traditional grading
practices does not mean they understand what makes up students’ grades, nor is there
agreement on what students’ grades should represent. Teachers and administrators often
face pushback and even hostility if they try to introduce grading reform. When it comes
to traditional grading practices, words such as “entrenched” and “ingrained” are used to
describe traditional grading practices and parents’ unwillingness to accept change in
those practices (Will, 2019).
Despite the resistance to change, some parents support grading reform. They have
concerns for traditional grading practices, and they are usually parents who have
experienced the successful implementation of standards-based grading. Hochbein and
Pollio (2016) explain that standards-based grading switches tedious debates between
teachers and parents about record keeping to meaningful dialogue about student learning.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

30

Instead of debating points and percentage grades, discussions centered around students'
abilities and specific skills can occur. Finally, instead of inflating grades with extra credit
or bonus points, parent conferences can concentrate on additional learning opportunities
and reassessments (Hochbein & Pollio, 2016).
Regardless of traditional or reformed grading practices, research clarifies that
schools and parents need to be on the same page for any grading practice to have
meaning. Olson (1995) wrote, “when [teachers] they're reporting to a parent, they have to
convert what they're doing to a language that parents can understand. Unless you're able
to convert from the educator's jargonese, you're going to create a problem” (p. 28).
Effective Grading Practices
Advocates for the reform of grading practices typically start by establishing the
inadequacies of traditional grading practices. From there, they provide suggestions for
replacements to those inadequate practices. Establishing inadequacies and
recommendations to replace those inadequacies results in various opinions and
approaches, but most involve using standards-based grading and report cards.
Some recommendations for effective grading are simple, and others are complex.
A common thread in most includes the idea that grades fail to meet the single goal of
communicating students' academic achievement. Therefore, most recommendations for
effective grading practices articulate the best ways to display students' academic
achievement (Brookhart, 2011; Kunnath, 2017a).
One specific recommendation for effective grading and reporting is to base the
grading on specific measurement topics. The reporting system should also provide an
opportunity to see students' growth over time. This recommendation replaces the

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

31

traditional use of averaging multiple grades over time, often referred to as omnibus
grades. If it is impossible to eliminate omnibus grades, the advice is to provide
information to accompany the omnibus grades. This additional information will help
parents better understand students' strengths and needs. Another recommendation is to
provide students with a variety of assessment options. Allowing students the opportunity
to display their learning in various ways is not only practical, but it can be motivating for
students. A final recommendation for effective grading is to allow students the
opportunity to update their scores as the school year goes on. This recommendation does
not fit the traditional classroom and would also require a change in instructional practices
(Marzano & Heflebower, 2011).
Another recommendation of effective grading practices is that the most effective
grading practices rely on feedback. The feedback should be specific and timely to
improve students' performance. Effective grading means students are receiving feedback
in addition to grades. Comparing grading in traditional classes to grading in fine arts,
performing arts, and sports reveals better performance in those areas because of the
increased feedback provided. Often in these non-traditional areas, students create a
product, such as a portfolio. A portfolio allows students to display their best work. It will
enable students to correct and improve their work until completing the final portfolio.
These edits are not failures, and the changes do not get averaged into a final grade
(Reeves, 2008).
Another recommendation of effective grading practices is that effective grading
must be individualized and focus on growth. The best way to accomplish this is again to

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

32

provide plenty of feedback (Tomlinson, 2001). Ironically, providing feedback swings the
pendulum back to a system based more on assessment than grading.
The final thoughts on effective grading practices are not additional
recommendations but steps to change. It is best to avoid a top-down approach to change,
but it is preferable to establish practical starting points that include educators and families
in the discussion. Be prepared to explain why the change is needed. In other words, be
ready to explain what is wrong with the current practices. Families will want to know
why changing to something unfamiliar to them is beneficial. Leaders must prepare to
answer these questions and a myriad of other questions (Reeves et al., 2017).
Reeves et al. (2017) state, "grading remains the wild west of school improvement"
(p. 44). They continue, "But the serious problems with practices we describe are not
controversial among the scholars of classroom assessment. Without question, [grading
reform] is the right work to do" (p. 45).
Standards-Based Grading
As standardized testing continued, the comparison of norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced testing gained attention. Norm-referenced measures are a way to find
where individuals fall in a distribution of values. Norm-referenced measures often
compare or rank, such as comparing or ranking the performance of students, schools,
districts, states, and even countries. Criterion-referenced testing measures an individual's
level of proficiency or subject knowledge in a particular topic. In other words, criterionreferenced testing measures achievement based on standards rather than on norms (Lok et
al., 2016).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

33

Some previously noted concerns of traditional grading are vagueness, using
grades to pressure and punish students, and inconsistencies in grading practices.
Combined with advocacy for more criterion-referenced measures, these concerns created
a new type of assessment: standards-based grading (Lok et al., 2016). Spencer (2012)
wrote, "Standards-based grading derives from the idea that teachers ought to have clearly
defined academic goals for their students, be able to determine if they've met them, and
then communicate that to students and parents" (p. 5).
Townsley (2013) opened an Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development article with a reflection. He asked the reader to think about a student's
grade in a unit on the subject of surface area. The student's homework grade was 50%,
quiz grade was 60%, and test grade was 100%. The student began the unit by not
understanding surface area. He received some help with the topic until he finally
understood the topic, and he scored 100% on the final test. Another student scored 100%
on each activity: homework, quiz, and test. The two students will end the unit with very
different grades but the same final understanding. The first student's grade essentially
penalized him for not having an initial understanding of the topic. This scenario is one of
the many reasons for advocating for a change in grading practices. Advocates feel grades
should report learning, not averaged points. They feel learned content should be valued
over when it is learned (Townsley, 2013).
Standards-based grading begins with identifying and understanding learning
standards that communicate learning expectations. These learning standards are
determined at the state level and are called state standards (Munoz & Guskey, 2015).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

34

The next step of standards-based grading is determining what the report card will
report, often referred to as reporting standards. Clear language that parents can
understand outlines the report card's reporting standards (Guskey et al., 2011). After
establishing reporting standards, the next step is to determine grades or marks for each
reporting standard and accompanying criteria for each. Often, the development of a rubric
can assist in developing the grades (Munoz & Guskey, 2015). Establishing the
requirements for grades is a challenging but essential step in the process. The established
rubrics must clearly describe the criteria so students' performance expectations are welldefined (Guskey, 2020).
Advocates for standards-based grading emphasize that standards-based report
cards should separate reporting for product, process, and progress. Product means there
should be criteria, measurement, and reporting dedicated only to academic performance.
Likewise, there should be different criteria, measurements, and reporting for process.
Process refers to work habits, behavior, responsibility, and similar topics. Progress has to
do with the criteria related to learning gains or growth (Guskey et al., 2011). Not all
standards-based reporting contains all three aspects of reporting, but the emphasis is on
creating a reporting system that descriptively communicates learning (Guskey, 2020).
The final step of standards-based reporting is to design a report card format that
will communicate the information. Often, personalized report cards include school
information, logo, and student identifying information. The report card contains a list of
standards and marks or grades. There is often an area to record comments. Typically, a
management system or technology application assists in generating the final standardsbased report cards. Finally, special consideration should be given to students with

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

35

disabilities and English learners when using standards-based reporting (Guskey et al.,
2011).
In closing, traditional grading systems receive criticism for not being clearly
defined. Traditional grading systems result in grades that report more than students'
achievements and are often derived by and used to report additional information such as
effort and motivation. Additionally, traditional grades are often used to sort students and
can be used to punish. On the other hand, standards-based grading determines a student's
grade using standards as a single measure of learning (Hooper & Cowell, 2014). Guskey
(2020) summarizes:
We must find ways to provide a more descriptive profile or “dashboard” of
information that meaningfully summarizes the different aspects of student
performance. At a minimum, we must provide multiple grades for each subject
area or course on students' report cards. This is not only a requirement in
standards-based approaches to education, it's an essential first step in
implementing any meaningful grading reform. (pp. 40–41)
Interviews With Schools Using Standards-Based Grading
The literature on standards-based grading is oriented more toward advocacy than
determining the effectiveness of standards-based grading practices. Most likely, this is
due to standards-based grading being a relatively recent approach to grading. Standardsbased grading is a recent approach because it is grounded in the use of learning standards.
Once accountability measures were in place through acts such as No Child Left Behind,
states began developing learning standards and state testing. Establishing state standards
and testing resulted in advocacy for standards-based grading. Therefore, standards-based

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

36

grading did not gain momentum until the start of the 21st century. For this reason, the
Literature Review chapter includes a summary of interviews with districts presently using
non-traditional grading practices. An outline of the interview responses will provide
insight into standards-based grading that may not exist through research.
Interviews occurred with representatives from five Pennsylvania school districts
presently using standards-based grading. All five districts are in South Central
Pennsylvania. Four districts are public school districts, and the fifth school is a charter
school. Each of the representatives answered nine interview questions. The survey
questions are in Appendix H. The first two questions of the survey asked the interviewees
to identify what they like about standards-based grading and what challenges they have
faced.
There are two common themes in what they like about standards-based grading:
(a) consistency of standards-based grading, meaning all teachers are using the same
assessment procedures and a common language for assessment, and (b) providing
information to parents that explains what the students know, how they are growing, and
how parents can help. There are also two common themes when it comes to the
challenges of standards-based grading: (a) defining rating categories and determining
what represents mastery, and (b) helping students and parents understand the standardsbased grading system.
The next three survey questions asked the interviewees to discuss perceived
changes in instruction, learning, and assessment due to implementing standards-based
grading practices. Overall, the interviewees felt the most significant impact on teaching
was the need for the teachers to unpack and better understand the standards. All

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

37

interviewees had difficulty articulating how standards-based grading impacted learning.
Most agreed that the standards-based grading often coincides with other changes such as
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, making it hard to identify cause and effect or
correlation. However, most agreed that there was improved alignment between
curriculum, instruction, and assessments. This alignment revealed itself by students
showing a better understanding of learning expectations and articulating learning as
specific skills. Regarding assessment changes for a standards-based report card, the
interviewees stated that the new assessments are more meaningful than assessments
previously used with traditional grading. Additionally, two interviewees pointed out that
less time is spent on administering the assessments, leaving more instructional time. In
other words, they felt assessment of nonachievement factors is not as prevalent.
The next question asked about parents' perceptions, which garnered the most
feedback from the interviewees. All four interviewees used words such as “confused” and
“overwhelmed” when explaining parents' perceptions of standards-based grading. They
feel that parents have the most difficulty understanding the ratings and do not understand
the concept of students' learning as growth over time. Parents think that grades must be
static and cannot improve over time. The parents panic when they see the lowest rating
and think it corresponds to a failure. Finally, all the individuals interviewed agreed that
educating parents in advance and explaining how standards-based grading works is an
essential step in the process. They suggested having the report card format prepared in
advance and sharing it with parents before implementation.
Next, the survey asked interviewees to identify factors necessary to use standardsbased grading effectively. The answers to this question were consistent. The interviewees

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

38

emphasized agreement on what standards to use at each grade level and within each
discipline. There are too many standards to choose from to include all of them in the
standards-based grading system. Therefore, they all agree that collaborative and
professional dialogue must occur for everyone to agree. Next, they mentioned the
importance of deciding on a rating system and what each rating represents about student
learning and mastery. The report cards list the ratings as performance indicators, and the
report cards have either three or four performance indicators. The performance indicators
describe progress towards meeting or mastering the standard. One interviewee discussed
the value of this step in the process, and without it, the process becomes no different than
traditional grading practices.
The final questions asked the interviewees to share their reporting format and any
additional information they felt was necessary. Most of the reporting formats provided by
the interviewees included a list of standards and accompanying performance indicators.
The performance indicators varied, but there was similarity in the approaches. Most had a
system containing ratings for not yet demonstrating understanding, partial understanding,
and consistent understanding or mastery. One of the interviewees closed out the survey
with an insightful reflection. He pointed out that nothing works in isolation, especially a
grading system. Many things had to change in his district to develop and implement a
standards-based reporting system. Therefore, it's challenging to determine the grading
system's direct impact on learning. It's more a matter of embracing the entire process and
ensuring each process component aligns with the others.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

39

Summary
Grading practices have not changed much over time. From Horace Mann's vision
of public schools in the 1830s to the accountability of federal programs like No Child
Left Behind in 2002 to present advocacy for standards-based reporting, grading practices
have been slow to change. Some key talking points include the meaning of grades, the
primary audience of grades, long-standing beliefs, and longtime entrenched practices.
The most important topic is whether grades reflect only learning or include
nonachievement factors (Brookhart, 2011).
The review of literature suggests that while grading practices have not changed
much over time, neither have the discussions. The longer traditional grading practices
remain, the more challenging it becomes to consider, advocate for, and implement change
if a change is the desired goal. The literature suggests that this may be due to no other
reason than familiarity. Familiarity makes it hard to look at traditional grading through an
evaluative lens. However, continuing with something solely based on familiarity can be
grounds for criticism, especially if a change has the potential to be more purposeful or
meaningful.
While grading practices, in general, have not significantly changed, the literature
suggests that if changes have occurred, the changes have been to standards-based
grading. Standards-based grading, or standards-based report cards, is the suggested
change advocated for by those seeking grading reform.
It is not the purpose of the review of literature or this research project to make
recommendations. The objective is to provide a foundational understanding of grading
practices to evaluate effectiveness in a particular school district. A solid understanding of

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
the history, concerns, and perspectives of traditional grading practices and research on
grading reform such as standards-based grading will be valuable in this evaluation.

40

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

41
Chapter III
Methodology

The Literature Review chapter provided information on traditional grading
practices, namely history, concerns, and perspectives of traditional grading practices.
Additionally, the Literature Review chapter provided research on grading reform, such as
standards-based grading. The literature revealed that grading practices changed
minimally over time. Discussions of grading practices typically focus on the meaning of
grades, the grades’ primary audiences, long-standing beliefs, and entrenched grading
practices. Entrenched practices make it challenging to look at traditional grading through
an evaluative lens. However, continuing with traditional grading practices solely based
on familiarity can be grounds for criticism, especially if suggested changes have the
potential to be more meaningful or purposeful.
The literature emphasized that it was not the purpose of this research study to
make recommendations regarding grading practices. The objective was to understand
grading practices in order to evaluate the effectiveness of current elementary grading
practices in the DASD. Additionally, the study aimed to determine the current
understanding of DASD teachers and administrators of standards-based report cards as an
alternative to traditional grading practices. A solid understanding of the history of
traditional grading practices, concerns and perspectives of grading practices, and research
on grading reform such as standards-based grading is valuable in meeting these
objectives.
This chapter outlines the purpose, setting, and participants of the research study.
Also, this chapter shifted the context of the research study from a historical review of the

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

42

literature to the actionable implementation of a mixed methods research study. This
Methodology chapter outlines the research design and methods, followed by data
collection and analysis. These aspects of the research study changed the focus from
reviewing the literature to answering research questions. Answering the research
questions was essential in evaluating the effectiveness of current elementary grading
practices in the DASD.
Purpose
This action research study collected data used to answer three research questions.
These research questions determined the effectiveness of the current DASD elementary
grading practices, emphasizing ELA and math in grades 1–5. DASD elementary grading
practices refer to the grading practices in the four K–5 elementary schools of the district.
The researcher defined the effectiveness of current grading practices as knowledge of
current grading expectations, consistency per grade level across all buildings, and grading
practices that reflect students' mastery of curriculum and eligible content of grade-level
Pennsylvania state standards. The project also researched DASD teachers' perceptions
and parents' understanding of current DASD elementary grading practices. Finally, the
research determined DASD elementary administrators' and teachers' understanding and
perceptions of standards-based report cards.
Curriculum, instruction, and assessment are considered the foundational
components of successful educational programming. However, when grading practices
do not align with curriculum, instruction, and assessment, the grading practices are not
effective and serve little purpose. "Effective grading policies are an essential part of

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

43

combining rigorous expectations with meaningful feedback" (Feldman & Reeves, 2020,
p. 25).
Not mentioned in the Literature Review chapter, the current context of the
COVID-19 pandemic deserves consideration. More specifically, the pandemic's
interruption to education suggests it has created authentic and organic reasons to consider
changes in education. More specifically, Feldman and Reeves (2020) explain:
The pandemic should teach us what we already should have known: Many
grading systems are broken. When these systems rely on antiquated, inaccurate,
and unfair practices, such as the average and using the 100-point scale, then we
systematically put students at a disadvantage—not only during extended school
absences caused by this pandemic, but throughout their educational experiences.
Now is the time to learn these lessons and make changes. (p. 27)
The desired outcome of this research study was to answer questions about the
effectiveness of the current elementary grading practices in the DASD. The action
research used a mixed-methods research approach. The project began by retrieving
information from the district's school information system to determine the effectiveness
of current DASD elementary grading practices. The DASD technology department
assisted the researcher in downloading grade books in grades 1–5 from the 2020–2021
school year for all four elementary buildings. Before submitting the project for approval,
the researcher downloaded the data because once the management system rolled over to
the 2021–2022 school year, the data was no longer accessible. As a result, this data was
considered archived data for the research project.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

44

The researcher used surveys to gather information from teachers, administrators, and
parents, resulting in quantitative and qualitative data. The researcher collected additional
information through discussions and interviews, summarizing this information in the
review of literature. The following three research questions guided the research:
1. How effective are the current DASD elementary grading practices (ELA and
Math)? Knowledge of current grading expectations, consistency per grade level
across all buildings, and grading practices that reflect students' mastery of
curriculum and eligible content of grade-level Pennsylvania state standards was
the definition of effective in the IRB proposal.
2. What are DASD teachers' perceptions and parents' understanding of current
DASD elementary grading practices?
3. What are DASD administrators' and teachers' perceptions and understanding of
standards-based report cards?
As explained in the Literature Review chapter, history shows a struggle over time
to agree on measuring students' academic progress and performance. Review of the
literature subtly revealed an underlying difficulty in defining the difference between
assessment and grading, and over time, the practices lean more towards grading than
assessment. The literature noted various reasons for the historical shift to grading, with
efficiency being one of the main reasons. With traditional grading practices resulting in
generations of familiarity with traditional percentage and letter grades, any suggested
changes are not often well-received. However, breaking from tradition and familiarity is
not a reason to avoid evaluating this vital component of our education system. Add to that
the timeliness of education recovering from two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

45

seems now is a good time for a school district to evaluate grading practices and seek to
answer the questions that drive this research.
Setting and Participants
The DASD is located in South Central Pennsylvania and serves Dover Borough
and Dover Township. The district covers approximately 42 square miles and serves a
community of close to 24,000 members representing around 3,200 students in grades K–
12. The district has one high school, one middle school, and four elementary schools
(Dover Area School District, 2021).
It is important to note that the district's footprint changed significantly during this
project. Previously, the DASD attendance boundaries included Washington Township.
However, after nearly a 10-year legal battle, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in
January of 2021 that Washington Township could secede from DASD and join the
neighboring Northern York County School District. This secession resulted in over 200
students moving from DASD to Northern York County School District, beginning in the
2021–2022 school year, along with a loss in revenue to the DASD. This loss of revenue
has placed a significant financial burden on the DASD and will have a devastating impact
on programming for years to come.
The district's brand-new state-of-the-art high school serves students in grades 9–
12 and includes a Career and Technical Education program with nine state-approved
programs in agriculture, business, audio and visual communications, and computer and
engineering technology. After building a new high school, the previous high school
building underwent renovations and became a new middle school. Previously, the old
intermediate school included grades seven and eight, but after the renovation, the middle

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

46

school now houses students in grades 6–8. This planning was due to increases in
elementary enrollment and crowding at the elementary buildings. As a result, the four
elementary buildings now house students in grades K–5.
The DASD has also experienced significant changes in district administration.
Within the last two years, the district has experienced administrative personnel changes
in the positions of superintendent, assistant superintendent, three out of six secondary
principals, and three out of four elementary principals. This change in elementary
principals is essential to note since this research project involved research at the
elementary level. As three new elementary principals came into the district, the four
elementary principals established a high priority goal of collaboration and consistency
between the four elementary buildings—a spirit of cooperation that had not existed at the
elementary level for many years. In terms of this project, assessment and grading are
essential topics to engage in collaboration and seek consistency.
A few additional facts about the district help with the context of the research: the
staff profile of the district is 116 elementary, 60 middle school, and 74 high school
teachers, as well as 208 support staff and 23 administrators. Student population
demographics report that the district serves a population of about 78% white students,
around 6% multi-racial, and a growing 8% population of Hispanic students. The
elementary population is approximately 1440 students who are not currently equally
distributed among the four buildings. The district recently voted to change the elementary
attendance boundary lines, among many other district changes. Several community
housing developments concentrated in one area resulted in increased enrollments in a
single elementary building compared to the other three buildings. At the elementary level,

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

47

approximately 47% of families are eligible for free and reduced lunches Finally, it is
worth noting that 687, about 20% of students attending school within the district, receive
special education services and have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) (Dover
Area School District, 2021).
Research Plan
The collection of information for the study began in October of 2021 when the
researcher interviewed participants using the informed consent and interview questions in
Appendix G and Appendix H. The information collected from these interviews was not
data collected to answer the research questions. The collected information helped provide
insight from those using standards-based report cards: an alternative to traditional grading
practices. The researcher interviewed school representatives from five neighboring school
districts using standards-based report cards during the interviews. The information
gathered from these interviews was summarized in the Literature Review chapter.
The study continued with three phases of data collection. The first data collection
phase included teachers' 2020–2021 school year grade books. The researcher downloaded
the grade books from the school information system at the end of the 2020–2021 school
year. The data was no longer available for download once the district's school
information system rolled over to the 2021–2022 school year. With assistance from the
technology department and the Director of Child Accounting, the researcher downloaded
the data in July 2021. Because the researcher made the download before the start of the
research project, the data was considered archived data. This phase of data collection
involved downloading the grade books of 49 teachers. Grades 3–5 teachers were
departmentalized and only taught one subject. Therefore, the download only included

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

48

grade books of ELA and math teachers. The researcher did not download kindergarten
teachers' grade books because kindergarten students receive a grade of "T" for taught but
not graded in all subject areas. The fourth second-grade teacher at building one was an
extra class needed to meet increased enrollment. Therefore, 49 elementary teachers
across four elementary buildings were indirect participants in this data collection phase.
The district superintendent provided consent for this data collection in two signed district
approval letters, included in the IRB approval process and Appendix I and Appendix J.
Table 1 illustrates a breakdown of the number of teachers' grade books.
Table 1
Number of Teachers’ Downloaded Grade Books
Gradebooks
Building 1

Building 2

Building 3

Building 4

Grade total

Grade 1

3

3

3

3

12

Grade 2

4

3

3

3

13

Grade 3

2

2

2

2

8

Grade 4

2

2

2

2

8

Grade 5

2

2

2

2

8

Downloading the content of the teachers’ grade books required the assistance of
the district technology department and the Director of Child Accounting. These
individuals assisted in creating the correct reports needed to download the grade books
from the district information system. They also assisted in downloading the grade books
in a format that allowed the data to be manipulated and organized for data analysis.
The second phase of data collection was distributing Survey #1, Appendix B, to
elementary teachers. The district superintendent provided consent for this data collection

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

49

in the signed district approval letter, included in the IRB approval process and Appendix
I. On January 17, 2022, the researcher sent emails to initiate the distribution of Survey
#1, Appendix B. An email went to the superintendent to reconfirm approval for
distribution of the survey, with a response email received that same day indicating
permission. On the same day, an email went to elementary principals. The email
contained a script for the principals to send to the participant teachers in their buildings.
The email script explained to whom to send the email, instructions on accessing the
survey, information on informed consent, and the survey's closing date. Upon initiating
the survey, each participant went to the informed consent statement of the survey. If the
participant agreed with the informed consent, the survey continued to the second part: the
survey questions. After reading the informed consent, if the participant no longer wished
to participate, they exited the survey with no information collected. The survey closed for
participation on January 31, 2022.
The principals distributed the survey to a total of 52 elementary teachers. The
breakdown of those teachers is similar to the breakdown of the downloaded 2020–2021
grade books, with the addition of learning support teachers for participation in Survey #1,
Appendix B. There was a reduction in the number of teachers in Building 4 due to the
noted secession of Washington Township. Survey #1 informed consent and survey
questions are in Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 2 illustrates a breakdown of the
number of Survey #1 participants.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

50

Table 2
Participants in Survey #1, Appendix B
Teachers
Building 1

Building 2

Building 3

Building 4

Grade total

Grade 1

3

3

3

2

11

Grade 2

3

3

3

2

11

Grade 3

2

2

2

2

8

Grade 4

2

2

2

2

8

Grade 5

2

2

2

2

8

Learning
Support

2

2

1

1

6

Also included in the second phase of data collection was the distribution of
Survey #2, Appendix D, to parents. The district superintendent provided consent for this
data collection in the signed district approval letter, included in the IRB approval process
and Appendix I. On January 17, 2022, the researcher sent emails to initiate the
distribution of Survey #2, Appendix D. An email went to the superintendent to reconfirm
approval for distribution of the survey, with a response email received that same day
indicating permission. On the same day, an email went to elementary principals. The
email contained a script for the principals to send to the participant parents from their
buildings. The email script explained to whom to send the email, instructions on
accessing the survey, information on informed consent, and the survey's closing date.
Upon initiating the survey, each participant went to the informed consent statement of the
survey. If the participant agreed with the informed consent, the survey continued to the
second part: the survey questions. After reading the informed consent, if the participant

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

51

no longer wished to participate, they exited the survey with no information collected. The
survey closed for participation on January 31, 2022.
The principals distributed the email script to parents using the district message
system, with the survey going to parents of approximately 1050 students in grades 1–5.
Survey #2 statement of informed consent and survey questions are in Appendix C and
Appendix D.
The last phase of data collection was the distribution of Survey #3, Appendix F, to
elementary administrators and teachers. The district superintendent provided consent for
this data collection in the signed district approval letter, included in the IRB approval
process and Appendix I. The distribution of Survey #3, Appendix F, was similar to
distribution of Surveys #1 and #2, Appendix B and Appendix D. On February 26, 2022,
the researcher sent emails to initiate the distribution of Survey #3, Appendix F. An email
was sent to the superintendent to reconfirm approval for distribution of the survey, with a
response email received the same day indicating permission. On the same day an email
was sent to each of the elementary principals. The email contained a script for the
principals to send to participant teachers in their buildings. The email script explained to
whom to send the email, instructions on accessing the survey, information on informed
consent, and when the survey would close. When opening the survey, each participant
was taken immediately to the informed consent statement of the survey. If the participant
agreed with the informed consent, the survey continued to the second part which was to
answer the survey questions. After reading the informed consent, if the participant no
longer wished to participate, they exited the survey with no information being collected.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

52

The four elementary principals were also asked to participate in this survey. The survey
closed for participation on March 14, 2022.
The principals distributed the survey to a total of 52 elementary teachers. With the
survey also requesting participation from the principals, the survey was distributed to 56
total participants. The breakdown of those participants was similar to the breakdown of
Survey #1 participants. Survey #3 statement of informed consent and survey questions is
in Appendix E and Appendix F. Table 3 illustrates a breakdown of the number of Survey
#3 participants.
Table 3
Participants in Survey #3, Appendix F
Teachers
Building 1

Building 2

Building 3

Building 4

Grade total

Grade 1

3

3

3

2

11

Grade 2

3

3

3

2

11

Grade 3

2

2

2

2

8

Grade 4

2

2

2

2

8

Grade 5

2

2

2

2

8

Learning
Support

2

2

1

1

6

Principals
Building 1

Building 2

Building 3

Building 4

Total

1

1

1

1

4

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

53

Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection
The research plan started in July of 2021 by downloading the archived elementary
grade book data described in the Setting and Participants section. After downloading the
grade books, the next step was preparing the IRB request for approval of the research
project. Defining the research questions was the foundational step of preparing the IRB
request. The research questions concentrated on evaluating the effectiveness of current
elementary ELA and math grading practices in grades 1–5, determining perceptions of
current elementary grading practices, and measuring the current knowledge of standardsbased report cards.
The research location was the DASD in Dover, Pennsylvania, and the researcher
obtained superintendent approval, Appendix I, for the research project in July of 2021.
Continued preparation for IRB approval included proposals for the need and method of
research, data collection and analysis, informed consent and survey questions, and
research timeline. The IRB request also included submitting the researcher’s certificates,
Appendix L and Appendix M, of completion in required training to conduct educational
research. The IRB request was submitted to and approved by the California University of
Pennsylvania IRB in August of 2021. The effective date of IRB approval, Appendix K,
was August 27, 2021, with an expiration date of August 26, 2022.
The review of literature took place between September and December of 2021.
The literature showed an awareness that there has been a shift from assessment to grading
over time, that traditional grading practices have remained stagnant, and that grading
practices have experienced limited scrutiny. This lack of scrutiny has contributed to a
long-time familiarity with traditional grading practices. Research shows there has been

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

54

recent consideration for changes in grading practices, namely in using standards-based
reporting. Through interviews, the Literature Review chapter contained a limited number
of viewpoints on standards-based grading. However limited in quantity, the interviews
resulted in some common themes provided by those interviewed and currently using
standards-based grading approaches. The interview informed consent and interview
questions are in Appendix G and Appendix H.
The researcher distributed the three IRB-approved surveys in January and
February of 2022, with voluntary participants' participation. The surveys were built and
distributed using Google Forms, with the Google Form for each survey including three
sections. Section one contained the statement of informed consent and a single question
asking the participant to consent or not consent to participation. If the participant agreed
to participate, the Google Form took the participant to section two; if not, the form
moved the participant to section three of the Google Form. Section two of the Google
Form contained the survey questions, and section three had a statement to confirm the
participant elected not to participate. Once the surveys closed, the responses
automatically populated in a Google Sheets spreadsheet that could be sorted and
organized as needed for data analysis.
The first survey contained 12 questions and was distributed to teacher participants
as outlined in the Setting and Participants section. Table 4 includes the breakdown of
Survey #1, Appendix B, questions.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

55

Table 4
Breakdown of Questions: Survey #1, Appendix B
Question(s)

Type of question

Purpose

Multiple Choice: Collected grade level and
1 and 2

Disaggregate data
subject for each participant teacher
Likert-type question: Collected quantitative
Data to answer research

3

data on participant teachers’ knowledge of
question 1
current grading practices
Likert-type questions: Collected quantitative
Data to answer research

4–10

data on participant teachers’ perceptions of
question 2
current grading practices
Open-ended question: Collected qualitative
Data to answer research

11

data on participant teachers’ understanding
questions 1 and/or 2
and/or perception of current grading practices
The second survey contained 12 questions and was distributed to parent

participants as outlined in the Setting and Participants section. Table 5 includes the
breakdown of Survey #2, Appendix D, questions.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

56

Table 5
Breakdown of Questions: Survey #2, Appendix D
Question(s)

Type of question

Purpose

Multiple Choice: Collected grade level for
1

Disaggregate data
each participant parent’s student
Likert-type questions: Collected quantitative
Data to answer research

2–11

data on participant parents’ perceptions of
question 2
current grading practices
Open-ended question: Collected qualitative
Data to answer research

12

data on participant parents’ perceptions of
question 2
current grading practices
The third survey contained 10 questions and was distributed to administrator and

teacher participant as outlined in the Setting and Participants section. Table 6 includes the
breakdown of Survey #3, Appendix F, questions.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

57

Table 6
Breakdown of Questions: Survey #3, Appendix F
Question(s)

Type of question

Purpose

Multiple Choice: Collected grade level or
1 and 2

administrator for each participant; also

Disaggregate data

collected subject for participant teachers
Likert-type questions: Provided quantitative
data on teachers’ and administrators’

Data to answer research

knowledge and perceptions of standards-based

question 3

3–9
report cards
Open-ended question: Provided qualitative
data on teachers’ and administrators’

Data to answer research

knowledge and perceptions of standards-based

question 3

10
report cards

In March of 2022, the researcher organized the downloaded grade books’ data and
the data collected from the three surveys. The organization of the data led to data analysis
in April of 2022. The two months of data collection, organization, and analysis allowed
the researcher to use the data to answer the three research questions of the research
project.
Fiscal implications of the research project are minimal. The research plan
involved a significant investment of time on the part of the researcher and minimal time
for the superintendent, Director of Child Accounting, technology department, interview

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

58

participants, and survey participants. Organization and analysis of the grade books’ data
required the most significant investment of time.
In terms of financial implications, there are no guaranteed costs for the research
project. If the research results motivate changes to current elementary grading practices,
the district will likely incur expenses to make the changes. The potential impact of the
research project will depend upon the results of the research project, the answers to the
research questions, and the state of the district at the time the research results are made
available to the district. As a result of the project, the researcher anticipates three
potential options for improvements to the present elementary grading system.
The first option will result in the district maintaining the current elementary
grading practices in ELA and math for grades K–5. However, the district will improve
grading practices by developing and implementing common assessments in grades K–5.
The second option will result in the district maintaining the current elementary
grading practices in ELA and math for grades 3–5. However, the district will improve the
current grading practices by developing and implementing common assessments in
grades 3–5. The difference in this option is in grades K–2. The district will change the
current elementary grading practices in grades K–2 to a standards-based report card.
The third option will result in the district changing the current elementary grading
practices in ELA and math for grades K–5. The district will change the current
elementary grading practices in grades K–5 to a standards-based report card.
The first option includes a three-day summer work session during the summer of
2022 to develop common assessments in ELA and math in grades K–5 for the start of the
2022–2023 school year. Participants in the work session will be one classroom teacher

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

59

per building, per grade in grades K–2, resulting in the participation of 12 teachers.
Teachers in grades 3–5 are departmentalized and only teach one subject area. Therefore,
only ELA and math teachers in grades 3–5 will participate in the summer session,
including 24 more teachers in the work session. The participating teachers will be paid
per diem rates for three eight-hour workdays and provided lunch and work supplies.
Teachers will report to campus to complete the work, with administrators in attendance to
supervise the work. The summer work will result in all K-2 teachers and ELA and math
teachers in grades 3–5 having enough common assessments to start the school year. This
group of teachers will continue to meet on professional development days throughout the
2022–2023 school year to continue the work begun in the summer. The estimated cost of
the summer work has a maximum cost of approximately $57,000.
Like the first option, the second option includes a three-day summer work session
during the summer of 2022. As described in the first option, the work session will involve
the development of common assessments. However, only grades 3–5 will develop
common assessments in the second option. For grades K–2, a similar three-day work
session will take place, but this work session will be to design a standards-based report
card for the 2022–2023 school year. Participants in the work session will be one
classroom teacher per building, per grade in grades K–2. The workshop will include the
same 36 participants as in the first option. The participating teachers will be paid per
diem rates for three eight-hour workdays and provided lunch and work supplies. Teachers
will report to campus to complete the work, with administrators in attendance to
supervise the work. The summer work will result in the teachers designing enough

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

60

common assessments for ELA and math teachers in grades 3–5 to start the school year
with common assessments and a standards-based report card for grades K–2.
This option also includes designing and mailing to families of an informational
flyer about a new standards-based report card. The flyer will explain why the district is
changing the K–2 report card, how to interpret the new report card, and information on
the new standards-based report card format. As described in the Literature Review
chapter, interviews of those using standards-based reporting systems indicated this is an
essential step in implementing a standards-based report card. The estimated cost of the
summer work for this option has a maximum cost of approximately $60,000.
The third option is similar to the previous two options. The teachers will
participate in a three-day work session to design a standards-based report card in grades
K–5 for the 2022–2023 school year. The work session will include the same 36 teacher
participants as previously outlined. The participating teachers will be paid per diem rates
for three eight-hour workdays and provided lunch and work supplies. Teachers will
report to campus to complete the work, with administrators in attendance to supervise the
work. The summer work will result in the teachers designing a standards-based report
card for grades K–5. This option will also include developing and distributing an
informational flyer to families of students in grades K–5, as described in the second
option. The estimated cost of the summer work for this option is approximately $60,000.
Additional anticipated costs might accompany the change to a standards-based
report card. At this time, the district’s technology department indicates the current school
information system can manage a standards-based report card. If the school information
system cannot develop a standards-based report card, the district may need a separate

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

61

management system dedicated to standards-based report cards. These additional
anticipated costs are anywhere from $6000 to $13,000.
It is worth noting that the overall costs of the three options are not significantly
different. Because of the minimal cost differential between options, the district can
consider each option based on needs, and none of the options should be automatically
eliminated based on cost alone.
Validity
In writing about action research, Hendricks (2017) noted, “It is important to
remember that all educational research—whether conducted by teachers, administrators,
evaluators, university faculty, or others interested in studying educational issues—has the
potential to enhance knowledge about teaching and learning” (p. 10). Given the potential
of research to enhance teaching and learning, ensuring data validity is crucial for the
research plan.
In this mixed methods research project, the researcher collected data from grade
books, interviews, and surveys. The collected data was qualitative and quantitative, with
the majority being of the latter.
The grade book data was the most complex and time-consuming to collect,
organize, and analyze. Having the Director of Child Accounting and the district
technology department perform the download of this data strengthened the validity of the
data. Having them assist in downloading the data removed the researcher from any initial
handling of the data. This approach placed the data downloading process in the hands of
those considered to be experts in school information system reports and the proper
downloading of data. Additionally, the downloading process included all available grade

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

62

books. Downloading all grade books strengthened the validity of the data because the
data analysis was completed using all available data and not a generalization of a subset
of the data. Indeed, downloading a smaller data subset to represent the entire population
would have significantly reduced the researcher's time. However, the researcher decided
analysis of the whole set was feasible, and the additional time investment was worth the
thoroughness and validity gained from using all possible data.
The download of the initial grade book data was in portable document format
(PDF) files. The researcher manually transferred the data from PDF files to various
spreadsheets to organize and analyze the grade book data. The researcher used much care
and cross-referenced in multiple ways to ensure accuracy. However, this was the one
phase of work that was most susceptible to human error, and the researcher wishes to be
transparent in this aspect of the data management. Transferring the grade book data to
spreadsheets reduced the chances for data manipulation errors since sorting, organizing,
and calculating within a spreadsheet significantly reduced the likelihood of errors when
compared to forms of manual data manipulation.
The research project also included qualitative and quantitative data collected from
surveys. The participants in the surveys were teachers, parents, and administrators. To
increase the validity of data gathered from the surveys, the researcher focused on the
quality of the survey questions, increasing participation rates, and encouraging
participants to be open and honest in their responses.
To increase the quality of the research questions, the researcher reviewed survey
questions used by other researchers and solicited feedback from the internal and external
committee chairs and colleagues. Quality research questions will reduce

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

63

misunderstanding and ambiguity for the participants, thus increasing the validity of the
participants’ responses.
The surveys did not collect personally identifiable information from the
participants to increase the number of survey participants and encourage open and honest
responses. The survey questions did not go beyond asking for a grade level or subject
area. Any information that could identify an individual or the school building they
represent was not requested. The researcher set up the surveys for distribution by using
Google Forms. The default setting in Google Forms collects participant emails, but the
researcher turned this default setting off, so the surveys did not collect participant emails.
This approach was another layer of protection to reassure the participants that the
research did not include identifying the participants or anything perceived as competition
between school buildings. The informed consent statements of all three surveys explained
how the researcher intentionally eliminated the collection of personally identifiable
information. Data collected from the surveys automatically populated from the Google
Forms to a Google Sheets spreadsheet. The use of spreadsheets for organization,
manipulation, and analysis significantly reduced the chance of human error and increased
the validity of the data.
Finally, throughout the project, the researcher noted multiple times that the
purpose of this research is not necessarily to recommend or initiate changes in the current
elementary grading practices in the DASD. The researcher has reiterated that the purpose
of the data is to analyze and inform. Therefore, this research intends not to encourage
change or fulfill any personal agendas, further supporting the researcher's desire to
produce accurate and valid results.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

64

At the research study's conclusion, all data from the grade books and surveys will
be downloaded and printed. The printed data will be filed and stored in a confidential
location so only the researcher will have future access. The researcher will delete
electronic grade book files after the research study. The researcher will also permanently
delete the Google Forms and Google Sheets spreadsheets containing the three surveys
and the accompanying data unless the district desires to move this data in an alternate
electronic location.
Summary
The Literature Review chapter prioritized evaluating current grading practices and
gaining familiarity with potential alternatives to traditional grading practices. The
Methodology chapter outlined the purpose, setting, participants, and research plan. It
shifted the context of the research study from a historical review of the literature to the
actionable implementation of a mixed methods research study.
The Research Plan section reviewed the timeline and process used to collect
interview information and data from grade books and surveys. The information gathered
from interviews was summarized in the Literature Review chapter. The Research Design,
Methods, and Data Collection section explained the techniques used to gather the grade
book and survey data and outlined the types of questions used in the surveys and the
purpose of each survey question. Quantitative and Qualitative data collected from grade
books and surveys were organized and analyzed, with the results of that analysis being
the foundation of answering the research questions.
The next chapter will reveal the results of the data analysis by explaining the
organization and analysis of the data and how the data answers the study's three research

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

65

questions. The grade book data will help answer the first research question regarding the
effectiveness of current DASD elementary grading practices in ELA and math. The data
analysis of Survey #1, Appendix B, and Survey #2, Appendix D, will answer the second
research question regarding teachers' and parents' perceptions of current DASD
elementary grading practices in ELA and math. Finally, the data analysis of Survey #3,
Appendix F, will answer the third research question regarding teachers' and
administrators' understanding of standards-based report cards.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

66
Chapter IV

Data Analysis and Results
The content of this chapter focuses on the research project’s data, with the
majority of the chapter dedicated to reviewing both the process and results of the data
analysis. The chapter includes a dedicated explanation of the data analysis process and
results for each research question. Next, the chapter discusses how the data results
answered the project’s research questions. Finally, the chapter will conclude with further
discussion summarizing the data analysis process and the resulting answers to the three
research questions.
Data Analysis and Results
The objective of the project’s research was to answer three research questions.
The researcher organized the presentation of the data analysis process and results around
the three research questions.
1. How effective are the current DASD elementary grading practices (ELA and
math)? The definition of effective is knowing current grading expectations, grade
level consistency across all buildings, and grading practices that reflect students'
mastery of curriculum and eligible content of Pennsylvania grade-level state
standards.
2. What are DASD teachers’ perceptions and parents’ understanding of current
DASD elementary grading practices?
3. What are DASD administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions and understanding of
standards-based report cards?

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

67

Research Question 1
The first research question focused on the effectiveness of current elementary
grading practices. The definition of effectiveness was knowledge of current grading
practices, grade-level consistency, and grading practices that reflect the mastery of
curriculum and eligible content.
Knowledge of Current Grading Practices.
Data from the first three questions of Survey #1, Appendix B, was organized and
analyzed using basic percentages to analyze the knowledge of current grading practices.
The data was collected using surveys with the survey collection tool automatically
calculating the percentages, thus eliminating any calculation errors on the researcher's
part. Survey #1, Appendix B, had 30 participants out of the 52 teachers to which the
researcher distributed the survey, representing a 58% participation rate. The survey asked
the teacher participants to what extent they felt the current grading practices for ELA and
math report card grades were defined clearly by district policies and procedures. The
teacher respondents indicated that 43% of the respondents agreed, and 3% strongly
agreed that the district clearly defined grading practices. In contrast, 47% disagreed, and
7% strongly disagreed that the district clearly defined grading practices. Therefore, the
results identified that the respondents had divided feelings about clearly defined grading
practices.
By using identifying data from the first two questions of Survey #1, Appendix B,
additional analysis revealed that the grade level and subject of the respondent teachers
had an impact on their responses. First and second-grade teachers responded with 60%
disagreeing and 7% strongly disagreeing. Teachers in grades three, four, and five

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

68

responded more in agreement, with 62% responding they agree and 8% responding they
strongly agree. The teachers were departmentalized in grades three, four, and five,
meaning they only taught ELA or math. In these grades, the ELA teachers provided
divided responses, with 14% responding they strongly agree, 29% responding they agree,
and 57% responding they disagree. In contrast, math teachers in grades three, four, and
five were in complete agreement, with 100% of them responding that they agreed.
The results indicate an overall division in responses and a further discrepancy
when disaggregated by grade level and subject area. Therefore, the responses suggest that
knowledge of current grading expectations is not well established.
Grade-Level Consistency.
The researcher organized the archived grade book data in three ways to analyze
grade-level consistency. First, to determine the types of work in which the students
received grades, an analysis of the data in each grade book occurred for each grade level
and subject. These work type categories (see Figure 1) were specific descriptions
assigned by teachers to each assessment entered into the district’s school information
system. Teachers had complete autonomy in determining these work categories.
Figure 1
Grade Book Sample of Types of Student Work

The researcher reviewed each grade book at each grade level for each subject
area. After reviewing the grade books, the researcher determined broader learning
categories for each assessment. Not an exhaustive list, some examples of the larger

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

69

learning categories were phonics, fluency, writing, math facts, math problem solving, and
nonachievement factors. The researcher included nonachievement factors as a category
because the literature drew attention to nonachievement factors in grading. Some
examples of nonachievement factors included, but are not limited to, work completion,
bell ringers, exit tickets, participation, and extra credit.
The next step was to count the number of grade book points assigned to each of
the broader learning categories for each grade book. Finally, a percentage was found by
dividing the total points in each learning category by the total points in the grade book.
For each grade book, the researcher repeated this process of calculating
percentages. It’s important to note that the resulting learning categories were unique for
each grade level and subject area, based on the types of work assigned in each. This
analysis resulted in a percentage of points assigned to broader learning categories in 122
individual grade books.
Similarly, the second step was to determine in each grade book which assessment
categories the teachers assigned each assessment. Teachers assigned assessment
categories using a dropdown menu of predetermined choices in the school information
system. The school information system contained a finite list of assessment categories
from which to choose. Although limited in the options for these categories, teachers had
complete autonomy in assigning the categories. The most frequently used assessment
categories were classwork, quizzes, and tests.
For each grade book, a percentage was found by dividing the number of
assessment category points by the total number of points in the grade book. This analysis
resulted in percentages for the assessment categories in 122 individual grade books.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

70

The final data analysis of the individual grade books was to calculate how many
assessment scores there were in each grade book. Like the assessment categories, the
number of assessment scores (see Figure 2) were retrieved directly from the grade books.
The number of assessment scores is not to be confused with the point value in each grade
book. The number of assessment scores is simply the count of assessments or scores
entered into each grade book. Since the school information system numbers each
assessment, this analysis only required retrieving these numbers from the grade book and
organizing them elsewhere for further analysis. This process resulted in knowing the
number of assessments entered in each of the 122 individual grade books.
Figure 2
Grade Book Sample of Assessment Categories and Numbering

These three aspects of data analysis were significantly time-consuming. The
researcher used manual and electronic techniques to organize and analyze the data. The
researcher exercised extreme caution in analyzing the data by cross-referencing the total
number of points in each teacher’s grade book. The researcher calculated the total
number of points in each grade book during each data analysis phase. This way,
regardless of the data organization, the fact that the total number of points remained
consistent was a good indication that there were no errors in the data set. Although simple
percentages were the outcome of the data analysis, this portion of the data analysis
required a significant amount of time and detail.
The data analysis process continued by organizing the learning category
percentages, assessment category percentages, and the number of assessment scores into

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

71

a summary spreadsheet for each grade and subject. For example, there were 12 first-grade
ELA grade books, so each grade book's 12 learning category percentages were organized
in a single spreadsheet. The researcher followed the same process for assessment
category percentages and the number of assessment scores. This step resulted in five
ELA, each for grades one through five, and five math spreadsheets for 10 total
spreadsheets. These spreadsheets are available in Appendix O for further review. These
spreadsheets did not provide any additional results but did provide a more organized and
condensed format for viewing results.
The next step was to define consistency. Not being aware of universally accepted
mathematical criteria to determine consistency, the researcher established a process
unique to this research project. Using the spreadsheets in Appendix O, the researcher
calculated the mean and standard deviation for each data set of learning category
percentages, assessment category percentages, and the number of assessment scores.
Next, the researcher calculated cut scores at one and two standard deviations above and
below the mean. These cut scores determined values considered to be consistent and
inconsistent within the data sets.
Learning category percentages, assessment category percentages, and the number
of assessment scores fell in one of the four consistency categories. Percentages that fell
within one standard deviation above or below the mean were labeled consistent.
Percentages above or below one standard deviation of the mean but still within two
standard deviations of the mean were labeled inconsistent. Percentages that fell above or
below two standard deviations of the mean were labeled extremely inconsistent.
Additionally, some data sets of learning category percentages and assessment category

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

72

percentages had no data. No data occurred when a subset of the teachers did not use that
category in their grade book. For instance, some teachers used projects and homework
assessment categories, while others did not. Data sets missing more than three scores
were not able to be analyzed. These occurrences were entered as 0% in the summary
spreadsheets in Appendix O. Finally, the percentages of data that fell into each of these
consistency categories were calculated, color-coded, and documented on the summary
spreadsheets in Appendix O.
Creating the spreadsheets in Appendix O was another tedious and timeconsuming aspect of the data analysis. The researcher took advantage of the sorting and
formulas features of the spreadsheets. Spreadsheet formulas were used to calculate the
mean, standard deviation, and cut scores for the consistency categories. The use of these
processes eliminated human error in these calculations. The researcher exercised extreme
caution when moving data from one spreadsheet to another and implemented checks and
balances to ensure data was transferred carefully from one spreadsheet to another. Copy
and paste commands were used as frequently as possible to reduce any errors in manually
transferring and typing data between spreadsheets.
This lengthy data analysis process provided results used to analyze the
consistency of the elementary grading practices. Starting with types of work categories in
ELA, the average consistency percentage for all ELA grade books was 60%. The highest
percentage of consistency was 75% in fourth grade and the lowest percentage of
consistency was 36% in second grade. In second grade, 50% of the second-grade data
could not be analyzed for consistency because all teachers did not use the categories of
high-frequency words, spelling, classwork, and writing. There were a variety of ranges of

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

73

percentages, such as a range of 19%–32% in third-grade grammar and writing,
representing a compact range of percentages (see Table N3). In comparison, fourth grade
reading with a range of 25%–75% is an example of a broader range of percentages (see
Table N4). Finally, nonachievement categories in third through fifth grades ranged from
1% to 49% of the assigned scores (see Tables N3–N5). A percentage of 49% means that
in at least one class, 49% of students’ overall ELA grade was calculated based on
nonachievement factors.
Looking at grade book assessment categories in ELA, the average percentage of
consistency for all ELA grade books was 41%. The highest percentage of consistency
was 75% in the fourth and fifth grades (see Tables N4 and N5), and the lowest
percentages of consistency were 0% in first grade and 19% in second grade (see Tables
N1 and N2). Like learning categories, analysis of 100% of second-grade data could not
occur because the categories, as seen in Appendix O, were not used by all teachers. Also,
there were a variety of ranges of percentages, but the researcher wishes to draw attention
to the ranges of 0%–100% in first-grade categories of tests and quizzes (see Table N1). A
0%–100% range meant there were assessment categories that some teachers never used at
all, while for others, it was the only assessment category used in their grade books.
The final indicator of consistency was the number of assessments used in the ELA grade
books. The average number of ELA assessments was 76 assessments. In first grade, a
grade book had the lowest number of assessments with 28, and 226 assessments in a
fifth-grade grade book were the highest. The highest percentage of consistency was 75%
in the first, fourth, and fifth grades (see Tables N1, N4, and N5), and the lowest
percentage of consistency was 54% in the second grade (see Table N2).

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

74

When analyzing the types of work categories in math, the average consistency
percentage for all math grade books was 29%. The highest percentage of consistency was
58% in fifth grade (see Table N5), and the lowest percentage of consistency was 19% in
fourth grade (see Table N4). The percentages of consistency for assessment categories
were low because over 50% of the data could not be analyzed (see Tables N1–N5) in
grades 1–4. Similar to ELA, there were a variety of ranges of percentages. There was a
case of 0%–100% in the second-grade category of projects and activities. Again, this
illustrated a category where at least one teacher assigned all scores to this category while
at least one other teacher assigned no scores to this category. Finally, nonachievement
categories existed for math in all grade levels, with the highest percentage of 47%
existing in third grade (see Table N3). A percentage of 47% means that in at least one
math grade book, 47% of the students’ overall grade was calculated based on
nonachievement factors.
Looking at grade book assessment categories in math, the average consistency
percentage for all math grade books was 29%. The highest percentage of consistency was
55% in fifth grade (see Table N5), and the lowest percentage of consistency was 0% in
first grade (see Table N1). Again, the 0% consistency was because 100% of the data
could not be analyzed, due to the teachers' inconsistencies in assigning assessment
categories.
The final indicator of consistency was the number of assessments used in the
math grade books. The average number of math assessments was 69. A grade book in
second grade had the lowest number of assessments with 10, and 243 in a grade book in
fifth grade was the highest. The highest percentage of consistency was 55% in fifth grade

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

75

(see Table N5), and the lowest percentage of consistency was 0% in first grade (see Table
N1).
Mastery of Curriculum and Eligible Content.
The researcher had to assume some information about the grade books to analyze
if grading practices reflected students' mastery of curriculum and eligible content of state
standards. Recall the review of the grade books to determine the type of work categories.
Upon review, the researcher assigned the assessments to broader learning categories. In
completing this process, one of the broader learning categories was nonachievement
factors. It would have been beyond the time constraints of this research project for the
researcher to interview each teacher to assess if every assigned score in the grade books
genuinely aligned with the curriculum and eligible content. Therefore, this aspect of data
analysis assumed that all learning categories reflect mastery of curriculum and eligible
content, other than work assigned to the nonachievement learning assessment category.
This assumption resulted in 100% of the work in first and second grade ELA
reflecting students' mastery of curriculum and eligible content of state standards. In third,
fourth, and fifth grade ELA, the learning category of nonachievement factors accounted
for anywhere from 1% to 49% of the types of work completed by the students. Therefore,
any given grade book contained between 51% and 99% of work reflecting mastery of
curriculum and eligible content in third, fourth, and fifth grades.
Using the same reasoning for math grade books resulted in all grade levels having
some grade books with types of work scores assigned to the nonachievement category.
Nonachievement scores accounted for 0% to 47% of the types of work completed by the
students in math. Therefore, in all grades, any given grade book revealed between 53%

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

76

and 100% of the students’ work reflecting mastery of curriculum and eligible content of
state standards.
Research Question 2
The second research question focused on teachers' perceptions and parents'
understanding of current elementary grading practices. Data from all questions but the
third question of Survey #1, Appendix B, was organized and analyzed using basic
percentages to examine teachers' perceptions of current grading practices. Data from all
questions of Survey #2, Appendix D, was organized and analyzed using basic
percentages to investigate parents' understanding of current grading practices.
Teachers’ Perceptions.
Survey #1 in Appendix B had 30 participants out of the 52 teachers to which the
researcher distributed the survey, representing a 58% participation rate. Combining
respondents’ responses of agreeing and strongly agreeing and referring to them as
agreeing will increase the efficiency of discussing the results. If a survey question
required more in-depth analysis, the two categories remained separated to review the data
results.
In Survey #1, Appendix B, question four resulted in 60% of teacher respondents
agreeing that their students understood how they earned their ELA and math grades.
Question five found that 80% of teacher respondents agreed that they clearly defined
grading practices to their students’ families. Also related to families, question 10 revealed
that only 37% of teacher respondents agreed that parents have a clear picture of their
child’s mastery of curriculum and eligible content.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

77

The results of Survey #1, Appendix B, questions six through nine, are essential
for gaining more insight into the consistency of the district’s elementary grading
practices. Question six resulted in 93% of the respondent teachers agreeing they used
assessments similar to their grade-level district colleagues. Question seven found that
60% of the respondents agreed they used similar assessment categories as their gradelevel district colleagues. These two questions align with the data analyzed in the grade
books. Both the surveys and grade books contain information about categories of
students' work and assessment categories. In questions eight and nine, the respondents
agreed 66% of the time that report card grades reflected mastery of district curriculum
and 53% of the time that report card grades reflected mastery of eligible content.
The survey data was disaggregated by grade and subject area, resulting in data
sets with less than 10 data points. Small data sets are susceptible to skewing, so the
disaggregated data had limited use. One noteworthy trend is the varied results of Survey
#1, Appendix B, question four, which asked about students’ understanding of how they
earn their grades. Grade three teacher respondents agreed 33% of the time that students
understand how they earn their grades, while grade four respondents were in 100%
agreement. This difference in percentages represents a significant difference in feelings
between the two grade levels. Questions six and seven were the most meaningful
comparison between ELA and math. ELA teachers were in 71% agreement that they used
similar work categories, while math was in 100% agreement. There was little difference
between ELA and math teachers’ responses in terms of assessment categories. ELA
teachers were in 57% agreement that they used similar assessment categories, while math
was in 50% agreement that they used similar assessment categories.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

78

Survey #1, Appendix B, included an open-ended question, allowing respondents
to provide any additional comments. Thirteen teachers responded to the open-ended
question. The researcher searched the comments using keywords to look for similarities
in the responses. Some similarities in the comments were comments that referred to
needing the chance to collaborate and regain consistency that the respondents felt has
been lost over time. Several comments included a reference to present grades being
inflated and not providing information on skills, growth, or areas of needed improvement.
Finally, some respondents referenced standards-based report cards as a possible
alternative to the district’s present elementary report cards.
Parents’ Understanding.
Survey #2, Appendix D, was distributed to approximately 1050 families of
students in grades 1–5. The survey had a 12% response rate, with 125 parents responding.
Questions two, three, and four gathered information on how well parents felt they
understood the district’s grading practices. Question two asked the parents to what extent
they felt teachers explained grading practices. Question three was to what extent they
understood district grading practices. Question four asked parents to what extent they
understood how their children earned their grades. The parent respondents agreed at
approximately 70% for all three of these questions. Therefore, about 70% of the 125
parent respondents felt they understood the district’s grading practices.
Questions five and six looked at what extent the parent respondents agreed that
report card grades reflected their child’s performance. Question five asked to what extent
the parents felt the report card helped them understand their child’s performance, and
question six asked the same thing about their child’s mastery of content. When worded as

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

79

understanding performance, 85% of the parent respondents agreed, but when expressed
as mastery of content, the respondents’ rate reduced to 55% agreement. Questions seven
and eight asked parents to what extent report card grades helped them understand what
their child learned and what their student still needed to learn. Parent respondents agreed
54% with the report card helping them understand what their child knows, but agreed at a
rate of 43% with the report card helping them understand what their child still needed to
learn. Similarly, questions nine and 10 asked the same questions about students’
performance on grade-level work and state standards. Parent respondents agreed at a rate
of 64% that the report card helped them understand how their child performed on gradelevel work and 39% for state standards. Overall, as the questions became more specific to
learning, the percentage of parent respondents in agreement decreased. Question 11 was
the final question of Survey #2, Appendix D. Question 11 asked to what extent parents
were satisfied with the current elementary grading practices. The responses to this
question resulted in 18% of the parents strongly agreeing, 46% responded they agreed,
31% disagreed, and 5% strongly disagreed.
The survey also collected data intended to be disaggregated by grade level and
subject. When looking at smaller data sets based on individual grade levels, there was no
significant difference between the responses of the entire data set. The same was true
when analyzing the ELA and math data sets separately. There was no significant
difference between the results.
Like Survey #1, Appendix B, Survey #2, Appendix D ended with an open-ended
question. This open-ended question allowed respondents to provide any additional
comments, and 44 parents provided comments. The researcher searched the comments by

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

80

using similar keywords in the comments. The most frequent comment was the desire to
return to paper report cards. Some parent respondents stated they dislike checking grades
and accessing report cards on the district’s school information system. Next, there was a
common theme in the responses; parents would value additional opportunities to speak
with the teachers rather than rely on report cards. Several respondents replied that one 20minute parent conference in the fall of the school year is inadequate and leaves parents
frustrated with the lack of feedback. Finally, some respondents made emotional
comments about the survey questions that referenced state standards. It seems that the
simple mention of standards triggered a feeling on the part of some parents that the
district places state testing above all else.
Research Question 3
Survey #3, Appendix F, focused on administrators' and teachers' perceptions and
understanding of standards-based report cards. Data from all questions of Survey #3,
Appendix F, was organized and analyzed using basic percentages. The percentages
summarized administrators' and teachers' perceptions of standards-based report cards.
Survey #3, Appendix F, had 20 participants out of the 56 teachers and administrators to
which the survey was distributed, for a participation rate of 36%.
All questions on the survey asked respondents to what extent they agreed with
certain aspects of a standards-based report card, and the agreement rate of all questions
was very high. Question three asked to what extent the respondents agreed with a
standards-based report card providing an appropriate amount of information. Question
four asked about the quality of the information on a standards-based report card. Question
six asked about a standards-based report card being a good tool to document learned

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

81

skills. The respondents were in 100% agreement on all three of these questions. The
results revealed 90% agreement on question five, which asked to what extent the
respondents agreed on a standards-based report card being easy to understand. Finally, on
questions seven, eight, and nine, the respondents agreed 95% of the time on a standardsbased report card documenting skills that need improvement, documenting students’
overall performance, and providing families with important learning information.
Similar to Surveys #1 and #2, Appendix B and Appendix D, Survey #3, Appendix F,
ended with an open-ended question. This open-ended question allowed respondents to
provide any additional comments, and nine respondents provided comments. The
researcher searched the comments, using keywords to look for any similarities in the
comments. Most frequently, the respondents made comments that supported
standards-based report cards. They commented that standards-based report cards show
more details about students’ learning. At the same time, the respondents felt that parents
might not like standards-based report cards, mainly because they won’t understand how
to interpret them. Several respondents warned that the district should accompany any
changes to district report cards with an explanation of the changes to parents.
Discussion
The data used in the research project came from 122 individual archived
elementary grade books and three surveys. There was a significant amount of analysis
and a wealth of results in the grade books alone, resulting in data that can continue to be
analyzed well beyond the scope of this research project. Though less complex to analyze,
the data from the surveys served an equally important role. The survey data provided the
opportunity to compare the perceptions of the survey participants to the reality of the data

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

82

in the grade books. Additionally, the data from the grade books and surveys provided the
information needed to answer the project’s three research questions. Finally, the data
from all sources organically exposed connections between the data results and several
topics brought to the forefront in the Literature Review chapter.
The first research question focused on the effectiveness of current DASD
elementary grading practices in ELA and math, based on knowing current grading
expectations, grade-level consistency, and students’ mastery of curriculum and eligible
content. Concerning knowledge of current grading practices, the teacher participants split
in their agreement that district grading practices are clearly defined.
Concerning consistency in grade books, three pieces of data represented the
bottom line of the data results. First, regarding the types of students’ work, the data
analysis results found 60% consistency in ELA grade books and 29% consistency in math
grade books. The data analysis results found 41% consistency in ELA and 29%
consistency in math grade books in terms of assessment categories. Finally, in terms of
the number of assessment scores in each grade book, the data analysis found an average
of 76 in each ELA grade book and 69 in each math grade book. Although consistent
compared to each other, the range of values in all grade books was anywhere from 10 to
243 assessments per grade book. Considering there are 180 instructional days in a school
year, the difference between 10 assessments and 243 seems significant and inconsistent.
As a comparison, 10 gradebook assessments a year equals .055 assessments a day and
243 grade book assessments equals 1.35 assessments a day.
Concerning mastery of curriculum and standards, the data results provided some
indication, based on the criterion used, that the grade books represented mastery of

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

83

curriculum and standards. In first and second grades, 100% of the grade book
assessments indicated the measurement of curriculum and standards-based work. In
grades 3–5, anywhere from 51% to 99% of the grade book assessments indicated the
measurement of curriculum and standards-based work.
The second research question focused on DASD teachers’ perceptions and
parents’ understanding of current elementary grading practices. Survey #1, Appendix B,
provided a variety of data about teachers’ perceptions. Knowing the extent to which
teachers agreed that they used assessments that were similar to their grade-level
colleagues is valuable. This data allows for a comparison between their perceptions and
the reality of the grade book data results. Also, the open-ended responses in the survey
resulted in comments about grade inflation, standards-based reporting, and the need to
re-establish expectations. These topics allow for connections to information presented
in the Literature Review chapter.
Regarding parents’ perceptions, 70% of the parents felt they know the current
grading practices. However, in questions that asked to what extent they felt the report
card grades successfully relay understanding of their child’s performance in school, the
percentages decreased to 40%–50% agreement. Finally, when the questions asked to
what extent the report card grades represented mastery of standards, the percentage
dropped to 39%. The idea of parents believing they understand grading practices,
combined with parents not being able to use grades to interpret learning outcomes, also
has some connection to topics presented in the Literature Review chapter.
The third research question focused on administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions
and understanding of standards-based report cards. The extent to which respondents

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

84

agreed with all questions asked about a standards-based report card was 90% or higher.
Therefore, the administrators and teachers felt a standards-based report card provides
an appropriate amount of information, provides quality information, is a good tool to
document learned skills, is easy to understand, and provides information on students’
progress, such as what students have mastered and areas needing improvement.
Respondents answered the open-ended question with comments about feeling that a
standards-based report card is good for reflecting learning, but warned that parents
don’t understand a standards-based report card.
Summary
The data analysis has provided valuable results. Archived grade book data and
survey questions from Survey #1, Appendix B, answered the first research question. The
question looked to determine the effectiveness of current DASD elementary grading
practices. The data did not support knowledge of current grading practices. The data also
did not support consistency in work categories, assessment categories, or the number of
assessments used in the grade books. Last, the data provided some support in establishing
that grading practices reflected curriculum and standards mastery. The data minimally
supported the elements that defined effective grading practices.
The second research question looked to determine teachers’ perceptions and
parents’ understanding of current DASD elementary grading practices. Survey #1,
Appendix B, and Survey #2, Appendix D, provided insight into the perceptions and
understanding of the teacher and parent respondents. The data analysis of the surveys
provided easily interpreted percentages, while the open-ended survey questions provided
information that lent itself to making comparisons and connections.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

85

The third research question determined DASD administrators’ and teachers’
perceptions and understanding of standards-based report cards. Survey #3, Appendix F,
provided insight into the perceptions and understanding of the teacher and administrator
respondents. The data analysis of the surveys provided easily interpreted percentages.
The data answered the third research question by quickly revealing that respondents
understand standards-based report cards and find them effective. However, the survey
comments show a more profound understanding that parents might not have the same
perceptions and certainly not the same level of understanding.
The next chapter will draw further conclusions about the research project and
discuss the limitations of the research. The data answered the research questions,
provided deeper understanding, and provided the groundwork to make connections.
However, analyzing data and answering research questions often leads to new questions.
The data provided by the archived grade books is an example of data having the potential
to go beyond this project and assist the DASD in answering more questions about its
grading practices. Therefore, the next chapter will also recommend further work related
to the research project.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

86
Chapter V

Conclusions and Recommendations
This research project answered three research questions related to elementary
grading practices in the DASD. A review of literature provided a historical perspective of
grading practices, while the data analysis and results provided the current and specific
context of grading practices in the district. The data analysis and results allowed the
researcher to discuss connections between the literature, data results, and answers to the
three research questions.
This chapter will discuss additional conclusions of the research, including its
effectiveness, how the results supported the findings, the application of the results to the
particular school district, and fiscal implications. The chapter will conclude by addressing
the limitations of the research and discussing recommendations for future research.
Conclusions
The objective of the project’s research was to answer three research questions.
The research questions focused on the effectiveness of current DASD elementary grading
practices, teachers’ perceptions and parents’ understanding of current grading practices,
and teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and understanding of standards-based
report cards.
The first research question looked to determine the effectiveness of current DASD
elementary grading practices. The researcher defined the effectiveness of current grading
practices as knowledge of current grading expectations, consistency in grading practices,
and students’ mastery of curriculum and eligible content. The Data Analysis and Results
chapter concluded that the data did not support knowledge of current grading practices.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

87

The data also did not support consistency in work categories, assessment categories, or
the number of assessments used in the grade books. Finally, to some extent, the data
analysis supported that grading practices reflected mastery of curriculum and eligible
content. Therefore, the data minimally supported the elements that defined effective
grading practices.
Effectiveness
Survey results concluded that the data analysis did not support knowledge of
current grading practices. The teacher respondents had divided feelings about district
grading practices being clearly defined. Parent respondents agreed more than teachers
that they were knowledgeable of grading practices. Most parents felt they were aware of
district grading practices, that teachers explained them, and knew how their child's grades
were determined.
The surveys were effective in determining the feelings of teachers and parents.
However, the lack of respondents' participation could put the reliability of the results in
question. The participation rate for teachers was 58%, and parents only had a 12%
participation rate. The researcher included measures in the survey design and informed
consent to maintain confidentiality and minimize the identification of any of the
respondents. However, even with these measures, teachers still seemed hesitant to
participate. Teachers may not have trusted the confidentiality of their responses, or they
might have been fearful of comparisons between school buildings. Finally, they could
have felt that participating would change current practices, and change is typically
unwelcome.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

88

Similar confidentiality and informed consent measures were in place for the
parent respondents. Parents also could have lacked trust for confidentiality or felt their
children would be penalized if they shared their honest feelings about grading practices.
Also likely is that parents aren't always sure if their opinions are valued. The district has
distributed surveys on other topics in recent years and considered feedback from parents
when making district decisions. However, parents often confuse consideration of
feedback with their feedback being the final decision in matters. When parents do not see
their opinions leading directly to final decisions, they do not feel valued and hesitate to
participate. Any of these feelings could have contributed to the low parent participation
rate in the survey. Finally, when it comes to participation in surveys, time is always a
factor for teachers and parents alike. In our busy and stressful lives, the 10 or 15 minutes
it takes to complete a survey is time most people may feel they cannot spare.
Regardless of the participation rates and the factors contributing to the low
participation rates, the researcher feels the results would likely reflect the feelings of a
larger population of teachers and parents. This opinion was due to teacher participants
representing all grade levels and both disciplines of ELA and math. Likewise, the parent
respondents represented parents of all grade levels, and there were no significant
differences in the parents’ responses about grading practices in ELA compared to math.
Finally, the researcher felt the variety in the answers to the open-ended survey questions
provided confidence that the participants responded with enough variety to represent the
larger population of potential respondents.
The second part of the first research question was the analysis of consistency in
grading practices. The data analysis did not support consistency in grading practices, and

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

89

this determination resulted from the analysis of the archived grade books. The analysis of
the grade books effectively analyzed the consistency of grading practices. Unlike
knowledge of grading practices, lack of participation was not in question with the
analysis of the grade books. All available grade books were analyzed, reflecting a 100%
participation rate. The grade book analysis resulted in the indirect participation of 49
teachers and the analysis of 122 grade books for work categories, assessment categories,
and the number of assessments. Therefore, lack of participation did not put the reliability
of these results in question. The reliability of how the researcher sorted the assessment
grades into types of work categories could have been a concern. It would have been
beyond the project's scope for the researcher to interview each teacher on the types of
work used in their grade books. Therefore, the researcher had to rely on assessment
descriptions in the grade books and familiarity with curriculum and content to sort the
assessments as accurately and consistently as possible. Therefore, some assessments
could have been misplaced, resulting in variations of the ranges provided in the
spreadsheets in Appendix O.
There were no concerns for subjective practices, the reliability of results when
organizing the data in assessment categories, or the number of grade book assessments.
These values did not involve interpretation because their only analysis involved simple
counting and totaling.
The third part of research question one was determining if grading practices
reflected students’ mastery of curriculum and eligible content. The conclusion that the
data provided some support for grading practices reflecting mastery of curriculum and
eligible content resulted from the analysis of the archived grade books. The analysis of

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

90

the grade books effectively analyzed the consistency of grading practices. Unlike
knowledge of grading practices, lack of participation was not in question with the
analysis of the grade books because the analysis included all available grade books. The
reliability of the results could have been questioned based on the process used to sort the
assessments into types of work categories. More specifically, the researcher determined
that the only assessments that did not reflect mastery of curriculum and eligible content
were assessments placed in the nonachievement factors category. Therefore,
misinterpretation errors could have led to inaccurate ranges in the summary spreadsheets.
The researcher attempted to be conservative when placing assessments in the
nonachievement factors category. The researcher only used assessments typically
considered to be nonachievement factors such as bell ringers, exit tickets, work
completion, participation, and extra credit. Therefore, any interpretation errors
underrepresented the nonachievement category and overrepresented mastery of
curriculum and eligible content.
The second research question looked at teachers’ perceptions and parents’
understanding of current grading practices. The data analysis revealed that 46% of
teachers agreed that grading practices were clearly defined, 60% agreed that students
understood grading practices, and 80% explained grading practices to families. The data
analysis also revealed that 93% of the teachers agreed they used types of work categories
consistent with their colleagues, and 60% agreed they used consistent assessment
categories as their colleagues. Finally, the data analysis revealed that 60% of the teachers
agreed that grading practices represented mastery of the curriculum, and 53% agreed
grading practices represented mastery of eligible content.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

91

The data analysis also revealed information about parents’ understanding of
grading practices. The data analysis revealed that 70%–85% of parents agreed that they
were informed about and understood grading practices. The data analysis also revealed
that 43%–64% of the parents agreed that grades assisted them in understanding their
child’s progress, areas of growth, and areas needing improvement. The analysis also
revealed that only 39% of the parents agreed that grades help them understand how their
child is performing on eligible content related to state standards. Finally, 51% of the
parents agreed that they are satisfied, in general, with current grading practices.
The conclusions about teachers' perceptions and parents' understanding of current
grading practices resulted from the analysis of survey questions. Effectively answering
research question two was not necessarily about answering a single question; it was about
forming an overall picture of perceptions and understandings. The surveys summarized
teachers' perceptions and parents' understanding of current grading practices and
effectively formed this overall picture. Similar to research question one, the lack of
participation on the part of the respondents could put the reliability of the results into
question. The participation rate for teachers was 58%, and parents only had a 12%
participation rate. The researcher included measures in the survey design and informed
consent to maintain confidentiality, minimize respondents' identification, and allow them
to feel comfortable in participating in the surveys.
In addition to low participation rates, the reliability of the results could be
questioned based on the researcher's wording of the questions and the participants'
interpretations of the questions. To increase the quality of the research questions, the
researcher reviewed survey questions used by other researchers and solicited feedback

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

92

from the internal and external committee chairs and colleagues. Despite these efforts,
misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the questions could have impacted the final
results of the surveys.
Regardless of the surveys’ participation rates and possible misinterpretation of
survey questions, the researcher feels the results likely reflected the feelings of a larger
population of teachers and parents since the teacher participants represented all grade
levels and both disciplines of ELA and math. Likewise, the parent respondents
represented parents of all grade levels, and there were no significant differences in the
parents’ responses about grading practices in ELA compared to math. Also, the patterns
between the teachers’ and parents’ responses share some similarities. The questions about
overall grading practices resulted in greater agreement than questions about more specific
aspects of grading, such as mastery of curriculum and content. Therefore, the researcher
feels the data analysis effectively answered research question two and represented a
larger population of potential respondents.
The third research question looked at teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions
and understanding of standards-based report cards. The data analysis revealed that
administrators and teachers agreed at a rate of at least 95% that standards-based report
cards document appropriate, quality, and easy to understand information. They also
agreed at a rate of at least 95% that a standards-based report card provides information
about students’ learned skills and skills needing improvement. Finally, administrators and
teachers felt at least 95% of the time that standards-based report cards result in grading
and reporting consistency. The conclusions about teachers’ and administrators’
perceptions and understanding of standards-based report cards resulted from the analysis

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

93

of survey questions. Like research question two, effectively answering the third research
question was not as much about answering a single question as it was about forming an
overall picture of perceptions and understandings. The surveys effectively summarized
teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and understanding of standards-based report
cards and formed this overall picture. Again, the reliability of the results could be
questioned based on lack of participation. There were 20 administrator and teacher
participants out of 56 potential respondents, for a participation rate of 36%. However, all
administrators responded to the survey. There were teacher respondents from all grade
levels representing both ELA and math, and there was consistency in their responses.
These factors provide confidence that the results represented a larger population.
Applications
The researcher has stated that this research project's purpose is not to make
specific grading recommendations to the DASD. The researcher plans to complete the
research project, present the findings, and recommend potential changes. However, after
being provided the research, the district will make decisions based on other district work,
circumstances, and needs.
There are some reasonable recommendations for the district concerning grading
practices. The first recommendation would be to review and discuss the research results
on grading consistency, define a degree of tolerable inconsistency, and make changes in
grading practices to maintain consistency within an agreed-upon threshold.
One of the most concerning inconsistencies found in the grade books was
allocating assessment points to types of work categories. Whether these inconsistencies
were perceptions because of the descriptions used by the teachers or are a reality, the

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

94

degree of inconsistency deserves reflection, discussion, collaboration, and action. Being
an administrator in the district, the researcher cannot accept that students are being
assessed differently within a building or between buildings. Parents should have some
reassurance that their child’s educational experience is similar regardless of the
classroom or school building they attend within the district.
Similarly, the inconsistencies in assessment categories and the total number of
assessments used in each grade book are recommended for review, reflection, discussion,
and action. Assessment categories are quick ways that parents can see grading
inconsistencies because there are limited categories. For example, a parent might ask why
their child's assessments were all tests when the assessments for a student in a
neighboring classroom were all quizzes. There might be little difference between the
actual assessments used, but the parents have no way of knowing that fact. If they rely on
past experiences and grading familiarity, a parent might assume tests are more difficult
than quizzes.
Another district recommendation is to consider taking immediate action to review
and plan for guidelines about the number of grade book assessments. There were grade
books with as few as 10 total assessments and some with over 200 assessments. Given
that there were 180 school days in a school year, students took more than one assessment
on some days. The district will need to decide on the reasonableness of this practice.
Finally, the grade books with the most assessments often had higher percentages
of points assigned to the learning category of nonachievement factors. This pattern is
another recommended area for the district to reflect on and decide if it is an acceptable
district practice to assign so many assessments to this category.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

95

The researcher recommends combining any work dedicated to changes in grading
practices with curriculum, instruction, and assessment efforts. Since grades measure and
report students' learning, grading discussions should not be isolated from instructional
conversations.
The surveys indicated that most teachers were knowledgeable of current grading
practices. Likewise, most parents also felt they were knowledgeable of grading practices
and how students earn grades. However, parents' percentages of agreement reduced when
asked if they felt report card grades provided parents with information about their child's
learned skills and mastery of curriculum and eligible content. This scenario is where the
researcher feels the district needs to make an important decision. The district needs to
decide if percentage grades will continue because teachers and parents feel they
understand these grading practices. If that's the case, the surveys revealed that despite
being knowledgeable of the grading practices, the teachers and parents did not feel the
current grading practices provided information about students' learned skills, skills
needing improvement, or mastery of curriculum and eligible content. In other words, the
surveys revealed that teachers and parents are knowledgeable about students' grades, but
the grades are not providing helpful information about students' learning. This notion of
the assessment of learning taking a backseat to traditional and arbitrary grading practices
was an underlying theme of the Literature Review chapter.
Implications
Concerning grading practices in the DASD, the research implies a conflict
between perception and reality. Results of research question two revealed that teachers
were knowledgeable of district grading practices and had confidence that their grading

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

96

was consistent with colleagues. However, research question one showed multiple
examples of inconsistencies in grading practices. This discrepancy is concerning to the
researcher and should be concerning to the district upon review of this research.
However, this potential discrepancy between perception and reality has implications
beyond the district where the research occurred. This type of discrepancy is the reason
data analysis is essential. The researcher shares awareness of this discrepancy to
encourage any school district to investigate if they have any similar differences between
perceptions and reality of grading practices. This implication was not an intended
outcome of the research but obvious enough to include in the Conclusions section.
Another implication of the research is the assignment of nonachievement factors
in grading. The literature revealed that teachers use both achievement and
nonachievement factors in their grading practices. They see grading as a way to
document academic performance and motivate students (Brookhart et al., 2016). The
phrases hodgepodge and kitchen sink have been used to describe grading approaches.
These descriptions have emphasized the unpredictable nature of grades, both in what
grades represent and the wide variety of factors used to calculate grades (Chen & Bonner,
2017). For emphasis, Brookhart et al. (2016) stated, "teachers [idiosyncratically] use a
multitude of achievement and nonachievement factors in their grading practices" (p. 828).
Teachers often feel it necessary to include nonachievement factors in grading, such as
effort, improvement, and conduct (McMillan et al., 2002).
When answering research question one, the data analysis drew attention to the use
of these nonachievement factors. Nonachievement factors were used more frequently in
grades three, four, and five ELA, with grade books having as high as 27%, 28%, and 49%

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

97

of the assessment points placed in the category of nonachievement factors. In math,
nonachievement factors were used at all grade levels but less frequently, with 14% being
the highest percentage in any math grade book. These percentages might indicate that
teachers struggle to gain compliance, engagement, or work completion without using
nonachievement grades. If any part of this assumption is correct, the implications are that
teachers need support with classroom management, instructional strategies, behavior
management, or assessment strategies. This information might be helpful for other
districts since it suggests that the underlying concern might not be grading practices. The
issues manifest in grade book results, but the underlying problems could be rooted in
classroom instruction.
Consideration also needs to be given to the open-ended survey responses that
contributed to answering survey questions two and three. The teacher respondents
expressed a need for collaboration time to re-establish grading consistency. Several
teacher respondents expressed concerns about grade inflation and report cards not
providing information about students’ skills, growth, and areas of needed improvement.
These comments imply that teacher respondents expressed concerns about consistency
and nonachievement factors when making comments outside the confinement of Likerttype survey questions. These comments suggest that these concerns that were first
revealed in the Literature Review chapter and then emerged again in the research
questions, appear to be timeless and ageless concerns about grading.
The parent respondents wanted to bring back paper report cards, stating they
dislike looking up report cards on a school information system. Parent respondents also
expressed that they would welcome additional opportunities to speak with the teachers

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

98

about their child’s learning rather than rely on report cards. Several parent respondents
commented that 20 minutes to talk at parent conferences in the fall of the school year is
inadequate and leaves parents frustrated by a lack of feedback. These comments imply
that parents are seeking more communication with teachers. As noted in the Literature
Review chapter, elementary teachers tended to see grading as a communication tool
between schools and families (Guskey, 2009).
Ultimately, the district will have to decide the purpose of grading. The research
suggests that the current grading practices produce grades that most feel they understand
but are inconsistent in how they are calculated and are not painting a clear picture of
students’ learned skills or mastery of curriculum and standards. One option is to keep
percentage grades but hopefully implement more consistent percentage-based grading
practices. Another option is to design and implement common assessments and assign
consistent assessment categories to grades to illustrate learned skills, skills needing
improvement, and mastery of curriculum and eligible content. The district might also
consider more significant grading reform, such as designing and implementing a
standards-based report card.
It was not in the parameters of this research project to make recommendations for
large-scale change. Still, the research indicated that administrators and teachers felt they
understood standards-based reporting. If standards-based reporting is a consideration, the
district needs to keep in mind the caution presented about parents and standards-based
reporting. The literature suggested that standards-based report cards are most successful
when a significant effort occurs to provide a prior explanation of the report cards to the
parents. The interviews with schools currently using standards-based grading also

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

99

stressed the importance of explaining standards-based grading to parents. In the openended comments, several teacher respondents warned that administrators and teachers
understand standards-based report cards, but parents are probably unfamiliar with them.
Finally, some parent respondents made emotional comments in the survey when
questions referenced state standards. It seems that the simple mention of standards
triggered a feeling on the part of some parents that the district places standardized testing
above all else. The implication that standards-based grading requires preparation and
communication, especially for parents, is valuable knowledge for any district that
considers grading reform.
The fiscal implications of the research will depend on the impact the study has on
the district’s grading practices. The researcher understands that the research could result
in no change. The research results may not justify a need for change, or considering
change may not be practical based on the district’s circumstances at the time of project
completion. The researcher recognizes that the research could result in the district
wanting to make changes, but the financial implications may create a barrier to any
recommended changes.
If the district decides to change grading practices, the fiscal implication will be
the need for administrators and teachers to reflect, discuss, collaborate, and plan for
change. Changes in grading practices could result in reviewing types of work categories
and assessment categories and meeting to create more consistency in assigning grades to
these categories. Other change efforts could include the design of common ELA and
math assessments in some or all grades. Another option would be more extensive grading
reform in the form of a standards-based report card in ELA and math in some or all

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

100

grades. If unable to complete the necessary work during dedicated professional
development days or bring in substitute teachers to cover classes, summer work sessions
will be the next option. Summer work would require paying teachers at a per diem rate of
compensation for an estimated cost of as much as $60,000. Additionally, if the current
school information system cannot generate standards-based report cards, an additional
anticipated cost to upgrade technology is estimated to be anywhere from $6000 to
$13,000.
Limitations
The limitations of the research were minimal. One previously noted limitation
was in the process used to categorize assessments into work categories. These work
categories then fell into more significant learning categories. The researcher made
assumptions when assigning assessments to categories based on the teachers’
descriptions. The teachers had flexibility in their use of assessments and had complete
discretion in describing them. Because of this, the researcher felt challenged and
experienced limitations when sorting the assessments. Additionally, the research timeline
limited the time to complete the research, so the researcher did not have time to crossreference with each individual teacher to ask for clarification on how they described each
individual assessment. A similar limitation existed when the researcher sorted
assessments into the nonachievement category. This category eventually determined what
percentage of assessments represented mastery of curriculum and eligible content.
Another limitation existed in the statistical measures used to analyze the data.
There is no universally accepted statistical measure for consistency, so the researcher
used mean and standard deviation to create cut scores for inconsistent and extremely

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

101

inconsistent values. However, a limitation existed because the data sets were limited to
percentages between 0% and 100%. This limitation meant that one standard deviation
below the mean often resulted in negative cut scores, which did not exist in the finite data
sets. Therefore, the data results found very few occurrences of extremely inconsistent
values. This limitation has the potential to be handled differently by the DASD or any
other school district wishing to evaluate the consistency of their grading practices.
Districts can determine unique criteria for establishing internal cut scores based on the
level of consistency they seek.
Fiscal limitations are unknown to the researcher at this time. Fiscal limitations are
difficult to determine because the researcher is not sure how the district will use the
results of this research. Additionally, the noted Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to
permit Washington Township to secede from the DASD has resulted in a significant loss
of revenue for the DASD. This revenue loss has placed a substantial financial burden on
the DASD and will have a devastating impact on programming for years to come.
Therefore, even if the district wants to act upon the research results, there could be
financial limitations on how much work can occur.
The final limitation worth noting is the limited but potential impact of virtual
learning during the 2020–2021 school year. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the
2020–2021 school year, and this was the school year from which the downloaded and
archived grade books were sourced. It is important to note that the DASD was open for
in-person learning the entire 2020–2021 school year, but there were some pre-planned
virtual days and a couple of occasions of multi-day closures resulting in virtual learning.
There is a chance that the periodic change to virtual learning resulted in changes to

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

102

teachers' grading practices. The biggest concern would be for virtual learning generating
additional assessments in the nonachievement categories. For example, teachers could
have changed to more frequent use of completion points due to virtual learning.
However, the researcher found consistent use of nonachievement assessments throughout
the grade books—not just on virtual learning days. Therefore, virtual learning could have
been a limitation in acquiring accurate results, but the researcher is confident that the
impact of virtual learning was minimal.
Recommendations for Future Research
Recommendations for future research begin with the DASD. Assuming the
DASD acts on the results of this research project by making changes in grading practices,
the district should engage in further research to determine if any changes result in the
intended outcome. Minimally, the district should revisit the research to re-evaluate
consistency and the current discrepancy between grading perceptions and reality.
The results of this research raised some questions about underlying aspects of
instruction and whether or not these aspects of instruction impact grading. For instance,
do teachers successful in classroom management and engagement tend to have a reduced
number of assessments and fewer assessments involving nonachievement factors? Does
more formative and summative assessment knowledge result in a more consistent
assignment of assessments to types of work and assessment categories? Another
suggestion for future research could be to determine the effectiveness of grading practices
based on the district's role in establishing the direction and expectations of grading.
This research also highlighted a discrepancy between teacher respondents'
confidence in understanding grading practices and their decreased confidence in feeling

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

103

the grades expressed students' understanding skills and mastery of content. In the
literature, this was pointed out as, over time, the change from assessment to grading.
Therefore, future research could question whether effective grading practices have any
connection or correlation to better learning.
Another recommendation for future research would be to determine which
measures can help bridge the grading gap between teachers and parents. More
specifically, what do teachers value the most concerning grading? Concerning grading,
what do parents value the most? If a gap exists, what can assist in closing that gap?
Finally, a recommendation for future research would be to investigate the effectiveness of
standards-based report cards. Are standards-based report cards better for reporting
learning? If so, why? Additionally, what leads to the successful implementation of a
standards-based report card?
Summary
Some survey respondents expressed a concern that they felt the survey design was
to produce results that would lead to grading reform in the DASD. Other respondents
were enthusiastic about the research occurring to evaluate the effectiveness of DASD
grading practices. The researcher understands how some might feel the study had a
specific agenda, but it was reassuring to see comments that also supported the work.
Initially, the researcher stated that the result of this project was to provide results
to the DASD but not to make specific recommendations. Beyond DASD, the researcher
desired this work to be informative for anyone seeking guidance on grading practices.
This project has provided one school district with valuable information about its current
grading practices. The study can also encourage other school districts to evaluate their

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

104

grading practices. Beyond simply informing, the research may or may not impact changes
to grading practices in the DASD or other districts. Change is hard, and familiarity with
traditional grading practices makes change even harder. Even if there is consideration for
changing grading practices, teachers and administrators often face pushback and even
hostility if they try to introduce grading reform. When it comes to traditional grading
practices, the words entrenched, ingrained, and even “toxic” are used to describe
traditional grading practices (Will, 2019).
The review of literature started by establishing that the journey into the history of
grading practices would track how the emphasis changed over time from assessment to
grading. This project will not change what history has dictated. However, the researcher
hopes the results will guide the DASD in reflecting on its current grading practices and
possibly result in positive changes to current practices. If the results motivate others
outside the DASD, who come in contact with this project to evaluate their current
practices, the research will stretch well beyond its original intentions.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

105
References

Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different performances require different
measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1540-6210.00322
Blakemore, E. (2018, August 22). In early 1880s American classrooms, students
governed themselves. History. https://www.history.com/news/in-early-1800samerican-classrooms-students-governed-themselves
Bonesrønning, H. (2004). Do the teachers’ grading practices effect student achievement?
Education Economics, 12(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0964529042000239168
Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational
Leadership, 69(3), 10–14.
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). The public understanding of assessment in educational reform
in the United States. Oxford Review of Education, 39(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03054985.2013.764751
Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., & Smith, J. K. (2016).
A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common
educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 803–848.
https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0034654316672069
Carnegie Mellon University. (2021). What is the difference between assessment and
grading? Eberly Center. https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/
grading-assessment.html

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

106

Center on Education Policy. (2020). History and evolution of public education in the US
(ED606970). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606970.pdf
Chapman, H. B., & Ashbaugh, E. J. (1925). Report cards in American cities. Educational
Research Bulletin, 4(14), 289–293.
Chen, P. P., & Bonner, S. M. (2017). Teachers’ beliefs about grading practices and a
constructivist approach to teaching. Educational Assessment, 22(1), 18–34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2016.1271703
Cox, K. B. (2011). Putting classroom grading on the table: A reform in progress.
American Secondary Education, 40(1), 67–87.
Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1996, April 9-11). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by
students and teachers alike [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National
Council on Measurement in Education, New York, NY, United States.
Dexter, F. B. (Ed.). (1901). The literary diary of Ezra Stiles. C. Scribner’s Sons.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Literary_Diary_of_Ezra_Stiles/au9I
AAAA MAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Dover Area School District. (2021). Dover Eagles 2021-2022 annual report to the
community. https://www.doversd.org/downloads/annual_reports/20212022_annual_report_community.pdf
Durm, M. W. (1993). An A is not an A is not an A: A history of grading. The
Educational Forum, 57, 294–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729309335429
Feldman, J., & Reeves, D. (2020). Grading during the pandemic: A conversation.
Educational Leadership, 78(1), 22–27.
Finkelstein, I. E. (1913). The marking system in theory and practice. Warwick & York.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

107

https://www.google.com/books/edition/%20The_Marking_System_in_Theory_an
d_Practice/4wsRAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Gallagher, C. J. (2003). Reconciling a tradition of testing with a new learning paradigm.
Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1023
/A:1021323509290
Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratification in
American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 385–404.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134711
Guskey, T. R. (2009). Bound by tradition: Teachers' views of crucial grading and
reporting issues [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Guskey, T. R. (2013). The case against percentage grades. Educational Leadership,
71(1), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109300212
Guskey, T. R. (2020). Breaking up the grade: To make grading more meaningful, course
grades should reflect a range of distinct criteria that make up student learning.
Educational Leadership, 78(1), 40–46.
Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M., & Jung, L. A. (2011). Grades that mean something:
Kentucky develops standards-based report cards. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 52–
57.
Hanson, F. A. (1993). The invention of intelligence. Education Week, 13(2), 40–41.
Hargis, C. H. (2003). Grades and grading practices: Obstacles to improving education
and to helping at-risk students (2nd ed.). Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

108

Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research: A reflective practice
approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
Hochbein, C., & Pollio, M. (2016). Making grades more meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan,
98(3), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716677262
Hoff, D. J., & Coles, A. D. (1999). Lessons of a century. Education Week, 18(40), 20–28.
Hooper, J., & Cowell, R. (2014). Standards-based grading: History adjusted true score.
Educational Assessment, 19, 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10627197.2014.869451
Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets
and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal,
31(5), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920500240767
Jongsma, K. S. (1991). Research to practice: Rethinking grading practices. The Reading
Teacher, 45(4), 318–320.
Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2019). Public examinations examined. World Bank.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/32352/9781464814
181.pdf
Kunnath, J. (2017a). Creating meaningful grades. The Journal of School Administration
Research and Development, 2(1), 53–56.
Kunnath, J. P. (2017b). Teacher grading decisions: Influences, rationale, and practices.
American Secondary Education, 45(3), 68–88.
Lok, B., McKnaught, C., & Young, K. (2016). Criterion-referenced and norm-referenced
assessments: Compatibility and complementarity. Assessment & Evaluation in

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

109

Higher Education, 41(3), 450–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2015.1022136
Madaus, G. F., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (1999). A short history of performance assessment.
Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 688–695.
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know.
Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34–39.
McCreadie, H. (2017). Pioneers and landmarks in intelligence testing: Identifying the
gifted Francis Galton (1822-1911). Assessment & Development Matters, 9(2), 31–
35.
McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers’ classroom
assessment and grading practices. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(4),
203–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596593
Muñoz, M. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will
improve education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 64–68. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0031721715579043
Murray, L. (2013). Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.
Britannica Education Educational Publishing.
Olson, L. (1995). Cards on the table. Education Week, 14(38), 23–28.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Effective grading. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 85–87.
Reeves, D., Jung, L. A., & O’Connor, K. (2017). What’s worth fighting against in
grading? Educational Leadership, 74(8), 42–45.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

110

Schinske, J., & Tanner, K. (2014). Teaching more by grading less (or differently). CBE Life Sciences Education, 13, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-030054
Schneider, J., & Hutt, E. (2014). Making the grade: A history of the A–F marking
scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(2), 201–224. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220272.2013.790480
Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational
Leadership, 66(2), 70–74.
Shoveller, J. (1824). Scholastic education: Or, a synopsis of the studies recommended to
employ the time, and engage the attention of youth; a suggestion of the most
efficient methods of tuition; and a notice of the authors which may be
advantageously used in a scholastic course (2nd ed.). G. and W. B. Whitaker.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Scholastic _Education _Or_ A_
Synopsis_of_th/F9wGAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Spencer, K. (2012). Standards-based grading. Education Digest, 78(3), 4–10.
Starch, D., & Elliott, E. C. (1913). Reliability of grading work in mathematics. The
School Review, 21(4), 254–259.
Sundeen, R. (2018/2019, Winter). The troubling history of public education. Old
Schoolhouse, 42–46. https://www.thehomeschoolmagazine-digital.com/
thehomeschoolmagazine/2019x1/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=1446000#
articleId1446000
Taylor, A. C. (2007). Grade inflation: An analysis of teacher perception, grade point
average, and test scores in one southeastern Georgia high school [Doctoral

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

111

dissertation, Georgia Southern University]. Georgia Southern Digital Archive.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/414
Tocci, C. (2008). An immanent machine: Reconsidering grades, historical and present.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(7), 762–778.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). Grading for success. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 12–15.
Townsley, M. (2013). Redesigning grading—Districtwide. Educational Leadership,
71(4), 68–71.
Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. (2020). Losing As and Fs: What works for schools
implementing standards-based grading? Educational Considerations, 46(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.4148/0146-9282.2204
Walsh, W. B., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Tests and assessments (4th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Will, M. (2019). Exploring ways to say so long to traditional letter grades. Education
Week, 38(20), 23–24.
William, D. (2010). Standardized testing and school accountability. Educational
Psychologist, 45(2), 107–122.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

112

APPENDICES

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

113

Appendix A
Survey #1 Informed Consent
Dear Faculty Member,
As an elementary teacher in the Dover Area School District, you are being asked to
participate in a research study to evaluate the effectiveness of current elementary grading
practices and determining perceptions a standards-based report card in the Dover Area
School District. Your participation in the study will help the researcher collect and
analyze data to summarize teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of current DASD
elementary grading practices.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an electronic
survey. The survey will be available via Google Forms. Participants are asked to engage
in selected-response and open-ended questions about the effectiveness of current
elementary grading practices.
Where will this study take place?
The survey will be available online via Google Forms. Survey participants can take the
survey at a time and location most convenient to them via online access.
How long will the study last?
You will be asked to participate in a survey that will take approximately 10 - 15 minutes
to complete.
What happens if I don't want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you can choose whether you want to participate in the
study or not. There will be no penalty if you decide not to participate.
Can I quit the study before it ends?
You do not have to participate. If you don't want to participate, please do not complete
the survey. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving your consent to participate in
the survey. If you change your mind after you start the survey, close the survey before
completion, and no survey responses will be recorded.
What are the risks?
There are minimal risks to this study. You will not answer questions of a sensitive nature,
and you will not provide personally identifiable information. Settings in Google Forms
will be such that the researcher does not collect email addresses from participants. The
survey and interview questions may make you feel uncomfortable as some people do not
like to volunteer information or feedback that could be perceived as negative. However,
the research is going to be most meaningful if participants are honest in their responses.
Your privacy is important, and the researcher will confidentially handle all information.
The study's results will be reported in a way that will not identify you and will not isolate

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

114

any building's data for scrutiny. The researcher plans to present the study results as a
published study and potentially in journals or periodicals.
How will I benefit from participating?
If you decide to participate, you will assist the researcher in better understanding
teachers’ perceptions when it comes to the current elementary grading practices in the
Dover Area School District. Benefits may include your perceptions being valued and
heard, evaluation of current grading practices, and identification of any potential
considerations for improvement.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
Yes, the survey responses collected from you will remain confidential, which means only
the researcher will see or have access to the data. Again, the study's results will be
reported in a way that will not identify you and will not isolate any building's data for
scrutiny. Data will be stored on a secure server and password-protected or stored in a
locked office or a combination.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, don't hesitate to contact the researcher, Bobbie
Strausbaugh, at str6264@calu.edu or 717-487-2291. If you would like to speak with
someone other than the researcher, don't hesitate to contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, Faculty
Advisor at the California University of Pennsylvania, at keruskin@calu.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have about participating in this study have been
answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that taking part is
voluntary. I do not have to take part if I do not wish to do so. I can stop at any time for
any reason. If I choose to stop, no one will ask me why.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this survey.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 8/27/21 and expires 8/26/22.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

115
Appendix B
Survey #1

DASD: Dover Area School District
DASD Elementary Grading Practices: The grading practices for which report card
grades in ELA and Math are calculated in the four K-5 elementary buildings of the
DASD.
Effectiveness of Current DASD Elementary Grading Practices: Grading practices that
are clearly defined, consistent per grade level across all buildings, and reflect students’
mastery of district-approved curriculum and eligible content of grade-level PA state
standards.
1. What grade level do you currently teach? Only select one grade level. If you work
with multiple grade levels, please select the grade level for which you spend a larger
percentage of time.
1
2
3
4
5
2. If you teach grade 3, 4, or 5 please select the subject you teach.
ELA
Math
I do not teach grade 3, 4, or 5
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: As a teacher, I feel the
grading practices I am using for ELA and/or math report card grade(s) are clearly
defined for me by district policies and procedures.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: As a teacher, I feel the
students understand how they earn their ELA and/or math report card grade(s).
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

116

5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: As a teacher, I feel I
clearly define the grading practices I am using for ELA and/or math report card
grade(s) to my students’ families.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: The assessments I use to
determine students' ELA and/or math report card grade(s) are similar to
the assessments used by my grade-level colleagues in the DASD.
Strongly Agree
Agree
I do not have the knowledge to answer this question
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: The assessment
categories (classwork, quizzes, tests, homework, participation, etc.) I use to
determine my students' ELA and/or math report card grades are similar to
the categories used by my grade level colleagues in the DASD.
Strongly Agree
Agree
I do not have the knowledge to answer this question
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I believe my ELA and/or
math report card grading practices accurately reflect my students’ understanding of
district-approved ELA and/or math curriculum. District approved curriculum is
the curriculum posted on the district website.
Strongly Agree
Agree
I do not have the knowledge to answer this question
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
9. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I believe my ELA and/or
math report card grading practices accurately reflect my students’ understanding of
eligible content of PA grade-level standards. Eligible content of PA grade-level
standards is posted on the SAS website.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

117

Strongly Agree
Agree
I do not have the knowledge to answer this question
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I believe current DASD
elementary grading practices provide families with a clear picture of their child’s
mastery of district-approved curriculum and eligible content of PA grade-level
standards.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
11. What else would you like to share about DASD Elementary Grading Practices?

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

118

Appendix C
Survey #2 Informed Consent
Dear Parent,
As a parent in the Dover Area School District, you are being asked to participate in a
research study to evaluate the effectiveness of current elementary grading practices and
determining perceptions a standards-based report card in the Dover Area School District.
Your participation in the study will help the researcher collect and analyze data to
summarize parents' understanding of current DASD elementary grading practices
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an electronic
survey. The survey will be available via Google Forms. Participants are asked to engage
in selected-response and open-ended questions about the effectiveness of current
elementary grading practices.
Where will this study take place?
The survey will be available online via Google Forms. Survey participants can take the
survey at a time and location most convenient to them via online access.
How long will the study last?
You will be asked to participate in a survey that will take approximately 10 - 15 minutes
to complete.
What happens if I don't want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you can choose whether you want to participate in the
study or not. There will be no penalty if you decide not to participate.
Can I quit the study before it ends?
You do not have to participate. If you don't want to participate, please do not complete
the survey. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving your consent to participate in
the survey. If you change your mind after you start the survey, close the survey before
completion, and no survey responses will be recorded.
What are the risks?
There are minimal risks to this study. You will not answer questions of a sensitive nature,
and you will not provide personally identifiable information. Settings in Google Forms
will be such that the researcher does not collect email addresses from participants. The
survey and interview questions may make you feel uncomfortable as some people do not
like to volunteer information or feedback that could be perceived as negative. However,
the research is going to be most meaningful if participants are honest in their responses.
Your privacy is important, and the researcher will confidentially handle all information.
The study's results will be reported in a way that will not identify you and will not isolate

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

119

any building's data for scrutiny. The researcher plan to present the study results as a
published study and potentially in journals or periodicals.
How will I benefit from participating?
If you decide to participate, you will assist the researcher in better understanding parents’
perceptions when it comes to the current elementary grading practices in the Dover Area
School District. Benefits may include your perceptions being valued and heard,
evaluation of current grading practices, and identification of any potential considerations
for improvement.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
Yes, the survey responses collected from you will remain confidential, which means only
the researcher will see or have access to the data. Again, the study's results will be
reported in a way that will not identify you and will not isolate any building's data for
scrutiny. Data will be stored on a secure server and password-protected or stored in a
locked office or a combination.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, don't hesitate to contact the researcher, Bobbie
Strausbaugh, at str6264@calu.edu or 717-487-2291. If you would like to speak with
someone other than the researcher, don't hesitate to contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, Faculty
Advisor at the California University of Pennsylvania, at keruskin@calu.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have about participating in this study have been
answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that taking part is
voluntary. I do not have to take part if I do not wish to do so. I can stop at any time for
any reason. If I choose to stop, no one will ask me why.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this survey.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/27/21 and expires 08/26/22.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

120
Appendix D
Survey #2

DASD: Dover Area School District
DASD Elementary Grading Practices: The grading practices for which report card
grades in ELA and Math are calculated in the four K-5 elementary buildings of the
DASD.
1. Please select your child’s grade. If you have more than one child, feel free to
complete the survey multiple times, one time for each child. Your understanding may
be different for each grade level.
1
2
3
4
5
2. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I have received
information either from the district or my child’s teacher about the current DASD
Elementary Grading Practices in ELA and math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
3. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I understand the current
DASD Elementary Grading Practices in ELA and math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

121

Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I am aware of how my
child's grades are determined in ELA and math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my child’s
report card, I have a good understanding of how my child is performing in ELA and
math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
6. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my child’s
report card, I understand what my child has mastered in ELA and math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

122

Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
7. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my child’s
report card, I understand where my child is growing in ELA and math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
8. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my child’s
report card, I understand what my child still needs to work on in ELA and math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
9. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my child’s
report card, I have a good understanding of how my child is performing on grade
level ELA and math skills.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Math:
Strongly Agree

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

123

Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: When I look at my
child's grades, I understand which state standards my child has learned in ELA and
math.
ELA:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I cannot answer this question because am not sure what is meant by state
standards
Math:
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
I cannot answer this question because am not sure what is meant by state
standards
11. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: I am satisfied with the
present DASD elementary grading practices in ELA and math.
Strongly Agree
Agree
No Opinion
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
12. What else would you like to share about DASD Elementary Grading Practices?

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

124

Appendix E
Survey #3 Informed Consent
Dear Faculty Member or Administrator
As an elementary or teacher or administrator in the Dover Area School District, you are
being asked to participate in a research study to evaluate the effectiveness of current
elementary grading practices and determine perceptions of a standards-based report card
in the Dover Area School District. Your participation in the study will help the researcher
collect and analyze data to summarize administrators’ and teachers’ understanding and
perceptions of a standards-based report card.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an electronic
survey. The survey will be available via Google Forms. Participants are asked to engage
in selected-response and open-ended questions about the perceptions of a standards-based
report card.
Where will this study take place?
The survey will be available online via Google Forms. Survey participants can take the
survey at a time and location most convenient to them via online access.
How long will the study last?
You will be asked to participate in a survey that will take approximately 10 - 15 minutes
to complete.
What happens if I don't want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you can choose whether you want to participate in the
study or not. There will be no penalty if you decide not to participate.
Can I quit the study before it ends?
You do not have to participate. If you don't want to participate, please do not complete
the survey. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving your consent to participate in
the survey. If you change your mind after you start the survey, close the survey before
completion, and no survey responses will be recorded.
What are the risks?
There are minimal risks to this study. You will not answer questions of a sensitive nature,
and you will not provide personally identifiable information. Settings in Google Forms
will be such that the researcher does not collect email addresses from participants. The
survey and interview questions may make you feel uncomfortable as some people do not
like to volunteer information or feedback that could be perceived as negative. However,
the research is going to be most meaningful if participants are honest in their responses.
Your privacy is important, and the researcher will confidentially handle all information.
The study's results will be reported in a way that will not identify you and will not isolate

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

125

any building's data for scrutiny. The researcher plans to present the study results as a
published study and potentially in journals or periodicals.
How will I benefit from participating?
If you decide to participate, you will assist the researcher in better understanding
teachers’ perceptions when it comes to the use of a standards-based report card. Benefits
may include your perceptions being valued and heard and a determination of current
understandings.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
Yes, the survey responses collected from you will remain confidential, which means only
the researcher will see or have access to the data. Again, the study's results will be
reported in a way that will not identify you and will not isolate any building's data for
scrutiny. Data will be stored on a secure server and password-protected or stored in a
locked office or a combination.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, don't hesitate to contact the researcher, Bobbie
Strausbaugh, at str6264@calu.edu or 717-487-2291. If you would like to speak with
someone other than the researcher, don't hesitate to contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, Faculty
Advisor at the California University of Pennsylvania, at keruskin@calu.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have about participating in this study have been
answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that taking part is
voluntary. I do not have to take part if I do not wish to do so. I can stop at any time for
any reason. If I choose to stop, no one will ask me why.
By clicking continue, you agree to participate in this survey.
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/27/21 and expires 08/26/22.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

126
Appendix F
Survey #3

DASD: Dover Area School District
Standards-based report card: There is not a universal definition of a standards-based
report card. For this survey, the researcher will offer the following description of a
standards-based report card. A standards-based report card is a report card that, instead of
providing a single overall grade, breaks down the subject matter into smaller learning
concepts. A standards-based report card provides feedback on the smaller learning
concepts.
12. What grade level do you currently teach? (If you work with multiple grade levels,
please select the grade level for which you spend a larger percentage of time).
1
2
3
4
5
Administrator
13. If you teach grade 3, 4, or 5 please select the subject you teach.
ELA
Math
I do not teach grade 3, 4, or 5
14. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement for ELA and math: Based
on my knowledge of a standards-based report card, I feel it reports an appropriate
amount of information.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement for ELA and math: Based
on my knowledge of a standards-based report card, I feel the information it reports is
quality information.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

127

16. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement for ELA and math: Based
on my knowledge of a standards-based report card, I feel the information it reports is
easy to understand.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
17. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my
understanding of a standards-based report card, I feel it is a good reporting tool to
document learned skills.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
18. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my
understanding of a standards-based report card, I feel it is a good reporting tool to
document skills for which each student needs to improve.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
19. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my
understanding of a standards-based report card, I feel a standards-based report card is
a consistent way to report students’ performance.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
20. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement: Based on my
understanding of a standards-based report card, I feel a standards-based report card
provides families with important information about their student’s performance.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

128

21. What else would you like to share about your understanding of standards-based report
cards?

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

129

Appendix G
Interview Questions Informed Consent
Dear District Representative,
As an elementary administrator or teacher who currently uses a standards-based report
card, you are being asked to participate in a research study to evaluate the effectiveness
of current elementary grading practices and determining perceptions of a standards-based
report card in the Dover Area School District. Your participation in the study will help
the researcher collect and summarize data on perceptions of administrators and teachers
currently using a standards-based report card.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
In this study, you will be asked to answer interview questions via a phone conference,
Zoom interview, or in person. The researcher will conduct a formal Literature Review of
elementary grading practices, including standards-based report cards at the elementary
level. However, as part of the Literature Review, the researcher wishes to include
perceptions from school districts that presently use standards-based report cards.
Where will this study take place?
You will be asked to answer interview questions via a phone conference, Zoom
interview, or in person. The researcher will coordinate with you on the time and location
of the interview.
How long will the study last?
You will be asked to participate in an interview that will take approximately 20 - 25
minutes to complete.
What happens if I don't want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you can choose whether you want to participate in the
study or not. There will be no penalty if you decide not to participate.
Can I quit the study before it ends?
You do not have to be in this study. If you don't want to participate, please let me know.
If you do agree to participate, you can stop participating at any time during the interview
and no responses will be recorded.
What are the risks?
You will be asked to participate in an interview related to my research topic. The
researcher will document your interview responses. Any reference to your responses will
be made by assigning you an interview number. Any reference to the interview responses
will be made by the number and not by the individual providing the interview responses.
There is minimal risk to participants as all interview documentation will remain
confidential. Your privacy is important, and the researcher will confidentially handle all
information. The study's results will be reported in a way that will not identify you. The

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

130

researcher plans to present the study results as a published study and potentially in
journals or periodicals.
How will I benefit from participating?
The potential benefits to you from being in this study may include sharing effective
practices from your school and the potential for future networking and collaboration.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
Yes, the survey responses collected from you will remain confidential, which means only
the researcher will see or have access to the data. Again, the study's results will be
reported in a way that will not identify you. Data will be stored on a secure server and
password-protected or stored in a locked office or a combination.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, don't hesitate to contact the researcher, Bobbie
Strausbaugh, at str6264@calu.edu or 717-487-2291. If you would like to speak with
someone other than the researcher, don't hesitate to contact Dr. Todd Keruskin, Faculty
Advisor at the California University of Pennsylvania, at keruskin@calu.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have about participating in this study have been
answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that taking part is
voluntary. I do not have to take part if I do not wish to do so. I can stop at any time for
any reason. If I choose to stop, no one will ask me why.
By signing below, I agree to participate in this study. By doing so, I am indicating that I
have read this form and had my questions answered. I understand that it is my choice to
participate and I can stop at any time.
Printed Name: ___________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________________________
Date: ___________________________
Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. This
approval is effective 08/27/21 and expires 08/26/22.

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

131
Appendix H
Interview Questions

1. What have you liked about standards-based report cards?
2. What challenges have come up with standards-based report cards?
3. What is your perception of changes in classroom instructional practices you have
noticed with the implementation of standards-based cards?
4. What is your perception of changes in assessment practices you have noticed with
the implementation of standards-based report cards?
5. What is your perception of changes in student learning you have noticed with the
implementation of standards-based report cards?
6. What are your thoughts on parents’ perceptions of standards-based report cards?
7. In your opinion, what factors are necessary for the effective use of standardsbased report cards?
8. Are you willing to share the format of your standards-based report card?
9. What else would you like to share about standards-based report cards?
Note: A summary of the interviews will to be included in the Literature Review

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Appendix I
District Letter of Support

132

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

Appendix J
District Consent to Access Data

133

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

134

Appendix K
IRB Approval

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Appendix L
Educational Research Course Certificate

135

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Appendix M
Conflicts of Interest Course Certificate

136

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Appendix N
Grade Books Summary Tables
Table N1
Summary of Grade 1 Grade Books

137

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

Table N2
Summary of Grade 2 Grade Books

138

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

Table N3
Summary of Grade 3 Grade Books

139

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

Table N4
Summary of Grade 4 Grade Books

140

DASD GRADING PRACTICES
Table N5
Summary of Grade 5 Grade Books

141

DASD GRADING PRACTICES

142

Appendix O
Grade Books Analysis Spreadsheets

(/$*UDGH

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
)XQGDWLRQV
-RXUQH\V
6LJKW:RUGV
)OXHQF\
:ULWLQJ

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN



























*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

7HVWV













*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV







































*UDGH%RRN$VVHVVPHQW&DWHJRULHV
4XL]]HV
&ODVVZRUN
3URMHFWV


















































DASD GRADING PRACTICES

143

(/$*UDGH

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
+LJK
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
&RPSUH
)UHTXHQF\
)XQGDWLRQV
*UDPPDU
9RFDEXODU\
6SHOOLQJ
&ODVVZRUN
:ULWLQJ
KHQVLRQ
:RUGV

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN





























&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

7HVWV














&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV










































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
4XL]]HV
&ODVVZRUN
3URMHFWV
































































































DASD GRADING PRACTICES

144

(/$*UDGH

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
*UDPPDU
1RQ
5HDGLQJ
9RFDEXODU\
DQG:ULWLQJ
$FKLHYHPHQW

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN














*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

7HVWV













*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV




















































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
4XL]]HV
&ODVVZRUN
+RPHZRUN





































3URMHFWV













DASD GRADING PRACTICES

(/$*UDGH

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

145

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
1RQ
5HDGLQJ
*UDPPDU
:ULWLQJ
9RFDEXODU\
3URMHFWV
$FKLHYHPHQW
)DFWRUV









































































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
4XL]]HV
&ODVVZRUN
3URMHFWV





































*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

7HVWV













*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV













DASD GRADING PRACTICES

(/$*UDGH

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

146

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
1RQ
5HDGLQJ
*UDPPDU
:ULWLQJ
9RFDEXODU\
3URMHFWV
$FKLHYHPHQW
)DFWRUV






















































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
4XL]]HV
&ODVVZRUN
3URMHFWV





































*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

7HVWV













*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV





































DASD GRADING PRACTICES

0DWK*UDGH

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

147

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
8QLW
&XPXODWLYH
7LPHDQG
3UREOHP
3URMHFWVDQG
1RQ
0DWK)DFWV
&ODVVZRUN
$VVHVVPHQWV $VVHVVPHQWV
*HRPHWU\
6ROYLQJ
$FWLYLWLHV
$FKLHYHPHQW

































































































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
7HVWV
4XL]]HV
&ODVVZRUN





































1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV













DASD GRADING PRACTICES

148

0DWK*UDGH

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
8QLW
&XPXODWLYH
3URMHFWVDQG
1RQ
0DWK)DFWV
+RPHZRUN
$VVHVVPHQWV $VVHVVPHQWV
$FWLYLWLHV $FKLHYHPHQW

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

























































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

4XL]]HV

7HVWV

&ODVVZRUN

+RPHZRUN

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

























































*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV










































DASD GRADING PRACTICES

149

0DWK*UDGH

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
8QLW
&XPXODWLYH 3URMHFWVDQG
1RQ
366$
0DWK)DFWV
2QOLQH7RROV
$VVHVVPHQWV $VVHVVPHQWV
$FWLYLWLHV $FKLHYHPHQW
3UDFWLFH





















































































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
7HVWV
3URMHFWV
&ODVVZRUN





































&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

4XL]]HV













&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV













DASD GRADING PRACTICES

150

0DWK*UDGH

7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH
8QLW/HVVRQV

RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH
8QLW
1RQ
&XPXODWLYH
366$
2QOLQH7RROV
3URMHFWV
+RPHZRUN
$VVHVVPHQWV $FKLHYHPHQW $VVHVVPHQWV
3UDFWLFH

&RQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN

















,QFRQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN

















([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN

















&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















*UDGHERRN

















4XL]]HV

7HVWV

$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
&ODVVZRUN

3URMHFWV

+RPHZRUN

&RQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN











,QFRQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN











([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN











&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











*UDGHERRN











1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV
&RQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN



,QFRQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN



([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW

*UDGHERRN



&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



*UDGHERRN



DASD GRADING PRACTICES

151

0DWK*UDGH
RI*UDGH
8QLW/HVVRQV
&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

&RQVLVWHQW
,QFRQVLVWHQW
([WUHPHO\,QFRQVLVWHQW
&DQQRWEHDQDO\]HG

*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN














*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

4XL]]HV













*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN
*UDGHERRN

1XPEHURI
$VVHVVPHQWV













7\SHVRI6WXGHQW:RUN
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
RI*UDGH RI*UDGH RI*UDGH
8QLW
1RQ
+RPHZRUN 2QOLQH7RROV
3URMHFWV
$VVHVVPHQWV $FKLHYHPHQW





























































$VVLJQHG*UDGH%RRN&DWHJRULHV
7HVWV
&ODVVZRUN
+RPHZRUN





































3URMHFWV