Volume 2 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal of K-12 Educational Research - Page 58

56 a result of not meeting federal thresholds, corrective actions may be taken. The actions can include allowing students an opportu - nity to transfer to another campus or district, providing supple- mental services to eligible students in the school, and providing technical assistance to the school (Texas Education Agency, 2015a). In 2015, 4.5% of the districts in the state of Texas did not meet standard resulting in a rating of Improvement Required . Also in 2015, 7% of campuses in the state of Texas received a rat - ing of Improvement Required (Texas Education Agency, 2015b). In 2014, the state of Texas had 9% of the districts in the state received an Improvement Required rating and 8.5% of campus - es received an Improvement Required rating (Texas Education Agency, 2014a). When campuses and districts receive a rating of Improvement Required, they are subject to intervention by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in addition to corrective actions imposed by the federal government if they do not meet the feder- al thresholds. The traditional model of schooling was developed during the Industrial Revolution as an answer to economic concerns. According to Robinson (2011), the systems of education were not designed to meet the challenges current educators face. Robinson (2011) believes educators must encourage transformation rather than reformation; current approaches to education often disre- gard the individual talents of students. Many educators view the report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) as the inspiration for the modern standards movement, due to the authors’ statement that America’s schools lowered their standards and as a result could not compete with other countries (Schlechty, 2011; Shepard, 1993). Whereas the standards movement looks much different today compared to the 1980s, the components of standards-based grading are evident in numerous variations of current grading practices (Marzano & Kendall, 1996). Districts across the U.S. have been expanding and changing the traditional A-F letter grading system with more detailed standards-based reporting (Paeplow, 2011). Dressel (1983) stated a grade is “an inadequate report of an imprecise judgment of a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined mastery on an unknown proportion of an indefinite amount of material” (p. 12). Grading has historically been utilized for ranking students, motivating students to learn or punishing them, sorting students into classes and courses, and often, teacher evaluation (Brookha - rt, 2004; Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Since grading is a subjective task and used to achieve many purposes, parents and students are often left without any understanding of what students actually know (Tomlinson & Moon, 2013). Standards-based grading originated from the ideology that teachers should have clearly defined learning targets for their stu - dents. Moss and Brookhart (2012) declared, “The most effective teaching and the most meaningful student learning happens when teachers design the right learning target for today’s lesson and use it along with their students to aim for and assess understanding” (p. 2). Grading students utilizing rubrics and allowing for student growth measures allow students the opportunity to demonstrate true mastery of standards. Teasing out specific learning targets provides students and parents precise information on areas of dif- ficulty that could prevent student progress towards mastery of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Many educators believe standards-based grading has increased student engage- ment and time on task (Spencer, 2012). The goal of instruction is to have students authentically engaged in the learning process so they are able to retain information and produce authentic products that are based on individual student choice (Schlechty, 2002). Standards-based grading is the process of clearly defining performance standards or criteria and reporting student mastery of the defined performance standards or criteria on a continuum (Guskey, 2014; Guskey et al., 2011; Muñoz & Guskey, 2015; O’Connor & Wormeli, 2011; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). The process of grading is singularly focused on determining student mastery of the standards (Schimmer, 2014). While there is limited evidence comparing the reliability of standards-based grading and traditional grading practices, Haptonstall (2010) discovered a greater correlation between standards-based grades and the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP), a standardized assessment, than the correlation between traditional grades and the CSAP. Furthermore, a study conducted by Paeplow (2011) revealed a strong relationship between fourth-quarter classroom grades and End-of-Grade (EOG) assessments in the Wake County Public School System (WCPSS). In a standards-based grading system, grading and reporting is criterion-referenced (Guskey, 2001). Criterion-referenced grading is a key component of the standards-based grading. “In a standards-based system, grading and reporting must be criteri- on-referenced” (Guskey, 2001, p. 20). With criterion-referenced Lacey S. Rainey, Ed.D.