Volume 2 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal of K-12 Educational Research - Page 60

58 The relationship between the standards-based report cards and reading achievement scores on STAAR for students with economically disadvantaged status was strong, r (77) = .657, p < .001, based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines, and the relationship between the standards-based report cards and reading achieve- ment scores on STAAR for students without economically disadvantaged status was strong, r (141) = .576, p < .001, based on Cohen’s (1988) guidelines. Based on the analyses presented, standards-based grading may assist district leaders in meeting the economically disadvantaged system safeguard set forth by the Texas Education Agency (2015a). Teachers can use stan - dards-based grades to help determine areas in need of specific interventions for students with economically disadvantaged status well before the STAAR is administered. Interventions prescribed on the basis of standards-based scores could also help districts close the achievement gap be- tween subgroups as defined by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (Losen, 2011). Since the relationship between the standards-based report cards and reading achievement scores on STAAR for students with limited English proficient status was strong and the relationship between the standards-based report cards and reading achievement scores on STAAR for students with economically disadvantaged status was strong, educators can examine stan- dards-based report card scores beginning at Kindergarten to develop a data portfolio for students in subgroups to help each subsequent teacher develop differentiated instruction based on student need. The analysis of a student’s data portfolio would assist teachers in providing students with adequate opportunities to learn and ample time on task for mastery (Lezotte, 2001). The current study’s findings supplement grading research by providing support of the application of standards-based grading within a large school district. Taking into consideration the lack of grading research on the implementation of standards-based grading, this study’s findings advise both research and prac - tice. Although this research study was conducted within a large diverse school district, the findings have the potential to inform state and national grading practices. Implication and Conclusions In Guskey’s (2004) opinion, teachers rarely agree on the most important purpose for grading and in turn, attempt to achieve all purposes in a single grading procedure. Many researchers feel very few teachers have extensive training on the effectiveness of various grading policies, so most resort to grading the way in which they were graded while in school (Allen, 2005; Guskey, 2004, 2006). Even though many educators assume the method of grading utilized in most schools is based on strenuous study of effective ways to report achievement and progress, grading prac - tices were developed through a process of trial-and-error. In turn, there is extreme variation in current grading practices (Marzano & Kendall, 1996). O’Connor (2010) believes “it is at minimum essential that all teachers in every school teaching the same grade or same subject/course should determine grades in similar ways and apply similar or the same performance standards” (p. 5). In many cases, teachers are given certain categories and objectives, which the school district determines (Cizek, Fitzgerald, & Rachor, 1996), to rate students on their level of mastery and knowledge (McClam & Sevier, 2010). Since every district can adjust grading scales to meet the district’s needs and no set measures exist to deter- mine student mastery, teachers may interpret grades to represent different meanings (Brookhart, 1993). Often, grading policies and criteria are developed by a collection of teachers and administra- tors. Other districts may require consistency determining grades throughout content departments (McClam & Sevier, 2010). When determining grades, O’Connor (2010) stated grades should be meaningful, consistent, and they should support learn- ing. Students should be involved in the assessment and grading process so they can readily tell the difference between practice and performance. Cross and Frary (1996) believe students are forced to adapt to the varying district requirements in order to successfully demonstrate mastery of content. By involving students in the process of determining their grades, students have a tendency to become more self-reflective, therefore improving their learning habits and understanding of how grades are deter- mined (O’Connor, 2010). The specific grading scale and method for determining grades necessitates discussion between students and teachers. There are multiple ways a grade can be determined, so the teacher must clearly articulate how students will demon- strate the mastery of the content material (Carlson, 2003; Deddeh et al., 2010; McClam & Sevier, 2010). According to Wormeli (2006), traditional grading practices may not meet the accountability measures most educators desire. In traditional grading systems, Deddeh et al. (2010) believe the student’s level of mastery of the learning targets is distorted by the inclusion of non-achievement standards. For example, Lacey S. Rainey, Ed.D.