Volume 2 - Issue 1 - DBU Journal of K-12 Educational Research - Page 61

Journal of K-12 Educational Research 59 a student could receive a perfect score demonstrating mastery of content, but if the teacher deducts points for the assignment being late, the score the student receives on the assignment will go down. Therefore, the score is a reflection of the student’s knowledge and behavior rather than solely the student’s level of mastery. Cross and Frary (1996) suggested, “Grades often do, in fact, represent a hodgepodge of attitude, effort, conduct, growth, and achievement, and this is what they expect and endorse” (p. 7). If a grade is meant to represent student mastery of content, traditional grading practices, including the practice of assigning zeros, defeat the purpose. Assigning a zero on a 100-point scale disproportionately skews a grade average and falsifies the report of what the student knows (Guskey, 2004; O’Connor, 2010; O’Connor & Wormeli, 2011; Reeves, 2004). Zeros are often recorded in the grade book in order to communicate lack of effort rather than an indicator of a student’s mastery of the content (Guskey, 2004; Schimmer, 2012). Marzano (2006), through his research of current grading systems, said teachers should never record a zero as a grade for not submitting an assignment, turning in work late, or missing an assessment. Instead, teachers could use an “I,” indicating Incomplete. The “I” has the same impact as a zero in secondary schools because the student does not earn credit for the course and it accurately communicates that the student did not complete the course rather than did not master the content (O’Connor, 2010). Grading may often be utilized as a way to punish and reward behavior or encourage responsibility (Wormeli, 2006). Data sources demonstrate increased discrepancies in grading practic- es among secondary teachers more than elementary due to the inclusion of behavior (McDaniel, 2010). Reeves (2004) stated the importance of determining an appropriate consequence rather than punishment through grading. A student who is performing at the highest instructional levels is not served by labeling the student with low grades due to a lack of responsibility (Wormeli, 2006). Research shows that many students learn how to obtain good grades without mastering the content. Schlechty (2011) stated, “Not all intellectuals are academics, and not all academics are intellectuals” (p. 47). With traditional grading systems, learners who are labeled good students may be those who produce work in the way academics produce work. Chappuis (2015) described this as a task completion orientation. Students just complete the work to get a grade. Students should be encouraged to demonstrate knowledge in a variety of methods that have personal meaning (Schlechty, 2011). Chappuis (2015) states students whose goal is to learn more and get better have a learning orientation. In Rob - inson’s (2011) opinion, traditional grading systems overlook and marginalize students’ intellectual abilities and as a result, students often have numerous abilities that are never discovered. By determining the correlation between standards-based grading and student levels of growth and performance on the STAAR, school district leaders can implement policies and procedures regarding classroom grading. The analysis of the data collected in the current study revealed a strong relationship between standards-based report card grades and STAAR scale scores indicating this grading system accomplishes its intended purpose of assessing students’ mastery of Texas Essential Knowl- edge and Skills (TEKS). Since there is a relationship between standards-based report card grades and STAAR scale scores, standards-based scores could provide educators with valuable continuous data to identify students who need additional support to meet standard on the Grade 3 reading STAAR. The relation - ship indicates standards-based grades can provide educators, par- ents, and students with frequent communication regarding student progress towards mastery of the standards and in turn, allows for more insightful educational decisions. References Allen, J. D. (2005). Grades as valid measures of academic achievement of classroom learning. Clearing House, 78 (5), 218-223. Brookhart, S. M. (2004). Grading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Brookhart, S. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30 (2), 123-42. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 3984.1993.tb01070.x Carlson, L. A. (2003). Beyond assessment to best grading practice: Practical guidelines. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED480071.pdf Chappuis, J. (2015). Seven strategies of assessment for learning (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Cizek, G., Fitzgerald, S., & Rachor, R. (1996). Teachers’ assessment practices: preparation, isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3 (2), 159. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.