WILLIAM D. BURSUCK, DENNIS D. MUNK, AND MARY M. OLSON, The Fairness of Report Card Grading Adaptations: What Do Students With and Without Learning Disabilities Think?, Remedial & Special Education,  1 Mar 1999.

 

 

As more and more students with learning disabilities are being

included in general education classes, concerns have arisen in

regard to the low grades that these students are likely to receive.

Although there is some evidence to suggest that teacher adaptations

of grades are helpful, the extent to which teachers implement

grading adaptations may be influenced at least in part by the

teachers' perceived acceptability of the adaptations. One factor

that may influence perceived teacher acceptability is student

perceptions. Teachers may be unlikely to use adaptations that

are perceived as negative by their students. The purpose of this

study was to (a) assess high school students' perceptions of

the fairness of grading adaptations, (b) identify factors (e.g.,

achievement level) that may influence perceptions of fairness,

and (c) identify practices deemed most fair and acceptable to

students with and without learning disabilities. This purpose

was met by surveying and interviewing high school students with

and without learning disabilities. The results of the surveys

and interviews as well as their implications for grading students

with learning disabilities in general education classes are discussed.

 

 

 

RECENT RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION ON EDUCAtional practices for students

with learning disabilities have been dominated by issues related

to the inclusion of these students in general education classrooms.

Attention to inclusive practices seems warranted, given that

during the 1994-1995 school year 41% of students with learning

disabilities ages 6 to 21 spent at least 80% of their school

day in general education classes, while another 40% spent a majority

of the day in general education classes (U.S. Department of Education,

1997).

 

Rationales for including students with learning disabilities

may center around individual rights, social benefits, instructional

benefits, or the perceived ineffectiveness of separate special

education services. Despite such diversity in rationales, there

seems to be a consensus among practitioners, parents, and students

that adaptations in classroom practices are needed if these students

are to succeed in an environment in which most of them have already

experienced failure (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Philips, & Karns,

1995; Keogh, 1988; Zigmond & Baker, 1994).

 

One area where adaptations may be needed is grading. Given current

knowledge of the performance of students with learning disabilities

under traditional grading practices, it is not surprising that

adaptations to grading practices have been recommended. Donahue

and Zigmond (1990) found that 60% to 70% of students with learning

disabilities passed their mainstream classes, but received a

below-average grade (below a C-). A similar finding was reported

by Valdes, Williamson, and Wagner (1990), whose survey results

indicated that 60% of secondary students with learning disabilities

had grade point averages (GPAs) of 2.24 or lower, with 35% having

a GPA below 1.74 (below a C-). Moreover, at least one third of

the students surveyed had received at least one failing grade.

In summary, research findings suggest that, despite an apparent

consensus on the need to adapt educational practices for students

with learning disabilities in general education classrooms, these

students are relatively unsuccessful when evaluated with traditional

grading practices.

 

Although research findings suggest relatively poor outcomes under

traditional grading practices, teacher adaptations of grades

may serve to alleviate this problem. Munk and Bursuck (1998)

classified common grading adaptations into the following categories:

 

1. changing grading criteria,

 

2. making changes to letter and number grades, and

 

3. using alternatives to letter and number grades.

 

Teachers may change grading criteria by (a) varying grading weights

(e.g., varying how much certain criteria count toward a grade);

(b) modifying curricular expectations (e.g., identifying an individualized

curriculum on which to base a grade); (c) using contracts and

modified course syllabi (e.g., teacher and student agreeing on

quality, quantity, and timelines for specific work); or (d) grading

on the basis of improvement (e.g., assigning extra points for

improvement over previous performance).

 

In addition to changes made to the criteria for grading, teachers

may adapt the actual letter and number grades by (a) adding written

comments (e.g., adding comments to clarify the criteria used

to determine a letter grade), (b) adding information from a student

activity log (e.g., keeping written anecdotal notes indicating

student performance in specific areas over time), or (c) adding

information from portfolios or performance-based assessments

(e.g., collecting student work that measures effort and progress).

Under some circumstances, teachers may elect to implement alternatives

to letter and number grades. Such adaptations include passfail

grades and competency checklists.

 

The extent to which teachers implement the above adaptations

may be influenced by school policy and by the perceived acceptability

of the adaptations. Perceived acceptability of a grading adaptation

can be defined as the extent to which teachers find the adaptation

helpful in accurately describing a student's performance (Polloway,

Bursuck, Jayanthi, Epstein, & Nelson, 1996). Bursuck et al. (1996)

surveyed 368 elementary and secondary general education teachers

about the use and utility of grading practices and adaptations.

Results indicated that although number and letter grades were

most commonly used, the less often used adaptations such as pass-fail

grades, checklists, and written comments were actually more helpful

for students with disabilities. However, teachers indicated that

letter and number grades could be adapted for students with disabilities

(in descending order of perceived helpfulness) by (a) basing

grade on process versus product, (b) basing grade on amount of

improvement, (c) basing grade on progress on Individualized Education

Program (IEP) objectives, (d) adjusting grading weights based

on assignment and ability, and (e) basing grade on criteria defined

in an individual contract. Teachers felt that adaptations such

as basing grades on less content, using a modified grading scale,

assigning a passing grade for effort, or assigning a passing

grade regardless of student effort or accomplishments were not

very helpful. Interestingly, teachers also felt that many students

without disabilities benefitted from grading adaptations; indeed,

50% of the responding teachers indicated that they had used specific

grading adaptations for students without disabilities.

 

Although it is clear that teachers are making grading adaptations,

it is less clear why some adaptations are perceived as acceptable

and some are not. One possible explanation for teacher preferences

for grading adaptations is student preference; teachers may be

unlikely to use adaptations that are perceived as negative by

their students (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). Information on student

perceptions of grading adaptations would be helpful to special

education teachers, because it suggests grading adaptations to

teachers as part of the collaborative process.

 

There is evidence that student perceptions of adaptations may

be related to the issue of fairness (Polloway et al., 1996).

Fairness centers around the issue of equality; namely, is it

appropriate to make adaptations for students with disabilities,

but not for all students? Polloway et al. (1996) reported that

fairness of adaptations to tests and homework is an issue for

junior high school students, but that student perceptions of

fairness varied depending on the type of adaptation involved.

Generally, adaptations involving a change in the task (e.g.,

making it shorter or easier) or in how material was graded (e.g.,

grading more leniently) were not viewed as fair, because they

would help undeserving students get higher grades and not prepare

them for the real world. On the other hand, adaptations involving

extra help or changes in student response modes (e.g., oral versus

written homework or tests) were seen as fair, because giving

help to students who needed it would prevent them from giving

up (Polloway et al., 1996).

 

There is also evidence that students' perceptions of adaptations

may vary according to their level of achievement or to whether

or not they have a disability. Polloway et al. (1996) reported

that students with learning and behavioral disabilities were

more likely than their nondisabled peers to view certain homework

adaptations as fair, including giving easier and shorter assignments

and allowing students to complete homework in school. These authors

also found that students with disabilities were more likely to

perceive testing adaptations as fair. Among the adaptations that

students with disabilities perceived as more fair were changing

question types, testing on less material, testing with fewer

questions, and using open-book, note, or take-home tests.

 

Students' perceptions of the fairness of report card grading

adaptations are largely unknown; however, strong preferences

are likely to exist in this area, particularly among high school

students, for whom grades often serve as a passport to college

or employment. The purpose of the present study was to (a) assess

high school students' perceptions of the fairness of common grading

adaptations, (b) identify factors (e.g., achievement level) that

may influence these perceptions of fairness, and (c) identify

practices deemed most fair and acceptable to students with and

without learning disabilities. This purpose was met by surveying

and interviewing high school students with and without learning

disabilities.

 

METHOD

 

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

 

Participants were 275 high school students distributed across

the following variables: grade (9-12), achievement level (low,

average, above average, and high), and disability (no disability,

learning disability). The study was conducted in a medium-sized

(enrollment = 2,034) high school in a far suburb of a large midwestern

city. The student population consisted of 82% White and 18% minority

students, with 1.3% of students coming from homes with low socioeconomic

status (SES).

 

Prior to participant selection, the authors met with the assistant

principal and told her that the goal was to survey a sample of

students representative of students' ethnic and SES demographics

and relatively balanced across the categories of achievement,

grade, and disability. Achievement levels were set according

to student cumulative GPA and were defined as follows: low =

below 2.0; average = 2.0-2.9; above average = 3.0-3.74; and high

= 3.75 and above. The assistant principal identified classes

with relatively homogeneous groupings of the four grade and achievement

levels. Targeted classes were primarily study periods, with the

exception of four contentarea classes for ninth-graders. Students

with learning disabilities were selected from these classes and

from one special education class. The selection process yielded

a total of 275 surveys. A description of the participants is

shown in Table 1. There were 15 students with learning disabilities,

including 7 freshmen, 5 sophomores, and 2 seniors; one student

with disabilities did not indicate grade level. The GPA for the

sample of students with learning disabilities ranged from 0.05

to 2.44, with an average of 1.43. IQ scores were available for

11 students with learning disabilities; full scale IQ scores

averaged 89, with a range of 75 to 102. The school district used

federal eligibility criteria for learning disabilities, including

ruling out exclusionary factors, demonstrating average or above-average

intellectual potential, showing a severe discrepancy between

ability and achievement using a regression formula, and demonstrating

a chronic and intrinsic processing deficit that exists across

settings and situations. Scores on achievement tests (e.g., Kaufman

Test of Educational Achievement [K-TEA; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1985],

Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised [WJ-R; Woodcock

& Johnson, 1990], Stanford Achievement Test [Psychological Corp.,

1992]) indicated a two-grade minimum decrement in performance

in math skills, reading skills, or both for 14 students. One

student tested low in dictation and writing samples on the WJ-R.

 

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

 

A three-part survey instrument entitled Student Ideas About Report

Card Changes was used to assess student perceptions of the fairness

of common report card grading adaptations. The survey was modeled

after similar surveys developed in previous studies to measure

student perceptions of the fairness of testing and homework adaptations

(see Polloway et al., 1996). The adaptations selected were ones

commonly mentioned in the literature (Friend & Bursuck, 1999)

and that according to recent research were being used by general

education teachers for students with and without disabilities

(Bursuck et al., 1996). Part 1 of the survey assessed the fairness

of report card grading adaptations, including giving students

a higher report card grade if they show improvement; giving students

two grades, one for performance and one for effort; changing

the grading weights of course requirements; giving students a

higher grade for doing their best; basing a report card grade

on having to learn less content; using a different grading scale;

passing students no matter what; passing students as long as

they try hard; and grading on a pass-fail basis. The second part

of the survey instrument addressed students' perceptions of different

ways to figure GPAs. The third part of the survey requested written

comments on which of the adaptations listed in Part 1 students

thought were most fair and least fair, and why. Prior to its

use in the study, the survey instrument was pilot-tested by administering

it to a group of college freshmen enrolled in an introductory

survey course in special education. Students were asked to comment

specifically on the clarity of the directions and of each survey

item. After changes were made based on the feedback from this

class, the survey was given to a small group of special education

teachers who provided input for the final round of changes.

 

Before completion of the survey, students were read the following

series of directions (see Note):

 

     In order to help students do their best, teachers sometimes

change the way they give grades on report cards. This is not

about the grades students get on individual assignments or tests­just

the grades they get on report cards. Sometimes these changes

are made for one student or a small group of students, but not

for all students in the class. For example, Carlos has a learning

problem; his teacher gives him a grade on his report card that

is based on how hard he tries, not how good his work is. Carlos's

teacher does not do this for all of the students in the class.

 

     Below is a list of changes that teachers might make in how

they give report card grades to students. Read each item on the

list. As you read, think about all of the teachers you have had

during your years at school. Most importantly, think about whether

or not you think that making the change for some students in

class but not for all of the students would be fair.

 

     Answer each item by circling either yes or no. Circle yes

if you can think of times when making the change for some students

but not for all would be fair. Circle no if you think that making

the change for some students is unfair and should never be done.

Keep in mind that all of the changes listed would be used only

if students need them, not because they are looking for an easy

way out or because the teacher likes them better. For example,

Carlos is graded on how hard he tries because the teacher thinks

he is doing the best he can and that if he gets low grades all

the time he will stop trying. The teacher is not doing this to

let Carlos "get off easy" or because she likes Carlos better

than the rest of the class.

 

ADMINISTRATION OF SURVEY

 

The authors entered each classroom, explained the purpose of

the study, and passed out the survey. Instructions and a practice

example that were written on the instrument were read aloud by

the author. Participation was voluntary; only one student in

a self-contained special education classroom elected not to participate.

Students were asked to complete an attached coded form on which

they indicated their name, gender, grade, and date of birth.

The students were instructed not to write on a second attached

coded form that the authors would use later to record achievement

level. After the completion of the surveys (12-15 min), the authors

thanked the students and explained that some of them might have

an opportunity to participate in voluntary interviews at a later

date.

 

STUDENT INTERVIEWS

 

Following the completion of the survey process, 84 students were

selected for possible participation in a follow-up interview.

The purpose of the interview was to allow students to elaborate

on their survey responses and to obvÖ£n additional information

not included in the original survey because of time constraints

or concerns about writing demands. Some interview participants

were selected based on the quality of their written responses

in the Comments section of the survey instrument, whereas others

were randomly selected to balance out the number of participants

in each category. From this list of 84 students, the assistant

principal selected 39 students (two from each category except

juniors in special education, for which only one student participated)

to receive a consent form. The form described the purpose of

the study and the interviews and requested a parent signature.

Fifteen students returned the consent form and were scheduled

for interviews. Eleven students actually attended the interviews.

The demographic breakdown of the 11 interview participants was

as follows: gender, four girls and seven boys; grade level, two

freshmen, two sophomores, and seven juniors; achievement level,

three low achievers, three average achievers, three above-average

achievers, and one high achiever; and disability, one student

with learning disabilities and 10 without.

 

The interviews were conducted by the first two authors. Before

the interviews, the authors reviewed the participants' responses

to the written comments part of the survey. Following a brief

explanation of the purpose of the interviews and the receipt

of student permission to tape-record, students were asked why

they thought certain adaptations were fair or unfair, depending

on their responses to the written survey. The students were asked

whether or not adaptations were being used in their classes and,

if so, how they knew that adaptations were being used. Students

were also asked how and whether grading adaptations could be

made more fair, and whether they had any advice to give to their

teachers about giving grades and using grading adaptations.

 

DATA ANALYSIS

 

The data from the open-ended survey questions and interviews

were analyzed in the same way. First, student interview responses

were transcribed, and student open-ended responses from the written

survey were listed by question and typed. A modified system of

double coding (Miles & Huberman, 1984) was employed. This double

coding, or analysis by two coders, clarifies the interpretation

of the data and ensures that the data are not biased by an individual

person. Following the transcription of the interviews and the

listing of the openended responses, the first author and two

undergraduate assistants coded the data. One student was assigned

to the interview data and one was assigned to the open-ended

survey responses. The students were instructed to break the responses

down into single idea units and then to code each unit. They

were told to work independently, because they were eventually

to serve as reliability coders for each other. The students met

with the first author individually in order to come up with a

mutually agreeable list of codes. Following this modified double

coding, the data were given to a third party for a reliability

check. The undergraduate student who coded the survey data acted

as the reliability check for the interview data. Due to time

constraints for the other undergraduate student, the second author

served as the reliability checker for the open-ended responses.

The reliability checkers were given a list of the codes, definitions

of the codes, and several examples of each code. They were asked

to assign a code to each of the idea units. Reliability was calculated

by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements

plus disagreements and multiplying by 100.

 

RESULTS

 

RELIABILITY

 

Reliability data for the coding of the open-ended questions was

as follows: Reliability for codes related to why students felt

that a particular adaptation was most fair was 88%; for codes

related to which adaptations they thought least fair, reliability

was 82%. Reliability across all the interview codes was 88%.

 

OVERALL FAIRNESS RATINGS

 

Table 2 presents the number of students rating each of the grading

adaptations as fair or unfair. All grading adaptations were rated

unfair by a majority of students. Grading adaptations rated unfair

by the greatest margins were as follows: Giving students a passing

grade no matter what (95%), grading some students using a different

scale (87%), and giving some students a higher report card grade

because they show improvement (86%). Giving two grades for each

subject was rated unfair by the smallest margin (64%).

 

Table 3 presents the number of students rating the two methods

of calculating GPAs. Having grades count the same toward student

GPA no matter what the level of the class was rated as unfair

by 69% of the students. In contrast, more students rated the

alternative method of making grades in difficult classes count

more toward GPA as fair (70%).

 

ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS

 

Student responses to the fairness of various grading adaptations

by achievement level were analyzed using chi-square. These results

are summarized in Table 2.

 

The initial chi-square analysis revealed significant differences

among achievement groups on the following four of the nine adaptations:

changing how much certain things count towards the report card

grades of some students, grading some students using a different

grading scale, giving some students a passing grade no matter

what, and grading some students on a pass-fail basis. Only one

of these differences held up under the scrutiny of a post hoc

analysis; low achievers were significantly more disposed toward

thinking that grading students on a pass-fail basis was fair

compared to their average-, above-average-, and high-achieving

classmates.

 

Regarding the issue of calculating student GPAs, a number of

significant differences were revealed (see Table 3). Students

who were low and average achieving were more likely than their

above-average- and high-achieving peers to think that weighing

all classes the same, regardless of their level of difficulty,

was fair. The low and average achievers were also less likely

than higher achievers to think that giving higher weights to

more difficult classes was fair.

 

DISABILITY

 

Students with and without learning disabilities were also compared

using a chi-square analysis. The results are shown in Table 4

and indicate that students with and without learning disabilities

differed significantly on the following three adaptations: giving

some students a higher report card grade for showing improvement,

changing how much certain things count towards report card grades,

and grading some students using a different grading scale. For

all of these adaptations, students with disabilities were much

more likely to think that it was fair to make the adaptation

for some students but not for all students. With respect to calculating

student GPAs, students with learning disabilities were much more

likely to think that counting all courses the same regardless

of difficulty was fair (see Table 5).

 

MOST AND LEAST FAIR ADAPTATIONS

 

Students were also asked to indicate which grading adaptations

they thought were most fair and least fair, and why. A summary

of the adaptations rated as most fair is shown in Table 6. Adaptations

perceived as least fair are presented in Table 7.

 

As indicated in Table 6, the adaptations most frequently selected

by students as most fair included giving higher report card grades

if students do their best (21.9%); giving two grades, one for

performance and one for effort (17.8%); and passing students

as long as they try hard (13.7%). In addition, 17.8% of the students

felt that none of the adaptations was most fair. The majority

of the students (54%) felt that adaptations were most fair because

effort should be rewarded (e.g., "If they work hard and show

improvement, then they deserve it," "Because at least they are

trying and not blowing off school"); 26% of the students said

that adaptations were most fair because students have different

abilities and should therefore be treated differently in the

report card grading process (e.g., "Because certain people do

not have the same abilities­I only want it for gym," "Some people

have difficulty at certain levels and subjects").

 

Adaptations viewed by students as least fair (see Table 7) included

passing students no matter what (27.6%), grading students with

a different scale (18.4%), and grading on a pass-fail basis (11.84%).

In addition, 13% of the students felt that all grading adaptations

were equally unfair. The two most common reasons given for adaptations

being least fair were as follows: 26% of the students felt that

adapting grades would make the other students not try as hard

(e.g., "Special privileges given to underachievers makes the

overachievers try less"); another 25% felt that a grading system

should treat all students equally (e.g., "Sometimes smart kids

get a bad grade on a test but they don't get a higher grade even

though they tried their hardest," "Everyone gets an equal chance

and no one should have an advantage, no matter how bad they have

a learning disability"); 11% of the students believed that grading

adaptations distorted communication (e.g., "Then a student could

look like he or she is trying but is really getting off"); finally,

10% said they believed that grading adaptations prevented students

from learning important life lessons (e.g., "They won't learn

from their mistakes," "If you pass someone who doesn't deserve

it, they will go through expecting people to give them what they

need [want]").

 

INTERVIEWS

 

One issue raised during the interviews was whether the students

thought that grading adaptations were being carried out at their

school and, if so, how they knew. Most of the students interviewed

felt that grading adaptations were done in their schools; students

responded that they learned from personal experience (i.e., an

adaptation done for them) or through observations or discussions

with classmates. Evidently, carrying out grading adaptations

was not something that was explained by the teacher or included

in class syllabi.

 

Students were also probed regarding their perceptions of the

process of calculating student GPAs. Students who felt that all

courses should count equally towards student GPAs felt that the

self-satisfaction involved in taking harder classes was its own

reward and that people should not be punished just because they

did not have the ability to be placed in a higher level class.

Students who felt that harder classes should count more generally

believed that the students in these classes worked harder so

they should be rewarded for it.

 

When asked how the grading system could be made more fair, students

said that the system could be made more fair by rewarding effort

and improvement, having different level classes, having one grading

scale, and giving two grades­one for trying, one for achieving.

Finally, students were queried as to any suggestions they had

for teachers with regard to grading or grading adaptations. Their

responses ranged from treating everyone equally to making adaptations

such as counting assignments more than tests, giving credit for

effort, and using portfolios to show teachers and students how

much was learned.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Overall, no grading adaptation was viewed by a majority of the

students without disabilities as fair. This contrasts with their

teachers' views (Bursuck et al., 1996) and reinforces previous

research suggesting that grading adaptations represent an area

of particular sensitivity for students (Gersten, Vaughn, & Brengelman,

1996). Our results show that student responses to grading adaptations

are of even greater equanimity than their responses to testing

and homework adaptations (Polloway et al., 1996). Open-ended

responses on the survey indicated that two reasons were most

commonly given for disapproval of grading adaptations. As in

previous research (Vaughn, Schumm, Klingner, & Saumell, 1995),

many students felt that the grading system should be the same

for everyone, with no deviations. Another reason frequently given

was that grading adaptations undermine the motivation of higher

achievers, who, in the words of one student, "will have no reason

to take them" (i.e., higher level classes). There was also a

related concern that grading adaptations reward students who

are taking the easy way out.

 

Adaptations that garnered the most support were giving separate

grades for effort (46%) and passing students if they do the best

they can (44%). However, these findings may have been mediated

by student achievement level; higher achievers seemed to favor

issuing grades for effort, whereas lower achievers favored passing

students for doing the best they could. The fact that higher

achieving students favored giving two grades, one for effort,

is consistent with the finding of Vaughn et al. (1995) that students

do not adhere to an absolute standard of equality. Although giving

students two grades would seem to be a realistic option, it was

not favored by many low achieving students. This finding is puzzling

and needs further research.

 

With regard to the calculation of student GPAs, 70% of the students

felt that higher level classes such as honors or advanced placement

classes should count more towards student GPAs. Not surprisingly,

though, this finding also seems to have been mediated by level

of achievement; indeed, high achieving students favored this

option by a large margin. The follow-up interviews revealed that

high achievers felt that the effort involved in learning more

difficult material should be rewarded. The lower achievers, on

the other hand, felt that just being placed in high-level classes

was its own reward. Lower achievers also felt that students in

higher level classes were not the only ones who worked hard;

they felt strongly that students in lower level classes tried

hard too.

 

Although the absolute figures indicated some achievement effects,

there were few statistically significant differences between

the various achievement groups. Post hoc tests revealed a significant

difference on only one grading adaptation­grading on a pass-fail

basis, which was favored more often by low achievers. Low achievers

found letter and number grades to be intimidating and felt that

a pass-fail system was much less judgmental.

 

The response of students with learning disabilities on the fairness

of grading adaptations was fairly mixed­a finding consistent

with that of Gersten, Gilliplane, Dimino, and Peterson (cited

in Gersten et al., 1996). Students with learning disabilities

differed significantly from their classmates without disabilities

on the following three grading adaptations: giving students a

higher grade for showing improvement, changing the grading weights

of certain class requirements, and using a different grading

scale. As Gersten et al. (1996) have surmised, some students

with disabilities believe that there is a strong need for evaluating

some students using an adjusted standard. However, the data reflect

a lack of unanimity for students with disabilities regarding

grading adaptations; indeed, changing the grading scale and raising

grades to reflect improvement were the only adaptations that

a clear majority of these students felt were fair. Unfortunately,

the reason for this remains unclear. Perhaps, as Gersten et al.

(1996) suggest, some students with disabilities may desire a

complete alternative to traditional grades, whereas others may

believe that they should be treated exactly the same as everyone

else. Future research is needed to clarify this matter. Still,

the somewhat mixed response of this group indicates that teachers

should take into account the feelings of students when selecting

grading adaptations (e.g., in an IEP conference).

 

The responses of students with learning disabilities to the GPA

issue were somewhat unclear. Whereas a clear majority favored

all classes counting equally regardless of the level of difficulty,

some students responded that they thought both GPA alternatives

were fair. As it is likely that some students did not adequately

understand the question, this finding is in need of replication.

 

Certain limitations of this study must be noted. First, the generalizability

of the results is limited by a number of factors. For example,

participants were recruited from only one school and were not

selected randomly. Although great care was taken to select a

sample representative of the student body as a whole, it is unclear

whether the sample represents school ethnic and SES makeup, because

data on these variables were not collected. Also, the small size

of the sample of students with learning disabilities, the small

cell sizes for the chi-square analysis, and the use of a school-identified

sample with a limited number of marker variables demand future

replication of the findings with a larger, more carefully described

sample. Second, these findings may be limited by the use of a

self-report instrument. Although it is difficult to measure attitudes

by other means, self-report instruments have some definite disadvantages

(Kazdin, 1980), including the limited validity of such measures

if individuals do not completely understand some items. This

concern led to the decision to delete the term learning disabilities

from the survey, which is a limitation in itself.

 

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study, taken

in concert with other studies of student and teacher perceptions

of grading adaptation practices, have started to reveal a pattern.

Although grading adaptations are being carried out by many teachers

and perceived by these teachers as generally helpful, these adaptations

are not deemed appropriate by a majority of the students. If

students' attitudes about grading reflect those of their parents­another

question begging future research­then the area of grading adaptations

could represent a major communication problem between the school

and the community. This apparent disagreement could explain the

interview finding that students were not directly told about

grading adaptations­even in a general sense­unless they themselves

were involved. Of course, teachers may also be concerned about

issues of confidentiality or about the perceptions of their peers

that they are upholding school standards (Vasa, 1980). Still,

a public dialogue on grading policy, involving parents, students,

teachers, and administrators, would seem to be warranted, particularly

in view of Polloway, Epstein, Bursuck, Roderique, McConeghy,

and Jayanthi's (1994) finding that only about one third of the

school districts nationwide had established policies governing

grading adaptations for students with disabilities. As with many

communication problems, an early effort to resolve disagreements

about grading could prevent serious confrontations from erupting

in the future.

 

ADDED MATERIAL

 

WILLIAM D. BURSUCK is a professor of special education at Northern

Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. His research interests

involve inclusive practices in general education classrooms.

DENNIS D. MUNK, EdD, is an assistant professor of special education

at Northern Illinois University. His research interests include

grading adaptations, adapted science instruction for inclusive

classrooms, and functional assessment of problem behaviors. MARY

M. OLSON, MS, is the associate principal for curriculum and instruction

at Warren Township High School in Gurnee, Illinois. Her interests

include the use of technology to create equitable learning potentials

for all students. Address: William D. Bursuck, Department of

Special Education, 238 Graham Hall, Northern Illinois University,

DeKalb, IL 60115.

 

AUTHORS' NOTE

 

The authors wish to thank Jarett Kirshner, Colin Kelly, and Michael

Schaaff for their invaluable assistance in analyzing the open-ended

survey responses.

 

TABLE 1. Demographic Characteristics of Report Card Grading Survey

Participants

 

 Characteristic        n      %(FNa) 

 Boys                  134    49       

 Girls                 141    51       

 Freshman               72    26       

 Sophomore              73    27       

 Junior                 65    24       

 Senior                 65    24       

 GPA < 2.0              48    19       

 GPA 2.0-2.99           89    35       

 GPA 3.0-3.74           67    26       

 GPA 3.75-4.55          53    21       

 Learning disability    15     5       

 No disability         257    93       

 Missing cases           3     1       

 

 

Note. GPA = grade point average.

 

FOOTNOTE

 

a Adds to over or under 100% due to rounding effects.

 

TABLE 2. Grading Fairness by Level of Achievement

 

                                                                                Frequency GPA                        

                                              Overall             < 2.0            2.0-2.99            3.0-3.74      

                Question                      Fair   Not fair   Fair   Not fair   Fair    Not fair   Fair   Not fair 

 Do I think it is fair for teachers to ...                                                                           

 1. Give some students a higher report         36      220       11      37        17         71       4      63     

     card grade because they show                                                                                    

     improvement.                                                                                                    

 2. Give some students two grades for         117      159       18      30        39         49      32      35     

     each subject (one for how hard                                                                                  

     they tried, and one for how well                                                                                 

     they did).                                                                                                      

 3. Change how much certain things            91       164       23      23        29         60      20      47     

     count towards the report card grades                                                                            

     of some students (for example,                                                                                   

     make assignments worth more                                                                                     

     than tests).                                                                                                     

 4. Give some students a higher report        113      143       26      22        43         45      24      43     

     card grade when they do the best                                                                                 

     they can.                                                                                                       

 5. Give some students a report card          47       206       10      36        19         68      10      57     

     grade based on having to learn less                                                                             

     material.                                                                                                       

 6. Grade some students using a               34       222        9      39        17         71       4      63     

     different grading scale.                                                                                        

 7. Give some students a passing report       13       242       5       42         7         81       0      67     

     card grade no matter what.                                                                                      

 8. Pass some students no matter how          62       193       12      35        21         67     14       53     

     poorly they do (as long as they                                                                                 

     try hard).                                                                                                       

 9. Grade some students on a pass-fail        88       167       22      25        32         56     24       43     

     basis (without using number or                                                                                   

     letter grades).                                                                                                 

 

 

                                                                                Frequency GPA