DENNIS D. MUNK AND WILLIAM D. BURSUCK, Report Card Grading Adaptations for Students with Disabilities: Types and Acceptability, Intervention in School & Clinic,  1 May 1998

 

Inclusion of students with disabilities in general education

classes has led to an increased interest in appropriate methods

for evaluating their performance. Letter grades, the most popular

evaluation method in general education, have not proved useful

for students with disabilities, who may meet teachers' expectations

but receive a low report card grade when evaluated on the same

criteria as their peers (Donahue & Zigmond, 1990; Valdes, Williamson,

& Wagner, 1990). Following is an overview of report card grading

adaptations that can be used for students with disabilities enrolled

in general education courses.

 

Common adaptations for report card grades are provided in Table

1 (Friend & Bursuck, 1996). Three types of adaptations may be

made: (a) changes in grading criteria, (b) changes to letter

and number grades, and (c) use of alternatives to letter and

number grades. Note that all adaptations are implemented before

instruction begins, rather than after a student has completed

work for the marking period. Predetermining grading adaptations

allows the teacher to avoid making subjective decisions after

a student earns a grade that the teacher believes does not fairly

represent his or her performance. Indeed, the extent to which

grading adaptations are clearly described before instruction

occurs may influence how positively the adaptations are perceived

by teachers and students.

 

The likelihood that teachers will implement an intervention is

influenced by the acceptability of that intervention (Polloway,

Bursuck, Jayanthi, Epstein, & Nelson, 1996). In the next section

the results of two studies that examined the acceptability of

report card grading adaptations to teachers and students are

reported.

 

ACCEPTABILITY TO TEACHERS

 

In a recent national survey, 368 elementary and secondary regular

education teachers responded to a series of items regarding the

use and perceived fairness of grading practices and adaptations

(Bursuck et al., 1996). Teachers indicated that letter and number/percentage

grades are more useful for students without disabilities, whereas

pass/fail grades are more useful for students with disabilities.

This finding is significant given that 80% of school districts

require letter grades (Polloway et al., 1994). Other types of

grading procedures such as written comments, competency checklists,

and symbols (+ -) were equally helpful for all students.

 

Although letter and number grades were less useful, teachers

did find that these grades could be adapted to the benefit of

students with disabilities. Adaptations that were particularly

useful included (a) basing grades on improvement, (b) basing

grades on meeting IEP objectives, (c) giving separate grades

for effort, (d) adjusting grading weights, and (e) basing grades

on meeting the requirements of academic or behavioral contracts.

Teachers felt that the adaptations of basing grades on less content,

using a modified grading scale, and passing students no matter

what were not particularly helpful.

 

Regarding fairness, 73% of the teachers felt that making report

card adaptations only for students with disabilities was unfair.

Most teachers, however, said that the reason that the adaptations

would be unfair was that adaptations were made available only

to students with disabilities, not necessarily because they represented

a lowering of standards or a lack of consistency. In fact, 50%

of the teachers reported using specific adaptations for students

without disabilities. This finding suggests that teachers may

be quite flexible when they think adaptations will benefit their

students.

 

ACCEPTABILITY TO STUDENTS

 

Recently, Bursuck, Munk, and Olson (1997) surveyed 274 high school

students with and without disabilities about the fairness of

nine commonly used grading adaptations. Students were asked whether

they thought making each of these adaptations for students with

disabilities but not for other students in the class was fair.

As shown in Table 2, a majority of the students felt that making

each of the adaptations for students with disabilities alone

was unfair. In addition, students were asked which adaptations

they thought were the least and most fair. Students thought that

rising grades when students tried their hardest and giving two

grades­one for how hard they tried and one for how well they

did­were the most fair. Evidently, students think that trying

hard should count for something. Among those adaptations that

students thought were least fair included changing grading weights,

using a different grading scale, and passing students no matter

what. Students generally felt that grading adaptations made only

for students with disabilities were unfair because they thought

that the grading system should treat everybody equally. Finally,

students were asked about the fairness of weighted and unweighted

systems of determining student GPAs. As shown in Table 2, most

students (70%) felt that weighted systems that gave more credit

for difficult classes were fair and that counting all calsses

the same, no matter what their difficulty, was unfair.

 

CONCLUSION

 

Many schools continue to use letter and number grades on their

student report cards. Research indicates that teachers are willing

to make adaptations for any student who needs them, but students

perceive use of adaptations for only some students to be unfair.

Although student perceptions need not drive teacher practices,

grading policies and practices, including adaptations, should

be clearly explained to all students before they are made, with

a compelling rationale provided. It appears that this is not

being done; when asked which grading adaptations were being used

in their school, many students responded that they did not know.

Because both teachers and students seemed to feel that effort

should be recognized in some way, this may be a good starting

point for reaching some consensus about grading adaptations.

 

Persons interested in submitting material for Current Topics

in Review should contact Stephen W. Smith, Dept. of Special Education,

G315 Norman Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2053.

 

ADDED MATERIAL

 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

 

Dennis D. Munk, EdD, is an assistant professor of education at

Carthage College. His research interests include grading adaptations,

adaptations for science instruction, and functional assessment

of problem behaviors. William D. Bursuck, PhD, is a professor

of special education at Northern Illinois University. His research

interests include inclusive practices such as grading adaptations,

phonemic awareness in beginning readers, and instructional adaptations.

Address: Dennis D. Munk, Education Department, Carthage College,

2001 Alford Park Dr., Kenosha, WI 53140.

 

Table 1. Common Grading Adaptations

 

      Adaptation                           Description                       

 Changing grading criteria                                                   

   A. Vary grading weights.    A. Vary how much certain criteria (activities 

                                  or products) count toward a grade.         

   B. Modify curricular        B. Identify individualized curriculum upon    

      expectations.               which to base grade.                        

   C. Use contracts and        C. Teacher and student agree on quality,      

      modified course             quantity, and time lines for specified     

      syllabi.                    work.                                      

   D. Grade on basis of        D. Assign extra points for improvement        

      improvement.                over previous performance.                 

 Changes to letter and number grades                                         

   E. Add written              E. Add comments to clarify details on         

      comments.                   criteria used to determine the letter      

                                  grade.                                     

   F. Add information from     F. Keep written anecdotal notes indicating    

      student activity log.       student performance in specific areas      

                                  over time.                                 

   G. Add information from     G. Collect student work that measures          

      portfolios and/or           effort, progress, and achievement.         

      performance-based                                                      

      assessment.                                                            

 Alternatives to letter and number grades                                    

   H. Use pass/fail grades.    H. Give student a "pass" if she meets the 

                                  minimum requirements for the class.        

   I. Use competency           I. Construct a list of goals and objectives   

      checklists.                 for the quarter.                           

 

 

      Adaptation                           Example                                       

 Changing grading criteria                                                                

   A. Vary grading weights.    A. Increase credit for participation in-class group       

                                  activities and decrease credit for essay exams.        

   B. Modify curricular        B. Write on student's IEP that she will be graded on work 

      expectations.               on addition while rest of class works on fractions.    

   C. Use contracts and        C. Written contract states that student will receive an   

      modified course             A- for completing all assignments at 80% accuracy,   

      syllabi.                    attending all classes, and completing one extra-credit 

                                  report.                                                 

   D. Grade on basis of        D. Change a C to a B if student's total points were sig-  

      improvement.                nificantly higher than in previous marking period.     

 Changes to letter and number grades                                                      

   E. Add written              E. Write on report card that student's grade reflects     

      comments.                   performance on IEP objectives and not on regular       

                                  classroom curriculum.                                  

   F. Add information from     F. State on student's report card that although student's 

      student activity log.       grade was the same this quarter, daily records indi-   

                                  cate student completed math assignments with less      

                                  teacher assistance.                                    

   G. Add information from     G. State on student's report card that student's written  

      portfolios and/or           language showed an increase in word variety, sen-      

      performance-based           tence length, and quality of ideas.                    

      assessment.                                                                         

 Alternatives to letter and number grades                                                

   H. Use pass/fail grades.    H. Give student a pass for completing 80% of daily work 

                                  with at least 65% accuracy and attending at least    

                                  90% of classes.                                      

   I. Use competency           I. Attach a checklist to report card indicating that      

      checklists.                 during last quarter student mastered addition facts,   

                                  two-digit addition with regrouping, and counting       

                                  change to $1.00.                                       

 

 

Note. Adapted from "Can Grades Be Helpful and Fair?" by D. Munk

and W. Bursuck, 1998, Educational Leadership, 55(4), Figure 1,

p. 46. Used by permission of the Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development. Copyright © 1998 by ASCD. All rights

reserved.

 

Table 2. Student Perceptions Regarding Fairness of Grading Adaptations

 

                              Individual grading adaptations                                                             % Fair 

 1. Give some students a higher report card grade because they show improvement, but not all students.                     35     

 2. Give some students two grades for each subject (one for how hard they tried, and one for how well they                 46     

    did), but not all students.                                                                                                    

 3. Change how much certain things count toward the report card grades of some students (for example,                      14     

    make assignments worth more than tests), but not all students.                                                                 

 4. Give some students a higher report card grade when they do the best they can, but not all students.                    44     

 5. Give some students report card grade based on having to learn less material, but not all students.                     19     

 6. Grade some students using a different grading scale, but not all students (for example, 90-100 = A rather              13     

    than 93-100 = A).                                                                                                              

 7. Give some students a passing report card grade no matter what, but not all students.                                    5     

 8. Pass some students no matter how poorly they do (as long as they try hard), but not all students.                      34     

 9. Grade some students on a pass/fail basis (without using number or letter grades), but not all students.                24     

 Ways to figure student GPAs                                                                                                       

 10. Have grades count the same toward student GPAs, no matter what the level of the class taken. For                      35     

     example, a grade of A would be worth the same number of points whether it was received in advanced                           

     placement English, regular English, or special education English.                                                            

 11. Make grades in difficult classes count more toward student GPAs. For example, a grade of A in an                      70     

     advanced placement English class would be worth more than a grade of A in a regular or special education                     

     English class.                                                                                                               

 

 

                              Individual grading adaptations                                                           % Not fair 

 1. Give some students a higher report card grade because they show improvement, but not all students.                     65       

 2. Give some students two grades for each subject (one for how hard they tried, and one for how well they                 54       

    did), but not all students.                                                                                                     

 3. Change how much certain things count toward the report card grades of some students (for example,                      86       

    make assignments worth more than tests), but not all students.                                                                  

 4. Give some students a higher report card grade when they do the best they can, but not all students.                    56       

 5. Give some students report card grade based on having to learn less material, but not all students.                     81       

 6. Grade some students using a different grading scale, but not all students (for example, 90-100 = A rather              87       

    than 93-100 = A).                                                                                                               

 7. Give some students a passing report card grade no matter what, but not all students.                                   95       

 8. Pass some students no matter how poorly they do (as long as they try hard), but not all students.                      66       

 9. Grade some students on a pass/fail basis (without using number or letter grades), but not all students.                76       

 Ways to figure student GPAs                                                                                                        

 10. Have grades count the same toward student GPAs, no matter what the level of the class taken. For                      65       

     example, a grade of A would be worth the same number of points whether it was received in advanced                             

     placement English, regular English, or special education English.                                                              

 11. Make grades in difficult classes count more toward student GPAs. For example, a grade of A in an                      30       

     advanced placement English class would be worth more than a grade of A in a regular or special education                       

     English class.                                                                                                                 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Bursuck, W.D., Munk, D., & Olson, M. (1997). The fairness of

report card grading adaptations: What do students with and without

disabilities think? Manuscript submitted for publication.

 

Bursuck, W.D., Polloway, E.A., Plante, L., Epstein, M.H., Jayanthi,

M., & McConeghy, J. (1996). Report card grading and adaptations:

A national survey of classroom practices. Exceptional Children,

62(4), 301-318.

 

Donahue, K., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade

urban learning disabled students and low achieving peers. Exceptionality,

1, 17-27.

 

Friend, M., & Bursuck, W.D. (1996). Including students with special

needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers. Boston: Allyn

& Bacon.

 

Polloway, E.A., Bursuck, W.D., Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M. H.,

& Nelson, J. S. (1996). Treatment acceptability: Determining

appropriate interventions within inclusive classrooms. Intervention

in School and Clinic, 31(3), 133-144.

 

Polloway, E.A., Epstein, M.H., Bursuck, W.D., Rodrique, T.W.,

McConeghy, J., & Jayanthi, M. (1994). Classroom grading: A national

survey of policies. Remedial and Special Education, 15(3), 162-170.

 

Valdes, K.A., Williamson, C.L., & Wagner, M.M. (1990). The national

longitudinal study of special education students (Vol. 1). Menlo

Park, CA: SRI International.

 

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article

and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of

this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

 

 

DENNIS D. MUNK AND WILLIAM D. BURSUCK, Report Card Grading Adaptations for Students with Disabilities: Types and Acceptability, Intervention in School & Clinic,  1 May 1998.