The evidence gathered in this study shows that nearly all teachers believe that grading plays a role in the teaching and learning process. However, the data show that elementary and middle/high school teachers’ views remain widely different. Elementary teachers tend to see grading as a formative process rather than an end state. They are more likely to give students multiple opportunities to evidence academic mastery and use homework as a means to learn about students’ progress rather than score it for completion.
Are you thinking about making the shift to standards-based grading in your building or district? Based upon hundreds of phone calls, consultations, workshops and emails, here’s a list of five pitfalls I have observed that school leaders should avoid.
- Use exceeds as a descriptor in the grade book at the secondary level.
Nothing frustrates Sally and her parents more than realizing the teacher taught the class how to learn the concept in class, but in order to get the highest mark in the grade book, Sally must come up with some type of application or knowledge beyond what was taught on the assessment. Instead, consider removing “exceeds” and replacing it with “understands the standards” for the top indicator.
- Fail to communicate the standards-based grading shift.
Traditional grading has been around for over one hundred years, so there’s reason to believe a shift to something new or different will require communicating a solid rationale and plan, repeated multiple times in multiple mediums. Of McRel’s twenty-one leadership responsibilities, communication is one that takes a hit during second order change (and yes, standards-based grading is likely a second order change for many teachers, parents and students in your district). Tell ’em. Tell ’em what you told ’em. And tell ’em again.
- Do not report practice in the online grade book at the secondary level.
We know that reporting academics separate from work habits is a cornerstone of standards-based grading/reporting. At the secondary level, the standards (rather than quiz and test numbers) are often reported through an online grade book , leaving little, if any room to document work habits. Whether it’s retrofitting a grade book designed for traditional grading practices, or using a grade book more in tune with standards-based grading practices, it only makes sense to continue reporting levels of homework completion to parents, despite these assignments not counting towards the final academic grade calculation.
- Forget to tell stakeholders what is staying the same during the shift in grading practices.
If your middle school is switching to a standards-based report card, be sure to let parents know you will continue to host parent-teacher conferences twice per year. If your high school is shifting to a standards-based grade book, parents will want to know final course grades are still reported on the transcript, and that grade point average will be communicated with university admissions offices. In addition to communicating what’s changing, don’t forget to let them know what will remain the same.
- Inconsistent implementation
During the first year of standards-based grading implementation, we surveyed parents and students to find out their perception of this change. Frustrated Roger = Frustrated Roger’s mom and dad, and one of the biggest sources of this angst was inconsistent implementation. While we had an agreed upon purpose of grading and board-approved grading guidelines, we relied on (often inconsistent) institutional knowledge rather than a documented tight and loose implementation guide for our teachers to operationalize the tenets of SBG. Somewhere between “every teacher for his/her own” and a lockstep approach is usually a good place to land. Ensuring teachers are supported to implement agreed upon standards-based grading non-negotiables, will help students and parents adapt more quickly to the change, because they’re seeing it in multiple courses and/or grade levels.
What other pitfalls would you add to this list?
Frankin, A., Buckmiller, T., & Kruse, J. (2016). Vocal and vehement: Understanding parents’ aversion to standards-based grading. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(11), 19-29. [Available online]
Peters, R., Kruse, J., Buckmiller, T., & Townsley, M. (2017) “It’s just not fair!” Making sense of secondary students’ resistance to a standards-based grading initiative in the midwestern United States. American Secondary Education, 45(3), 9-28.
Peters, R. & Buckmiller, T. (2014). Our grades were broken: Overcoming barriers and challenges to implementing standards-based grading. Journal of Educational Leadership in Action, 2(2), [Available online]
Swan, G.M., Guskey, T.R., & Jung, L.A. (2014). Parents and teachers’ perceptions of standards-based and traditional report cards. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(3), 289-299.
Urich, L.J. (2012). Implementation of standards-based grading at the middle school level (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12492
A new peer-reviewed article I co-authored is now available in your local academic database!
Peters, R., Kruse, J., Buckmiller, T., & Townsley, M. (2017). “It’s just not fair!” Making sense of secondary students’ resistance to a standards-based grading initiative. American Secondary Education, 45(3), 9-28.
A teacher from a school in Iowa recently contacted me with an inquiry,
Is there any research indicating students going through a standards based grading system show improved standardized test scores or college readiness compared to students that go through a traditional grading school?
Context: What we know about educational research
This is an excellent question that comes up often when educators and their school systems are considering a shift towards standards-based grading. Based upon my knowledge of research methodology, it would be challenging (but not impossible) to conduct a study truly isolating standards-based grading as a single variable influencing a school’s student achievement data. In other words, we know that in any educational study, limitations exist (i.e. fidelity of implementation, additional initiatives simultaneously assisting or hindering test scores, the alignment between state standards taught and standards assessed, and any placebo effect). Finally, any experienced educational researcher will readily admit the challenge of generalizing study results outside of the original context.
How does standards-based grading affect standardized test scores?
I scoured the literature as part of my recent dissertation and found only a few quantitative studies that consider this type of question (How does SBG affect standardized test scores?), some of which look at an entire school and others that look at a smaller section of a school, such as an individual classroom. Each has clearly stated the study limitations. Here’s a quick copy/paste from my dissertation:
The impact of standards-based grading on external achievement measures is mixed. While some studies indicate a significant statistical difference in one or more content areas (e.g. Haptonstall, 2010; Pollio & Hochbein, 2015), others have not (e.g. Rosales, 2013; Welsh, D’Agostino, & Kaniskan, 2013).
To add additional clarity, I’ve added more detail below related to each of the aforementioned citations.
Haptonstall (dissertation): From the abstract of the study, emphasis mine:
This study examined the correlation between the grades a student earns in his or her classroom and the scores that each student earned on the Colorado Student Assessment Program tests, in Reading, Writing, Math, and Science. The study also examined the mean scores of varying sub-groups to determine if certain sub-groups demonstrated higher means, dependent of the school districts that they were enrolled. While all the school districts that participated in the study showed a significant level of correlation between grades and test scores, Roaring Fork School District Re-1, using a standards- based grading model demonstrated both higher correlations and higher mean scores and grades across, the overall population and sub-groups.
Pollio & Hochbein: From the abstract of the study:
Results indicated that the rate of students earning an A or B in a course and passing the state test approximately doubled when utilizing standards-based grading practices. In addition, results indicated that standards-based grading practices identified more predictive and valid assessment of at-risk students’ attainment of subject knowledge.
Rosales: From the dissertation study, emphasis mine:
This study seeks to determine whether standards-based grading has the same effect on students at the high school level (grades 9-12) by comparing end-of-course test scores and posttest scores of Algebra 2 students enrolled in a standards-based graded classroom with to those enrolled in a traditionally-graded classroom. Two teachers each taught two classes of Algebra 2 and graded one class using standards-based grading and one class using traditional grading methods. Students at both the honors level and the regular level of mathematics were included in the study.
Honors students performed better than regular students on both assessments, but no significant difference was found between the performance of traditionally-graded students and the students who were graded with standards-based grading. The results of this study indicate that standards-based grading may offer improved methods of communication between teachers, parents, and students and may give students a new perception of learning.
Welsh, et al.: From the abstract, emphasis mine:
Standards-based progress reports (SBPRs) require teachers to grade students using the performance levels reported by state tests and are an increasingly popular report card format. They may help to increase teacher familiarity with state standards, encourage teachers to exclude nonacademic factors from grades, and/or improve communication with parents. The current study examines the SBPR grade–state test score correspondence observed across 2 years in 125 third and fifth grade classrooms located in one school district to examine the degree of consistency between grades and state test results. It also examines the grading practices of a subset of 37 teachers to determine whether there is an association between teacher appraisal style and convergence rates. A moderate degree of grade–test score convergence was observed using three agreement estimates (coefficient kappa, tau-b correlations, and classroom-level mean differences between grades and test scores). In addition, only small amounts of grade–test score convergence were observed between teachers; a much greater proportion of variance lay within classrooms and subjects.
Given inconclusive evidence, why would a teacher or school decide to embark upon standards-based grading?
Here’s what I’ve found: First, the absence of research supporting traditional grading practices is concerning. Too many times, stakeholders enter these types of conversations assuming traditional grading practices are some type of research-proven paradigm when in fact, schools inherited the traditional grading system over one hundred years ago (Cureton, 1971). Next, beyond the limited quantitative studies related to standards-based grading available right now (and summarized above), classroom teachers can do a better job aligning what we teach with our assessments, a fundamental tenet of grading reform. In other words, due to a dearth of evidence, educators should strongly consider pragmatic solutions. For more on these pragmatic themes and their connection to scholarly literature, I encourage readers to consider, “What does the research say about standards-based grading?” a research primer I co-wrote with Dr. Tom Buckmiller several years ago. Finally, standards-based grading provides students and parents with more useful information about current levels of work (“proficient understanding of Pythagorean’s Theorem”) when compared to traditional grading practices (“85% on the Chapter 3 Test”).
In summary, the impact of standards-based grading on external achievement measures is mixed. With limited quantitative studies available to base this conclusion upon, educators should consider pragmatic benefits of standards-based grading practices and urge educational researchers to respond to this question with more detail in the future.
Cureton, L. W. (1971). The history of grading practices. NCME Measurement in Education, 2(4), 1-8.
Haptonstall, K. G. (2010). An analysis of the correlation between standards-based, non standards-based grading systems and achievement as measured by the Colorado Student Assessment Program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3397087)
Pollio, M. & Hochbein, C. (2015). The association between standards-based grading and standardized test scores as an element of a high school model reform. Teachers College Record, 117(11), 1-28.
Rosales, R. B. (2013). The effects of standards-based grading on student performance in Algebra 2 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/diss/53/
Welsh, M. E., D’Agostino, J. V., & Kaniskan, B. (2013). Grading as a reform effort: Do standards-based grades converge with test scores? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(2), 26-36. doi:10.1111/emip.12009
I was recently invited to write a brief article for School Administrator, an AASA (The School Superintendents’ Association) publication. “Three Lessons for Schools Shifting Their Grading” was embedded within a feature article about standards-based grading, (a well written one, I might add) by Ken O’Connor.
The full article is available via the AASA digital magazine link here.
The email questions continue to roll in this school year. A math teacher from California gave me permission to share some of our recent communication:
If there is unlimited number of reassessment, how do you manage students who want to re-assess till they attain “got it” and eventually the school year is ending?
Identify the shapes of two-dimensional cross-sections of three-dimensional objects, and identify three-dimensional objects generated by rotations of two-dimensional objects.
A teacher from a nearby school district recently emailed me with a few questions about standards-based grading in preparation for the upcoming school. He gave me permission to share some of our dialogue in this public space. This is the second of two question and answer posts about homework as practice, rather than merely point accumulator, in standards-based grading. (The first one is here)
Q: I have heard of some teachers that will not allow retakes on assessments unless the homework has been completed. What are your thoughts?
A: Great question! I have seen this work in two different ways, each with pros and cons.
The first perspective goes something like “Students may not complete a reassessment unless they completed the homework prior to the initial assessment.”
Pros: May motivate students to do the homework prior to the first assessment; may help students do better on the initial assessment (because they did their homework). Cons: May motivate students to copy homework and play this part of the “game of school.” Only allowing students an opportunity to reassess if they completed homework seems to go against the idea students learn at different rates/paces. What if the reason the student didn’t complete the homework initially is because he/she had no idea about the concepts? Why require the student to do a slew of problems incorrectly?
The second perspective is the one I tend to favor, “Students may complete a reassessment only if they completed the homework sometime (doesn’t matter if it it was before or after initial assessment) and complete additional re-learning steps.”
Pros: Better honors that students learn at different rates/paces; may also be a better chance students are likely to ask better questions when completing the homework “Okay, I obviously didn’t get this idea as you saw on the test, Mr. H….could you help me understand it on the homework?” Re-assessment should be meaningful for students while not overburdening the instructor. Cons: It’s not a silver bullet! Students may still game the system by copying from a friend…but there’s less incentive to do so, because if they copy and do not learn, they will not likely do any better on the reassessment.
How do you integrate homework completion and the reassessment process within standards-based grading? Feel free to leave your experiences in the comments below.
A teacher from a nearby school district recently emailed me with a few questions about standards-based grading in preparation for the upcoming school year. He gave me permission to share some of our dialogue in this public space. This is the first of two question and answer posts about homework as practice, rather than merely point accumulator, in standards-based grading.
Q: When homework is no longer completed for points or a grade in a standards-based grading environment, I could see some students reluctant to submit homework assignments. Do you have any advice on convincing students that homework is still a required, essential part even if they aren’t getting a score for it? What about those kids who just don’t turn in their work?
A: Let’s be honest for a moment – there’s no silver bullet for motivating kids to do homework! When we think about the traditional grading paradigm, students do not often value practice/homework, even when it is worth points. Evidence of this theory includes students across the country in high schools with traditional grading who do not turn in their homework assignments and students who turn in copied homework assignments.
Here is my biggest piece of advice, which comes from personal experience: In traditional grading, when a student does not turn in an assignment, we give them a zero, but do not talk with them about it. We assume they’re going to “learn” from the zero. Instead, I tried something different in my later years as a high school teacher. It went something like this…
Class, the purpose of homework in this class is practice. Although homework is not worth any points, it is still very important. The purpose of homework is practice! Just like you practice for a small group speech contest, vocal music solo or volleyball game, practicing is important in math class. Turn to your neighbor and share with them two reasons you believe practicing in math class is important and one reason why you might be tempted to not complete homework in this class….Okay, who can share with me a summary of their partner discussion? How many of you talked about the importance of practice in doing well on tests?….
Then, when a student (inevitably) decides to not turn in an assignment a few days later, have a good ole fashioned one-on-one, sit down conversation with him/her.
Why did you decide not to do this assignment?
How well do you think you’ll do on the next assessment?
I’ve found this to be a relationship building exercise and gives me a better idea how I can help the student. Sometimes students are going through tough times at home. Other times, they’re lost conceptually and don’t want to admit it.
This is not a cure-all type of solution, but one that I and other educators using standards-based grading practices have found to be helpful. In what ways have you motivated students to complete homework when it is worth zero points? Leave your ideas in the comments below.
A comprehensive list of scholarly articles related to standards-based grading. This resource is updated as new articles and studies are published.
What does the research say about standards-based grading?
A research primer [printer-friendly pdf]
Authors: Matt Townsley and Tom Buckmiller, Ph.D.
One hundred years, No research to support.
Traditional grading practices have been used for over one hundred years, and to date, there have been no meaningful research reports to support it (Marzano, 2000). In an era of data-driven decision making, that’s critical to note. Most teachers have not received adequate training in reliable and valid assessment methods in their teacher preparation and often default to the way they saw their teachers grade when they were in school. As a result, grading practices may vary widely from teacher to teacher (Reeves, 2004) based on style, preference, and opinions and without a research-driven rationale (Cox, 2011; Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Zoeckler, 2007). Contributing to this irregularity is the fact that many schools lack a specific, unified grading policy for teachers (O’Connor, 2009). Parents of students today were also graded using traditional methods (we all were) and thus this wildly inconsistent way of communicating achievement and growth of students has been entrenched and accepted in the way we think about schooling.
The absence of research supporting traditional grading practices is concerning. As schools continue to adopt a standards-based approach to teaching, learning, and assessment, it is critical to understand the research literature on the topic. The purpose of this primer is to provide an overview of the research literature on the topic of standards-based grading.
Why change grading practices?
There are two fundamental reasons why traditional grading practices ought to be re-assessed. First, the Common Core has helped make learning targets more rigorous, consistent, and transparent. The focus has been to create fewer standards but challenge students to think deeper and work towards more meaningful applications. Previous iterations of school curricula have focused on far-reaching and low-level rote learning (memorizing facts). Thus traditional grading practices were perhaps a more appropriate way to measure how a student is doing in school back then. But today grading experts (Guskey, 2014; Marzano, 2000; O’Connor, 2009; Reeves, 2008) agree teachers should update their grading practices to better align with the realities of how and what students are learning in schools.
Second, Every Student Succeeds (formerly No Child Left Behind) has changed the way school leaders and teachers operate. These educational laws mandate that schools may no longer simply fail students who don’t learn, and move on (Vatterott, 2015). Instead, all students must be proficient. School leaders must now ensure their system’s purpose is to develop talent rather than merely sort it (Guskey, 2011). Thus, higher scrutiny and accountability over the measurement of student achievement has demanded grades be more reflective of learning. No Child Left Behind initiatives have exposed that traditional grading practices may no longer be an effective way of measuring student progress in the classroom because they do not equate or correlate with performance on standardized tests (Vatterott, 2015).
What is standards-based grading?
Studies show standards-based teaching practices correlate to higher academic achievement (Craig, 2011; Schoen, Cebulla, Finn, & Fi, 2003). Therefore, it is critical that teachers also link assessments and reporting to the standards (Guskey, 2001). Beatty (2013) suggests standards-based grading (SBG) is based upon three principles. First, grades must have meaning. Indicators, marks and/or letters should provide students and parents with information related to their strengths and weaknesses, separating out non-academic behaviors. Second, classroom-grading systems must incorporate multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding based on feedback. The final principle of standards-based grading is separating academic indicators from extraneous factors such as homework completion and extra credit.
Principle 1: Grades should have meaning
Grades should provide meaningful feedback to students, document their progress, and help teachers make decisions about what instruction a student needs next (Wormeli, 2006). Traditional grades and report cards are muddied and misleading when they combine both academic factors and non-academic factors into a single grade. Non-academic behaviors are important and merit their own reporting mechanism because they matter in college and in a career. These behaviors include factors such as punctuality, work ethic, attendance, participation, and ability to meet deadline. But when these behaviors are combined with academic information (does my child know how to do algebra?) to form a single grade, learners and their parents can be deceived by a false and inaccurate calculation. Vatterott (2015) gives these examples:
A student can compensate for low understanding of the content and standards by maintaining perfect attendance, turning in assignments on time, and behaving appropriately in class. A different student may understand content and standards perfectly well but receive a low grade because he or she is late to class, fails to turn in assignments on time or acts inappropriately (p. 63-54).
A grading system shouldn’t allow a student to mask their level of content understanding with their attendance, their effort level or other peripheral issues (Scriffiny, 2008). These are separate issues and should be reported separately. Instead, a grading system should be based upon clear learning targets, a practice in which Marzano (2003) supported because students perform up to 20 percent higher compared to instruction without clear targets.
Principle 2: Multiple opportunities to demonstrate learning based on feedback
Wormeli (2011) proposed allowing “redos” and retakes, a practice often ignored in traditional grading. He argued retakes are necessary in order for the grade to truly capture student growth at the time of reporting rather than a single moment in the past. According to Marzano and Heflebower (2011), if the purpose of a grade is to report mastery, then educators must look for evidence of learning over time with multiple opportunities for updates.
Standards-based grading is a logical extension of this idea, and allows teachers to provide clearer and more effective feedback when compared to traditional letter grades. Haystead and Marzano (2009) conducted a comprehensive review of studies on classroom instructional strategies, concluding the use of scoring scales and tracking student progress over time towards a learning goal yielded a 34 percentage point gain. When students were provided additional time and feedback for the purpose of learning the intended standards, strong evidence indicated a positive correlation between added instructional time and achievement (see Brown & Saks, 1986 for seminal work).
Principle 3: Putting homework and extra credit in its proper place
Although assigning high grades as rewards can sometimes motivate students (Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Marzano, 2000), assigning low grades as punishment does not encourage students to do better (Dueck, 2014; Guskey, 2000; Guskey & Bailey, 2001; Marzano, 2000; O’Connor, 2009, 2011; Wormeli, 2006). Furthermore, grades used as external incentives can sometimes lead to decreased motivation (Guskey, 2011), diminished performance, addictive behaviors, or cheating (Matthis, 2010).
In a meta-analysis of the research on homework, Cooper, Robinson and Patall (2006) described a connection between homework and student learning lasting through the unit test, but not any longer. The limited nexus between homework and more long-term indicators suggests the predictability of student learning is better measured with more formal measures such as tests, essays and other classroom assessments. Furthermore, educational assessment experts recommend all formative work (that is, intended for practice) should not be included in the final grade (Stiggins, Frisbie & Griswold, 1989)
Extra credit is problematic in that the students who would benefit the most from completing it are often not the ones taking advantage of it (Harrison, Meister & LeFevre, 2011; Moore, 2005). More succinctly, awarding extra credit in classrooms has the potential to artificially widen the gap between students performing well and those who are struggling.
We can do better
In the past century, everything from modern medicine to personal computing has evolved and improved; yet our educational system’s grading practices have remained the same, despite a lack of supporting evidence. A standards-based system of assessment seems to be a significant and defensible improvement over traditional grading practices. The logical alignment of a standards based approach with Common Core standards, the advocacy by a growing number of respected educational leaders and researchers, and the positive results experienced by many of its early adopters signals that SBG is positioned to gain traction in more schools (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014). While studying standards-based pilot programs in Kentucky, Guskey, Jung, and Swan (2011) found teachers and families nearly unanimous in their agreement that standards-based reports provided better and clearer information. Thus, the power of SBG lies in the opportunity for a more nuanced and focused conversation between parents and teachers about where students are strong, where they are weak, and how each can help the student (Spencer, 2012). With supporting literature and a growing body of research validating SBG, stakeholders can rest assured that our most important resource, our students, will benefit from this shift.
Beatty, I. D. (2013). Standards-based grading in introductory university physics. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1-22. Retrieved from http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/3264
Brown, B. W. & Saks, D. H. (1986). Measuring the effects of instructional time on student learning: Evidence from the beginning teacher evaluation study. American Journal of Education, 94(4), 480-500. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1085338
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 1–62. doi: 10.3102/00346543076001001
Cox, K. B. (2011). Putting classroom grading on the table: A reform in progress. American Secondary Education, 40(1), 67-87.
Craig T. A. (2011). Effects of standards-based report cards on student learning. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:1127
Dueck, M. (2014). Grading smarter, not harder: Assessment strategies that motivate kids and help them learn. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Grading policies that work against standards…And how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 20–29. doi:10.1177/019263650008462003
Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Lexington, KY: Corwin.
Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M. & Jung, L. A. (2011). Grades that mean something: Kentucky develops standards-based report cards. Kappan, 93(2), 52-57.
Guskey, T. R. (2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership, 69(3),16-21.
Guskey, T. R. (2014). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Harrison, M. A., Meister, D. G., & LeFevre, A. J. (2011). Which students complete extra-credit work? College Student Journal, 45(3), 550-555.
Haystead, M. W., & Marzano, R. J. (2009). Meta-analytic synthesis of studies conducted at Marzano Research Laboratory on instructional strategies. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/files/Instructional_Strategies_Report_9_2_09.pdf
Matthis, T. L. (2010). Motivational punishment: Beaten by carrots and sticks. EHS Today. Retrieved from http://ehstoday.com/safety/news/motivational-punishment-beaten-carrots-sticks-1120.
Marzano, R. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano (2003) What Works in Schools: Translating Research into Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
O’Connor, K. (2009). How to grade for learning, K-12 (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Moore, R. (2005). Who does extra-credit work in introductory science courses? Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7), 12-15.
Peters, R. & Buckmiller, T. (2015). Our grades were broken: Overcoming barriers and challenges to implementing standards based grading. Journal of Educational Leadership in Action, 4.
Reeves, D. (2004). Making standards work: How to implement standards-based assessments in the classroom, school, and district. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Effective grading practices. Educational Leadership, 65(5), 85-87. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Effective-Grading-Practices.aspx
Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.
Schoen, H.L., Cebulla, K.J., Finn, K.F., and Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3), 228-259.
Stiggins, R. J., Frisbie, D. A. & Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(2), 5-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1989.tb00315.
Spencer, K. (2012). Standards-based grading. Education Digest, 78(3).
Vatterott, C. (2015). Rethinking grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wormeli, R. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Wormeli, R. (2011). Redos and retakes done right. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 22-26.
Zoeckler, L. G. (2007). Moral aspects of grading: A study of high school English teachers’ perceptions. American Secondary Education, 35(2), 83-102.