Teachers must be able to describe
how they plan to evaluate students’
achievement, attitude, effort, behavior,
Curriculum Development (pp. 119–140).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human character-
istics and school learning. New York:
and progress. Then they must clearly
McGraw-Hill.
communicate these criteria to students, Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings,
parents, and others.
J. T. (1981). Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
report cards. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M., & Jung, L. A.
(2011b). Grades that mean something:
Kentucky develops standards-based
report cards. Phi Delta Kappan, 93( 2).
Haladyna, T. M. (1999). A complete guide to
No More “We’ve Always
Done It That Way”
Brookhart, S. M., & Nitko, A. J. (2008).
Assessment and grading in classrooms.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
student grading. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hanushek, E. A. (2004). Some simple
analytics of school quality (Working paper
Challenging these traditions will not be Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1996). The
10229). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau
easy. They’ve been a part of our educa-
tion experiences for so long that they
usually go unquestioned, despite the
debate about rewards and intrinsic
motivation: Protests and accusations do
not alter the results. Review of Educational
Research, 66( 1), 39–51.
of Economic Quality.
Hershberg, T. (2005). Value-added assess-
ment and systemic reform: A response to
the challenge of human capital develop-
fact that they are ineffective and poten-
Cross, L. H., & Frary, R. B. (1996, April).
ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 87( 4), 276–283.
tially harmful to students.
Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students
Jung, L. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2010). Grad-
Education leaders who challenge
and teachers alike. Paper presented at the
ing exceptional learners. Educational
these traditions must be armed with
annual meeting of the National Council
Leadership, 67( 5), 31–35.
on Measurement in Education, New York. Krumboltz, J. D., & Yeh, C. J. (1996). Competitive grading sabotages good teaching.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78( 4), 324–326.
No research supports the idea that low
grades prompt students to try harder.
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading
practices. Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 20( 1), 20–32.
More often, low grades prompt students
McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D.
(2002). Elementary teachers’ classroom
to withdraw from learning.
assessment and grading practices. Journal
of Educational Research, 95( 4), 203–213.
O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards (2nd ed.).
thoughtful, research-based alternatives. Esty, W. W., & Teppo, A. R. (1992).
Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight.
Popham, J. W. (2007). Instructional insensi-
You can’t go forward with only passion-
Grade assignment based on progressive
tivity of tests: Accountability’s dire draw-
ately argued opinions. To succeed in
tearing down old traditions, you must
have new traditions to take their place.
This means that education leaders
improvement. Mathematics Teacher, 85( 8),
616–618.
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., & Brengelman,
S. U. (1996). Grading and academic
feedback for special education students
back. Phi Delta Kappan, 89( 2), 146–150.
Roderick, M., & Camburn, E. (1999). Risk
and recovery from course failure in the
early years of high school. American Educational Research Journal, 36( 2), 303–343.
must be familiar with the research on
and students with learning difficulties. In Selby, D., & Murphy, S. (1992). Graded or
grading and what works best for
T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student
degraded: Perceptions of letter-grading
students so they can propose more
learning: 1996 yearbook of the Association
for mainstreamed learning-disabled stu-
meaningful policies and practices that
for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
dents. British Columbia Journal of Special
ment (pp. 47–57). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Education, 16( 1), 92–104.
support learning and enhance students’ Gray, K. (1993). Why we will lose: Taylor-
Stiggins, R. J. (2008). Report cards: Assess-
perceptions of themselves as learners.
ism in America’s high schools. Phi Delta
ments for learning. In Student-involved
Leaders who have the courage to
challenge the traditional approach and
the conviction to press for thoughtful,
positive reforms are likely to see
remarkable results. EL
Kappan, 74( 5), 370–374.
Guskey, T. R. (2002a). Computerized grade-books and the myth of objectivity. Phi
Delta Kappan, 83( 10), 775–780.
Guskey, T. R. (2002b). How’s my kid doing?
A parents’ guide to grades, marks, and report
assessment for learning (5th ed., pp. 267–
310). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
Prentice.
Copyright © 2011 Thomas R. Guskey
References
Bailey, J. M., & Mc Tighe, J. (1996). Report-
ing achievement at the secondary level:
What and how. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.),
Communicating student learning: 1996 Year-
book of the Association for Supervision and
cards. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2010).
Developing standards-based report cards.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M., & Jung, L. A.
(2011a, April). Parents’ and teachers’ perceptions of standards-based and traditional
Thomas R. Guskey is professor in the
Department of Educational, School, and
Counseling Psychology, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington; 859-257-5748; guskey@uky.edu.
