Running head: STANDARDS BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

The impact of standards-based grading on primary and secondary level classrooms

Matt Eling
Cornerstone University

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Abstract
In recent years, traditional grading practices that determine student grades based on a
combination of student achievement, student performance, and behavioral factors such as
attendance, participation, and behavior has been called into question. Standards-based grading
[SBG] is an approach that seeks to correct this approach by determining grades based solely on
measuring student proficiency on well-defined objectives. Only research conducted in primary or
secondary level classrooms that measured the impact of standards-based grading on student
achievement and stakeholders perceptions of SBG were considered. Participants included
students, parents, and teachers at the primary or secondary level in the United States or Canada.
Very little research directly links standards-based grading to an increase in student achievement.
Students, parents, and teachers generally agree that standards-based grading better informs
parents of a students proficiency and achievement in a class. Limited participation rates in these
studies call into question their findings on perceptions of standards-based grading. Stakeholders
indicate the need for professional development and improvement in training parents and students
how to read and standards-based progress reports. Further research is needed to measure the
impact of standards-based grading in the classroom and its effect on student achievement before
standards-based grading should be implemented in more states. Although limited, research
supports the implementation of standards-based grading practices in the classroom and future
administrators should seek to gain experience in using standards-based grading by implementing
in their own classrooms.
Keywords: standards-based grading, traditional grading, achievement, perceptions

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Introduction
In the field of education, grading (using both formative and summative evaluations) is a
foundational practice that teachers use to measure student growth and inform teaching practices.
Subsequently, reporting refers to how the results of grading and assessments are communicated
to students, parents, and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, a large variation exists among
educators regarding their grading and reporting practices. McMillan (2001) found that secondary
teachers used academic achievement as the primary factor in determining grades, but also found
significant use of a hodgepodge of factors including effort, participation, eternal benchmarks,
and extra credit among middle and high school teachers. As a result, the meaning of a grade is
difficult to interpret by parents, students, or stakeholders (Munoz and Guskey, 2015). Hanover
Research (2011) supports these findings by arguing that traditional grading systems utilize
factors such as extra credit, behavior, giving zeros as a punishment or grading homework,
formative assessments, or on a curve to determine grades. As a result, traditional systems of
grading communicate many messages to stakeholders using a single letter grade. Under No Child
Left Behind and more recently, the push to adopt Common Core State Standards, standardsbased curriculum and standardized assessments are increasingly implemented in school districts
across the United States. As a result, grading practices must also change to better reflect student
performance and achievement measured against these standards.
Standards-based grading [SBG] and standards-based progress reports [SBPRs] is an
approach to grading that has been gaining momentum in the United States in recent years. A
recent article from The New York Times noted that the movement to the system of SBG and
SBPRs has been flourishing in school districts around the United States, and that this push
marks the, latest frontier in a 20-year push to establish rigorous academic standards (Hu,

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

2009). As SBG gains support in classrooms and school districts across the United States, it is
important to examine the components of SBG and the impact this practice has on the classroom.
SBG is a grading practice that eliminates student behavior factors students grades, and
emphasizes academic performance measured against standards (Hanover Research, 2011).
Hanover Research (2011) identified the following key components evident in most SBG
classrooms:

Students are graded entirely on the most recent summative assessments, formative
assessments are not graded, by measuring progress and proficiency on standards.

Students can redo summative assessments until they demonstrate proficiency.

Rubrics are the primary grading instrument that teachers use to grade on a
numerical scale, usually using numbers 1 to 4, rather than A, B, C, D, and F.

Guskey and Bailey (2001) identified two shortcomings with standards-based grading. First, the
amount of time most teachers will devote to implementing this system is demanding. Second,
parents may become frustrated with trying to understand a standards-based progress report
[SBPR]. Haptonstall (2010) noted an additional problem arises when teachers fail to effectively
communicate to students how indicators or measurement instruments used to assess students
level of mastery against standards. At the same time, effective communication will allow
students to monitor their progress, celebrate successes, and identify areas for improvement. In
addition, teachers can more easily communicate with parents concerning specific areas of
concern regarding a student. The most significant advantage of using SBG is that teachers can
accurately determine learning deficiencies in individual students; teachers can then differentiate
and scaffold instruction to provide continued opportunities for student growth. As a result, SBG
should lead to higher achievement scores measured by standardized test scores. This literature

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

review will examine existing research on stakeholders perceptions of SBG and the impact of
SBG on student achievement in the primary and secondary classrooms. The results of this
literature review will identify areas for continued research as well as summarize important
findings from research in the past fifteen years.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this literature review, the following terms are defined as follows:
Standards-based grading-A system of grading that, involves measuring a students
proficiency on well-defined course objectives (Scriffiny, 2008).
Traditional grading- A system of grading used by many teachers that communicates
student achievement by combining academic achievement, academic performance, and/or
behavioral factors such as student effort, participation, or behavior (Hanover Research, 2011).
Methods
Research for this review primarily consisted of electronic searches for potential articles of
primary research or secondary sources related to the topic using JSTOR, ERIC, and ProQuest.
Combinations of the following search terms were used: standards-based grading, grading
practices, achievement, perception, and assessment. Perhaps due to this topics specificity and
the recent growth in SBG, a limited number of original studies were located and an expanded
search over 15 years of research was needed. Only peer-reviewed sources from the past 15 years
related to primary or secondary level classrooms were considered; all undergraduate or graduate
level studies were excluded. Potential articles were scanned for evidence that related standardsbased grading to student achievement or the perceptions of SBG among stakeholders. Additional
secondary sources were used to build background information and the Google search engine was
used to identify non-peer reviewed sources for consideration.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Table 1 summarizes eleven studies that analyzed the impact of SBG on student
achievement in primary or secondary classrooms, and the effect of stakeholders perceptions on
the implementation of SBG practices in schools. Overall, the sample sizes are quite large,
include administrators, teachers, parents, and students, and include both qualitative and
quantitative findings. As a result, the following research that identifies a positive correlation
between SBG and measuring student achievement must be taken seriously; and offers encourage
for future researchers and school stakeholders to find answers to difficult questions identified
from stakeholders perceptions of SBG.
Table 1
Impact of Standards-Based Grading and Reporting among U.S. classrooms (2001-2015)
Study
Greene
(2015)

Participants
200 7th and 8th
grade students
divided between 2
SBG schools and
2 traditional
grading schools in
Missouri.
Teachers and
administrators
from these schools
were interviewed.

Guskey,
Swan, & Jung
(2011)

Teachers, families
and guardians of
2,093 students in
grades k-5 and 6-8
from three diverse
school districts in
Kentucky.

Design
Quantitative data was
randomly collected from 2
SBG schools and 2
traditional grading schools
that compared students
grades to standardized test
results from Missouri
Assessment Program
(MAP) in math and
language arts. Qualitative
data was collected by
asking 15 teachers each
from 2 schools 7 freeresponse questions and 2
administrators from the
same school 10 freeresponse questions.
Two report cards, one
traditional and one SBPR,
were sent home following
the first and second 9week quarters. Results
from a survey sent out to
parents at the beginning of
the school year were
compared to results at the
end of the second 9-week
quarter.

Findings
Qualitative data found that teachers and
administrators indicated strong beliefs that
SBG more accurately measures students
proficiency than traditional methods, easier
to differentiate instruction, and removes
nonacademic factors from students grades.
Teachers are frustrated with lack of
accountability in homework and in test
preparation, limited professional
development, and parent concerns.
Quantitative data showed no link between
SBG predicting MAP scores compared to
traditional grading methods.

59% of teachers responded and almost all

teacher respondents stated that SBG took
more time, but provided clearer information
that improved communication of grades
with families. 45% of families responded
and by a wide margin preferred SBPRs to
traditional report cards.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Haptonstall
(2010)

11,845 students,
grades 6-10, from
5 school districts
in Colorado

Knaack,
Kreuz, &
Zawlocki
(2011)

Students and
parents from 1
urban middle
school and 1 rural
elementary school
in Illinois

Lee, Liu,
Amo, &
Wang (2014)

3,764 students
from 775 schools
in 40 states in
grades 5 and 8 for
reading and 1,874
students from 615
schools in 40
states in grades 5
and 8
1,483 teachers
from 6-12th grade
science, English,
social studies, and
mathematics
classrooms from
53 schools in
seven urban
Virginia school
districts.
82,591 student in
records in grades
3-5 from 101
schools in North
Carolina. 5 focus
groups comprised
of 33 teachers, 3
instructional
resource teachers,
and 1 principal

McMillan
(2001)

Paeplow
(2011)

The Colorado School

Assessment Program
(CSAP) was used to
measure student
achievement in math,
reading, writing, and
science.
Pre-intervention and postintervention surveys using
a 5 statement Likert scale
were sent out to parents
and students. Students
perception of teacher
fairness in grading and
parents perceptions of
teachers ability to explain
a students grade were
measured.
The rigor of state
standards and teacher
standards were measured
against teacher ratings of
student proficiency and
student achievement
scores based on the ECLSK assessment in
mathematics and reading.
A questionnaire was sent
to all teachers to discover
the similar and different
approaches to grading and
assessment.

1 district studied used SBG systems and 4

districts used traditional grading systems.
The SBG district significantly outperformed
the other districts in reading and science. No
correlation between ELL, low SES, or
Hispanic subgroups in the SBG school and
achievement.
After implementing SBG at the middle
school, a 17% increase in students indicate
they strongly agree believe teachers
grades are fair and an increase number of
students believe they understand teacher
expectations. Parent satisfaction with
teacher ability to explain student grades rose
from 21% to 33% in the strongly agree
rating.

Quantitative data
compared end-of-grade
scores in mathematics and
reading to sub-populations
of students to look for bias
in grading. Qualitative
data was collected from
focus groups using
demographic
questionnaires and openended discussion
questions.

Teachers overall preferred SBG to

traditional grading. Strong correlation
between SBG classroom grades and
standardized test scores indicating both
scores accurately assess student proficiency
on state standards. No correlation between
ethnicity, social status, and SBG grading
bias. 2nd quarter SBG grades accurately
predict scores on end-of-grade standardized
tests.

The rigor of teacher standards measured

how high teachers grading standards of
student achievement in reading and math.
Higher teacher standards lead to an increase
in student achievement. The greater the
increase in rigor of teacher standards lead to
greater increases in student achievement,
and vice versa.
Most secondary level teachers indicate that
they use a number of different factors to
determine a students grade including
participation (75%), extra credit (11%),
effort and behavior (63%%), work habits
(61%), and completion of homework thats
not graded (72%). Percentages based on
responses to the following indicators:
Completely, Extensively, Quite a bit, Some.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Peters &
Buckmiller
(2014)

Building
administrators at 3
schools that
differed in size,
location, and
demographics

45-60 minute, semistructured, face-to-face

interviews and field notes
taken during the
interviews provided
qualitative insight.

Schoen,
Cebulla,
Finn, & Fi.
(2003)

High school, 40
math teachers and
their 1,466
students in 26
schools from Iowa

Stephens
(2010)

636 teachers in
7th-12th grade
language arts and
English
classrooms in
rural Nebraska

Pre- and post-tests used to

measure student
achievement using the
Iowa Test of Educational
Development (ITED-Q),
classroom observations,
school demographics, and
a teacher questionnaire
concerning background
experiences.
A 32-item, four-section
survey using a five-point
Likert-scale was used to
determine teacher
perceptions and practices
of their grading and
assessment practices.

Swan,
Guskey, &
Jung (2014)

383 teachers and

115 parent of
guardian
households from
two middle
schools in
Kentucky

Tierney,
Simon, &
Charland
(2011)

77 mathematics
teachers in 10th
grade in Englishlanguage, SBG
schools in Ontario,
Canada

One traditional and one

SBPR report cards were
sent home to households
for the first and second
quarters. Parents and
teachers completed
surveys comparing the two
report cards using a 4 item
rating scale.
A 47item Likert-style,
checklist, and open-ended
survey; 5 teachers were
selected for individual
interviews.

8
Online grading programs do not support
SBG, and are an impediment to
implementation. Small, but vocal groups of
stakeholders went to great lengths to stop
SBG implementation. Increased perception
that homework is no longer important
among students and parents. Traditional
grading background for most stakeholders
provides fear of the unknown with SBG.
Growth in student achievement was
associated with assessments using student
interviews and grading practices that
focused more on academic outcomes and
less on attendance, attitude, or work habits.

The average respondent indicated they

frequently use standards to set course
objectives, yet 80% indicate student
performance on standards was not a part of
the report card. Younger teachers reported
higher rates of using formative assessments
in grading. Teachers with 21-25 years of
experience or more only sometimes or
frequently retaught to mastery. Teachers
over 30 frequently averaged scores
together. Effort, attendance, and behavior
used by all subgroups in grading to various
degrees. Teachers with less experience use
exemplars of student work less
frequently.
Teachers spent on average 2-3 hours to
complete SBPRs, but indicated the value in
SBPRs was worth the extra time. Parent
results indicated a positive reception of
SBPRs, but indicated some confusion over
the terms used to measure student
proficiency on the SBPRs.
32.5% of teaches considered effort in
calculating students grades. Between
81.8% and 87% of teachers did not use
attitude or participation in calculating
grades. Teachers lowered grades for late
assignments (11.7%) or incomplete

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Welsh,
D'Agostino,
& Kaniskan,
(2013)

Third and Fifth

grade teachers
from 11
elementary
schools in one
suburban area of
southwestern
United States and
3,026 students
from roughly 80
classrooms

Standards-based report
card grades, state test
scores, and teacher
interviews over a 3-year
time period were
compared in the subject
areas of reading, writing,
and mathematics.

9
assignments (49.4%).
State standardized test scores and standardsbased progress reports were moderately
associated.

Findings
The studies summarized in Table 1 largely indicate that SBG has a positive impact in the
classroom and on stakeholders. Among SBG schools, researchers identified a significant impact
on student achievement measured by standardized assessment scores compared to schools that
use traditional grading models (Haptonstall 2010; Schoen et al. 2003; Lee et al. 2014). However,
Greene (2015) differed with Paeplow (2011) on the ability of SBG to predict standardized test
scores with greater accuracy than traditional grading methods. Greenes (2015) small sample size
of 200 students may call into question the accuracy of those findings. Paeplows (2011) study,
although a much larger sample size of 82,591 students, is limited because all participants were
from SBG schools and no comparison was conducted to measure the same accuracy of
traditional grading schools. The teachers surveys in Paeplows (2011) study indicated difficulty
in removing emotion from their grading practices. Therefore, Paeplows conclusion that SBG
practices accurately predict standardized assessment scores may be questioned. The overall
number of studies that seek to measure the effect of SBG on student achievement is limited.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

10

The studies reviewed in Table 1 summarize a significant number of data regarding

stakeholders perceptions of SBG. Most of these studies conducted research through surveys;
however, most are limited due to the low response rate. Of the 636 teachers mailed surveys,
Stephens (2010) experienced a 49.1 percent response rate. Only 19.2 percent of males responded
compared to 80.1 percent of females. The low response rates raise questions as to the validity of
the studys findings. Similarly, low response rates in Guskey et al. (2011) and Swan et al. (2014)
may have inflated the overall positive perceptions of teachers and parents towards SBG because
of the unknown thoughts of the participants who did not respond. Unlike the limited amount of
research on the possible link between SBG and student achievement, research measuring and
summarizing the perceptions of stakeholders towards SBG is much more plentiful.
Discussion
The aim of this review was to identify research on the impact of standards-based grading
on achievement in the primary and secondary classrooms. Even though the SBG movement has
been gaining momentum in the last decade, there is very little research. As a result, little
evidence exists that connects SBG with an increase in student learning or achievement. While
teachers perceptions of SBG indicate a belief that SBG more accurately reflects student learning
and identifies areas for student improvement (Greene, 2015), research is needed to determine the
benefit, if any, of teachers ability to differentiate, adjust, and scaffold lessons using SBG to
increase student learning. The next logical step is to conduct multiple studies that compare
traditional grading and SBG schools by measuring student standardized test scores across
different states.
The research considered in this review did not identify any findings of a link between
teacher perceptions of standards-based grading (whether positive or negative) and student

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

11

achievement. It can be assumed that many teachers due to experience, stubbornness, educational
philosophy, or level of professional development will be resistant towards implementing a
standards-based approach to grading in their classroom. In districts with an established policy of
standards-based grading, research measuring student achievement against teacher perceptions of
standards-based grading would be beneficial towards understanding the need for increased
professional development, collaboration, or other support.
Additional research comparing different approaches among teachers using standardsbased grading should be strongly investigated moving forward. Based on standardized test
results, Welsh et al. (2013) identified a discrepancy where teachers appear to grade less
rigorously in reading and writing, and more rigorously in mathematics. Compared to
standardized test results, teachers were also inconsistent in assessing student performance and
assigning the appropriate performance level category. Ambiguous terminology in describing
student performance may account for this discrepancy, but additional research investigating the
effect of multiple approaches to standards-based grading is needed to assess the impact of SBPRs
on student achievement and the stakeholders perceptions of this grading practice. Furthermore,
many teachers that use SBG continue to use factors such as behavior, attendance, participation,
and homework in determining grades (Tierney et al., 2011; Stephens, 2010). A true SBG
approach does not include these factors. Administrators and teachers must conduct continued
professional development and training on SBG to eliminate these factors in grading. If teachers
and administrators conclude that some measure of attendance, behavior, homework, or
participation be included in students grades, then a separate report should be generated to
measure students performance in those areas.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

12

School districts or individual teachers considering a transition to SBG must ensure

enough support and training is provided; and that parents and students have bought into the
change. Because SBG and generating SBPRs require more time from teachers than traditional
grading (Guskey et al., 2011; Swan et al., 2014), due partly because online grading programs do
not support SBG (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014). Teachers need support through training and
professional development opportunities to successfully implement SBG. Also, the fear of the
unknown among teachers and parents is an impediment to implementation (Peters & Buckmiller,
2014). Although not included in Table 1 because the article is not peer-reviewed, Proulx et al.
(2012) examined the district-wide adoption of SBG in Omaha Public Schools in the fall of 2010.
Based on their schools experience, the lead administrator combated the fear of the unknown by
engaging parent and students in the implementation process through focus groups, meetings
between parents and teachers, and sessions and documentation that explain SBG. Student
accustomed to receiving As may receive lower grades using SBG and stakeholders must be
made aware of this possibility (Proulx et al., 2012). Research by Peters and Buckmiller (2014)
indicate there is an increase in perception among students that homework is no longer important
in SBG classrooms. While SBG can lead to increased student achievement, careful consideration
must be given to ensure successful implementation.
Conclusion
Standards-based grading is an approach to grading that seeks to correct traditional
grading practices by eliminating factors such as behavior, extra credit, attendance, participation,
and formative assessments from students grades. Due to the limited number of studies, research
concerning the impact of SBG on student achievement is limited. However, when compared to
traditional grading practices, most stakeholders approve of the implementation of SBG in the

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

13

classroom (Knaack et al., 2011; Guskey et al., 2011). SBG faces certain barriers that can disrupt
implementation; including, fear of the unknown (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014), lack of training
and professional development (Guskey et al., 2011), small parent groups determined to stop
implementation (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014), ambiguous terminology (Welsh et al., 2013), and
discrepancies in SBG practices among teachers (Tierney et al., 2011). Additional research is
needed to conclude SBG has a positive impact on student achievement before widespread
implementation should be more broadly encouraged by educators, politicians, and families.
Advocates for SBG face an uphill battle because traditional grading practices are so engrained in
many educators and stakeholders due mostly to past personal experiences. However, if more
teachers and administrators take the initiative to implement SBG in their classrooms to gain
experience, and more research is conducted to determine the impact of SBG and best practices
for implementation, the future of SBG is bright.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

14

References
Docan-Morgan, T. (2006). Positive and negative incentives in the classroom: An analysis of
grading systems and student motivation. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 6(2), 21-40.
Elikai, F., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2010). An examination of the impact of grading policies on
students achievement. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(4), 677.
Greene, G. L. (2015). An analysis of the comparison between classroom grades earned with a
standards-based grading system and grade-level assessment scores as measured by the
missouri assessment program.(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3737088)
Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M., & Jung, L. A. (2011). GRADES that mean something: Kentucky
develops standards-based report cards. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 52-57.
Haptonstall, K. G. (2010). An analysis of the correlation between standards-based, nonstandards-based grading systems and achievement as measured by the colorado student
assessment program (CSAP) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3397087)
Hanover Research. (2011). Effective grading practices in the middle school and high school
environments. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/va01000586/centricity/domain/63/hanover_research_effect
ive_grading_practices_in_the_middle_school_and_high_school_environments.pdf
Hu, W. (2009, March 24). Report cards give up As and Bs for 4s and 3s. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/education/25cards.html?_r=0

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

15

Knaack, S., Kreuz, A., & Zawlocki, E. (2011) Using standards-based grading to address
students' strengths and weaknesses Available from ERIC. (1018478818; ED531172).
Retrieved from
http://0search.proquest.com.eaglelink.cornerstone.edu/docview/1018478818?accoun
tid=10269.
Lee, J., Liu, X., Amo, L. C., & Wang, W. L. (2013;2014). Multilevel linkages between state
standards, teacher standards, and student achievement: Testing external versus internal
standards-based education models. Educational Policy, 28(6), 780.
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades That Show What Students Know. Educational
Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, Va: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McMillan, J. H. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20-32.
Munoz, M. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve
education: Making clear linkages between standards, assessment, grading, and reporting
that are concisely reported work for the betterment of ALL students. Phi Delta Kappan,
96(7), 64.
Paeplow, C. G. (2011). Easy as 1, 2, 3: Exploring the implementation of standards-based
grading in wake county elementary schools. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest. (3497209)

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

16

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). Retrieved from http://www.lindenwood.edu/ela/issue04/buckmiller.html
Proulx, C., Spencer-May, K., & Westerberg, T. (2012). Moving to standards-based grading:
Lessons from omaha. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Ruegg, R. (2016). The effect of assessment of process after receiving teacher feedback.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 199-212.
Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & 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.
Scriffiny, P. L. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Alexandria: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest. (3497209)
Stephens, S. E. (2010). 7th12th grade English/language arts teachers and their classroom
grading practices: Investigating the use of standards-based grading in nebraska's rural
classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3427314)
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.
Tierney, R. D., Simon, M., & Charland, J. (2011). Being fair: Teachers' interpretations of
principles for standards-based grading. The Educational Forum, 75(3), 210-227.

STANDARDS-BASED GRADING AND ACHIEVEMENT

Welsh, M. E., D'Agostino, J. V., & Kaniskan, B. (2013). Grading as a reform effort: Do
StandardsBased grades converge with test scores? Educational Measurement: Issues
and Practice, 32(2), 26-36.

17