A STUDY OF SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL ELEMENTARY
TEACHER AND ELEMENTARY ADMINISTRATOR
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GRADES AS

I COMPARED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS

OF PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
WILLIAM G. SCHARFFE
1977

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF SELECTED PUBLIC SCHOOL ELEMENTARY
TEACHER AND ELEMENTARY ADMINISTRATOR ATTITUDES
TOWARD THE USE OF GRADES AS COMPARED WITH

SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PUPIL PROGRESS
REPORTING

presented by

WiTIiam G. Scharffe

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph 0 D 0 degree in EducatTOHaI

Administration

/ F K)
\.--/

~— at (4/..1/ .--‘ ‘n/r (6 «16"
,-
r /

Major professor

Date July 25, 1977

0—7 639

 

  
    

_m‘ A..- flag-a..- h

L [B R A R Y
MiCIIIg; .atc
[JIM y

    
   

 

 

 

." V.
r ~ ‘ Z" I
l‘. ‘ m J
‘ ""‘ ’ .. I
‘1 I (M a p

1&6 3? 1996.

NR 3 5.;2'

 

\

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF SELECTED
PUBLIC SCHOOL ELEMENTARY TEACHER AND
ELEMENTARY ADMINISTRATOR
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GRADES
AS COMPARED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS
OF PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING

By
William G. Scharffe

The researcher approached the question of elementary teacher
and administrator attitudes toward the use of A B C D F grading as
those attitudes compared with attitudes toward seven selected
alternative forms of reporting. The alternatives included: Blanket
Grading, Check List Reporting, Credit-No Credit, Narrative Reports,
Parent Conferences, Pass-Fail and Self Evaluation(' Not only were
attitudes sought, but the rationale for those attitudes. Five
demographic variables were applied. They included: sex, degree(s)
held, grade level taught or administrative post held, years of paid
experience in education and goegraphic location (state).

A selected sample of 1,018 elementary teachers, grades pre-
Kindergarten through six, and 107 elementary administrators was taken.
Sampling was by random selection of four states from initial groupings
of a selected northern, 3 selected mid-eastern and 5 selected southern

states. Those states selected at random from the original groupings

William G. Scharffe
were Georgia, Michigan Tennessee and West Virginia. Thirty schools
were then randomly selected from each state and a commitment sought
from the building principals for participation in the study. A response
rate of 58.91% was obtained from the total number of available
teachers, 82.94% from the available administrators and 86.15% from
the schools as separate units.

Multivariate analysis of variance of repeated measurements,
frequency counting, Chi square analyses of correlations, standard
deviation augmented by application of Cramer's D for magnitude of
association, and frequency distribution were used in the analysis of
data.

Results indicated that elementary teachers and administrators
surveyed favor the use of parent conferences as a reporting method
regardless of the type of written report which might be offered by
the school.

The A B C D F method, in being chosen as the second most
preferable reporting system, was held in high esteem as a reporting
practices by the respondents, although they failed to agree that
"A B C D F is a darn good reporting method which hasn't been bettered."
'Check List Reporting and Narrative Reporting were, also, indicated by
many respondents as being suitable for elementary use.

Blanket Grading, Pass-Fail, Credit-No Credit and Self
evaluation were not conisdered by respondents to be as valuable

for elementary reporting purposes.

William G. Scharffe

It was found that teachers and administrators did not differ
significantly in their attitudes toward reporting practices.

Teachers and administrators, both as separate and combined
groups, listed the interests of students as being the primary
rationale behind their attitudes toward reporting practices. The
interests of the parents was the least often cited rationale for
selecting reporting practices thus leading to the conclusion that the
elementary educators surveyed see reporting practice decisions as more
of an in-house determination.

The conclusion was reached by the researcher that the
elementary teachers and administrators surveyed from Georgia,
Michigan, Tennessee and West Virginia, felt’quite strongly that Parent
Conferences are a necessary element in the reporting process and that
A B C D F, Check List Reporting and Narrative Reporting are
acceptable as long as Parent Conferences are continued.

It was found by the researcher that the expressed attitudes
toward Parent Conferences, A B C D F, Check List Reporting and
Narrative Reporting are very similar among most respondents.
Essentially, the same rationale for selecting these methods was cited
by the respondents althoug the A B C D F method idd not produce as much
unanimity of feeling as Parent Conferences, Check Lists and

Narratives.

A STUDY OF SELECTED
PUBLIC SCHOOL ELEMENTARY TEACHER AND
ELEMENTARY ADMINISTRATOR
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE USE OF GRADES
AS COMPARED WITH SELECTED ALTERNATIVE FORMS
OF PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING

By

William G. Scharffe

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for a degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration and
Higher Education

1977

6 lo "7 c 13>

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When this document goes to print and a binding is affixed,
only one name will appear indicating authorship. I suppose that
must be the case, for if all the names of the people who helped in
the completion of this study were included on the cover, the gold
leaf supply at the bindery would be sorely depleted. They deserve
their names alongside mine, but since that cannot be done, I hope to
(affer appropriate, and very humble, thanks to the many people who
tassisted so greatly along what often seemed like an endless road.

Dr. Louis Romano, Committee Chairman, deserves uncounted
21ccolades for his quiet, gentle handling of problems big and small.
Flis willingness to listen, encourage and assist was limitless. Dr.
[Donald Hamachek, who encouraged me to explore further and challenge
rnyself deserves all the thanks I can give. He was the first
Flrofessor of education I ever had and his examples of teaching
genius over the years will never be forgotten. Dr. Sam Moore, who
Stepped into a vacant committee slot during the last year of my work,
'is probably one of the best examples of administrative competence
ever to grace the field. His subtle demand for excellence was
forever before .me and will continue to prompt me long after this
(iocument has been published. Dr. T. H. Patten, cognate adviser

'From the School of Labor and Industrial Relations, also filled a void

ii

in the committee during the last year. His total willingness to
assist in any way went beyond the call. He made me feel very valuable
as an individual and, through his teachings, gave me insights into
the field of compensation and incentives which few people ever find
through other, less dedicated instructors.

My typist, confidante, unofficial adviser and organizer,
Mrs. Lorraine Hull deserves roses for her continuing assistance over
a period of six long years. Her tireless work in preparing this work

in its final form can never be truly repaid. I will miss working

with her.

So many others come to mind: Dan Salter of the Michigan
State University Printing Service made the questionnaire a reality;
Dru Lee Olsen of the University Testing Service provided the road
Inap for the design of the instrument and saw to it that the scoring
vvas mde possible, Mrs. Beverly Musolf of the Test Scoring Office
vvorked beyond expectations to accomodate the job of scoring 3,375
[)ages not once but twice.

Mrs. Suwatana Sookpokakit of the Office of Research
(Zonsultation deserves more thanks than can be given in these few
'lines. It was her competence and knowledge which made the analysis
()f data possible and, before that, the sampling procedure a realistic
Eipproach. Her work on Saturdays, Sundays and in the evenings made it

T)ossible to complete the project on schedule. Without her it never

Vvould have been finished on time.

Mr. and Mrs. Andrew McEntee will receive more suitable thanks
at a later date for providing me with a place to live during my
residency. They are a very dear and cherished part of our family and
without them this whole project would not have been possible. The
door was always open and the coffee pot always on.

The following acknowledgments are the most difficult to write.
There is so much emotion involved in them that the words often find it
hard to move from mind to paper. I shall start with my children,
Billy, our youngest who never really could figure out why banging at
a typewriter was sometimes first and playing with him second. I can
assure him that that will change. Susie, our oldest, who did
understand even though it sometimes made her sad. Disneyland is coming
honey and we'll have a ball!

, My Mother, who through her example of optimism and display of
[Dhysical fortitude in battling a crippling disease, has provided an
“inspiration Which is unmatched. Her moral support through some tough
tzimes made the way seem easier.

To my lovely wife of 12 years,‘my inspiration, my adviser,
niy fortitude over the years, I offer my most loving thanks for the tons
()f understanding, love and devotion. Thank you, honey, for keeping the
f’ires burning and for giving the encouragement which was so often needed.
C1urs is a very special relationship and I mean it completely when I say
that I could not have done it without you.

To my Father, William E. Scharffe, who left this earth on
(Jctober 31, 1975 and who so very much wanted to be the first to call

The "Doctor". This work is dedicated to his memory.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................... viii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...................... x
Chapter
I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................ 1
Introduction ..................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................. 2
Significance of the Problem ............. 3
Definition of Terms ................. 5
Possible Delimitations of the Study ......... 6
Review of Related Literature ............. 7
Objectives ...................... 7
Analysis of Data ................... 9
Overview ...................... 11
II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ 12
A Definition and History of Grades, Grading and
Reporting ...................... 13
Historical Development of Grades and Grading ..... 16
The Case for the Use of Grades (A B C D F) ...... 22
The Case Against A B C D F .............. 29
Disscussion and Definition of Various Selected
Alternatives to the Use of Grades .......... 4O
Pass-Fail ...................... 41
Credit—No Credit .......... , ......... 43
Blanket Grading ................... 45
Self Evaluation ................... 47
Parent Conferences .................. 49
Narrative Reports .................. 53
Check List Reporting ................. 59
Effect of Teacher Attitudes on Grades Given to
Students ....................... 63
Summary ....................... 67
III DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHSES OF THE STUDY ...... 72
Population and Sample ................ 72

Chapter Page

Development of the Survey Instrument ........ 74
Validation of the Survey Instrument ......... 79
Statistical Methods Used in Data Analysis ...... 90
Summary ....................... 93
IV ANALYSES OF DATA AND FINDING OF THE STUDY ....... 95
Statistical Methods ................. 95
Statistical Findings ................ 96
Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Repeated
Measurements .................... 97
Cross Tabulation Technique ............. 102
Chi Square Analyses ................. 108
Frequency Counting ................. 111
Frequency Distribution of Respondents ........ 116
Frequency Distribution of Selected Items ...... 116
Summary of Findings ................. 119

V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIOS FOR FURTHER STUDY. . . . 123

Summary of Rationale for the Study ......... 123
Summary of Methodology ............... 124
Sample ....................... 125
Data Collection ................... 126
Data Analysis .................... 126
Limitations ..................... 127
Conclusions ..................... 128
Recommendations for Further Study .......... 131
Reflections ..................... 133
l\ppendix
A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, PILOT FORM ............ 137
B. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, PRINTED FORM ........... 144

C. TABLE--FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR RESPONSES TO
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS .................. 148

D. LETTER TO BUILDING PRINCIPALS AND RETURN POSTCARD
SHOWING COMMITMENT TO THE STUDY ............ 155

E. FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS ORIGINALLY CONTRACTED . . . 157
F. LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO PRINCIPALS .......... 158
G. FOLLOW-UP LETTERS TO PRINCIPALS ............ 159

vi

Appendix Page

H. LETTERS TO TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS USED IN THE
INITIAL INTERVIEWS FOR INSTRUMENT DESIGN, INSTRUMENT
DESIGN INTERVIEW FORM AND ATTITUDINAL COMMENT POOL
FROM INITIAL INTERVIEWS ................ 161

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 170

vii

Table

2.1

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Rankings of Categories of Information Parents and
Teachers ....................... 51

Rankings of Specific Information Within Six Categories 52
Number of Schools Selected and Committing by State . . 75

Number of Responding Schools, Teachers and
Administrators by State ................ 78

Number of Teachers and Administrators Actually
Available in Each State in the Responding Schools
and the Percentage of Response by State ........ 79

Opposing Items of a General Evaluation Nature for the
Eight Reporting Practices Selected .......... 80

Opposing Items of Student Concern for the Eight
Reporting Practices Selected ............. 81

Range of Grade Levels Covered and Number of Respondents
of Each Level-Including Administrators-In the Pilot

Study ......................... 84
Opposing Responses and Percent of Match for General
Evaluation Items ................... 85
Opposing Responses and Percent of Match for Student
Concern Items ..................... 87
Pilot Study Responses to the "Rankings Items,"

Item Number 49 .................... 88
Design Matrix for Repeated Measurements Analysis of
Variance ....................... 98
Results of the Repeated Measurements Analysis ..... 99

Magnitude of Differences Found in Repeated
Measurements Analysis ................. 100

viii

Table Page

4.4 Cross Tabluation Showing Rationale for Responses to
Questions 41 - 48 of the Survey Instrument Based Upon
High or Low Rankings of Reporting Methods in Item 49
of the Instrument ................... 104 .

4.5 Effect of Demographic Fariables on Attitudes Toward
Reporting Methods. Teachers and Administrators
Combined for a Total of 1,125 Responses ........ 110

4.6 Teacher and Administrator Ranking of Eight Reporting
Methods Showing Mean and Standard Deviation of Ranking 112

4.7 Differences in Teacher and Administrator Ranking of
Eight Reporting Methods ................ 113

4.8 Combined Raw Totals, Percentages and Ranking of Eight
Reporting Methods by Teachers and Administrators . . . 115

ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustrations Page

2.l A Typical Percentage Marking Report Common in
The Late 1800's and into the Early 1900's ..... 18

2.2 A Typical Computer Assisted Narrative Report
Produced by the CARP System Developed and Reported
By Duane M. Giannangelo and Kwi Yoon Lee, Memphis

State University Laboratory School, 1975 ..... 55
2.3 A Sample of a Development Aptitude Test Computer

Assisted Narrative Report ............. 57
2.4 A Typical Check List Report Form ......... 61

2.5 A Comprehensive Report Form that Combines Dual
Marking and Checklists of Objectives ....... 62

Chapter I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction

In 1912, two researchers, Daniel Starch and Edward C. Elliott,

reported the results of a study they had made which explored the element

of teacher biases in marking. Starch and Elliott maintained that they

had found indication of distinct and wide variances in the marks accorded

to a given English paper by a sample of English teachers in 200 '
Their report marked the beginning of a
The

different secondary schools.
debate concerning the value and validity of grades (or marks).

debate is still being carried on today.
Since 1912, the arguments both for and against the use of

grades have changed little. ’Investigations of the literature show that

lflOSt authors in the grading and evaluation field present almost the

same arguments. A few, such as Robert Ebel, have been bold enough to

have outwardly supported grades, while others, such as Sidney B. Simon,
have led the fight to remove grades as a method of reporting pupil
PYTDQress. The works of Bradfield, Morgdock, Donald J. BroWn, Dressel,
Mehréhs, Lehniann and TenB'rink, when compared, show little variation in
the presentation of the Cases for or against grades and grading. The

a"Sliument is not new, nor has it changed much since 1912.

When reading either the affirmative or negative case in the
grading debate, however, it becomes obvious that both sides feel that
teachers and administrators, as professionals, have definite attitudes
toward the use of grades. Authors, such as Ebel, who favor grades
make statements which would lead to the belief that teachers and
administrators favor the use of grades because grades help them to do
a better job of teaching and administering of the schools. Kirschenbaum,
Napier and Simon, in stating the negative case, would lead us to believe
that teachers feel grades to be demeaning and essentially useless. For
both sides to equally assume teacher support for their cases is both
confusing and contradictory to logic. Other than personal opinion,
there is a void in the literature when it comes to finding any hard
data to support the contention that "educators" either like or dislike
the use of grades. It is time for an inventory to be taken of teacher
attitudes toward the use of grades in order that education, as a
professional community, might better plan for the direction of future
pupil progress reporting. If teachers are to be questioned on the
grading debate, it only follows that administrative input should, also,
be sought on the question since it is the administrative structure
that so often is directly involved in policy decisions that dictate

grading or reporting practices.
Purpose of the Study

The author's purpose in this study is to determine how

elementary teachers and administrators feel about the use of grades

(or marks) as compared with other selected forms of pupil progress

reporting techniques.

Significance of the Problem

 

Almost everyone connected with public education has been
involved with grades, either as a student or as an instructor. Many
have come to accept grades as a standard part of the educational world.
Grades exist, they are With us in some form or another almost daily.
Since the results of the Starch and Elliott studies were presented,
however, a growing movement has been seen to either abolish or drastically
modify the grading process. All of these attempts at change have been
aimed at objectifying, standardizing or simplifying the grading and
reporting process.

As education moved into the 1960's, the decade of student
power, pressure to eliminate grades began to show marked effects,
especially on the college campuses. The late 1960's saw Yale University,
Michigan State University, Florida Presbyterian, Dartmouth, Bhown, The
University of Wisconsin, Columbia, Case WEStern Reserve, Havgrford,
The OhiobState University, University of Chicago, Penn State, Princeton
and others move to a system of pass-fail or credit-no-credit reporting
for several courses. The mastery or criterion referenced testing
movement also contributed to the abolishment of grades in many public
school districts.

.Statewide assessment programs, such as that in the State of

Michigan, have, also, contributed to the movement away from grades as

a reporting practice, but as the controversy of "to grade or not to grade"
continued, teachers seemed to flow with the tide of administrative or
board policy decisions on grading without much debate. To be sure,
teachers often expressed concern about a new method of reporting if

the alternative presented meant more teacher time or bother, but the
central issue of which method was best for students and parents was

~often left to others for discussion. Also, no profession-wide attempt

was made to determine whether or not teachers and administrators shared
any common beliefs about the value of various grading or reporting
practices.

The works of Hiner, Ebel, Mehrens and EEhmann, Bradfield and
Moredock show support for the A B C D F method in varying degrees.
Authors such as KiEschenbaum, Napier and Simon, Dressel, Robertson,
SEeel, Wrinkle and Dexter,1 conversely, help to build the case against
the A B C D F method. Both camps, however, often carry the assumption
that teachers and administrators are on their side in the debate. No
true inventory of professional opinion on the grading controversy has
been yet presented, however. Teachers and administrators, as a
professional group, have not put forth a collective voice in the

grading debate.

 

1Specific citations from authors mentioned in this chapter
can be found in Chapter II.

Definition of Terms

Public Schools: Public schools refers to schools supported

 

by public tax dollars and excludes schools supported wholly by private
donations, tuitions or fees.

Elementary Teachers; Elementary teachers refers to any of
those persons certificated to teach in grades Kindergarten through at
least grade six and who are actively employed in a public school.

Elementary Administrators: Elementary administrators refers

 

to any of those persons who serve in the capacity of directing the
operation of an elementary school, and who possess the authority to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward or discipline other employees, or responsibility to direct them.

_§:§g§; A judgemental value rating of rank or worth designed
to describe, through the use of some alphabetical or numerical symbol,
a measure of educational achievement. This rating is then used in
making decisions concerning the student's future.

Pass - Fail Reporting: Awarding either a passing or failing
mark in a given course or subject without the use of intermediate
symbols, pluses or minuses.

Credit-No Credit Reporting;_ Assigning either a credit or no
credit mark in a given course of study without the use of intermediate
symbols, pluses or minuses.

Blanket Grade Reporting: The practice of giving a common

letter grade to students in a given course, subject or grade level with

no indication of failure and without the use of pluses or minuses.

Narrative Reporting: The use of a personal letter or computer

 

assisted narrative which describes, in complete sentences, the student's
progress in a given course, course objective, subject or grade level.
Parent Conference Reporting: The practice whereby a teacher
meets on a one-to-one basis with each child's parent(s) to discuss the
child's progress in a given course, subject or grade level and where
grades, check lists, or other reports are discussed and explained.

Check List Reporting: The technique whereby the teacher is

 

furnished a comprehensive set of evaluative comments, both positive
and negative and both affective and cognitive which he or she then
"checks off" as being appropriate for the individual student being
evaluated. Such a check list is then either sent or given to parents
or students.

Self Evaluation Reporting: The reporting practice wherein a

 

studen is responsible for critically evaluting his or her own progress
in a given course, subject or grade level. Such evaluation may or
may not involve teacher input.

Attitude: A predisposition to experience a class of objects
in certain ways; and to act with respect to these objects in a
characteristic fashion; a predisposition to be motivated by, and

to act toward, a class of objects in a predictable manner.

Possible Delimitations of the Study
The validity of the study may be affected by one or more of

the following factors:

7

1. Only elementary (grades K - 6) teachers will be surveyed.

2. Only elementary school administrators will be surveyed.

3. The assumption is made that the individual teachers and
administrators surveyed will respond to the questionnaire with their
true attitudes in regard to reporting practices.

4. The study will not take into consideration community feeling
about reporting procedures and/or the resultant pressure which might

be felt by the respondents to "support" a particular reporting practice.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE~

The review of the literature will include:

1. A definition and history of grades, grading and reporting.

2. The case for the use of grades (A B C D F).

3. The case against the use of grades.

4. Discussion and definition of the various alternative
reporting practices selected for the study with comments from authors
in the field as to the value and worth of the alternatives.

5. Review of the literature concerning the effect of teacher
attitudes toward grades insofar as those attitudes may affect the

grades given to students.

OBJECTIVES
Research Question 1: Do elementary teachers prefer the use

of A B C D F reporting over the use of selected alternative forms of

reporting?

Research Question 2: Do elementary administrators prefer

 

the use of A B C D F reporting over the use of selected alternative
forms of reporting?

Research Question 3: If elementary teachers do prefer the

 

use of one of the selected alternatives over the use of A B C D F,
why does this preference exist?

Research Question 4: If elementary administrators do prefer

 

the use of one of the selected alternatives over the use of A B C D F,
why does this preference exist?

Research Question 5: What correlation exists, significant

 

at the .05 level of confidence, between a teacher's preference for a
particular form of reporting and the teacher's: (1) Sex, (2) Years

of experience, (3) Degree(s) held, (4) Grade level taught, (5) Geographical
locatibn.

Research Question 6: What correlation exists, significant

 

at the .05 level of confidence, between an administrator's preference
for a particular form of reporting and the administrator's: (1) Sex,
(2) Years of experience, (3) Degree(s) held, (4) Geographical
location?

Research Question 7: It shall be hypothesized that: A difference,

0

 

significant at the .05 level of confidence, exists between teachers
and administrators in preference for a particular form of progress

reporting.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

A. Selection of Sample:

 

1.

 

Elementary Teachers: Teachers selected for the sample
were from the faculties of 30 randomly selected schools
in four states. A total of 112 elementary schools were
used in the survey.

Elementary Administrators: Administrators selected for the

 

sample were from the 112 elementary schools selected
for the survey.

The States: Were selected from the following list of

 

northern, mid-eastern, and southern states which, by prior
agreement or information already provided, had given access
to schools for use in the survey.

Northern States: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania (one to

 

be selected at random).

Mid-Eastern States: Maryland, New Jersey, West Virginia

 

(one to be selected at random).

Southern States: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,

 

Mississippi, Tennessee (two of these to be selected at
random).
Random selection from the above available states gives
each available state equal opportunity to be selected.
Random selection of 30 elementary schools within each
state gives each elementary school in each state equal

opportunity for selection.

10

4. Sample Size: Projecting on a basis of 2 teachers per

 

grade level, per school for 120 schools, grades K-6, a
sample size of approximately 1,680 teachers is anticipated
and a sample size of 120 administrators is anticipated.

Distribution of the Survey: Each elementary school selected was to

 

be contacted, through the principal, with a pre-survey letter of
information and request for cooperation. In the event of a
refusal to participate, another school in the state was randomly
selected to replace the school dropped until such time as an
appropriate sample size was reached of 30 schools per state. Of
course, respondent confidentiality was maintained.

Length of the Survey: The survey instrument was designed so as

 

to take approximately 20 mintues to complete. A modified Likert

scale response system was used. Choices for responses ranged

from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". A four point scale

was employed in order to force respondents to either agree or

disagree with the statement given thus avoiding the chance for a
repeated cluster on the man point of the scale. Follow up questions
were used which asked for stated reasons for a particular responses.
Written rationale for responses given were later codified for reporting
of data.

Treatment of the Data: The data was to be programmed through the

 

use of the SPSS statistical computer package available for use in

the Michigan State University C.D.C. 6000 computer. Appropriate

11

F-tests, chi-square correlations and frequency distributions were
used in the program to establish a statistical base for conclusions
drawn. Essentially descriptive statistics were needed. Survey
instruments and mailing packages, along with o-scan scoring for
type to punch card conversion were done through the Michigan State

University Testing Service.

Overview
This chapter has presented an introduction to the problem
and has set forth the research questions to be answered by the author.
An outline of the sampling procedure was given along with a brief
description of the approach to data analysis. The following chapter

presents a review of the literature pertinent to the problem.

Chapter II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

What are grades? How are they used effectively in reporting
pupil progress? Are grades and the grading system sometimes misused
by educators? Why do some educators (and many students) favor the
abolishment of grades? All of these questions, and more like them,
are often being asked within professional education circles today.

In reviewing the literature surrounding the grading controversy, the
focus will be on five major aspects of the topic:

1) A definition and history of grades, grading and reporting.

2) The case for the use of grades (A B C D F)

3) The case against the use of grades.

4) Discussion of the various alternative reporting practices.

5) Discussion of the effect of teacher attitudes toward grades

given to students.

Grades, or marks, have been an element of discussion in educational
circles for several decades. Many efforts at both the national and
local levels have been mounted to abolish grades as a means of
reporting pupil progress. Some of those efforts have met with such
resistance as to have failed completely, while other efforts have
seen some success in that they have moved the schools to institute
alternative reporting systems which often supplant, or , more often,

supplement the traditional grading process.

12

13

This chapter is not designed to come to definite conclusions
about the value of grades. Any such conclusions will be drawn in chapter
IV. This chapter will, rather, attempt to view systematically what
is being said on both sides of the argument and will explore selected
alternative forms of pupil progress reporting. The review will remain
as objective as possible, although it is inevitable that certain biases
will spring forth through the comments of authors in the field.

With respect to the grading question, American Education is in
a quandary. Although the era of mass student demonstrations and
militant displays of dissatisfaction with "the system" seems to have
abated, we, in education, are still being faced daily with questions
from students which challenge our traditions and our rules. Quite
often, the grading system is one of the prime targets for student,
parent and community criticism. Students from the elementary grades
through graduate school often find that their lives revolve repeatedly
around "grades". The recurring question of whether or not the grading
[system is the most useful and realistic form of evaluation reporting is
also often debated amongst teachers, administrators, board members and
departments of education. This chapter will attempt to bring together
some of the best arguments on both sides of the issue, not with an eye
toward resolving the problem, but, more simply, with the purpose of

clearly outlining the thinking in both camps.

CA Definition and History of Grades, Grading and Reporting_

Since most educators have been involved with grades, both as

students and as educators, we have come to accept "grades" as a

14

standard part of our educational world. They (grades) exist; they are
with us and around us in some form or another on a daily basis. Grades
have not always been a part of the American School scene, however.
Their entrance into education is, actually, quite recent in terms of
the overall history of education in America. Before reviewing the
historical development of grading, however, it is necessary to establish
a definition of the term "grades." Such a definition will then stand
as a common ground from which the historical development of grading
can be explored.
Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language_defines
"grade" thusly:
GRADE (grad), n. (Fr.; L. radus, a step, degree, rank.
gradi, to step, walk), 2. a degree in a scale classifying
according to quality, rank, worth, etc. 6. a mark or
rating on an examination, work in a school course, etc.
Grading l. to arrange or classify by distinct steps or
stages; rate according to quality, rank, worth, etc.;
sort. 2. to give a grade (sense 6)
Ebel offers the following definition:
"Marks, of course, are measures of educational achievement.:2
Brown defines grades in relation to their use when he says:....
"Grading practices, although differing widely both within schools and

among many schools thoughout the country, attempt to provide data with

which the student, his parents, teachers, and school administrators

 

2Robert L. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1972), p. 308.

15

make important decisions affecting the student's current educational
status and his future."3

Bradfield and Moredock carry the "use" definition a bit
further by saying: ..... "School marks, on tests, papers, homework
and the semester's work, are symbols of teacher's evaluations of pupil
achievement. As such, they serve to facilitate instruction and guidance,
motivate study, serve as a basis for future planning, for placement,
promotion, and admission, and for prognosis of school and vocational
success."4

In reviewing other authors in the evaluation field, similar
definitional comments are found. Drawing from these various sources,
a composite definition can be attained which, for the purposes of
this study and this chapter will be as follows:

‘GRADE: A judgmental value rating of rank or woth designed
to describe, through the use of some alphabetical or numerical symbol,
a measure of educational achievement. This rating is then used in
making decisions concerning the student's future.

With a composite definition at hand, a history of how "grades"

came into being may now be set forth.

 

3Donald J. Brown, Appraisal Procedures in the Secondary
Schools (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970),
p. 104.

4James M. Bradfield and H. Stewart Moredock, Measurement
and Evaluation in Education (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1957),

p. 213.

 

16

Historical Development of Grades and Grading

Very little was written about grades prior to the 1900's.

This is not to say that grading practices did not exist in some form
before then, but only that the issue was simply not an educational
concern at the time. In the early civilizations, "grades" were
nonexistant as such. Man was judged solely on his real performances.
Either he could hunt game or he could not hunt game. He was either
a good runner, an average runner or could not run at all well.
Similarily, early American Education had little use for anything

like A B C D F. Only the wealthy in America received a good education
in early America and knowledge, although tested by examination, was
transmitted to a select few who were destined to populate the famous
colleges like Harvard, William and Mary, and Yale. Rank-in-Class,
based upon grades, as we know it today, was unimportant. Social rank
was more the determining factor for furthering one's education.

In the mid-19th century, progress evaluations became more evident,
but were mostly descriptive. Kirshenbaum, Simon and Napier explain:...
"The teacher would write down which skills the student could or couldn't
.do. This was done mostly for the student's benefit, since he would not
move to his next subject area until he had mastered the previous one.5

It was not until the last quarter of the 19th century that

pupil evaluation began to take on more meaning in American Education.

 

5Howard Kirschenbaum, Sidney 8. Simon and Rodney W. Napier
Wad-Ja-Get (New York, Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1971), p. 50.

 

17

The number of students entering public high schools
increased rapidly with the passage of compulsory attendance
laws at the elementary level. Between 1870 and 1910, the
number of public high schools increased from 500 to 10,000;
the total number of pupils in public elementary and high
schools rose from 6,871,000 to 17,813,000. Subject areas
in the high schools also became increasingly more specific.

Even though the elementary schools continued to
employ written descriptions when evaluating each student's
skills, the high schools began using percentages or other
similar marking to measure the student's abilities in the
different subject areas. In a gense, this was the beginning
of grading as we know it today.

(See illustration 2.1)

As more and more students graduated from high schools, and more
and more parents found financial resources available to send students
to college, colleges found themselves in a position of having to
develop some sort of criteria for entrance which was based upon high
school performance. The criteria developed were, essentially, two-
fold: First, the student's percentages were considered and, along
with that, his rank-in-class-standing. College entrance requriements,
then, were partially responsible for the ongoing development of grading
systems in the secondary schools.

High schools and elementary schools began to internalize the
"ranking" concept and grades or percentages began to be used as a
means of sorting out students for different curriculum emphasis.

By the turn of the century, percentage grading was becoming

increasingly popular at the secondary school level, but little

 

61bid., p. 51.

18

Illustration 2.1

A typical percentage marking report common in the .
late 1800's and into the early 1900's.

ARTHUR HILL HIGH SCHOOL.

SAHIXA‘V, \VLS'I' SI DIS.

M ntbly Report for the Yeo 1904-1905.

.\mnc c‘ioLL‘d/ (r'rmh' X. .
T T ‘ nus? semi-.31“ T ’ T. TTSEcouo canine;—

. _' t : I I l .5 I ET

STUDIES .—. _ : g ; I. a ,. g

I. C ‘ " . . . "' ° 9 I I t: ' -

"‘ - _' fi‘ fi 1 ' E ' T b- : ’. . t I . 1 . :

j _ .v . - :5 - , = ~ a r. - -: . .. :

: 7, .. '. it '2 - ;_u: _’_

”“557 8330 T ”Yb VOWA'XTWLW PFC

WYWWO’TZE'N fl. I. ‘1 I
XM/ VLTLOO 57‘? FIT '23 XML/II 72%: WV}. 91

A? WWW .77, 703573 {147:er I/Jadmfl
. . j .

Eng; 7.: “1.79%“ eff/”(7% 7.1 bf“ 77. 67-}; T
'7‘ ’ I

E...
I

l I I ' '

. § - z ' I
"LIFDG\"~ \vav't'z- , . . . _ ,. . ,, . ”I .
O o I : .
I l I
‘ I I
Time. Tanlx I

In mum ....... VJ H013” 1'! ~Ifl£7fiwfl' g 5.31;]. ' T

\uy :tnudlng below pas-1031s ll red ink.

\‘ ;

19

controversy about the method arose before the decade of 1910 to 1920.
It was during those years, 1912 to be exact, that Daniel Starch and
Edward Elliott published the findings of their studies in grading
variances among teachers in the academic area of English. Starch
and Elliott found:....."The recent studies of grades have emphatically
directed our attention to the wide variation and the utter absence
of standards in the assignment of values. Such wide differences
are no doubt due in part to a difference in the students and in
the nature of the work, but largely to a difference in the standards
of marking."7

The result of Starch and Elliott's work, along with others of
their time (Dearborn, Finkelstein) caused a movement in education
away from the percentage marking system to scales of 3 or 5 points
or letters which had the effect of broadening the categories for
grading and thus reducing the span of grading variances among teachers.
A natural spin-off of the 5 point (A B C D F) scale was the practice
of "grading on the curve," a method which is still very much in use
today. Also, during the 1920's, a movement was seen toward
utilization of spearate "personality inventories" which, supposedly,
took elements of personal appearance, attitude, etc., out of the

grading process for student achievement. Recent research in the

 

7Daniel Starch, Educational Measurements, (New York, The
Macmillan Company, 1916), p. 3-4.

20

State of Michigan does show that when considering the correlations
between the attitudinal factors in a teacher's decision to give a

grade and certain student characteristics, such as attendance,
appearance, effort, attitude, quiz marks and group reports or

projects, a close relationship exists between the teachers' viewpoints
regarding goals of education and the weighting applied to the above
mentioned student variables.8 A high weighting, for example, was

found in a study by Bonnie J. Steller, for personal appearance and

a high negative loading on the variable of "neatness of work."
Steller's work does point out that characteristics not truly related to
the goals of the educational program do have an influence on the mark

a child receives. Steller's work will be discussed more fully later in
the chapter.

During the 1930's and 1940's, the same two groups who held
opposing views on grading continued to clash - one group wishing to
eliminate grades, the other wishing to keep them, but make them more
objective and scientific. RUnning hand-in-hand with thest two camps
were two other forces; the testing movement, which emphasized the
acquisition of knowledge and the methods of measuring that knowledge;
and the progressives, who stressed the growth of the "total person"
and downplayed the competitiveness associated with grading and testing

of acquired knowledge. The arguments for and against the use of grades

 

8Bonnie J. Steller, The Marking Procedures Used by Public
School Teachers in the State of Michigan,T(Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
TMiChigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1974), p. 104.

21

were generally formulated during this era and have changed little
since. The specific cases for and against grading will be explored
later in this chapter.

As education moved into the decade of student power, the
1960's, pressure to eliminate grades was beginning to show some
marked effects.

The pressure against grading began to show results
in the late 60's. Yale University, which had clung to the
numerical scale, finally abandoned it and converted to
a four-point scale -- Honors, High Pass, Pass, Fail,
with no cumulative average computed. Many other colleges
and universities shifted to three-point scales: Honors,
Pass, Fail; or two two-point scales: Pass, Fail; Credit,
No Credit; satisfactory, unsatisfactory. Some schools
instituted these changes for the entire school, and some
allowed students to take only some of their courses on a
pass/fail basis. ‘

Institutions experimenting with such grading systems
ranged from small, secular colleges such as Florida
Presbyterian, to private, ivey-league colleges, like
Dartmouth and Brown, to universities the size of Michigan
State University and the University of Wisconsin. Other
colleges and universities undertaking some form of
pass/fail/ grading were: Columbia, Case Western Reserve,
Harverford, Connecticut College, Tufts, Lake Forest,
Carleton, Grinnell, Simmons, Bowdoin, Harvard, LaSalle,
Princeton, Ohio State, University of Chicago, University
of Washington, Washington State University, Penn State,
California Institute of Technology, University of
California at Berkeley, Temple University Medical College
and Douglass College, to name just a few.

It can be said that the student pressure of the 60's did

produce some changes, but the overall effect was to simply broaden

 

9
Kirshenbaum, et. al., 09, 915,, pp. 69-70.

22

the scale even more and student quickly came to realize that the
"new language" on their report cards could often easily be transalted
into A B C D F.

Moving into the 1970's and 80's, the controversy still
exists, still unresolved. Grades, although battered somewhat, still
hold their own in many public schools and universities. The history
of grading is filled with some turmoil, the future holds promise for
more of the same, especially with the growing strength of the mastery
movement and the demand for reporting in objective referenced terms
to go along with teaching from specific objectives. In the next
portion of this chapter the author will describe the controversy in more

detail by looking closely at both the pro and con cases in the grading

debate.

The Case for the Use of Grades (A B C D F)

The author's purpose in this chapter was to examine a
controversy - a controversy which began in the year 1912 with the
reporting of the Starch and Elliott studies. Since that year, the
arguments for and against the use of grades has continued, sometimes
reaching a very heated level of argument. This section of chapter II
will be concerned with reporting the advocacy case for the use of
grades and grading. The negative case will be similarily stated in
the next section of the chapter.

Grading has sometimes been represented as a cultural function,

a rvitual if you will, in American Education. The question of grading

23

exists, for many, as both a problem and a social phenomenon. Hiner's
position is that ..... "Grades are part of the basic social and cultural
'currency' of the school 'economy', and grading systems constitute
the rules under which this currency - these rewards - are distributed
to students."10 Also, "regular attendance and a minimum amount of
work will ordinarily entitle a student to a passing grade. It is
considered 'fair', however, that the best grades go to those who
achieve the highest marks. Therefore, when the student participates
in the grading process, he is conditioned to accept level of achievement
as the primary cirterion for the distribution of rewards."11

If grading can be considered a social and cultural tradition
and ritual, we can assume that the advocates of grades and grading
have maintained their case well over the years. Had the case been
weak early in the controversy, there would be no controversy today for
the opponents would have won out some years back. The author will now
examine the advocacy position in some detail and attempt to bring the
views of several authors on the subject into focus.

Many authors in the evaluation field become expert fence

riders when the time comes to make judgments about grading and its value.

 

10N. Ray Hiner, "Grading As A Cultural Function," ‘Ihg
Clearing House Magazine, XLVII, (February, 1973), p. 356.

111bid., p. 357.

 

24

The do this, perhaps, so their works will not be arbitrarily
classified into one camp or the other and, also, for ethical reasons of
fairness in exploring a crucial issue. For this reason, references
will be found in the case of advocacy which also will be used in the
next section in explaining the case against grades. One current author,
however, has made his advocacy stand quite public. That author is
Dr. Robert Ebel of Michigan State University.

Ebel's well known text, Essentials of Educational Measurement,
offers a wealth of material concerning the grading debate. Ebel
states that the uses ...... "made of marks are numerous and crucial.
They are used to report a student's educational status to him, to his
parents, to his future teachers, and to his prospective employers.
They provide a basis for important decisions concerning his educational
plans and his occupational career."12 "Marks also provide an
important means for stimulating, directing, and rewarding the educational
efforts of students. This use of marks has been attacked on the ground
that it provides extrinsic, artificial, and hence undesirable stimuli
and rewards. Indeed, marks are extrinsic, but so are most other
tangible rewards of effort and achievement."13 Ebel's rationale for the
use of grades also includes the argument that ...... "Grading systems

exist because most educators recognize that effective learning requires

 

12Robert L. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement,
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 3l3.

13Ebel, g. 513., pp. 313-314.

25

the active participation of the learner, that this participation costs
considerable effort, and that the necessary effort is most likely to be
put forth when success in learning is recognized and rewarded. As
most teachers know from their own experience, differential grading
does tend to motivate and direct study, and to provide tangible
and prompt rewards for the efforts expended. It has been said that
pupils should learn for the sake of learning, not for the sake of
grades. But this is a false antithesis. High grades and effective
learning are not alternative goals. They are closely parallel, if
_not identical."14

Mehrens and Lehmann lend support for the use of grades as
being necessary to provide summary information to students, parents,
administrators, counselors, teachers, prospective employers and
college admissions officers. "A criticism occasionally made of
marking systems based on either a norm or a set standard is that such
systems ignore individual differences. That is not true. Such
systems explicitly report_individual differences in achievement."15

Bradfield and Moredock summarized the need for grades in the

following way: "So far we have identified five groups of persons who

 

14Robert L. Ebel, "Shall We Get_Rid of Grades?", The

Interchange, Portland, Maine: Department of Research and Evaluation,
Portland Public Schools, May, 1975. As reprinted from: NCME
Measurement in Education, vol. 5, no. 4, Fall, 1974.

15William A. Mehrens and Irvin J. Lehmann, Measurement
and Evaluation in Education and PsycholOgy, (New York: Holt,
Pinehart and’Winston, 1973).

26

are concerned about grades, namely: the teachers, the pupils, the
parents, the school administrators, and the potential employers. The
reasons for their interest are in effect the functions of school marks.
In summary, these seem to be: 1) Indicate academic standing and
competence. 2) Facilitate instruction and guidance. 3) Provide
motivation for learning. 4) Serve as a basis for future planning.
5) Serve administratively for placement, promotion, certification,
admission, and for peranent records. 6) Serve as predictors of
school and vocational success."16 Ebel gives further support by
saying: "Most instructors, at all levels of education, seem to agree
that marks are necessary ...... as Masden has pointed out, the claim
that...."abolition of marks would lead to better achievment is, by
its very nature, impossible to demonstrate."17 "To say that grading
persists simply because teachers tend to follow tradition blindly is
to do a grave injustice to hundreds of thousands of capable and
dedicated teachers. They support grading because grades help them to

teach well."18

 

16James M. Bradfield and H. Stewart Moredock, .gp.Igit.,
p. 206

17Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement, p. 313.

18Ebel, op, cit., "Shall We Get Rod of Grades?".

27

In 1938, Henry Daniel Rinsland took a rather strong stand
against traditional grading practices. Even with his dissatisfaction
about grades and grading practices, Rinsland admits ..... "Without
grades, all efforts of educational and vocational guidance are
eliminated and guesswork substituted in their place ..... Grades are
needed, but they must be valid, dependable and useful."19

Most any proponent of grading will admit that grades are
sometimes misused by teachers and proponents of grading in no way
support sloppy grading practices. Proponents do support the concept
of grades and grading as opposed to no grades and succesSfully build
a case for the retention of grades in the school. "A fairly recent
nationwide survey by the National Education Association Research
Division has shown the prominent role that the traditional marking
system plays in reporting pupil progress. The results, (shown in
Table 2.1), reveal that letter grades (A B C D F) were used more
frequently than any other system. If the percentages for letter
grades (A B C D F) and number grades (A B C D F) are combined, it
can be seen that 82 percent of the elementary teachers and 92 percent
of the secondary teachers used one of these traditional methods of
marking pupil progress. Apparently the ease with which such marks

can be assigned, averaged, and used for various school purposes

 

19
Henry D. Rinsland, CanstruCting Tests and Grading,g

(New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1938).

28

contributes to their continued widespread use."20 Such data clearly

give grades the position of "status-quo."

In summarizing the proponent view, then, it can be said that

those who favor the use of grades and grading do so for, generally,

the following reasons:

1.
2.

Grades are necessary to report a student's status to him.
Grades are necessary to report a student's status to his
parents (assuming he is not the legal age of majority).
Grades are necessary to report a student's status to his
future teachers.

Grades are necessary to report a student's status to his
future.

Grades are necessary as criterion for determining college
admission.

Grades provide stimulus, direction and rewards for
educational efforts.

High grades and effective learning are not alternative
goals. They are closely parallel, if not identical.
Grades assist administrators in decisions for placement,
certification, promotion and permanent records of student
achievement.

Grades help teachers to teach better and to better report

to the parties mentioned in itesm 1 - 5.

20Norman E. Gronlund, Measurement and Evaantion in Teaching,
3rd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1976), p. 517.

29

10. When students are involved in the process of being graded,
they come to accept achievement level as the first and
primary criteridn for the distribution of rewards.

11. If no grades were to be given, opportunities for educational
and/or vocational guidance would be haphazard at best.

12. Grades explicitly report individual differences in achievement.

Throughout this section of Chapter II, the author has referred

back to Robert L. Ebel as being one of the more vocal advocates of
grades and grading. It is fitting, therefore, to conclude this section
with a statement from him.
It is true that the mark a student receives is not in
itself an important educational outcome - by the same token,
neither is the degree toward which the student is working,
nor the academic rank or scholarly reputation of the ‘
professors who teach him. But all of these symbols can be
and should be valid indications of important educational
attainments. It is desirable, and not impossibly difficult,
to make the goal of maximum educational achievement compatible
with the goal of highest possible marks. If these two goals
are not closely related, the fault would seem to rest with
those who teach the courses and who assign the marks. From
the point of view of student, parent, teachers, and employers
there is ngfhing 'mere' about the marking process and the marks
it yields.
The Case AgainstA B C D F

In the previous section of this chapter the advocacy argument

for A B C D F was presented. It is a solid argument, backed by the

fact that grades are still being widely used in the school of America.

 

21 .. . ,
Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement, p. 314.

30

The advocacy case has held its ground against a barrage of former

and recent research showing the weaknesses inherent in the system.

The opponents of grading have been quite vocal over the years

and the sheer amount of research done in favor of the negative case
will make the negative view seem stronger on the basis of weight alone.
Scholars of the grading debate, however, are wise enough to know

that the burden of proof rests with the negatives. The status-quo,
i.e.; grades need not produce such a volume of research.

There are many in education who feel that A B C D F either
should be eliminated altogether in favor of alternative systems or,
at least, very carefully and completely reviewed with an eye
toward substantial improvement in grading practices. The latter
view brings little disagreement from the proponents of grades as
they, too, feel that grades must be valid. The difference between
the two positions centers around the proposal of doing away with
grades entirely.

One of the most vocal opponents to grades is Sidney B. Simon
of the University of Massachusetts. Simon's view is that grades have
indeed been with us for some time although, according to Simon....
"there is literally not a shred of research evidence which supports the
the present grading system."22 Simon views the accuracy of grades as

in the same category with inflated advertising and their objectivity

 

22Sidney B. Simon, "Grades Must Go," School Review, 78:
No. 3 (May, 1970), 398.

31

akin to an old maid telling her correct age when asked.23 Simon's

negative case, in summary, looks like this:

l. Grades separate students and professors into two warring

camps. The grades keep student from teacher and teacher from
student.

2. Grades overreward the wrong people and often punish
students who need to be punished the least. Along with this,
Simon contends, grades have been used systematically to screen
out black students, to decide who to ship out to Vietman,
and to firmly remind those who will not conform that they are
failures.

3. Grades tend to destroy what learning is all about.
Students tend to select courses which will give a better
guarantee of a high grade with less work or, at best, they

will strive to balance their classload to avoid a preponderance

of tough courses, selecting, instead, what Simon terms the
"snap and crap" courses.

4. Grades reinforce and archaic notion of competition
which may well turn out to be deadly in the 1970's.

Competition certainly does exist in the World, but, nevertheless,

the skills of cooperation actually dominate a sane man's life
much more than do the skills of competition. Competition for
grades has made today's campuses lonely places.

5. Of all the destructive things grades do, probably the
ugliest is that they contribute to debasing a student's
estimation of his own worth. The emphasis and extreme focus
upon grades, term after term, seem to squeeze a student's
identity ang self-image within the narrow confines of his
transcript. 4

Simon advocates a sweeping awareness among students alerting

them to the fact that they may be being shortchanged at the edcational

marketplace and, as consumers, have a right to demand a real education.

 

23Ibid.. pp. 399-401.

 

241bid.. pp. 398-401.

 

25 .
Ib1d., p. 401.

25

32

The entire concept of "accountability" rises its head here. If students
are indeed consumers, and grades are indicators of the product they
are buying, just who is accountable for the quality of the product?
Mehrens and Lehmann comment that there is ..... "certainly no current
agreement about who is presently being held accountable in education or
who should be. Deterline (1971, p. 16) said that educators operate
so that all failures and ineffective aspects of our instruction are
slyly laid on the students, in the form of a grade or rating, (and) we
never really have to face the facts of our own incompentence in the
field of instruction. He suggests that students are held accountable
if they do not learn - in spite of any failures, deficiencies, and
incompetence in our teaching - and he welcomes educational
accountability as a countervailing force."26 Grades, then, the
traditional means of reporting since the beginning of the century,
are being questioned as to their role in the accountability structure.
Even early critics of A B C D F realized the problem
presented by Deterline. Wrinkle (1947) commented that ..... "the
evaluation problem is: How well does he (the student) do what he
should do? And the reporting problem is: What kind of reports should
we make to tell how well he has done the things that he should do?

Sounds simple, doesn't it?"27 Continuing in this vein, Wrinkle observed

 

26Irving J. Lehmann and William A. Mehrens, Standardized Tests
in EduCation, (New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2nd ed., 1975)
pp. 302-303.

27William L. Wrinkle, Improving Marking and Reporting Practices,
(New York, Rinehart and Company, 1947), p. 4.

 

33

..... "Except in a very limited sense, A B C D F marks cannot convey
significant information regarding the achievement, progress, failure,

or success of the student. A mark, unless its meaning is restricted to
one defined value, cannot be interpreted since it is usually a composite
index representing the average of a variety of different values."28 Much
of the confusion about grades can be traced to the fact that these grades
are used by teachers for many different reasons, and no one definition is
able to cover all the factors involved. Teachers do not agree on a
standard meaning and freely admit that they use different criteria

in appraising student achievement. Among the more commonly used

criteria are test scores, teacher-student relationship, department, sex,
promptness, obedience, effort, and attitude. The one criterion common

to all grades is the acutal achievement of students in the subject
matter for which they are being graded. The other criteria are usually
subjective appraisals. The degree to which these subjective appraisals
help determine the grade a student receives is not completely known.29
Steller's work supports this concept by showing that ...... "teachers,
for the most part, were found to be incapable of defining precisely
those tasks that are involved during the process of assigning marks.

It, therefore, is apparent that not only do the resultant marks lack

28 ,
Ibld., p. 33

 

29Donald J. Brown, Appraisal ProcedUres in the Secondary
SchOols, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970)
P- 106.

34

reliability but also that teachers, for this reason, cannot defend
or explain the assigned marks."30

W. L. Adams, in a 1932 study, showed that....”teachers
responding to this investigation noted innumerable criteria ranging
from such non-measurable points as 'student shows no interest' or
'not paying attention' to being absent too much of the time or not
meeting certain specific academic standards. Specific criteria were
rare, and the study revealed how arbitrary the factors underlying the
failing grade really are. Yet, even though the criteria may be
arbitrary and may change with time, the 'failure' remains permanently
on the student's record."31 Even the factor of physical fatigue on
the part of the teacher has been found to affect the marks given a
student. Dexter (1935) showed that some teachers, when fatigued, tend
to become more lenient while others become increasingly particular.
The problem, of course, is that the conditions for fair grading seldom

exist and more often than not teachers grade under pressures of time

or personal fatigue.32

The question of motivation often comes forth in the grading

debate. That is: Do grades provide the incentive, the reward, the

 

30Steller, pp, £15,, abstract.

31W. L. Adams, "Why Teachers Say They Fail Pupils", Educational
Administration and Supervision, 1932, 18, pp. 594-600 cited by
Kirshenbaum, et. al., Wad-Ja-Get?, p. 253.

32E. S. Dexter, "The Effect of Fatigue or Boredom on Teachers'
Marks"5 Journal of Educational Research, 1935, 28, pp. 664-667 cited
by Kirshenbaum, et al., Wad-Ja-Get?, p. 253.

35

gold at the end of the rainbow that all students need in order to

be motivated in school? Proponents of grading feel that the
incentive argument is one of the best in favor of grades. Ebel
comments that marks provide an important means for stimulating,
directing and rewarding the educational efforts of students33 yet
Evans indicates that research does not support this contention, and,
in fact, a study by Chamberlain and others demonstrated that the
reverse could be true.34 Chamberlain's study, which has never been
replicated, demonstrated that grading was not essential to motivate
students. On the contrary, the results suggest that grading could be
a hindrence to the development of intellectual and personal skills.35
Similarily, Bradfield and Moredock comment that letter marks ......
"are often construed as rewards and punishments for the pupils and as
prestige symbols by their parents and the public. When thus construed,
grades have become ends in themselves, something to be achieved for
their own sake instead of serving to facilitate learning. We should

not have to look far to find children who are going through 'motions' in

the classroom just to achieve high marks and who are not concerned about

learning anything. This is extrinsic motivation at its worst.36

33Ebel, pp, 913., p. 313.

‘ 34Francis B. Evans, "What Research Says About Grading" Degrading
the GradipgiMyths: A Primer of Alternatives to Grades and Marks, Sidney
B. Simon and James A. Bellanca, eds.,(Washington, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1976), p. 41.

351bid., p. 42.
36Bradfield and Moredock, pp, 91; , pp. 207-208.

36

Opponents to grading, in arguing the idea that grades become
extrinsic rewards, base much of their argument on the age old school
problem of cheating. 00 students cheat just to get a better grade?
The research would seem to say "Yes". Students through the ages
have cheated. They have cheated to avoid punishment, cheated to

maintain academic standing, cheated to "up themselves" on the

37 Bowers,

establishments staircase, and cheated to gain status.
reporting on a nationwide survey of college students, found that at
least 50 percent admitted they had cheated during college by
plagarizing, using crib notes, copying on an examination, and by

using other means. Bowers commented that all of these illegitmate
actions were a consequence of the system of examinations and grade
points, and that students engage in cheating because they believe they
may be rewarded by a higher grade.38 A similar situation was

reported by Fala, who noted that at least half of the 5,000 college
students interviewed during a study by the Columbia University Bureau
of Applied Social Research admitted to cheating. He indicated that

the incidence of cheating was highest among weak students, men, career-

oriented majors, and students who were in school for such non-academic

 

37Sidney 8. Simon, "Wh Ever Cheats to Learn?" Dggradipg the
GradingMyjhs, op. cit., p. 20.

38William Bowers, Student Dishonesty and its Control in College
(New York: New York Bureau of Applied Behavioral Science, 1964),

cited in Evans, 9p, £13,, p. 43.

37

interests as sports and music.39

The proponents of grading suggest that, if done properly,

grading is the best system of reporting. Research concerning the

validity of grades, the incentive factor and the cheating problem,

however, seems to weigh very heavily on the proponents' arguments. In

summary, the arguments against grading would be:

l. Grades are Essentially Meaningless:

a.

There is a great diversity among institutions and
teachers in grading practices.

Many schools lack definite grading policies.

A single symbol cannot possibly report adequately the
complex details of an educational achievement.
Teachers are often casual or even careless in grading.
Grades are frequently used to punish or to enforce

discipline rather than to report achievement accurately.

2. Grades are educationally unimportant:

c.

Grades are only symbols.

The most important outcomes are intangible and hence
cannot be assessed or graded.

A teacher's grades are less important to a pupil than
his own self evaluations.

Grades do not predict later achievement correctly.

 

39
Evaluations

Michael A. Fala, Dunce Caps, Hickory Sticks, and Public
(Madison, University of Wisconsin, 1968), pp. 11-12, cited

in Kirshenbaum, et. al., Wad-Ja-Get?, p. 268.

e.

38

What should be evaluated is the total educational

program, not the students.

3. Grades are Unnecessary:

a.

Grades are ineffective motivators of real achievement in
education.

When students learn mastery, as they should, no
differential levels of achievement remain to be graded.
Grades have persisted in schools mainly because teachers

cling to traditional practices.

4. Grades are Harmful:

a.

than with humanistic, child centered education.

Low grades may discourage the less able pupils from
efforts to learn.

Grading makes failure inevitable for some pupils.
Parents sometimes punish pupils for low grades, and
reward high grades inappropriately.

Grades set universal standards for all pupils despite
their great individual differences.

Grading emphasizes common goals for all pupils and
discourages individuality in learning.

Grading rewards conformity and penalizes creativity.
Grading fosters competition rather than cooperation.
Pressure to get high grades leads some pupils to cheat.

Grading is more compatible with subject-centered education
40

 

40Ebel,

"Shall We", pp, pip., pp. 1-2.

39

After reviewing the literature concerning the negative view
of grades and grading, it is indeed difficult to determine why grades
are still with us in so many educational institutions in America.
Whipping boy that they have been, grades have endured. The literature
clearly shows, however, that the case for abolishment of grades is
indeed strong and it must be assumed that, eventually, something in
the grading fortress must give. We turn to Wrinkle for some final

comments:

Whatever social philosophy you may have, whether it
gives fundamental recognition to individual or social
values, to competition or cooperation, it is obvious that
the school by its marking practices is doing much to promote
the development of antisocial attitudes and practices. A
desire to win even at the expense of others cannot be countenanced
as‘a desirable educational attitude. The competition of
unequals does not provide a fair basis for determing penalties
or the granting of honors. There is plenty of opportunity
for the utilization of competitive motives in a legitimate manner.
The competition of the student with his previous record and
attempts to achieve in terms of his ability provide opportunities
for the application of competitive interests. The encouragement
of competition by individuals of unequal ability, however,
is in violation of the principle of individual differences, is
unfair, does not conform to mental health practices and is
negative in many of its results.

The next section of this chapter will deal with a discussion
of various selected alternative forms of pupil progress reporting
followed by consideration of the factors which enter into the teacher's
decision process when determining a grade. Later discussion will deal
with the validity of the various selected alternatives to grading

selected for this study.

*

41Wrinkle, pp, cip., p. 48.

40

Discussion and Definition of Various Selected Alternatives
to the Use of Grades

In the previous section of this chapter, the case against
grading was presented. It is a strong case withairather broad base of
research data. As is the duty of any negative position in a debate,
those who would favor the abolishment of the status-quo must present
some sort of a plan. It is not enough to argue against the status-quo,
a plan, and/or alternative method must be brought forth. The grading
debate is no exception. This section of the chapter will define and dis-
cuss the grading alternatives which are selected for emphasis in the
study. These alternatives represent the "plan" presented by the
negative case. The alternatives selected do not represent all of the
many variations in reporting practices available, but, rather, represent
seven commonly used alternatives. Comments from authors in the
field will include value statements arrived at through research as to
the strengths and weaknesses of the various alternatives.

Although an analysis of educational literature would indicate
ifliat there is a popular movement underway for the improvement of
marking and reporting practices, the truth is that although there is
great interest and real concern for such improvement, not many schools
have made significant departures from conventional practice.42
Educational practices change slowly to the practice which is next

easiest to do. The possible departures from conventional marking and

 

41

reporting practice would be (1) to manipulate the symbols, (2) to
supplement the symbols, and (3) to make a fundamental change involving
a different approach. And these are the things that have happened.43
In reviewing alternative reporting practices, then, the author
will turn first to one alternative which seemed easiest to do in the

efforts to change. That is: The Pass-Fail grading system.

Pass—Fail
In spite of the higher reliability of a multicategory system of
reporting, there has been a considerable move toward a more restrictive
two-category (pass-fail) system. The pass-fail system has been
adopted, at least for a few courses, by about two-thirds of the American
colleges and universities. Many high schools are also adopting a
modified form of the pass-fail system. There has been considerable
discussion in the literature about whether this is good or bad.44
Pass-fail, of course, means just what the title implies.
Students receive only one or the other mark. Either they do enough
work to merit a "passing" mark, or they do so little they "fail". In
the pure sense, there is no middle-ground in the pass fail system. Most
often,.however, the student receiving a "fail“ does have the opportunity

to take the work again, or make up specific deficiencies in order to

earn a "pass" mark. Each school or school system offering courses on a

43Ibid.

44Mehrens and Lehmann, pp, p13,, p. 597.

42

pass/fail basis, according to Educational Research Service Information,
"usually set up regulations for students wishing to be graded in this
manner. These rules vary from school to school. In some, pass-fail
is limited to certain grade levels. For example, in the New Rochelle,
New York, High School and in high schools in Yonkers, New York only
seniors may take courses on a pass-fail basis."45

Bramlette offered five possible benefits to be derived from
the use of a two category marking system: (1) increases emphasis on
learning, (2) decreases emphasis on marking, (3) encourages the poorer
student, (4) forces students to evaluate themselves, and (5) encourages
better attitudes in parents who want a superior child but have instead
an average child.46 The effect of pass-fail on achievement level,
however, seems to be in question. Some students use pass-fail
marking as a means of carrying an extra course or two, but more often,
they use it to redistribute academic effort, and in a good proportion
of cases, student achievement in the pass-fail courses is adversly
affected.47 This contention is supported by Gold and others who
analyzed complete pass-fail marking (that is all courses taken by the

student that semester were pass-fail), partial pass-fail marking and

45Educational Research Service, Pass-Fail Plans (Washington, D. C.
Amemican Association of School Administrators and National Education
.Association, November 1971), p. 2.

46Metle Bramlette, "Is the S and U Grading System Satisfactory
or Unsatisfactory?," Texas Outlook, XXVI (April, 1941), 29-30 cited in
Steller, pp, p13,, p. 53.

47Evans, pp. pi_t_., p. 46.

43

traditional grading. It was found: (a) that students preferred the
idea of partial pass-fail marking to the other two methods, and (b)
that pass-fail grading let to a decline in academic performance.48
It is probably safe to say that most of the systems offering
pass-fail courses do so to relieve anxiety about grades and to enable

students to take courses they would not ordinarily take for fear of

low grades.49

Credit - No Credit

In the minds of many, educators and students alike, credit-no
credit is synonomous with pass-fail. In practice, the two systems
do function the same. The prime difference is, of course, that credit-
no credit has no connotation of failure. There can be many reasons for
a student's receiving a "no credit" mark. He may have, for example,
elected the course on a no credit basis as an enrichment experience,
or for the purpose of supplementing other course work. Advocates of
the credit-no credit system say ..... "to use a system that doe not
contain failure; students are encouraged to try hard courses. Education
is then expanded. Even if the student does not pass, he can continue

through the rest of the semester to assimilate a certain amount of

48Ibid., p. 45.

49Educational Research Service, pp, p13,, p. 2.

44

knowledge, perhaps enough to allow him to pass a second time if he

tries the course again."50
Glasser suggests that ..... "no student ever at any time be

labeled a failure or led to believe he is a failure through the use of

the grading system."51 Hamachek supports the non-failure concept of

reporting by saying that, eventually ...... "each person arrives at a

more or less stable framework of beliefs about himself and proceeds

to live in as consistent a manner as possible within that framework." 52

"The boy, for example, who conceives himself to be a 'failure-type

student' can find all sorts of excuses to avoid studying, doing homework,

or participating in class. Frequently, he ends up with the low grade

he predicted he would get in the first place. His report card bears him

out. Now he has 'proof' that he's less able."53
Critics of credit-no credit level the same arguments of

achievement erosion at that system as at the pass-fail system. They

contend that students, once ..... "freed from the pressures of traditional

 

5° bid.

51William Glasser, Schools Without Failure (New York: Haprer and
Row, 1969), p. 95.

52Donald E. Hamachek, Encounters With the Self (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 197l), p. 175.

53Ibid.

 

45

9Vadinga....do less work than usual."54

Due to the prime difference between pass-fail and credit-no
credit systems (lack of a failure connotation with credit-no credit) we
cannot lump the two together as one system and they will be considered
as separate alternatives for the purposes of the study even though they

do have many similarities in strengths and weaknesses.

Blanket Gradipgp

The practice of assessing each student with a common grade,
(usually an A or a B) is referred to as "Blanket Grading". The teacher
announces at the beginning of the year, or at the outset of a semester
or term, that anyone in the class who does the required amount of work

55 This companion to the pass-fail and

will receive the blanket grade.
credit-no credit approach, is sometimes used when community pressure
seems to dictate adherence to an A B C D F system. The blanket grading
approach is often used in elementary schools under the guise of the

S I U system. The student doing the minimal amount of work is given an
S, although the students are not generally informed of the process in
advance.

Use of blanket grading seems to be more in evidence in the

colleges usually under the guise of pass-fail or credit-no credit. The

 

54Kirshenbaum, et al., pp, p15,, p. 305.

551bid., p. 307.

46

rationale is that by the time a student gets to graduate school,
or into college, or even into high school, he has proved his ability.
He should not be called upon to prove it again and again in every
course he takes.56

Along with being a close companion of pass-fail and credit-no
credit, blanket grading is considered as one form of contract
evaluation.57 As such, an agreement is reached between teacher and
student as to the minimum achievement required for the grade. The
prime benefit of the blanket grading/contract approach is, according
to its advocates, that the system permits students to work for whatever
goal they desire while providing the broadest possible field of choice
for each student. Along with this, the process eliminates as much as
possible all sources of externally imposed threat.58 Blanket grading
carries with it the advantages and disadvantages of pass-fail, contract
and credit-no credit, while still giving the flexibility of functioning
within the confines of A B C D F.

Clark59 compared graduate students enrolled in an advanced

educational psychology course, in which a grade of B was guaranteed, with

56Ebel, Essentials, pp, cit., p. 335.
57Kirshenbaum, et. al., pp, p13,, p. 307.

58Arthur W. Combs, “A Contract Method of Evaluation," Degrading
me Grading Myths, op. cit., p. 70.

59D. C. Clark, "Competition for Grades and Graduate Student
Performance," Journal of Educational Research 62: 351-54, April 1969,

Cited in Evans, pp. pi_t., p. 44.

47

graduate students taking a similar course on a regularly graded basis.
Although he found that the students in the course that was graded
competitively wrote much better research papers, and reported that they
spent a greater number of hours studying, he discened no difference
between the performance of each group on a final examination. The
students in the course with a guaranteed grade claimed that pressure
for grades in other courses caused them to let the psychology

course slide, and that they found it difficult to muster motivation.
Clark's study points up the argument against blanket grading which is
based on the motivation platform and typifies the negative case against

blanket or guaranteed grades.

Self Evaluation

Some in education might argue that self evaluation for reporting
purposes is the most realistic form of reporting since each and every
student should be taught to fairly assess his own efforts at getting
a job done. It is true that many people are very good at assessing
their own strengths and weaknesses, but the usual trend is for students
to be overly harsh with themselves in their evaluations.

I Is self-evaluation more important and useful than evaluation by
others? Ebel replies by saying that ultimately...."the only really
effective evaluation is a person's self-evaluation. But a person's
assessment of his own achievements is likely to be based on highly

SUbJective perceptions and on idiosyncratic values, and hence to be at

48

least somewhat biased."6O Mehrens and Lehmann agree by saying that
self-evaluation ..... "is obviously important if one is to be involved
in self-directed learning. And self-directed learning is essential
both in school and after the student leaves schools. Unfortunately,
research does not indicate clearly how teachers can improve students'
abilities in self-evaluation."61

It certainly can be argued that it is an important learning
exterpience for students to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses
yet there is some research to show that, over time, students' self-
grades become less accurate.62 Russell,63 in reviewing the research
up to 1953, found that studies tended to support the view that student
self-evaluations are usually invalid measures of achievement and
personality adjustment.

There seems, then, to be some agreement that self-evaluation is
beneficial to a degree and does involve the student in his report more
than other methods, yet the resultant grade or mark is suspect in its
validity. If the goal of the learning structure is to help the student

be realistic in assessing his own strengths and weaknesses, then self-

e\Ialuation is meaningful and a very worthwhile learning experience.

 

5°Ebei, ESSentials, pp, p15,, p. 311.

 

61Mehrens and Lehmann, pp, , p. 607.

at.
62Kirshenbaum, et.al., pp, p15,, p. 296.

63David H. Russell, "What Does Research Say About Self
Evaluation?" Journal of Educational Research 46: No. 8 56l-573,
April, 1953, cited in Kirshenbaum, et al., pp, p13,, p. 3l5.

49

Parent Conferences

Many educators believe that parent-teacher conferences are the
ideal method of reporting to parents.64 Limitations imposed by large
class sizes in the secondary schools, however, often render the face-to-
face meeting between teacher and parent unworkable. Parent-teacher
conferences, therefore, are mainly the tool of the elementary teacher.
This method is extremely popular and has a large following in the
schools for a variety of reasons, the main one being the fact that
teachers, who are aware of the effect parental attitudes may have on
learning, feel they can do a better job of teaching the child after
having met with the parent or parents.

Silberman,65 in discussing the John H. Finley School in Harlme,
noted the high degree of parental involvement which existed in that
building's unique program while Johnson and Medinnus,66 in discussing

the findings of Winterbottom67 pointed to the significant relationship

 

64National Education Association, Evaluation and Reporting of
Student Achievement (Washington, D. C.: National EducationgAssociation,

1974), p. 19.

65Charles E. Silberman, Crisis In The Classroom (New York:
Vintage Books, 1971), pp. 99-110.

66Ronald C. Johnson and Gene R. Medinnus, Child Psychology:
Behavior and Development (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969,
2nd. ed.). Pp. 459-463

67M. Winterbottom in D. C. McClelland, J. W. Atkinson, R. A.
Clark, and E. L. Lowell, The Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1953), pp. 297-306.

50

between maternal stress on early independence in the child and later
high achievement in the early elementary grades. Similarily, lack
of communication and agreement was found to be significant in the
relationship between the low achieving boy and his mother.

68 showed the differences between the information desired

Hart,
by parents and the teacher's feelings as to what the parents should
receive. The results of Hart's study (shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.1)
point to the fact that parents and teachers do indeed differ as to the
perception of what information about the child is important. This
difference of opinion makes the parent-teacher conference even more
important because parent feelings can be relayed in a face-to-face
discussion, an advantage that no other reporting technique has. The
need for frequent discussions with the teacher about the kinds of
behavior the child exhibits at home and at school, along with the need
for the parents to be informed about the goals of the instructional

69

program is emphasized by Anderson _who sees evaluation of pupil

Progress as ..... "a cooperative job among teachers, pupils, and parents.”0

68Lois B. Hart, "Dear Parents: What You Want to Know Isn't
Ne<:essarily What We Want To Tell You," Degrading the Grading Myths,
_0_p_- pi_t_., pp. 96-103. .

69Vernon E. Anderson, Principles and Procedures of Curriculum
Ipmrrovement (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1965, 1nd ed.), pp. 472-475.

 

7°Ibid., p. 472.

51

Table 2.1

Rankings of Categories of Information
Parents and Teachers.a

 

 

All All

Categories of Information Parents Teachers
Academic Progress 1 3
How the Child Learns 2 I
How the Home Can Help 3 4
How the Child Conforms to School

Standards 4 5
Child's Social Adjustment with

Classmates 5 2
School's Goals and Organization 6 5

 

(From Lois 8. Hart, "Dear Parents: What You Want to Know Isn't
Necessaryily What We Want to Tell You," in Degrading the Grading
Myths, Sidney 8. Simon and James A. Bellanca, eds. (Washington,
D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1976.) (From a one-year pilot project on report cards using a
written narrative in combination with parent-teacher conferences.
A sample of 208 sets of parents and 60 elementary teachers was
used in the Westhill School District, New York.)

 

aLouis B. Hart, "Dear Parents: What You Want To Know Isn't
Necessarily What We Want To Tell You," In Degrading The Grading
Myths, Sidney 8. Simon and James A. Bellanca, eds. (Washington,
I). C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1976),

P. 101.

Rankings of Specific Information Within Six Categories.

52

Table 2.2

b

 

General Category

Specific Information
Most Desired
by Parents

Specific Information
Most Desired
by Teachers

 

Academic Progress

How the Child Learns

How the Home Can Help

How the Child Conforms
to School Standards

School's goals and
Organization

—‘

What is my child's Same
capacity and how
does he/her work
compare with his/
her ability?

Does my child apply Same
what he/she has

learned to situat-

ions beyond the

immediate lesson?

How can I help my Same
child with the
problems that result
from physical and emot-
ional growth?

Does my child pay Same
attention in class

and does he/she

follow directions?

In what way is my
child evaluated
and how often does
this happen?

(From Lois B. Hart, “Dear Parents", (see Table 2.1)

bLois B. Hart, pp. _c__i_p., p. 101.

What are the long-
and short-term
goals of the
school?

53

The parent-teacher conference can become a bore for both parties,
however, unless the teacher is properly prepared for the conference.
Poor planning can result in a haphazard, rambling discussion of not much
of anything unless the teacher has done the necessary "homework" and
can keep in mind the admonishment of Maves who warned...."The parent-
teacher conference, which can be used in any community, is a dynamic
potentiality for continuous publicity, educational interpretation, and
cooperative endeavor. The conference must, however, reach a high level

of performance if it is to be of the most value."71

Narrative Reports

As an alternative to the A B C D F system, narrative reporting
has experienced a "rebirth." The term "rebirth" is used because
narrative reporting, the idea of a letter home to parents, has been often
used in the history of American Education. In Wrinkle's view...."A
blank sheet of paper in the hands of a teacher who is capable of writing
so that parents can understand could, next to the conference plan, be
the best means of reporting."72 The concept, however, of writing out an
individual report for even 20 or 30 students in an elementary classroom
is abhorred by many teachers simply because of the time element involved.
The task is certainly magnified in the case of the secondary school

teacher who meets with 150 or more students daily.

71Harold J. Maves, "Contrasting Levels of Performance in Parent-
Teacher Conferences," Elementary Curriculum, Robert E. Chasnoff, ed.,
(New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1964), p. 518.

72Wrinkle, pp. cit., p. 54.

54

The problem of the time element in producing narrative reports
was recognized some time ago, and efforts were mounted to catagorize
some of the more frequently used comments in order to assure a quality
of uniformity and understanding. Early advocates of the narrative
approach urged that...."even with a group of teachers who are capable
of writing both understandably and correctly, the standardization of

73 The

comments, especially at the beginning, is a desirable plan."
standardization of comments led to a higher quality of understandability
as well as saving time for the teacher writing the narrative, yet

the narrative reporting practice followed for some years before it was
reborn through the assistance of computer technology. The availability
of computer assistance has given the narrative report new life.

In 1974, Giannangelo and Lee brought forward their version of
computer assisted narratives called the CARP system (Computer Assisted
Reporting to Parents).74 The system, in a simplified explanation,
gives the teacher the option of hundreds of comments, both affective and
cognitive, which, when combined for a certain student, produce a totally
individualized report which speaks directly to course objectives.
Specific course objectives are written as anecdotal statements of
academic performance at varying levels of proficiency. Each statement

is number coded to facilitate teacher selection and reporting. A sample

of the resulting report is found in Illustration 2.2. Parent reaction

 

73Ihid.

 

74Duane M. Gainnangelo and Kwi Yoon Lee, "At Last: Meaningful
Report Cards," Phi Delta Kappan, May, 1974, pp. 630-31.

55

Illustration 2.2

A typical computer assisted narrative report produced by
the CARP system developed and reported by Duane M. Giannangelo
and Kwi Yoon Lee, Memphis State University Laboratory School,

1975.c
414 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM - [May

JANUARY 15, 1975 .
TEACHER DR. GIANNANGELO

CAMPUS SCHOOL

PUPIL DAVIS, JOHN
GRADE 5

it THE FOLLOWING IS A REPORT OF YOUR u
it CHILD‘S MATHEMATICS PROGRESS at

THE PUPIL’S MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENT IS ON THE AVERAGE LEVEL WHEN
COMPARED WITH OTHER PUPILS‘ WORK IN THE CLASS.

THE PUPIL NEEDS TO PARTICIPATE MORE IN THE CLASS DISCUSSIONS.

THE PUPIL DOES NOT CHECK THE WORK CAREFULLY.

AFTER REPEATED INSTRUCTION THE PUPIL NOW UNDERSTANDS ABOUT DECI-
MALS AS PART OF THE NUMERAL SYSTEM.

AFTER REPEATED INSTRUCTION THE PUPIL NOW HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF
TENTHS. HUNDREDTHS, AND THOUSANDTHS.
EXAMPLE: IN .728 : 8 MEANS .008 OR EIGHT THOUSANDTHS. 2 MEANS .02 OR TWO

HUNDREDTHS, 7 MEANS .7 OR SEVEN TENTHS.

AFTER REPEATED INSTRUCTION THE PUPIL IS ABLE TO NAME NUMBERS WITH
WORDS, DECIMALS, AND FRACTIONS.

EXAMPLE: SEVENTY-EIGHT THOUSANDTHS : .078 = 78/1000.

AFTER REPEATED INSTRUCTION THE PUPIL IS ABLE TO CHANGE DECIMALS TO
FRACTIONS AND FRACTIONS TO DECIMALS.

EXAMPLE: 23/1000 : .023, .46 : 46/ 100.

PRAISE THE PUPIL FOR WHAT HE (SHE) DID WELL.

ENCOURAGE THE PUPIL TO ELIMINATE CARELESS MIST AKES.

CHECK EXAMPLE OF THE PUPIL’S WORK AT HOME.

cDuane M. Giannangelo, "Make Report Cards Meaningful,"
Itye Educational Forum, May, 1975, p. 414.

56

to the CARP system has been favorable, and teachers have praised the
system because they feel it lets the parent know more exactly what
his child is doing in various subject areas, especially reading and
mathematics. The system does, of course, require more record keeping
on the part of the teacher and requires the teacher to take a closer
look at the needs and achievement of each child.

The year 1972-73 also saw the copyrighting of a computer assisted
means of reproting standardized test data. In prior years test data
from the Psychological Corporation's Differential Aptitude Test had been
printed in the form of numerical stanines and/or percentiles. These
raw data reports were, then, interpreted to the student and parents
through a student-counselor conference. Not only was the reporting
practice time consuming, but, often, valuable information may have been
misinterpreted or not delivered at all. By moving to a computer
assisted narrative, the D.A.T. test results are now easily understood
by all parties concerned. A sample of the D.A.T. narrative is hown in
Illustration 2.3.

In summarizing the advantages of a narrative reporting system,
and particularily a computer assisted narrative, the following can
be said: 1) More specific analysis by the teacher of each pupil's
strengths and weaknesses is possible; 2) teachers have the opportunity
'UJ report to parents more frequently and more precisely their child's
academic progress; 3) the parents are indirectly educated regarding

the: ongoing academic program in the school; and 4) the parents will be

57
Illustration 2.3

.8. E... s. .2... a... :5 .C. c. .2... .39... 2.6.2.... 9.2.... c. 30> c. 05......— 1... 63.2.38... .c .359 .33.. 9.. >2: 2...... ........:.... ..... 2.3.3... ........ a... .25.... 25>

2.7.3.... 75...: 5.... .7232... .23.... a... 22.... .6... ..... 00.2.». a... ...x..0 .o 2.25.2.5 .m.0 o... .3 $2.33.... 08.2.52 0.6.30 .33....35 3.... 2.... .8... .8»

8228... 2...... as» .2. £35.... ..._.5.:... 7.3. 5.... z...» .a .90.. .3» C.:»...- 2. 88...... .803 .0 0...... o... 5.3 0.00 1.32.0.5... .58... :6» .o .5533. .c 0... >¢<
.ow>.mmmc >0puuu>m mpzo—u 00¢ .zc.>quo.¢00 0<u~uc0oxu>ma wx> >u «ho— .~>0u >roau>oou U

 

om2<0s 0420~>¢00ow
«00> zwonmzouua 0> >2<2 >42 00> .>wo 0> 2C0. 00> 2<2> 20n><u000 0:02 w¢~0ow¢ a40¢< umm2> 2— m20~><a0000

02> .0 wxom 002.” omUUZwawummn >Umfim0u 000200 02¢ mwu>~0uo¢ c00> 2>u3 00~02~cu 20~22 m¢mc< 0<20~>1¢0000

, 02> .0 >m~0 0<~>¢<m c >020 an m~2> o20~>02035 02¢ mm0¢mttmmwz~m0a n20~>¢¢>w~2~20<tlmm02~m00
. “00>.0wa >00<u~002 .mn0oue 0420~>«a0000 020200002 02> 0>2~ Om0< 2000 0> >2<3 ><2 00> .quwawuwu.
_ >>~>~>0¢ 02¢ >umfio0m 00020m «00> >20>xu ammmw0 d 0> 02¢ .mmo0>u>n¢ 0m>mw> «00> >0~¢<2~¢c 02n¢m0~m209

.m2<0. 0(20~><u000 02¢ m>mw¢m>2~ ¢0O> 2>n2

02—0 20 0102 m00w~u 0<zou><a0000 ¢w2>0 800~mzou 0> tau: ><2 00> .Ow:<2 00> (00¢ 0d20~><n0000 02> m00~mwo

.ow><~v.0¢m.< w¢< mmaouw >mw> wo0>~>0¢ «00> .¢m>0202 o>wu 0> z<0a 00> z«2> 20~><u000 mac: mw¢~0ow¢ >u
.mw~>0>n>u< 02¢ m>00000m 00020m 0202< «02—200 0w>¢0¢w¢ a00> 2u><2 >02 mwoa a00¢0 0420~><a0000 m~2>

m0020~um wu~0 02¢ 0(00002 .0w00<u a00¢0 02> 2n m<2 m0¢00 «00¢«u no mu.020.0¢~2> ¢00> >¢2> 00><0~02~ 00>

om>mu¢m>2~ 00020m 02< uu~>~0~0< x00> 2>~2 ad 0002 m< m2<0m 0(20u><0000 0w><>m «00> 2>~2 wz~0 2—

w¢02 n<w¢< 04200><a0000.¢m2>0 «mommzou >20~2 00> «0 .20—><u000 «00> 2>n2 wa>¢Du 02~00 ¢w0~m200 00002m
0L> .00wnu m~2> 2n 000002 >00<0w0 m— 04 02000020” 0<2¢0u 2002 m< 2>~2 00> wcn>0an >02 00002 .¢w>m202
.m2¢0. 0<20~><u0ow «00> omwo0>u>a< u0 2¢w>><a «00> «>0. 0m0¢ x¢02 20 02mg m~2> o00»<0~02~ w><2

00> 20022 “0000 0<20~><a0000 02> 2>~2 02—0 20 02¢ «mama. 00> nm~>u>n>u< 02¢ w>00000w 000200 02>

. cm>¢<
czuxxouxuu 02¢ 040m~> .0000<u .00a0 02> 2n m<2 M0400 «00040 20 wu~020 020000 «00> ><2> 00><u~0z~ 00>

.m2<0. 0420n><u000 02¢ om>mw¢w>2~ om000>~>44 no 2¢m>><s «00> 0> amm00u

40¢< 0qzcnhda0000 24 2a ¢u>>wa 00 >20»: 00> ><2> m¢<waa< >> .mx00> 2<2> «020—2 >00<¢w20c w¢< mwdouw

>mu> .00>.>m< «~02> .¢w>00¢02 o>wo 0> 240. 00> 2<2> 20~>4000w wmox >mc 0m0< >w2> owx.0 00> wm02>
20m. >Zwmwuuno mw~>~>~>u< 02< m>uuflm0m 00020” wx~0 >00<0m0 sac: 20 02mg m~2> 0>2~ 00 022.00.005

. om¢<u002
2<x02 02¢ 20~><u000 .0000<u n00mo 02> 20 “<2 “0‘00 cum¢«u .0 000020 >mm~u «00> >¢2> 0m><u~0z~ 00>

om00~um monumo .hrw22~<>¢w>zw

0002um .Umm02 .42410 o>x< .02n20000u 02> 00x00 00> 0~<m 00> .mwn>u>~>u< 02¢ m>uL600m 000200

20 ma0ouo 02> 02024 omm<0u x00>.uo ¢m>¢¢0a 0¢~2> 02> 2— 00> >00 “00¢20 «00> >42> 0~CM 00> w¢02¢u2>¢0u
.00020m mmuz~w00 :0 .00¢¢> .0<u—2200> < 0> 00 02< 00020m 2002 :0“. u><00<¢0 0> >UuQXm 0c> >¢2> 02¢
unqxu 2>o m2> 20 0¢~0 4 .000 m¢¢w> «a wad 00> ><2> 00><u~02~ 00> ua~<2rcuwmw0a 02~22<0a uwucqu «00> 2—

0 I

5.32.9.8: .5. 2.... .o 2.30.: 9.... 0... 3.2.2... 0.... £8.03 .09... .o 2......» 2.. >0 0.3.0.... :5... z... .o 9.... 3...... e... .3 0.6.5.0
9.. 2.... a... .5 25...: .. .0. .29.... a... ...................:. 5 mo» 3. c... 6.52.. >3: .0...» .1... .738... 5..» .3: 0.... 6...: .52.... u... .. 0.5. 5.5... 26.. 2.» 0.... 29.... a...
.2. .3625... .... .. .. ....:.....< ......_..:.....2 a... .5 ....=.......... e. 8.53.... 5..» :0 e... ....:.:..c.7...=0 SEES... it... a... a. £32.... 56> :o 1.3... e. 2.....— ?.c.... 0.9... 2:.

>30...“ 02523.. 8000.3 .00..

u.p.oqmm m>..m..mz umum.mm< .mpzasou amok wu:u..a< .mucmsqo.m>mo . yo m.qsem <

58

encouraged to increase communication between the home and the
school.75

Disadvantages of the "letter home", either hand writtern or
computer assisted, can be summarized as follows: 1) The reporting must
be done by competent, conscientious teachers who are willing to devote
a lot of time to reporting; 2) separate reporting for purposes of
administrative record and transfer must, in many cases, be maintained;

3) some agreement must be reached within a system or a school as to the
standardized comments which shll be made available through a computer
assisted program; 4) parents must be willing to take the time to read
the reports and to attend follow-up conferences with the teacher should
misunderstanding of the narrative come up.

The question of financing a computer assisted program of reporting
is bound to arise. Giannangelo and Lee, in their work with the CARP
program found that...."This type of reporting technique is not financially
prohibitive. It is estimated that for a cost of two dollars per child
a parent could receive four reports per year in the areas of reading,
language arts, mathematics, and social studies. Surely this is not
too much to pay to identify the specific academic strengths and weaknesses
of our future adult population. Once this is done we can cpaitalize

on the strengths and work to eliminate the weaknesses."76

 

75Giannangelo and Les, op, 913,, p. 631.

751bid.

59

Check List Reporting

Parent-teacher conferences and computer assisted narratives are
two alternatives previously discussed which, by their structure, allow
a more comprehensive report to parents. They are more specific, and
impart more information, often in mastery terms, than A B C D F,
pass-fail, credit-no credit, blanket grading or self evaluation. Not
all school, however, can deliver, on a district wide basis, either the
parent-teacher conference concept or the computer assisted narrative.
The time involved in reporting to parents of secondary school students,
for example, often must be limited to some sort of A B C D F mode or
a system called the check list.

> Check lists are just that; a list of comments printed on a sheet

from which the teacher may choose and "check off" as being appropriate
for the student in a given reporting period. Often, in elementary
grades, an S or U may be inserted in the check space to indicate some
specific degree of accomplishment.

Like many other alternatives to A B C D F, the chek list is
hardly new. Wrinkle included the alternative in his work in 194777
as did Gronlund in 197678 so it is evident that check lists, of some

form or another, have been available for some time as an alternative

to A B C D F. A sample of an early check list report can be found

 

77wrink1e, 99, git , pp. 58-60.

78Gronlund, op, cit., pp. 515-516.

60

in Illustration 2.4. As is often the case with a check list report,
the form in Illustration 2.4 is tied directly to a mastery level for
specific objectives.

Variations on the check list are numerous. Often, the format is
used as a part of a dual marking system that combines with check lists
to produce a report format similar to that shown in Illustration 2.5.

As can be gleaned from reviewing Illustrations 2.4 and 2.5, the
checklist system is a shortcut to the writing of reports by teachers.
Types of checklists range from 1) Vague descriptions of a few character
traits and study habits supplementing conventional reports on academic

subjects ( gets along well with others), through; 2) Positive

 

evaluations used to report what the student has achieved ( reads
with understanding), to; 3) Precise statements of behavioral objectives
for all school subjects and goals: (Given a human skeleton, the student
must be able to correctly identify by labeling at least 40 of the

following bones: ).79

 

Mehrens and Lehmann make the point that if ..... "rating scales
are to be useful, it is absolutely mandatory that they accurately reflect
the school's objectives and that teachers gather sufficient data (through
observations, tests, and other means) so that ratings can be completed

accurately."80 Unfortunately, as Wrinkle points out, ..... "the tendency

——,,

79National Education Association, Evaluation and Reporting,
.22: 913,, p. 20.

80Mehrens and Lehmann, pp, 513,, p. 604.

 

61

Illustration 2.4

A typical check list report form.e

 

. .-. --. .., .. .-—.-—_-< Po——-—o----o ~—.._.-
T0 i'.\itl..\"l‘.\.‘ 0i: UL'AiihlANa‘. MM wrns mmoos m an an m
’1 M». fi'p-M‘l is mutt-1 you at [he (i mu n! t0-‘h moo wwls ll. EUL‘iAL AND PERSONAL HABITS
"‘ f"""”" ,““" """“‘.""'“ '5” “"""""‘ .“"'“""“"_ M ““' I. Rubl'mids uni-tin" ml uiziinciy to
”1"."l." ".UI .Ch‘.‘l .’ !":\“1r.t' 't .‘. ‘!.II1- 1'! :-(.t 0"], ‘l:r. ‘AQIUrA‘ 0‘ teachc'. -lIn- O o.......n-. -- ”m ’-
. Ith~€htldil hi“u"'€('sll-'ll‘. but m1.) l:‘:-l-‘,‘ “Lithulms hfil'tt‘,
Ii.2'!'-.~. and ninth-its n..;u :uy Lu- ih.- I'm-ii ii “vellum-ml. n! 2. Is reasonably quiet Ind “11.", ..
tr“: rink: in ;:u w»)’ a- L! unont'ni to ._.|n;.nro Uu' u- :k _
and (.spt'fil'nn- 1 '1' Univ in”): “ND ”.4! ('1 nib-(J. 3 KU'IU [,9th “f! O‘th ”cpl. ....... . _--._._—__
Vi. ..'. . -. In... \‘.iil .- " .r n. .". :c .n I , .
A" °,' 1 t H ‘ ' h “‘m i J n y ‘ i " 4. In'lrJin1 from stunting undue lt-
Jcstng .h» "flu-HAN.” “mike
[VH‘IUII ... ,..... ... .... ........ ..... ... . —.-- -- -¢.
I'i'au: (\u‘liuu.’ this n-x‘un and iii-I. (‘mrfrr “nth Iii,-
chninl if uilfi‘.x...»dl infu-rmuliun :: :‘v; rui [sir-my i...fl| 5. is «lop-tuidlalc- . .. ——.......__._.

and ntmn H... r- ;ort In tho tuu‘lwr ml 5‘. ur harm-st Cu:~

.3

T‘J‘U‘S CHIC U! Pc‘sonn] DUSSPUSSO". In..- —— —--—

 

 

\‘cnacm‘c. L
“a" if: . l' ill.'.ll'ii, ° -. : I~:~ ‘ '.
'k‘ u U I i 1' r n u l. n 7. Till-v.1 props-r cure of school props-fly .. ._..-_...._..
URbJIL-Uihh'. IlAliE’i'S. ATTH'UUi- F7, AND SKHIS 8. I'rnclicirn guod manners .. ..._...._..._...
_EXPLANATIO"¢'. A sht't‘k .( V) is pin.“ I nl‘POaHO‘ Him..- 9. l‘rarticcs kWh] worumnnship ______. __ _-
Imus m '|t".l'.'|!l'i' uuhmzm's in \HiI-Iu 'h-: x; “i 1.1 .8 "Minn:
~""c “‘us" i i '.iv' 'r Y Y:‘;. '
‘on 1’ .‘sL r‘l l), ‘U “s .‘T! l“ I. I‘lf ‘. ’ -I .‘d t I‘ ! "I. WORK AND causgAL STUDY
that Im shin.“ do boiler Kurd lur uhc of Inf; .viumy Ni. . ,
‘ HABITS
luau: .12": .~I2qu| {or Uiu-‘r oh!!)l‘\'\ m wimh the dull iu-s
nut ind mum-I rap-firm". Tim ~lflllll:llll in NW h-zn‘iu-r I. “an mnlvrmis at hand ............. . ...... —- .—.- ._.-......
nod (Ive pan-M o-zuh nportiu; lul’md n at any vniudlln .
par‘ (1' the. ’.‘v(_.'z‘.~.', {0‘10}! 2 Ln" “me "D Aft-0d AJVlntage ...... . —- —- ~-—.
3. 1"1L'J‘ t0 iinvr')Vl' h!“ work .............. —--—.—--
NINE wccxs ramps m 20‘ J" m.‘_
I. HEALTH AND SAFETY HABITS A. Pnpnro: nil assignment; on timo —...._-._-_.
I. K '0 -s I‘|('.lll ; m1 no.“ . ... .. ..- ._._. _... _.....
‘ ‘ ‘ IV. s'ruuv mans. ATTITUDES
2. 1| physically nlu rt and active ._ - -.... -__.._.._. AND bleLS 3' SUBJECTS
Spelling

3. Kecpd'lmnda ami nnatmiuis awny
from {nee ..
O. Coughs on! “190205 into handker-

I. Ubavl’VCI how words an: pronounced ————-———

-.-. -_,__.. _- -—.—-

2. Kno“'8 mutlfling 0! word’ .‘uaiCd —-..——-_

 

 

 

, 3. Gc-nrmlly spells correctly in written
5. hian‘tfi‘“. “051' IH'S'JIR ”H" H M U". “a- *fi— “Ufk .......... ........... ......... .......... -— ——. —
6- ”MUCH Sfl'fv’)’ "8|” « ._ ———-—--—-~--—- d. Mm". tho- duivnd sun-£0!!! in [m —.-._..—--———-

 

 

8William L. Wrinkle, Improving Marking and ReportinggPractices,
(New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1947), p. 59.

62

Illustration 2.5

A comprehensive report form that combines dual
marking and checklists of objectives.

 

PROGRESS REPORT

University of Illinois High School

SOCIAL STUDIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Urbano, illinois
' lst quarter - November 3rd quarter - April
Sen-aster - February Final PJ'POII - June
RAI'NG SCALE: “’eBQKQZdang, S - Satisfactory, U - Unsotis‘octory, O - Inadequate basis for judgment.
5 U 0 Respects rights, opinions and dulities of others +‘S U 0 Evidences independent tlnught md originality
S U 0 Accepts resprmsibility for group's progress +5 U 0 Sacks more ”In superficial knowledge
5 U 0 Is careful with pronerty 05 U 0 Evidences growth in orderly and constwctive M discussion
5 U 0 Uses time to advantage +5 U 0 Keeps informed on current ital"
S U 0 Is attentive t‘3 U 0 Oiscriminatcs in the selection aid use of social shrdies mials
S t) O Fqllows direction. - +5 U 0 Demonstrates growth in the drills of critical thinking
5 U 0 Mdres regular preparations :- directed *5 U 0 Places people and events in their chronological rad cultural
telling
+5 U 0 Demonstrates social responsibility
+3 U 0
*S U 0
+.-'- U 0
ACHIEVEMENT ' Effort
The grade is n More of achievement with respect to what "so grade below is an estimate, based on evidence available to the
is expected of a pupil of this class in this school, and in m- teacher, oi the individral student's eflort.
lotion to what is espected in the next higher course in this sublect.
. 5 Excellent 2 m: but ""93. 5 Excellent 2 M
.___' 4m _' L°__.si”n __4m24 __ ‘__'x_v- we!
....... 3 _____¢'°d"°b" _.. 0 ME2W2 --.__ 3 s.'e_d_."°b'e ‘ __ OMmeQIQLJLJL'W "'2":
COMMENTS:
Ieacher: _.

 

 

 

fNorman E. Gronlund, Measurement and Evaluation in

Teaching, (New York; MacMillan Publishing Co., 3rd ed., 1976), p. 519.

 

63

"81

of the check form is to become detailed and lengthy thus often

causing confusion on the part of students and parents as to just what
the report means. Unlike the computer assisted narrative, the check list
reveals all comment choices to the parent and student thus leaving the

individual wondering as to why some of the other available comments

were not checked.

Effect of Teacher Attitudes On Grades Given to Students

At the outset of this chapter, the question was asked: "What
are Grades?" Subsequent sections of the chapter dealt with a definition
of the term "Grade" and with an exploration of the pro and contra
arguments surrounding the use of A B C D F. Alternatives to grading were
then explored with comments from authors in the field as to the value,
workability, and strengths of the various selected alternatives. One
very important consideration has been missing, however, and that is:
"How do teacher attitudes effect the grading process?" or, more
specifically, "Do teachers let things, other than achievement, influence
the mark they give?" The purpose of this section will be to explore
some very recent research into that very question. The question is
important to this study, for if we propose to determine teacher
attitudes about reporting practices, we must, first, attempt to understand

lunv their attitudes toward students might influence the grading/marking

Process .

81
Wrinkle, pp, 915,, p. 58.

64

As Ladas stated:

We grade today as if each instructor used his own foot
to eatablish the length of his own ruler. We also fail
to specify what standard we are using, curve or compentency;
it is as if we asked for six without specifying inches
or centimeters. Clearly academic frgsdom should not be
equated with his kind of sloppiness.

Marshall echoed this sentiment when speaking of A B C D F:

Too often, these symbols say nothing except how much
the teacher happens personally to approve or disapprove.
In them there is no advice, no guidance, no specific
criticism. Students go to school for an education, not
to please teachers. The object is guidance in understanding
the subject, not approval. That the receptiveness on
which the teacher's successes depend is adversely affected
by the use of grades is generally overlooke. Grades offer
easy ways to dispense plums or threats, which may lead to a
simulated recggtiveness, it is true; but the resemblance
is deceptive.

Kirshenbaum, Simon and Napier in Wad-Ja-Get?84 cited Adams,

Bass, Crawford, Dexter, Odell, Rosenthal, Thompson and others when
pointing out not Only the variances in grades given by teachers,

but the various reasons for WHY the grades varied. Factors such as
teacher boredom, fatigue, expectation, and ..... "an endless variety of

factors"85 enter into the grade a student might be given.

A 82Harold Ladas, "Grades: Standardizing the Unstandardized
Standard," Phi Delta Kappan, November, 1974, p. 185.

83Max Marshall, "Student Response to Criticism," Phi Delta
Kappan, March, 1974, p. 488.

84Kirshenbaum, et. al., pp, 913,, pp. 251-263.

85Ibid., p. 253.

65

One recent major study was done by Bonnie J. Steller, Ph.D.,
Michigan State University, 1974, which Supported the contentions of
Kirshenbaum, et. al. That study deserves some discussion.

The intention of Steller's study was to ..... "define differences
in the relationships between thirteen student characteristics and
the teachers' personal characteristics, situational factors including
subject area and grade level taught, the teachers' attitudes regarding
the appropriate goals for education and the functions of marks, and other

procedures that are associated with marking."86

Steller took a total
sample of 1022 teachers representing 140 school districts and 511 schools
randomly selected to receive a mailed questionnaire. A summary of
Steller's finding follows:
1) The majority of teachers reported that they base marks on
a combination of subject matter mastery and the student's
growth.
2) Male teachers more frequently reported that the marks
they assigned are derived from objective information.
(In this group were also more younger teachers and
teachers of upper grade students and academic subject

areas.)

3) The group of teachers including primarily older female

86
Steller, pp, git,, abstract.

66

teachers of either lower grade level students or secondary
nonacademic areas reported that...."The function of education
should be to socialize the children rather than to instill
knowledge."87
4) Teachers, for the most part, were found to be...."incapable
of defining precisely those tasks that are involved during
the process of assigning marks."88
5) The sex of the teacher appears to be related closely to the
importance allotted to neatness of work and the students'
personal appearance.
6) The majority of teachers appear to favor frequent use of
objective measurements.89 90
If Steller's findings are placed against Ladas' model for the
assignment of grades, we find conflict. Ladas suggests:
1) Grades shall not be awarded merely for classroom attendance.

2) Grades shll not be awarded merely for student effort.

3) Grades shall not be awarded for "professed need."

 

 

 

89Ibid.. pp. 151-155.

 

90Further findings are discussed on pages 151-155 of Steller's
york which relate to reporting practices of districts and other similar
ata.

67

4) Grades shall not be used to bloster self-image (self-concept.)
5) A higher grade shall not be given merely to placate the
student and avoid conflict.91

The literature shows that grades (A B C D F or any variation
thereof) are still being used today for primarily two reasons: 1) They
are easier to write down than almost any alternative form and,
concurrently, take less time to record; and 2) They are traditional
and most people understand the A B C D F report. The research going
back as far as Starch and Elliott in 1912 seems to indicate that grades
most often encompass many extraneous variables and can mean more than
just a level of achievement. Teacher attitudes do appear to influence
grades given. Teachers do indicate their use of objective criteria,
however, as being a major consideration in giving a grade even though
various subjective factors, such as attendance and personal appearance

do enter into marks given to students.

Summar
Educators and students have come to accept grades as a standard
part of the educational world, even though their emergence is relatively
recent. They, grades (A B C D F), can be defined as: A judgmental value
rating of rank or worth designed to describe, through the use of some
alphabetical or numerical symbol, a measure of eduCational achievement.

This rating is then used in making decisions concerning the student's future.

91Ladas,gp. 911., pp. 185-186.

68

Early evaluation of a person's ability was based upon actual
performance, but as school enrollments boomed into the 1900's more
concise means were needed to report pupil progress. This need first
produced the percentage marking system which was closely followed by
the move to A B C D F, a system which made administrative decisions
for college palcement, class ranking, and the like much easier.

Grades first came under scrutiny in the Starch and Elliott studies
published in 1912. The question of the validity of A B C D F has
continued into the present day. The question of grade validity produced
two camps; one wishing to see the elimination of grades, the other
wishing to see them retained but made more valid through tightened
criteria. During the 1960's, the era of student power, several learning
institutions, both public schools and colleges, bent to the pressure
and instituted alternative grading practices, primarily the pass-fail
or credit-no credit method. Even with such changes, however, grades
still hold their own in terms of educational use today.

The advocacy case for grading reveals a strong body of belief
that grades are useful, serve a sound purpose and have not been
bettered. Grading, in becoming a cultural ritual, has been translated
as being the currency in the school economy and students have become
conditioned to accept grades as a suitable reward for their work in
the classroom. Grading advocates contend that grades are a valuable
stimulus to learning and that they (grades) reward success in the
educational arena. Persons concerned about grades are 1) The teachers;

2) the pupils; 3) the parents; 4) the school administrators, and

69

5) the potential employers. Teachers, according to the advocates,
support grades because grades help them to do a better job of teaching.
It was shown that 72% of elementary and 83% of secondary teachers use
the A B C D F system of marking.

Those in opposition to the use of grades build their case around
research evidence, beginning with Starch and Elliott, showing the lack
of consistency and validity in the grading process. The argument is
also made that grades may tend to reinforce a students negative self-
image and that low grades possibly promote ongoing failure. Opponents
also contend that competition for grades may cause a misdirection of
purpose in the learner so that the object of school becomes the grade
received rather than the knowledge gained. Further, the argument is
advanced that grades simply may not tell the consumer (student, parent,
employer) enough about what the student has learned or accomplished.
Evidence was presented that variants such as the student's sex,
department, promptiness, obedience and attitude often enter into the
grade he receives thus possibly tainting the true meaning of the
symbol. It was pointed out that the conditions for fair grading may
seldom exist and that teachers, more often than not, grade under
conditions of time, pressure and personal fatigue.

Seven selected alternatives to the use of A B C D F were
Presented. They are: Pass-fail, Credit-No Credit, Blanket Grading,
Self-Evaluatidn, Parent Conferences, Narrative Reports, and Check Lists.
It was noted that, with the exception of recent computer application

to narratives, most of these alternatives have been available for some

70

time and are not new on the educational market. The prime advantages
to the use of each alternative, along with possible drawbacks, were
discussed. It was shown that possible departures from conventional
marking practices are to 1) Manipulate the symbols; 2) Supplement the
symbols, and 3) Make a fundamental change involving a different
approach. The seven selected alternatives fit into these catagories.
The contrary argument to the use of alternatives showed support for the
concept that once students are not bound by a traditional marking system
they do less work than usual. The propOnents of the alternatives argue
that alternaxdues may allow a wider field of choice for the student

and remove sources of externally imposed threat.

The case was presented for a high degree of parental
involvement in the reporting practice and evidence was presented to
show a correlation between independence in the child and later high
achievement in the early elementary grades. Parents perceptions of
what they desire from the gradtng process were presented and it was
shown that parents do indeed differ in their perceptions as to what
is important information about the child.

Examples were shown of various forms of narrative and checklist
reporting along with support for the use of specific mastery objectives
in the reporting scheme. It was shown that, often, alternative forms
of reporting, such as the chekc-list or narrative, become too lengthy
for sound comprehension by students and parents, and confusion can

result.

71

Evidence was presented regarding the effect of teacher attitudes
on grades given. It was shown that teachers: 1) Base marks on a
combination of subject matter mastery and the students' growth; 2)
Frequently report that marks assigned are derived from objective, rather
than subjective, information: 3) Often feel that the function of
education should be to socialize students rather than impart or instill
knowledge; 4) Are incapable of precisely defining the tasks involved
in the process of giving marks; 5) Place different importance on neatness
of work and student personal appearance according to the teacher's
sex and 6) Show a majority in favoring frequent use of objective
measurements in determining a student's grade.

A model fOr grading criteria was presented which would exclude
such variables as attendance, effort, professed need, self-image, and
potential conflict between student and teacher, form the grading
decision. Support was shown that these variables to exist in varying
degrees when a teacher makes a grading decision thus diminishing greatly
the validity of the grade given.

It was determined from the review of the literature that grades
have remained as a part of education in America because of two primary
reasons: 1) They are easier to cope with in the classroom and in the
administrative function than almost any other form of reporting and;

2) They have become a traditional form of reporting which is generally

understood by most who would view them as an evaluative tool.

Chapter III
DESIGN METHODOLOGY AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The researcher's purpose in this chapter will be to describe the
artget population and procedure for sampling, the design of the

survey instrument and the statistical methods used in data analysis.

Egpulation and Sample

The target population for the study was elementary schools
in four states: Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee and West Virginia.
INcluded in the population were all regularily contracted teachers
grades pre-Kindergarten through six along with building administrators
in the buildings selected. The states used were selected at ramdom
from three larger groupings of states. Group one was labeled
Northern States and consisted of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Group two was labeled Mid-Eastern States and consisted of Maryland,
New Jersey and West Virginia. Groupthree was labeled Southern States
and consisted of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Tennessee. Initial groupings of states were determined by a pre-survey
letter of inquiry to each of the State Departments of EdUcation in the
48 continental United States. Those states willing to furnish school
listings were included in the original groupings. Since the southern
grouping included five states, as opposed to three from the northern

and mid-eastern groups, two southern states were randomly selected.

72

73

Special education teachers, itinerant staff and substitute f
teachers were excluded from the study as were teachers of any grade 55
higher than grade 6. 2

After random selection of one state each from the northern
and mid-eastern grouping and two states from the southern grouping,

a random selection of thirty elementary schools from each of the states
was made utilizing the directories made available: The Georgia
Educational Directogy,1976 edition; the 1975-76 Directory of Public
Schools, Approved Private and Special Schools for 1974-75 and The
State Department of Education, State of Tennessee; and the Egg;
Virginia Education Directory, 1975-76 edition. Projecting on a basis
of 2 teachers per grade level, per school for 120 schools, grades K-6,
a possible sample size of 1,680 teachers and 120 administrators was
projected. By using a random selection method, and by assigning the
states into geographical groupsingé each state in each of the three
groups was given an equal chance for selection. Random selection of
30 school from each of the randomly selected states gave each school
in each state an equal chance of being selected.

A wide range of number of teachers employed was found within:

’ the schools selected, ranging from 4 teachers and one building
administrator in the Mackinac Island, Michigan; Devonia, Tennessee;
Letart, West Virginia; and Summersville, West Virginia elementaries
to 41 teachers and one administrator in the Conyers, Georgia,

Honey Creek Elementary School.

74

After the initial random selection of 30 schools in each I
state was made, a letter was sent to the building principal seeking;
a commitment for cooperation in the study with a return pre-paid ;
postcard seeking a statement of staff size and present reporting
system most frequently used in the school.

It was not expected that the initial 30 schools selected
would all respond in the affirmative, if aat all, and, therefore,
back-up schools were selected to replace those which chose not to
participate. ‘Table 3.1 illustrates the use of randomly selected
back-up schoots to meet the criteria of at least 30 schools per
state. Since a strong commitment on the part of the building principal
was needed, reminder letters were not sent until after the back-up
schools had been included. Seiectfion of schools was limited to those
buildings with at least three grade levels, counting Kindergarten as
a grade level. Schools with grade levels higher than grade 6 were
used only when the school encompassed at least grade 4 or lower along

with the grade(s) higher than 6. Directions to the building administrator

specifically excluded teachers of grades higher than grade 6.

Development of the Survey Instrument

Since review of the literature produced no available
instrument for the study, it was necessary to design an instrument
specifically intended to elicit teacher and administrator attitudes
toward A B C D F and the seven selected alternatives.

The first step in developing the instrument was to randomly

select 23 elementary teachers and 17 elementary principals in the

75

Saginaw, Michigan Public Schools for the purpose of a personal
interview. The personal interview, which took an average of 15
minutes to complete, consisted of a series of open ended questions
designed to elicit reactional responses. A copy of the interview
form used by the researcher can be found in the appendices.

After completing the total of 40 personal interviews, all
responses were reviewed for similarity. Those like responses were

then used as the basis for design of the Likert Sacle response items

Table 3.l
Number of Schools Selected and Committing by State

 

 

Number Number Percent
State Selected Committing Committing
Georgia 49 31 63.3
Michigan 60 34 56.6
Tennessee 47 33 70.2
West Virginia 43 32 74.4

 

(lt6fl5i1-40) in the questionnaire. The interview responses were
grouped into three categories: 1) Generalized evaluation of the
rePOr*ting method - Example: (Item 14) "Parent Conferences are a
farce." 2) Student oriented comnents - Example: (Item 21) "Kids
lose their incentive to learn when blanket grading is used." 3)
Direct: method compariSon comments - Example: (Item 6) "Credit - No

Credit; reporting is much better than any form of A B C D F."

76

Prevailing patterns of attitudes about the various reporting methods,
then gave rise to the items used in the questionnaire. It should be
mentioned that the teachers and administrators used in the random
selection for interviewing came from a wide range of school sizes and
encompassed both integrated and partially integrated schools thus giving
more assurance that the people being interviewed would be classified
as being continguous to the proposed sample population. A complete
listing of the comments received and the number of like responses is
shown in the appendices.

In reviewing the interview statements, it became apparent
the respondents saw three parties to the reporting process; parents,
students and the teacher. These general inferences were later used in
the codifying of the eight open response items in the questionnaire.
The codifying process will be discussed more fully in chapter four,
"Analysis of the Data."

Because of the possible projected sample size totalling 1,680
teachers and 120 administrators, it was necessary to design the
questionnaire in such a way as to make scoring as rapid and easy as
possible. A four section format was employed which allowed for double-
density, op-scan scoring layout. Section I (page 1), gives general
direcrtions followed by composite definitions of the eight reporting

methods under consideration. Section II gave directions on response
meaning ranging from SA (strongly agree) to A (agree) to 0 (disagree)
to SD (strongly disagree.) Forty were listed on the page and the

dESIY‘Ed response was indicated by filling the appropriate bubble using

a 50ft lead pencil.

77

Section III gave instructions, followed by eight open response
items which sought a reason for agreement or disagreement with particular
items on the preceeding page, one item dealing with each one of the
seven alternatives and one with A B C D F.

Page 4 consisted of one item from section III (the "ranking"
item, item 49) and sought data on sex, degree held, years of paid
experience, grade level taught and geographical location. Page 4
was designed to be completely op-scan scorable. Also included was
a boxed coding frame which was completed by the research upon return ,///
of the questionnaire which served to link the responses with the
variable data. This coding then was matched on the op-scan sheet used
to codify the open response items. Therefore, when the pages were
Sent through the scanner separately, the data was linked by the
code used on the three sheets.

After receiving an initial commitment from a school, the
questionnaires, along with a letter of instruction to the principal,
were forwarded. A pre-paid, addressed return envelope was also
included for the principal's use in returning the questionnaires.
Two weeks were allowed for the return of materials. After two
weeks, the first reminder letter was sent. Another two weeks was
allowed before a second reminder letter was forwarded. In early
April, 1977, any non-responding schools were contacted by phone
with a final reminder and appeal for return of the questionnaires.
Those schools which indicated they had "misplaced" the questionnaires,

but were still interested in participating, were sent a second set

78

of questionnaires and another return envelope, pre-paid. Final
returns, along with number of teachers and administrators responding

from each state are shown in Table 3.2

Table 3.2

Number of Responding Schools, Teachers and Administrators by State

 

 

 

Schools Number of Number of
State Responding Teachers Administrators
Georgia 26 258 25
Michigan 28 273 26
Tennessee 30 238 30
West Virginia 28 249 26
Total 112 1,018 107

 

The projected sample size of 1,680 teachers and 120
administrators fell short by 662 teachers and 13 administrators, in
terms of response received. Actually, the total number of teachers
available in the schools which responded was 1,728 and available
administrators 129. Table 3.3 shows the percentage of response from

the available teachers and administrators in the responding schools.

79

Table 3.3

Numbers of Teachers and Administrators Actually Available
in each State in the Responding Schools and the
Percentage of Response by State.

 

 

 

Available Reachers Available Admin.

State Teachers Responding % Administrators Respon. %
Gerogia 444 258 58.10 30 25 83.3
Michigan 422 273 64.69 34 26 76.47
Tennessee 452 238 52.65 _ 34 34 88.23
West

Virginia 410 249 60.73 31 26 83.87
Total 1,728 1,018 58.27 129 107 75.96

 

Validation of the Survey Instrument

The survey instrument was designed in a four section, 54
item format. Section I of the instrument carried general instructions
to the respondent followed by a listing of eight definitions of the
reporting practices to be considered in the questionnaire. Respondents
were instructed to refer back to the definitions, if necessary, as
they completed the questionnaire.

Forty attitudinal statements with a four point Likert Scale
forced choice response mode were used. Three areas of concern
were involved in arranging the 40 items. First, a general evaluation

of a particular reporting method was sought. Two opposing items were

80

used. Example: Parent Conferences - Item number 14 reads: "Parent
Conferences are a farce", while item 40 reads: "Parent Conferences
are extremely valuable for the parents, the teacher and the student."
Table 3.4 shows the opposing "general evaluation" items for the

reporting methods.

Table 3.4

Opposing Items of a General Evaluation Nature for the
Eight Reporting Practices Selected.

 

 

Reporting Method Item Opposing Item
Blanket Grading 2 33
Check List Reporting 12 36
Credit - No Credit 13 28
*A B C D F (Grades) (See explanation below)
Narrative Reporting 7 39
Parent Conferences 14 40
Pass - Fail 11 3
Self Evaluation ’ 9 26

 

*Since the purpose of the study was to compare A B C D F
with the selected alternatives, a different reatement was
needed for the A B C D F method. Items 8, I6 and 38 all gave
A B C D F a positive treatment. Legitimate responses to these
items would be expected to be uniform, i.e. agreement/
disagreement with one, agreement/disagreement will all. The
opposing items were numbers 1, 6, 10, 15, 24, 3O & 32. These
items directly compared the seven alternatives with the
A B C D F method. If, then, a respondent disliked A B C D F,
he would respond in disagreement to items 8, 16 and 38 while
agreeing with one or more of the items opposing.

 

81

The second area of concern spoke directly to student welfare
connected with the reporting methods. Again using Parent Conferences
as an example, item 23 and 5 were designed as opposing items. Item
23 reads: "Parent Conferences are absolutely necessary at all levels,
K-6," while item 5 reads: “Parent Conferences are not necessarily
of any value to students except, perhaps, in the early grades."

Table 3.5 shows the opposing "student concern" items for all methods,

including A B C D F.

Table 3.5

Opposing Items of Student Concern for the Eight
Reporting Practices Selected.

 

 

' Reporting Method Item Opposing Item
Blanket Grading ‘ 21 25
Check List Reporting 4 17
Credit - No Credit 19 37
A B C D F (grades) 22 31
Narrative Reporting 18 27
Parent Conferences 23 5

. Pass - Fail 29 35
Self Evaluation 20 34

_‘-

As mentioned in Table 3.4, a comparison of A B C D F with

the selected alternatives was a central purpose of the study and,

82

accordingly, is treated as a separate and third concern. As mentioned,
items 8, 16, and 38 were stated positively in support of A B C D F.
These were then compared with items 1, 6, 10, 15, 24, 30 and 32 which,
while not speaking in a direct negative to A B C D F, set the
alternative methods as being "better than" or "Preferable to" A B C D F.

Section III of the instrument set forth eight open response
items which asked for some specific rationale from the respondent
as to why he agreed/disagreed with given items covering all eight
reporting methods. The purpose was to dig deeper into the attitudes
expressed in the responses on the Likert Scale. Item number 49,
the last item in Section III, asked for a "ranking" of all eight
methods, with "1" being the respondent's favorite method and "8"
being the least favorite. Besides serving as a composite "face
value" evaluation of A B C D F in direct comparison with the seven
alternatives, this item gave the latitude of further checking the
vlidity of responses in items 1 - 40 in section II.

Section IV of the instrument asked for personal respondent
data including: 1) Sex, 2) Number of years of paid experience in
education, 3) Highest college degree held, 4) Grade level assignment
or designation as an administrator and 5) State where teaching.

As most authors in the field of attitudinal survey will
attest, there is no real way to truly "validate" an attitudinal \
questionnaire. Peoples' attitudes do not fall into neat little

right or wrong niches as do responses on a multiple choice history

. m—u...‘
A ....—.—.¢-———a—.- a.

test or a standardized mathematics examination. The best methods

83

to approach validation seem to be: 1) Seek knowledgeable opinion

on the design and language of the instrument, 2) Pilot the instrument
to determine internal consistency of the items. Both of these
methods were used with the questionnaire in this study.

Dr. Donald Hamachek, Department of Educational Psychology,
Michigan State University, and Dr. Louis Romano, Department of
Educational Administration and Higher Education, Michigan State
University, were both asked to review the questionnaire. Both
parties returned the questionnaire with revisions which were
incorporated along with suggestions from the personnel in the Office
of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State
University. After revisions were incorporated, the instrument was
piloted in two elementary schools in the Swan Valley Public Schools,
Shield, Michigan. Haven and Shields Elementaries are both suburban
schools with a range of economic levels in the attendance areas. In
all, two elementary administrators were involved in the pilot, and
32 teachers, grades K-6 and ungraded. Table 3.6 shows the range
of grade levels covered and number of teachers and administrators
surveyed.

Items 1-40 were arranged to deal with three major areas of
concern: 1) A general evaluation of the reporting practices, 2)
Direct effect of the practiCe on students, and 3) A comparison of
the practice with A B C D F reporting. The first two areas carried
two items each which were worded as opposing items and one item which

set the alternative reporting practices directly against A B C D F.

 

84

Table 3.6

Range of Grade Levels Covered and Number of Respondents
at Each Level - Including Administrators - In the Pilot Study

 

Grade Level Number of Respondents

 

Kindergarten 2
1st
2nd
3rd
4th

4
2
4
5
5th 6
6th 7
Ungraded 2
Administrators 2

Total 34

 

Total number of questionnaires thrown out for obvious
attempt to foil the questionnaire = 1. Questionnaires used in

the pilot study data = 33.

 

(See Tables 3.4 and 3.5) This, then, produced five items for each
method (eight methods including A B C D F) for a total of 40 items.
Table 3.7 shows the number of correct (opposing) responses and the
percentage of correct opposition (percent of match) for the general

evaluation items in the pilot.

85

Table 3.7

Opposing Responses and Percent of Match for General Evaluation Items.

 

 

Number of

Opposing % of
Method Item Opposing Item Responses Match
Blanket Grading 2 33 30 90.9
Check List 12 36 13 39.4
Credit-No Credit 13 28 27 81.8
Narratives 7 39 20 60.6
Parent Conferences 14 40 30 90.9
Pass Fail 11 3 9 27.3
Self Evaluation 9 26 22 66.7

 

Prior to the pilot study, the decision had been made to use
a cut off of 60% as the minimum percentage of time the items must
work in opposition in order to be considered valid. The Check List
items, 12 and 36 and the Pass-Fail items, 11 and 3, were found to
be in need of revision in order to make them more directly opposite.
In comparing the "positive" items on A B C D F (items 8,
16 and 38) with items 1, 6, 10, 15, 24, 30 and 32 which spoke in
favor of the alternatives to grades, several factors were taken into
consideration in the pilot study. First, items 8 and 38 were designed
to agree, as they were worded almost exactly alike. Item 16, while

also a positive statement in support of A B C D F, carried much stronger

86

wording and, actually, was the prime item used to compare with
items 1, 6, 10, 15, 24, 30 and 32. Item 16 read: "A B C D F is a
darn good grading system which hasn't been bettered."

Again checking internal consistency of the items, items 8
and 38 were compared to determine match of responses and it was found
the items showed consistent responses 28 times for a percentage of
match of 84.8%. '

Item 16, the more strongly worded item in favor of A B C D F
was then compared with items 1, 6, 10, 15, 24, 30 and 32 for opposite
match responses. It was decided that if item 16 were working
correctly, the respondent should have shown an opposite response
on those items which set forth the alternatives against A B C D F.
In doing so it was found that: 1) Of the 13 respondents who agreed
with item 16, 11 of them (84.6%) showed opposing statements on at
least 6 out of 7 out of the possible 7 opposing items, 2) Of the
20 respondents who disagreed with item 16, 17 of them (85%) showed
agreement with at least one of the opposing items which supported
an alternative to A B C D F. Only 3 of the 20 (15%) failed, in
efferrt, to select one of the 7 alternatives as being "better than"

A B C D F.

Along with a "general evaluation" and "comparison with
A B C D F," the third area of concern in the arrangement of items
1-40 was that of "student concerns" or, as stated earlier, "direct

effect on students." Again, opposing items were used (see Table 3.5).

87

Table 3.8 shows the result of the pilotin the area of student

concerns .

Table 3.8

Opposing Responses and Percent of Match for Student Concern Items.

 

 

Number of

_ Opposing % of
Method Item Opposing Item Responses Match
Blanket Grading 21 25 25 75.7
Check List 4 17 21 63.6
Credit-No Credit 19 37 17 *51.5
A B C D F 22 31 18 *54.5
Narratives 18 27 20 60.6
Parent Conference 23 5 28 84.8
Pass - Fail 29 35 17 *51.5
Self Evaluation 20 34 25 75.7

*Less than 60% opposition - revision was required to make items

more directly opposite.

 

When asked to rank the various methods of reporting, the pilot

study respondents produced the following results shown in Table 3.9.

By using the grid shown in Table 3.9, a further check of item

response consistency was made.

It was assumed that a person ranking

A B C D F, for example, as his number 1 choice, would show a positive

response to item 16 (used earlier to compare A B C D F to the seven

88

alternatives.) Similarily, it was assumed that a respondent giving
a low ranking (perhaps a 7 or 8) to a given reporting practice would
show a reverse response on a positively worded item for the particular

reporting method.

Table 3.9

Pilot Study Responses to the "Ranking Item", Item Number 49.

 

Times Ranked 1-8

 

 

Method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Blanket Grading O 0 O 1 3 6 7 16 33
Check List 5 12 9 7 0 O 0 O 33
Credit-No Credit 0 0 2 1 9 9 l 9 3 33
A B C D F 16 5 5 3 1 2 1 O 33
Narratives 4 5 6 12 3 1 l 1 33
Parent

Conference 7 9 10 6 O 1 O O 33
Pass-Fail O O 1 1 3 11 8 9 33
Self

Evaluation 1 2 O 2 14 3 7 4 33

33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33

Selected items were used to determine the numerical relationship

between rankings and item responses. It was found that those
respondents selecting A B C D F, Parent Conference, Check List and

Narratives as their first choices agreed with corresponding items

89

numbers 8, 23, 36 and 39 respectively on the average of 94.86% with
those choosing check lists and narratives argeeing with corresponding
items 36 and 39 l00% of the time.

The same pattern emerged with those choosing Blanket Grading,
Pass-Fail, Credit-No Credit, and Self Evalaution as their last (8th)
or next-to-last choices. The match of responses averaged 96.16%
on the appropriate opposing items. The rankings given to the various
reporting practices matched the responses given on the Likert Scale
items on the average of 95.51% of the time.

In reviewing the data from the pilot study, it was found that
items 12 and 36, dealing with Check List, and items 11 and 3, dealing
with Pass-Fail were in need of revision in the "general evaluation"
items. In both cases, one item in each pair was reworded to allow
the respondent to totally reject the method where, before, some
degree of acceptance was implied in both of the items of the set.

Under the items of "student concern", item pairs 19 and 37, 22
and 31, and 29 and 35 were revised to be more directly opposing,
again allowing the respondent to totally reject the method in question
as it applied to direct effect on students. The items which pitted
the alternatives against the A B C D F method were found to be
working with a great degree of consistency and there was no need of
revision. After adjustments in the language were made, as a result
of the findings in the pilot study, the questionnaire was prepared for
printing and distrubtion in the op-scan scoreable format referred

to earlier in the chapter.

90

Statistical Methods Used in Data Analysis

Various statistical and descriptive techniques were used in
answering the questions and hypotheses set forth as the objectives of
the study. Questions number 1 and 2 were analyzed by multivariate
analysis of variance of repeated measurements. Seven research
hypotheses were formulated as a means of answering these questions.

Question 1: Do elementary teachers prefer the use
of A B C D F reporting over the use of selected
alternative forms of reporting?

Question 2: Do elementary administrators prefer the
use of A B C D F reporting over the use of selected
alternative forms of reporting?

1) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward blanket grading is the same as
their attitude toward A B C D F.

2) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward check list reporting is the
same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

3) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward credit-no credit reporting is
the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

4) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward narrative reporting is the
same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

5) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward parent conference reporting
is the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

6) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward pass-fail reporting is the
same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

7) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward self evaluation reporting is
the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

91

Frequency counting was used to answer research questions
3 and 4.

Question 3: If elementary teachers do prefer the use

of one of the selected alternatives over the use of

A B C D F, why does this preference exist?

Question 4: If elementary administrators do prefer

the use of one of the selected alternatives over the

use of A B C D F, why does this preference exist?

In approaching questions 3 and 4, those teachers, and
administrators ranking a reporting method as either 1 or 2, or, 7
or 8 on the ranking item (item 49) were then compared across with
their codified responses to the open ended questions (numbers 41-48
in Section III.) Open ended responses were codified into four
responses modes: 1) Student oriented response; Example: "Students
benefit form the check list because they can see exactly where they
stand," 2) Teacher oriented response; Example: "Narratives are too
time consuming for the teacher," 3) Parent oriented response;
Example: "Parents expect grades, they don't read other reports,"
and 4) Other responses; Example: "Because that's the way I feel."

The codifying technique also allowed for scoring of any
comments which included any combination of the code areas. Example:
"Students, teachers and parents all can benefit from parent conferences."

The frequency counting technique included the following steps
with the data cards:

1. The master card deck was first sorted by teachers and

administrators.

92

2. Each deck was then sorted on response to item 49 of
/

either a 1 or 14 or, 7 or 8.
3. Frequency counting was then done on the basis of the
codified respdnses to the open ended questions - Student,
Teacher, Parent, Other - or any combination of student,
teacher and parent oriented comments.
Chi square analyses of correlations were used for the ranking
item; item 49, as a means of answering research questions 5 and 6:

Question 5: What correlation exists, significant at the
.05 level of confidence, between a teacher's preference for
a particular form of reporting and the teacher's: 1) Sex,
2) Years of experience, 3) Degree(s) held, 4) Grade level
taught, 5) Geographical location (state)?

Question 6: What correlation exists, significant at the

.05 leve of confidence, between an administrator's preference
for a particular form of reportin and the administrator's:
1) Sex, 2( Years of experience, 3 Degrees(s) held, 4)
Georgaphical location (state)?

Correlations were drawn for all eight reporting methods and

l,«..{¢‘\
l 3 l

each demographic variable. Thei§;§tatistic was then used to determine"‘i’

v Han- u... n.
"ma

the magnitude of aSsociation on each variable.

(:Lwiézestion number 7 was analysed by use of average rankings
given for each reporting practice by teachers and administrators
on item 49. Infcasasswheretrespondentswfailed\to’cOmplete~item‘49,
unifgrmhnankings.of,98”\were given tdwall\MEthod§f' The average

rankings were then/charted descriptively and standard deviation of

ranking determined.

93

Question 7: It shall be hypothesized that: A difference,
significant at the .05 level of confidence, exists between-
teachers and administrators in preference for a particular
form of progress reporting. ll99/

Due to the wide ran e in numbers between teachers (1;6i8i’and
administrators (15$) sampled, the research decision was made not to
attempt a statistical application seeking a significant (.05) level
of difference. Any such significance would be subject to such great
error that descriptive techniques emerged as the most suitable and
realistic form of analysis for question 7.

In addition to the direct analyses of the research questions,
item analyses were run to the 40 items from Section II.

In seeking answers to the research questions, which were the
objectives of the study, all 1,0:81elementary teachers and ID? in.

elementary administrators were used.

Summar

This chapter has described the target population, procedure
for sampling, the design of the survey instrument, the piloting
of the survey instrument, and the statistical methods used in data
analysis.

The sampling involved four states: Georgia, Michigan,
Tennessee and West Virginia for a total of 112 schools, 1,007
teachers, grades pre-Kindergarten through 6, and 98 administrators.

Instrumentation used was a four section, op-scan sorable

questionnaire developed for the study. The instrument also included

94

eight open ended response items which were designed to elicit
explanations for the responses given on selected items in the
instrument. An explanation of the pilot study is given, along with
'expert review used to validate the instrument. I

Statistical methodology was detailed for the 7 research
questions and included: Multivariate analysis of variance of
repeated measurements for questions 1 and 2; Frequency counting for
questions 3 and 4; Chi square analysis of correlations for questions
5 and 6 and Descriptively charted average rankings and standard
deviation of average rankings of item 49 for question 7. Item
analyses were, also, compiled for selected items from Section II
in order to determine average response from teachers and administrators.
All 1,018 teachers and 107 administrators were used in the

statistical analyses.

Chapter IV
ANALYSES OF DATA AND FINDING OF THE STUDY

In this chapter, the author presents an explanation of the
data analyses used and the findings of the study. A brief
explanation of the statistical techniques used will be followed
by the statistical findings of each data analyses and a related

interpretation.

Statistical Methods

Multivariate analysis of variance of repeated measurements
was used to analyze Research Questions 1 and 2. Seven hypotheses
were tested which placed A B C D F in direct comparison with the
seven selected alternatives. The repeated measurements analysis
of variance was then employed. The 1,125 subjects were treated as a
group of observations while each individual was considered one unit of
analysis.

A cross tabulation technique was used in answering Research
Questions 3 and 4.

Since nominal or categorical data are required for the use
of the Chi square test, and since much of the data in the study
were of that nature, Chi square was utilized as a means of determining
if two variables were independent. The Chi square statistic was

applied to research questions 5 and 6 wherein the 5 demographic

95

96

variables, (sex, years of experience, degree(s) held, grade level
taught or administrative position, and geographical location.) were
applied to the 8 possible rankings of reporting methods in item 49.
Correlations were drawn for all eight reporting methods and each
demographic variable. Cramer's O was then used to determine the
overall magnitude of association on each variable.

Frequency counting was used to determine possible relationships
between teacher and administrative reporting preferences and their
responses to the open ended questions. Frequency correlations were
then drawn to determine possible correlations significant at the
.05 leve or below. The frequency counting technigue was applied
directly to Research Question 7.

Frequency distributions were used in describing the range

of respondents over the demographic variables.
Statistical Findings

Findings presented below are organized in order of the
Research Questions presented by the author. Where appropriate,
significance level was set at the alpha .05 level of confidence.
In other cases where Chi square was not applicable, standard
deviation was used as a significance indicator, supported by the

use of Cramer's 0 to indicate the magnitude of association.

97

Multivariate Analysis of Variance of Repeated Measurements

Question 1: Do elementary teachers prefer the use
of’A B C D F reporting over the use of selected
alternative forms of reporting?

 

Question 2: Do elementary administrators prefer the
use of A B C D F reporting over the use of selected
alternative forms of reporting?

 

To answer the above questions, seven hypotheses were tested.

1) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward blanket grading is the same
as their attitude toward A B C D F.

2) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and
administrators toward check list reporting is the
same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

3) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward credit-no credit reporting is

the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

4) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward narrative reporting is the

same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

5) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward parent conference reporting

is the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

6) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward pass-fail reporting is the

same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

7) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

amdinistrators toward self evaluation reporting is

the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

To analyze the seven hypotheses, a repeated measure analysis
of variance was employed. The design treated the 1,125 subjects as
a combined group of observation while each individual subject was
considered as one unit of analysis. The group's attitude toward the

8 reporting methods was the repeated factor which had 8 levels.

98

Table 4.1 below, shows the design matrix for the analysis.

Table 4.1

Design Matrix for Repeated Measurements Analysis of Variance.

 

 

 

 

Measurement
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7. M8
S1
S2
S3

 

Subjects

 

S1125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$1 = The ith subject (i = 1, 2, 3, ....... 1125)
M1 = Blanket Grading
M2 = Check List

M3 = Credit-No Credit
M4 = Grades (A B C D F)
M5 = Narratives

M6 = Parent Conferences

M7 = Pass-Fail
M8 = Self Evaluation

 

99

The ANOVA table, Table 4.2 illustrates the results of the
analysis by repeated measurements. The statistic test is signivicant
'at alpha = .005 level. This significance was used because, in
performing 9 sepearte F Tests to control alpha = .05 each test was
tested at alpha = .001 to produce a conservative test. The degree

of freedom for each errog’term in 1,124.

Table 4.2

Results of the Repeated Measurements Analysis

 

 

Source of Hypothesis Significance
Variation df Mean Square F Less Than
”M1 - “M4 1 6188.275 1727.401 .0001*

"M2 - “M4 1 0.860 .2519 .5159

”M3 - ”M4 1 2370.884 670.206 .0001*

"M5 - ”M4 1 260.021 57.921 .0001*

9M6 - ”M4 1 480.566 231.868 .0001*

”M7 - ”M4 1 1978.114 488.776 .0001*

“M8 - “M4 1 2151.417 592.070 .0001*

 

*Significant at alpha .005

As can be seen by reviewing Table 4.2, the original test
displayed difference in attitudes toward 6 reporting methods and
A B C D F. Only Measurement 2, Check List reporting, showed no

significant difference. If the original test were to be accepted,

100

all but H02 would be rejected. A further test was needed to determine
the magnitude of differences. Table 4.3 illustrates the magnitude of

differences found in Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Magnitude of Differences Found in Repeated
Measurements Analysis

 

 

Contrast Mean Standard Error
UM1 - “M4 2.345 5.663025 E-02
“M2 - “M4 - 0276 5.509243 E-02
“M3 - “M4 l.452 5.607569 E-OZ
“M5 - ”M4 -.4BI 6.316971 E-02
”M6 - "M4 -.654 4.292199 E-02
”M7 - ”M4 1.326 5.997835 E-02
“M8 - "M4 1.383 5.684605 E-02

 

By reviewing Table 4.3, it becomes evident that some of the
differences which appeared in Table 4.2-are not truly as pronounced
as they may have originally seemed.

Findin s: 1) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers

and administrators toward blanket grading is the same

as their attitude toward A B C D F.

The Hypothesis is not retained. Teachers and administrators

clearly chosse A B C D F over blanket grading. Their attitudes

101

toward blanket grading are significantly different from their
attitudes twoard A”B C D F.

2) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward check list reporting is the same

as their attitude toward A B C D F.

The hypothesis is retained. Teacher and administrator
attitudes about Check List do not vary significantly from their
attitudes toward A B C D F. Attitudes toward both methods are
very close.

3) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward credit-no credit reporting

is the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

The hypothesis is not retained. A significant difference
in attitude exists. Teachers and Administrators favor A B C D F
over credit-no credit.

4) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward narrative reporting is the

same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

The hypothesis is retained. There is not a significant
difference between teacher and administrator feeling toward narratives
and A B C D F. The two methods are about equal in teacher and
administrator attitude toward them.

5) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward parent conference reporting is

the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

The hypothesis is retained. No significant difference exists

in the attitudes of teachers and administrators between parent

conferences and A B C D F. They are about equal in choice.

102

6) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward pass-fail reporting is the same

as their attitude toward A B C D F.

The hypothesis is not retained. A B C D F stands out as
the choice of teachers and administrators and they do not hold
the same attitudes toward pass-fail reporting.

7) Ho: The attitude of elementary teachers and

administrators toward self evaluation reporting is the

same as their attitude toward A B D C F.

The hypothesis is not retained. There is a difference in
attitude toward self evaluation reporting. A B C D F is the choice

over this method and the attitudes are not the same.

Cross Tabualtion Technique

 

Question 3: If elementary teachers do prefer the use
of one of the selected alternatives over the use of
A B C D F, why does this preference exist?

 

Question 4: If elementary administrators do prefer
the use of one of the selected alternatives over the
use of A B C D F, why does this preference exist?

 

To arrive at an analysis of the above questions, the questions
were combined as in the case with questions 1 and 2 and 5 and 6.
As described in Chapter III, open ended responses to the questions
in Section III of the instrument were coded as being either student,
teacher, parent or "other" in their emphasis. For the purposes of
cross tabulation, responses to item 49, the ranking item, were
grouped into either a favorable or non-favorable response with the
"high" group being those respondents who rated the various methods

as either 1 or 2 on item 49 and the "low" group being those who

103

rated the reporting method as either 7 or 8. The high and low

groups were then cross tabluated with their responses to the open
ended questions in section III. Due to the fact that some respondents
did not reply to section III, 1,122 cases were used in the analysis
rather than the 1,125 cases used elsewhere. The difference of three
cases, however, in so large a sample was not significant. Combination
responses, involving students, teachers and parents in some
combination were also recorded in the coding process. Table 4.4
illustrates the results of the cross tabulation process.

Findings: Review of Table 4.4 reveals the following:

1) The 187 respondents ranking Pass-Fail as either 1 or 2,
on question 49 indicated student interests as the
predominant reason for their choice.

2) The 167 respondents ranking Pass-Fail as either 7 or 8
on question 49 indicated student interests as the
predominant reason for their choice.

3) Of the 862 respondents ranking Parent Conferences as
either 1 or 2, the interests of the parents ranked as the
primary reason for that choice, followed closely by the
combination of student-teacher - parent interests. Student
interests and teacher-parent followed. A wide range of
reasoning was found.

4) Only 44 respondents ranked Parent Conferences as either
7 or 8 on item 49 with teacher, student - parent, and
student-teacher - parent rationale being equally predominant

as the rationale for the choice.

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.N N. N. O. m.H m. N.H m.H O. O.H N
Om N N O OH N N OH O OH N
N.HO O.O N.N N.N H.ON N.O N.OH O.OH .N.OH N.O N
HONO
ONO NN ON ON NNH NO HOH NHH NN OO N Neeeu-ma
O.O N. O N. N. O. O. N. O. O. N
NO (TN O N O m N m ml, NW N
H.OO O.OH H.O N.OH H.NH O.NH 0.0H N.NH N.N N.N N deed
-NmNcou
NON HNH OO NO OHH NHH NO NaH ON ON N Neaeaa-Na
N.NO O O. N.H N.NH N. N.O N.N H.N H.m N
NOH . O N O NOH N OH OH HH NH N
N.Nm O. N.N H.N N.Om O. N.N H.N O.a O.e N
NNH H O HH NOH N OH HH OH OH N NNaa-mmaa-Ha
HaHON a N N N m N N m a N m m a O N N a O .N.z OONHNOOO
zom amacm ammo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.NcmE=NchH ago No me smpH :N muonpmz chNNoamm No mchxcam zoo No smN: can: ammam
Newsaaumcfi >m>cam ago No ma . Ha mcoNNmmzo on mmmcoammm NON opacoNNOm chzocm :oNuazpnON mmocu

v.a mpnah

105

 

‘ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.OO N. N. N. N.ON O O.N O.H H.O H.N vN
H
OOH H H N .NOH O O N NH OH N
N.OO N. H.N O N.HN O O.N N. O.N H.N N NNOONO
I O2
NOH H O O NO O O H NN OH N -NNOONO -OO
N.O O. O O.H O.N N. O.H O.H O.H N.H N
O
HN N, O N ON N NH N NH HH,1N
N.OO 0.0 O.N N.O 0.0N O.N 0.0N N.OH O.NH H.O N
O. N O
OON HO ON NO HNH ON NOH ONH OOH NO N O N O -OO
0.0H O O. O. O. N. N. N.N H.H O.H N
H
ON O N O O O OH OH N O .N
0.0N O.N N.N N.O N.O 0.0 0.0H N.ON H.N N.O ON
I OO>NN
ONO NH ON NO OO NO NNH NNH OO OO N -Oeeaz-OO
NONON O N N N N N N.N O N N N a N N N O O .N.z OONNOOOO
3cm , umucm :aOo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.OOO O.O ONOON

106

achnsou . wmcoammm umNcmNNo NONNNO NON NNOONNN .Ncmusum
uchOEOQ u mmcoamma umucmNao NNOONNN can ucmuaum
uchOEou . mmcoammm umpchNo NONNNO NON Ncmuaum
mmcoammm caucoNNo Ncaasum
Ooansou . mmcoamwm umNcmNNo Ncoaaa acm NagummN
mmcoammm amNcmNNo chuamN
amcoammm ampchco NcmNNO
NNOOONNN Nacuo

ll
0. G-I—O.
06 0505.12
06

m
m
m
m
N
u h
a
o
z
A
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNOOONNN oz n .m.
.mm :oNNNmOo co w No N chpNu muNNoNNO chNcoamm as» chxcam Nanszz .
.OO coNNOwOo co N No H Nagme muNNuNNO chNNOOmN asp chxcam NNOEOZ u
NH HN NO HNHN NH NNH NO HoH OOH H
oHN NNH NmNHmON OON omm ONm NON NON : HONON
O.Nm o 0.0 m. H.Om m. H.N m. N.N H.N N.
H
NHN 0 ON N ONH H ON H NM, ON N
H.NO N. H.N o WN.ON o ..m.O O O.N O.N N :oNNN
I -ONN>N
HNH H ON o NHH o NH o w OH N NHmmer
n.om O. O.N H.H N.ON H. N.N O.H N.O o.N N
H
NN O mm m ON H Hm ow, OO Om N
N.O o H.H H. O.N o O.H o N. o.H N
O OONOONO
mm o N H mm o N o m N N NachHmuNO
NNNON O N N N m N N m N N m m N N N O o .m.z :oNNNNOo
30m amacm :aao

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.cou 0.0 mHaaN

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

12)

13)

107

626 respondents ranked Check List and 1 or 2 with
student interests as the primary rationale. Interests
of the parents and interests of the teacher followed
respectively.

Of the 56 respondents ranking Check List as 7 or 8
student interests and parent interests were the prime
factors affecting their choice.

634 respondents showed Narratives as their first or
second choice and indicated parent interests as the
prime reason. Interests of the teacher ranked as the
next most frequent rationale.

74 respondents ranked Narratives as 7 or 8 with parent
interests and teacher interests ranking equally as the
predominant rationale.

The 756 respondents ranking A B C D F as either 1 or 2
showed a wide range of reasons with student interests
and teacher interests being the most predominant.

The 81 subjects ranking A B C D F as either 7 or 8

did so because of the interests of the students.
Student interests emerged as the rationale for the

147 respondents who ranked Credit-No Credit as 7 or 8.
Student interests emerged as the rationale for the

146 respondents who ranked Credit-No Credit as 7 or 8.
The 68 respondents who ranked Blanket Grading as their
first or second choice did so for reasons of student ?

interests.

108

14) The 632 respondents ranking Blanket Grading as 7 or 8
cited the interests of the students as their prime
reason for rejecting Blanket Granding.

15) Self Evaluation was ranked 1 or 2 by 181 subjects. They
cited student interests as the main rationale for their
choice.

16) The 212 respondents rejecting Self Evaluation with a
7 or 8 ranking did so because of student interests.

Findings: Overall, elementary teachers and administrators
listed the interests of the students as being the most important
element in their choices of reporting methods.

Student interests was followed, at some distance, by the
interests of the teacher, the interests of the parents, and the

interests of the students - parents combined.

Chi Square Analyses

Question 5: What correlation exists, significant at

the .05 level of confidence, between a teacher's preference
for a particular form of reporting and the teacher's: 1) .
Sex, 2) Years of experience, 3) Degree(s) held, 4) Grade
level taught, 5) Geographical location (state)?

 

Question 6: What correlation exists, significant at the
.05 level of confidence, between and administrator's
preference for a particular form of reporting and the
administrator's 1) Sex, 2) Years of experience,

a 3) Degree(s) held, 4) Geographical location (state)?

 

Findings: The Chi square correlation table, Table 4.5,
reports the degree of relationship between the five demographic

variables and the eight reporting methods used in the study. In

109

addition to the use of the Chi square, Cramer's O was used as an
indicator of magnitude of association.

The significant Chi square tests show that a teacher's and
administrator's sex is a significant factor in their expressed
attitude toward blanket grading, credit-no credit, narratives,
pass-fail and self evaluation.

Years of experience is a significant factor in teacher and
administrative attitudes toward blanket grading, pass-fail and
self evaluation.

Degree(s) held showed a significant relationship only with
attitudes toward the check list method.

Grand level taught/administrative post held was a significant
factor in attitudes toward check list, grades, and pass-fail methods.

Geographic location (state) showed the most overall influence
as it was significant with all but credit-no credit and self
evaluation.

Geographic location (state), although appearing to have
significant influence, is not a constant demographic variable and
much of the influence shown may be subject to a substantial amount
of type II error.

Findings: Cramer's 0, indicating the magnitude of the
associations illustrated by significant Chi square, shows that the
association between sex and attitudes toward Credit-No Credit is of
the most magnitude followed by grade level/administrative post and

Grades and geographic location and Parent Conferences. Geographic

110

NOOONNNOONNO

OOOOOON NO OOONOOO NN OOH: Nx -- ONONN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eouowgm No momsmao ON cuNz Nx .. wumgw

Eoumagu No mmmsmmo mO :NN: Nx -u Hmvmmsmoo

Eocmogm No mmmgmwo mO :NNz x -1 NNNNN

. Eonwmsm No NmmNmmo OH cpmsz :- xmm

NNNNo. NmNoH. HwONH. OHNHH. OHmmo. NNHNo. NmmoH. HHHHH. s NNNNm
NmmH.NN *Ommm.NO smmmo.ON NOON.HN «NNN.OO mmHN.mN *mNm.mm «www.mm Nx

NHHoH. mmmHH. Hammo. NNmoH. HNomH. mNNmo. OwOoH. Nmomo. a NOoO

NHmm.ow rmNm.NoH mOHO.mN mow.Ow «Nmm.OmH Nmm.ON nmem.mm NNON.ON Nx .cNEO<

No mumcw

omNmo. mNmNo. Nono. mmmmo. mNmmo. NmHmo. ONOmo. omomb. a Hmvwmammm
NmmO.om NmNN.NO Homm.Hm wa.Om HmHm.Hm momN.mO «Nmm.mm OHHNN.om Nx

meoH. mHooH. NmOwo. mOmNo. NowNo. NHNwo. Nmmmo. OmOoH. a NNNm>
*mmmON.Hw «NNNO.NN ONON.wm mNN.mO NNOO.NO NONH.mm NNH.mm «HNo.Ow Nx

OOHHH. NOon. moHOo. NwHoH. OOOmo. mmHmH. mammo. NmNoH. a xom
amwNN.NN *NNO.NN ONN.NH «mOm.ON ONOo.mH Noom.wm MNHo.NH NNmo.ON Nx

coNNNOHN>N HNNN .Ncoo NO>NN Noumea NNONNU oz NNNH OmaNNw wHONNNN>

NHmm -NNNO NONNNO -NNNNz -NNUNNU Nomsu pmxcmHm oNcqmsmoEwo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Nwmcoamwm NNH.H No NNNON N NON OchnEou NNONONNNNONEO< ucm NNNOONON
.Nuocumz chNLoOmN ONNzON NNOONNNN< co NNNONNNN> NNOONNmoeaO No NONNNN

m.O mpnah

111

location and attitudes toward Narratives ranks fourth in magnitude.

Other associations, by magnitude, are, in order: Sex and
Self Evaluation, Grade/Administrative Post and Parent Conferences,
Geographic Location and Blanket Grading, Geographic Location and
Check List, Sex and Parent Conferences, Sex and Blanket Grading,
Grade/Administrative Post and Check List, Year of Experience and
Blanket Grading, Geographic Location and Pass-Fail, Years of
Experience and Self Evaluation, Sex and Narratives, Years of
Experience and Pass-Fail, Georgraphic Location and Grades,
Degree(s) Held and Check List.

Findings: The most significant variables in a teacher's
or administrator's attitudes toward reporting practices are, in

order, Geographic Location (state), Sex, Grade/Administrative Post,

Years of Experience, and Degree(s) held.

Freguency Counting

Question 7: It shall be hypothesized that: A
difference, significant at the .05 level of
confidence, exists between teachers and
administrators in preference for a particular form of

progress reporting.

 

Findings: Table 4.6 reports the results of frequency
CCHJnting on item 49 giving the mean, standard deviation and ranking
for each selected reporting method by teachers and administrators.
Mean rankings are interpreted on the basis of the lowest mean being
the most favorable reporting method since the ranking item asked

f5)!“ a 1-8 ranking with 1 being the most preferable to the respondent

‘ and 8 being the least preferable.

112

NNoNNNNNNcNeo< NoH

ONOOOOON NHO.H

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m m a m N N O m .wcwxcam
HHo.N omN.H mmm.H nmo.H ONO.N NmN.H MNN.H amm.H .o.m
NmN.O mom.¢ Omm.H aNm.N mmo.m NOm.O NmO.N me.m m
ONoNNNNONcNEo<
O O H O N N N N OONNOON
0mm.H oam.H NmN.H omo.m OHN.N me.H Nmm.H wMN.H .o.m
OOm.O NM0.0 H©©.H NNm.N mmw.H wH©.O ONm.N ONm.m m
NNNOONNN
coNNN NOON mocoNoN No>NN Noooaw NNooNu NNNH Noumea
-OHN>N -ONNO icou z -NNNNz oz xoozo Noxcon
NNON NOONNO O -NNOONO

 

 

oozpmz chNNoONN

N

H

 

 

 

 

 

chxcam No coNNNN>oo oaoocon oco :Noz

chzozm Noozpoz chNNooam szNm No chxcom NoNNNNNNcNEO< oco NozoooN

N.O mNnoN

113

Review of Table 4.6 shows teachers ranking Parent Conferences
as the most preferable reporting method, with Grades, Check List,
Narratives, Pass-Fail, Self Evaluation, Credit-No Credit and Blanket
Grading following in order.

Administrators expressed the same choices for number one and
two; Parent Conferences and Grades. Administrators also concurred
with the teacher choices in ranking Credit-No Credit seventh and
Blanket Grading as eighth. Differences appear in the Rankings of
Check List, Narratives, Pass-Fail and Self Evaluation. Table 4.7

illustrates the ranking differences between the two groups.

Table 4.7

Differences in Teacher and Administrator Ranking
of Eight Reporting Methods.

 

 

Reporting Teacher Administrator

Method Ranking Ranking
Blanket Grading 8 8
Check List 3 4
Credit-No Credit 7 7
Grades 2 2
Narratives 4 3
Parent Conference 1 1
Pass-Fail 5
Self Evaluation 6 5

 

1,018 Teachers
107 Administrators

114

Findings: Standard deviation in the ranking by teachers of
Grades as the second most preferable reporting practice shows a
great deal of disagreemtn within the group - a wide range of feeling.

Standard deviation in the ranking by administrators of
Grades as the second most preferable reporting practice shows a great
deal of disagreement within the group - a wide range of feeling.

Findings: While ranking Narratives as fourth, teachers show
disagreement within their group - a significant range of feeling.

Administrators show a significant range of feeling in
ranking Self Evaluation as the fifth choice of their group.

Due to the wide range between the sample sizes for
administrators and teachers, an attempt to draw a significance level
and apply a .05 level of confidence would be frought with error.

The mean rankings do, however, serve as a valid indicator of overall
preferences expressed by both groups. As can be seen in Table 4.3,
the groups agreed on the rankings for four of the eight reporting
methods and were within one ranking number of agreement on the
remaining four methods.

As a further analysis of question seven, a summary table,
Table 4.8, was prepared showing the raw score and percentage of
rankings by the combined administrative and teacher groups. As
would be expected, the rankings from the combined group. When
combining the two groups, the almost ten to one dominance by the
teacher respondents sways the overall total mean toward the teacher

rankings. Had the differences between the groups been greater,

perhaps the administrative rankings might have had some effect.

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NcooNoO n >>> NNoNNNNONcNEO< NOH
oaooO zom u xxx NaozoooN NHO.H
O OH0.0 N.OH N.OH N.NH N.HN N.OH 0.0 0.0 N.O z
NHN NHN OOH OON OHH ON OO OO :oNNNONN>O NHoO
O NN0.0 N.OH N.NH N.NN O.NH N.O 0.0 N.O 0.0
OOH OOH NON OON OHH ON NO NO HNouimmom
H NNO.H O.N N.H N.N 0.0 N.OH O.NH O.NH N.ON
NO OH HN HO ONH OON HHN OON mocmNmNcoo Ncmgom
O NOO.N 0.0 0.0 0.0 N.O O.NH N.ON N.NN O.NH
NN OO NN NO OOH ONN OON NOH No>NNNNNNz
N NNN.H O.N N.N N.N 0.0 O.NH O.HH O.NH N.NO
NO NO NO OO ONH ONH OOH ONO ONONNO
N HH0.0 .N.NH O.NN N.ON H.OH O.N 0.0 N.N N.O
OOH OON ONN HNH OO HO ON ON NNONNO ozupNOoNO
N NHO.N 0.0 0.0 0.0 N.N 0.0H O.HN 0.0N N.OH
. OO NO HO OO ONN NON ONN OOH NON; Nomzo
N OONN.O N.OO 0.0H N.OH. O.N N.N O.N N. N.N
H . NNO . ONH OHH ON ON NN N ON OONONNO NNNONHN
NOON :Noz N N O O O N .z N H oozNoz OONNNomuN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNoNNNNNNcho< OON NaozoooN NO NOoONmz OONNNooom NOONO No OchcNN OON Nomopcoogma .OHNNoN 3oz oocNoeoO

0.0 mpaop

116

Frequency Distribution of Respgndents

Findings: As was expected, females in the study outnumbered
males by almost six to one.

Administrators were overshadowed by teacher responses by
almost a ten to one margin.

Third grade teachers outnumbered all others in responding,
followed closely by first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth grade
respectively.

Respondents with 6 - 10 years of experience were the mode
with first year teachers ranking third from the bottom in frequency
of response and pre-school ranking last.

Over one half of the respondents held at least a bachelor's
degree, followed closely by those with the Master's. Holders of the
Ed.D. and Ph.D. were few in number, six, as was expected. Only
twelve respondents indicated a degree less than the Bachelor's.

Michigan produced the greatest number of individual responses,
followed by Tennessee, West Virginia and Georgia respectively.

Specific figures for all demographic variables are given

in Appendix C.

Freguency Distribution of Selected Items

The general purpose of this study was to directly compare
A B C D F with seven selected alternative forms of pupil progress
reporting. Items 1, 6, 10, 15, 24, 30, and 32 of Section II of the

questionnaire were designed to set the alternatives directly against

117

A B C D F. The responses to all 40 items of Section II are
displayed in Appendix C. Specific review of the above items, however,
produced the following:
Findings: 68.8% of the respondents either disagreed or
strongly disagreed that Self Evaluation is better than A B C D F.
81.4% did not agree that Credit-No Credit was better than
A B C D F.
91.2% disagreed that Blanket Grading was preferable to
A B C D F.
52% of the respondents agreed that Narratives are a much
better, more informative method than A B C D F.
81.7% felt that Pass-Fail was not preferable to A B C D F.
60.3% disagreed that Check List is better than A B C D F.
52.4% of the respondents did not agree that Parent
Conferences are "far and away better than A B C D F."
50.6% of the respondents to item 16 which read "A B C D F
is a darn good grading system which hasn't been bettered," disagreed
with the item.
Findings: Parent Conferences which, in the overall analysis,
emerged as the first choice of teachers and administrators, drew the

following responses on items 5, 14, 23, 32 and 40:

Item 5: Parent Conferences are not necessarily of any
value to students except, perhaps, in the early
grades.

451 disagreed _ a
599 strongly disagreea3'BA

118

Item 14: Parent Conferences are a farce.

495 disagreed _ 93 37
555 strongly disagreed ' ' °

Item 23: Parent Conferences are absolutely necessary at
all levels, K-6.

506 strongly agreed _ O
445 agreed . ' 84'6A

Item 32: Parent Conferences are far and away better than
A B C D F grading.

200 strongly agreed
332 agreed

47.3%

533 disagreed _ o
56 strongly disagreed - 52°46

no response .3%

Item 40: Parent Conferences are extremely valuable for
the parents, the teacher and the student.

587 strongly agree _ o
460 agreed ' 93°16

Findings: Further analysis of the responses to items
1 - 40 in section II showed that respondents had mixed feelings as
to whether or not "any" student does not benefit from Credit-No Credit.
Respondents rejected the concept that Narratives are "inadequate or
inaccurate," and agreed that Narratives are useful when used with
mastery level reporting.

There is agreement that Self Evaluation has little place in

the elementary grades and disagreement that Self Evaluation helps to

eliminate cheating.

119

Respondents felt that Pass-Fail reporting was not necessarily
cruel to children, but failed to agree that the Pass-Fail method was
the "least Cruel."

Blanket Grading found no favor whatsoever as respondents
disagrred with the concept that Blanket Grading is challenging to
kids because it puts them "on their honor," while also disagreeing
that they liked Blanket Grading because it "takes pressure off kids."

Disagreement was found with the concept that Check List
has "little meaning for kids" and also with the idea that Check List
"is of little use to anyone." This followed with agreement that

Check List can stand on "its own merits" as a reporting practice.

Summary of Findings

 

The findings of the study were compiled into the following
22 statements:

1. The sex of a teacher or administrator is a significant
factor in their expressed attitudes toward Blanket
Grading, Credit-No Credit, Narratives, Pass-Fail,
and Self Evaluation reporting methods.

2. Years of experience is a significant factor in teacher
and administrator attitudes toward Blanket Grading,
Pass-Fail and Self Evaluation reporting methods.

3. The degree(s) held by a teacher or administrator show a
significant relationship with their attitudes toward the

Check List method of reporting.

10.

120

The grade level taught or the administrative post held
is a significant factor in teacher and administrator
attitudes toward Check List, A B C D F, and Pass-Fail
reporting methods.

Geographic location (state) appears to have the most
overall significant influence on teacher and administrator
attitudes toward pupil progress reporting, but the
possibility of type II error is great.

On the basis of overall mean ranking, the Parent
Conference method of reporting is preferred by teachers
as a group, administrators as a group and by the two
groups combined.

A B C D F is the second choice of teachers as a group,
administrators as a group and of the two groups combined,
as the most desirable reporting method.

Teachers and administrators do not differ substantially
in their views on reporting methods.

The attitude of elementary teachers and administrators
toward blanket grading is not the same as their
attitude toward A B C D F. A B C D F is favored.

In selected Parent Conferences, A B C D F, Check List
and Narrative Reporting methods as the four most favored
methods, teachers and administrators expressed similar
rationales for their choice of these methods over other

methods.

11.

12.

13.

_,/14 .

15.

17.

18.

121

Elementary teacher and administrator attitudes toward
Credit-No Credit, Pass-Fail and Self Evaluation reporting
is not the same as their attitude toward A B C D F.

A B C D F is significantly favored.

The interests of the students was the most important
consideration of elementary teachers and administrators
when making their choice of preferable reporting
practices.

The interests of the teacher/administrator was the
second most important factor considered when reporting
practices were selected.

Parent interests were the third most important

consideration to teachers and administrators when ranking

the various reporting methods.

Elementary teachers and administrators did not agree
that "A B C D F is a darn good grading system which
hasn't been bettered."

Respondents heavily agreed that Parent Conferences

are "absolutely necessary at all levels, K-6.“
Attitudes were split as to whether or not Parent
Conferences are "far and away better than A B C D E."
The attitude was expressed that some students can
benefit from Credit-no Credit in the elementary grades,

but the feeling was mixed.

19.

20.

21.

22.

122

Narrative reporting was judged as adequate and accurate
and especially useful with mastery level reporting.
Elementary teachers and administrators agreed that

Self Evaluation has little place in the elementary

grades and that use of the method does not necessarily
help to eliminate cheating.

Blanket Grading was not perceived to be beneficial

to students in the elementary grades.

Blanket Grading, Credit-No Credit, Pass-Fail and Self
Evaluation were rejected by respondents in favor of Parent

Conferences, A B C D F, Check Lists, and Narratives.

Chapter V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER STUDY
The researcher's purpose in this chapter was to provide a
brief summary of the research study followed by conclusions that were
derived through statistical analysis. The final section provides

recommendations for further examination of the question.

Summary of Rationale for the Stugy

Since early in the 20th century, arguments both for and
against the use of A B C D F and percentage grading which preceded
A B C D F have occupied the attention of educators. A review of the
literature shows that both the opponents and proponents of A B C D F
have laid claim to degrees of teacher and administrator support
for their cases. For both sides in the grading debate to claim
professional support for their arguments is contradictory to logic
for, other than personal opinion, no comprehensive study has ever
compared A B C D F with alternative forms of pupil progress reporting.

Parents often have expressed their preference for A B D C F
as have educators in varying degrees, but any decision as to which
reporting system is the most desirable for students, teachers and
parents alike has lacked a sufficient research base. Studies showing

certain deficiencies of the A B C D F method have been presented, and

123

124

an alternative case has been built, but an inventory of professional
educator perceptions has not before been taken. Any decision on
reporting practices must be a mutual effort involving parents,
students, teachers and administrators. The author's purpose was to
attempt to determine elementary teacher and administrator perceptions
about reporting practices as compared with A B C D F in the hope that
such data could be put to use in the mutual decision making process
needed for the selection of reporting practices which best serve

the primary parties of interest - students, parents and educators.

Summanyuof Methodology

The author's intent in this tudy, therefore, was to seek, by
means of a survey, the perceptions of selected elementary teachers
and administrators toward the use of A B C D F reporting practices
compared with selected alternative forms of pupil progress reporting.
Seven selected alternative forms of pupil progress reporting were
directly compared with A B C D F. They were: 1) Blanket Grading,
2) Check List Reporting, 3) Credit-No Credit, 4) Narrative Reports,
5) Parent Conferences, 6) Pass-Fail Reporting and 7) Self Evaluation.
Demographic variables considered included: 1) Sex, 2) Degree(s)
held, 3) Grade level taught or administrative post held, 4) Years of

paid experience in education, 5) Geographic location (state).

Objectives

The primary objective of the researcher was to determine

hcnv elementary teachers and administrators use grades (or marks) as

Sample

125

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators
toward check list reporting the same as their attitudes
toward A B C D F?

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators
toward credit-no credit reporting the same as their
attitudes toward A B C D F?

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators
toward narrative reporting the same as their attitudes
toward A B C D F?

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators
toward parent conference reporting the same as their
attitudes toward A B C D F?

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators
toward pass-fail reporting the same as their attitudes
toward A B C D F?

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators

toward self evaluation reporting the same as their
attitudes toward A B C D F?

In order to answer the questions stated, a sample of 1,018

teachers and 107 elementary administrators was taken using a random

selection of four states, followed by the random selection of 30

schools in each state, Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee and West Virginig.

The four states were chosen from larger original groupsing of

3 northern, 3 mid-eastern and 5 southern states. Initial groupings

of states were determined by a pre-survey letter of inquiry to each

of the State Departments of Education in the 48 continental United

States asking for access to teachers and administrators in the states.

Of the 1,728 available teachers, 1,018 responses were

received for a return rate of 58.91% and of the 129 available

126

administrators, 107 returns were received for a response rate of
82.94%. Of the 130 schools originally committed to the study, 112
actually returned usuable data for a response rate of 86.15%. Due
to the random selection of the 4 states from the original selected
groupings and the random selection of schools within each state,
the sample was considered to be unbiased and the respondents
representative of the selected geographical areas from which they

were drawn.

Data Collection

The source of information was a survey statement which included
a total of 54 items, 8‘of which required an open ended response with
40 items requiring a selection from a four point, forced choice Likert
scale. One item required a choice of preference on an 8 point
ranking scale, with the remainder of the items being normative
information about the respondents. It was estimated that the questionnaire
would require between 18 to 20 minutes of the teacher's and/or
administrator's time to complete. The instrument was piloted and
reviewed by experts prior to its preparation in the op-scan scorable

format.

Data Anlaysis

Data were programmed and processed through the use of the
SPSS statistical computer package available for use in the Michigan
State University C.D.C. 6000 computer. Chi square correlations

augmented by the use of Cramer's 0 were employed for the analysis

127

of research questions dealing with the relationship between demographic
variables and rankings of reporting methods. Frequency counting

was employed to determine relationships between teacher and
administrative reporting preferences and responses to the 8 open

ended questions in the instrument.

A multivariate analysis of variance of repeated measurements
was used to answer questions regarding teacher and administrative
preference for A B C D F as compared with the seven alternative methods
while cross tabulation techniques were employed to determine why teachers
and administrators preferred given reporting methods.

Descriptive frequency distribution was used to evaluate the
responses to items 1-40, the forced choice Likert scale, and to
describe the frequency of respondents as spread cross the 5 demographic

variables.

Limitations

 

A limitation of this study was the use of an instrument which
did not allow for respondents to choose combinations of reporting
practices. Although Parent Conferences prevailed as the overall
favorite, many respondents, through their written responses to the
open ended items, expressed some frustration at not being able to
express a choice of a dual marking system. Since the author's
purpose in the study was to compare A B C D F with the seven selected
alternatives, however, the choice of a dual marking system would have

been contrary to the purpose of the effort. The expressed frustration

128

at the idea of having to make a clear cut choice, however, may have

biased the responses in some manner not detectable through analysis.
Another limitation of the study was its focus on entirely

an elementary audience. Elementary schools, as shown in Chapter II,

however, use reporting practices in more varieties than do secondary

schools and, thus, serve as a better testing ground for perceptions on

those methods.

Conclusions

 

The Parent Conference method of reporting emerged as the
choice of teachers and administrators who participated in the study.
This led the researcher to conclude that this method of parent-
teacher-student contact is deemed to be valuable by the selected
respondents and gives support for Parent Conference usage regardless
of the type of written report which might be offered by the school.
Parent Conferences of an by themselves are seldom used as the only
means of reporting but the process of a personal discussion, often
directly involving the student, seems desirable to teachers and
administrators alike.

Grades, A B C D F, or marks, whichever term is used,
maintained second place as the choice of elementary teachers and
administrators. It can be concluded that the A B C D F method
is held in high esteem as a reporting practice by the respondents
although it cannot be concluded, due to the design of the study,
that any particular combination of reporting methods is necessarily

favored.

129

Check List Reporting and Narrative Reporting, while not
preferred over Parent Conferences or Grades, emerged as the third
and fourth choices of teachers and the fourth and third choices,
respectively, of administrators. The conclusion is reached that these
methods, like Parent Conferences and Grades, are held in some esteem
and can be considered as useful means of reporting in the elementary
schools surveyed.

It was found that teachers and administrators in the elementary
schools surveyed did not differ significantly in their views toward
reporting practices either in their choices of preferable or non-
preferable methods or in their stated rationale and attitudes toward
the methods. It can be concluded that there was unanimity of
perceptions toward reporting practices between classroom teachers and
principals.

The finding that an elementary teacher's or administrator's
sex, years of experience and teaching or administrative assignment
has a significant influence on expressed attitudes toward reporting
practices leads to the conclusion that these factors should possibly
be taken into account when plans are being made for revision or
modification of a school's reporting system. The degree(s) held by
a teacher or administrator, in having the least influence on attitudes
toward reporting need be taken into account, it seems, only when the
Check List method is being used or considered.

The methods of Blanket Grading, Pass-Fail, Credit-No Credit

and Self Evaluation are found to be held in low esteem by teachers

130

and administrators alike. It can be concluded that these methods
would find little support in the schools surveyed and cannot be
considered as viable alternatives to Parent Conferences, Grades,
'Check Lists or Narratives. The conclusion that can be reached is that
possible efforts to institute these reporting practices in the schools
surveyed would be met with some degree of resistance from teachers

and administrators alike.

The finding that student interests are the primary rationale
for teacher and administrator selections of reporting practices,
followed by teacher/administrator interests and parent interests,
leads to the conclusion that those surveyed see reporting practices
at the elementary level as being more in-school than parent oriented.

The finding that respondents did not agree that A B C D F was
"a darn good grading system which hasn't been bettered," leads to the
conclusion that the respondents are open to alternatives, but not
necessarily the alternatives of Blanket Grading, Pass-Fail, Credit-

No Credit or Self Evaluation.

From the data, it can be generally concluded that the elementary
teachers and administrators surveyed from the states of Georgia,
Michigan Tennessee and West Vi ginia, feel quite strongly that Parent
Conferences are a necessary element in the reporting process and that
A B C D F, Check List Reporting and Narrative Reporting are acceptable

as long as Parent Conferences are continued.

131

Recommendations for Further Study
Several aspects of the grading question could not be answered
by the author in this study. If a more complete understanding of
teacher and administrator attitudes toward A B C D F and various
alternatives is to be achieved, additional studies should be carried
out seeking answers to the following questions:

What are the attitudes held by middle school educators
regarding the use of A B C D F as compared with selected
alternatives?

To what degree do parents and others outside of the
school doors directly influence the reporting practices
used in the elementary and or middle schools?

If allowed to choose a combination of reporting methods,
what would educators suggest and why?

What are the attitudes of central office personnel toward
various reporting practices, ie: are the attitudes expressed
in the school buildings the same as those found in central
supervisory personnel?

How do elementary teachers of different grade levels differ
in their attitudes toward A B C D F? Does the number of
years in a particular grade level assignment have any bearing
on attitudes toward reporting?

Do teachers and administrators in the area of the United
States west of the Mississippi carry the same or similar
attitudes toward A B C D F and the selected alternatives?

Does the size of a school or school district have a
relationship with the attitudes toward A B C D F and selected
alternatives held by teachers and administrators?

Does a teacher's or administrator's personal experience

with the A B C D F system as a student have a significant
relationship with his attitudes toward A B C D F?

Although some important insights into teacher and administrator

attitudes toward A B C D F and the selected alternatives have been

132

compared with the use of other selected forms of progress reporting.
Further, it was the researcher's desire to attempt to determine the
rationale behind the perceptions expressed.

As a means to arrive at the above objectives, the following
questions were answered and hypotheses tested:

Do elementary teachers prefer the use of A B C D F
reporting over the use of selected alternative forms
of reporting?

Do elementary administrators prefer the use of A B C D F
reporting over the use of selected alternative fOrms of
reporting?

If elementary teachers do prefer the use of one of the
selected alternatives over the use of A B C D F, why does
this preference exist?

If elementary administrators do prefer the use of one of
the selected alternatives over the use of A B C D F,
why does this preference exist?

What correlation exists, significant at the .05 level of
confidence, between a teacher's preference for a particular
form of reporting and the teacher's 1) Sex, 2) Years of
experience, 3) Degree(s) held, 4) Grade level taught,

5) Geographical location?

What correlation exists, significant at the .05 level of
confidence, between an administrator's preference for a
particular form of reporting and the administrator's

1) Sex, 2) Years of experience, 3) Degree(s) held,

4) Geographical location?

Does a difference, significant at the .05 level of
confidence, exist between teachers and administrators
in their preference for a particular form of progress
reporting?

Are the attitudes of elementary teachers and administrators
toward blanket grading the same as their attitudes toward
AAB C D F?

133

discovered by the author in this study, more effort should be spent in
seeking a more complete understanding of professional attitudes toward
reporting practices. The report that parents and students receive has
I been shown in other studies to have a profound effect, either positive
or negative, on the student's future view of education and education's
future view of him. The decisions regarding reporting practices

in schools must be made in a manner which is consistent with parent,
student and teacher interests and feelings and are too important to

be left to chance development or implementation. As much knowledge

as possible about the feeling and attitudes of all parties of interest
in the reporting process is necessary in order that sound decisions
might be made based upon student, teacher and parent concerns and
feelings with the goal in mind of meeting the needs of all parties

as completely as possible. Until such time as those needs, interests
and attitudes are known in some detail, efforts to implement change

or effect improvements in the reporting process will, often, meet with
unanticipated negative reaction which could damage seriously the

relationship between students, teachers and parents.

Reflections

 

The data presented by the researcher in this tudy has led
to several conclusions stated in chapter V. Those conclusions are
based upon the analysis of the data through statistical means and
conclusions reflect the data rather than personal observations. It

is felt by the author, however, that some personal observations may

134

be in order which, perhaps, go beyond the boundaries of the data to the
realm of personal feelings.

The first of those observations is that the elementary
teachers and administrators responding in the study seemed to express
a preference for those types of reporting practices which, by their
nature, induce varying degrees of pressure upon students in the
classroom. To say it another way, the respondents rejected those
reporting practices which do not lend themselves to use as a lever, a
motivational tool. The rejection of Blanket Grading, Pass-Fail,
Credit-No Credit and Self Evaluation leads to the observation that these
methods may be unacceptable because they do not lend themselves to
use as incentives as do Parent Conferences, A B C D F, Check Lists
or Narratives.

It is not realistic to quote every response to the open
ended questions in the survey, but if others could review those
comments it would be evident that a rather strong element of
pressure, through the use of reporting practices, exists in the
schools surveyed. It can be understood why students view marks as
the currency of their school world, for they are introduced early
in their student careers to the idea that they had better perform and
adhere to school rules or they may be reprimanded through a parent
conference, a grade, a mark on the check list or a comment on a narrative.
Reporting practices which do not give the teacher the latitude of

some degree of direct pressure simply are seen as undesirable.

135

Another distressing observation comes to light as a result
of looking at the data, and that is, that the interests of the
parents generally ranks low as the stated rationale for teacher and
administrator feelings about the value of reporting practices. This
points to two possible problems: 1) Either teachers truly do see the
reporting practices as theirs to use as a lever or punitive tool or,
2) Parent involvement in the schools surveyed has been minimized
to the point where teachers and administrators are not taking parent
feelings and needs into account when planning the reporting process.
Either situation, in the authro's view, may well be one of the reasons
why students often feel threatened by reporting practices and parents
feel alienated from the schools' decision making process. It is
any wonder why parents often echo the cry that they are ignored by
the schools except at times of millage elections? Further, it is any
wonder why kids cheat in the grading game?

One final observation is in order. It would seem, from the
comments found and responses gathered by the author in this study,
that respondents see the goal of the elementary school as being a gOal
of preparation for the competetive society in which we live rather
than being a goal of subject mastery. Perhaps, in fairness to the
respondents, and in light of the fact that the study did not seek
specific input on this question, it can be said that, at least, the
two goals are seen as equals. It would be unfair to say that
socialization is not a very important goal of the elementary school.

Socialization and learning about how our society works is very

136

important, but it seems to the author that the elementary school

years should be devoted more to the basic skills mastery approach than
to exposure to puressure for marks on a piece of paper or comments

in a parent conference. Since the sample by the author in this study
was a selected sample and not a numberically representative sample

of all elementary teachers and administrators east of the Mississippi,
a gross generalization to all elementary teachers and administrators
is not fair or represented by the data, but the feeling persists from
review of the data that the pressure for marsk, regardless of how they
are reported, seems to be the overriding concern of the respondents.
It is felt by the author that this possible attitude is not necessarily
beneficial to elementary students and may, in fact, hinder the pursuit

of a sound basic skills development in grades Kindergarten through six.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, PILOT FORM

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

AND HIGHER EDUCATION

PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE

 

INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire will take about 18 minutes to com-

plete. Questions deal with various ways of reporting pupil progress.
Respond to all questions. Necessary definitions are given in Section
One. Please read the definitions before proceeding to the statements

in Section Two.

 

BLANKET GRADING:

CHECK LIST
REPORTING:

 

CREDIT-N9 CREDIT:

GRADES:

NARRATIVE REPORTS:

PARENT CONFERENCE
REPORTING:

PASS-FAIL
REPORTING:

SELF EVALUATION
REPORTING:

SECTION ONE

Giving a common mark to all students. Usually,
students are informed in advance of the work as
to what the common mark will be for all.

Use of a prepared listing of comments from which
certain ones are chosen for use by the teacher and
”checked off" as being appropriate fer the child.

The student receives either credit for the class
or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. A
“No Credit” mark, however, does g2; always mean
”failure“.

A B C D F, S I U, or some numbering system such
as 1 2 3 4 5. Often. plus (+) or minus (-) sym-
bols are used to help clarify the grade.

A "letter home" to the parents either written by
hand or with the aid of a computer.

A face-to-face meeting with parents for the spec-
ific purpose of discussing the student's academic
and social progress in school.

The student either "passes” the class or he "fails"
the class. There is no middle ground.

The student decides what his grade or mark will

be. Usually, the teacher confers with the stu-

dent along the way, but the decision remains the
student's.

NOTE: After reading the definitions, Please proceed to Section Two
of the questionnaire. Refer back to the definitions if nec-

essary.

PROCEED TO SECTION TWO ON THE NEXT PAGE

137

10.

11.

12.

13.

1h.
15.

, / Lt
{pf

138

In responding to the following statements about pupil progress
reporting, your responses will mean the following:

 

1 - STRONG AGREEMENT - really in tune with
your own personal feelings.

2 - AGREEMENT - perhaps with some reservations.
You agree more than you disagree.

3 - DISAGREEMENT - with some reservations.

 

You disagree more than you agree.

STRONG DISAGREEME‘TT - almost totally

 

out of tune with your own personal feelings.

Self Evaluation reporting is better than giving 1 2 3 u
a "grade”

The blanket grading method is something I really 1 2 3 u
don't care for.

Pass - Fail reporting is valuable at any grade 1 2 3 b
level.

Check list reporting is a method which has little 1 2 3 h

meaning for kids.

Parent conferences are not necessarily cf any value 1 2 3 q

to students except, perhaps, in the early grades.

Credit - No Credit reporting is much better than 1 2 3 a
any form of A B C D F.

Narrative reports are inadequate and inaccurate. 1 2 3 4
A B C D F grading is a good system which gives 1 2 3 h

a good idea of how students are doing.

Self Evaluation reporting is really unfair because 1 2 3 h
the honest kids are hurt.

Blanket grading is a better way of reporting than 1 2 3 b

using A B C D F.

Pass-Fail reporting is fine for the higher grades, 1 2 3 a

but not for grades K - 6

Check List reports are fine if they're accompanied 1 2 3 h

by a parent conference.

elementary grades.

Credit - No Credit reporting is of no use for lower a
Parent Conferences are a farce. A
Narrative reports are a much better, more infor- R

mative method than A B C D F.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.

22.
23.

2b.

25.

26.
27.
28.

29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

36-

37.

139

A B C D F is a darn good grading system which
hasn't been bettered.

Check List reporting is good for kids and means
more to them than other methods.

Narrative reporting is very helpful to kids, es-
pecially when it's used with mastery level repor-
ting.

Only highly motivated students can benefit from
Credit - No Credit reporting.

Self Evaluation reporting is of little or no use
for the lower elementary grades.

Kids lose their incentive to learn when blanket
grading is used.

A B C D F grading is totally unfair to students.

Parent Conferences are absolutely necessary at
all levels, K - 6.

I prefer the use of Pass-Fail reporting over the
use of A B C D F.

Blanket Grading is challenging to kids because it
puts them "on their honor".

Self- Evaluation is a system which would help to
eliminate cheating.

Narrative Reports are inhuman, because the system

assumes that all kids fit the same mold.

Credit - No Credit reporting is a valuable metncd
for the lower elementary gradesc

Pass-Fail reporting is cruel to children.

J-

Check-List reporting is certainly tester than
A B C D F.

In terms of "fairness". A B C D 1 is about as
fair as you can get.

Parent Conierences are far and away better than
A B C D F grading.

I like blanket grading because it takes pressure
off kids.

Self Evaluation reporting is a ve
teaching tool for any grade, K -

y valuable

(hi3

Pass-Fail reporting is more humane for children
than most other methods.

Check List reporting is a very effective method
which can stand on its own merit

s
The slower student receives the most benefit from
+vv

a Credit-So Credit marking sys em.

'J

'J

.4

I‘)

1* J

IO

3\)

h)

h)

1‘»)

K.)

K»)

k0

\J

(T

_

J?

38.

39.

40.

140

A B C D F gives a pretty good idea of how students
are doing.

1

23a

Narrative reports come closer to accuracy than most 1 2 3 4

any other form of reporting.

Parent Conferences are extremely valuable for the
parents, the teacher and the student.

THIS CONCLUDES SECTION TWO
PLEASE PROCEED TO SECTION THREE ON THE NEXT PAGE

1

2 3 h

141

SECTION THREE

 

When responding to these questions, please keep your statements
as concise as possible while still making the point clear. Respond
to each question. Do not leave blanks. If your answer is longer
than the space alloted, please use the back of this sheet and number
the comments to correspond to the question.

 

1. Refer back to statement number three in Section Two about
Pass - Fail reporting. Why did you respond the way you did?

 

 

 

 

2. Look at statement number five in Section Two about Parent
Conferences. Why did you agree or disagree with the statement?

 

 

 

 

3. Refer to statement number twelve on Check List reporting.
Why did you respond the way you did?

 

 

 

A. Review statement number fifteen on narratives. why did you
agree/disagree?

 

 

 

5. Refer back to statement number sixteen about A B C D F.
Why did you agree/disagree there?

 

 

 

Look at statement number nineteen about Credit - No Credit.
Why did you respond the way you did?

 

 

 

142

In responding to statement number thirty—three on blanket grading,
why did you agree/disagree?

 

 

 

Looking at statement number thirty—four 6n Self Evaluation re-
porting. why did you agree/disagree?

 

 

 

We have considered eight different ways of reporting pupil pro-
gress in this questionnaire. The eight methods are listed below
in alphabetical order. lease rank the methods in order of your
preference for them as an educator. Use a scale of one (1)
through eight (8) with the number one (1) indicating your favorite
method and so on through number eight indicating the method you
least favor.
METHOD RANK

BLANKET GRADING

CHECK LISTS

CREDIT - NO CREDIT

GRADES (A B C D F)

NARRATIVES

PARENT CONFERENCES

PASS-FAIL

SELF EVALUATION

PLEASE GO ON TO SECTION FOUR

143

SECTION FOUR

 

Please circle the correct response to the items below.

 

1.

3.

SEX 2. Number of years of paid experience in
a ) Male education. Include this year as year
' one if a first year teacher. and as a
b.) Female full year if an experienced educator.
a.) 1
b.) 2-5

c.) 6 - 10
d.) 11 - 20
e.) 21 - 30
f.) 30 - “0
g.) #0 or more

What is the highest college degree you hold?
No degree

Associate's Degree

Bachelor's Degree

2:)

b )

e)

d.) master's Degree

e ) Educational Specialist
f )

e)

 

 

 

 

. Ed. D.

O Fh. Do
what grade level are you new teaching? (Circle only 333. In tho
case of a combination assignment. circle the hirher of the grade
levels. Administrators are to circle letter J even if teachir:
a part of the day.)
a.) Pro-school

" ~ * . 1

b0) Kindergar.en ‘ In which state are you now.
c.) lst . employed?
d.) 2nd a.) Georgia
e.) 3rd b.) Nichigan
f.) bth c.) Tennessee
g.) 5th d.) West Virginia
h.) 0 6th
1.) Ungraded room
j.) Administrator

APPENDIX B

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE, PRINTED FORM

 

APPENDIX B

Michigan State University
Department of Educational Administration

PUPIL PROGRESS REPORTING QUESTIONNAIRE

 

INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire will take about 18 minutes to complete. Questions deal
with various ways of reporting pupil progress. Respond to all questions. Necessary definitions
are given in Section One. Please read the definitions before proceeding to the statements
in Section Two. A soft lead pencil only should be used in sections two and four—do not

use pens. magic markers or other such instruments.

 

BLANKET GRADING:

CHECK LIST REPORTING:

CREDIT- NO CREDIT:

GRADES:

NARRATIVE REPORTS:

PARENT CONFERENCE

REPORTING:

PASS - FAIL REPORTING:

SELF EVALUATION
REPORTING:

SECTION ONE

Giving a common mark to all students. Usually, students are informed in ad-
vance of the work as to what the common mark will be for all.

Use of a prepared listing of comments from which certain ones are chosen
for use by the teacher and “checked off" as being appmpriate for the child.

The student receives either credit for the class or he doesn't. There is no
middle ground. A “No Credit" mark, however. does not always mean “failure."

A B C D F. S l U. or some numbering system such as 1 2 3 4 5. Often. plus
(+) or minus ( ) symbols are used to help clarify the grade.

A “letter home" to the parents either written by hand or with the aid of a com-
puter.

A face-to-face meeting with parents for the specific purpose of discussing
the student's academic and social progress in school.

The student either “passes" the class or he "fails" the class. There is no
middle ground.

The student decides what his grade or mark will be. Usually. the teacher con-
fers with the student along the way, but the decision remains the student's.

NOTE: After reading the definitions, please proceed to Section Two of the questionnaire. Refer back to the
definitions if necessary.

PROCEED TO SECTION TWO ON THE NEXT PAGE

 

DO
NOT

IN
THIS

 

WRITE

SPACE

 

cocoa)

coco-nun;

141an w —t

'u u 'u..u E

b...

U‘U‘U‘J‘

aroma

NNH“

@OD'O

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Pupil Progress Reporting Questionnaire

SECTION TWO

Please do not omit any items on this page. If you have questions about the
meaning of a certain type of reporting practice. please refer back to the defi-

 

 

SA—Strong Agreement — really in tune with
your own personal feelings.

A —Agreement — perhaps with some reserva-
tions. You agree more than you disagree.

D —Disagreement — with some reservations.
You disagree more than you agree.

SD—Strong Disagreement - almost totally out
of tune with your own personal feelings.

 

nitions given on page 1. With a pencil respond to the items usmg the KEY. ———

KEY > KEY L; SA A D SO
1. Self Evaluation reporting is better than giving a “grade" .. . ...... . ........... 1. SA A D SO
2. The blanket grading method is something I really don't care for 2. SA A D SO
3. Pass Fail reporting is valuable at any grade level .. ................................................... 3. SA A D SD
4. Check List reporting is a method which has little meaning for kids ........... . .......... 4. SA A O SO
5. Parent conferences are not necessarily of any value to students except perhaps in the early grades 5. SA A D SD
6. Credit No Credit reporting is much better than any form of A B C D F 6. SA A D SD
7. Narrative reports are inadequate and inaccurate . .. . ................. 7. SA A D SO
8. A B C D F grading is a good system which gives a good idea of how students are doing 8. SA A O SD
9. Self Evaluation reporting is really unfair because the honest kids are hurt ..... 9. SA A D SD
10. Blanket grading is a better way of reporting than using A B C D F .. ....... 10. SA A D SD
11. I really don't believe that Pass Fail reporting has value for kids at any age level 11. SA A 0 SD
12. Check List reporting is. really, of little use to anyone , .............. 12. SA A O SD
13. Credit- No Credit reporting is of no use for lower elementary grades . 13. SA A O SD
14. Parent Conferences are a farce .. .. 14. SA A D SD
15. Narrative reports are a much better more informative method than A B C D F 15. SA A D SD
16. A B C D F is a darn good grading system which hasn't been bettered 16. SA A D SO
17. Check List reporting is good for kids and means more to them than other methods 17. SA A O SD
18. Narrative reporting is very helpful to kids. especially when its used with mastery level reporting 18. SA A D SD
19. Only highly motivated students can benefit from Credit No Credit reporting . 19. SA A D SD
20. Self Evaluation reporting is of little or no use for the lower elementary grades 20. SA A D SD
21. Kids lose their incentive to learn when blanket grading is used ., 21. SA A D SD
22. A B C D F grading is unfair to students .. .. , .. _. .......................... 22. SA A O SD
23. Parent Conferences are absolutely necessary at all level 5. K 6 23. SA A D SD
24. I prefer the use of Pass-Fail reporting over the use of A 8 C D F . .......... 24. SA A D SD
25. Blanket Grading is challenging to kids because it puts them "on their honor" 25. SA A D SD
26. Self Evaluation is a system which would help to eliminate cheating 26. SA A D SD
27. Narrative Reports are inhuman. because the system assumes that all kids fit the same mold. 27. SA A O SD
28. Credit- No Credit reporting is a valuable method for the lower elementary grades . . 28. SA A D SD
29. Pass- Fail reporting is cruel to children . . , ...... 29. SA A D SD
30. Check List reporting is certainly better than A 8 C D F 30. SA A 5 SD
31. In terms of fairness to students. the A B C D F reporting method is about as fair as you can get 31. SA A O SI)
32 Parent Conferences are far and away better than A B C D F grading .. 32. SA A D SD
33. I like blanket grading because it takes pressure off kids _ ......................................... 33. SA A O Sb
34. Self Evaluation reporting is a very valuable teaching tool for any grade, K- 6 34. SA A D S
35. For kids. the Pass- Fail method is probably the least cruel method we can use ........ 35. SA A D S
36.: Check List reporting is a very effective method which can stand on its own merits 36. SA A Q a
37. No student really ever benefits from the Credit- No Credit marking system . 37. SA A D
38. A B C D F gives a pretty good idea of how students are doing ......... 38. SA :A D S
39. Narrative reports come closer to accuracy than most any other form of reporting . ,. . 39. SA A 9 SD
40. Parent Conferences are extremely valuable for the parents. the teacher and the student 40. SA _A D SD

THIS CONCLUDES SECTION TWO PLEASE PROCEED TO SECTION THREE ON THE NEXT PAGE

41.

SECTION THREE

 

—

When responding to these questions. please keep your statements as concise as possible
while still making the point clear. Respond to each question. Do not leave blanks. Feel
free to abbreviate.

 

Refer back to statement number three in Section Two about Pass-Fail reporting. Why did you respond the way you did?

 

 

42.

Look at statement number five in Section Two about Parent Conferences. Why did you agree or disagree with the statement?

 

 

43.

Refer to statement number twelve on Check List reporting. Why did you respond the way you did?

 

 

44.

Review statement number fifteen on narratives. Why did you agree/disagree?

 

 

45.

Refer back to statement number sixteen about A B C D F. Why did you agree/disagree there?

 

 

46.

Look at statement number nineteen about Credit - No Credit. Why did you respond the way you did?

 

 

47.

In responding to statement number thirty-three on blanket grading. why did you agree/disagree?

 

 

48.

Looking at statement number thirty-four on Self Evaluation reporting. why did you agree/disagree?

 

 

49. We have considered eight different ways of reporting pupil progress in this questionnaire. The eight methods are listed
below in alphabetical order. Please rank the methods in order of your preference for them as an educator. Use a scale of
one (1) through eight (8) with the number one (1) indicating your favorite method and so on through number eight indicat-
ing the method you least favor.

METHOD RANK
BLANKET GRADING 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 6
CHECK LISTS 12 3 4 s 6 7 8
CREDILNOCREDIT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
GRADESlABCDF) 12345678
NARRATIVES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a
PARENT CONFERENCES 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 a
PASS-FAIL 12 3 4 5 6 7 a
SELF EVALUATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a ‘

PLEASE co DN To SECTION roun

 

SECTION FOUR

Please fill in the correct response to the items below.

 

 

50. 53am 51. Number of years of paid experience In education. Include
this year as year one if a first year teacher, and as a full
Female year if an experienced educator.
1
1- 5
52. What is the highest college degree you hold? 5.10
. No degree 11-20
Associate's Degree 21 -30
Bachelor's Degree 30 -40
Masters Degree 40 or more
Educational Specialist
Ed.D.
PhD.

S3. What grade level are you now teaching? (Fill in only one. In the case of a combination assignment. indicate the higher of
the grade levels. Administrators are to indicate administrator even if teaching a part of the day.)

Pre-school
Kindergarten
1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

. Ungraded room

Administrator

 

DO
NOT
WRITE
IN
‘ THIS
SPACE

0'0 0 o C)
._. .. ..,_. g
N u N N -'4
u u u u E
.-. a .
err-oi u- or
"ci‘to o er
.s‘ ’V ‘4 V
’0 a on a:
lip-«awoke

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

TABLE--FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

APPENDIX C

TABLE Appendix C.--Frequency Distribution for Responses to
Questionnaire Items With the Exception
of Open Ended Items and Item 49.

 

 

Relative
Item SA A D SD Frequenc

(percent

 

1. Self Evaluation
better than Grade

SA 65 5.8
A 283 25.2
D 562 50.0
SD 212 18.8
2. Blanket Grading
don't care for
SA 442 39.3
A 415 36.9
D 159 14.1
SD 104 9.2
3. Pass-Fail Val-
uable any grade
level
SA 73 6-5
A 236 21.0
D 576 51.2
SD 239 21.2
4. Check List
little meaning
for kids
SA 97 8.6
A 379 33.7
D 514 5-7
SD 132 11.7
5. Parent Confer-
ences no value
.to students
except early
grades
SA 19 1.7
A 55 4.9
D 451 40.1
SD 599 53-2
6. Credit-No Cr-
edit better
than A B C
SA 40 .6
A 167 1 .8
D 562 50.0
so 353 31-1l
7. Narratives in-
adequate. in-
accurate
A 221 19.6
D 592 52.6
SD 253 22.5

I48

149
Table Appendix C Continued.

 

u-- - m --—w. -.»--o “H— w--. --.....-—.. ---~.—.—.-—.———-—-..~>
— ’0’- _

 

 

Relative
Item SA A D SD Frequenc
(percentg
8. A B C gives good
idea how students
are doing
SA 198 17.6
A 588 52.3
D 266 23.6
SD 68 6.0
9. Self Evaluation
unfair to honest
kids
SA 130 11.6
A 474 42.1
D 455 40.4
SD 65 5.8
10. Blanket Grading
better than A B
C
SA 29 2.6
A 66 5.9
D 560 49.8
SD 466 41.4
11. Pass-Fail no
value for kids
any age
SA 122 10.
A 343 30-5
D 547 48.6
SD 112 10.0
12. Check List little
use to anyone
SA 38 3,4
A 207 18.4
D 683 60.7
SD 195 17.3
13. Credit-No Credit
no use for lower
elementary
SA 287 25.5
A 519 46.1
D 253 22.5
SD 62 5.5
14. Parent Confer-
ences a farce
SA 28 2.5
A 46 4.1
D 495 44.0
SD 555 49.3

150
Table Appendix C Continued.

 

 

w” u- ~~¢—- -_...._.

~ -.-.-— ~.—--o~0-.- -c~ “Q .,---. n“: .
.. —...-.-.-.'- .

 

Relative
SD
Frequency
centl

Item SA A D

 

. -v---—~.—v~.'—~-

 

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Narratives bet-
ter than A B C

SA

A

D

SD
A B C darn good
hasn't been bet-
tered

SA

A

D

SD
Check List good
for kids and
means more

SA

A

D

SD
Narratives help-
ful to kids used
with mastery

SA

A

D

SD
Only highly mot—
ivated benefit
Credit-No Credit

SA

A

D

SD
Self Evaluation
little use for
lower elementary

SA

A

D

SD
Kids lose incen-
tive when Blanket
Grading used

SA

A

D

SD

127

62

130

122

248

287

429

427

355

657

520

531

636

449

448

616

296

419

304

183

90

122

91

4O

62

39

18

WWH
®\O CDKAJ

O\OH\O

nguué
O\OCDl-‘
ooooow

Table Appendix C Continued.

Item

SA

151

Relative
Frequenc
(percent

i

 

22. A B C unfair to
students
SA
A
D
SD
23. Parent Conference
necessary K - 6
SA
A
D
SD
24. Prefer Pass-Fail
over A B C
SA
A
D
SD
25. Blanket Grading
challenging to
kids because puts
them on "honor”
SA
A
D
SD
26. Self Evaluation
helps eliminate
cheating
SA
A
D
SD
27. Narratives in-
human
SA
A
D
SD
28. Credit—No Credit
valuable for low-
er elementary
SA
A
D
SD

59

506

34

21

34

32

37

186

445

170

82

217

166

174

671

147

584

744

675

703

610

206

25

335

278

199

223

302

Table Appendix C Continued. ‘52

 

 

 

~--.-~ Ct.“ —--‘ o..-

 

 

 

Item SA A D SD gelative
requenc
(percent
29. Pass-Fail cruel
to children'
SA 92 8.2
A 324 28.8
D 616 54.8
SD 92 8.2
30. Check List Bet-
ter than A B C
SA 87 7.7
A 355 31.6
D 566 50.3
SD 113 10.0
31. A B C about as
fair as can get
SA 163 14.5
A 542 48.2
D 366 32.5
SD 53 4.7
32. Parent Conferen-
ces better than
A B 0
SA 200 17.8
A 332 29.5
D 533 47.4
SD 56 5.0
33. Like Blanket
Grading, takes
pressure off
kids
SA 28 2.5
A 97 8.6
D 703 62.5
SD 295 26.2
34. Self Evaluation
valuable K - 6
SA 56 5.0
A 329 29.2
D 553 49.2
SD 184 16.4
35. Pass—Fail least
cruel for kids
SA 45 4.0
A 258 22.9
D 673 59.8
SD 145 12.9

Table Appendix C Continued.

153

 

-‘o

 

 

 

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

(Items 41 - 48 -- Open Ended Responses)

(Item 49 -- ranking item treated separately, Chapter Four)

50-

51.

S22
Male 171
Female 947
Years
1 59
1 - 5 297
6 - 10 304
11- 20 235
21- O 175

30- 0 47
40- + 8

Item SA A D SD Relatlve
Frequenc
(percent?

Check List can

stand on own merits
SA 87 7.7
A 520 46.2
D 461 41.0
SD 54 4.8

No student bene-

fits from Credit-

No Credit
SA 73 6.5
A 370 32.9
D 640 56.9
SD 40 3.6

A B C gives good

idea of how stu-

dents are doing
SA 189 16.8
A 688 61.2
D 206 18.3
SD 38 3.

Narratives clo-

ser to accuracy

than other forms
SA 127 11.2
A 443 29.
D 505 4.9
SD 49 4.4

Parent Confer-

ences valuable

for parents, tea—

chers, students
SA 587 52.2
A 460 40.9
D 66 5.9
SD 5 .

Table Appendix C Continued.

52.

53-

51+.

Degree(sl_Held
None
Associate's
Bachelor's
Master's
Ed.S.

Ed.D.
Ph.D.

Grade Level
Pre-School
Kindergarten
lst
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
Ungraded
Administrator

State
Georgia
Michigan
Tennessee

c..

645

74
146
150
156
134

1 1
135
58
107
275

292
282

West Virginia 276

154

 

APPENDIX D

LETTER TO BUILDING PRINCIPALS AND RETURN
POSTCARD SHOWING COMMITMENT TO THE STUDY

APPENDIX D

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Under the auspices of the Department of Administration andzfiigher
Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, a study
is being conducted concerning elementary educators' attitudes toward
selected pupil progress reporting techniques. Your building is one
of thé¥$ywschools in your/state.randomly selected to take part in the
study. Inally~one~hundredtwentytschooisggthirtymeach“in"GEE?gia,
MiehiganT—Tennessee and WestMVirginiaTTWill~be included.

In the near future, sufficient questionnaires will be sent for
you, as principal, and your teaching staff to complete. Average
time for completion of the questionnaire is eighteen minutes. Of
course, individual respondent confidentiality will be maintained.
Responses will be compared on the basis of geographical location,
grade level taught, years of teaching experience and other similar
factors. Names of individual schools or specific locations will not
be revealed in the study.

Please return the enclosed confirmation card at your very earliest
convenience in order that your packet of materials might be prepared.
‘We sincerely appreciate your interest and willingness to assist in
“this project.

Sincerely,

Dr. Louis Romano
Professor
Department of Administration

. -- .1 7. ‘
I v! " - ' .: ‘mor "‘S' " i "‘ ‘*-' ""
. pi. RIF“ '- ‘ J“ ‘

William~67589harffe
Doctoral Candidate in Administration
K%firff a

. . ..

I /‘ I 2/ x v ,. a’

’ -~ -1 x , A - ' . ,n a
, _ .

, ' t ' .-‘ I .
r . . . . ..
, f‘ ‘ - ’ .' .. I {I .7 .7 5' “' -7 I 155

I56

W“ 2.27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCHOOL CONTACT PERSON 1
ADDRESS SCHOOL PHONE( )
ZIP 7; , K

 

NUMBER OF TEACHERS, (GRADES K4 INCLUSIVE

 

NUMBER OF ADMINISTRATORS IN YOUR BLDG.

 

 

N

44W%W/MZ/ /M

 

 

Your prompt return of this card is deeflly appreciated.
DCheck here if you would like a summary of the results.

APPENDIX E

FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO SCHOOLS ORIGNIALLY CONTACTED

 

 

{I III!!!

APPENDIX E
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Just in case our first letter did not reach you, we are
writing again to ask your cooperation in a study concerning
elementary teacher and administrator attitudes toward the use
of A B C D F grading compared with selected alternative forms

of pupil progress reporting.

As mentioned in our first correspondence, dated October 29,
1976, your building is one of thirty schools selected in your
state, at random, to take part in the study. In all, one hun-
dred twenty schools (thirty each in Georgia, Michigan, Tennessee
and West Virginia) were selected. Responses from you, as prin-
cipal, and your teachers will be compared on the basis of geo-
graphical location, grade level taught, years of teaching ex-
perience and other similar factors, with the responses of schools
in the other three states. Naturally, respondent confidentiality

will be maintained.

We are counting heavily upon the cooperation of the build-
ing principals in the study, for without their assistance and
support, the attempts to gather data will be fruitless. Please
help us in this important effort by returning the enclosed post
card today. Your responses on the questionnaire which will be
sent, and the responses of your teaching staff, will help in
answering many questions surrounding the "grading“ controversy.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Louis Romano
Professor
Department of Administration

I" 'fd'
r)‘ . H 1" r F ‘8 v , V.
7" Jove-T .glfi i ET'H /(-J-~'t‘ 3"53’7 it'.‘ '5‘..."

WilliamwGT“Scharff
Doctoral Candidate in Administration

I57

APPENDIX F

LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS TO PRINCIPALS

APPENDIX F
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Dear Building Principal:

The willingness of you and your staff to participate in this
study on teacher attitudes toward reporting practices is deeply
appreciated. Enclosed, you will find a sufficient number of att-
itudinal questionnaires for your building as indicated in your re-
ply to our original inquiry. Please help us by following these
general directions: 57’

1. Only yourself and any regularily contracted teaching
personnel, grades pre-school through grade/6 inclusive, are asked
to respond. Teachers of ungraded classrooms may be included if
the students taught would fall in the pre-school through grade 6
grade span. Please do n9: include substitute teachers, teachers
of special education, or paraprofessional support staff.

2. Please ask that all questionnaires be returned to you not
more than 3 calendar days after distribution. Upon collection of
the questionnaires, please use the return envelope provided. Any
unused or partially completed questionnaires should also be re-
turned. Questionnaires should not be folded, nor the pages sep—
arated.

3. No names should be listed on the questionnaires.

4. Please ask that respondents follow all directions care-

fully when completing the questionnaire.

Upon completion of the study, you will be furnished with a
summary Of the results if you indicated a desire for this in your

original reply.

Once again, our sincere thanks is extended for all of your
assistance and prompt COOperation in this project.

Sincerely,

Dr. Louis Romano
Professor —
Department of Administration

William G. Scharffe
Doctoral Candidate in Administration

LR/wcs/eh 158

APPENDIX G

FOLLOW-UP LETTERS TO PRINCIPALS

APPENDIX G
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 8 ~ EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN - 48824
DEPARTMENT OP ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
ERICKSON HALL

Please do not think that we are impatient, but we have
not yet received the completed questionnaires on pupil pro-
gress reporting from your building. Having been building
administrators Ourselves, we fully understand the day-to-
day problems which occur and can appreciate the limits of
time in a school day. The data from your building is, how—
ever, very crucial to our study.

We can only ask that you do what you can to have the
questionnaires completed and returned as soon as possible.
Due to the nature of the sampling in this study, we are de-
pending totally upon your help as a building principal and
have no other means of securing the necessary responses.

Won't you and your staff members please complete the
questionnaires as soon as possible? Thank you for your un-
derstanding and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Louis Romano
Professor of Administration

William G. Scharffe
Doctoral Candidate in Administration

I59

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ' 488M
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION
I-‘RICKSON HALL

Dear Principal

We are still anxiously awaiting the return of questionnaires
from your building. Since we have so few schools in each of the
states who have not yet returned their completed questionnaires,
we are making yet another appeal to you, the educational leader
of your building, to do everything possible to have the questionnaires
on pupil progress reporting returned.

As mentioned in our last letter, we are totally dependent upon
the building principals for our data. Without your help and leader—
ship we cannot collect the data necessary.

Won't you please help by seeing to it that the materials are
returned as soon as possible?

Thank you for your time and COOperation. Incidentally, some
building administrators have neglected to fill out a questionnaire.
We need your response as well as those from your teachers, so please
be sure to include yourself when collecting the questionnaires.

Sincerely,

Dr. Louis Romano
Professor of Administration

William G. Scharffe

Doctoral Candidate in Administration
3115 Mackinaw St.

Saginaw, Michigan 48602

(Return address for questionnaires)

I60

APPENDIX H

LETTERS TO TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS USED
IN THE INITIAL INTERVIEWS FOR INSTRUMENT
DESIGN, INSTRUMENT DESIGN INTERVIEW FORM AND
ATTITUDINAL COMMENT POOL FROM INITIAL INTERVIEWS

APPENDIX H

WILLIAM G. SCHARF FE
2812 ADAMS BLVD.
SAGINAW: Ml 48602

As an elementary teacher in the Saginaw Public Schools, your
name has been selected at random to assist, if you so choose, in
a study on the use of A B C D F grade reporting as compared with
other selected means of reporting pupil progress.

We are attempting to gather preliminary data on the attitudes
held by elementary teachers about grades and grading. Such pre-
liminary data will then be used to design a survey instrument which
will ultimately be sent to approximately 1,600 teachers in four
different states.

Your input, should you Choose to assist, would be gathered
via a personal interview of not more than 20 minutes in length.
The interview can be conducted in your home, or, if you prefer,
by telephone. Confidentiality would, of course, be maintained
and any opinions or feelings you express would not be carried be-
yond the interview other than for the purpose of designing atti-
tudinal questions to be used in the final survey instrument.

If you feel you could spare 20 minutes, and would like to
assist in this study, please complete the information on the
tear sheet below and return it to the address listed on the letter-
head (a 13¢ stamp is enclosed) or contact me at 793-7079 between
the hours of 12:00 to 2:00p.m. or 6:00 to 10:00 p.m.

Hopefully, you will choose to assist, but if you do not, please
feel free to keep the stamp!

Sincerely,

William G. Scharffe
Doctoral Candidate
Michigan State University

Yes, I will assist. I prefer to be interviewed By phone.

At-home.
No, I cannot assist.

(If you can assist, please list your name
and your current phone number .)

 

I6I

WILLIAM G. SCHARFFE
2812 ADAMS BLVD.
SAGINAW, Ml 48602

As an elementary administrator in the Saginaw Public Schools,
I know you are often called upon to do things which cut into your
personal time. The request I am about to make would entail about
20 minutes of that time. Hopefully, you can be of some assistance.

I am in the process of compiling preliminary data for the de-
sign Of an attitudinal survey dealing with elementary teacher and
administrator feelings about the use of A B C D F grade reporting
compared with other available means of pupil progress reporting.

The survey instrument, when designed, will be sent to approximately
1,600 teachers and 120 administrators in four different states. In
order to gain some insight into attitudes held, it is necessary that
some personal interviews be conducted. I am asking if you would be
willing to give me 20 minutes,either in person or by phone, in order
that I might ask you some very general questions about pupil progress
reporting.

If you feel you could possibly assist, please complete the tear
sheet below, and return it to me at the address shown above ( a
13¢ stamp is enclosed). If you feel you cannot assist, please feel
free to keep the stamp! I do hope, however, that you will be able
to find 20 minutes.

My personal thanks.

Sincerely,

William G. Scharffe
Doctoral Candidate
Michigan State University

Yes, I will assist. I prefer to be interviewed By phone.

5

At home.

No, I cannot assist.

“

(If you can assist, please list your name
and your current phone number .)

 

I62

INSTRUMENT DESIGN
INTERVIEW FORM

Interview Number

 

Background Data: Sex M F ; Years of Paid Teaching Experience

#00“)

IO.
II.

Degree(s) Held

Grade Level Now Teaching: K I 2 3 4 5 6 Pre-School
Admin.

Geographic Area of U.S. Where Educated

 

 

STATEMENTS
When I think of "Grades" I .....
A B C D F Grading is .....
A way of reporting pupil progress which I like is .....
Blanket grading is ..... (give definition before asking for a
response to this item)
Narrative reporting is ..... (give definition before asking for
a response to this item)
Parent Conferences are ....1
Check List Reporting is ..... (give definition before asking
for a response to this item)
Self Evaluation Reporting is ..... (give definition before asking
for a response to this item)
Pass-Fail reporting is .....
Credit - No Credit Reporting is .....
If I had my way about pupil progress reporting I would .....

I63 .

ATTITUDI

I64
NAL COMMENT POOL: 4o INTERVIEWS - l7 ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS

 

I. "WHE
A.

'OOZZI—XQHIO'HWUOW

M300

2. "A B

ZFKQHImmmonw>

23 ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

N I THINK OF 'GRADES' I":

Think of a basis for evaluating students. (l0 like responses)
Think of A B C D F because that's the way I was graded. (8 l.r.)
Shudder. (2 like responses) ‘

Think of pupil progress and evaluation.

Get puzzled because of the confusion they create on records.
Think of "judgement."

How yOu did against other people. (4 like responses)

Think of passing my students.

Think of frustration.

Think of the Child and how grades will affect his self-concept.
Think of artificial separations of peOple.

Think of something that's inconsequential.

Think of something grossly unfair.

Think of happy and sad faces.

Begin to worry.

Think about how they (grades) limit me in talking about a
student's progress.

I don't like thinking about grades.
Cringe.
Think of report cards.
C D F GRADING IS":
Preferable to S. I. U. marks.
More definitive than many other systems.
Totally unfair. (2 like responses)
Very difficult for merto do.
Very hard on Children.
Just another way of describing pupil progress.
No more accurate, and just as biased, as numbers or check lists.
Insufficient.
Not a true indicator of student progress. (3 like responses)
Really unrelated to use in lower elementary grades. (6 l.r.)
Obsolete. (3 like responses)
Good only for grades 6 and up.
Good.

I65

(continued)

N. Not uniform.

O. The most common way to evaluate students.

P. Poor.

0. Too inconclusive.

R. A darn good grading system which hasn't been bettered. (2 l.r.)

5. Something that discourages some students while others work
harder because of it.

T. O.N. if based on something other than the teacher's personal
op1n1on.

U. Useless.

V. Meaningless.

N. Terrible

X. Phony.

Y. Accepted and popular with parents. (3 like responses)

2. About as fair as you can get.

"A WAY OF REPORTING PUPIL PROGRESS WHICH I LIKE IS":

A. Parent conferences. (20 like responses)

8. The A B C D F method along with parent conferences.

C. Objective referenced reporting. (4 like responses)

0. Written anecdotal comments to the parents. (3 like responses)

E. Parent-teacher conferences at the home of the parent. (2 l.r.)

F. Parent conferences along with a written report. (2 l. r. )

G. Person- to- -person conferences with the student and the parent
present. (2 like responses)

H. Parent conferences along with a check list. (2 like responses)

I. Computer assisted narrative reports.

J. Percentage marks along with A B C D F.

K. Parent conferences grades K-4 with letter grades thereafter.

L. A B C D F. (2 like responses)

"BLANKET GRADING IS":

A. Good for students who are below average and not too good for
high achievers.

B. Ridiculous - cannot be justified.

C. Acceptable at the college level but not for elementary. (5 l.r.)

0. Not enough of a challenge for children in their developmental
stages.

E. Not acceptable to me.

crl—lImfi'l
0....

ZZFX
coco

HMJUO'UO

JUO'UOZZF-XLHIO'T‘INUOW>

I66

Something I really don't care for. (2 like responses)

Easy on the malingerers.

Something I like because it takes pressure off kids. (2 like r.)
A cop-out for teachers who have a low opinion of themselves.

Insufficient because it doesn't make allowances for individual
differences. (4 like responses)

A practice which makes people lose incentive. (8 like res.)
Great from the student's viewpoint.
A system which makes students lose respect for the teacher.

Favorable, providing each student is responsible for producing
something.
Not any more fair than A B C D F.

Really unfair and ineffective. (2 like responses)

Nonsense.

A method which encourages students to work up to their potential.
Challenging because it puts you on your honor. (5 like responses)
Good for music, art and physical education. (2 like responses)

ARRATIVE REPORTING IS":

The best system. (3 like responses)

Time consuming. (12 like responses)

Wonderful.

Good if done on a truly individual basis.

Fine if the comments are made in a positive way.

A system that comes closer to accuracy than any other.

Great - the teacher can be more subjective.

Best when used for lower elementary.

A good idea because it gives parents more to hold onto.
Really good if combined with parent conferences.

Too impersonal if done by computer. (4 like responses)

Is of questionable value for inner-city parents.

Good only if you have dedicated teachers. (5 like responses)
Inadequate. (3 like responses)

Useful only when grades are given too.

Inhuman because it assumes that all kids fit the same mold.
Very helpful, especially when used for mastery level reporting.
Too time consuming for the parents.

I67

"PARENT CONFERENCES ARE":

OZZI—KQH

ID'T'II'T‘IUOW)

Great if you can get parents to come in. (5 like responses)
Excellent, the best method. (16 like responses)

Very worthwhile.

Enlightening for the parents. (6 like responses)

The way to go, but more should be held. (4 like responses)
In a way, a farce.

Absolutely necessary at all levels. (3 like responses)

Totally dependent for success on the basis of the teacher who
is conducting the conference.

One way to really learn more about the child. (4 like responses)
Best for low achievers.

A waste of time.

Good if a check list is used along with them.

Very productive.

A good way of explaining the grade.

Good only if the teacher has materials to show the parents.

"CHECK LIST REPORTING IS":

PPPPZZr-xmmzm-nmcnm)

Terribly time consuming. (5 like responses)

Fine, if you have a conference to go along with it. (4 like r.)
Too hard to sort out.

Not too satisfactory.

Something which hasn't too much meaning.

Better than A B C D F but not as good as narratives.
Valuable.

In and of itself, not sufficient. (3 like responses)
Something that never should be used as a final evaluation.
A method that has no meaning for kids. (3 like responses)
Vague.

Not preferable to grades. (3 like responses)

A cop-out.

Good for kids. (4 like responses)

Used too much like A B C D F.

More limited than face-to-face conferences.

Useless for parents who don't read well. (2 like responses)
The worst method of reporting.

<C—IU1

I68

Ambiguous.

Just another version of a narrative.

Fine, as long as the list is objective referenced.

A waster of time for the teacher. (3 like responses)

"SELF EVALUATION REPORTING IS":

A.
B.
C.

S.
T.

OZZI—KLHICD'HI'HU

Not for the lower elementary grades. (13 like responses)
Something which the kids in upper grades would cheat on.

Not too good because kids either rate themselves too high or
too low. (4 like responses)

Something I don' t agree with. (5 like responses)

Not too satisfactory.

Is valuable.

Too soon with us.

Really unfair - the honest kids are hurt. (4 like responses)
One of the best tools a teacher can use.

Totally dependent for success on the maturity of the students.
Good only if used as a part of the total evaluation process.
O.K. only if the criteria for grading is clearly spelled out.
Is better than giving a grade.

Possibly, very valuable.

A system which eliminates fear and concern on the part of the
child.

Excellent for all grade levels.
Valid only when there is direct teacher input.

Only valid in the lower elementary grades where the kids are
truthful.

Excellent for interim progress reports.
A lousy cop-out on the teacher's part.

"PASS - FAIL REPORTING IS":

A.
B.

m-nrncn

Good only for industrial arts, or some subject like that. (10)

Not valuable unless explained to student in detail as to just
what a "P" or an “F" means.

Fine for higher grades, but not for elementary. (6 like res.)
Fine for me.

Unrealistic.

A report that doesn't tell parents anything.

Cruel.

IO.

2

FC-IU’WO'UOZZF'KQHI

I69

Something I don't like because I don't like to fail a Child.
Something I'd really like to use.

More negative than positive.

Nothing - I don't like it.

O.K. for independent studies.

Vague.

Discouraging to children.

Something which tells absolutely nothing. (5 like responses)
Just a poor substitute for A B C D F.

Worthless without a specific set of course objectives.

Not enough to create an incentive in pupils.

Too cut and dried.

Insufficient rating.

Not preferable to a grade.

Something that has few advantages.

Better than giving a grade.

"CREDIT - NO CREDIT REPORTING IS":

A.

mono:
coco

OZZI—xmr-czmfi'l
coco-coco.

Great for graduate level courses.

N0 different than pass-fail. (11 like responses)

O.K., I guess - if I were a poor student I'd like it.

Best for physical activity classes, or maybe Choir and music.

Better than pass-fail because there is no connotation of
failure. (10 like responses)

.0.K. for self evaluation situations.

Good only for college level.

Definitely not for academic courses.

Of no use to lower elementary grades.

Only good for highly motivated students. (8 like responses)
Worthwhile for special education kids only.

(Vague.

Unrealistic.
Good for use in curbing absenteeism.
Something I don't agree with.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, W. L., "Why Teachers Say They Fail Pupils" Educational
Administration and Sgpervision, 1932, 18 pp. 594-600
cited by Kirshenbaum, et. al., Wad-Ja-Get?, p. 253.

 

 

Anderson, Vernon E., Principles and Procedures of Curriculum
Improvement, (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1965, 2nd ed.).

 

Becker, Howard Saul; Greer, Blanche and Hughes, Everett C., Making
The Grade, The Academic Side of College Life. New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1968.

Bohan, John Emlin, Student's Marks in College Courses. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press, 1931.

Bowers, William, Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College,
(New York: New York Bureau of Applied Behavioral Science, 1964)
cited in Evans, p. 43.

Bradfield, James M. and H. Steward Moredock, Measurement and
Evaluation in Education, (New York: The Macmillan Company
1957).

 

Bramlette, Metle, "Is the S and U Grading System Satisfactory or
Unsatisfactory?," Texas Outlook, XXXVI (April, 1942),
29-30 cited in Steller, p. 53.

Broom, Mybert Eastace, Educational Measurements in the Elementary
School, (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1939).

Brown, Donald J., Appraisal Procedures in the Secondary Schools,
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970).

Chase, Clinton Irvin; Dalton, Starrette L. and Doerann, Judith A.,
Pass-Fail: How is it Working? (Bloomington, Indiana:
Buregu of Educational Studies and Testing, Indiand University,
1973 .

Clark, D. C., "Competition for Grades and Graduate Student Performance,
Journal of Educational Research 62:351-54, April, 1969,
cited in Evans, p. 44.

I70

I7I

Combs, Arthur W., "A Contract Method of Evaluation," Degrading the
GradingiMyths, p. 70.

 

Dexter, E. S., "The Effect of Fatigue or Boredom on Teachers'
Marks", Journal of Educational Research, 1935, 19, pp. 664-447
cited by Kirshenbaum, et. al., Wad-Ja-Get?, p. 253.

 

Doerann, Judith A., Equivalence of Greades in Multisection Courses,
(Bloomington, Indiana: Bureau of Educational Studies and
Testing, Indiana University, 1973).

Dressel, Paul L. and Associates, Evaluation in Higher Education,
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961).

Ebel, Robert L., Essentials of Educational Measurement, (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972).

Ebel, Robert L., "Shall We Get Rid of Grades?", The Interchange,
(Portland, Maine: Department of Research and Evaluation,
Portland Public Schools, May, 1975. As reprinted from:
NCME Measurement in Education, vol. 5, No. 4, Fall, 1974).

Educational Research Service, Pass-Fail Plans (Washington, D. C.:
American Association of School Administrators and National
Education Association, November, 1971).

Evans, Francis 8., "What Research Says About Grading", Degrading
the Grading Myths: A Primer of Alternatives to Grades and
Marks, Sidney 8. Simon and James A. Bellanca, ed., (Washington
D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,
1976), p. 41.

Falla, Michael A., Ounce Caps,,Hickory_Sticks, and Public Evaluations,
(Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1968, pp. 11-12), cited
in Kirshenbaum, et. al., Wad-Ja-Get?.

Giannangelo, Duane M., "Make Report Cards Meaningful," The
Educational Forum, May, 1975, p. 414.

Giannangelo, Duane M. and Kwi Yoon Lee, "At Last: Meaningful Report
Cards," Phi Delta kgppan, May, 1974, pp. 630-31.

Glasser, William, Schools Without Failure, (New York: Harper and
Row, 1969).

Grading and Reporting: Current Trends in School Policies and Programs,
(Arlington, Virginia: National School Public Relati0ns
Association, 1972).

I72

Gronlund, Norman E., Measurement and Evaluation in Teachigg, 3rd
editgon, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc.,
1976 .

Hamachek, Donald E., Encounters With The Self, (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971).

 

Hart, Lois 8., "Dear Parents: What You Want to Know Isn't Necessarily
What We Want to Tell You," In Degrading the Grading Myths,
Sidney 8. Simon and James A. Bellance, eds. (Washington,
D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1976), p. 101.

Hiner, N. Ray, "Grading As A Cultural Function," The Clearing House
XLVII (February, 1973), p. 356.

Jencks, Christopher and Riseman, David. The Academic Revolution,
Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969.

Jensen, Larry Cyril, The Effects of Grades on Cognitive and Affective
Learning, Thesis (Ph.DT) Michigan State University
Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational
PsychOIOQY. 1966.

Johnson, Ronald C. and Gene R. Medinnus, Child Psychology: Behavior and
Development, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969).

 

Kirshenbaum, Howard; Simon, Sidney 8.: and Rodney W. Napier, (M,.r
Wad-Ja-Get? (New York, Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1971).

 

Ladas, Harold, “Grades: Standardizing the Unstandardized Standard,"
Phi Delta Kappan, November, 1974, p. 185.

 

Lehmann, Irving J. and Mehrens, William A., Standardized Tests in
Education (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 3rd ed.,

1975).

Marshall, Max, "Student Response to Criticism," Phi Delta Kappan,_
March, 1974, p. 488.

Maves, Harold J., "Contrasting Levels of Performance in Parent—Teacher
Conferences," Elementary_Curriculum, Robert E. Chasnoff, ed.,
(New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1964), p.518.

 

Mehrens, William A., and Lehmann, Irvin J., Measurement and Evauation
in Education and Psychology, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1973f.

I73

National Education Association, Evaluation and Reporting of Student
Achievement, (Washington, D. C.: National Education
Association, 1974), p. 19.

 

Otto, Henry John, et. al., Four Methods of Reporting to Parents,
Report of a study sponsored by the Texas Congress of
Parents and Teachers, Austin, University of Texas, 1957.

Rinsland, Henry 0., Constructing Tests and Grading, (New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1938). 4

Russell, David H., "What Does Research Say About Self Evaluation?"
Journal of Educational Research, 46:8, pp. 561-573,
April, 1953, cited in Kirshenbaum et. al., p. 315.

Simon, Sidney 8" "Grades MUSt G0." School Review, 78: no. 3. L////“
May. 1970.

Simon, Sidney 8., l“Who Ever Cheats to Learn?" Degrading the Grading
Myths: A Primer of Alternatives to Grades and Marks, Francis
8. Evans and James A. Bellanca, ed., (Washington, Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1976), p. 20.

 

Simon, Sidney B. and Hart, Lois, "Grades and Marks: Some Commonly
Asked Questions," The Science Teacher Magazine, September,
1973.

Silberman, Charles E., Crisis In The Classroom, (New York: Vintage
Books, 1971).

Smith, Robert McNeil, Teacher Diagnosis of Educational Difficulties,
Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Company, 1969.

Starch, Daniel, Educational Measurements, (New York: The Macmillan
Company 1916).

Steller, Bonnie J., The Marking Procedures Used by Public School
Teachers in the State of Michigan. (Unpublished Ph.D.
DiSsertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1974).

TeaBrink, Terry D., Evaluation-A Practical Guide for Teachers,
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974).

Winterbottom, M.; McCleland, D. C.: Atkinson, J. W.; Clark, R. A.;
and Lowell, E. L., The Achievement Motive, (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953).

Wrinkle, William L., Improvinngarking and Reporting Practices,
(New York: RinehartTand Company, Inc., 1947).

  
     

          

H I CH TE UN 13R“

"HAWAII111111111111111111“