and scholarships. For example, most colleges require minimum grade point averages (GPAs) for admission; many states offer college scholarship money based on high school GPAs. Grades are therefore tied directly to earning potential. Qualifying for college admission can be challenging but is only the first step in achieving a college degree. Earning a bachelor’s degree typically takes the traditional four years of class attendance (either in person, online, or a combination of the two), completion of assignments, study, exams, lab work, conferences with professors, internships, and more. But the U.S. college dropout rate after freshman year is over 30 percent, and widespread grade inflation in high schools may be a causative factor in that statistic, as students haven’t truly mastered the standards necessary to excel in college (Goodwin, 2011). Grade inflation results in higher scores given for work that in the past would have earned a much lower score. Consider the following facts about grade inflation.
■ Between 1991 and 2003, the mathematics and English grade point averages of students taking the ACT outpaced the rise in their ACT scores in those subjects (Woodruff & Ziomek, 2004).
■ High school students’ scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress’s (NAEP) reading section declined between 1992 and 2005, while students reported an upturn in grade point average between 1990 and 2005—from 2.68 in 1990 to 2.98 in 2005. In addition, the percentage of students who reported taking college-preparatory classes rose from 5 to 10 percent during that period (Schmidt, 2007).
State legislators are moving toward funding formulas based on college graduation rates rather than on enrollment rates. Funding formulas are how legislators decide how much money a state will provide its universities and colleges. In states where funding is based on graduation rates, colleges are raising selection criteria. This change may require high schools to develop grading practices that inform colleges (and students) what students have truly mastered. When high schools provide recovery credits that do not include standards-based content mastery, such as a minimum requirement for the student to pass an end-of-course test for that particular state, it can lead to students receiving diplomas they have not earned (Center for Public Education, 2012). One study found that 47 percent of students did not actually complete a college- or career-ready curriculum (Gewertz, 2016a; Gewertz, 2016b). We believe recovery credits have a place in schools, but they need to reflect some level of content mastery, not just time spent earning credits in a computer lab. Grade inflation appears to be a major factor in creating this dilemma, as is the lack of common standards on which mastery is based. Grade inflation is detrimental and misleading to students, parents, counselors, and potential employers. Should individual teachers have the freedom to determine their own grading practices when the outcomes for students are so critical? It’s time now to reassess our grading policies.
Standardized Assessment
The Common Core State Standards, or similar standards codified by some states, are another reason to reconsider and improve assessment practices and policies by standardizing grading criteria. The CCSS offer teachers the opportunity to implement the kind of uniformity—while maintaining flexibility where it’s needed—that can change grading practices. Having a set of common standards brings greater consistency in our grading practices, as does having common assessment approaches such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, as do assessment options for students with disabilities.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
Two different consortia, which the U.S. Department of Education funded, are implementing overall assessments of student attainment of the CCSS. Information at www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments details the plan developed for the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Information at www.parcconline.org/assessments represents the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers’ (PARCC) plan. Information at www.ets.org/global relays information about standardized assessments available around the world.
SBAC and PARCC complement the CCSS and are in varying stages of implementation throughout selected states. Both offer formative and summative assessments (Grossman et al., 2011). Educators in CCSS discussions often emphasize summative assessments. Much of the controversy surrounding CCSS implementation is related to whether those summative assessments can judge or rank schools and teachers (Lenz & Kay, 2013; Wood, 2013). However, what those discussions often overlook is the value of formative assessments in guiding teaching practices in preparing all students to achieve grade-level content, and to successfully navigate the summative assessments. Formative assessments are the day-to-day or moment-to-moment impressions of student understanding, routine observations or conclusions about student mastery of skills or content, and adjustments in instruction that educator observations trigger. Summative assessments sum up student accomplishments and indicate mastery, and they typically take place after the usual instructional period has been completed. Summative assessments give meaning to grades because they are based on standards that are the common reference point. Therefore, grades based on summative assessments will decrease grade inflation and make college or career readiness more likely.
Various school systems have plans to implement one of these assessment approaches.
Assessment Options for Students With Disabilities
Achieve (2013) is one example of a list of CCSS assessment resources designed for use with students with disabilities. The following are different assessment resources.
■ SBAC accessibility and accommodations (http://bit.ly/2cCxk0v) use technology to deliver assessments that fit the individual student’s needs. The technology includes different colors (for readability) and Braille, American Sign Language, and other languages.
■ PARCC accessibility (www.parcconline.org/assessments/accessibility/manual) assessment options address students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities’ needs.
■ The National Center and State Collaborative (www.ncscpartners.org) provides assessment options based on alternative achievement standards. These assessments are for students with “the most significant cognitive disabilities” (National Center and State Collaborative, 2012).
■ The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium (http://dynamiclearningmaps.org) developed an alternative assessment system for students with severe cognitive and sensory disabilities.
Since states and provinces frequently discuss and sometimes change their preferences for the various assessment organizations, check your state or province’s department of education’s website or school system for the most current information. You can also find a list of states and their choices on OpenEd’s guide to Common Core standards (http://bit.ly/2cO2uMN; OpenEd, n.d.). The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (www.cmec.ca) lists standards as they vary by province. (Visit go.SolutionTree.com/instruction to access live links to the websites mentioned in this book.)
Summary
In addition to professional reflection, a myriad of reasons make this the right time to reassess grading practices. The clear connection between education level and potential earnings and the clear risk of poverty associated
