A national survey of elementary and secondary general education teachers (N = 368, response rate of 52%) was conducted to determine the classroom grading practices of general education teachers, including grading adaptations for students with disabilities. Results of this self report survey indicated that teachers find letter and number grades more helpful for students without disabilities than for those with disabilities. Results also indicated that teachers find certain grading adaptations—such as pass-fail grades, portfolios, multiple grades, and grading for effort—helpful for students both with and without disabilities. Implications for training, research, and practice are included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BosC. S., & VaughnS. (1994). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
BursuckW. D., & JayanthiM. (1993). Strategy instruction: Programming for independent study skill usage. In VogelS. & AdelmanP. (Eds.), Success for college students with learning disabilities (pp. 177–205). New York: Springer-Verlag.
3.
CalhounM. L. (1986). Interpreting report card grades in secondary schools: Perceptions of handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Diagnostique, 11, 117–124.
4.
CarpenterD. (1985). Grading handicapped pupils: Review and position statement. Remedial and Special Education, 6(4), 54–59.
5.
CarpenterD.GranthamL. B., & HardisterM. (1983). Grading mainstreamed handicapped pupils: What are the issues?The journal of Special Education, 17(2), 183–188.
6.
CooperH., & NyeB. (1994). Homework for students with learning disabilities: The implications of research for policy and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 470–480.
7.
CoutinhoM., & MaloufD. (1993). Performance assessment and children with disabilities: Issues and possibilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 25(4), 62–67.
8.
DonahueK., & ZigmondN. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning disabled students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality, 1, 17–27.
9.
EllettL. (1993). Instructional practices in mainstreamed secondary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 57–64.
10.
EllisE. S.LenzB. K., & SabornieE. J. (1987). Generalization and adaptation of learning strategies to natural environments: Part 2: Research into practice. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 6–23.
11.
FranklinM. E. (1992). Culturally sensitive instructional practices for African-American learners with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 115–122.
12.
FriendM., & BursuckW. D. (1996). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
HintzeJ. L. (1990). Number cruncher statistical system. Kaysville, UT: Author.
14.
JayanthiM.BursuckW. D., & EpsteinM. H. (1992). A survey of parents and teachers regarding classroom grading practices and their impact on students with disabilities. [Unpublished data set].
15.
JayanthiM.EpsteinM. H.PollowayE. A., & BursuckW. D. (in press). Testing adaptations: A national survey of the testing practice of general education teachers. Submitted for publication.
16.
JayanthiM.NelsonJ. S.SawyerV.BursuckW. D., & EpsteinM. H. (1995). Homework-Communication problems among parents, general education, and special education teachers: An exploratory study. Remedial and Special Education, 16(2), 102–116.
17.
LewisR. B., & DoorlagD. (1991). Teaching special students in the mainstream. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
18.
McLeskeyJ., & GrizzleK. L. (1992). Grade retention rates among students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 548–554.
19.
PollowayE. A.EpsteinM. H.BursuckW. D.JayanthiM., & CumbladC. (1994a). Homework practices of general education teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(8), 500–509.
20.
PollowayE. A.EpsteinM. H.BursuckW. D.RoderiqueT. W.McConeghyJ., & JayanthiM. (1994b). Classroom grading: A national survey of policies. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 162–170.
21.
PoteetJ. A.ChoateJ. S., & StewartS. C. (1993). Performance assessment and special education: Practices and prospects. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(1), 1–20.
22.
RojewskiJ. W.PollardR. R., & MeersG. D. (1990). Grading mainstreamed special needs students: Determining practices and attitudes of secondary vocational educators using a qualitative approach. Remedial and Special Education, 12(1), 7–28.
23.
RojewskiJ. W.PollardR. P., & MeersG. D. (1992). Grading secondary vocational education students with disabilities: A national perspective. Exceptional Children, 59, 68–76.
24.
SchummJ. S., & VaughnS. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers' perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 18–27.
25.
ScruggsT. E., & MastropieriM. (1988). Are learning disabled students “test-wise”? A review of recent research. Learning Disabilities Focus, 3(2), 87–97.
26.
SudmanS., & BradburnN. M. (1983). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
SullivanK. & BryanT. (1995). Teachers' reflections on collaborative action research. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University.
28.
U. S. Department of Education. (1986–1987). Common core of data public school universe. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
29.
ValdesK. A.WilliamsonC. L., & WagnerM. M. (1990). The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students (Vol. 1). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 893).
30.
VasaS. F. (1981). Alternative procedures for grading handicapped students in the secondary schools. Education Unlimited, 3, 16–23.
31.
WittJ. C., & ElliottS. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom management strategies. In KratochwillT. R. (Ed.), Advances in school psychology. (Vol. 4, pp. 251–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
WoodJ. W.MiederhoffJ. W., & UlschmidB. (1989). Adapting test construction for mainstreamed social studies students. Social Education, 53(1), 46–49.
33.
WoodP. H.BennettT.WoodJ., & BennettC. (1990). Grading and evaluation practices and policies of school teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 319 782).
34.
ZigmondN.LevinE., & LaurieT. (1985). Managing the mainstream: An analysis for teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstream high school programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 535–541.
