Anticipating a Second Wave of Standards-Based Grading Implementation and Understanding the Potential Barriers: Perceptions of High School Principals

Abstract

As secondary school leaders consider a shift toward standards-based grading (SBG) practices, they are no doubt weighing the odds of a successful implementation process. This research followed up on a study from 2014 to identify the challenges secondary school leaders experience when changing the currency of the classroom from points to learning. The results indicated that the game is changing and a new wave of SBG implementation is on the horizon.

Keywords

standards-based grading assessment change

Transitioning to a standards-based grading (SBG) system at the secondary level can be difficult, as the changes can challenge long-held and fundamental beliefs about teaching, learning, and assessment (Rinkema & Williams, 2018). Many schools who were initial, or first wave, adopters of SBG faced significant challenges as detailed in Peters and Buckmiller’s (2014) qualitative case study. As other high schools carefully watched and studied these schools negotiate the challenges of grading reform, we wondered if there would, indeed, be a second wave of SBG implementers, or if school leaders would forego the process due to the inherent and insurmountable challenges associated with this type of grading reform.

As school leaders, particularly at secondary schools, consider a shift in grading and assessment practices, they are no doubt considering the challenges they are likely to face and weighing the odds of a successful implementation process. Parent groups have rallied against changing grading practices when all else appears to be going well in schools (Dexter, 2015; Idzerda, 2018; Yost, 2015). Teachers’ hesitations with new or different approaches “stem from any number of factors, including complacency, cynicism, ignorance, fear, distrust, unclear outcomes, perceived increased in workload, or because they are in survival mode and cannot extend any more of themselves for any new cause or concept” (Wormeli, 2006, p. 181). In the era of social media and readily available student achievement metrics, anticipating stakeholder barriers is especially important for school leaders. High school principals, charged with the responsibility of being instructional leaders, are often on the frontlines of school reform and need to have a defensible strategy for moving forward with the work of improving assessment and grading in their school.

Initiating a significant change such as SBG comes with obstacles often stemming from long-held traditions (Guskey, 2011; O’Connor, Jung, & Reeves, 2018). When initiating a conversation about grading changes, a review of the literature suggests the following keys to a successful SBG migration: coming to consensus around the purpose of grading (Brookhart, 2011; Guskey & Jung, 2012; Erickson, 2011; Reeves, 2011), ensuring that teachers are provided sustained high quality training to make these changes (Erickson, 2011; McMunn, Schenck, & McColskey, 2003; O’Connor & Wormeli, 2011), and regularly communicating with parents about what is changing as well as what is staying the same (Proulx, Spencer-May, & Westerberg, 2012; Reeves, Jung, & O’Connor, 2017).

School leaders seem to understand that in order to go through the process of altering their grading systems, they must deal with stakeholders’ prior beliefs, perceptions, and practices with regard to grading, which can result in a predictable implementation dip due to resistance and lack of compliance (Clough & Kruse, 2010). Furthermore, schools may become sidetracked with implementation details before addressing essential questions related to assessment and learning (Brookhart, 2011). Thus, with all these variables, we were interested to see if school principals were still considering moving forward with a standards-based approach to assessment and grading.

Please note: Schools moving toward research-informed grading practices have used the terms standards-based grading, standards-referenced grading, and competency-based grading in nearly interchangeable ways. For the purpose of this study, SBG and standards-referenced grading are treated as the same.

Review of the Literature

Principal Instructional Leadership

One major 21st-century shift in the principalship has been an increased emphasis on instructional leadership. Successful principals understand that it is important to share and sustain a vision of continuous instructional improvement that supports student achievement (Stronge, Richard, & Catano, 2008). Because SBG challenges school personnel to think much differently about standards, assessment, and grading, principals must lead and plan a significant amount of learning as a part of this second-order change. In a meta-analysis of over 5,000 studies, Waters and Cameron (2007) note 21 leadership responsibilities affecting student achievement. Of these, seven are positively associated with second-order change: (a) knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; (b) flexibility; (c) change agent; (d) ideals and beliefs; (e) monitor and evaluate; (f) intellectual stimulation; and (g) optimize (Waters & Cameron, 2007). In addition, four responsibilities are negatively correlated with leading second-order change: (a) culture, (b) communication, (c) input, and (d) order (Waters & Cameron, 2007). Thus, instructional-minded secondary principals leading such a significant change in grading practices must overcommunicate, seek input continually from stakeholders, and ensure that day-to-day operations are managed in an orderly way. All the while, the principal must continue his or her role as instructional leader.

Bendikson, Robinson, and Hattie (2012) distinguish between direct and indirect instructional leadership actions. Direct instructional leadership involves the school leader focusing on the quality of instruction, which may include providing feedback to teachers, leading professional learning, and facilitating a curriculum meeting. Indirect instructional leadership is when a school leader enhances the conditions for learning in a school. Examples include minimizing barriers to instruction such as intensive classroom management and the school leader allocating resources to hire a department head or instructional coach for the purpose of supporting instructional improvement. Secondary principals are more likely to use indirect rather than direct instructional leadership actions (Bendikson, Robinson, & Hattie, 2012). This is problematic given that principals merely enhancing conditions for learning via indirect instructional leadership do not always equate to improvement in learning outcomes for students (Neumerski, 2012).

In addition, principals must possess propositional knowledge (understanding of the instructional change), procedural knowledge (how to lead others in understanding the instructional change), and pragmatic knowledge (contextual information) in order to lead a successful second-order change (Bredeson, 2013). Leading second-order change is no easy task, particularly for secondary principals who are tasked with a wide variety of management tasks such as activities supervision, creating a master schedule, and executing disciplinary policies described in the student handbook. Thus, it should come as no surprise that high schools struggle to make meaningful use of their grading systems (Bowers, 2011; Guskey, 2006).

Standards-Based Grading

With over 100 years of research, traditional grading practices continue to be problematic in the eyes of educators and scholars (Brookhart et al., 2016). In many schools, “hodgepodge” grading is the norm in which teachers utilize a myriad factors including growth, participation, achievement, and other nonacademic indicators when communicating a letter grade to parents and students (Cross & Frary, 1999; Duncan & Noonan, 2007; Lichty & Retallick, 2017; O’Connor, Jung, & Reeves, 2018). While modern day electronic gradebooks portray objectivity in classroom grading procedures, mathematical procedures such as averaging multiple attempts of a single learning target may be detrimental to student motivation (Guskey, 2002). In response, some schools have enacted new grading policies such as SBG.

SBG is a somewhat controversial philosophy of grading, which is slowly gaining traction in elementary and secondary schools (Iamarino, 2014). One of the underlying purposes of SBG is to create more consistent assessment and reporting procedures across an entire school (O’Connor & Wormeli, 2011; O’Connor, 2017). While some implementation details may vary across schools, experts agree that SBG encompasses three major shifts. First, teachers separate reporting academic skills from employability skills (Iamarino, 2014; Melograno, 2007; O’Connor et al., 2018). Grades are based on standards and goals rather than mode of assessment. Students and parents read statements such as “Cites evidence and draws inferences from the text” rather than “To Kill a Mockingbird Test” in electronic grade books. Teachers articulate their assessments with preestablished standards and corresponding criteria. In addition, employability skills such as turning in work on time or class participation do not influence the final academic grade but are reported independently. Second, students are provided opportunities to demonstrate understanding multiple times in a reporting period without penalty (Townsley, 2018; Wormeli, 2011). Typically, learners who do not perform well on an assessment but later demonstrate a higher level of learning are penalized by averaging the attempts together in the grade book. In SBG, the most recent evidence of learning is emphasized when determining grades for a marking period. Finally, SBG shifts the purpose of homework from an exercise in point accumulation to an opportunity for practice and making mistakes without penalty (O’Connor, 2017; Scriffiny, 2008). While teachers continue to provide written feedback to learners on their practice (homework) assignments, no point values are attached. Through SBG practices, schools aim to more accurately communicate students’ strengths and areas of improvement (Townsley, 2018).

In the first wave of SBG implementation, roughly 5 years ago, Peters and Buckmiller (2014) identified several internal barriers related to SBG: student information and grading systems, parents/community members, the tradition of grading and fear of the unknown, and the implementation dip. Since that time, a number of additional studies have solidified and expanded on these initial barriers while suggesting new areas of concern.

Preparing for Postsecondary

Parents question whether their high school–aged children experiencing SBG will receive a fair shot in the admissions process; however, in recent conversations, admissions officials have clarified that this is not the case (Buckmiller & Peters, 2018; Riede, 2018). Students, too, have expressed concern with the juxtaposition of different grading systems in high school and college and the long-term impact it might have on their postsecondary success (Peters, Kruse, Buckmiller, & Townsley, 2017). High school principals moving toward SBG practices will undoubtedly be asked how grade point averages and college entrance exam scores may be affected. Using comparison data from SBG and non-SBG high schools with similar demographics, a study from Townsley and Varga (2018) reports mixed GPA (grade point average) and ACT scores, while Haptonstall (2010) suggests that GPAs from schools using SBG practices have a stronger correlation with standardized tests when compared with non-SBG schools.

Upsetting the Status Quo Grading Practices

Parents continue to communicate confidence with traditional grading and have a dislike for new or different grading practices (Frankin, Buckmiller, & Kruse, 2016), and veteran teachers resist changes in grading (Hany, Proctor, Wollenweber, & Al-Bataineh, 2016). In addition, a number of Wisconsin high school principals report that SBG has been slow to catch on (Larson, 2017) due to what Hargreaves (2002) refers to as “communication betrayal.” That is, teachers early to adopt SBG practices in their school may be shamed in the workplace for upsetting the status quo. As such, school leaders may be hesitant to move forward with SBG due to a perceived lack of teacher support.

Implementation Dip

In a second-order change, Fullan (2001) describes an “implementation dip” that occurs as those experiencing the change gain the necessary skills and dispositions to enact SBG. Because students are not awarded points for completing homework or other practice assignments in SBG classrooms, teachers report that students do not initially turn in as many of these assignments (Schiffman, 2016). Students, too, report frustrations with “pointless” homework when its purpose and connection to learning is not clearly proactively communicated by teachers (Peters et al., 2017).

Despite the challenges noted 5 years ago by Peters and Buckmiller (2014) and the aforementioned new areas of concern, a new wave of SBG appears to be on the horizon at high schools in this Midwestern state. As such, the researchers reached out to high school principals to discern the current barriers to fully implementing this grading shift.

Design and Method

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this descriptive study was to identify the probability of a second wave of SBG implementation and the perceived barriers from the school leaders at the high school level. We then compared the barriers of the second wave adopters with the barriers identified by the first-wave adopters. The results of this study should assist high school building leaders anticipate challenges and barriers if they are considering making changes to update their grading and assessment philosophies. In addition, principal preparation programs and school leader professional organizations might benefit from better understanding the instructional leadership challenges that high school principals currently face when moving toward more effective grading practices. There were three research questions that guided this study:

Research Question 1: To what extent are secondary school principals considering a shift to SBG?

Research Question 2: What are the current perceived barriers to the implementation of SBG?

Research Question 3: How do the current perceived barriers compare with the barriers found in the first wave of implementation?

Survey

For this exploratory descriptive study, the researchers developed the survey questions based on their review of the literature. As a part of a larger study, the survey consisted of three sections: vision (one question), content knowledge of the topic (five questions), and implementation (five questions). A 5-point Likert-type scale was used to prompt participants’ assessment of their choices relative to the questions on assessment and grading. Additionally, one open-ended summary question asked about potential barriers the participants anticipated in the implementation process. To answer this study’s three research questions, only the first Likert-type question and the open-ended question were essential to the purpose of the study.

The vision question asked to what extent is SBG a part of principal’s vision in the next 5 years. The researchers wanted to understand if there would, in fact, be a second generation of schools that are moving toward a standards-based approach.

Participants

There are approximately 333 secondary schools in the state (School Administrators of Iowa, 2018), and with school sharing agreements, there are 316 (Iowa Department of Education, 2018) high school principals in the state. A list of secondary school principals (and their email addresses) was obtained from a statewide data source. These principals were sent the IRB-approved query regarding participation in the study. Participants were selected using purposive sampling (Patton, 2002), in that secondary school principals were from a homogeneous group of people with similar interests in the phenomenon at hand. In order to be eligible to participate in the study, participants must have been (a) a high school/secondary principal and (b) in a school that has not implemented an SBG system as of yet. An email invitation to voluntarily complete the online survey was sent January of 2018 using a Qualtrics survey link. As scholars in this field, the researchers keep a database of schools that have implemented SBG. There are currently 12 high schools in the state that have implemented SBG fully. Thus, we subtracted 12 from 316 to get the N. There were 100 principals who met the criteria and completed the survey for a response rate of 32%.

Data Analysis

The data analysis phase included ideas from Onwuegbuzie and Teddlie’s (2003) process for the analysis of mixed method research. All three researchers engaged in data reduction as we compared and contrasted data from the Likert-type scale and open-ended question. The researchers displayed the data using a descriptive chart for further analysis. In the data consolidation phase, the results from the quantitative question prompted areas of further analysis, particularly with the open-ended question.

The researchers initially sorted the responses to the open-ended question using open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) into broad categories as a way to reduce the data and identify general patterns. Next, the researchers reduced the categories into ten themes. In some instances, comments were dually coded. For example, the comment “Some Teachers don’t understand the value of test retakes or separating behaviors and content knowledge” was coded under two themes: teacher resistance and the need for more professional development. This response was thought to indicate both resistance on the part of the teacher and also that a new understanding of the grading shift is needed.

Ultimately themes from the qualitative comments were compared with the results of a previous qualitative study from 2014 to answer the study’s third research question.

Results

Implementing SBG, particularly at the secondary level, has been challenging for the early adopters. Peters and Buckmiller (2014) found that even after a school decides to adopt an SBG methodology, there is still a plethora of obstacles to successful and systemic implementation. Currently in this Midwestern state, there are about 12 high schools that have implemented SBG fully and, anecdotally, have the battle scars to show it. As other schools consider making a move toward SBG, they have watched, carefully, the early adopters, or first wave, of this grading shift, as they consider whether or not taking on this challenge is worth the district’s time, effort, and energy.

Research Question 1: A Second Wave of SBG Implementation Is Coming

A strong majority of the participants indicated that shifting the grading practices was a part of their vision within the next 5 years. The mean score on this 5-point Likert-type scale survey for this question was 4.08 with a standard deviation of 0.950. Seventy-nine percent of the high school principals selected either: strong part of my vision or a part of my vision in response to this question. While 10% indicated that this was not a part of their vision, 11% indicated that they were undecided at this time. Figure 1 reports the frequency counts for this question.

Figure 1.

The extent to which SBG is a part of the principal’s vision in the next 5 years (n = 100).

The researchers concluded that, according to this data, a second wave of SBG implementation is, indeed, on the horizon in this state. We hear from school leaders in the field that they know the process of implementing SBG is a tremendous challenge due, primarily, to a seemingly unwavering support of traditional grading practice, which actually has no research to support its practices (Brookhart et al., 2016; Marzano, 2000).

Despite having a strong vision for improving grading practices in their schools, the researchers were able to conclude that this work will have to be done in a slow, methodological manner. The three most common themes, in terms of potential barriers, were related: teacher resistance (“A few teachers are ‘Old School’ that may slow the process.”), the need for more time (“The transition is slow and painful! The foundation of practices and mind-set needed to implement the changes is essential and very slow.”), and the need for more professional learning (“There is a lack of teacher preparation for such a change at this point”). In the end, the researchers were able to glean salient insights into the perceptions that the principals in this study are likely to encounter.

Research Question 2: Barriers

Teacher Resistance

Comments around the topic of teacher resistance were the most common in this survey research. Many principals seemed to indicate that teachers who have been in the profession for a while are likely to be resistant to this shift in grading philosophy. Terms like “old school” and “traditional” were used. One participant noted, “There are several teachers who will retire in the next 4 years or so. They have an unwillingness to take on this level of shift in philosophy and structure toward the end of their careers.” Several other comments connected veteran teachers’ belief in traditional practices and mind-sets.

The mind-sets of teachers also emerged in this category, although not always connected to career longevity. One participant said, “I believe that the biggest barrier to implementation of SBG is the mind-set of teachers.” Another principal, who seemed to understand the nuances of standards-based assessment said, “The shift in mind-set from traditional high school grading mentality, in which points are king, to a SBG system, where learning is king.”

While a few comments mentioned a fear of change regarding specific practices associated with SBG (“Some teachers don’t understand the value test retakes or separating behaviors and content knowledge”), most comments were a little vague but along the lines of “fear of change.” In apparent sarcasm, one participant said, “Believe it or not, I have a few staff members who just do not change,” while another commented, “The majority of our teachers are reluctant to stand up and push for changes they know are needed.” Finally one said, “The culture in the building does not lend itself to a change to standards-based grading at this time.”

Need More Time to Put in Place

There were 21 comments that indicated that a shift in grading practices would require a strategic plan and may not be an expedited process. One participant said, “We must put groundwork in place for the community, staff, and students to understand that SBG would not reduce academic rigor and would focus the district on the educational needs of our community.” Other comments were brief and to the point: “comprehensive plan,” “adequate time,” and “time.” One principal seemed to recognize the need for a thoughtful implementation plan: “The transition is slow and painful! The foundation of practices and mind-set needed to implement the changes is essential and very slow.”

Several comments were dually coded because they included elements of time and more education. While the third theme is centered on professional learning or development, there were some comments included in this section that would indicate the importance of taking time to educate the community around these new practices and philosophies. Some of the comments included, “It would take a lot more education for everyone involved, in school and in the community” and “Our community would need some teaching around the benefits of standards-based grading.” One other principal was a bit more specific: “We must put groundwork in place for the community, staff, and students to understand that SBG would not reduce academic rigor and would focus the district on the educational needs of our community.” Finally, one school leader said that “too many varying philosophies in the community” indicate a need for more community education on this topic.

Need More Professional Development

A sign that principals may have a good awareness of the current levels of understanding their faculty have on the topic of SBG is that the theme of “the need for more professional learning” indicates an essential and necessary road bump in the process. Some of the most poignant comments were, “misinformation,” “proper training,” and “lack of teacher preparation.” One principal was specific: “Right now the biggest impediment is how to arrive at a letter grade and making sure it is reflective of a student’s learning.” And yet another was seemingly optimistic: “A majority of our staff would be ready for this exciting challenge, but would still need coaching and resources on several items (associated with SBG).” Representative comments included the following:

Proper training

Misinformation

Understanding the teaching philosophy behind SBG

Other Barriers

Topics that did not garner as many comments as the above themes were (in order of frequency) parent resistance, preference of traditional grading methods, central office resistance, and college preparation/admission. There were a few isolated comments around the topics of change, student information systems, and special education. Even though these themes/topics were not prevalent in these survey results, it is important to note these as they are relevant to the study’s third research question.

Research Question 3: Barriers of the First Wave Compared With the Anticipated Second Wave

A 2014 study (Peters & Buckmiller) examined the implementation journey of early adopters of SBG in the same Midwestern state as the current study. The unit of analysis for that qualitative study was the building administration team. That study’s results identified significant barriers in the implementation process and included student information systems, parent/community resistance, and the tradition of grading/fear of unknown (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014). These data are salient as we attempt to answer the third research question: “How do the perceived barriers compare with the barriers found in the first wave of implementation?”

As high school principals consider a shift in grading practices and having learned from those systems that have already made the shift, we found that the barriers have also changed. It seems technology advancements in student information systems have advanced and met the demands of the market. Peters and Buckmiller (2014) indicated,

Most of the administrators interviewed in the study, and practically every teacher or leader from other SBG districts with whom we’ve spoken, have singled out information and grading systems as significant impediments, largely because the most available and commonly used programs continue to use points and percentages to calculate and report grades.

This electronic grade book practice is counter to SBG and assessment. In the current study, student information systems, as barriers, were only mentioned three times.

Another noticeable comparison was parent/community resistance. Peters and Buckmiller (2014) reported, “Small but vocal groups of parents and community members have gone to great lengths to contest the implementation of SBG systems.” This was a theme that had moderate support in the current study. Some of the representative comments included “parent push back,” “selling it to parents,” and “lack of public support.”

Finally, a theme of “the tradition of grading and fear of the unknown” surfaced in Peters and Buckmiller’s (2014) work. In the discussion of that study, the authors said, “Much of the aversion to SBG by all parties involved appears to relate to the long-standing use of, and familiarity with, traditional letter grades and perhaps simply anxiety about the unknown” (Peters & Buckmiller, 2014). Similarly, this issue surfaced in the present study, but comments were relatively few compared with the other perceived barriers that were identified. Comments indicated concerns over forfeiting some of the grading components that have traditionally been included in high schools in the United States including GPA, class ranking, point accumulation, and valedictorian and salutatorian awards. One comment indicated that the community expects grading to look like what it was when they went through school. Other comments included “scared parents” and “parents who adhere to an old but familiar model of grading.”

Discussion and Implications

School principals, fully aware of the phenomenon of “initiative fatigue” (Reeves, 2010) among their teaching staff, must anticipate implementation challenges before the process even begins. Principals in this study provided thoughtful and insightful qualitative comments pertaining to the potential barriers they think they will face if they move forward with an attempt to reshape their schools’ grading practices. In a Midwestern state, no doubt they have heard from, or visited with, the school leaders who were, what we call, the “early adopters” in SBG practices. Often, these conversations center on the challenges in the implementation process as principals assess to what extent this might be a concern in their own local school context.

Go Slow to Go Fast

With varying degree of success, the first wave of SBG adopters attempted implementation of new grading and assessment practices with rather short timelines of 1 to 3 years. Data from this study suggest that building leaders will approach this grading transition a bit more conservatively with regard to timelines. Although the comments were relatively easy to classify into separate thematic categories, we think that the three prevailing themes (teacher resistance, more time, more professional development) most certainly intersect and school leaders must understand the interplay between them.

Teacher resistance most likely occurs because SBG challenges some of education’s deepest and longest held traditions. Traditional grading practices have been around since the time our great grandparents were in school, and these traditions are entrenched in our schooling culture and are a part of nearly everyone’s school experience (Guskey, 2015). But even though society has moved away from an industrial focus to a knowledge or information society, our grading systems have not changed. In short, instead of sorting and selecting, schools are charged with the task of educating all children and developing their unique talents to prepare them for career and/or postsecondary opportunities. In order to change one’s mind-set on the topic of assessment and grading, teachers need the time and space to grapple with critical questions relative to the purpose of schooling in today’s society.

The benefit of being a second-wave adopter is understanding successes and challenges that first-wave adopters encountered. This should be a key component when designing professional development and learning. Professional development that is focused, ongoing, differentiated, and understands the voice of the classroom teacher will be critical. School leaders must create meaningful opportunities for teachers to both ask critical questions and respond to practice-clarifying questions such as, “What is the purpose of grading?” and “In what ways does the assessment process help students move forward with their learning (assessment for learning) as opposed to providing information that cannot be used to move forward (assessment of learning)?” School leaders should seek input from teachers regarding potential topics and delivery methods of professional development. Also teachers should have the opportunity to evaluate professional development, and leaders should use this feedback to guide further professional development.

It is common that teachers may be fearful that a new grading system would mean more work in the assessment process. Professional development should give teachers the time and space to practice new assessment strategies and learn efficient practices from others who have done the work and understand the challenges. Teachers should be given the freedom to “start small” and consider implementing one or two high-leverage strategies that are apparent in their benefit to students in their learning journey as opposed to implementing the entire SBG playbook at the onset.

This adult learning process takes time. Teacher resistance can be lessened with effective professional development and appropriate time to critically evaluate their own assessment practice. In particular, principals may benefit by having open and honest conversations with veteran teachers about both the philosophical and pedagogical realities of this change in order to move past any perceived resistance (Snyder, 2017). School leaders might use already-established professional learning communities as a means to experiment with ideas and support teachers of all experience levels as they shift their grading practices. Finally, professional development should be focused on consensus building (as opposed to zero-sum game/yes or no voting) on practices that support the mission and vision of the school and that are beneficial to student learning and development. By providing opportunities for teacher collaboration and participation in decision making, principals and other school leaders can also develop a supportive culture for change (Zimmerman, 2006).

Implications for School Leaders

In the eyes of many, there’s no questioning whether SBG is a good idea; however, encouraging smart, well-intentioned teachers to change their practices is no easy task for school leaders. It should be noted that entire books have been written about the technical aspects of leading grading reform (e.g., Heflebower, Hoegh, & Warrick, 2014), yet the findings from this study imply that principals will need to leverage the interdependence of instructional leadership and transformational leadership (see Printy, Marks, & Bowers, 2009). In order to address teacher resistance while providing adequate professional development over the duration of multiple years, school leaders should think beyond a one-size-fits-all instructional leadership approach of providing monthly learning modules for staff. Personalizing professional learning supports will be necessary to meet the needs of individual learnings, including those who are most reluctant to change. Just-in-time learning is particularly important for supporting early career teachers who report being flooded with information in the beginning months of their transition from preservice preparation to full-time teaching (Battistone, 2017).

In a transformative sense, principals will need to influence key teachers who will lead their colleagues toward a shared understanding of effective grading axioms. Utilizing a network rather than hierarchical approach, school leaders might identify early adopters who are trusted by their colleagues as local experts to play a key role in this important change (Reeves, 2006). High school principals who identify, develop, and lead a guiding coalition will benefit from an influential network of internal change advocates. Many of the earlier barriers identified by Buckmiller and Peters (2014 ) were outside the direct influence of school leaders. For example, parent/community resistance and the fear of unknown were intangible mind-sets school administrators could not easily predict, quantify, or easily control. In comparison, the present obstacles appear to be more within the influence of school leaders. Instructionally minded principals are able to coordinate and potentially even facilitate professional learning opportunities for teachers to enhance their working knowledge of SBG principles. Similarly, principals can extend or slow down implementation timelines to meet the needs of individual teachers and departments. School leaders engaging key players in all facets of planning, facilitating, and monitoring the change process will be best equipped to scale and sustain such a significant change in philosophy and practice (Spiro, 2011).

Implications for Entities Abetting School Leaders

With a new wave of high school classrooms transitioning to SBG practices, higher education and state agencies are positioned for a strong, yet supportive role. While some college and university admissions offices are excited to gain more detailed information about applicants through SBG-influenced high school transcripts, others fear that it might create additional work for their office staff (Riede, 2018). University admissions officials should consider establishing ongoing focus groups with principals, counselors, and other key personnel in order to better understand the benefits and drawbacks of SBG communication on the transcript. Given the potential surge of high schools using SBG, our findings suggest that admissions offices may need to be prepared to receive more transcript-related inquiries from schools.

Similarly, intermediate educational service agencies and state departments of education should familiarize themselves with the principles of SBG in order to provide focused support for the second and any future waves of grading shifts. In addition to large conferences featuring prominent grading speakers, intermediate educational service agencies might consider identifying one or more staff to serve as regional SBG experts whom schools can call on for just-in-time learning. High school teachers and administrators in rural states might prosper from involvement in regional communities of practice (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) to share implementation hiccups and co-plan professional learning, a support system educational service that agencies are uniquely designed to provide.

School leader preparation programs should prepare for the next wave of SBG implementation by enhancing prospective high school principals’ instructional leadership capacity, which includes esoteric knowledge of effective grading practices. If SBG principles continue to make their way into high schools, educational leadership programs should provide aspiring leaders with firsthand nontraditional grading experiences. For example, one university school leader preparation department embeds SBG in all of its courses with the purpose of modeling effective feedback and assessment practices (Peters, Grundmeyer, & Buckmiller, 2016). Because change typically involves a key leader and a small group of people who care deeply about solving a problem (Evans, 1996), school leaders must possess an unwavering belief in SBG principles to see this second-order change through to a high level of implementation, despite inevitable barriers.

Future Research

Findings from this study attest to the need for further research in the areas of principal professional learning and the role educational leadership preparation programs play in shaping the vision and leadership during second-order change. Our research suggests a second wave of SBG may be on the horizon; however, secondary principals often lack the instructional leadership capacity to lead, manage, and sustain a change, which so clearly disrupts the way stakeholders think about school. Future researchers might discern the degree to which secondary principals agree with the philosophical tenets of SBG. If the leaders do not understand the philosophical foundation of SBG at a deep level, there’s little hope they will be able to defend the practices when challenges arise, as they surely will, when upsetting the status quo. Furthermore, future research should consider digging deeper into the reasons why high school teachers jump on board with leadership’s evolution to SBG as a means for counteracting teacher resistance. Investigating the rationale for what Evans (1996) coins “followership” might assist the field in understanding the leadership moves necessary to build an SBG-focused guiding coalition. Finally, additional insight is needed to discern the type of professional learning teachers of various career stages find meaningful as they strive to carry out more effective grading practices in their classroom.

The Game Is Changing and a New Wave Is on the Horizon

As shown in the results from nearly one third of high school principals who are not yet experiencing SBG in this state, a new wave is on the horizon. Although many first-wave adopters of SBG faced significant challenges as detailed in Peters and Buckmiller’s (2014) initial case study, only a few of these initial themes remain 5 years later. The game is changing, and school leaders should be prepared for the second wave of SBG through meaningful professional learning within a more thoughtful timeline designed to personalize supports and overcome teacher resistance. While the journey may continue to be uphill, learning from the early adopters and a growing list of practitioner-friendly testimonials (e.g. O’Connor, 2017; Rinkema & Williams, 2018; Townsley, 2018), the grade may be leveling out a bit.

Limitations

Participants were limited to high school principals in one state. District superintendents, curriculum directors, and other central office decision makers were not included in this study. The open-ended question regarding barriers, although qualitative in nature, did not allow for follow-up questions or clarification.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Robyn Cooper

Author Biographies

Matt Townsley is an assistant professor of Education at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, IA. He is a former curriculum director. His primary research interest is standards-based grading.

Tom Buckmiller is an associate professor of Education at Drake University in Des Moines, IA. He is a former elementary and middle school principal. His primary interest is grading and assessment.

Robyn Cooper is an associate professor of education at Drake University. She is the department chair and director of the Doctoral program at Drake’s School of Education.

References

Battistone

(2017). A phenomenological study on the lived experience of first and second year teachers in standards-based grading districts (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 10621249)

Bendikson

Robinson

Hattie

(2012). Principal instructional leadership and secondary school performance. Research Information for Teachers, 2012(1), 2-8.

Bowers

A. J.

(2011). What’s in a grade? The multidimensional nature of what teacher assigned grades assess in high school. Educational Research and Evaluation, 17, 141-159.

Bredeson

P. V.

(2013). Distributed instructional leadership in urban high schools: Transforming the work of principals and department chairs through professional development. Journal of School Leadership, 23, 362-388.

Brookhart

S. M.

(2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10-14.

Brookhart

S. M.

Guskey

T. R.

Bowers

A. J.

McMillan

J. H.

Smith

J. K.

Smith

L. F.

. . .Welsh

M. E.

(2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86, 803-848. doi:10.3102/0034654316672069

Buckmiller

Peters

(2018). Getting a fair shot? School Administrator, 75(2), 22-25.

Clough

M. P.

Kruse

(2010). Conceptual change: It’s not just for learning science. Iowa Science Teachers Journal, 37(1), 2-3.

Cross

L. H.

Frary

R. B.

(1999). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 53-72. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1201_4

10.

Dexter

(2015). “Standards-based” grading confuses high school parents. Chanhassen Villager. Retrieved from https://www.swnewsmedia.com/chanhassen_villager/news/education/standards-based-grading-confuses-high-school-parents/article_e23a6ced-7305-5d20-ad0c-15bcb69e3f4b.html

11.

Duncan

R. C.

Noonan

(2007). Factors affecting teachers’ grading and assessment practices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 52, 1-21.

12.

Erickson

J. A.

(2011, February). A call to action: Transforming grading practices. Principal Leadership, 12, 42-46. Retrieved from http://www.ccresa.org/Files/Uploads/252/Transforming_Grading_Practices.pdf

13.

Evans

(1996). The human side of school change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Frankin

Buckmiller

Kruse

(2016). Vocal and vehement: Understanding parents’ aversion to standards-based grading. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4(11), 19-29.

15.

Fullan

(2001). Leading in a culture of change San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

16.

Guskey

T. R.

(2002). Computerized grade-books and the myth of objectivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 775-780.

17.

Guskey

T. R.

(2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 670-675.

18.

Guskey

T. R.

(2011). Five obstacles to grading reform. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 16-21.

19.

Guskey

T. R.

(2015). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

20.

Guskey

T. R.

Jung

(2012). Four steps in grading reform. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 22-28.

21.

Hany

Proctor

Wollenweber

Al-Bataineh

(2016). Teacher perceptions of standards-based grading: Implication and effectiveness. Journal of Teaching and Education, 5, 749-765.

22.

Haptonstall

K. G.

(2010). An analysis of the correlation between standards- based, non-standards-based grading systems and achievement as measured by the Colorado student assessment program (CSAP) (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 3397087)

23.

Hargreaves

(2002). Teaching and betrayal. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 393-407.

24.

Heflebower

Hoegh

J. K.

Warrick

(2014). A school leader’s guide to standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory.

25.

Iamarino

D. L.

(2014). The benefits of standards-based grading: A critical evaluation of modern grading practices. Current Issues in Education, 17(2). Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1234

26.

Idzerda

C. W.

(2018). Standards-based disagreement: Not everybody pleased with grading system. The Gazette. Retrieved from https://www.gazettextra.com/news/education/standards-based-disagreement-not-everybody-pleased-with-grading-system/article_a6752bf1-3dcb-5615-8223-b3f451401382.html

27.

Iowa Department of Education. (2018). Education statistics. Retrieved from https://www.educateiowa.gov/education-statistics

28.

Larson

(2017). An evaluation of standards-based grading in Wisconsin high schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, WI.

29.

Lichty

J. A.

Retallick

M. S.

(2017). Iowa agricultural educators current and perceived grading practices. Journal of Research in Technical Careers, 1(1), 11-19. doi:10.9741/2578-2118.1000

30.

Marzano

R. J.

(2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

31.

McMunn

Schenck

McColskey

(2003). Standards-based assessment, grading and reporting in classrooms: Can district training and support change teacher practice? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

32.

Melograno

V. J.

(2007). Grading and report cards for standards-based physical education. The Journal Of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 78(6), 45-53.

33.

Neumerski

C. M.

(2012). Rethinking instructional leadership: A review. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 310-347. doi:10.1177/0013161X12456700

34.

O’Connor

(2017). A case for standards-based grading and reporting. School Administrator, 74(1), 24-28.

35.

O’Connor

Jung

L. A.

Reeves

(2018). Gearing up for FAST grading and reporting. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(8), 67-71.

36.

O’Connor

Wormeli

(2011). Reporting student learning. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 40-44.

37.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Teddlie

(2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351-383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Peters

Buckmiller

(2014). Our grades were broken: Overcoming barriers and challenges to implementing standards-based grading. Journal of Educational Leadership in Action, 2(2). Retrieved from https://www.lindenwood.edu/academics/beyond-the-classroom/publications/journal-of-educational-leadership-in-action/all-issues/previous-issues/volume-2-issue-2/our-grades-were-broken-overcoming-barriers-and-challenges-to-implementing-standards-based-grading/

40.

Peters

Grundmeyer

Buckmiller

(2016). An educational leadership program’s continuous improvement journey towards a standards-based system. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 15(18), 79-96.

41.

Peters

Kruse

Buckmiller

Townsley

(2017). “It’s just not fair!” Making sense of secondary students’ resistance to a standards-based grading initiative in the Midwestern United States. American Secondary Education, 45(3), 9-28.

42.

Printy

Marks

H. M.

Bowers

A. J.

(2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership, 19, 504-532.

43.

Proulx

Spencer-May

Westerberg

(2012). Moving to standards-based grading: Lessons from Omaha. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 30-34.

44.

Reeves

D. B.

(2006). Of hubs, bridges, and networks. Educational Leadership, 63(8), 32-37.

45.

Reeves

D. B.

(2010). Transforming professional development into student results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

46.

Reeves

D. B.

(2011). Taking the grading conversation public. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 76-79.

47.

Reeves

D. B.

Jung

L. A.

O’Connor

(2017). What’s worth fighting against in grading? Educational Leadership, 74(8), 42-45.

48.

Riede

(2018). Making the call inside admissions offices. School Administrator, 75(2), 26-29.

49.

Rinkema

Williams

(2018). The standards-based classroom: Making learning the goal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

50.

Schiffman

M. P.

(2016). Standards-based grading: Educators’ perceptions of the effects on teaching, student motivation, and assessment at the high school level (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 10117267)

51.

School Administrators of Iowa. (2018). Iowa’s education picture. Retrieved from http://www.sai-iowa.org/iowas-education-picture.cfm

52.

Scriffiny

P. L.

(2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 70-74.

53.

Snyder

(2017). Resistance to change among veteran teachers: Providing voice for more effective engagement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 12(1). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1145464.pdf

54.

Spiro

(2011). Leading change: Step-by-step. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

55.

Strauss

Corbin

J. M.

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage.

56.

Stronge

J. H.

Richard

H. B.

Catano

(2008). Qualities of effective principals. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

57.

Townsley

(2018). Mastery-minded grading in secondary schools. School Administrator, 75(2), 16-21.

58.

Townsley

Varga

(2018). Getting high school students ready for college: A quantitative study of standards-based grading practices. Journal of Research in Education, 28, 92-112.

59.

Waters

Cameron

(2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision with action. Aurora, CO: McRel.

60.

Wenger

McDermott

Snyder

W. M.

(2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

61.

Wormeli

(2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing & grading in the differentiated classroom. Stenhouse Publishers.

62.

Wormeli

(2011). Redos and retakes done right. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 22-26.

63.

Yost

(2015). Standards-based proposal draws concerns in Forest city. Globe Gazette. Retrieved from http://globegazette.com/news/local/standards-based-proposal-draws-concerns-in-forest-city/article_c3c640fd-bade-5d83-b353-c6a4a235653f.html

64.

Zimmerman

(2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238-249.