Guskey - Helping Standards

From: Subject: Guskey - Helping Standards Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:32:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C83B28.C36E3750" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C83B28.C36E3750 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file://C:\Documents and Settings\linda.clark\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1D\Guskey_helping.htm Guskey - Helping Standards

Educational Leadership 59 no1 20-7 S 2001

Helping Standards Make the GRADE =

Thomas=20 R. Guskey

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this = article and=20 it is reproduced with permission.
Further reproduction of this = article=20 in violation of the copyright is prohibited.

=20 The issue of grading looms on the horizon for standards-based = education.=20 With standards and assessments now in place, educators face the = daunting=20 task of how best to grade and report student learning in terms of = those=20 standards. Most educators recognize the inadequacies of their = current=20 grading and reporting methods (Marzano, 2000). Few, however, have = found=20 alternatives that satisfy the diverse needs of students, parents,=20 teachers, school administrators, and community members.

=20 Standards don't lessen the responsibility of educators to evaluate = the=20 performance of students and to report the results. Nevertheless, = the focus=20 on standards poses unique challenges in grading and reporting. = What are=20 those challenges, and how can educators develop standards-based = grading=20 and reports that are accurate, honest, and fair?

CRITERION-REFERENCED=20 STANDARDS

    The first challenge = is moving=20 from norm-referenced to criterion-referenced grading standards.=20 Norm-referenced standards compare each student's performance to = that of=20 other students in the group or class. Teachers first rank students = on some=20 measure of their achievement or performance. They assign a set = percentage=20 of top-ranked students (usually 10 to 20 percent) the highest = grade, a=20 second set percentage (perhaps 20 to 30 percent) the second = highest grade,=20 and so on. The percentages typically correspond to an = approximation of the=20 bell-shaped, normal probability curve, hence the expression = "grading on=20 the curve." Most adults experienced this type of grading during = their=20 school days.

    Criterion-referenced=20 standards, in contrast, compare each student's performance to = clearly=20 stated performance descriptions that differentiate levels of = quality.=20 Teachers judge students' performance by what each student does, = regardless=20 of how well or poorly their classmates=20 perform.

    Using the normal = probability curve=20 as a basis for assigning grades yields highly consistent grade=20 distributions from one teacher to the next. All teachers' classes = have=20 essentially the same percentages of As, Bs, and Cs. But the = consequences=20 for students are overwhelmingly negative. Learning becomes highly=20 competitive because students must compete against one another for = the few=20 high grades that the teacher distributes. Under these conditions, = students=20 see that helping others threatens their own chances for success. = Because=20 students do not achieve high grades by performing well, but rather = by=20 doing better than their classmates, learning becomes a game of = winners and=20 losers, and because teachers keep the number of rewards = arbitrarily small,=20 most students must be losers (Haladyna, 1999; Johnson & = Johnson,=20 1989). Strong evidence shows that "grading on the curve" is = detrimental to=20 relationships--both among students and among teachers and students = (Krumboltz & Yeh, 1996).

    In a=20 standards-based system, grading and reporting must be=20 criterion-referenced. Teachers at all levels must identify what = they want=20 their students to learn and be able to do and what evidence they = will use=20 to judge that achievement or performance. Grades based on clearly = stated=20 learning criteria have direct meaning and communicate that=20 meaning.

DIFFERENTIATING GRADING=20 CRITERIA
    A second challenge is to=20 differentiate the types of grading criteria that teachers will = use.=20 Although teachers and students generally consider = criterion-referenced=20 grading to be more fair and equitable (Kovas, 1993), the specific = grading=20 criteria that teachers use may be very diverse. We can classify = these=20 criteria into three broad categories: product, process, and = progress=20 (Guskey, 1996).

    Product criteria = relate to=20 students' specific achievements or levels of performance. They = describe=20 what students know and are able to do at a particular point in = time.=20 Advocates of standards generally favor product criteria. Teachers = using=20 product criteria base students' grades or reports exclusively on = final=20 examination scores; final products, such as reports, projects, or=20 portfolios; overall assessments of performance; and other = culminating=20 demonstrations of learning.

    Process = criteria relate not to the final results, but to how students got = there.=20 Educators who believe that product criteria do not provide a = complete=20 picture of student learning generally favor process criteria. For = example,=20 teachers who consider student effort, class behavior, or work = habits are=20 using process criteria. So are those who count daily work, regular = classroom quizzes, homework, class participation, punctuality of=20 assignments, or attendance in determining students'=20 grades.

    Progress criteria relate to = how=20 much students actually gain from their learning experiences. Other = terms=20 include learning gain, improvement grading, value-added grading, = and=20 educational growth. Teachers who use progress criteria typically = look at=20 how far students have come rather than where students are. Others = attempt=20 to judge students' progress in terms of their "learning = potential." As a=20 result, progress grading criteria are often highly individualized = among=20 students.

    Because they are = concerned about=20 student motivation, self-esteem, and the social consequences of = grading,=20 few teachers today use product criteria solely in determining = grades.=20 Instead, most base their grading on some combination of criteria,=20 especially when a student receives only a single grade in a = subject area=20 (Brookhart, 1993; Frary, Cross, & Weber, 1993). The majority = of=20 teachers also vary the criteria they use from student to student, = taking=20 into account individual circumstances (Truog & Friedman, = 1996).=20 Although teachers do so in an effort to be fair, the result is = often a=20 hodgepodge grade that includes elements of achievement, effort, = and=20 improvement (Brookhart, 1991). Interpreting the grade or report = thus=20 becomes difficult for parents, administrators, community members, = and even=20 the students (Friedman & Frisbie, 1995). An A, for example, = may mean=20 that the student knew what the teacher expected before instruction = began=20 (product), didn't learn as well as expected but tried very hard = (process),=20 or simply made significant improvement=20 (progress).

    Measurement experts = generally=20 recommend using product criteria exclusively in determining = students'=20 grades. They point out that the more process and progress criteria = come=20 into play, the more subjective and biased grades are likely to be=20 (O'Connor, 1999; Ornstein, 1994). How can a teacher know, for = example, how=20 difficult a task was for students or how hard they worked to = complete=20 it?
    Many teachers, however, point out = that if=20 they use product criteria exclusively, some high-ability students = receive=20 high grades with little effort, whereas the hard work of = less-talented=20 students is seldom acknowledged. Others say that if teachers = consider only=20 product criteria, low-ability students and those who are=20 disadvantaged--students who must work the hardest--have the least=20 incentive to do so. These students find the relationship between = high=20 effort and low grades unacceptable and, as a result, often express = their=20 displeasure with indifference, deception, or disruption = (Tomlinson,=20 1992).

    A practical solution to this = problem, and one that increasing numbers of teachers and schools = are=20 using, is to establish clear indicators of product, process, and = progress,=20 and then to report each separately (Stiggins, 2001; Wiggins, = 1996).=20 Teachers separate grades or marks for learning skills, effort, = work=20 habits, or progress from grades for achievement and performance. = Parents=20 generally prefer this approach because it gives them more detailed = and=20 prescriptive information. It also simplifies reporting for = teachers=20 because they no longer have to combine so many diverse types of=20 information into a single grade. The key to success, however, = rests in the=20 clear specification of those indicators and the criteria to which = they=20 relate. This means that teachers must describe how they plan to = evaluate=20 students' achievement, effort, work habits, and progress, and then = must=20 communicate these plans directly to students, parents, and=20 others.

REPORTING=20 TOOLS
    A third challenge for = standards-based=20 education is clarifying the purpose of each reporting tool. = Although=20 report cards are the primary method, most schools today use a = variety of=20 reporting devices: weekly or monthly progress reports, open-house=20 meetings, newsletters, evaluated projects or assignments, school = Web=20 pages, parent-teacher conferences, and student-led conferences = (Guskey=20 & Bailey, 2001). Each reporting tool must fulfill a specific = purpose,=20 which requires considering three vital aspects of=20 communication:

    * What information = do we=20 want to communicate?
    * Who is the = primary=20 audience for that information?
    * How = would we=20 like that information to be = used?

    Many=20 educators make the mistake of choosing their reporting tools = first,=20 without giving careful attention to the purpose. For example, some = charge=20 headlong into developing a standards-based report card without = first=20 addressing core questions about why they are doing it. Their = efforts often=20 encounter unexpected resistance and rarely bring positive results. = Both=20 parents and teachers perceive the change as a newfangled fad that = presents=20 no real advantage over traditional reporting methods. As a result, = the=20 majority of these efforts become short-lived experiments and are = abandoned=20 after a few troubled years of=20 implementation.

    Efforts that begin = by=20 clarifying the purpose, however, make intentions clear from the = start. If,=20 for instance, the purpose of the report card is to communicate to = parents=20 the achievement status of students, then parents must understand = the=20 information on the report card and know how to use it. This means = that=20 educators should include parents on report card committees and = give their=20 input careful consideration. This not only helps mobilize everyone = in the=20 reporting process, it also keeps efforts on track. The famous = adage that=20 guides architecture also applies to grading and reporting: Form = follows=20 function. Once the purpose or function is clear, teachers can = address more=20 easily questions regarding form or method (Guskey & Bailey,=20 2001).

DEVELOPING A REPORTING = FORM
The=20 fourth challenge for standards-based education is developing the=20 centerpiece of a standards-based reporting system: the report = card. This=20 typically involves a four-step process. First, teams of educators = identify=20 the major learning goals or standards that students are expected = to=20 achieve at each grade level or course of study. Second, educators=20 establish performance indicators for those learning goals or = standards. In=20 other words, educators decide what evidence best illustrates = students'=20 attainment of each goal or standard. Third, they determine = graduated=20 levels of quality for assessing student performance. This step = involves=20 identifying incremental levels of attainment, sometimes referred = to as=20 benchmarks, as students progress toward the learning goals or = standards=20 (Andrade, 2000; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Finally, educators, = often in=20 collaboration with parents, develop a reporting form that = communicates=20 teachers' judgments of students' progress and achievement in = relation to=20 the learning goals or standards.

IDENTIFYING REPORTING=20 STANDARDS
    Identifying the specific = learning=20 goals or standards on which to base grades is probably the most = important,=20 but also the most challenging, aspect of standards-based grading. = These=20 learning goals or standards should stipulate precisely what = students=20 should know and be able to do as a result of their learning = experiences.=20 In earlier times, we might have referred to cognitive skills, = learning=20 competencies, or performance outcomes (Guskey, 1999). Teachers = frequently=20 list these learning goals in their lesson plans, make note of them = on=20 assignments and performance tasks, and include them in monthly or = weekly=20 progress reports that go home to = parents.

    A=20 crucial consideration in identifying learning goals or standards = is=20 determining the degree of specificity. Standards that are too = specific=20 make reporting forms cumbersome to use and difficult to = understand.=20 Standards that are too broad or general, however, make it hard to = identify=20 students' unique strengths and weaknesses. Most state-level = standards, for=20 example, tend to be broad and need to be broken down or "unpacked" = into=20 homogeneous categories or topics (Marzano, 1999). For grading and=20 reporting purposes, educators must seek a balance. The standards = must be=20 broad enough to allow for efficient communication of student = learning, yet=20 specific enough to be useful (see Gronlund, 2000; Marzano & = Kendall,=20 1995; Wiggins & McTighe, = 1998).

    Another=20 issue is the differentiation of standards across marking periods = or grade=20 levels. Most schools using standards-based grading develop = reporting forms=20 that are based on grade-level learning goals or standards. Each = standard=20 has one level of complexity set for each grade that students are = expected=20 to meet before the end of the academic year. Most parents, = however, are=20 accustomed to grading systems in which learning standards become=20 increasingly complex with each marking period. If the standard = states=20 "Students will write clearly and effectively," for example, many = parents=20 believe that their children should do this each marking period, = not simply=20 move toward doing so by the end of the academic year. This is = especially=20 true of parents who encourage their children to attain the highest = mark=20 possible in all subject areas every marking=20 period.

    To educators using such = forms,=20 students who receive 1 or 2 on a 4-point grading scale during the = first or=20 second marking period are making appropriate progress and are on = track for=20 their grade level. For parents, however, a report card filled with = 1s and=20 2s, when the highest mark is a 4, causes great concern. They think = that=20 their children are failing. Although including a statement on the=20 reporting form, such as "Marks indicate progress toward = end-of-the-year=20 learning standards," is helpful, it may not alleviate parents'=20 concerns.

FACILITATING = INTERPRETATION
    Many=20 parents initially respond to a standards-based reporting form = with, "This=20 is great. But tell me, how is my child doing really?" Or they ask, = "How is=20 my child doing compared to the other children in the class?" They = ask=20 these questions because they don't know how to interpret the = information.=20 Further, most parents had comparative, norm-based reporting = systems when=20 they were in school and are more familiar with reports that = compare=20 students to their classmates. Above all, parents want to make = sense of the=20 reporting form. Their fear is that their children will reach the = end of=20 the school year and won't have made sufficient progress to be = promoted to=20 the next grade.

    To ensure more = accurate=20 interpretations, several schools use a two-part marking system = with their=20 standards-based reporting form (see example). Every marking = period, each=20 student receives two marks for each standard. The first mark = indicates the=20 student's level of progress with regard to the standard--a 1, 2, = 3, or 4,=20 indicating beginning, progressing, proficient, or exceptional. The = second=20 mark indicates the relation of that level of progress to = established=20 expectations at this point in the school year. For example, a ++ = might=20 indicate advanced for grade-level expectations, a + might indicate = on=20 target or meeting grade-level expectations, and a - would indicate = below=20 grade-level expectations or needs=20 improvement.

    The advantage of this = two-part=20 marking system is that it helps parents make sense of the = reporting form=20 each marking period. It also helps alleviate their concerns about = what=20 seem like low grades and lets them know whether their children are = progressing at an appropriate rate. Further, it helps parents take = a=20 standards-based perspective in viewing their children's = performances.=20 Their question is no longer "Where is my child in comparison to = his or her=20 classmates?" but "Where is my child in relation to the grade-level = learning goals and = expectations?"

    The one=20 drawback of the two-part marking system is that expectations must = take=20 into account individual differences in students' development of = cognitive=20 skills. Because students in any classroom differ in age and = cognitive=20 development, some might not meet the specified criteria during a=20 particular marking period--even though they will likely do so = before the=20 end of the year. This is especially common in kindergarten and the = early=20 primary grades, when students tend to vary widely in their = entry-level=20 skills but can make rapid learning progress (Shuster, Lemma, = Lynch, &=20 Nadeau, 1996). Educators must take these developmental differences = into=20 consideration and must explain them to parents.

CHOOSING=20 PERFORMANCE-LEVEL=20 DESCRIPTORS
    Standards-based = reporting forms=20 that use numerical grading scales also require a key or legend = that=20 explains the meaning of each numeral. These descriptors help = parents and=20 others understand what each numeral=20 means.

    A common set of descriptors = matches=20 performance levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 with the achievement labels = beginning,=20 progressing, proficient, and exceptional. If the standards reflect = behavioral aspects of students' performance, then teachers more = commonly=20 use such descriptors as seldom, sometimes, usually, and=20 consistently/independently. These labels are preferable to above = average,=20 average, and below average, which reflect norm-referenced = comparisons=20 rather than criterion-referenced=20 standards.

    Such achievement = descriptors as=20 exceptional or advanced are also preferable to exceeds standard or = extending to designate the highest level of performance. Educators = can=20 usually articulate specific performance criteria for an = exceptional or=20 advanced level of achievement or performance. Exceeds standard or=20 extending, however, are much less precise and may leave students = and=20 parents wondering just what they need to do to exceed or extend.=20 Descriptors should be clear, concise, and directly=20 interpretable.

    Many reporting forms = include=20 a fifth level of not applicable or not evaluated to designate = standards=20 that have not yet been addressed or were not assessed during that=20 particular marking period. Including these labels is preferable to = leaving=20 the marking spaces blank because parents often interpret a blank = space as=20 an item that the teacher missed or neglected.

MAINTAINING = CONSISTENCY
    A final=20 challenge is consistency. To communicate with parents, most = schools and=20 school districts involved in standards-based grading try to = maintain a=20 similar reporting format across grade levels. Most also use the = same=20 performance-level indicators at all grade levels so that parents = don't=20 have to learn a new set of procedures for interpreting the = reporting form=20 each year as their children move from one grade level to the next. = Many=20 parents also see consistency as an extension of a well-designed=20 curriculum. The standards at each grade level build on and extend = those=20 from earlier levels.

    While = maintaining a=20 similar format across grade levels, however, most schools and = school=20 districts list different standards on the reporting form for each = level.=20 Although the reporting format and performance indicators remain = the same,=20 the standards on the 1st grade reporting form are different from = those on=20 the 2nd grade form, and so on. This gives parents a clear picture = of the=20 increasing complexity of the standards at each subsequent grade=20 level.

    An alternative approach is = to=20 develop one form that lists the same broad standards for multiple = grades.=20 To clarify the difference at each grade level, a curriculum = guidebook=20 describing precisely what the standard means and what criteria are = used in=20 evaluating the standard at each grade level usually accompanies = the form.=20 Most reporting forms of this type also include a narrative = section, in=20 which teachers offer additional explanations. Although this = approach to=20 standards-based grading simplifies the reporting form, it also = requires=20 significant parent training and a close working relationship among = parents, teachers, and school and district leaders (Guskey & = Bailey,=20 2001).

ADVANTAGES AND = SHORTCOMINGS
    When=20 we establish clear learning goals or standards, standards-based = grading=20 offers important information about students' achievement and = performance.=20 If sufficiently detailed, the information is useful for both = diagnostic=20 and prescriptive purposes. For these reasons, standards-based = grading=20 facilitates teaching and learning better than almost any other = grading=20 method.

    At the same time, = standards-based=20 grading has shortcomings. First and foremost, it takes a lot of = work. Not=20 only must educators identify the learning goals or standards on = which=20 grades will be based, but they also must decide what evidence best = illustrates students' attainment of each goal or standard, = identify=20 graduated levels of quality for assessing students' performance, = and=20 develop reporting tools that communicate teachers' judgments of = learning=20 progress. These tasks may add considerably to the workload of = teachers and=20 school leaders.

    A second = shortcoming is=20 that the reporting forms are sometimes too complicated for parents = to=20 understand. In their efforts to provide parents with rich = information,=20 educators can go overboard and describe learning goals in = unnecessary=20 detail. As a result, reporting forms become cumbersome and = time-consuming=20 for teachers to complete and difficult for parents to understand. = We must=20 seek a crucial balance in identifying standards that are specific = enough=20 to provide parents with useful, prescriptive information, but = broad enough=20 to allow for efficient communication between educators and=20 parents.

    A third shortcoming is = that the=20 report may not communicate the appropriateness of students' = progress.=20 Simply reporting a student's level of proficiency with regard to a = particular standard communicates nothing about the adequacy of = that level=20 of achievement or performance. To make sense of the information, = parents=20 need to know how that level of achievement or performance compares = to the=20 established learning expectations for that particular grade=20 level.

    Finally, although teachers = can use=20 standards-based grading at any grade level and in any course of = study,=20 most current applications are restricted to the elementary level = where=20 there is little curriculum differentiation. In the middle grades = and at=20 the secondary level, students usually pursue more diverse courses = of=20 study. Because of these curricular differences, standards-based = reporting=20 forms at the middle and secondary levels must vary from student to = student. The marks need to relate to each student's achievement = and=20 performance in his or her particular courses or academic program. = Although=20 advances in technology, such as computerized reporting forms, = allow=20 educators to provide such individualized reports, relatively few = middle=20 and high school educators have taken up the = challenge.

NEW=20 STANDARDS FOR GRADING
    As educators = clarify=20 student learning goals and standards, the advantages of = standards-based=20 grading become increasingly evident. Although it makes reporting = forms=20 more detailed and complex, most parents value the richness of the=20 information when the reports are expressed in terms that they can=20 understand and use. Reporting forms that use a two-part marking = system=20 show particular promise--but such a system may require additional=20 explanation to parents. Teachers must also set expectations for = learning=20 progress not just at the grade level, but also for each marking=20 period.

    Successfully implementing=20 standards-based grading and reporting demands a close working = relationship=20 among teachers, parents, and school and district leaders. To = accurately=20 interpret the reporting form, parents need to know precisely what = the=20 standards mean and how to make sense of the various levels of = achievement=20 or performance in relation to those standards. Educators must = ensure,=20 therefore, that parents are familiar with the language and = terminology.=20 Only when all groups understand what grades mean and how they are = used to=20 improve student learning will we realize the true value of a=20 standards-based approach to education.

ADDED=20 MATERIAL
    Thomas R. Guskey is Professor = of=20 Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation, College of Education,=20 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506; guskey=20 @pop.uky.edu.
    Example of a Double-Mark, = Standards-Based Reporting Form Elementary Progress = Report

Reading            =20
                                                                         =
               1st     2nd     3rd     4th
Understands and uses different skills and strategies            1+       =
 2++
Understands the meaning of what is read                           1++    =
 2+
Reads different materials for a variety of purposes               1-     =
    2-
Reading level                                                            =
          1++     2+
Work habits                                                              =
         S       S

Writing                                                                  =
                     1st     2nd     3rd     4th
Writes clearly and effectively                                           =
            1+        2++
Understands and uses the steps in the writing process                 =
1++     2++
Writes in a variety of forms for different audiences and purposes   1+   =
    2-
Analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of written work              N  =
       1+
Understands and uses the conventions of writing: punctuation,    1-      =
   2-
 capitalization, spelling, and legibility
Work habits                                                              =
                   S       S

Communication                                                            =
                        1st     2nd     3rd     4th
Uses listening and observational skills to gain understanding            =
      1+      2-
Communicates ideas clearly and effectively (formal communication)       =
1-      2+
Uses communication strategies and skills to work effectively with others =
N       1+
 (informal communication)
Work habits                                                              =
                            U       S

This report is based on = grade-level=20 standards established for each subject area. The ratings indicate = your=20 student's progress in relation to the year-end = standard.

EVALUATION MARKS
    4 =3D = Exceptional
    3 =3D Meets=20 standard
    2 =3D Approaches=20 standard
    1 =3D Beginning=20 standard
    N =3D Not = applicable

LEVEL=20 EXPECTATION MARKS
    ++ =3D=20 Advanced
    + =3D On=20 level
    - =3D Below level

SOCIAL=20 LEARNING SKILLS & EFFORT = MARKS
    E =3D=20 Exceptional
    S =3D=20 Satisfactory
    U =3D = Unsatisfactory

REFERENCES
    Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking = and=20 learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5),=20 13-18.
    Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading = practices and validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and = Practice,=20 10(1), 35-36.
    Brookhart, S. M. (1993).=20 Teachers' grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of = Educational=20 Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.
    Frary, R. = B.,=20 Cross, L. H., & Weber, L. J. (1993). Testing and grading = practices and=20 opinions of secondary teachers of academic subjects: Implications = for=20 instruction in measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and = Practice,=20 12(3), 23-30.
    Friedman, S. J., & = Frisbie,=20 D. A. (1995). The influence of report cards on the validity of = grades=20 reported to parents. Educational and Psychological Measurement, = 55(1),=20 5-26.
    Gronlund, N. E. (2000). How to = write and=20 use instructional objectives (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:=20 Merrill.
    Guskey, T. R. (1996). = Reporting on=20 student learning: Lessons from the past--Prescriptions for the = future. In=20 T. R. Guskey (Ed.), Communicating student learning: 1996 Yearbook = of the=20 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. = 13-24).=20 Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    Guskey, T. R. = (1999).=20 Making standards work. The School Administrator, 56(9),=20 44.
    Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. = (2001).=20 Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. = Thousand=20 Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
    Haladyna, T. M. = (1999).=20 A complete guide to student grading. Boston: Allyn &=20 Bacon.
    Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, = R. T.=20 (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Endina, = MN:=20 Interaction.
    Kendall, J. S., & = Marzano, R.=20 J. (1995). The systematic identification and articulation of = content=20 standards and benchmarks: Update. Aurora, CO:=20 McREL.
    Kovas, M. A. (1993). Make your = grading=20 motivating: Keys to performance-based evaluation. Quill and = Scroll, 68(1),=20 10-11.
    Krumboltz, J. D., & Yeh, C. = J.=20 (1996). Competitive grading sabotages good teaching. Phi Delta = Kappan,=20 78(4), 324-326.
    Marzano, R. J. (1999). = Building=20 curriculum and assessment around standards. The High School = Magazine,=20 6(5), 14-19.
    Marzano, R. J. (2000).=20 Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA:=20 ASCD.
    O'Connor, K. (1999). How to grade = for=20 learning. Arlington Heights, IL:=20 Skylight.
    Ornstein, A. C. (1994). = Grading=20 practices and policies: An overview and some suggestions. NASSP = Bulletin,=20 78(559), 55-64.
    Shuster, C., Lemma, P., = Lynch,=20 T., & Nadeau, K. (1996). A study of kindergarten and 1st grade = report=20 cards: What are young children expected to learn? Paper presented = at the=20 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, = New=20 York.
    Stiggins, R. J. (2001). = Student-involved=20 classroom assessment (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: = Merrill/Prentice=20 Hall.
    Tomlinson, T. (1992). Hard work = and high=20 expectations: Motivating students to learn. Washington, DC: Office = of=20 Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of=20 Education.
    Truog, A. L., & = Friedman, S. J.=20 (1996). Evaluating high school teachers' written grading policies = from a=20 measurement perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of = the=20 National Council on Measurement in Education, New=20 York.
    Wiggins, G. (1996). Honesty and = fairness:=20 Toward better grading and reporting. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.), = Communicating=20 student learning: 1996 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision = and=20 Curriculum Development (pp. 141-176). Alexandria, VA:=20 ASCD.
    Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. = (1998).=20 Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA:=20 ASCD.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C83B28.C36E3750 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://course1.winona.edu/lgray/el626/Wilson_logo.gif R0lGODlhCQEoAPcAAAAAAIAAAACAAICAAAAAgIAAgACAgMDAwMDcwKbK8AAAAA4AAAATEwAfHxIC ARIPBxoCARIQBxIQCBoWChYWFgAlJQAsLCMAACwAACMdDSweDiAfHygbGzQAAD0AADUcDi0mEz4h DzUsFT40GCAgICoqKjY2NgBdXQB1dR9+fiJ8fC5zc0UAAEUPB04EAk8aDEAUFFYDAl8AAFgdDUY7 G2cAAHIAAHEZC2EzGmo0Gmo+HHM9HGYlJXo8PE5BH1FEH1VHI2JTJmdXKWtbK3JeLnhYKXVjLXVj MX1qMkBAQEtLS05cXFVVVVtSUkZiYmFOTnNCQmBgYGtra3V1dQuMjACTkxSFhYEAAIgAAJIAAJsA AJwVCp0jEJcnJ5olJaMAAKsAAK0cDasZGb0AALsODr4RB74cD7MUFK86Gr09HIVVKoZdLpZPKIFt M4ZyM4ZyOIlzN495N495PJdpNZh+P6NVKMYAAMQICM0AAM4JBM8ICM8TCs4cDdAMDNAYDdESEtMb G88hD84mEs4tFdAjEdAvFdA3GtI6HtQjI9YrK9cyMtg1Ndk6Os5CH85FIMFYJ9FFIdFNJtJVJ85r M9NoL9RiMtZkOdNvN9NxM9NxONR+OdpCQt1NTd5VVd9aWtJubuBeXuFjY+JsbONycuV5eZmBPKGI PpiAQKOJQ6yRRLibR86HQM6ASc6PRM6VRtSNRtqMSdWVQ9WeTsWlS8SmU86sUtasTtWjUdWqVNyq Wda0Uda0Ws6tY86ta869e9yqYd68Yt68at69c97Gc97Ge4CAgIuLi5WVlaCgoLW1teaFheiHh+iK iuqTk+ycnO2jo+6srPCzs/K8vOfGhOfOjOfOlOfWnO/Wpe/ere/ete/eve/nvcDAwMrKytXV1fPD w/TLy/bT0/fY2Pjc3Pfnxvfnzvfvzvfv1vfv3vf33uDg4O3t7e/39/nl5fvs7P/35//37///7/f/ //z09P//9/7+/v/78KCgpICAgP8AAAD/AP//AAAA//8A/wD//////ywAAAAACQEoAAAI/gD/CaQH D947dOjOlSO3TVu2bNiuWbNWjdq0acSICQsGbNcuXbV0gRQZcqTJkihJqjy5MiXLly5rffRI02PH m8CAcQzGs+dGYUCFDROmMaPRjBiTXrRIranTitWiSqU4sepEideyZo3IFZtXiA/DZnOorWzDhuS0 MSTHdmG5t3AVnptLNyHCu+gO6n237p3BgoDhEaRHmLA8gYgTIybcF6HCcg21eZVIsRrGjBuD0dS1 SybIj55Dgx79ubRo06RPq049s6bNXcB4Aes1W2fPYD83Dh1a9Cixy0mpEWNKHKrxalSRW8VqDes1 rs+/Yns4/SHZbdkio92WFrJbt+bK/skVX/ec47vp8ubt+46v33UF2QkWzI6gPMKK8/8jaNDx28jZ ZDVRVMJhxhNNJXFWmoKeKUgDADRwNsQQb4hEGoMfYWjhghd22FpNseWUE0+84OYTbkDxRhRRRgH3 23DTCOfUU9RINRVyyi3XnIBdRTdddWKRZZY2Z3W3jXdHwvWWXHTNZRdeCOm1nj3vxROYfIMZRo9+ ijF2UEL/lTXZgE1dptsuIgAAgEwhpaLmEDJ9lIGas6CiJgCm6KKmCJ1hGNJof34WKJt++vnha7Dt EoxsHA1z21DBDBXUir4h9dtFMBLXFFQ12kiVVc2FKlFEz1kT4Kk/BjkWdkS2mhZD/t7BdWR44zVp l3kIpXfQOum45x6V8sFjZZaFyVMPl4sV9OVjAEZEJqYacbTLCGpuSC0AIpSkipoj6DKLBABIoIop b46Uobkp9YmuSur+idKhNskWYm238ZTbbpT29uKLGMmoaY2dehrVgDryaE1X0lGnaqutbleONkgq uSR55JmHK5RSttcXsH7Bg2V98MgDTz1bIjsQPY2BCZmYzlZ2WbSaDaFmZ7tsq+YEGR6hZoW1qCJE KruU8uZqqBVNNNGu0YSTbMPMxpOjwfiCYor5tmjpUsRUM9yMnAr86VWi7vjc2JOBBeRYq65K5KsQ H5kkXLSKV7HFT+aq3jpUsgdf/scFDRYyfiWbzN+yCzX0kICVFQjzLjIDgIpIQNwJgIJzAkBLzaeg MosujT+uCy1uUEiLggrugsqEb2ye4S60mIKKKrO8IXppmyXdkWYi7lRvblTr61tSmcZoUdc24vh1 Vc5pBZ3ZCi98lqtuRwy33E06efFdeqXTVzpUUulxfPMVZtixgqNM+MqStVyRRQYOw7iapezyreR5 zsJtSJEDoEotQaipii6pmMCdIpAKlZRCgHeSQBxU4gY1AQGBAADBLBL0oY54ZBi6wAkwmlYvE01K UpVykYyEJ7xNBexGoArbqA5GtogwLyzXGYtZ2Ca9WFFvbrdCT5TU456+wMOH/sOaj8j2EzhkDc4/ K6MOZSoCrY105BRqepwQHKimI+hiigBow0fStCY0VasWIJAcALolkziI8U5y8AwWzxgE0iQtUSGi DW2eRkegREooLGKRpfg1nD7OCGDHGdjAPsUcrWxlbBBJlVjQNqTnwSp6bwsP9ZhENyilh1e++hX4 6GOfkRWRS15CouEgskSLmEladgKAEXQBLgmkso0ClIDqBDgBkcTyI2rKQC1SIQGg6SKVEygFSNqg Jlly5gfFRMUuiImtBnmEM66ZV9N0UiKf8E5FejyKUvoVIxISz2s5Ql6osHEwU/lIkTBMW8PUopbo SWxilKTb9XTFQ77YQ1nB/gqfYOhxH5Ml5ohgYkj6lmgZo2TGdG9i5hBYiS2b/aBPe+rMnmSCwDj0 rBa2uEUYAVAHTGgCE5PAgZrYkIlJbHQNscAot2iXQRC9JkQ7gZq97jipomTTalgrE9dOKEhQFXJU WzHnV66xSOvIUDvtNFKsZgXP6tUNe5hkR3s0CRgshWyf/CRf+VLGLIcgrhpnDOudJsjF/gFAmD1z oC4cKpIi3GkGhuBDIMqgJgzkAQ94xYMW1FSDuzoAAA7Iwx74EAY1vcARk9CEK/4UTXnJizYcPBHV eOO7PfYra1ujUSCTk0JRARVhRAXLIh2C1CK1zYZKqlV56pYedNiDh+yx/ocPPTYsLPETP/4ciLL8 k5YxUQQAVQiucIWrJgvcSSZmjeVnyAUAOKUyB5AQxB5icCcW4HWvAKhBXq/LV7yqqQN5xa528ZCH PPDBEJLAhCtsoTTYhKhp1Xya1D5IFBVVKiMjJM40vonCcBaShWQjasJGe1RXtTNikWxqxZ5qt11N dbZS7RtWtZTbk3H1LQ5RH3CHO9wzgkRnd/JBztS0BkncQE1X2C4W/gqAL+i1u9uVgZqygAcwqEkG ebUBire7XcESwhGUiAUuNMhBmXowKCC8KR+xprX1AbJ4xwObc8oJ2hcalUgFRstp3/Y21VrvqfR8 R69iO9vvDaY+uK0w/kAfM9ABbZjDwZVcA7rIXDWdAiS40IGatICHGuwZD2NIMR6u0N0xqAkCZjAE JCCBhgcA4AFpgAQX+FrePv+Zx5jGgx78cAhMsEJRTrvNfJGcR98B57KWsQwgeYoj5fh3nId0oSLP JiTtvOpIW57eJG11vR02pj0R5hs7gkiYv9FDq1s93+GW+GY4G1dNKJicTBLoikxEwg8eUNMY8JBt AGwbAwBwwRZaoKYdZEITGsglHUxBhAioSQ4gMYKa5hCLVWQiBGp6RCECUWkeqykJPea0JWDxi3o5 ir5V06YfhZc1zULZeFIWG4C9UjZ0MpJVjjzw25QUN0rm0G48lKrG/qoUGHqA7B9/q3B+DoOsZnP4 2QyoAgAQQwI18QAQd8VDB9SE150DIBSf4IAYKbCOetTDGxQIqxQQUww1HQAxSVDTP+bhjnBEYxmg YAQg+oCHf2da04jgBDPCMQ+Vq1weaP9H2g/DcpYnpu1sVzva5z53tdvd7W5XTNvvzva4+x0xec/P sYyln8Cb/fCIcflwn30CmU/9GTBQExi2q6YL/GETaiqBQNahhDuRwBuJ8YYJJFeCZCQm6gAoukAy r595jAMczvi3Hr6e18svAxxlR7zud8/73vv+979XPJzj/I1NzD7Tl2cG7vWjjgOAXj/rOMAB1GF0 4B9ATcWIBik2/gEI2uM1+csHvvjHT/7ym/8fwofzCrDwh0wDohPOILvuUZ+YbmA/MSVQU9GRzaVk qMkYAuF62sd9OYd8m3B7uXd+CriADHh+6SdcKQAFZFCAeAUIofAM43BsvNd5M4cYHJgEiKEOaqIE Zud/AACAiiGAzhAKiECB23V5zeAODTiDNFiDKveAVBAFZ+CCf9AJ3yB+TdeB/yCCakICiGEMaoIM Jfh/JlMP7QANLHh8PJYHjNAM4mCDWJiFNZh+TiAGmNaD0qCBwBeET/cPUSA5iJF/qVd9Q4gMxVAM ZZgYZKgOxlAMyLB//OeE0cCCXwcIo/AN88B/WjiIhLh7whcF/noghXjFCdJgdGz4e2T4D+uQdHfy dERIgoghBWL0eYkxBdhHiQBAAc+nH0bXDnvYgl+4Cc7QDo4oiIX4irCYGC5HBT2giHjgBS4gg67Y eyb4dEF4hif4D0GohAKhhkOnDlAnVkTniMiih53AdZiGCH+YgLFYjdXYbFbQBYroBU5ABUJYftcX jElHAfYHAFPwDzW3jPUQhCXQDUOohlFAc5nnjuqghsWgciTzDaLQfXmlB4CQCJ1gjQJ5jXfSAWCg iDbAYt9IfuFoh/eXdEngDWoSj5KoJupYD5Oof0Z3J6O4DkVodo4YDsuQCLMHCH+ACIvgCdDAjAPZ klr4DIgg/oV/0AwsqYBEWAw1BwDIiHqeCACm9w8mSAFJMJRDSYmWOIKKQX+71w7PsAl/oAiJgAib EArR4JJWiYXQAI14hQjR8IgMOIITKRA9mY5MJ1aV+A8NmZRS13vz8A2j0AmbsAmiYIVXWZcM6A6b gAfQuAng4JVfKTnPh4R3QpHCqCbHIH2IiZhFJ5j3iBgeCQCa93v18AzKMAqkAA1XaJeaWX7MwAkm iQecMA5ZKDkmgBjhqCY/CZRhGYKKEYRGmIlMKH7fMJvh4A41uZm4qXvSIAqKAAiIkAiimYWoBwDu mHgWmRgZCQBRIH1TQAEkQIz/wIEAYALJcAAcSAJ4mJvag1mN0jAKm8AInFCVWoh6rymP5qgYJnhG TJCMoTh0o7id8PmK4MAMoiAKy3CbNIh60CkQHPieAtENxgiZqYl+kOkNOQkASoCM8bmghFgPrycN 0gAO8Nl80+dP3nAA2cmgGoqF89AO7bChIBqiIjqiJFqiJnqiKJqiKrqiLNqiLnqiAQEAADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C83B28.C36E3750--