Grading Mainstreamed Handicapped Pupils: What Are the Issues?

Abstract

Grading mainstreamed handicapped pupils has caused considerable consternation for special and regular educators. Because grading practices relating to handicapped pupils have received little attention, this paper investigates the pertinent issues and gives examples. The major purpose is to avoid the confusion caused by arbitrary grading systems. Graders and consumers must be clearly identified, as must the messages intended by the grades. Choosing satisfactory grading formats is discussed. The issues are generalized to all children, including those without handicaps.

Preliminary Findings on Personalized Grading Plans for Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities

“…The process of grading included students might be considered an intervention for increasing a student's success, while the report card grade might be considered an outcome indicating a student's level of success in the general education curriculum. Consideration of report card grades as outcomes has led to identificarion of several problems related to grading included students: (a) included students are receiving low or failing grades (Donahue & Zigmond, 1990;Valdes, Williamson, & Wagner, 1990; U.S. Department of Education, 1994); (b) causes of low grades may be traced to the inherent limits of a report card grade, which cannot provide multiple messages to the students and parents, and information for planning to the teacher (Carpenter, Grantham, & Hardister, 1983;Munk & Bursuck, 2000;Vasa, 1981); (c) there is lack of a direct connection between grading and the instructional and curricular adaptations made for a student with disabilities, resulting in nonsystematic use of adaptations (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995); (d) there is confusion between the special and general educator regarding roles in establishing grading criteria and assigning a grade (Bursuck et al, 1996;Polloway et al, 1994); and (e) parents are not involved in the grading process for their child (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, 1996).…”