University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Special Education Grading Practices and Challenges to
Implementing Equitable Grading Practices
Shannon Engle Soza
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Shannon Engle Soza 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Shannon Engle Soza certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Bradley Ermeling
Maria Ott
Darline Robles, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study applies the conceptual framework modeled after Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory focuses on the interconnectedness of multiple systems that
affect a child’s development, including the student’s immediate environment, family, school
setting, laws, and cultural values. With significant disproportionality in the overrepresentation of
students of color in special education, it is imperative to examine all the systems influencing a
student. This study aimed to examine the current grading practices of special education teachers
who support students in second to eighth grade. The study also focused on identifying the
struggle to implement equitable grading practices within a classroom of special education
elementary and middle school students. The methodological design of this study was qualitative;
the data were collected by interviewing six special education teachers. The teachers were from
Northern California. The researcher reread the interview transcripts and identified themes from
the interviews. Overall, participants identified an emphasis on grading for effort, completion, and
academic growth over standard mastery. There was also more emphasis on the individualized
educational plan’s goals than on grade-level content. Also, the overall consensus was that
teachers were not given parameters on how to grade students. This study is a first step in
researching grading practices for special education students, as there is currently minimal
research on grading practices for special education students.
Keywords: equitable grading practices for special education students, standards-based
grading, disproportionality, IEP goals, challenges and barriers special education teachers face
while grading, formative assessment, lack of a systematic approach to grading

v
Dedication
To my loving family. To my girls, Cameron and Jordan. Whatever you set your mind to, you can
accomplish. I cannot wait to see how you influence this world. To my husband, Gabriel. This
would not have been possible without your support and love. I am so thankful for the life we are
building together. To my parents, Mariann and Chester. This journey was possible because of
your dedication, love, and guidance. Your belief in me has always helped drive me. I love you all
so much.

vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you for the guidance and feedback from my committee, Dr. Bradley Ermeling, Dr.
Maria Ott, and Dr. Darline Robles. A special thank you to my chair, Dr. Darline Robles. You
have been a mentor and a cheerleader. Thank you for guiding me with kindness and positivity.
To my USC Crew, Alia, Denise, Daryl, Joanne, Katie, Maurissa, and Shannyn, it has
been an honor to do this program alongside you. I feel lucky to not only find like-minded,
equity-focused educators but also lifelong friends. You have made this experience joyful.
To my best friend, Maurissa. It has been a once-in-a-lifetime experience to do this
program alongside you. Thank you for pushing me and being my confidant. Your belief in me is
a gift I could never repay.
To my Nonna and Jedo. You emphasized the importance of education, and because of
your devotion to family, doors opened for your granddaughter. Thank you for the sacrifices you
made for your family. I hope when you look down, you are proud of me.
To my family, thank you. My parents, Mariann and Chester, thank you for believing in
me, especially when I did not believe in myself. You both have been my number-one fans since
day 1. Thank you for your sacrifices, guidance, and unconditional love—a special thank you to
my mother; you are one of my educational heroes. To my husband, Gabriel. Thank you for
supporting me every step of the way. There were days I wanted to quit; you listened with
empathy and gave me the strength to continue. I am beyond lucky to be married to a loving and
supportive husband. To my parents and husband, you have been my rock. Thank you for taking
on so much during these last 3 years. It was a team effort, and there is no way I could have done
this without you. To my girls, Cameron and Jordan, thank you for doing this program with me. I
started with a 1-year-old and ended with 4- and 1-year-olds. I love you all so much.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures..............................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions............................................................................................................. 7
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
History of Special Education ............................................................................................ 10
A Historical Perspective of Special Education ..................................................... 10
Current Special Education Policies....................................................................... 12
Teacher Preparedness............................................................................................ 13
Teacher Impact.................................................................................................................. 16
Teacher Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................... 16
Teacher Expectations of Students Who Qualify for Special Education ............... 17
Special Education Teacher Employment.......................................................................... 19
Special Education Teacher Recruitment............................................................... 19

viii
Special Education Teacher Retention Rate........................................................... 19
Racial Impact .................................................................................................................... 23
Data Supporting Disproportionality in Special Education.................................... 23
Efforts to Change Overrepresentation of Historically Marginalized Groups....... 24
History of Grading ............................................................................................................ 26
Historical Methodology of Grading...................................................................... 26
Traditional Grading System.................................................................................. 29
Standards-Based Grading: History and Pros and Cons......................................... 31
Formative Assessment: History and Pros and Cons............................................. 34
Challenges and Barriers to Equitable Grading Practices.................................................. 35
Lack of a Systematic Approach to Grading Practices .......................................... 35
Implementation of Equitable Grading Practices for SPED Students.................... 37
Best Practices for Equitable Grading................................................................................ 39
Accurate Grading Measures.................................................................................. 39
Educator and Case Manager Collaboration .......................................................... 41
Theoretical Framework..................................................................................................... 43
Summary........................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 48
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 48
Overview of Methodology................................................................................................ 48
Interviews.......................................................................................................................... 49
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 49
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 50

ix
Data Collection Procedures............................................................................................... 50
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 51
Positionality of the Researcher ......................................................................................... 51
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 53
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 54
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 54
Chapter Four: The Findings.......................................................................................................... 56
Participants........................................................................................................................ 56
Findings for Research Question 1..................................................................................... 58
Theme 1: Emphasis on IEP Goals ........................................................................ 61
Theme 2: Individualized Grading Practices.......................................................... 65
Theme 3: Focus on Behavior................................................................................ 70
Discussion for Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 71
Findings for Research Question 2..................................................................................... 72
Theme 1: Insufficient Preparation in College Courses......................................... 73
Theme 2: Inadequate Professional Development and Coaching .......................... 74
Theme 3: Systemic and Structural Barriers.......................................................... 76
Theme 4: Challenges in Individualized Assessment and Grading........................ 78
Discussion for Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 79
Summary........................................................................................................................... 80
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion, Implications...................................................................... 81
Discussion of Findings...................................................................................................... 82
Conceptual Framework for Research Question 1 ................................................. 82

x
Conceptual Framework for Research Question 2 ................................................. 83
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 85
Recommendation 1: Districts Build Robust Grading Policies That Consider
Students With Various Learning Needs.................................................... 85
Recommendation 2: Districts Rebuild Report Cards for SDC Students............... 87
Recommendation 3: Special Education Departments Increase Collaboration
Time .......................................................................................................... 88
Recommendation 4: Universities and Teacher Credentialing Programs Increase
Coursework on Grading Practices and How to Assess Students.............. 88
Recommendation 5: Districts Increase Professional Development and
Coaching to Support Teachers With Grading Practices ........................... 89
Recommendation 6: Districts Increase Collaboration Time for General and
Special Education Teachers...................................................................... 89
Recommendation for Future Research.............................................................................. 90
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 91
References..................................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix A: Special Education Credentials and Permits in California ..................................... 107
Appendix B: New Special Education Credentials and Permits Issued in California.................. 108
Appendix C: Students With Disabilities Who Spend More Than 80% of Their Day in General
Education Classrooms..................................................................................................... 109
Appendix D: Comparison of Major Grading Methods............................................................... 110
Appendix E: Characteristics of Formative and Summative Assessments.................................. 112
Appendix F: Grading Adaptation Example ................................................................................ 113

xi
Appendix G: Inclusive Grading Model....................................................................................... 114
Appendix H: Informed Consent Information Sheet.................................................................... 115
Appendix I: Email to Invite Teacher Participation..................................................................... 116
Appendix J: Prescreening Survey ............................................................................................... 118
Appendix K: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 119
Appendix L: A Model for Grading Exceptional Learners.......................................................... 121

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Prescreening Responses 57
Table 2: Participants’ SPED Service, Grade-Level Support, Years of Experience, District 58
Table 3: The Importance of Involving Students 63
Table 4: IEP Goals Guiding Classwork Grading 64
Table 5: Examples of Multiple Ways of Assessing Students 66
Table 6: Modification Determinations 67
Table 7: Participant Accommodations 68
Table 8: Types of Grading Practices Utilized by Participants 69
Table 9: Participant Quotes Regarding Credentialing Program Coursework on Grading 74
Table 10: Participant Feedback Regarding Lack of Systematic Collaboration Time 77

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 46

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Historically, education has focused on sorting students into hierarchical societal positions
(Patel, 2016). Education has been an extension of settler colonialism, a system of power that
perpetuates repression. Accordingly, formal education has been closely linked with the
projection of colonialism rather than with the objectives of acquiring knowledge, imparting
knowledge, or promoting harmonious coexistence (Patel, 2015). Today’s education system
continues to further marginalize our Black and Brown children, who are often overidentified to
receive special education (SPED) services (Brownell et al., 2010; California Department of
Education, n.d.-b).
Learning and education continue to assist and support specific groups while
simultaneously marginalizing others (Patel, 2016). For example, urban students are often
categorized with labels like “at risk” without considering the social construction of such labels
(Harman & McClure, 2011; Massey et al., 2014). Historically, schools that serve
socioeconomically disadvantaged students of color are unlikely to have the resources to support
students, which leaves students with little to no opportunity (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995).
A lack of cultural responsiveness due to biases and racism has led to children of color not having
the same access to education as White peers; students of color are being groomed for the pipeline
to prison (Webber, 2020). The strong association between race and income in the United States
partially supports this theory. Data from the National Survey of Children’s Health reveal that
children living at or below the federal poverty level are over twice as prone to being diagnosed
with specific learning disabilities (SLD) compared to children in households with incomes four
times the poverty level (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020).

2
This study explored the current grading practices of special education teachers and the
challenges teachers face when trying to implement equitable grading practices. There is a long
history of inequitable grading practices and a lack of systemic grading across the nation, let alone
in a single school. Schools have a long history of marginalizing special education students, in
which Black and Brown students are overrepresented in special education classes. Special
education students need culturally responsive leaders (Khalifa et al., 2016) and true allies (Utt &
Tochulk, 2020). Many educators work within systems of traditional grading and within systems
where students of color are disproportionately excluded from general education courses
(Brownell et al., 2010; National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020; Skiba et al., 2008). One
factor that continues to perpetuate a lack of equitable grading practices in schools is that there is
minimal research on grading practices for special education students.
Background of the Problem
Across the United States, specifically in California, there is a need for research regarding
equitable grading practices for SPED students, since there is minimal research. SPED students
frequently fall victim to inequitable grading practices. As a result of being denied access to the
same content as their general education peers, many students with disabilities have inflated or
deflated grades based on behavior, effort, and compliance rather than standards-based mastery.
SPED students are generally not held to the same standards or are accountable for the same or
similar academic content as their general education peers (National Center for Learning
Disabilities, 2020). When grades include compliance and behavior on assessments and activities,
they do not accurately show where students are in their learning. SPED students are
disadvantaged when they are misinformed about where they are on the learning continuum. This

3
can be seen from the data I collected when I was the principal at Jordan Middle School
(pseudonym) in 2022.
In 2022, 30 students in Jordan Middle School received pullout mathematics instruction.
Of the 30 students, only one received an F in an eighth-grade pullout math class. There was a
significant discrepancy when comparing the report card grades to the students’ state scores. None
of the 30 students met standard on the state test; all 30 were at Standard Not Met. There were
numerous assignments where teachers graded for compliance, turning in an assignment rather
than on standard mastery. Teachers scored 10/10 if the student turned in an assignment, behaved,
and followed directions in class. This was evident based on the comments in the teacher’s grade
book. Some students received 0 for not turning in any work, and a few received 8/10 for being
disruptive in class but turning in the assignment. Ironically, the student who received an F in the
eighth-grade pullout math class performed the highest on assessments; however, his behavior
and chronic absenteeism kept him from completing many graded assignments. Although students
were given individual work, the teachers helped them solve the problems, and there was no
accurate indicator of individual student knowledge. Due to this, misinformation was shared with
students and families. According to the California Dashboard, SPED students are at the lowest
indicator for English language arts and math (California Department of Education, 2023). Seeing
this inequity for special education students made me want to focus my research on grading
special education students. All students, including special education students, have a right to
rigorous academic instruction and to be told accurate information regarding their academic
knowledge.
According to Stark and Koslouski (2021), special education teachers struggle to balance
the demands of their job, meet the instruction needs of students with disabilities, and meet the

4
demands of standard-based grading. Additionally, SPED teachers struggle to monitor progress
on goals and support general education teachers who support SPED students. SPED teachers feel
pressure from district office personnel, parents, and students to have high traditional grades such
as As and Bs. In 2022, teachers at Jordan Middle School shared these comments with me. Case
managers at Jordan Middle School monitored the grades of SPED students. These case managers
emailed the general education teachers supporting SPED students. In the emails, the case
managers directed the general education teacher to check the grades to ensure no SPED student
received an F. Case managers stated SPED students may only receive an F if they turned in no
assignments or had completed no assessments; SPED students may not fail due to low test
scores. These expectations focused on a grade and not on learning. Schools must create policies
and make choices to build a more equitable grading system.
Like many schools in the United States, schools within Northern California have the
same pattern of significant disproportionality in the overrepresentation of students of color in
special education and high teacher turnover (Billingsley, 2007; Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018;
Katsiyannis et al., 2003; Katsiyannis et al., 2007; Leko & Smith, 2010). Students of color are
more likely to be identified for special education than White peers (National Center for Learning
Disabilities, 2020). According to the National Center for Learning Disabilities, non-Asian
students of color are identified for special education at higher rates than White students. Black
students are 40% more likely to be identified with a disability than students from other racial
backgrounds. Similarly, Hispanic, Black, and Native American students exhibit higher risk ratios
for being identified with disabilities than White students (National Center for Learning
Disabilities, 2020). This can be seen in my current district, Mariann Unified School District
(MUSD; pseudonym). In 2020, MUSD was first identified for differentiated assistance due to the

5
overidentification of students of color in special education. There was an overidentification of
Hispanic students for other health impairments in 2020–2023. There was also overidentification
of Hispanic and African American students for specific learning disabilities in 2020–2023. Since
2021, Mariann Unified has tried to make systemic shifts to address overidentification in special
education. After Mariann Unified was identified for differentiated assistance, some of the
feedback provided by families was the need for extra support for their child, and they felt special
education was the only pathway to provide academic support. After hearing the families’
feedback, the district has worked on refining the student study team process, identified
systematic interventions, and looked at tiered support systems.
According to the California School Dashboard (California Department of Education, n.d.-
a), MUSD’s special education students are in the orange indicator in English language arts,
mathematics, and graduation rate. As for college and career readiness, students with disabilities
are rated very low, the lowest possible indicator. MUSD does not have a district grading policy.
Grading policies are left to individual schools to decide, and special education teachers decide
how to grade their students. The lack of consistency and guidance in the grading policy makes it
challenging to be consistent or equitable in the special education department. It also leaves
students and parents questioning what a grade truly represents.
Webber (2020) states that SPED students are additionally marginalized by health or
learning impairments labels (SDC, RSP) as a way of understanding their behaviors that do not
adhere to traditional schooling and compliant behaviors. SPED students are further marginalized
in the educational system due to the grading practices of educators. According to Fernandez
(2020), when equitable grading practices are appropriately established, it minimizes student
anxiety, promotes growth mindsets, and measures learning more accurately. Students are more

6
successful when utilizing more equitable grading practices, and guardians are more aware of
where students are in the learning process (Fernandez, 2020).
Statement of the Problem
This research focused on current grading practices for SPED elementary and middle
school teachers and the challenges SPED teachers encounter when trying to grade equitably. As
Solórzano and Yosso (2002) state, students from historically marginalized groups are held to
educational standards developed by the White majority. The practices embedded in our
educational system, which have a White supremacy focus, are not the most beneficial practices
for students of color or SPED students.
Common inequitable grading practices further marginalize students, specifically SPED
students. Common inequitable grading practices include but are not limited to giving 0 for
missing assignments, grading for compliance and behavior in the classroom, grading for
completion and not for standard mastery, grading without specific feedback, and deficit grading.
Deficit grading is when an educator focuses more on what the student does not understand and
penalizes students. At my former district, Cameron Elementary School District (CESD;
pseudonym), the administrative regulations (ARs) state that students will not receive a 0 in the
grade book; however, later in the AR, it states that missing assignments at the end of the grading
period will result in a 0 if the assignment is not made up. Also, at CESD, the ARs state that
teachers may use an “I” to show an incomplete assessment, which does not affect a student’s
grade. The student must make up the assessment by the end of the grading period. Still, suppose
the student does not make up the assessment. In that case, the teacher must use professional
judgment to give the student an incomplete grade, exempt the assessment from the grading
period, or assign a grade for the assessment. These options in the ARs show a lack of focus on

7
standard mastery and an emphasis on a traditional grade without a focus on student content
knowledge. At Mariann Unified, there are no ARs for teachers to follow. The school site
determines all grading choices, and the special education teachers use their professional
judgment. A more equitable system would not treat all students the same way but would
differentiate instruction and grading to meet the needs of students (Ngounou & Gutierrez, 2017).
To help move past inequitable grading, educators need to understand the competing
commitments regarding grading and include teachers in grading reform. An equitable grading
system will challenge “the racist status quo” (Patton, 2016, p. 326).
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the grading practices of SPED teachers in Northern California
school districts who support elementary and middle school students. It uncovered the struggle to
implement equitable grading practices within a SPED elementary and middle school classroom.
Identifying the equitable grading practices for SPED elementary and middle school
students and determining the obstacles teachers frequently face helped me understand the daily
barriers that SPED students face. Additionally, this study has furthered the literature on equitable
grading practices for SPED students, which has minimal research.
Research Questions
To gain insight into equitable grading practices for elementary and middle school SPED
students, the following research questions guided the study:
1. What are teachers’ current grading practices for elementary and middle school
students identified as SPED in Northern California school districts?

8
2. What are the challenges and barriers for teachers implementing equitable grading
practices for elementary and middle school SPED students in Northern California
school districts?
Significance of the Study
There is minimal research on grading practices for all students and even less on equitable
grading practices for SPED students. The research findings are intended to help further the
pedagogy of all educators, including teachers, site administrators, and district administrators. The
findings can help create more equitable administrative regulations on grading policies to help
meet the needs of all students. Most importantly, this research will inspire educators to reflect on
current grading practices, find ways to increase student feedback, and inform students where
they are on their learning journey.
Organization of the Study
This study explored special education teachers’ grading practices and challenges when
implementing equitable grading practices within a special education classroom. Chapter 1
provided an overview and established the importance of identifying equitable grading practices
for a historically marginalized group of special education students. Chapter 2 offers a review of
the literature. The literature will focus on the history of special education, identify research on
the overrepresentation of students of color in special education, analyze the history of grading,
identify the lack of a systematic approach to grading, identify the lack of teacher preparedness,
and, lastly, provide a theoretical framework for the study. Chapter 3 discusses the research
methodology. Chapter 4 provides an opportunity to dive deeply into the findings of the research
questions. Lastly, Chapter 5 provides an opportunity to connect all parts of the study, address the
implications of the study’s findings, and recommend further research.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Special education has had a long history and has been heavily influenced by societal
shifts (Feldman, 2019; Spaulding & Pratt, 2015; Van Ewijk, 2011). The special education
program we see today was birthed from the civil rights movement. Brown v. Board of Education
in 1954 helped with the inclusivity of special education students in public education (Yell, 2022).
Ironically, special education has an overidentification of students of color (Brownell et al., 2010;
California Department of Education, n.d.-b). There have been numerous obstacles and barriers
within special education. Some barriers have been a lack of qualified educators, racial bias, and
teacher preparedness (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Guskey, 2013; Levin et al., 2015). These
factors work together in a system lacking a formal and systematic grading system (Gersten et al.,
1996; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019; Wakeman et al., 2021). There has been little research on finding
equitable grading practices for special education students (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Educators
have received little to no formal training on grading (Guskey, 2013).
In this literature review, seven main themes will be reviewed. This literature review will
focus on the historical aspect of special education, current special education policies, and the
historical perspective of teacher preparedness for special education teachers. Next, the research
will highlight teacher impact through teacher self-efficacy and the importance of teacher
expectations of students who qualify for special education. Next, the research will analyze
special education teacher employment through the lens of special education recruitment and
retention. Also, the literature review will focus on special education racial impact, the efforts to
change the overrepresentation of historically marginalized students, and the data highlighting the
disproportionality within special education. Next, the literature will focus on the historical
grading methodology and the research on the traditional grading system, standards-based

10
grading, and formative assessments. The next focus will emphasize the challenges and barriers to
equitable grading practices due to a need for a systemic approach to grading practices and the
implementation of equitable grading practices for special education students. Lastly, the
literature review will focus on best practices for equitable grading by focusing on the importance
of accurate grading measures and effective educator and case manager collaboration. The
conceptual framework is modeled after Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory and shows the
interconnections between a child’s environment and laws and regulations for special education.
History of Special Education
A Historical Perspective of Special Education
The roadmap of special education has been paved with inequities, litigation, and
legislation (Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). Special education has evolved and has been highly
influenced by societal and cultural shifts (Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). Families of children with
disabilities and other advocates have been instrumental in increasing inclusivity. The civil rights
movement has also significantly influenced special education; it helped open the door to
increasing the educational rights of students labeled with a disability (Gilhool, 2011; Skiba et al.,
2008; Yell, 2022).
Societal influence has long been a factor in the timeline of special education. In the early
to mid 1900s, there was an emphasis on economizing institutions, a belief in fixed intelligence,
and discouraging training for children with disabilities (Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). After World
War II, in the mid 1940s, society’s view of disabilities shifted due to medical advancements
(Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). According to Spaulding and Pratt (2015), medical advancements
helped with early identification and treatment. Additionally, parents of children with disabilities
in the United States worked to change public attitudes toward individuals with disabilities

11
(Spaulding & Pratt, 2015). The parents and advocates stressed every human’s right to education
according to their needs (Dybwad, 1962, as cited in Spaulding & Pratt, 2015; Skiba et al., 2008;
Yell, 2021).
The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, a significant 20th-century
Supreme Court ruling, addressed racial segregation in public schools, which impacted students
with disabilities (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2020; Skiba et al., 2008; Yell, 2022). The ruling
declared state-sanctioned segregation based on unchangeable characteristics like race
unconstitutional (Yell, 2022). Dr. Gunnar Dybwad, the executive director of the National
Association of Parents and Friends of Mentally Retarded Children, now Arc, saw Brown v.
Board of Education as an opportunity for children with disabilities to access public education
(Yell, 2022). Dr. Dybward helped launch multiple litigation efforts to allow students with
disabilities access to formal education within American public schools.
Advocates, including attorneys like Thomas Gilhool and Stanley Herr, filed lawsuits
against school districts, drawing on the Brown ruling (Yell, 2022). Pennsylvania Association for
Retarded Citizens (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972) is one of those cases. The
argument was that, if racial segregation was unconstitutional, so was segregation based on sex,
age, or disability. This case led to a consent decree requiring free public education for students
with intellectual disabilities, matching the education of those students in general education
(Gilhool, 2011; Spaulding & Pratt, 2015; Yell, 2022). Another vital case was Mills v. Board of
Education of the District of Columbia (1972). This case emphasized the right to education for
children with disabilities by leveraging the Brown decision, and the plaintiffs won (Gilhool,
2011; Spaulding & Pratt, 2015; Yell, 2022). These cases set the foundation for special education

12
rights, resulting in 46 similar right-to-education cases in 28 states. The civil rights movement
inspired special education advocates (Skiba et al., 2008; Spaulding & Pratt, 2015).
Litigation following Brown v. Board of Education helped open the door for the education
of students with disabilities, which allowed the federal government to put regulations into place
to enforce inclusivity. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, later identified
as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990, guaranteed the right to free and
appropriate public education for students with disabilities. The early 1980s marked a shift toward
a noncategorical perspective on disabilities, emphasizing the continuum of severity and
questioning rigid disability categories in planning and instruction (Brownell et al., 2010; Skiba et
al., 2008). The 1990s saw a move toward inclusive education, reevaluating the roles of special
education teachers and emphasizing collaboration between special education teachers and
general education teachers (Brownell et al., 2010; Skiba et al., 2008).
Current Special Education Policies
Special education has continuously evolved as regulations and societal viewpoints have
changed. The federal government has passed new legislation to help minimize the
overidentification of historically marginalized students in special education. These acts include
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB) of 2001,
and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015 (Brownell et al., 2010; California Department
of Education, n.d.-b). These regulations were established due to years of students with no
learning disability being placed in special education or the most restrictive environments, such as
pullout or self-contained special day classes (Brownell et al., 2010; Skiba et al., 2008).
The federal government has passed legislation focusing on access to general education,
inclusion, and school accountability. IDEA mandates access to the general education curriculum

13
for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). This mandate is due to years
of students in special education not having access to grade-level curriculum and minimal access
to rigorous content (Brownell et al., 2010). In the 2020–21 academic year, over 66% of children
with disabilities spent 80% or more of their school day in general education classrooms.
Additionally, early intervention services were extended to over 363,000 infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families during the same period (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
These efforts reflect a commitment to inclusive education and supporting the developmental
needs of young children with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Additionally,
NCLB holds schools accountable for their performance on curriculum-aligned content and
assessments (Brownell et al., 2010).
Most recently, ESSA, passed in 2015, mandates that all students must be educated
according to rigorous academic standards and participate in statewide assessments to gauge their
academic progress (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.-b). Additionally, students should be
placed in the least restrictive environment. With these shifts, special education teachers must
understand disability-related challenges. Furthermore, special education teachers must be wellversed in research-based intervention strategies and highly qualified in their core subjects, which
leads to teacher preparedness (Brownell et al., 2010).
Teacher Preparedness
Special education teachers are a more recent phenomenon since increasing inclusivity in
public education (Brownell et al., 2010). According to Spaulding and Pratt (2015), there were no
previous special education teachers, since students with disabilities were not allowed to be in
public schools and mostly resided in residential institutions. Teacher preparedness is important,
as it considers a teacher’s readiness to educate students (Jozwik et al., 2020; Kashikar et al.,

14
2023; Lane et al., 2009). Additionally, teachers’ perception of their preparation to teach students
will increase their confidence in teaching students with disabilities (Jozwik et al., 2020; Kashikar
et al., 2023; Lane et al., 2009).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990 led to a surge in special
education teacher training programs and a need for special education teachers (Brownell et al.,
2010; Skiba et al., 2008; Yell, 2022). To help better prepare teachers to meet the needs of
students with disabilities, special education teacher preparation programs transitioned from
residential facilities to teachers’ colleges (Brownell et al., 2010). Teacher preparation programs
focused on training future teachers to teach students with specific disabilities, a categorical
perspective that dominated education in the 1970s (Brownell et al., 2010). As special education
continued to shift in the 1990s to more inclusivity, special education teacher preparation
programs adapted to this changing landscape and moved away from focusing on self-contained
classrooms and more on inclusive practices (Brownell et al., 2010).
Bouck (2005) researched special education teacher perspectives on preparedness to teach
mild mental impairment and learning disabilities to students. I hypothesized that more
preparation was done on the job than during preservice education (Bouck, 2005). One hundred
eighty-nine teachers were surveyed. The survey results showed that less than half of teachers
were satisfied with their undergraduate program’s preparation for secondary special education
teaching. Approximately one-fifth felt unprepared for their current position, with about one-third
having a neutral response (Bouck, 2005). Practicum experience with students with learning
disabilities and mild mental impairment was indicated by less than half, with more than half
lacking such experience before securing a job (Bouck, 2005).

15
In 2002, Darling-Hammond, Chung, and Frelow analyzed data from a 1998 survey
involving nearly 3,000 newly employed teachers in New York City. The survey aimed to gather
insights into these teachers’ perspectives on their teaching preparation, beliefs and methods, and
intentions to continue teaching. The results showed that teacher education program graduates had
significantly higher mean ratings than teachers without program preparation on 32 out of 40
survey items measuring preparedness (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). The most substantial
disparities were in curriculum knowledge, teaching strategies, and meeting students’ learning
needs. Those entering teaching through alternative pathways, such as the Peace Corps, Teach for
America, or Teacher Opportunity Corps, rated their initial preparedness significantly lower on 25
out of 40 items, which included core teaching responsibilities like curriculum design, subject
matter instruction, instructional strategies, and understanding learner needs. Teachers starting
with emergency credentials and needing more prior classroom experience also rated their
preparedness significantly lower on 35 out of 40 survey items. This indicates that new teachers
without teacher preparation often felt inadequately prepared for teaching.
Holmqvist, Anderson, and Hellström (2019) investigated teacher educators’ selfperceived readiness to teach students with special educational needs. In this study, 104 teacher
educators from two university faculties completed an online questionnaire about teaching
students with disabilities. The results revealed significant differences in educators’ self-reported
professional development needs. University B educators rated their competence and
organizational capacity for students with special educational needs higher than University A
educators, regardless of the disability type. This difference can be attributed to mandatory
courses at University B, promoting a shared knowledge community among teacher educators.

16
However, translating this knowledge into practical teaching solutions for students with special
educational needs remains challenging.
Teacher Impact
Teacher Self-Efficacy
The most robust predictor of a teacher’s teaching efficacy, which refers to their belief in
their capability to accomplish a task, is their confidence in their preparation for teaching
(Bandura, 1997; Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Teacher efficacy is vital to the education of
students and highly important for the education of one of our most vulnerable student
populations, special education students. As the focus on granting special education students entry
to the general education curriculum increases, there is a rising need for special education
teachers who can facilitate this access. This has prompted inquiries into defining “high-quality”
special education teaching and assessing the adequacy of teacher preparation for this evolving
role (Brownell et al., 2010).
Ruppar et al. (2016) researched special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness
to teach students with disabilities. The study by Ruppar et al. (2016) took place in Wisconsin,
with 104 teachers completing the survey. Results indicated that teachers rated management
duties, such as developing IEPs, creating behavior plans, monitoring progress, and collaboration,
the highest across vignettes. Teaching experience significantly influenced teachers’ perceptions
of preparedness to educate students with severe disabilities, supervise paraprofessionals, and
determine curricular content. The majority of respondents were most comfortable with progress
monitoring and guiding paraprofessionals, suggesting a potential need for more opportunities to
engage directly with students with severe disabilities using systematic instruction.

17
Furthermore, the broader trend of offloading instructional responsibilities onto
paraprofessionals indicates that teachers may feel more at ease delegating instruction than
performing it themselves (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, as cited in Ruppar et al., 2016).
Respondents expressed a need for more preparation in using assistive technology, alternative
communication, universally designed lessons, and addressing medical and transition needs. The
only planning-related items that received lower ratings than teaching-related items pertained to
knowledge about state standards, alternate assessments, and discussions about post-school goals.
When teachers have a low perception of preparedness, it affects their self-efficacy and their
mindset to educate students.
Teacher Expectations of Students Who Qualify for Special Education
Teacher expectations refer to teacher conclusions regarding the student’s future behavior
or academic accomplishments (Kashikar et al., 2023; Skiba et al., 2008). According to Dr. John
Hattie’s research, teacher estimates of achievement are ranked number three in his 252
influences on student learning (Hattie, 2017). Teacher estimates of achievement have an effect
size of 1.29; Hattie states that any influence above a 0.40 effect size is considered highly
influential in student learning (Hattie, 2017). Teacher expectations notably impact student
outcomes (Hattie, 2017; Kashikar et al., 2023; Lane et al., 2009). In particular, students tend to
perform better when their teachers hold high expectations for them, while the opposite is true
when teachers have lower expectations (Kashikar et al., 2023; Lane et al., 2009).
Teachers tend to have lower expectations for students identified with a learning disability
when the diagnosis is disclosed (Kashikar et al., 2023; Lane et al., 2009; Skiba et al., 2008).
Research by Shifrer et al. (2013) and Shifrer (2016) suggests that students with learning
disabilities may opt for less challenging high school courses due, in part, to reduced teacher

18
expectations influenced by stigma (Kashikar et al., 2023). Additionally, Bettini et al. (2018)
identified three mechanisms explaining the impact of teacher expectations on student
performance: teacher behavior, student perception of expectations, and socio-psychological
factors (Bettini et al., 2018). Various studies support these mechanisms, showing that teachers
treat students differently based on their expectations (Bettini et al., 2018). Students can perceive
these differences from a young age, and teacher expectations can influence students’ selfconcept, self-expectations, self-efficacy, and motivation (Babad et al., 1991; Chen et al., 2011;
de Boer et al., 2010; Kashikar et al., 2023).
According to Jussim and Harber (2005), students from privileged sociodemographic
backgrounds tend to consistently gain advantages from higher teacher expectations, while
students from culturally stigmatized backgrounds may consistently face disadvantages due to
low teacher expectations. Clark (1997) conducted research experiments using fictitious students,
some with learning disabilities and some without. The study assessed how primary teachers
perceived academic failure in male students. Results showed that teachers were more likely to
anticipate future academic failure when students were labeled with a learning disability. This
effect was particularly strong when the student was described as highly capable and putting
significant effort into their work (Clark, 1997; Kashikar et al., 2023). In another study involving
1,303 elementary, middle, and high school teachers, Lane et al. (2009) explored how school
characteristics like poverty, mobility, enrollment, and school level influenced teacher
expectations of student behavior. The results affirmed that teachers emphasized cooperation,
compliance, and self-control over assertion skills. This emphasis was consistent among general
and special education teachers (Lane et al., 2009). The compliance and behavior focus again

19
emphasizes how education has focused on sorting students into hierarchical societal positions
(Patel, 2016).
Special Education Teacher Employment
Special Education Teacher Recruitment
The United States faces a significant deficit of special education teachers. This problem
has worsened in the past 10 years, as reported by Payne (2005). The yearly supply of new special
education educators is insufficient to meet the demand in the field (Payne, 2005; Theobald et al.,
2021). Payne (2005) identifies a shortage of people interested in joining education and an even
smaller percentage of prospective special education teachers.
Projections suggest that shortages are on the rise, particularly in schools located in highpoverty urban and rural areas (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Levin et al., 2015). The substantial
drop in teacher preparation enrollments in California, exceeding a 70% decline since 2001, is a
major factor contributing to the shortage of teachers in the state (Ondrasek et al., 2020). In the
United States, 49 states report shortages of special education teachers (National Coalition on
Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services, 2016), and enrollment in teacher
preparation is lower than at any point since the National Center for Education Statistics began
collecting this data (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Besides special education teacher recruitment,
there is also a concern about special education teacher retention.
Special Education Teacher Retention Rate
The United States is facing high attrition rates among early-career special educators, a
significant contributor to teacher shortages (Billingsley, 2007; Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018;
Katsiyannis et al., 2003; Katsiyannis et al., 2007; Leko & Smith, 2010). In high-poverty
neighborhoods, a majority of public schools, 55%, experienced at least one teaching vacancy,

20
whereas this figure was lower at 40% for public schools in low-poverty neighborhoods.
Similarly, public schools with a predominantly minority student population greater than 75% had
a higher vacancy rate, with 58% reporting at least one vacancy, as opposed to 32% of schools
with a predominantly non-minority student body (Delarosa, 2022). Urban schools and minority
students are subjected to high teacher turnover rates, low expectations, and scripted curricula,
which do not meet urban students’ academic and cultural needs (Harman & McClure, 2011;
Massey et al., 2014).
Annually, over one million U.S. teachers change schools or leave the profession, which
creates disruptions and challenges for students, colleagues, and school communities (Geiger &
Pivovarova, 2018; Goldring et al., 2014; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Teacher vacancies have been
a problem for over 20 years in education (Delarosa, 2022; Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018; Goldring
et al., 2014; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). According to Delarosa (2022) and the National Center for
Education Statistics, 44% of schools in the United States have reported teacher vacancies.
Among schools that reported at least one vacant position, the teaching role with the highest
number of openings was special education (Delarosa, 2022). The primary reason for teacher
vacancies was teacher resignations, accounting for 51%, followed by retirements at 21%
(Delarosa, 2022).
Elevated attrition rates among special education teachers pose a challenge in providing
qualified instruction for students with disabilities, exacerbating educator shortages (Billingsley &
Bettini, 2019). Attrition forces districts to hire unqualified staff, diverting resources from
sustainable initiatives, particularly impacting high-poverty schools and students from lowincome backgrounds (Levin et al., 2015). Appendix A, Special Education Credentials and
Permits in California, illustrates special education credentials and permits issued in California

21
from 2013 to 2018. As shown in the figure, the number of intern credentials, provisional intern
credentials, short-term staff permits, limited assignment permits, and waivers continues to
increase yearly. This increases the number of unprepared and underqualified staff for a student
population needing the most qualified educator (Levin et al., 2015).
In 2012–2013, the special educator attrition rate slightly exceeded the overall teacher
attrition rate, with approximately 17.1% leaving their schools, where 10.5% moved to other
schools, and 6.6% left the profession (Goldring et al., 2014). Replacing a teacher incurs
significant financial burdens, estimated between $9,000 and $23,000, and the loss of valuable
knowledge and collaborative relationships (McLeskey & Billingsley, 2008; Milanowski &
Odden, 2007). Special education teachers leave their jobs due to job satisfaction, administrative
support, induction programs, and mentoring (Vittek, 2015).
Approximately 50% of special education teachers leave education within their first 5
years, costing the U.S. Department of Education about $90 million annually (Billingsley, 2004;
Brownell et al., 2004; Hester et al., 2020). Teacher attrition is often driven by burnout, as
highlighted by various studies (Brunsting et al., 2014; Emery & Vandenberg, 2010; Hester et al.,
2020; Shen et al., 2015). Burnout is characterized by prolonged stress leading to emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson,
1996). Burnout affects teacher well-being and their decision to leave, ultimately impacting the
quality of education for students with disabilities. Novice teachers are more likely to leave the
profession than their experienced counterparts, a trend supported by multiple studies (Brownell
et al., 2010; Geiger & Pivovarova, 2018).
Special education has high turnover rates, and districts utilize interns to meet staffing
needs (Levin et al., 2015). According to Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019), SPED

22
teachers have a 20% annual turnover rate in districts with a high percentage of students of color.
Additionally, Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2019) show the distribution of qualified
SPED teachers over 5 years, as illustrated in the figure in Appendix B, New Special Education
Credentials and Permits Issued in California. The figure shows decreased educationally prepared
SPED teachers and increased interns or temporarily permitted instructors. To be an intern in
California, one must complete a Commission-approved preparation program, pass the
appropriate subject exam, complete coursework verified by a Commission-approved program,
complete a degree major from an accredited university in the appropriate subject matter, and
complete all items previously listed above and verified that the applicant has met or exceeded
each of the domains of the subject matter (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, n.d.).
Furthermore, our minority students are continually exposed to non-culturally diverse
teachers and/or ill-prepared educators. The majority of teachers in the United States, 80%, are
White educators (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). Most teachers are trained in
schools of education, which are usually led by White teacher educators who design and
disseminate curricular content devoid of racial perspective. As a result, graduates teach their
students through a White-centric lens (Patton, 2016). Picower (2009) demonstrated that White
pre-service teachers rely on a set of “tools of Whiteness” designed to protect and maintain
dominant and stereotypical understandings of race and are an active protection of the incoming
hegemonic stories and White supremacy. As a result, our minority students are further
marginalized by having inept educators who label them with health or learning impairments as a
way of understanding their behaviors that do not adhere to traditional schooling-compliant
behaviors.

23
Racial Impact
Data Supporting Disproportionality in Special Education
The primary pattern of significant disproportionality in special education is the
overrepresentation of students of color, except for Asian students, who are identified for special
education at higher rates than their White peers (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020;
Skiba et al., 2008). American Indian and Alaska Native children receive special education at
double the rate of the general student population (National Center for Learning Disabilities,
2020). In contrast, Black students are 40% more likely to be identified with a disability than
other students (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020). Hispanic, Black, and Native
American students all have a greater risk of being identified with disabilities than White students
(National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020; Skiba et al., 2008). This overrepresentation in
special education has short-term and long-term negative consequences, particularly for students
of color (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2020; National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020;
Skiba et al., 2008).
Students with disabilities experience significant racial disparities in their educational
settings. While a majority of White students with disabilities, 55%, spend over 80% of their
school day in general education classrooms, the opposite holds for Black students with
disabilities, with only about a third spending a similar amount of time in general education
settings (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020). Additionally, Hispanic and American
Indian students with disabilities are more often placed in separate classrooms compared to their
White peers (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020; Skiba et al., 2008). However,
students from specific racial and ethnic backgrounds are more likely to be placed in restrictive
settings, limiting interactions and access to challenging learning opportunities (National Center

24
for Learning Disabilities, 2020; Skiba et al., 2008). At the national level, African American
students account for 33% of students identified as highly mentally disabled, clearly discrepant
from their representation in the school-age population of 17% (Skiba et al., 2008). Extensive data
consistently show that African American students experience disproportionality in special
education services and settings. Various potential conditions or causes contributing to special
education disproportionality have been examined, with research dating back to the 1970s,
including exploring test bias (Skiba et al., 2008).
Efforts to Change Overrepresentation of Historically Marginalized Groups
Since special education has been introduced into the public school system, students of
color have been overrepresented (Kleinhammer-Tramill et al., 2020; Skiba et al., 2008; Yell,
2022). Although special education rights were born from the civil rights movement, it is ironic
that the disparities in providing special education services based on race remain a prominent
marker of inequity within our country’s education system (Skiba et al., 2008). During the 1960s
and 1970s, as the field of special education was developing, experts documented disparities in
service based on race. Lloyd M. Dunn’s 1968 critique highlighted the overrepresentation of
ethnic and language minority students in self-contained special education classrooms, raising
civil rights and educational concerns (Skiba et al., 2008). Jane R. Mercer’s 1973 critique also
emphasized the differences in rates of special education service among ethnic groups,
particularly in identifying children as mentally retarded in public schools (Skiba et al., 2008).
These findings underscored the need for addressing disparities in special education (Skiba et al.,
2008).
The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act addressed the
issue of minority overrepresentation in special education, emphasizing the need to prevent

25
mislabeling and high dropout rates among minority students with disabilities (IDEA 97, Public
Law No. 105–17; Skiba et al., 2008). IDEA 2004 built on this by requiring states to actively
monitor disparities in the representation of students from different racial or ethnic backgrounds
within disability categories and special education placements (Skiba et al., 2008). States must
review local policies and practices when disparities are identified. Notably, IDEA 2004 mandates
that local educational agencies with significant disparities allocate a maximum of 15% of Part B
funds to early intervening programs (Skiba et al., 2008). IDEA 2004 does not define “significant
disproportionality,” allowing states to develop quantifiable indicators (Skiba et al., 2008). IDEA
2004 promotes a least restrictive environment for students with special needs, encouraging their
education in general education classrooms alongside nondisabled peers whenever possible. With
curriculum support, early inclusion improves outcomes, including higher test scores and
graduation rates (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020).
Because of IDEA, special education students can access the general education curriculum
(U.S. Department of Education, 2017). According to the National Center for Learning
Disabilities (2020), students identified with learning disabilities or learning differences do much
better when the majority of their day is spent in general education classes. Students who are
provided the appropriate curriculum support and can be part of a least restrictive environment
tend to score better on state tests and have a higher graduation rate (National Center for Learning
Disabilities, 2020). A least restrictive environment is when students with disabilities are educated
in general education classrooms alongside their nondisabled peers to the maximum extent
possible. Additionally, according to the National Center for Learning Disabilities, a small
fraction of students are suitable for education in a segregated environment or in classrooms
exclusively tailored for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, available data indicate that

26
students from specific racial and ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately placed in more
restrictive educational environments (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020). As a
result, they are deprived of valuable interactions with their nondisabled peers in general
education. They are unfairly denied access to challenging learning opportunities (National Center
for Learning Disabilities, 2020). In addition, while “55 percent of White students with
disabilities spend more than 80 percent of their school day in a general education classroom, only
a third of Black students with disabilities spend that much time in a general education
classroom” (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020, p. 5). Hispanic and American
Indian students with disabilities have a similar rate as Black students maintaining access to
general education classrooms. This is illustrated in the figure Students With Disabilities Who
Spend More Than 80% of Their Day in General Education Classrooms (see Appendix C).
History of Grading
Historical Methodology of Grading
The grading system in U.S. schools has evolved. Before 1850, grading was uncommon,
but it later transitioned to formal progress evaluations and eventually embraced percentages
(Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). This transformation mirrors
the changing perception and role of grading in education (Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2013;
Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Ongoing debates and reforms, including standards-based grading
(SBG) and formative assessments, seek to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the grading
process (Brookhart et al., 2016; Dixson & Worrell, 2016; Dorn, 2010; Marzano & Heflebower,
2011). Grading involves assigning symbols to student work and is a central aspect of the
educational experience. In today’s world, grades play a crucial role, perceived as earned
achievements with significant influence on students and schooling (Brookhart et al., 2016; Link

27
& Guskey, 2022; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Moreover, grades predict future educational
outcomes, including dropout rates, college applications and admissions, and overall academic
success (Brookhart et al., 2016; Carey & Carifio, 2012).
However, before 1850, grading and reporting were uncommon in U.S. schools, where
students of various ages were often taught together in one-room schoolhouses (Guskey, 2013;
Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Teachers would orally communicate student progress to parents
during home visits (Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). However, as enrollments
increased in the late 1800s, schools began grouping students by age and introduced formal
progress evaluations (Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). These evaluations primarily
comprised narrative reports detailing mastered skills and areas requiring further attention
(Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). The main purpose was to inform students when they
were ready to advance to the next performance level (Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019).
Edgeworth’s (1888) early investigation into grading, published in the Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, applied the “theory of errors” to examine three sources of error: chance,
personal differences among graders, and generalizing to the domain. Beyond simple chance,
Edgeworth viewed grades as subject to multiple sources of variation or error, a perspective ahead
of its time. He highlighted the educational consequences of grading unreliability, emphasizing
the need to improve reliability, a concept extended to validity in modern discussions (Brookhart
et al., 2016).
As school attendance laws were introduced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, high
school enrollments surged, and the number of public high schools in the United States
dramatically increased (Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2013). This period saw a shift from
narrative reports to using percentages or similar markings in high schools to certify

28
accomplishments in specific subject areas (Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2013). The increasing
specificity of subject-area instruction in high schools and the growing diversity of student
populations drove this shift, with the perception that percentages were more efficient than
narrative descriptions, particularly in managing the complexity of diverse subjects (Brookhart et
al., 2016; Guskey, 2013). However, narrative descriptions persisted in elementary schools
(Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2013).
Historical reviews by Crooks (1933), Smith and Dobbin (1960), and Kirschenbaum,
Napier, and Simon (1971) debated the choice between norm- and criterion-referenced grading,
with high schools favoring norm-referenced grades for college admissions, while some
elementary school educators transitioned to what was eventually called mastery learning and
then standards-based education (Brookhart et al., 2016). In the 1920s, grading systems with
fewer and broader categories, such as the A–F scale, were adopted based on studies of grading
reliability. Despite this, variation in grading practices persisted, with Hill (1935) finding diverse
frequency and reporting practices (Brookhart et al., 2016). By the 1940s, over 80% of U.S.
schools had adopted the A–F grading scale, which remains the most commonly used scale today.
Current grading reforms, such as SBG, emphasize grades based on achievement standards,
separating work habits and nonachievement factors in reporting (Brookhart et al., 2016; Olsen &
Buchanan, 2019).
Percentage grades were uncommon in U.S. schools until the early 1990s when the rise of
grading software and online grade books primarily developed by computer technicians and
engineers contributed to their popularity (Guskey, 2013). Today, over 50 electronic grading
software programs are available featuring scales, particularly percentages, that align with the
preferences of technicians rather than educators (Guskey, 2013). The history of grading has been

29
an ongoing shift. The William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015)
highlights the differences between the various types of grading in U.S. history. The table in
Appendix D (Comparison of Major Grading Methods) identifies the grading method, the
advantages and challenges of different methods, and further recommendations (William & Mary
Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Traditional Grading System
The grading system in U.S. schools has experienced a significant historical
transformation. Before 1850, there was a lack of formal grading, and the system evolved.
Adopting percentage grades in the 1990s, aided by technological advancements, marked a
pivotal shift in grading practices. This complex landscape has been shaped by various factors,
including teacher variability, the transition from narrative to quantitative assessments, and recent
legislative interventions addressing grading policies.
Findings from 16 literature reviews on the consistency of teachers’ grades indicate
notable variations in the evaluations of students’ work. These studies align with Edgeworth’s
(1888) research and pinpoint various factors contributing to this variability. Starch (1913)
identified elements contributing to an error of 5.4 on a 100-point scale. These factors encompass
challenges in discerning closely related degrees of merit, variations in the importance assigned
by teachers to different elements, and discrepancies in teachers’ standards. Other studies point to
differences in grading criteria as a significant source of variability, similar to Starch’s findings
(Brookhart et al., 2016). Teacher severity or leniency, identified by studies like Shriner (1930),
Silberstein (1922), and Sims (1933), also contributes to grading variability. Inconsistent findings
relate differences in student work quality to grading variability, with Bolton (1927) noting
greater variability for poorer papers (Brookhart et al., 2016). However, modern percentage

30
grading scales differ significantly from historical ones, setting an average grade at 75 and
establishing higher passing thresholds, potentially resulting in a negatively skewed grade
distribution perceived as unfavorable to students (Guskey, 2013).
In the traditional grading system, students accumulate points from various activities,
assignments, and behaviors, with the teacher assigning a letter grade based on the total points or
an average percentage score (Brookhart et al., 2016). However, these practices often lack
specificity about a student’s understanding of the target content. For example, a student receiving
a B might not necessarily have a solid grasp of the content but may excel in behavior and
participation. Similarly, a percentage score might not accurately reflect gaps in understanding if
factors like tardiness or disruptive behavior influenced the grading. The lack of consistency in
grading criteria across teachers further adds to the ambiguity. Covington (1992) suggests that
demonstrating knowledge gain can motivate students. The traditional 100-point scale may not
effectively represent student content knowledge in specific areas of standards (Marzano &
Heflebower, 2011). Grading scales, mainly percentage grades, are criticized for distorting the
accuracy, objectivity, and reliability of students’ grades. Despite being widely used and forming
the basis of many state grading policies, percentage grades face procedural, practical, and ethical
challenges (Guskey, 2013). Demonstrations of wide grading practice variation prompted a shift
to scales with fewer categories, like 3-point or 5-point scales, enhancing consistency (Guskey,
2013).
Recently, there has been attention on legislation in some states restricting school districts
by setting the lowest percentage grade teachers can assign at 50 instead of 0 (Guskey, 2013).
These policies seek to mitigate the confounding effects of assigning 0 in the traditional grading
system. Despite concerns about grade inflation, studies show that well-designed, longitudinal

31
policies do not necessarily promote it (Guskey, 2013). These minimum-grade policies aim not to
grant unearned credit; a percentage of 50 remains a failing grade. Recovering from a single 0 in
the traditional grading system requires a perfect score on at least nine other assignments, posing
a challenge even for talented students and potentially condemning struggling learners to failure
(Guskey, 2013). This punitive aspect contradicts the purpose of grading, which should
communicate information about student learning without making recovery from failure
impossible (Guskey, 2013; Link & Guskey, 2022).
Standards-Based Grading: History and Pros and Cons
Adopting and developing SBG, prioritizing mastery of learning objectives over mere
point accumulation, represents a transformative educational shift. This approach comes with
challenges, including the interpretation of state-mandated standards and a scarcity of research
(Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). However, studies exploring the impact of SBG on student
performance emphasize its benefits, such as improved teacher comprehension, student
motivation, and a more transparent assessment (Link & Guskey, 2022; National Science
Teachers Association [NSTA], 2019). Like all grading systems, SBG has pros and cons.
SBG is an evaluation approach for students demonstrating mastery of specific learning
objectives or standards (Link & Guskey, 2022; Zimmerman, 2017). The primary aim of SBG is
to shift the focus from accumulating points to mastering learning objectives (Link & Guskey,
2022; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; Zimmerman, 2017). A guiding principle of this grading
system emphasizes the importance of mistakes as part of the learning process and encourages
students to learn from errors without penalties (Link & Guskey, 2022; Zimmerman, 2017). The
system concentrates on mastering the academic standard rather than earning points. This helps to

32
ensure that grades reflect a student’s proficiency in skills and concepts (Link & Guskey, 2022;
Zimmerman, 2017).
Additionally, students can reassess specific concepts or skills until they achieve mastery,
promoting content mastery (Link & Guskey, 2022; Zimmerman, 2017). This grading shift will
also need to be a shift in student mindset. A study by Huey et al. (2022) examined highachieving eighth- and ninth-grade students and the impact of shifting to SBG on student
performance and behaviors, specifically excluding practice work from grade computations. After
the shift to SBG, performance decreased on some assessed standards, and completion rates for
practice work decreased overall. The research highlights the extensive history of studying
teachers’ grading practices, revealing a mix of factors contributing to grades, including effort and
attitude. Course grades were found to be unreliable indicators of academic learning due to
various factors, such as teachers’ grading knowledge and the inclusion of noncognitive factors.
The study explores standards-based grading’s potential to reduce grade variability, and previous
research suggests its positive impact when disciplined standards-attainment methods are
employed by teachers, especially in mathematics (Huey et al., 2022).
An effective SBG and reporting system should eliminate the overall grade (Marzano &
Heflebower, 2011). In its place, teachers should score specific measurement topics or standards
(Link & Guskey, 2022; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; Zimmerman, 2017). However, teachers
have faced challenges in interpreting and applying state-mandated standards, which shows a
surface-level understanding of the standards (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). While Townsley
and McNamara (2021) reviewed the standards incorporated into course syllabi and other
artifacts, such as student assessments, the interpretation and consistent implementation of these
standards posed difficulties for educators (Townsley & McNamara, 2021).

33
Despite its widespread popularity, SBG remains largely unstudied (Marzano &
Heflebower, 2011; Townsley & McNamara, 2021). Therefore, the long-term effects of SBG are
unknown at this time. Teachers implementing SBG have had some challenges. Some of the
challenges are that planning is more time-consuming and can be a financial burden for teachers
who invest personal funds for additional materials and assessments (Townsley & McNamara,
2021).
On the other hand, educators have found value in gaining a clearer understanding of
where students stand in the learning continuum, particularly when compared to the traditional
100-point scale (Townsley & McNamara, 2021). The shift to SBG has prompted a change in
teachers’ perspectives, focusing more on students’ growth and providing opportunities for
differentiation. In this context, SBG is seen as a tool that enhances teaching practices and fosters
a growth mindset among students, distinguishing it from traditional grading systems (NSTA,
2019).
Additionally, SBG helps identify students requiring extra support in specific areas,
offering teachers ways to support students in targeted instruction and assessment (Townsley &
McNamara, 2021). Students exhibit increased motivation in an SBG system due to the clear
connection between formative and summative assessments (NSTA, 2019). This model ensures
that students comprehend the meaning behind their grades. SBG allows for flexibility and allows
students to revisit and reinforce material without facing penalties (NSTA, 2019). SBG results in
a grading system that accurately reflects students’ content knowledge, contributing to increased
motivation and independent learning (NSTA, 2019). SBG is highly effective for students with
learning differences (William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
According to the William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015), SBG allows

34
for specific and meaningful performance guides that can help facilitate the educator in teaching
and allows for targeted instruction.
Formative Assessment: History and Pros and Cons
Formative assessment, centered on continual feedback to improve student performance,
encounters obstacles related to curriculum coverage, the support of leadership, and the utilization
by teachers (Dixson & Worrell, 2016; Wakeman et al., 2021). Cultural factors and organizational
frictions further complicate the expansion of formative assessment (Dixson & Worrell, 2016;
Dorn, 2010; Wakeman et al., 2021). Nevertheless, it offers promising benefits, showcasing
positive results for students with disabilities. It also proves to be a cost-effective intervention,
particularly advantageous for students with low achievement, effectively narrowing significant
learning gaps.
Formative assessment focuses on enhancing student performance through ongoing
feedback (Dixson & Worrell, 2016; Dorn, 2010). In contrast, summative assessments are
comprehensive, high-stakes evaluations measuring what a student has learned against established
standards. They typically occur less frequently and serve as conclusive measures of learning
(Dixson & Worrell, 2016). The Characteristics of Formative and Summative Assessments (see
Appendix E) showcase specific examples of formative and summative assessments (Dixson &
Worrell, 2016).
Formative assessment, like any grading system, has encountered several challenges. A
significant hurdle involves the public’s preparedness for a decision-making-centered school
system and teachers’ willingness to critically evaluate their instruction within a trusting, datadriven culture (Dorn, 2010). Diverse interpretations of formative assessment, from informal, inclass judgments to frequent quantitative measures, contribute to varied responses and

35
frameworks (Dorn, 2010). For some, formative assessment is seen as a means to shift
responsibility from schools to students, breaking the blame discourse for low achievement. Even
with the challenges of formative assessment, many positives have been highlighted. Formative
assessment, endorsed by educational researchers, demonstrates positive outcomes for students
with disabilities, offering valuable insights to inform and guide classroom decisions (Dixson &
Worrell, 2016; Dorn, 2010). This approach proves effective and is recognized as a cost-effective
intervention (Dixson & Worrell, 2016; Dorn, 2010). Particularly beneficial for students with low
achievement, formative assessment can facilitate significant progress, closing substantial
learning gaps, which is beneficial for all students, but specifically special education students
(Dixson & Worrell, 2016; Dorn, 2010; Wakeman et al., 2021).
Challenges and Barriers to Equitable Grading Practices
Lack of a Systematic Approach to Grading Practices
Grading operates as a versatile tool within education, functioning both as an assessment
of student performance and a method for teachers to assert authority and handle classroom
dynamics, particularly in instances of disrespect (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Grading is also seen
as a teacher’s final piece of professional autonomy (Feldman, 2019; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019).
The systematic discussion of grades is often lacking in the educational setting. Additionally,
university teacher preparation programs typically offer limited guidance, leaving the methods
and criteria for assigning grades mainly at the discretion of individual teachers (Olsen &
Buchanan, 2019).
Grades are rarely systematically discussed in educational settings (Olsen & Buchanan,
2019). Teacher preparation programs commonly expect schools to teach new educators how to
grade, and standardized grading philosophies are infrequently found in public schools (Olsen &

36
Buchanan, 2019). Teachers’ methods and criteria to assign grades, even in schools with unified
grading systems or software, are typically left to the individual teacher’s discretion (Olsen &
Buchanan, 2019). Even when a school district has a structured grading policy, teachers utilize the
policy, but grading in classrooms across departments and a school site varies drastically
(Feldman, 2019; Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019).
The lack of a systemic approach can be seen in the 1912 study by Wisconsin researchers
Daniel Starch and Edward Charles Elliott. Starch and Elliott questioned the reliability of
percentage grades, revealing significant variation among 147 high school English teachers who
assigned grades to identical student papers. Despite a century of research and practical
experience, contemporary studies, like the one conducted by Hunter Brimi in 2011, have
reproduced the conclusions of the 1912 study. This suggests that even trained teachers face
challenges in accurately and consistently assigning percentage grades. It underscores the absence
of a systematic approach to grading (Guskey, 2013).
Subjectivity and biases can also be seen in grading. In 2011, Van Ewijk reviewed the
grades of White educators, the ethnic majority in education. While reviewing grades, Van Ewijk
compared the assignment grades of ethnic majority students and ethnic minority students. The
findings showed that teachers gave ethnic minority students lower grades than the ethnic
majority students. Van Ewijk (2011) discovered the biases of teachers with lower expectations of
minority students and allowed them to perform below teacher expectations. When teacher
expectations are high, students will meet expectations with appropriate support (Bettini et al.,
2018). The subjectivity of grading and the lack of a systematic approach can hurt historically
marginalized students such as special education students.

37
Numerous factors contribute to a lack of a systematic approach to grading. Certain states’
education codes and regulations protect the teacher’s authority over assigned grades, preventing
administrators from overriding grades and safeguarding teachers from external pressures to alter
grades (Feldman, 2019). Despite the absence of formal training on grading practices, teachers
carefully consider various factors, such as assignment choices, behavior inclusions, weightings,
and consequences, in determining grades (Brookhart et al., 2016; Feldman, 2019; Olsen &
Buchanan, 2019). Teachers’ grading decisions are influenced by their professional expertise,
experiences, and individual beliefs about the importance of different skills and aspects in student
evaluation (Feldman, 2019). The subjective nature of grading policies reflects teachers’ personal
views on fairness, the significance of effort, and their role in preparing students for success,
making challenges to grading practices emotionally and psychologically impactful (Feldman,
2019).
Implementation of Equitable Grading Practices for SPED Students
The increasing inclusion of students with disabilities in general education underscores the
necessity for thoughtful grading practices, as current research lacks clear guidance (Brookhart et
al., 2016; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019; Wakeman et al., 2021; William & Mary Training and
Technical Assistance Center, 2015). A challenge to implementing equitable grading is primarily
due to a lack of a systematic approach to grading (Brookhart et al., 2016; Olsen & Buchanan,
2019). There is limited research about grading practices for students with disabilities (Olsen &
Buchanan, 2019). However, there is a need due to the increase of inclusivity.
Rojewski and Pollard (1993) researched the challenges faced by secondary education
teachers when grading special education students in integrated settings. The themes identified in
this research include a lack of information on student capabilities and individualized educational

38
programs, issues related to objectivity and fairness, challenges in maintaining high graduation
standards, lack of training, and resentment from general education students toward differential
grading. Additionally, the teachers often reported making adaptations in the test format and
procedures and providing additional assistance for special education students, although these
modifications were generally minor. Tensions would arise between general and special education
teachers regarding accountability and grading criteria, with the former often emphasizing the
same standards for all students and the special education teacher considering effort and
attendance as crucial. Special education teachers attempt to use a combination of effort and
performance criteria, providing students with regular, frequent, and specific feedback (Rojewski
& Pollard, 1993). While effective evaluation and grading systems should help students improve
by providing specific criteria and assessing progress, the challenges and dilemmas in grading
practices persist (Gersten et al., 1996).
Research has shown that teachers treat special education students with lower expectations
(Kashikar et al., 2023). General and special education teachers tend to have lower expectations
of special education students, as evident in teaching and grading practices (Kashikar et al., 2023).
Teacher expectations of student ability are essential to student learning. Dr. John Hattie has
extensively researched areas that affect student achievement and learning. Within his research,
he identifies influences on student learning with an effect size of 0.40 or higher as a significant
influence on student achievement and learning (Hattie, 2017). This research was done so that
teachers could utilize more practices that would have a higher effect on student learning and not
emphasize practices that do not have a high effect. Teachers’ expectations of student
performance have an effect size of 1.62, a major influence on student achievement (Hattie,
2017). Another factor that greatly influences student learning and achievement is teachers not

39
labeling students, which has an effect size of 0.61 (Hattie, 2017). The research from Hattie
(2017) and Kashikar et al. (2023) suggests that special education students would benefit from
teachers with high expectations and not being labeled as students with low skills because,
repeatedly, they are met with low expectations from their teachers. When students do not feel
their teacher believes in them or feels they can succeed, it hinders student progress (Hattie, 2017;
Kashikar et al., 2023; Lane et al., 2009).
Although there are many challenges when grading students, specifically special education
students, there are good practices to follow. Effective collaboration between general and special
educators is essential to establish purposeful, adapted, and equitable grading policies (Wakeman
et al., 2021). The William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center’s four grading
criteria are accuracy, meaningfulness, consistency, and learning support (Wakeman et al., 2021).
These four grading criteria provide a foundational framework for developing fair grading
practices, particularly tailored to the needs of students with significant cognitive disabilities
(Wakeman et al., 2021).
Best Practices for Equitable Grading
Accurate Grading Measures
Accurate grading of student knowledge leads to more equitable grading. There is more
equity when behavior and compliance are removed from grades (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019).
Feldman (2019) advocates for accurate grading by emphasizing accuracy, bias resistance, and
motivation. Implementing these three core areas can make grading more equitable for all
students, including special education students.
The principles for accurate grading advocated by Feldman (2019) include utilizing
mathematically sound calculations that are easy to comprehend and effectively represent a

40
student’s academic performance. The recommendations involve avoiding using 0s, adopting a
minimum grading scale of 0–4, giving more weight to recent performance, and ensuring that
grades are based on individual achievement rather than the group’s performance (Carey &
Carifio, 2012; Feldman, 2019; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019; William & Mary Training and
Technical Assistance Center, 2015). Feldman (2019) underscores the idea of bias-resistant
grades, asserting that grades should accurately reflect a student’s content knowledge, free from
the influence of a teacher’s implicit bias or environmental factors. He advocates for this
approach by emphasizing the significance of grounding grades in required content, prioritizing
student work over the timing of assignments, implementing alternative consequences for
cheating, excluding participation and effort from grade calculations, and relying exclusively on
summative assessments rather than formative assessments such as homework (Carey & Carifio,
2012; Feldman, 2019; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019; William & Mary Training and Technical
Assistance Center, 2015). Feldman (2019) advocates for grading practices that motivate students
toward academic success, support a growth mindset, and provide opportunities for redemption.
He emphasizes transparency, suggesting that grading should be easily understandable, allowing
every student to know their grade and how to achieve the desired grade (Feldman, 2019).
According to Feldman (2019), equitable grading involves distinguishing between the means for
learning soft skills, practice, and mistakes and the ends of academic success. He proposes
strategies such as minimum grading, a 0–4 scale, renaming grades, allowing, implementing
rubrics, using standards-based scales instead of points, maintaining standards-based grade books,
emphasizing self-regulation, fostering a community of feedback, and incorporating student
trackers (Feldman, 2019).

41
Educator and Case Manager Collaboration
According to the William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015),
when grading a student with an individualized educational plan (IEP), the special education
teacher, case manager, and general education teacher must collaborate. Collaboration allows all
to be on the same page to best support the student. When there is successful collaboration, a
student’s learning difference will be considered, appropriate accommodations will be
implemented, and high expectations for students will be followed.
As previously stated, collaboration between all stakeholders is essential. The William &
Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015) created a table to help guide educators
who may need to implement a grading adaptation process, as seen in the grading adaptation
example in Appendix F. The example walks the reader through different scenarios and an
appropriate action with the appropriate people involved. The William & Mary Training and
Technical Assistance Center (2015) also created a flow chart to help guide a teacher when
assessing a student with an IEP. The flow chart helps guide the teacher if a grading modification
is needed, as seen in the inclusive grading model in Appendix G (William & Mary Training and
Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Accurate grading is crucial for communicating student performance. Teachers can ensure
grading accuracy by separating behavior and participation scores from standard mastery and
avoiding collaborative grades (Carey & Carifio, 2012; Feldman, 2019; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019;
Wakeman et al., 2021; William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Effective grading involves clear standards for the product, process, and progress criteria, which
is especially crucial for students with cognitive disabilities (Wakeman et al., 2021). Standardsbased grading, breaking down standards into smaller targets, is recommended for all students,

42
enhancing accuracy, consistency, and meaningfulness of grades while avoiding the pitfalls of
traditional grading systems (Wakeman et al., 2021).
Grades are meaningful when based on specific skills aligned with academic standards,
highlighting student strengths and needs (Brookhart et al., 2016; Guskey, 2013; Link & Guskey,
2022; Wakeman et al., 2021; William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Meaningfulness is crucial for fairness, especially in inclusive classrooms, requiring a departure
from traditional grading practices for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Guskey,
2013; Link & Guskey, 2022; Wakeman et al., 2021; William & Mary Training and Technical
Assistance Center, 2015). Collaboration between teachers and clear communication with
stakeholders contribute to establishing fair grades (William & Mary Training and Technical
Assistance Center, 2015). Frequent discussions within IEP teams, including parents and students,
are essential to clarify student progress and any adjustments to support and services (Wakeman
et al., 2021; William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Equity in grading means fairness and impartiality, which is challenging when practices
differ across teachers, especially in middle and high schools (Carey & Carifio, 2012; Wakeman
et al., 2021). Consistency is crucial to ensure grades have a clear and stable meaning (Carey &
Carifio, 2012; Wakeman et al., 2021). Schools can achieve consistency by outlining performance
standards for mastery and adopting similar expectations across teachers. To address this,
common grading adaptations for students with significant cognitive disabilities can be
developed, such as progress on IEP objectives, improvement over past performance,
prioritization of content, and modified weights and scales (Wakeman et al., 2021). These
adaptations, applicable across content areas and time, promote consistency and can be
incorporated into a standards-based rubric. Implementing these adaptations involves

43
collaborative planning by a team, as outlined by Munk and Bursuck (2004; Wakeman et al.,
2021).
Grades can significantly support future learning by incorporating summative measures
across time, emphasizing current mastery, and involving students in self-assessment with clear
criteria (Brookhart et al., 2016; Dixson & Worrell, 2016; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019; Wakeman et
al., 2021). A formative approach to grading creates a learning culture that encourages progress
toward mastery (Carey & Carifio, 2012; Link & Guskey, 2022; NSTA, 2019; Wakeman et al.,
2021). Standards-based grading, focusing on the student’s current performance relative to
learning targets, provides valuable information for supporting learning within instruction (Link
& Guskey, 2022; NSTA, 2019; Wakeman et al., 2021; Zimmerman, 2017). For students with
significant cognitive disabilities, a vertical alignment of standards allows the team to select
closely related foundational skills, enabling more meaningful, accurate, and supportive grading
(Wakeman et al., 2021).
Theoretical Framework
As stated, this study identified current grading practices for SPED students in Grades 2 to
8. The research identified any challenges or barriers SPED teachers face when grading their
students. As Solórzano and Yosso (2002) state, students who are part of historically marginalized
groups are held to educational standards developed by the White majority. The practices that are
embedded in our educational system, which have a White supremacy focus, are not the most
beneficial practices for special education students. Additionally, there is no systematic approach
to grading (Dorn, 2010). Compliance and behavior frequently show in grades and do not show
students’ true knowledge (Feldman, 2019; Wakeman et al., 2021).

44
This research utilized the conceptual framework modeled after Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Theory. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory focuses on the interconnectedness of
multiple systems that affect a child’s development, including the student’s immediate
environment, family, school setting, laws, and cultural values (Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans,
2023). The theory is divided into four systems: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem,
and the macrosystem (Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans, 2023; Tudge, 2016). These four systems
work together to help mold a child. With significant disproportionality in the overrepresentation
of students of color in special education, it is important to examine all the systems influencing a
student (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2020). Part of the disproportionality is due to
educator mindset, current grading policies, educator bias, and the societal perception of special
education (Feldman, 2019; Spaulding & Pratt, 2015; Van Ewijk, 2011). To create a more
systematic approach to equitable grading, the first step is to realize that the educational system
currently handicaps certain students (Jones & Okun, 2001).
According to Bronfenbrenner’s theory, the microsystem is the level closest to the child.
This is representative of special education teachers and the services provided to the student.
These relationships in the microsystem are reciprocal. The things in the microsystem can
influence the student in the environment, and the child can influence the environment
(Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans, 2023; Tudge, 2016). The interactions within the microsystem
are essential in developing the child and can be very personal (Guy-Evans, 2023; Tudge, 2016).
The mesosystem is where the microsystem and exosystem work together (Christensen,
2016; Guy-Evans, 2023; Tudge, 2016). In this instance, the special education services and
teacher will work with the school board, community and school culture, the district, and grading
policies. The two systems will work together to explore what grading practices to implement

45
when following district regulations and best practices for grading special education students. The
relationship between the micro and exosystem is crucial for the mesosystem to impact the child
positively.
The exosystem is the next layer of the framework. The exosystem works in collaboration
with the microsystem. This framework layer indirectly influences the student by incorporating
social structures such as district school boards, district grading policies, school district culture,
and community culture (Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans, 2023; Tudge, 2016). This layer does not
directly impact the student, but the work of those in this system can affect the child.
The last layer is the macrosystem. This layer focuses on how policies or cultural elements
affect a child (Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans, 2023; Tudge, 2016). In this instance, policies like
IDEA and ESSA affect the student. Additionally, the federal and state governments and the U.S.
Department of Education are part of this layer, since they help create the policies that school
districts need to enforce. The concepts in this layer affect the students through the systems they
create.

46
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Summary
There are suggested grading practices that promote a more equitable approach. These
grading practices are not assigning 0s, minimizing the grade scale to 0–4, standard-based
grading, formative assessments, emphasis on mastery learning, and removal of behavior or effort
grading (Feldman, 2019; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; Wakeman et al., 2021). Although these
suggestions have been provided, little research supports these assumptions (Olsen & Buchanan,
2019). Additionally, there is even less research on equitable grading practices for special
education students (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Guidelines support equitable grading, such as
emphasizing collaboration between general and special education teachers with the case manager
and guidance if accommodations are needed (Feldman, 2019; Gersten et al., 1996; Wakeman et

47
al., 2021). Chapter 3 provides the methodology and empirical methods used to understand gaps
in current practices to identify equitable grading practices for special education students between
Grades 2 and 8.

48
Chapter Three: Methodology
Introduction
This study examined the grading practices of SPED teachers in two school districts. It
also identified teachers’ challenges to implementing equitable grading practices within a
classroom of SPED students from Grades 2 to 8. Identifying equitable grading practices for
SPED students and determining the obstacles teachers frequently face will help further break
down the daily barriers that SPED students face. Additionally, this study has furthered the
literature on equitable grading practices for SPED students, which has minimal research. This
chapter provides an overview of the methodology for this study, data sources, strategies used to
maximize credibility and trustworthiness, ethical implications, my positionality and my
relationship to the study, and limitations and delimitations of the study.
To gain insight into equitable grading practices for SPED students in Grades 2 to 8, the
study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are teachers’ current grading practices for elementary and middle school
students identified as SPED in Northern California school districts?
2. What are the challenges and barriers for teachers implementing equitable grading
practices for elementary and middle school SPED students in Northern California
school districts?
Overview of Methodology
The methodological design of this study is qualitative; the data were collected through
interviews. Qualitative research offers insights created by individuals’ lived experiences and
delves into their interpretations of those experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative
data gathered through the interviews demonstrated the obstacles and barriers special education

49
teachers face when implementing grading practices. The data also highlighted the current
grading practices special education teachers utilize. The participants’ perceptions in this study
are critical to understanding what is currently utilized in classrooms and the barriers, if any,
teachers face while grading special education students.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with six special education teachers who support Grades 2
through 8 and have taught special education for at least 2 years. The initial goal was to interview
15–20 participants from school districts in Northern California. I emailed 45 teachers to recruit
for the research and sent three follow-up emails. Only eight people responded, and of the eight
who responded, only six people met the criteria for research. The districts included my current
district where I am employed and a district where I was once employed. Before interviews took
place, participants reviewed the informed consent information sheet (see Appendix H).
Interviews were conducted in approximately 60–75 minutes via Zoom. The protocol was semistructured with 33 questions, and I was able to ask follow-up questions to clarify or elicit deeper
responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviewing participants allowed me to hear participants’
perspectives, which cannot be observed in a classroom (Patton, 2002).
Sample and Population
The participants were elementary and middle school special education teachers who teach
between the second and eighth grades. For the qualitative interviews, I purposefully selected
educators who met the previously described criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I recruited
participants by emailing a description of the study and participants’ expectations (see Appendix
I). Additionally, I stated that, if further questions arose, I would schedule a phone call or set up a
Zoom meeting to answer inquiries. In the initial email sent to special education teachers, I

50
requested that all teachers have taught for at least 2 years. The 2-year minimum was to ensure
participants had graded before the interviews and had formed opinions and initial philosophies
about grading. Next, if teachers shared that they were interested in being involved with the
research, I sent the possible participants prescreening questions. The prescreening questions,
created via Google Forms, were used to identify if the possible participants had some experience
with equitable grading practices (Appendix J). Prescreening participants allowed for richer data.
Instrumentation
A semi-structured interview was conducted. The interview consisted of 33 questions,
with the ability to ask clarifying questions to elicit a deeper response to better understand a
participant’s viewpoint or experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). There were six sections of the
interview. The first two sections allowed me to learn about the participants and their background
knowledge. This helped me learn more about the participants and allowed me to build trust. The
third section started to address RQ 1 and learn about grading practices implemented and how the
grading practices supported special education students. The fourth and fifth sections started to
address RQ 2. In these sections, the participants shared obstacles, barriers, and support given to
learn about grading. The final section was to allow the participants to share anything further or
clarify anything previously discussed (Appendix K).
Data Collection Procedures
The interview lasted about 60–75 minutes and was hosted via Zoom. Zoom was used so I
could utilize the transcription feature and record the interviews. Recording the interviews helped
collect accurate data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, I took handwritten notes of ideas
shared to either follow up with a probing question or keep track of the main themes shared.
Interviews were offered outside the teachers’ work hours. Interviews were offered before

51
8:00 a.m. and after 2:30 p.m. It was vital to keep confidentiality by assigning each participant a
number code or pseudonym (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All interviews were saved in a
password-protected folder, handwritten notes were typed and saved in the password-protected
folder, and the handwritten notes were shredded.
Data Analysis
In the data analysis, I interpreted the participants’ statements, recognized patterns, and
synthesized information gathered throughout the interviews (Patton, 2002). Additionally, I coded
interview transcripts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The coding process involved identifying similar
phrases, connections to the conceptual framework, patterns, findings, and themes (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Once coded, I identified generalizations summarizing shared themes (Lochmiller
& Lester, 2017). During the interview process, I journaled to help me be reflective about my
biases and thoughts. While I was working on my coding, I reread my journal entries and
reflected to ensure my biases were not altering the data.
Positionality of the Researcher
I am a White, middle-class woman who has not been identified with a learning
difference. I am passionate about equitable grading practices and have seen firsthand how
grading practices alter student mindsets throughout my educational career. I have also witnessed
how special education students are not held to the same high standards as their counterparts. As a
teacher, instructional coach, site administrator, and district personnel, I have seen the disconnect
between how educators and students view grades and what each stakeholder thinks a grade
means. Some students and families are misinformed when a student receives an A. When many
students and families receive an A, it communicates that the student is performing at or above
expectations. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

52
I approached the study with a transformative worldview and a critical feminist paradigm.
The research focused on how educators’ views on grading are shaped by economic, social,
cultural, and political forces and tried to uncover issues for historically marginalized groups
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). How people grade is not intended to harm students; therefore, it
was imperative to understand viewpoints and various perspectives around grading practices. To
help combat the power dynamics in the situation, I wanted to ensure all participants knew I was
eager to learn so we can identify the best grading practices for special education students.
A bias I needed to be cognizant of when researching is the assumption that SPED
students need additional or different equitable grading practices than general education students.
I had to be mindful that I have no personal experiences related to being a SPED student.
Additionally, as a White female, I had to be reflective and mindful about placing my perspective
of what I think is right onto others. I tried to avoid being the intervener/reformer (Glesne, 2011).
To name who one is as a researcher, one needs to be reflective on positionality (Douglas &
Nganga, 2013). Although I succeeded in the educational system, school was not easy. I have
many traumas from school. During the research, I was looking for
an equitable system [that] does not treat all students in a standardized way but
differentiates instruction, services, and resources to respond effectively to the diverse
needs of students so that each student can develop his or her full academic and societal
potential. (Ngounou & Gutierrez, 2017, p. 40)
When researching grading practices, I looked to see how teachers can “move away from using
uniform ‘best practices’ toward the personalization of learning that is culturally and linguistically
responsive so that each one of their students successfully reaches standards of excellence”
(Colton et al., 2016, p. 10).

53
I researched within Northern California districts to identify current grading practices for
special education students by interviewing six educators. The six final participants who met the
selection criteria were all teachers with whom I had a previous relationship. At the time of the
study, I did not have a supervisory role for the participants. I have served as a seventh and eighth
grade math teacher, a district math coach who supported TK–8 teachers, a middle school vice
principal, a middle school principal, and a district office coordinator. Although I gathered data as
a researcher, some participants could see me as a someone who holds power, or even their
former colleague. It was imperative for me to share my expectations of trying to gather research
to address inequities in education (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017), and I was not looking for
particular responses or evaluating the participants.
Ethics
The principles guided by institutional review boards (IRB) were closely followed
(Glesne, 2011). Participants in the study received information regarding the study to make an
informed decision on whether to participate. Information was emailed to teachers directly. Since
I interviewed people at my current district, I was transparent with participants, letting them know
they could withdraw at any point in the research and they would not be negatively impacted. I do
not hold a supervisory position over any teacher. My current role in the district office does not
include supervising any special education teachers.
Additionally, in the other district, I do not currently work with any teacher, nor do I have
any supervisory positions over any teacher in the district. Another ethical point I considered was
the interview environment. It was important to create an environment where teachers felt safe
and comfortable to respond openly without fear of judgment. I followed Rubin and Rubin’s
(2012) ethical responsibilities while engaging with participants. Ethical research includes

54
demonstrating respect by listening and observing closely (Smith, 2002). As indicated in my
information sheet, all teachers’ personal identifiers will remain confidential (Glesne, 2011).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain that credibility is sharing accurate findings and
sharing the participants’ experiences. It was imperative for me to elicit rich, descriptive details
from the participants and share those findings. Another way to be credible and build trust with
participants is by sharing the research process and building rapport with those interviewed
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although it is essential to stay unbiased
during research, it is impossible to eliminate positionality and all biases (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). To combat this, I was aware of biases entering the research; being aware helped me be
mindful of interview reactions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participating in journaling helped me
stay present and aware of biases and thoughts. Journaling helped me be reflective and be
intentional in my thought process. Lastly, when reviewing transcripts and coding data, I
diligently searched for information disconfirming assumptions.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are some limitations in this research. As I am a district office employee, some
people may see me in a position of power. Some participants may have answered with responses
they thought I wanted to hear or may have been nervous about sharing their true philosophy or
responses. It was imperative for me to form trust with the participants so they could share their
true thoughts and perspectives. Doing so helped me understand how people interpret their
experiences and construct their environment (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Another limitation of
this study was time. Research was conducted over a short period of time. Having a short amount
of time limited the number of participants to be interviewed. There are also delimitations in this

55
research. One delimitation is that only six teachers were selected for the interview. Analyzing
this small population does not account for the multiple perspectives of other teachers. Another
delimitation is interviewing from a small pool of special education teachers in Northern
California. This minimizes the perspectives that were shared.

56
Chapter Four: The Findings
This study examined the grading practices of SPED teachers who support SPED students
in Grades 2 through 8. It also identified challenges or barriers in implementing equitable grading
practices within a SPED classroom. The following research questions guided the study:
1. What are teachers’ current grading practices for elementary and middle school
students identified as SPED in Northern California school districts?
2. What are the challenges and barriers for teachers implementing equitable grading
practices for elementary and middle school SPED students in Northern California
school districts?
In review, the theoretical framework that guided this study is modeled after Bronfenbrenner’s
Ecological Theory. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory highlights the interconnectedness of
multiple systems that affect a child’s development. These systems include a student’s immediate
environment, school setting, laws, and cultural values (Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans, 2023).
Qualitative data were collected from a semi-structured interview with six special education
teachers. Interview responses were captured via Zoom recording and transcription. The
responses were analyzed utilizing Atlas. After analyzing the teacher responses, themes were
identified and documented.
Participants
The participants in this study are special education teachers who teach students between
the second and eighth grades. The teachers have also taught for a minimum of 2 years. My goal
was to interview 15–20 teachers from school districts in Northern California. I emailed 45
teachers to recruit for the research and sent three follow-up emails. Only eight people responded,
and, of the eight who responded, only six from Northern California districts met the criteria for

57
research. All participants participated in the prescreening survey and identified that they
practiced equitable grading. In the prescreening, most participants identified utilizing standardsbased grading, formative assessments, and test retakes as standard practices. The breakdown of
grading practices identified in the prescreening can be found in Table 1. Of the six participants,
four are considered special day class (SDC) teachers, and two are resource specialist (RSP)
teachers. Of the six teachers, two teachers have taught for over 20 years, three teachers have
taught for 10-plus years, and one teacher has taught for 3 years. The breakdown of participants
can be seen in Table 2.
Table 1
Prescreening Responses
Type of Grading Number of Participants Who Utilize Grading Type
Standards-Based Grading 5
Formative Assessment 5
Grading on a Continuum 2
No 0s on Assignments 3
Allow Assessment Retakes 5
Modified Grading 1
Grading with a Rubric 4

58
Table 2
Participants’ SPED Service, Grade-Level Support, Years of Experience, District
Participant SPED Service Grade Level Years of Experience District
(Pseudonym)
1 RSP Grades 6–8 16 years CESD
2 SDC Grades K–4 15 years MUSD
3 SDC Grades 1–3 10 years MUSD
4 SDC Grades 1–5 3 years CESD
5 RSP Grades TK–8 20+ years MUSD
6 SDC Grades 7–8 20+ years MUSD
Findings for Research Question 1
What are teachers’ current grading practices for elementary and middle school students
identified as SPED in Northern California school districts?
How SPED teachers shared their current grading practices provided insight into their
grading philosophy, modifications, and considerations while grading. For grading to be fair and
equitable, it must be accurate, meaningful, consistent, and supportive of learning (Guskey &
Jung, 2009; Wakeman et al., 2021; William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center,
2015). Throughout the interviews, the participants shared their struggle to report accurate,
meaningful, and consistent grades that supported student learning. Participants shared that, even
when trying to implement grading practices that helped promote equity, such as not giving 0s,
allowing retakes, and accepting late assignments, there was a discrepancy between the grades
and where students were in their learning.
Accurate grading is essential for communicating student performance and progress
(Guskey & Jung, 2009; Wakeman et al., 2021). When accurate, grades separate behavior and

59
academic scores (Guskey & Jung, 2009; Jung & Guskey, 2012; Marzano & Hefelbower, 2011;
Wakeman et al., 2021). Participant 1 shared her struggle with removing behavior from grades by
saying, “If I know they’re putting in effort, then I know they’re trying, and I do give them some
leeway there if I know that they’ve been there. They are trying to do what they can do.” Grades
are meaningful when aligned with grade-level standards and show a student’s strengths and areas
of need (Guskey & Jung, 2009; Jung & Guskey, 2012; Wakeman et al., 2021; Zimmerman,
2017). All participants identified that accurately depicting student knowledge based on gradelevel standards was challenging. As Participant 2 stated, it is challenging because, on the report
card standards, many of her students get “2, 2, 2 for them or mostly 1s.” Participant 6 shared that
it is challenging to remove behavior grades like effort because parents “make it really hard too.
Because they will say, ‘But they tried.’” According to Participant 1, part of the reason there is a
discrepancy between grades and where students are in their learning is students are assessed on
grade-level standards, and “if they could do that, like I said, they wouldn’t be in special
education. So why are we holding them accountable to standards that we know they can’t meet?”
Grading needs to be consistent. There is a lack of equity when there is no consistency
across teachers, grade levels, and a school (Wakeman et al., 2021). To be consistent with
grading, stakeholders need to define mastery and have similar expectations across teachers
(Wakeman et al., 2021). There can be no consistency when all six participants do not follow
either the district-prescribed grading policy or the district does not have a grading policy to
follow. Participant 6 said,
I don’t really know it [the grading policy] except for the fact that we don’t start at 0%.
We start at 50%, and I think that might just be a school thing because that came up at one
of our staff meetings.

60
Participant 5 shared, “We can decide if they are either [graded] on their IEP goals or the district
curriculum.”
Lastly, grading needs to support student learning. When grading, a teacher assesses a
student’s progress, emphasizing current evidence and including a student’s self-assessment (Jung
& Guskey, 2011; Wakeman et al., 2021). Every participant shared that they prefer to grade on
students’ growth versus grade-level mastery; however, they do not systematically grade that way.
Two participants shared the importance of including students in tracking their progress on IEP
goals. Participants 3 and 5 frequently included students in goal tracking. Participant 3 said, “I
have them track their own goals by coloring [a bar graph]. They like it. They like it. They’re very
involved, and they know what they’re doing.” Participant 4 shared the importance of
conferencing with students. She said,
I try to conference with them more because I feel like it’s really hard, especially for the
students that I work with in fifth grade that have been in RSP since second or first grade.
I hear them say, you know, “I just can’t do this.” Like, “I don’t know how to do this,” and
I try to give them a little bit of hope and let them know that they can do things.
Participant 5, an RSP teacher, discussed the importance of grade-level standards, but has to
simplify the standard:
Well, so with the grade-level standard, I can still chunk it down. For example, there, if it
says reading a grade-level passage at whatever percentage blah blah blah. I can chunk
that grade-level passage down. It’s still grade level. It’s just an easier reading level or less
words.
There is minimal research on grading practices for SPED students. Some research
highlights how standards-based grading is the most accurate method to assess student abilities;

61
however, special education students may need modifications or accommodations (Guskey &
Jung, 2009; Jung & Guskey, 2011). To make standards-based grading accurate, three forms of
evidence should be gathered and reported separately: product, process, and progress (Guskey,
2006; Guskey & Bailey, 2010; Jung & Guskey, 2011). Grades focus on the product and identify
what a student knows at a point in time in summative assessments like projects or tests (Jung &
Guskey, 2011). Next are process grades. Process grades are focused on a student’s behavior,
such as responsibility, study skills, effort, and participation, to help accomplish goals (Jung &
Guskey, 2011). Last are progress grades. Progress grades report the growth or change in a
student’s knowledge in the grading term (Jung & Guskey, 2011).
Theme 1: Emphasis on IEP Goals
IEP goals are an essential part of an IEP. The IEP team develops a yearly goal that targets
the student’s disability or academic needs (GreatSchools Staff, 2014). Based on the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, IEP academic goals must be aligned to gradelevel standards and are created based on evaluations, feedback, and data (California Department
of Education, 2014; Caruana, 2015). According to the California Department of Education
(2014), even if a student is performing below grade level, the student should still be learning
grade-level content to help close the learning opportunity gap. The National Center for Learning
Disabilities (2020) also promotes standards-based IEPs and advocates for students with learning
disabilities to access grade-level curriculum and instruction.
Five of the six participants said there was more emphasis on IEP goals, which are
connected to standards but might not be connected to grade-level standards. Participant 6 said it
can be challenging to grade with IEP goals because some parents push back on how to grade.
She said,

62
My first couple of years where they’re [parents] like, “How are they, you know, how are
they really doing on their goals?” One dad said, “You will grade based on the goals,
right?” I’m like, hmm. But you know, I mean, it’s hard when you’re trying to teach
grade-level stuff.
Participant 1 shared the process of identifying IEP goals and attaching the goals to standards.
However, grade-level standards are considered, but “they [the students] aren’t always there. That
part of it doesn’t show in the report card, but it’s shown in their goal progress report.” She also
said,
That was actually how we do their goals. So we can look at a grade-level goal, and then
go down because they are aligned, and go down the grades until we find where they are.
Then we put the goal at, you know, above where they are now so that they can work
towards it. So, that basically is how we grade them is their goal progress, which is based
on standards. It’s just where they are in the standard versus what grade they are
physically in.
These quotes highlight the struggle to teach grade-level standards. Participant 5 stated it is
acceptable for students to be graded differently than general education students because “some
students, they’re not graded on the regular curriculum. They’re graded on their IEP goals.”
Teachers struggle to meet state criteria of aligning IEP goals to grade-level standards, and
parents push the case managers to grade solely on IEP goals.
According to Wakeman et al. (2021), all stakeholders, including guardians and students,
must determine what mastery means. This includes deciding whether grading is based on product
or progress (Jung & Guskey, 2007; Wakeman et al., 2021). Five participants stated the
importance of involving students in either self-assessment or knowing where they are performing

63
regarding their IEP goals. Participant feedback on the importance of involving students in the
process can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3
The Importance of Involving Students
Participant Example Quotes
Participant
1
“I do like to give them an opportunity at times to be able to grade themselves like
if they do a project, and like I gave them a rubric. I let them kind of evaluate how
they thought they did. The students do tend to be harder on themselves than the
teachers do. So, they tend to give themselves a lower grade than I would give
them, which is kind of interesting. For the most part, there are a few that are
going to give themselves an A no matter what, but overall, they tend to be kind of
kind of rough on themselves. But I think it’s good for them to evaluate where
they are.”
Participant
2
“So, involving students is really important. Because when they know, they
challenge themselves.”
“As I shared, I think, whenever assessing a child making sure we are not
restricted to what kind of response we are assessing. So more wider range on, you
know, the child’s response. It could be written or oral. So that is one thing which
I always think is very important. Secondly, is involving students.”
Participant
3
“I have them track their own goals by coloring [a bar graph]. They like it. They
like it. They’re very involved, and they know what they’re doing.”
Participant
4
“Every few weeks, I will have them do things on their goals to update their
progress report so that there’s multiple trials.”
Participant
5
“Some students, they’re not graded on the regular curriculum. They’re graded on
their IEP goals.”

64
Every participant said that how they report IEP goals is accurate for student knowledge, a
grade based on a product. Participant 3 stated,
My grading philosophy is what the student gets; that’s what it is. I don’t want to fake
everything, and sometimes there is some. Sometimes, it happens that we want to make
sure that the kids are able to achieve the goal. But I want the truth. And my integrity. I
did my best, but still. I need to be transparent about what the student can do, so we can
help the student.
Although teachers are not always aligning IEP goals and instruction to grade-level standards, all
participants shared that IEP goals were a more accurate representation of a student’s knowledge.
IEP goals allowed the teacher to scale down grade levels if needed. The IEP goals also help the
teacher or case manager determine how to grade in the classroom. Participant quotes on utilizing
IEP goals to grade in the classroom can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4
IEP Goals Guiding Classwork Grading
Participant Example Quotes
Participant
5
“You know, they’re [the class] writing a five-paragraph essay. If they [SPED
student] just get their point across with the main points, I’m not necessarily gonna
be like, ‘Oh, you only did 10 sentences per paragraph.’ I wouldn’t say the bare
minimum, but I would say as long as they’re meeting the goal and following the
rubrics, then yeah, I feel like it’s equitable.”
Participant
6
“If they’re in a general class and they’re being asked to write an essay about
something, I cannot grade them on that; they would fail. So, I would grade them
based on if their writing goal is to write a paragraph, and then if they could tell
me about everything they’re supposed to, then that’s how I grade them.”

65
Theme 2: Individualized Grading Practices
Students with IEPs automatically have accommodations and modifications teachers need
to follow. Also, students have IEP goals to guide the case managers. Another area of assessment
focus is classroom assessments. Jung and Guskey (2011) have created a model to help with
inclusive grading (see Appendix L). In the model, one can see there are particular questions to
ask when grading a student with an IEP. If the teacher thinks no support is needed, there is no
change in how the teacher reports the grade. If the teacher thinks support is needed, the next
question is what support is needed? If only an accommodation is needed, the teacher will not
change how the grade reports. An accommodation allows a student access but does not change or
lower the grade-level expectation of the skill. If the teacher thinks modifications are needed, then
the teacher will need to determine the modified standard, determine the grade based on the
modified standard, and note that the standard was modified.
During the interviews, participants focused on the importance of individualizing grading
for students in special education. Each participant shared examples of how they individualize
assessment and evaluation for students. According to Caruana (2015), giving SPED students
opportunities to learn and be assessed in multiple ways is crucial. These examples can be seen in
Table 5.

66
Table 5
Examples of Multiple Ways of Assessing Students
Participant Example Quotes
Participant
1
“So, I try and give them every opportunity to make up or to do an alternate
assignment. So, if writing is difficult for them, having to do PowerPoint or if they
are super worried about trying to present in front of people, I let them do it with
just myself. So, I want to give them every opportunity to show the skills that they
have and to be able to be proud of themselves on what they accomplish.”
Participant
2
“There are different learning styles. So, I have also seen some of my students
who are really a good orator and cannot write. So, I, well, and I have a writing
piece to, you know, grade with the rubric. And the child knows a lot, but the child
cannot, you know, write so much. He can orally. So, I have to sometime change
the assignment, same assignment, but the child is presenting orally. That is
something I feel like it’s not fair like my student, yes, he can do it. I mean, he
can, he knows it, but if you’re just grading because of how he can write, so it’s
not, it’s not fair. It’s important multiple ways to assess a particular concept.”
Participant
5
“Maybe they’re strong with not writing, so we could do, true and false or multiple
choice.”
Participant
6
“I make a different test for them too so I can’t give everybody the same test. For
some kids, I’ll sit with them and all ask them, ‘What do you, what do you think
about this?’ They’ll answer it and then I’ll say, ‘Okay, write it down the best you
can.’ Sometimes it helps them because they don’t even understand the question
sometimes. So we will ask them to read it and explain the question. Every kid in
here is so different. You know, it’s very rare to have more than two or three kids
taking the same exact test.”
“So, I just want to know what they know. So, if I have to rewrite the test or do it
in a different way to make sure I know if they know the subject, then I’ll do that.
Like right now I have them doing project instead of a test to show me that they
know the vocab. But every kid has, you know, I have to rewrite a lot of
assessments for these kids.”
Participants also shared how they individualized grading for SPED students by modifying
or utilizing accommodations. It is essential to know the difference between modifying and using
accommodations. According to Jung and Guskey (2011), accommodations provide more access
by giving support but do not change grade-level expectations. Modifications change grade-level
expectations, and it should be reported that the grade is not grade level (Jung & Guskey, 2011).

67
Each participant had a different approach to modification or accommodations. These approaches
can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6
Modification Determinations
Participant Example Quotes
Participant
1
“I hate to say this, but they’re not super objective. They’re more of a how do you
feel they did. Were they doing what they could do? You know, even though they
did you know, they did everything. They turned everything in they tried everything
then even though they didn’t do well on any of it. I’m still going to give them a
grade a better grade than if they done nothing at all. If they’re having a really bad
day, or something I can exempt certain assignments that you know, they were
weren’t able to do that particular assignment that I might exempt that grade that
one assignment from the grade. So yeah, I do exempt sometimes I exempt grades
or something like that if it’s for one reason or another. So you really do need to
know your kids that you’re working with and know what’s going on in their life
and have communication with the parents and kind of know you need to know
them.”
“I have to make sure whether students have previous knowledge on any particular
topic, which is also at the same time, it is challenging. So, so keeping that that in
mind. So, a little bit of achievement where they can achieve, and little bit more
challenging. So, keeping those two things in mind.”
Participant
3
“In special education, it’s different because we make our own accommodations
and modifications in the curriculum.”
Participant
4
“They’re (modifications) in the IEP. So, they’re in the IEP, we talk about them
during the IEP meetings. Myself or even the psychologist or sometimes the
general education teachers; we’ll communicate modifications that need to
happen. A lot of the time it is me modifying the work. So, for example, like even
just thinking about Eureka math. You know, sometimes they have, I don’t know,
like 6 or 7 questions, right, with the A, B, C, and D. So, they’ll have the, you
know, the first page where they have to do, multiple calculations. So oftentimes
I’ll modify and you know, only give them half of what the test wants them to do
for the students that do have it.”
Participant
5
“Like I said, different accommodations, but we modify it too much, then we’re
really not getting him to the rigor where he needs to be, and sometimes special
education teachers do. What’s the word? They coddle. I don’t know a better
word.”
Participant
6
They might not have goals in areas that they struggle with, but, you know, I will
know if they can read it if they could tell it to me out loud. Maybe they can’t write
it down, but they can explain it to me. You know, so you have to have
modifications put in place, you know. They just they really if they can do it we
need to do it in different ways.

68
Table 7 highlights accommodations teachers detailed during the interviews. Each teacher
has a different approach to grading, and some of these teachers are within the same district. Like
Wakeman et al. (2021) say, teachers across a school and district must be aligned for equitable
grading.
Table 7
Participant Accommodations
Participant Accommodations
Participant
1
Extra time, ability to turn in a late assignment for no penalty, use of assistive
technology, visual supports, timeline for completing an assignment/project,
chunk material, graphic organizer
Participant
2
Extra time, ability to turn in a late assignment for no penalty, use of assistive
technology, environment, frequent breaks, smaller setting
Participant
3
Extra time, ability to turn in a late assignment for no penalty, frequent breaks,
smaller setting
Participant
4
Extra time, ability to turn in a late assignment for no penalty
Participant
5
Extra time, ability to turn in a late assignment for no penalty, chunk material,
frequent breaks, separate testing
Participant
6
Extra time, ability to turn in a late assignment for no penalty, visual supports,
frequent breaks, smaller setting, separate testing
Participants shared common grading practices they utilized for students. Participants
identified the need for reassessing students, not giving 0s on missing assignments, grading with a
rubric, and utilizing formative assessments to continue to gauge student learning. Formative
assessment was a concept used by all participants. Participants liked the ability to gauge where
students are in their learning and adjust instruction based on the data. Table 8 highlights the
types of grading practices participants utilize.

69
Table 8
Types of Grading Practices Utilized by Participants
Participant Example Quote
Participant
1
“I wish I was better at them [formative assessments]. I think it’s a good idea to
kind of see where they are so that you can adjust what you’re teaching so that
you’re helping them to find out what they’re missing and what they need a little
more help with. So, you can kind of guide that helps to guide your instruction.
So, I think it’s good that way. However, special ed students have a really hard
time with any kind of test.”
“I definitely do not give 0s. In fact, they don’t always give 50% regardless of
whether they turn it in or not. Because if they get anything less than 50%, it’s
almost impossible for them to come back from that. If they’ve missed a lot of
work or not turning things in, even if they do great on the next half of their work,
they still can’t bring that grade up if you give them less than 50% when they’re
not turning in work.”
Participant
2
“Formative assessment is something that I would say, yeah, I would like because
it’s like ongoing and it is more instructional base. You get to know how much
you have taught, as a teacher, you get a baseline for yourself. Also, as I was
saying that if you know all the students did wrong on identifying the roots, that
means I can, you know, go back and redo a mini lesson. So yes, formative testing
is something that I am completely in favor of.”
“I like to have the rubric and then challenge them on basis of that. So, grading
them according to that.”
Participant
3
“I’m so for the formative assessment. They’re very helpful. They’re really helpful
to us. You have the target objective or the standards. So, for me, for a special
education teacher, we can break down a formative assessment into a more
informative assessment.”
“My response to that [giving 0s], it’s unfair. It’s unfair for the students because
we are looking at the expectation within the curriculum, not what the student
needs. All students are not the same. There could be students with disabilities,
there could be students of social issues, and there are students who have trauma at
home. We have to be more patient. More flexible with the students.”
Participant
4
“I’ve had to retake things a few times, so I think that’s a part of life. If we are
working on helping students understand perseverance or even risk-taking, I think
that that requires students to be able to retake. I don’t think that’s coddling. I
think that’s showing support, and sometimes certain students need that more than
others.”
“I think they’re [formative assessments] important. They give insight and let you
know how students are performing, I guess. I question though, it almost kind of
seems like we do the assessments because we’re obligated to do it or we’re
regulated to do it, but then I feel like there’s no…we don’t do anything with the
information. You know? I’ve been in places where, you know, they really
analyze the data and then you do like small groups and stuff like that. So, I see

70
Participant Example Quote
the impact of that, but then I don’t really see the impact if you’re not doing
anything with the information.”
Participant
5
“I mean they [formative assessments] have a place, because I do the Woodcock
all the time. So yes, I mean, we need to know where they are, where they’re
having difficulties, but then, you know, we add other assessments too, so we’re
not just looking at one form of assessment.”
Participant
6
“They’re [formative assessments] really important for the ongoing feedback and
adjustment of my strategies of my teaching. So, I want to know that I’m meeting
their needs. So, as I do my assessments and give them feedback; I mean, it’s like
constantly walking around and seeing how they’re doing. Giving them little
quizzes, giving them tests just to see if I am meeting their needs? Are they getting
this? Because some of these kids could sit here every day and just fly under the
radar.”
“I will have them retake it if I think that that’s not their best. I make a different
test for them too.”
Theme 3: Focus on Behavior
According to Wakeman et al. (2021), separating behavior parts of the grade from the
academic piece is essential. As Jung and Guskey (2011) state, effort and work habits are part of
the process grades. They are essential, but they should not be lumped into one category.
Research highlights that, when grades are inflated and not connected to student achievement,
students believe grades are who they are versus what they can do, leading to decreased
motivation (Jung & Guskey, 2011). It has the opposite effect that a teacher strives for. Participant
1 emphasized,
I definitely do let them know that the grades don’t define who they are or what they can
do. I guess I’m more concerned with their social-emotional state, I guess, than the other
[grades] because it’s [mental health] becoming more and more critical.
This sentiment can also be seen from Participant 4, who stated, “Grades on effort and
participation are fine.” Participant 6 had a similar philosophy as Participants 1 and 4. Participant
6 stated, “I grade based on goals, their effort, their progress, and their development of reading,

71
writing, and math.” Participant 6 later stated, “If a student doesn’t put their full effort into it, I
usually give them time to redo it.” Participant 3 had a very different opinion on grades with
effort. He stated, “I’ll just focus on the standard of this student; I do not count the effort. I don’t
count the behavior of the student. So, if that’s what the student did, I have to record it. The
behavior doesn’t matter.” These quotes again highlight the lack of consistency across teachers
and districts. They also show the need for more support and conversations on what a grade
means and should represent.
Discussion for Research Question 1
These three themes, grounded in participant responses, paint a picture of how SPED
teachers grade special education students. Participants articulated their current grading practices,
such as allowing test retakes, not giving 0s for missing assignments, utilizing formative
assessments, and using standards-based grading. Participants also shared the lack of consistency
between deciding modifications and accommodations. There was also a lack of understanding
regarding standards-based grading. Participants shared combining product, process, and progress
grades; however, those three areas should be separated (Jung & Guskey, 2007; Wakeman et al.,
2021). Participants also stated the importance of IEP goals, how IEP goals guide how they assess
students in the classroom, and the need for more emphasis on IEP goals over grade-level
curriculum. Participants also shared the lack of grade level–appropriate IEP goals, but the
emphasis was that all IEP goals are standards based. IEP goals not aligned with grade-level
standards were an interesting piece to share, since all IEP goals should be aligned with gradelevel standards (Alarcon & Luckasson, 2017). Lastly, participants shared mixed responses
regarding behavior and grading. One participant was adamant that behavior and grading should
be separated. This is also supported by research from Jung and Guskey (2007). Other participants

72
thought it was important to grade students with an emphasis on effort and protect students’
mental health from failure. Grades regarding effort, behavior, and study skills should be
separated from the academic performance scores (Jung & Guskey, 2010; William & Mary
Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Findings for Research Question 2
What are the challenges and barriers for teachers implementing equitable grading
practices for elementary and middle school SPED students in Northern California school
districts?
Grading is seen as a teacher’s final piece of professional autonomy (Feldman, 2019;
Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). With that autonomy, lack of preparation in college courses, lack of
professional development, systemic and structural barriers, and challenges to individualized
grading, it is challenging to grade students equitably. Building an equitable grading system first
begins with preparing teachers. As of today, teacher preparation programs offer limited guidance
and support on grading practices (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Participants in this study highlight
this assertion. Equity of grading will only improve when grades are systematically discussed in
an education setting (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019). Teacher training programs typically assume that
schools will teach new teachers how to grade, but consistent grading philosophies are rarely
present in public schools or even within grade-level departments (Olsen & Buchanan, 2019).
Even when a school district has a structured grading policy, teachers either do not follow it or
still work within the grading policy and grade vastly different from each other (Feldman, 2019;
Guskey, 2013; Olsen & Buchanan, 2019).

73
Theme 1: Insufficient Preparation in College Courses
Teacher preparation courses are essential to the continual development of the educational
field. Unfortunately, there is minimal support for developing a future teacher’s grading
philosophy and pedagogy. Teacher preparedness, including having the skill set to grade, is
crucial as it considers a teacher’s readiness to educate students (Jozwik et al., 2020; Kashikar et
al., 2023; Lane et al., 2009). Additionally, grading and assessing students is something all
educators do multiple times a day, so to have little to no coursework is a disservice to our
students.
Five of the six participants said they had little to no coursework preparing them to grade.
The only participant who shared that they had extensive coursework on assessments and grading
was a participant who went to university in the Philippines. In the Philippines, he had four
semesters of assessments and grading. Table 9 details some participant quotes regarding their
experience with their preparation to grade as teachers.

74
Table 9
Participant Quotes Regarding Credentialing Program Coursework on Grading
Participant Example Quote
Participant
1
“I don’t think so? Not that I can remember. It certainly wasn’t a class. No, I really
don’t think it was covered. It should be, but I don’t think it was. Isn’t that wild?
I’ve never really thought about it. It’s interesting that you asked me that because
it’s like oh no, we were never told how to grade.”
Participant
2
“An okay amount [to discuss grading], not a good amount, like it was not very
much in depth.”
Participant
3
“In my previous country that I used to work gave me a lot of options and
mentoring on the different kinds of tools that I can use. So, I took four semesters
in the Philippines because I took my bachelors in the Philippines. It took us four
semesters to do a course, everything is just about assessment.”
Participant
4
“The special ed one, I don’t, I don’t think so.”
Regarding her general education credentialing program: “I don’t remember a
specific class or a topic talking about grading. I don’t feel really feel like they
touched on grading that much.”
Participant
5
“I don’t think so. I wanna say I don’t think so. I honestly, I think when did my
mild MoD in SPED, I think it was like talked about in terms of accommodations.
I don’t remember like a whole class on it. Even when I got my master’s, I don’t
even remember like a whole class on grading.”
Participant
6
“No, I don’t remember learning about grading, and if it was, it wouldn’t really
make sense. Like I jumped in, I had one class under my belt when I started
teaching. Like it was my very first course in the summertime and then I applied
for long-term subbing position in Santa Clara, and they called me and they said,
‘Hey we have a middle school position.’ At this point, I’ve only taken one
credential class. They said, ‘Yeah, you could still do your online classes at night
or go at night, and teach in the day.’ And I’m like, oh, well, that’s good. So, I
learned along the way. But I don’t ever remember learning about grading in those
classes; I might have.”
Theme 2: Inadequate Professional Development and Coaching
School districts must train their teachers through professional development and coaching
cycles due to the lack of college coursework and preparation during the credentialing program.
Even with little to no training, teachers consider numerous grading factors, including behavior,
weightings, and assignment choices (Brookhart et al., 2016; Feldman, 2019; Olsen & Buchanan,
2019). When participants were asked what grading professional development or coaching on

75
grading has been offered to them, five out of six participants said none. Participant 1 shared,
“None that I can remember. I think we maybe talked about it at a staff meeting, but not about
how grading is fair or whatever. I don’t think there’s ever been a professional development.”
Participant 2 shared that she has received training from her district, MUSD, about IEP goals. IEP
goals were a significant focus this last year, but she has not received other types of professional
development about grading. She said, “So basically, this year was all about goals. How we
should have measurable goals because sometime you write goals which you cannot measure and
assess.”
While analyzing participant responses about standards-based grading, it became apparent
that not all participants knew how best to utilize it. Many participants wished they could grade
based on progress and growth versus where students are currently in the grade-level standard.
This can be seen through Participant 1’s comments:
I know everything’s so standards based, but I would much rather see a different kind of
grading other than just letter grades and whether they’re meeting the standards. I would
like it if there was another way to where they would get credit for making growth rather
than, you know, they’re performing at average level or above average, or I think showing
their growth is more important.
Participant 4 shared her frustration with students who continually get 1s or 2s on the grade-level
report card standards. She said,
I don’t think the students who are in special education should [be] held up to the same
standard. Everyone should have high expectations, but I do not believe for the sake of
social-emotional well-being, I don’t think that it’s right to give students a number grade

76
and to continually, you know, tell them like, you know, essentially like you’re a 1 even
though you’re making growth. So that’s where I’m at.
These comments show the need to support special education teachers with reporting standardsbased grades. With standards-based grading, teachers separate and assign grades to the three
types of evidence. The importance here is that, previously, with more traditional grading,
teachers would combine product, process, and progress, but standards-based grading has all three
areas separated to show where students are in the learning continuum. It should be up to the IEP
team to determine what a grade means. If the IEP agrees, then grades can be reported based on
growth.
Theme 3: Systemic and Structural Barriers
Wakeman et al. (2021) state that it is vital for teachers to work together to agree upon
what a grade represents. This increases consistency across classrooms, which is essential to
equity in grading. Communication also needs to occur with stakeholders—parents and
students—regarding what a grade means. When sharing the grade, it is critical to identify
whether it is focused on the process, product, or progress (Jung & Guskey, 2007; Wakeman et
al., 2021). This eliminates confusion for the family. The IEP team, with parents and students,
should meet frequently to discuss grades and what they mean for students who are identified to
be in special education. These conversations bring meaning to grades and let the team know if
grades focus more on progress than product (Jung & Guskey, 2010; William & Mary Training
and Technical Assistance Center, 2015).
Collaboration structures need to be put in place to have conversations regarding grading.
Participants shared that there is a lack of time or structure to discuss grading students who have
IEPs. Case managers felt they did not have enough time to meet with general education teachers

77
to review expectations on accommodations, modifications, and best practices for grading.
Because of this, there is miscommunication between teachers and sometimes even between
teachers and parents. Table 10 has quotes compiled from participants highlighting the lack of
collaboration or structure for SPED and general education teachers to collaborate.
Table 10
Participant Feedback Regarding Lack of Systematic Collaboration Time
Participant Example Quotes
Participant
1
“Whereas if they’re in a general ed classes, the work isn’t always modified for
them.”
Participant
2
“I take myself into a accountability for that. After that incident, I made sure that I
have to communicate well with the [general education] teacher. So, it should be
the special education and the mainstream teacher collaborating because they need
to have clear expectations also like when the students come. So, when we share
the list of, you know, accommodations that you can do in the classroom, this
should also be a part of the conversation. That you know how are you grading
and you know if there is anything that establish constant communication.”
Participant
3
“We just have to give IEP, that’s it. Then if they [general education teachers]
have any questions, we were able to answer.”
Participant
4
“For myself when I was a general education teacher, trying to survive, I think it’s
just really hard. Sometimes, and unfortunately, it’s overlooked to be able to
modify or even provide accommodations that are maybe different than what
you’re providing for other students. Sometimes it requires more work and
preparation, and I don’t think, with burnout and just teacher drain, I don’t think
that people are doing that. I think on paper we’re saying we’re doing it, but I
know we’re not doing it.”
“There’s no built-in time for collaboration between special education teachers
and general education teachers. And yes, we could utilize like our prep time that
we have, but there’s so many hours of the day that we have. There’s things that
we, you know, there’s other things that we do during our prep. So yeah, I think
there’s also no time built in for collaboration for that to happen.”
Participant
5
“I have students in general ed, and they will come, ‘How should I grade this
kiddo?’ And I said, ‘Well, here’s the accommodations if you want to go over it
with me.’”

78
Another concern participants shared was district grading policies and teachers not
following IEP guidelines. During the interviews, participants shared that either there is no district
grading policy or the grading policy in place is not supportive of students in special education.
Participant 6 shared, “Sometimes, especially the general ed teachers, they just want to grade the
kids like everybody else.” Her frustration came from not following students’ IEPs and not being
inclusive of students in classrooms. Participant 4 shared, “The existing policy does not equitably
support all the students within our district.” This was about special education students. She did
not feel like there were safeguards in the district policy to ensure students were not penalized for
being pulled out of class for services, and there was vague language about what it meant to
master a standard. Participant 1 does not follow the district’s grading policy. She said, “I don’t
do weighting of grades…because the kids…do not test well.” Participants 2, 3, and 5 are able to
grade on their discretion since their school district does not have a grading policy to follow.
When there is a lack of systems for grading, there cannot be equitable grading for all.
Theme 4: Challenges in Individualized Assessment and Grading
Another theme that surfaced after interviewing participants was the challenge of adapting
grading systems to reflect SPED students’ individual progress and capabilities while maintaining
fairness and consistency. One teacher shared that she struggles with middle school special
education students utilizing accommodations. Her students can utilize assistive technology like
speech-to-text but will not use it because they do not want to stand out in the classroom.
Participant 1 says, “They don’t always use their accommodations. So say they have text to
speech…they’re not really getting what they need out of the material because they can’t read it.”
Since students are not utilizing the appropriate accommodations, they are struggling to gain
access to grade-level curriculum. This makes it challenging for her to grade students on the

79
content since they did not use the accommodations. Participant 3 shared, “I don’t think any
rubric is helpful. I would say that if the student’s IEP is written individually for this student, the
assessment tool has to be individually designed for the student also.” Participant 3 ensures all his
students are assessed on an individual basis. This is time-consuming and puts a lot of pressure on
the teacher. Participant 6 had a similar experience with Participant 3. She also constantly creates
individualized assessments for students. She said, “I have to rewrite a lot of assessments for
these kids.”
Discussion for Research Question 2
These four themes, grounded in participant responses, paint a picture of SPED teachers’
challenges and barriers. Participants articulated that there was insufficient preparation at the
university level and little professional development or coaching provided at the district level.
This makes it challenging to have systems for equitable grading or common practices. For
grading to be equitable, it should be a systematic approach within a school. Next, the participants
highlighted the systemic barriers that prevent equitable grading. These barriers are detrimental to
teacher collaboration to benefit students. Participants shared there is little to no time for case
managers to meet with general education teachers. Wakeman et al. (2021) state SPED and
general education teachers must collaborate. The collaboration will allow the team to be on the
same page and identify the purpose of grading, what should be graded, and necessary
modifications. Another barrier identified is the lack of guidance from the district level on an
equitable grading policy. Having an equitable grading policy will help guide teachers. Lastly,
participants shared the challenges of grading on an individual basis. Challenges come from
grading students on grade-level standards for the report card and students not being on grade
level. However, Jung and Guskey (2011) state that it is alright to modify the grade as long as it is

80
reported and the team identifies the modification as needed. It is essential to share that the grade
is modified so the student, the family, and other educators know the grade does not represent
grade-level standards. Another challenge was the need to grade students individually; this is
time-consuming and challenging for a teacher.
Summary
In conclusion, the findings assert that special education teachers need support to
implement equitable grading practices. Grading practices are utilized daily in classrooms, and
teachers receive minimal support and guidance. Teachers need professional development on
standards-based grading and not combining product, progress, and process grades. IEP teams
need to come together to discuss the meaning of a grade, what should be graded, and how it
should be graded. This will give clear guidance and guidelines on the student’s grade.
Additionally, colleges need to support future educators in their journey better. Future
teachers should not enter the workforce with one or two assessment classes. Chapter 5 discusses
these research findings and recommendations for SPED teachers, district personnel, school
administrators, and universities.

81
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion, Implications
Chapter 5 will provide an overview of the recommendations based on the findings that
were noted in Chapter 4 and recommendations for future research. The findings will also align
with the theoretical framework discussed in Chapter 2 and the literature. This chapter will
address six recommendations for practice that can be applied to improve grading practices for
special education students and minimize challenges for teachers trying to grade equitably. The
six recommendations include the following:
1. Districts build robust grading policies that consider students with various learning
needs.
2. Districts rebuild report cards for special education students within special day classes
to allow families and students to see where students are on a learning continuum.
3. Special education departments increase collaboration time to form stronger systems
for assigning student modifications, writing IEP goals, instructional time, and IEP
structures for reporting grades.
4. Universities and teacher credentialing programs increase coursework on grading
practices and how to assess students.
5. Districts increase professional development and coaching to support teachers with
grading practices.
6. Districts increase collaboration time for general and special education teachers to
collaborate on students’ needs.
Additionally, this chapter will name recommendations for future research that will further
enhance research about grading practices for special education teachers and minimize challenges
or barriers teachers face when trying to grade equitably.

82
Discussion of Findings
The findings align with the theoretical framework, grounded in the interconnectedness of
multiple systems by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory
emphasizes that the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem influence a child’s
development (Christensen, 2016; Guy-Evans, 2023). When these four systems work properly, a
student’s education will be positive and supportive of the special education child. The themes
elicited by the participants’ responses highlight the inequities when systems are not in place.
Conceptual Framework for Research Question 1
What are teachers’ current grading practices for elementary and middle school students
identified as SPED in Northern California school districts?
The three themes from Research Question 1 illustrate how SPED teachers approach
grading for special education students. Participants described their grading methods, such as
allowing test retakes, not assigning 0s for missing assignments, using formative assessments, and
implementing standards-based grading. They also noted inconsistencies in deciding on
modifications and accommodations and needing more support to utilize standards-based grading
appropriately. Participants mentioned combining grades for product, process, and progress,
although these should be assessed separately (Jung & Guskey, 2007; Wakeman et al., 2021). In
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model, grading practices are within the mesosystem. If teachers are
struggling with how to grade and determine modifications, the exosystem, which influences the
mesosystem, needs additional systems and support with grading policies and providing
professional development for SPED teachers. When SPED teachers have systems in place,
exosystem, they can follow specific expectations around grading, mesosystem, which in turn
supports the teacher to support the student, microsystem.

83
Additionally, participants emphasized the importance of IEP goals, which guide their
assessment practices. They want to prioritize IEP goals over grade-level curriculum. There was
shared concern about the lack of grade level–appropriate IEP goals. This issue is significant, as
IEP goals not aligned with grade-level standards are problematic, given that all IEP goals should
align with grade-level standards (Alarcon & Luckasson, 2017). This theme highlights the need to
build more systems in grading policies and special education policies, which is part of the
exosystem. When there is a lack of expectations for teachers, teachers struggle to follow best
practices for SPED students, which in turn affects the mesosystem and microsystem.
Finally, participants had mixed views on behavior and grading. One participant strongly
believed that behavior should be graded separately from academic performance, a stance
supported by Jung and Guskey (2007). Others felt it was important to consider effort in grading
to protect students’ mental health. Research suggests that grades for effort, behavior, and study
skills should be kept separate from academic performance scores (Jung & Guskey, 2010;
William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center, 2015). Some districts combat the
mixture of behavior and academic achievement by utilizing lifelong learner standards on a report
card. For districts to combat the lack of consistency in grading, they need to build up their
exosystem, which focuses on creating robust grading policies and administrative regulations. The
microsystem, the SPED teachers and services, suffers due to a weak exosystem.
Conceptual Framework for Research Question 2
What are the challenges and barriers for teachers implementing equitable grading
practices for elementary and middle school SPED students in Northern California school
districts?

84
The four themes from Research Question 2 highlight the challenges and barriers SPED
teachers face. First, participants identified insufficient preparation at the university level and
inadequate professional development or coaching at the district level. This lack of support makes
establishing systems for equitable grading and consistent practices difficult. For grading to be
equitable, it should be implemented systematically within a school. The lack of professional
development at a district and college level speaks to the exosystem. It is imperative that there are
systems in place to support teacher development. If teachers do not have the skills to serve their
students, microsystem, then teachers and students suffer.
Participants also noted systemic barriers that hinder equitable grading. These barriers
impede teacher collaboration, which is essential for special education students. Participants
mentioned one limitation was the time available for case managers to meet with general
education teachers. According to Wakeman et al. (2021), collaboration between SPED and
general education teachers is crucial. Such collaboration ensures the team aligns on the purpose
of grading, what should be graded, and necessary modifications. Another barrier identified is the
absence of a robust, equitable grading policy that considers all learners, including special
education students. An equitable grading policy would provide guidance for teachers to follow.
Continuing to build a robust exosystem where grading policies are inclusive of all and have clear
expectations will help create strong mesosystems and microsystems.
Lastly, participants discussed the challenges of grading on an individual basis. These
challenges include grading students on grade-level standards for report cards when students are
not performing at grade level. Jung and Guskey (2011) assert that it is acceptable to modify
grades as long as these modifications are reported and identified by the team as necessary.
Clearly indicating that a grade has been modified ensures that students, families, and other

85
educators understand that the grade does not reflect grade-level standards. Individualized grading
and the struggle to assess grade-level standards indicate the lack of a strong exosystem. SPED
teachers and services, microsystem, are struggling because of the weak exosystem.
Recommendations for Practice
The following recommendations can guide special education teachers in equitable
grading and remove some challenges or barriers for teachers trying to grade equitably. The
themes that emerged from Research Question 1 found that there was an emphasis on IEP goals, a
focus on behavior while grading, and teachers individualizing grading for students. The themes
from Research Question 2 identified inadequate training for teachers in their undergraduate or
credentialing program around grading practices, inadequate professional development options
throughout their career regarding grading practices, and that districts have systematic and
structural barriers making it challenging for teachers to utilize equitable grading practices. These
findings, along with the lack of research regarding special education grading practices, show that
more systems and support need to be implemented to support special education teachers with
equitable grading. The recommendations were developed based on participants’ responses about
their current grading practices and the barriers they face when trying to grade equitably.
Recommendation 1: Districts Build Robust Grading Policies That Consider Students With
Various Learning Needs
The districts where the research was conducted did not consider students in special
education in their grading policies. One district, Mariann Unified School District (this is a
pseudonym), does not have a district-wide grading policy. Grading policies are school driven and
not systematic. The other district, Cameron Elementary School District (this is a pseudonym),
has a district-wide grading policy, but it does not consider students with learning disabilities.

86
MUSD (this is a pseudonym) teachers who were interviewed felt they had full control of how
they graded their students. Teachers stated they use their own professional judgment on grading
practices. At CESD (this is a pseudonym), the district’s grading policy calls for teachers to
utilize weighted grades. Grades should be 70% for major projects and assessments and no more
than 30% for minor assessments, projects, or homework. The grading policy also states
homework can be no more than 10% of a grade. The policy further explains that students have
the entire trimester to turn in missing assignments for full credit and may retake assessments to
show their content mastery. The teachers who were interviewed from CESD (this is a
pseudonym) stated they do not follow the grading policy. They do not weigh grades. The
teachers shared that their students struggle with major projects and assessments, so if they were
to focus 70% of their grades on these two areas, students would fail.
Districts need to develop grading policies that consider students in special education to
help make grading more systematic, equitable, and less subjective. One area to develop in the
grading policy is what constitutes assessing students. Teachers should have more choice in how
special education students are assessed in their learning. How students are assessed should be a
discussion within the district special education department. Identifying acceptable ways to assess
students could be beneficial and help keep the special education department aligned. The grading
policy should identify acceptable ways of assessing special education students. Giving teachers
district-approved choices for assessing students should not reduce the rigor but help the teacher
consider the student’s strengths and challenges. Some students can better show their knowledge
through oral assessment, while others may need to do a project. Districts should also consider
separating out academic grades and behavioral grades. Grades should not be a mixture of
product, progress, and process (Jung & Guskey, 2011). Separating grades will give families and

87
students a better understanding of where a student is performing academically. Additionally, on
the standards-based report card, there should be a place indicating if the grade reflects product,
progress, or process, which should be determined in the IEP.
Recommendation 2: Districts Rebuild Report Cards for SDC Students
Special education students who are in SDC classes are assigned due to being multiple
grade levels behind. According to teacher interviews, teachers stated the challenge of grading
SDC students was partially due to the limitation of the report card reflecting only grade-level
standards. This can be a challenge with grading and assessing students, because the students are
not on grade level and are, in fact, numerous grade levels behind. Teachers need to complete a
report card for their students; however, they stated they did not feel the report card accurately
reflected student knowledge. The teachers felt the need to supplement grades with behavior and
effort scores so students did not fail on the grade-level report card. This perpetuates the issue of
families and students not knowing where students are in their learning process, because the
report card and grade book do not show accurate information.
To help combat this concern, districts should consider a report card that allows teachers
to show families and students where they are within a content standard. Many of the standards
have vertical alignment across grade levels. Giving teachers the ability and flexibility to show
families the mastery level of the standard and what grade level the student is performing at will
help families and students know where a student truly is. This can also help the teacher be more
intentional in their instruction within the tier one and two levels. A teacher’s goal should go
beyond remediation and focus on bridging a student’s current knowledge to grade-level
curriculum to help the student continue to advance.

88
Recommendation 3: Special Education Departments Increase Collaboration Time
Systems to promote teacher collaboration are a best practice (Darling-Hammond et al.,
2017); however, the interviewed teachers stated there was little to no special education
collaboration time allotted to them. Limited collaboration time makes it challenging to build
stronger systems and create consistency across a school site or even multiple schools. It also
limits the ability of teachers to share best practices, discuss lessons, or share different approaches
to help students. It also limits the ability of teachers to do PLC cycles and look at data to help
make instructional choices.
If time were allotted to special education departments, there could be increased
understanding and alignment around assigning and determining modifications. This was an area
of concern that was highlighted in the study. Teachers stated that there were no guidelines for
determining modifications; it was based on the case manager’s judgment. Increased collaboration
time could also benefit the SPED department by reviewing how to write IEP goals, structuring
classroom practices, bridging current knowledge to grade-level standards, and grading practices.
This could help make the department more systematic and aligned. This could help teachers
receive clear guidance on expectations, utilize best practices, and not rely on individual teachers’
knowledge.
Recommendation 4: Universities and Teacher Credentialing Programs Increase Coursework
on Grading Practices and How to Assess Students
Preparing teachers to be successful in the classroom begins during university or
credentialing programs. Five out of six participants said they had little to no training in assessing
or grading students during their program. The interviewees shared that grading and assessment
were discussed during one class or even just a portion of one class. Grading and assessing are

89
two skills that teachers use daily and throughout the day. A dedicated course should support
future teachers with grading and assessing students. The course should address how to assess
using a standard-based report card, how to set up a grade book, how to create assessments, how
to grade standards, steps that should be taken before a student retakes an exam, and time to allow
future educators to reflect and develop their own grading philosophy. Building future teachers’
capacity for grading and assessing will help equip them with the skills required to become more
proficient in an equity-based grading system.
Recommendation 5: Districts Increase Professional Development and Coaching to Support
Teachers With Grading Practices
Supporting teachers with their skills and knowledge starts at the university and
credentialing program level. Still, districts must provide teachers with continuous professional
development and coaching to stay updated with current research and best practices. Each teacher
shared that their current districts have not provided any training or coaching to support grading
practices and how to assess students. This lack of support leads teachers not to have a shared
vision of grading, no common practices across a district, and a lack of a systematic approach to
grading and assessing. When there is no system in place, the meaning of a grade is lost because
each person utilizes different practices. With the lack of consistency, families and students do not
know what to expect and do not have a shared interpretation of a grade.
Recommendation 6: Districts Increase Collaboration Time for General and Special Education
Teachers
Collaboration time is crucial for teachers to be able to share practices, plan targeted
instruction, and analyze data (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). It is also imperative that there is
built-in time for general education and special education teachers to collaborate. All seven

90
participants stated they had no time to collaborate with general education teachers. This was a
challenge and barrier because the special education teacher could not sit down with the general
education teacher to review students’ IEPs, share best practices, support the general education
teacher with the next steps, and help review accommodations or modifications. It also limited the
special education teacher in following up with the general education teacher to see how the
student was progressing in the general education setting. This is also a challenge for the teachers
because, as a team, they cannot analyze student work, review how to grade the student, or review
different supports for the student. This lack of systemic collaboration is detrimental to the
teachers and even more so to the students and their families. When there is a lack of
communication between teachers, the students are not getting the level of support they need.
Recommendation for Future Research
There is little research on special education grading practices. It is imperative that
researchers explore best practices for special education teachers to utilize in the classroom.
Prioritizing research-based grading practices specifically for special education students will
increase equity, help students and families better understand what a grade reflects, and better
guide teachers in supporting student learning. The research should also examine the impact of
grading practices on student mindset.
Researchers should also examine district grading administrative regulations to support
districts in creating policies that are inclusive of special education students. District grading
policies should be the guide for all teachers. Still, in this study, teachers stated they do not utilize
the grading policy because it does not include the lens for special education students. Examining
grading policies and making recommendations can help create a better systematic approach to
district grading practices.

91
Conclusion
This study contributed to the research about current grading practices in special education
classrooms and the challenges and barriers special education teachers face in Grades 2 to 8. This
study highlights the following key themes: teachers identified that there is more emphasis on IEP
goals than grade-level standards, teachers make an effort to grade on an individual basis,
behavior and effort are represented in grades, there is a lack of knowledge about standards-based
grading, there is insufficient preparation during university, there is a lack of professional
development and coaching from districts, and there is a lack of consistency or approach to
grading within a district. The findings underscore the need for further research around grading
practices for special education students, the need for districts to build grading policies that are
reflective and supportive of all students, the need to create better grading systems for the special
education department, and the need to support teacher learning. Having an equity-based grading
system that supports special education students is important because our current grading system
does not hold our special education students to a higher standard. Our special education students’
education is more focused on IEP goals than bridging current knowledge to grade-level
standards. Our job as educators is to provide the best possible education for our students,
including our special education students.

92
References
Alarcon, A. L., & Luckasson, R. (2017). Aligning IEP goals to standards without standardizing:
Avoiding the legal risks associated with aligning each goal with an individual content
standard. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 30(2), 82–87.
Colton, A. B., Langer, G. M., & Goff, L. (2016). The collaborative analysis of student learning:
Professional learning that promotes success for all. Corwin.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483394442
Babad, E., Bernieri, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). Students as judges of teachers’ verbal and
nonverbal behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 211–234.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1162885
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bettini, E., Wang, J., Cumming, M., Kimerling, J., & Schutz, S. (2018). Special educators’
experiences of roles and responsibilities in self-contained classes for students with
emotional/behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 126–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762470
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition. The Journal of Special
Education, 38(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669040380010401
Billingsley, B. (2007). A case study of special education teacher attrition in an urban district.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 10, 11–20.
Billingsley, B., & Bettini, E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review
of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319862495
Bolton, F. E. (1927). Do teachers’ marks vary as much as supposed? Education, 48, 28–39.

93
Bouck, E. C. Secondary special educators: Perspectives of preservice preparation and
satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(2), 125–139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640502800206
Brookhart, S., Guskey, T., Bowers, A., McMillan, J., Smith, J., Smith, L., & Stevens, M. (2016).
A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational
measure part of the educational assessment, evaluation, and research commons repository
citation. Review of Educational Research, 86(4).
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model.
Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307
Brunsting, N. C., Sreckovic, M. A., & Lane, K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A
synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4),
681–711. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0032
California Department of Education. (n.d.-a). California school dashboard.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/ca/2022/academic-performance#englishlanguage-arts
California Department of Education. (n.d.-b). No Child Left Behind – CalEdFacts.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/pc/cefnclb.asp
California Department of Education. (2014). 10 things parents need to know - Common Core
resources for special education. www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/cc/swd-commoncore-parents.asp
Carey, T., & Carifio, J. (2012). The minimum grading controversy. Educational Researcher,
41(6), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12453309

94
Caruana, V. (2015). Accessing the Common Core standards for students with learning
disabilities: Strategies for writing standards-based IEP goals. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 59(4), 237–243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.924088
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How
teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 36.
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3699
Chen, Y. H., Thompson, M. S., Kromrey, J. D., & Chang, G. H. (2011). Relations of student
perceptions of teacher oral feedback with teacher expectancies and student self-concept.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), 452–477.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2010.547888
Christensen, J. (2016). A critical reflection of Bronfenbrenner’s development ecology model.
Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 69(1), 22–28.
https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/16.69.22
Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributional principles.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 69–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000106
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (n.d.). District intern credential (CL-707b).
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/leaflets/district-intern-credential-(cl-707b)
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school
reform. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173582
Crooks, A. D. (1933). Marks and marking systems: A digest. Journal of Educational Research,
27, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1933.10880402

95
Darling-Hammond, L., Chung, R., & Frelow, F. (2002). Variation in teacher preparation. Journal
of Teacher Education, 53(4), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053004002
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional
development. Learning Policy Institute.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ondrasek, N., Carver-Thomas, D., & Scott, C. (2020, February 18).
California’s special education teacher shortage. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/pace-california-special-education-teachershortage-brief
de Boer, H., Bosker, R. J., & van der Werf, M. P. C. (2010). Sustainability of teacher expectation
bias effects on long-term student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(1), 168–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017289
Delarosa, J. (2022, December 6). Press release - Forty-five percent of public schools operating
without a full teaching staff in October, new NCES data show.
https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/12_6_2022.asp
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell. F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom.
Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148989
Dorn, S. (2010). The political dilemmas of formative assessment. Exceptional Children, 76(3),
325–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600305
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2013). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. International Journal of Critical
Pedagogy, 6(1), 58–82.
Edgeworth F. Y. (1888). The statistics of examinations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,
51, 599–635.

96
Emery, D. W., & Vandenberg, B. (2010). Special education teacher burnout and ACT.
International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 119–131.
Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform
schools and classrooms. Corwin.
Fernandez, O. E. (2020). Second chance grading: An equitable, meaningful, and easy-toimplement grading system that synergizes the research on testing for learning, mastery
grading, and growth mindsets. PRIMUS, 31(8), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2020.1772915
Geiger, T., & Pivovarova, M. (2018). The effects of working conditions on teacher retention.
Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 604–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1457524
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., & Brengelman, S. U. (1996). Grading and academic feedback for
special education students and students with learning difficulties. In T. R. Guskey (Ed.),
Communicating student learning: 1996 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and
Curriculum and Development (pp. 47–57). Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Gilhool, T. K. (2011). Visionary voices, Leaders, lessons, and legacy: An interview with Thomas
K. Gilhool. Institute on Disabilities at Temple University.
http://www.temple.edu/instituteondisabilities/voices/detailVideo.html?media=006-01
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the
2012–13 teacher follow-up survey (NCES 2014-077). U.S. Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics.

97
GreatSchools Staff. (2014). Individualized education program (IEP) goals: The basics.
www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/individualized-education-program-iep-goals/
Guskey, T. R. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 670–
675. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608700910
Guskey, T. R. (2013). The case against percentage grades. Educational Leadership, 71(1).
Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Developing standards-based report cards. Corwin.
Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment:
Implications for students with special needs. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 53–62.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577619
Guy-Evans, O. (2023, November 3). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Simply
Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/Bronfenbrenner.html
Harman, R., & McClure, G. (2011). All the school’s a stage: Critical performative pedagogy in
urban teacher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(3), 379–402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2011.589278
Hattie, J. (2017). Hattie effect size list - 256 influences related to achievement. Visible Learning.
https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/
Hester, O. R., Bridges, S. A., & Rollins, L. H. (2020). “Overworked and underappreciated”:
Special education teachers describe stress and attrition. Teacher Development, 24(3),
348–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2020.1767189
Hill, G. (1935). The report card in present practice. Educational Method, 15, 115–131.

98
Holmqvist, M., Anderson, L., & Hellström, L. (2019). Teacher educators’ self-reported
preparedness to teach students with special educational needs in higher education.
Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 77(5), 584–597.
https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/19.77.584
Huey, M. E., Silvey, P. R., Vaughan, A. G., & Fisher, A. L. (2022). Assessing the impact of
standards-based grading policy changes on student performance and practice work
completion in secondary mathematics. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75, 101211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101211
Jozwik, S., Cuenca-Carlino, Y., & Gardiner-Walsh, S. (2020). Special education teachers’
preparedness for teaching emergent bilingual students with disabilities. Multiple Voices
for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 20(2), 38–53.
https://doi.org/10.56829/2158-396x-20.2.38
Jones, K., & Okun, T. (2001). White supremacy culture. Dismantling Racism.
https://www.dismantlingracism.org/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/okun_-
_white_sup_culture.pdf
Jung, L. A., & Guskey, T. R. (2012). Grading exceptional and struggling learners. Corwin
Press.
Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns
and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–155. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
Kashikar, L., Soemers, L., Lüke, T., & Grosche, M. (2023). Does the “learning disability” label
lower teachers’ performance expectations? Social Psychology of Education, 26, 971–
1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09775–1

99
Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., & Conroy, M. A. (2003). Availability of special education teachers.
Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 246–253.
https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325030240040701
Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J. B., & Jones, J. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with
disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160–167.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073070180030401
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Kirschenbaum, H., Napier, R., & Simon, S. B. (1971). Wad-ja-get? The grading game in
American education. Hart.
Kleinhammer-Tramill, J., Karanxha, Z., & Broughton, A. J. (2020). A case study of federal
leadership perspectives on special education. The Journal of Special Education, 54(4),
002246692090990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920909909
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (2006). Toward a critical race theory of education. In A. D.
Dixson & C. K. Rousseau (Eds.), Critical race theory in education: All God’s children
got a song (pp. 11–30). Routledge.
Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., Stang, K. K., & Carter, E. W. (2009). Teacher expectations of
students’ classroom behavior. Remedial and Special Education, 31(3), 163–174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327464

100
Leko, M. M., & Smith, S. W. (2010). Retaining beginning special educators: What should
administrators know and do? Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(5), 321–325.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451209353441
Levin, J., Berg-Jacobsen, A., Atchinson, D., Lee, K., & Vontsolos, E. (2015). Massachusetts
study of teacher supply and demand: Trends and projections.
https://www.air.org/resource/massachusetts-study-teacher-supply-and-demand-trendsand-projections
Link, L. J., & Guskey, T. R. (2022). Is standards-based grading effective? Theory into Practice,
61(4), 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107338
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Marzano, R. J., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational
Leadership, 69(3), 34–39.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Characteristics of public school teachers.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr
Massey, K. J., Warrington, A. S., & Holmes, K. (2014). An overview on urban education: A
brief history and contemporary issues. Texas Education Review, 2(2), 173–183.
https://doi.org/10.15781/T2NK3696C

101
McLeskey, J., & Billingsley, B. S. (2008). How does the quality and stability of the teaching
force influence the research-to-practice gap? Remedial and Special Education, 29(5),
293–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507312010
Milanowski, A., & Odden, A. (2007). A new approach to the cost of teacher turnover. School
Finance Redesign Project.
https://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/wp_sfrp13_milanowskiodden_aug08_0.pdf
Munk, D. D., & Bursuck, W. D. (2004). Personalized grading plans: A systematic approach to
making the grades of included students more accurate and meaningful. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 36(9). https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v36i9.6807
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2020). Significant disproportionality in special
education: Current trends and actions for impact. https://www.ncld.org/sigdispro/
National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services. (2015).
Special education personnel shortages fact sheet. https://specialedshortages.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/NCPSSERS-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Ngounou, G., & Gutierrez, N. (2017). Learning to lead for racial equity. Phi Delta Kappan,
99(3), 37–41.
National Science Teachers Association. (2019). The pros and cons of standards-based grading.
NSTA Reports, 2019, 6–7.
Olsen, B., & Buchanan, R. (2019). An investigation of teachers encouraged to reform grading
practices in secondary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 2004–
2039. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219841349

102
Ondrasek, N., Carver-Thomas, D., Scott, C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). California’s
special education teacher shortage [policy brief]. Policy Analysis for California
Education.
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing educational research: From ownership to answerability.
Routledge.
Patel, L. (2016) Pedagogies of resistance and survivance: Learning as marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Patton, L. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher
education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085915602542
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed., pp. 339–380). Sage.
Payne, R. (2005). Special education teacher shortages: Barriers or lack of preparation?
International Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 88–91.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475
Rojewski, J. W., & Pollard, R. R. (1993). A multivariate analysis of perceptions held by
secondary academic teachers toward students with special needs. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 16(4), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649301600406
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed., pp. 85–92). Sage.

103
Ruppar, A. L., Neeper, L. S., & Dalsen, J. (2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of
preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916672843
Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., Garn, A., Kulik, N., & Fahlman, M. (2015). The
relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85(4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12089
Shifrer, D. (2016). Stigma and stratification limiting the math course progression of adolescents
labeled with a learning disability. Learning and Instruction, 42, 47–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.001
Shifrer, D., Callahan, R. M., & Muller, C. (2013). Equity or marginalization? The high school
course-taking of students labeled with a learning disability. American Educational
Research Journal, 50(4), 656–682. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213479439
Shriner, W. O. (1930). The comparison factor in the evaluation of examination papers. Teachers
College Journal, 1, 65–74.
Silberstein, N. (1922) The variability of teachers’ marks. English Journal, 11, 414–424.
Sims, V. M. (1933). Reducing the variability of essay examination marks through eliminating
variations in standards of grading. Journal of Educational Research, 26(9), 637–647.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1933.10880358
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.-
G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301

104
Smith, A. Z., & Dobbin, J. E. (1960). Marks and marking systems. In C. W. Harris (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of educational research (3rd ed., pp. 783–791). Macmillan.
Smith, L. T. (2002). Chapter 2: Research through imperial eyes. In Decolonizing methodologies:
Research and indigenous peoples (pp. 42–57). Zed Books.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041003681
Spaulding, L. S., & Pratt, S. M. (2015). A review and analysis of the history of special education
and disability advocacy in the United States. American Educational History Journal,
42(1), 91–109.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
Starch, D. (1913). Reliability and distribution of grades. Science, 38(983), 630–636.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.38.983.630
Stark, K., & Koslouski, J. (2021). The emotional job demands of special education: A qualitative
study of alternatively certified novices’ emotional induction. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 44(1), 088840642093149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406420931497
Theobald, R. J., Goldhaber, D. D., Naito, N., & Stein, M. L. (2021). The special education
teacher pipeline: Teacher preparation, workforce entry, and retention. Exceptional
Children, 88(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211010162

105
Townsley, M., & McNamara, S. (2021). “I thought I was supposed to get an A in PE!” Successes
and challenges of teachers and administrators implementing standards-based grading in
physical education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 101012.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101012
Tudge, J. R. H. (2016). Implicit versus explicit ways of using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological
theory. Human Development, 59(4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1159/000449453
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
https://www.ed.gov/ESSA
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/#IDEA-History
Utt, J., & Tochluk, S. (2020). White teacher, know thyself: Improving anti-racist praxis through
racial identity development. Urban Education, 55(1), 125–152.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916648741
Van Ewijk, R. (2011). Same work, lower grade? Student ethnicity and teachers’ subjective
assessments. Economics of Education Review, 30(5), 1045–1058.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.05.008
Vittek, J. E. (2015). Promoting special educator teacher retention. SAGE Open, 5(2),
215824401558999. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015589994
Wakeman, S. Y., Thurlow, M., Reyes, E., & Kearns, J. (2021). Fair and equitable grading for
ALL students in inclusive settings. Inclusive Practices, 1(4), 273247452110553.
https://doi.org/10.1177/27324745211055398

106
Webber, N. (2020, July 10). If you really want to make a difference in black lives, change how
you teach white kids. Education Post. https://educationpost.org/if-you-really-want-tomake-a-difference-in-black-lives-change-how-you-teach-white-kids/
William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center. (2015). Inclusive grading and
progress-monitoring practices.
https://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/documents/packets/inclusivegrading.pdf
Yell, M. (2021). Brown v. Board of Education and the development of special education.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 57(3), 54–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512211014874
Zimmerman, T. (2017). Grading for understanding – Standards-based grading. The Physics
Teacher, 55(1), 47–50. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4972500

107
Appendix A: Special Education Credentials and Permits in California
Note. From Darling-Hammond et al. (2020).

108
Appendix B: New Special Education Credentials and Permits Issued in California
Note. From National Center for Learning Disabilities (2020).

109
Appendix C: Students With Disabilities Who Spend More Than 80% of Their Day in
General Education Classrooms
Note. From National Center for Learning Disabilities (2020).

110
Appendix D: Comparison of Major Grading Methods

111
Note. From William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015).

112
Appendix E: Characteristics of Formative and Summative Assessments
Note. From Dixson and Worrell (2016).

113
Appendix F: Grading Adaptation Example
Note. From William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015).

114
Appendix G: Inclusive Grading Model
Note. From William & Mary Training and Technical Assistance Center (2015).

115
Appendix H: Informed Consent Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
Special Education Grading Practices and Challenges to Implementing Equitable
Grading Practices
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will examine the grading practices of special education teachers. It will also explore
the struggles to implementing equitable grading practices within a classroom of special education
elementary and middle school students.
Identifying the equitable grading practices for special education elementary and middle school
students and determining the obstacles teachers frequently face will help further break down the
daily barriers that special education students face. Additionally, this study will further the literature
on equitable grading practices for special education students, which has minimal research.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to participate in Zoom and answer 30
questions.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Although identifiable information will be collected as part of demographic data, this information
will not be published to the public as part of the study findings. Pseudonyms will be given to
participants to maintain participant confidentiality.
The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed at conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The Principal Investigator is Shannon Soza, ssoza@usc.edu, 408-781-5446
The Faculty Advisor is Darline Robles, PhD dprobles@usc.edu 213-740-3537
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

116
Appendix I: Email to Invite Teacher Participation
Hello,
I am currently seeking approximately 15–20 volunteers to participate in a qualitative study for
my dissertation: Special Education Grading Practices and Challenges to Implementing Equitable
Grading Practices.
PURPOSE
This study will examine the grading practices of special education teachers. It will also explore
the struggles to implement equitable grading practices within a classroom of special education
elementary and middle school students.
Identifying the equitable grading practices for special education elementary and middle school
students and determining the obstacles teachers frequently face will help further break down the
daily barriers that special education students face. Additionally, this study will further the
literature on equitable grading practices for special education students, which has minimal
research. Participants must have taught at least 2 years in elementary and/or middle school
special education. Participants must currently support special education students within
the second and eighth grades.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
Participants will be asked to participate in an interview via Zoom outside of their work hours.
The interview will last for approximately 60-75 minutes. The interview will be recorded utilizing
the built-in recording feature in Zoom. Participants who do not wish to be recorded can choose
not to participate in the study.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to consent to being recorded.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Information will be kept confidential as all identifiable components will be removed, and data
will be secured in a confidential Google Drive.
Data will be kept until the dissertation is successfully defended.
You will have a right to request access to the Zoom recording when it becomes available. Only
the principal investigator (me) and the IRB will have access to the recording or transcript.
Recordings will be deleted once transcribed.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the principal investigator, Shannon
Soza at 408-781-5446 or at ssoza@usc.edu.

117
Your participation would be greatly appreciated. If you meet the stated criteria, please feel free
to reach out with any questions. Should you choose to participate, please include your
availability in order to schedule a time. The interview process will begin as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Shannon Soza, Doctoral Candidate at USC

118
Appendix J: Prescreening Survey
Introduction
Thank you for your interest in participating in this research. Please complete this short
prescreening survey.
Survey
1. Select all the grading practices you have or currently utilize:
a. Standards based grading
b. Formative assessment
c. Grading on a continuum
d. No zeros on assignments
e. Allow assessment retakes
f. Percentage grades
g. Grading with a rubric
h. Other:
2. How often do you utilize the grading practices indicted above?
a. Every day
b. Frequently
c. Sometimes, but not consistently
d. Other:

119
Appendix K: Interview Protocol
Introduction
Hello [insert teacher’s name]. Thank you for meeting with me. I am currently a doctoral student
at USC. I appreciate your help with my study. In this study, I am gathering current grading
practices used by special education teachers and considering what equitable grading practices are
for special education (SPED) students.
This study is important because it will inform educators on which grading practices are best to
break down the inequities SPED students face. Also, I will be able to learn what obstacles and
barriers, if any, make it challenging to implement equitable grading practices.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I previously shared, this interview is confidential. Your
name will not be shared outside this interview. When I report my findings in my dissertation, I
will use a pseudonym. All data will be stored in a password-protected folder. If interested, I can
provide you with a copy of my final paper.
You were asked to be interviewed since you are a SPED teacher and work closely with SPED
students between the second and eighth grades. As shared previously, I will be recording this
session with your consent. The recording is for my records so that I may listen to the responses.
This will help me with my research and analyzing responses. Please let me know if you would
like to stop the interview or the recording at any time. You can also not answer a question if you
feel uncomfortable. All data collected, including this interview, will be confidential.
Additionally, your identity will remain anonymous. If you consent, please sign the following
form via DocuSign. This is the form I sent you previously.
Questions with Transitions
Transition: I want to start this interview by learning more about you.
1. How long have you been a special education teacher?
2. What grade levels have you taught?
3. Share a positive or negative memory you had as a student when you received a grade or
feedback from a teacher.
4. What made this experience a lasting memory?
Transition: Thank you for sharing your background. Next, I would like to hear about your
grading philosophy and equitable grading for special education students.
5. What is your grading philosophy, if you have one?
6. What do you consider when grading a student?
7. What is your definition of equitable grading practices?
8. Could you give examples of grading practices you consider equitable for special
education students?
9. Tell me a time you experienced this with a student.
10. In your opinion, how do the grading practices you just shared decrease inequities for
SPED students?
11. Special education students are frequently graded on a different scale than general
education students. Do you agree with this?
12. How do you approach grading with your students and in your classroom?
13. What involvement do students have, if any?

120
Transition: Thank you for sharing your grading philosophy. Next, I will ask questions about your
district’s policy and opinions.
14. What is your district’s grading policy?
15. How are grading modifications for special education students determined, if needed?
16. Tell me about a time you have experienced this with a student.
17. Some teachers say we coddle our students too much when we offer assessment retakes or
allow students to turn in assignments late for full credit. What would you say to those
teachers?
18. Some teachers say the way we used to grade is fine. Students should get zeros for not
turning in work and should not get 50% if they turn in an assignment late. There should
be no test retakes, and grades on effort or participation are fine. How would you respond?
19. What are your thoughts and experiences on standards-based grading?
20. Tell me about a time you have experienced this with a student.
21. What are your thoughts and experiences on formative assessment?
22. Tell me about a time you have experienced this with a student.
Transition: Thank you for sharing those responses. Next, I will ask questions to understand better
some of the barriers or challenges a teacher may face when grading special education students.
23. Name some challenges you have faced when grading special education students.
24. What makes those situations challenging?
25. If any, what grading practices do you believe are equitable but you are not allowed to
utilize in your school?
Transition: Thank you for sharing those responses. Next, I will ask questions to understand better
what support has been provided to you.
26. Was grading a topic taught in your credentialing program?
27. What professional learning have you received about equitable grading practices?
28. What training on grading have you received?
29. If any, what form of additional support was offered after the training?
30. Have you ever received any coaching regarding grading?
31. If you have received coaching, what did the support look like?
Transition: Thank you for answering those questions
32. Any last thoughts on equitable grading you want to share with me?
33. Do you have any suggestions of other people I can interview?

121
Appendix L: A Model for Grading Exceptional Learners
Note. From Jung and Guskey (2012).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies the conceptual framework modeled after Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory focuses on the interconnectedness of multiple systems that affect a child’s development, including the student’s immediate environment, family, school setting, laws, and cultural values. With significant disproportionality in the overrepresentation of students of color in special education, it is imperative to examine all the systems influencing a student. This study aimed to examine the current grading practices of special education teachers who support students in second to eighth grade. The study also focused on identifying the struggle to implement equitable grading practices within a classroom of special education elementary and middle school students. The methodological design of this study was qualitative; the data were collected by interviewing six special education teachers. The teachers were from Northern California. The researcher reread the interview transcripts and identified themes from the interviews. Overall, participants identified an emphasis on grading for effort, completion, and academic growth over standard mastery. There was also more emphasis on the individualized educational plan’s goals than on grade-level content. Also, the overall consensus was that teachers were not given parameters on how to grade students. This study is a first step in researching grading practices for special education students, as there is currently minimal research on grading practices for special education students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Influences that impact English language acquisition for English learners: addressing obstacles for English learners’ success

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Teachers' classroom pedagogy and perception: In schools with high rates of exclusionary discipline practices for African American students

PDF

School leader impact on equitable grading practices to support middle school English learners

PDF

Disciplinary systems in California high schools and their effects on African American males’ self-efficacy

PDF

Alternative education supporting students in meeting high school graduation requirements

PDF

An evaluation of the effectiveness of positive behavior intervention system at the high school level

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms

PDF

Seeds succeed! Cultivating effective soil: the significance of a community of care

PDF

Perceptions of grade 4-6 teachers on historic failure of English language learners on standardized assessment

PDF

“Going up the river”: the consequence of response & the assumptions that underlie, support, and justify the practices of educational leaders for chronically absent youth

PDF

Teacher discourse and practice: the role of discourse in grade-level meetings for teacher learning and changes in practice

PDF

White principals implementing systems of equity: analyzing knowledge, motivation, and organizational support

PDF

The intersection of race and language in special education: a study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program

Asset Metadata

Creator Soza, Shannon Engle (author)

Core Title Special education grading practices and challenges to implementing equitable grading practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 07/22/2024

Defense Date 06/28/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag challenges and barriers special education teachers face while grading,disproportionality,equitable grading practices for special education students,formative assessment,IEP goals,lack of a systematic approach to grading,OAI-PMH Harvest,standards-based grading

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Robles, Darline (committee chair), Ermeling, Bradley (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email sengle23@gmail.com,ssoza@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998FYG

Unique identifier UC113998FYG

Identifier etd-SozaShanno-13269.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SozaShanno-13269

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Soza, Shannon Engle

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240730-usctheses-batch-1186 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu