A nationwide purposive sample of secondary vocational educators completed a questionnaire that examined practices and perceptions toward grading students with disabilities. A variety of grading methods was reportedly used, but over two-thirds of respondents included a competency-based grading component. An overwhelming majority believed that student effort should be used to determine grades. Two-thirds of vocational educators had never been involved in their students' IEP development. The most common changes teachers have made over time in their grading practices included becoming more flexible and individualized in grading. Overall, teachers displayed moderately positive attitudes toward grading students with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BabbieE. (1986). Practicing social research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2.
CarpenterD. (1985). Grading handicapped pupils: Review and position statement. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 54–59.
3.
CarpenterD.GranthamL. B., & HardisterM. P. (1983). Grading mainstreamed handicapped pupils: What are the issues?Journal of Special Education, 17, 183–188.
4.
ChandlerH. N. (1983). Making the grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 241–242.
5.
CohenH. N. (1983). Assigning report card grades to the mainstreamed child. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 15, 86–89.
6.
DonahoeK., & ZigmondN. (1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning disabled students and low achieving peers. Exceptionality, 1, 17–27.
7.
FogelL. S., & NelsonR. O. (1983). The effects of special education labels on teachers' behavioral observations, checklist scoring, and grading of academic work. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 241–251.
8.
FosterG. G.YsseldykeJ. E., & ReeseJ. H. (1975). “I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it.”Exceptional Children, 41, 469–473.
9.
HessR.MillerA.ReeseJ., & RobinsonG. A. (1987). Grading-credit-diplomas: Accommodation practices for students with mild disabilities. Des Moines: Iowa State Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 294 403).
10.
HullR. (1980). Fairness in grading: Perceptions of junior high school students. The Clearing House, 53, 340–343.
11.
KiralyJ.Jr., & BedellJ. J. (1984). Grading the mainstreamed handicapped student. NASSP Bulletin, 68, 111–115.
12.
LarriveeB., & CookL. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education, 13, 315–324.
13.
LindseyJ. D.BurnsJ., & GuthrieJ. D. (1984). Intervention grading and secondary learning disabled students. The High School Journal, 67, 150–157.
14.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
NunneryM. Y., & KimbroughR. B. (1971). Politics, power, and school elections. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
16.
RojewskiJ. W.PollardR. R., & MeersG. D. (1990). Practices and attitudes of secondary industrial education teachers toward students with special needs. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 27(3), 17–32.
17.
RojewskiJ. W.PollardR. R., & MeersG. D. (1991). Grading mainstreamed special needs students: Determining practices and attitudes of secondary vocational educators using a qualitative approach. Remedial and Special Education, 12(6), 7–15, 28.
18.
ShadaK. (1985). A survey of vocational agriculture instructors' attitudes regarding the mainstreaming of handicapped students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
19.
SquireS. K. (1985). Grading handicapped students in vocational education programs. University of Nebraska at Omaha. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 261 504).
20.
TerwilligerJ. S. (1977). Assigning grades—philosophical issues and practical recommendations. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 10, 21–39.
21.
WargerC. L. (1983). An analysis of curriculum and grading formats used by regular secondary teachers. In ReedP. L. (Ed.), Mainstreaming in secondary schools: Focus on research, OATE-OACTE Monograph Series No. 6 (pp. 1–8). Ohio Association of Colleges for Teacher Education; Ohio Association of Teacher Educators.
22.
ZigmondN.LevinE., & LaurieT. (1985). Managing the mainstream: An analysis of teacher attitudes and student performance in mainstreaming high school programs. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 535–541.
