Grading Mainstreamed Special Needs Students: Determining Practices and Attitudes of Secondary Vocational Educators Using a Qualitative Approach

Abstract

Despite the importance of grades in our educational system, empirical research examining issues related to the grading of students with special needs has received relatively little attention. To address this situation, a qualitative research approach was used to explore a select number of these issues. An in-depth, semistructured interview was used with a purposive sample of 10 secondary vocational educators. Four themes (conclusions) emerged from an analysis of the data. First, a description of successful grading practices and problems/concerns experienced by teachers when grading students with special needs were examined. Second, the perceptions of educators concerning intended and actual messages that grades communicate to others was explored. A third issue focused on the degree of undergraduate/graduate preparation and inservice staff development teachers have received on issues related to grading students with special needs. Finally, a majority of those participating reported experiencing a developmental process of gradually changing grading practices. Implications for practice and recommendations for future research were also provided.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Babbie, E. (1986). Practicing social research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Best, J.W. (1981). Research in education (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bippus, S.L. (1981). A new look at progress reports. NASSP Bulletin, 65, 109–110.

Carpenter, D. (1985). Grading handicapped pupils: Review and position statement. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 54–59.

Carpenter, D. , Grantham, L.B. , & Hardister, M.P. (1983). Grading mainstreamed handicapped pupils: What are the issues? The Journal of Special Education, 17, 183–188.

Chandler, H.N. (1983). Making the grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 241–242.

Claesson, M.A. , & Brice, R.A. (1989). Teacher/mothers: Effects of a dual role. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 1–23.

Cohen, S.B. (1983). Assigning report card grades to the main-streamed child. Teaching Exceptional Children, 15, 86–89.

Crain, H.M. , & Rojewski, J.W. (1988). Graduation requirements of secondary public schools (grades 9--12) in the state of Nebraska: An analysis. Unpublished report, University of Nebraska--Lincoln, Nebraska Council on Vocational Education.

10.

Dick, M.A. (1983). Alternatives in evaluation and grading of special needs students. LINC paper/Missouri LINC. Columbia: University of Missouri--Columbia, College of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 236 887)

11.

Fogel, L.S. , & Nelson, R.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.

12.

Foster, G.G. , Ysseldyke, J.E. , & Reese J.H. (1975). "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it." Exceptional Children, 41, 469–473.

13.

Glaser, B.G. , & Strauss, A.L. (1970). Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying qualitative research. In W.J. Filstead (Ed.), Qualitative methodology: Firsthand involvement with the social world (pp. 288–304). Chicago: Markham.

14.

Hamilton, J.B. (1987). Handbook on mainstreaming handicapped students in vocational education (2nd ed.). Westerville: Ohio State Council on Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 286 079)

15.

Hess, R. , Miller, A. , Reese, J. , & Robinson, G.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)

16.

Hull, M.E. , Eddy, W. , & Goodwin, A. (1980). Some considerations for grading and evaluating special needs students. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 2(3). 23–35.

17.

Hull, R. (1980). Fairness in grading: Perceptions of junior high school students. The Clearing House, 53, 340–343.

18.

Kiraly, J., Jr. , & Bedell, J.J. (1984). Grading the mainstreamed handicapped student. NASSP Bulletin, 68, 111–115.

19.

Lieberman, L.M. (1982). Grades. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 381–382.

20.

Lindsey, J.D. , Burns, J. , & Guthrie, J.D. (1984). Intervention grading and secondary learning disabled students. The High School Journal, 67, 150–157.

21.

Miles, M.B. , & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

22.

National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (1984). Determine student grades (2nd ed.). Module D-5 of Category D---Instructional evaluation. Professional teacher education module series. Columbus: Ohio State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 242 952)

23.

Ornstein, A.C. (1989). The nature of grading. The Clearing House, 62, 365–369.

24.

Ross, J.W. , & Weinstraub, F.J. (1980). Policy approaches regarding the impact of graduation requirements on handicapped students. Exceptional Children, 47, 200–203.

25.

Smith, M.L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 173–183.

26.

Squire, S.K. (1985). Grading handicapped students in vocational education programs. Omaha: University of Nebraska--Omaha. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 261 504)

27.

Terwilliger, J.S. (1977). Assigning grades---Philosophical issues and practical recommendations. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 10, 21–39.

28.

Vasa, S.F. (1981). Alternative procedures for grading handicapped students in the secondary schools. Education Unlimited, 3, 16–23.

29.

Warger, C.L. (1983). An analysis of curriculum and grading formats used by regular secondary teachers. In P.L. Reed (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.