Grading System

Vocational Education
Accredited mainly private institutions known as colleges offer technical and vocational education. Programs offered vary in duration from a few weeks to two-year diplomas. On completion students may take centrally-administered examinations to obtain their diploma or certificate.
Vocational colleges don’t usually require an entrance examination, only a record of high school education and an enrollment fee.
Tertiary Education
Most institutions of higher learning are regulated by the commission for higher education.

Colleges typically offer 1 or more specialized programs while universities must offer at least 8 different undergraduate degree programs in a wide array of subjects and at least 2 graduate programs.

Public universities are all non-sectarian and offer a wide-range of programs, with English as a medium of instruction. Public universities are government funded, with the largest, the University of the Philippines, receiving the substantial portion of the annual budget.

There are also a number of private tertiary institutions, sectarian or non-sectarian as well as for-profit or not-for-profit. Most private institutions are Catholic non-profit organizations.

Most universities offer 4 year degree programs with 2 semesters per year.
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

Grading System is designed to provide incentive reward for achievement and assist in identifying problems of the student.

It is the most commonly used in computing and analyzing the performance, talent and skills of students. It is the important record to keep even for the longest time for the referral and credentials of the student to enter their next level of attaining their goals. It is the tract record that recognizes of one student, this maybe use for analyzing of your attitude and values.
Based on our research the state of Cotabato Foundation College of Science and Technology grades of each student, which is the traditional use when technology is not yet developed. Manual computation is very prompt to risk for any circumstances. It is time consuming in terms of recording grades, computation using of calculator. If some records are lost, they never retrieve it in case of unexpected calamity. Accuracy and security is not been so defined in their manual system.

Address to this observation, the proponents created a system entitled “School Integrated Information Management System or SIIM’s specified in Registrar Grading System (Tertiary)”. This study attempts to develop a Grading System that may eliminate the word “manual”. To that, it will lessen their time and effort for computing of grades. And eventually they may avoid rushing submission of grades. Another capability of the proposed system is storing and accessing old data.

Grading System for Data Accuracy will help a lot in the part of teachers, school, administration and as well as the security of data of students.

Objectives
The primary purpose of this study is to develop a Grading System for the State in tertiary level and to achieve the following: 1. To develop a system that will replace the current Grading System in the state which is highly manual; 2. To eliminate lag time between the submission of grades..
Informatics Computer Institute
Valenzuela BRANCH
IT211 Database design and Structured query language
Project Proposal

Project Title

“Computerized Grading System in AMA”

Introduction

The computerized grading system of AMA is under AMA ORACLE PEOPLESOFT CAMPUS SOLUTIONS (AMA ORACLE-PSCS) an online-based database used by the AMA Group of Companies to further employ and advance the technological savvy amongst all employers, employees, teachers and students alike.
Background of the Study
Russell de Villa works as an Assistant Instructor I at AMA Computer College, Batangas, Employed since July 2012 until present. He also works as an eLearning Coordinator for the Batangas Branch, where he mostly teaches Online Subjects and thus made him more familiar with the usage of online databases such as MOODLE and ORACLE PSCS.
The computer grading system makes the computing of grades easier and less time consuming for the professors. It is reliable, accurate and more efficient to use than manual grading.
Statement of the Problem In Russell’s 5 months usage of the system, there are no significant problems/bugs, except during power outages, problems on the online internet connection (slow processing, not connecting at all.

Objectives of the Study This is mostly used in two ways, one for the instructors and professors to encode grades into the database, as well as to encode their schedule, check class listings and schedules, and overall, it’s kind of like an online record book for any instructor working under AMA Computer Colleges. The other is for the students to check their encoded grades (an unofficial grade slip), know their time schedules and as well as a mean of contacting their instructors for any information or inform correctional concerns about their grades.

Scope and Limitation of the Study
As an e-Learning Coordinator for AMA Computer College, he uses the computerized grading system of AMA in ORACLE-PSCS for mostly encoding...
Informatics Computer Institute
Valenzuela BRANCH
IT211 Database design and Structured query language
Project Proposal

Project Title

“Computerized Grading System in AMA”

1.1. Introduction
Grading System is designed to provide incentive reward for achievement and assist in identifying problems of the student.
Grading System is the most commonly used in computing and analyzing the performance, talent and skills of students. It is the important record to keep even for the longest time for the referral and credentials of the student to enter their next level of attaining their goals. It is the tract record that recognizes of one student, this maybe use for analyzing of your attitude and values.
Based on our research the school of Holy Spirit Christian Learning Centre is using a manual computation of grades of each student, which is the traditional use when technology is not yet developed. Manual computation is very prompt to risk for any circumstances. It is time consuming in terms of recording grades, computation using of calculator. If some records are lost, they never retrieve it in case of unexpected calamity. Accuracy and security is not been so defined because of above risks.

Thus, the proponents created a system entitled “Holy Spirit Christian Learning Centre Grading System for Data Accuracy”, which is more accurate, efficient and very easy to use and friendly user. To that, it will lessen their time and effort for computing of grades. And eventually they may avoid rushing submission of grades.
Holy Spirit Christian Learning Centre Grading System for Data Accuracy will help a lot in the part of teachers, school, administration and as well as the security of data of students.

1.2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Holy Spirit Christian Learning Centre is one of the frontline ministries of the Episcopal Diocese of Central Philippines. Way back 19 until recently. Located at #12 Resma St. Cor. Sto. Niño Ext. Zone 4B, Signal Village, Taguig City. The church intended for all types of person, specifically for the children and the community of Signal Village Taguig City. As year pass by, they establish a school nearby the.
CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROund Today, many colleges and universities still use automated system in daily life. But there are so many schools are still using manual system. Grading System is the most commonly used in computing and analyzing the performance, talents and skills of the students. It is the important record to keep even for the longest time for the referral and credentials of the student to enter their next level of attaining their goals. Grading System for Data Accuracy will help a lot in the part of teachers, school, administration and as well as the security of data of students.

The proponents attempt to develop a Grading System that may eliminate the word “manual”. Another feature is the automatic importing of grades from the instructor’s class record and printing it in different forms, unlike the current system wherein they need to write everything and present everything in person. However, this

Proposed system can give us more data accuracy and speed up time not only for the students but also for the instructors. Another capability of the proposed system is storing and accessing old data 1. Background of the Study St. John Technological College of the Philippines Grading System today is processed manually, it causes the instructors doing heavy task of computing grades every grading period. The manual Grading System in St. John slows down the processing and delaying submission of grades as well as the security of data of the students has not been defined in manual system .The computerized grading system will benefit the school and help the students to view their grades every examination period . The rapid advancement of computers in our society has made our daily workloads easier and more accurate. With its vast development, we need to set ourselves in its change and go with its flow. It had changed the views of many people to shift or after their way of doing.
The Advantages of the Grading System
By Miranda Morley, eHow Contributor
Some schools, like the Colorado School District, have done away with the grading system, but there are still some advantages to it. A system without grades may be beneficial because it can cause students to value learning instead of outcomes and lets them repeat a task until they can complete it successfully. However, the grading system helps students and teachers set goals and stay organized in the fast paced world of the school. * 1. Objectivity * The grading system holds that the student gets the grade deserved, regardless of whether or not a teacher likes the student. Of course, teachers may be biased, and can often give higher or lower grades on individual assignments. Some grading systems -- like holistic grading or grading without points -- are more prone to subjectivity than others. Still, the grading system requires that teachers keep records of students' performance on assignments, as well as a record of how these assignments influenced the final grade.
Justification
* The grading system allows teachers and administrators to quickly and objectively justify their decisions regarding who goes on to the next grade and who must repeat. Without grades, teachers and administrators may have difficulty deciding on what step -- moving forward or repeating -- was better for the student. Teacher preference, class size and other factors outside of student achievement could easily weigh into the decision without alphanumeric scores.
Motivation
* Grades create a specific goal system for children to get motivated and improve their academic performance. When a student sees that she is getting a "C", she can easily set a specific goal for herself, share that goal with her parents and teachers and ask them what she needs to do to achieve it. Whether or not she meets this goal is also easily measured. Teachers can also use the grading system to clearly explain to students why they got the grade they did and what they can do to improve it.
Organization
* Teachers need a working system of organization in order to quickly and accurately keep track of all of the students and their performance, as they often instruct more than 100 students in a school day with only one planning period, Grades are easier to record, keep track of and tabulate than other assessment methods, such as notes on conversations or written summaries of students' work.

Many schools are debating replacing the traditional grading system in spite of its many advantages.
-------------------------------------------------
Related Articles * What Are the Disadvantages of School Without Grades? * Are High School Grades an Accurate Indicator of High School Performance? * The Effects High School Grades Have on College Success * How to Get Better Grades in Middle School * Homework's Effects on Grades in High School * What Are the Disadvantages of Dropping Out of High School?
Many schools have switched from the traditional A-F scale of academic grading to more holistic approaches, such as pass/fail systems. While many people think this decision decreases stress on students and helps them focus on learning the material rather than getting a grade, the traditional system has many conveniences for students, teachers and parents. Some disadvantages of schools without grades include less specific standards and feedback, and difficulty obtaining professional and higher-education opportunities.
More Difficult Evaluation
The University of the West Indies at Mona states that grades give teachers an equitable scale for evaluating students' mastery of concepts. Pass/fail evaluations may tend to focus on how well a student performed as opposed to what he actually learned; an evaluation of "passing" doesn't necessarily indicate strong comprehension. According to Auburn University, traditional grades can be highly effective, provided that teachers identify what they want students to learn and how their activities, exams and assignments will accomplish those objectives.
Less Specific Feedback
Grades also provide valuable feedback for students and their parents about strengths, weaknesses and general performance. Pass/fail systems provide only two options for evaluation, while a letter grade system offers five levels of achievement to pinpoint a student's work ethic and comprehension. While Edutopia suggests project-based assessment, student self-assessment and greater communication between teachers and students as solutions to this drawback, grades let teachers and parents identify specific weaknesses so students can get help.
Level of Effort
Advocates of the no-grade system, such as High School Magazine, contend that not having grades gives students stronger motivation by letting them focus on what they're learning and not how they're performing. However, the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning states that without grades as a motivating force for achievement, many students may put forth decreased effort. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign says that grades can reward students for high work ethic and achievement.
Professional and Graduate Opportunities
Not having academic grades may lower students' stress in the short-term, but pose long-term consequences for their professional and higher education goals. According to A to Z of Brain, Mind and Learning, many graduate schools, colleges and jobs look at grades as a standardized way to determine potential success. Many admissions personnel consider grades to be a more accurate determining factor than test scores. Because of heavy competition for jobs and slots in universities, students who attend high schools that don't offer grades may find themselves at a disadvantage. *
What Is a Grading System?
Assigning student grades at the end of a term can be a painless process for teachers who have a clear grading system in place. A grading system is a breakdown of how a teacher (or a school) categorizes and weighs student assignments to determine a student's grade out of 100. 1. Considerations * The grading system should reflect focused course objectives that are made readily available to students through assignment tasks, rubrics, matrices and syllabi. Transparency can help students see how their work directly impacts their grade in the course.
Features
* A good grading scale is performance-based, including categories such as quizzes, tests, group projects, essays and homework. According to the University of Michigan's Center for Teaching and Learning, "items as 'effort,' 'attendance,' or 'frequency of participation,' although contributing factors to student learning, do not actually reflect the extent to which students have learned the course materials." * Benefits * Students not only take more ownership for their work and learning when a good grading system is in place, but they also learn to trust their teachers. Additionally, the numbers make sense. Data is valid and can be used to track student progress, pinpoint problems, and tweak curriculum to meet student needs.
-------------------------------------------------
Grading (education)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Grade (education))
"GPA" redirects here. For other uses, see GPA (disambiguation).
Grading in education is the process of applying standardized measurements of varying levels of achievement in a course.
Grades can be assigned in letters (for example, A, B, C, D, or F), as a range (for example 1 to 6), as a percentage of a total number correct, as a number out of a possible total (for example out of 20 or 100), or as descriptors (excellent, great, satisfactory, needs improvement).
In some countries, all grades from all current classes are averaged to create a grade point average (GPA) for the marking period. The GPA is calculated by taking the number of grade points a student earned in a given period of time divided by the total number of credits taken.[1] The GPA can be used by potential employers or educational institutions to assess and compare applicants. A Cumulative Grade Point Average is a calculation of the average of all of a student's grades for all courses completed so far.
-------------------------------------------------
History of grading[
Yale University historian George W. Pierson writes "According to tradition the first grades issued at Yale (and possibly the first in the country) were given out in the year 1785, when President Ezra Stiles, after examining 58 Seniors, recorded in his diary that there were 'Twenty Optimi, sixteen second Optimi, twelve Inferiores (Boni), ten Pejores.'"[4] Keith Hoskin argues that the concept of grading students' work quantitatively was developed by a tutor named William Farish and first implemented by the University of Cambridge in 1792.[5] Hoskin's assertion has been questioned by Christopher Stray, who finds the evidence for Farish as the inventor of the numerical mark to be unpersuasive.[6] Stray's article elucidates the complex relationship between the mode of examination (testing), in this case oral or written, and the varying philosophies of education these modes imply, both to teacher and student. As a technology, grading both shapes and reflects many fundamental areas of educational theory and practice.
THOMAS R. GUSKEY
Over the course of an academic career the average student will be exposed to a variety of grading systems and procedures. Although some of these systems may be qualitative in nature, such as an annual or semiannual written narrative, the vast majority are quantitative and depend upon numerical or alphanumerical metrics. Perhaps the most familiar of these involves the letters "A" through "F," where "A" is usually given a value of 4.0 and is characterized in words as outstanding or excellentand "F" is given a value of 0.0 and is described as unsatisfactory or failing. The grades of A through F are usually derived from some more differentiated quantitative value such as test score, in which the specific nature of the relationship between grade and test score may take a variety of different forms: (e.g., an A is defined by a score of 90% or better or by a value that falls in the top 5–10% of scores independent of absolute value, and so on). Regardless of the specific translation of test performance into letter grade, the point to keep in mind is that the A–F scale defines the most frequent grading system used in higher education over the past half century or more.
Variations in the Grading System
Like all prototypes, the A–F system admits many variations. These often take the form of plusses and minuses, thereby producing a scale having the possibility of fifteen distinct units: A+, A, A–, B+, B … F–. In actual practice, the grade of A+ is scarcely ever used and the same is true for D+ and D–and F+ and F–, thereby yielding a scale of between eight to ten units. Generally speaking, the greater the number of units in the grading system the more precisely does it hope to quantify student performance. What is interesting in this regard are fluctuations in the actual number of units used in different historical eras. Without going too deeply into the relevant historical facts, it is clear that certain historical periods, such as the 1960s, reduced the grading system to two or so units–Pass, No Credit (P/NC)–whereas other periods, such as the 1980s, expanded it to ten, eleven or twelve units.
Variations in the breadth of the grading system would seem to have significant educational implications. At a minimum, these differences may be taken to imply that scales having a large number of units indicate a relative comfort in making precise distinctions, whereas those having fewer units suggest a relative discomfort in making such distinctions. In the case of more differentiated systems, distinctions and rankings are significant, and individual achievement is emphasized; in the case of less differentiated systems, distinctions and rankings are de-emphasized and interstudent competition is minimized. To some degree, it is possible to view fluctuations in American grading systems as reflecting a more general ambivalence the society has in regard to competition and cooperation, between individual recognition and social equity. Educational institutions sometimes emphasize strict evaluation, competition, and individual achievement, whereas at other times they emphasize less precise evaluation, cooperation, and sympathetic understanding for students of all achievement levels.
Another property of grading systems is that individual class grades often are combined to produce an overall metric called the grade point average or GPA. Unlike its constituent values, which usually are carried to only one (or no numerically significant places), the GPA presents a metric of 400 units yielding the possibility that a GPA of 3.00 will locate the student in the category of "good" whereas a value of2.99 will exclude him or her from this category. In the same way, honors, admission to graduate school, preliminary selection for interviews by a desirable company, and so forth, may be defined by a single point difference on the GPA scale (e.g., 3.50 versus3.49 for Phi Beta Kappa, etc.).
Because GPAs are significant in categorizing student performance, a number of evaluations have been made of their reliability and validity. One issue to be addressed here concerns field of study, where it is well documented that classes in the natural sciences and business produce lower overall grades than those in the humanities or social sciences. What this means is that it is unreasonable to equate grade values across disciplines. It also suggests that the GPA is composed of unequal components and that students may be able to secure a higher GPA by a judicious selection of courses.
Although other factors may be mentioned aside from academic discipline (such as SAT level of school, quality and nature of tests, etc.) the conclusion must be that the GPA is a poor measure and should not be used by itself in coming to significant decisions about the quality of student performance or differences between departments and/or educational institutions. The GPA is also a relatively poor basis on which to predict future performance, which perhaps explains why such attempts are never very impressive. In fact, a number of meta-analyses of this relationship, conducted every ten years or so since 1965, reveals that the median correlation between GPA and future performance is 0.18; a value that is neither very useful nor impressive. The strongest relationship between GPA and future achievement is usually found between undergraduate GPA and first-year performance in graduate or professional school.
Despite such difficulties in understanding the exact meanings of grades and the GPA, they remain important social metrics and sometimes yield heated discussions over issues such as grade inflation. Although grade inflation has many different meanings, it usually is defined by an increase in the absolute number of As and Bs over some period of years. The tacit assumption here seems to be that any continuing increase in the overall percentage of "good grades" or in the overall GPA implies a corresponding decline in academic standards. Although historically there have been periods in which the number of good grades decreased (so-called grade deflation), significant social concerns usually only accompany the grade inflation pattern. This one-sided emphasis suggests that grade inflation is as much a sociopolitical issue as an educational one and depends upon the dubious equating of grades with money. What really seems of concern here is a value issue, not a cogent analogy that reveals anything significant about grades or money.
How Grades Are Produced
Grading systems represent just one aspect of an interconnecting network of educational processes, and any attempt to describe grading systems without considering other aspects of this network must necessarily be incomplete. Perhaps the most important of these processes concerns the procedures used to produce grades in the first place, namely, the classroom test. Here, of course, are purely formal differences; for example, between multiple choice and essay tests, or between in-class and take-home tests or papers. Also to be included are the quality of test items themselves not only in terms of content but also in terms of the clarity of the question and, in the case of multiple choice tests, of the distractors.
One way to capture the complexity of possible ways in which grades are produced is to consider the set of implicit choices that lie behind an instructor's use of a specific testing and/or grading procedure. Included here are such questions as: What evaluation procedure should I use? Term papers, classroom discussions, or in-class tests? If I choose tests, what kind(s)? Essay, true/false, fill-in-the-blank, matching, or multiple-choice? If I choose multiple-choice, what grading model should I use? Normal curve, percent-correct, improvement over preceding tests? If I choose percent-correct, how many tests should I give? Final only, two in-class tests and a final, one midterm and one final? How should I weight each test if I choose the midterm-final pattern? Midterm equals final, midterm is equivalent to twice the final exam grade, final equals twice the midterm grade? What grade report system should I use? P/F; A, B, C, D, F; or A+, A, A–, B+, … F? An examination of this collection of possible choices suggests that instructors have a large number of options as to how to go about testing and grading their students.
Any consideration of the ways in which testing and grading relate to one another must also deal with the ways in which one or both of these activities relate to learning and teaching. The relationship between learning and testing is a fairly direct (if neglected) one, especially if tests are used not only to evaluate student achievement but also to reinforce or promote learning itself. Thus it is easy to develop a classroom question or exercise that requires the student to read some material before being able to answer the question or complete the exercise. Teaching, on the other hand, would seem to be somewhat further removed from issues of testing and grading, although the specific testing and grading plan used by the instructor does inform the student as to what constitutes relevant knowledge as well as what attitude he or she holds toward precise evaluation and academic competition.
Students are not immune to testing and grade procedures, and educational researchers have made the distinction between students who are grade oriented and those who are learning oriented. Although this distinction is surely too one-dimensional, it does suggest that for some students the classroom is a place where they experience and enjoy learning for its own sake. For other students, however, the classroom is experienced as a crucible in which they are tested and in which the attainment of a good grade becomes more important than the learning itself. When students are asked how they became grade (or learning) oriented, they usually point to the actions of their teachers in emphasizing grades as a significant indicator of future success; alternatively, they describe instructors who are excited by promoting new learning in their classrooms. When college instructors are asked about the reason(s) for their emphasis on grades, they report that student behaviors–such as arguing over the scoring of a single question–make it necessary for them to maintain strict and well-defined grading standards in their classrooms. The ironic point is that both the student and the instructor see the "other" as emphasizing grades over learning, and neither sees this as a desirable state of affairs. What seems missing in this context is a clear recognition by both the instructor and the student that grades are best construed as a type of communication. When grades (and tests) are thought about in this way, they can be used to improve learning. As it now stands, however, the communicative purpose of grading is ordinarily submerged in their more ordinary use as a means of rating and sorting students for social and institutional purposes not directly tied to learning. Only when grades are integrated into a coherent teaching and learning strategy do they serve the purpose of providing useful and meaningful feedback not only to the larger culture but to the individual student as well. Thomas R. Guskey
HIGHER EDUCATION
Howard R. Pollio
SCHOOL
Few issues have created more controversy among educators than those associated with grading and reporting student learning. Despite the many debates and multitudes of studies, however, prescriptions for best practice remain elusive. Although teachers generally try to develop grading policies that are honest and fair, strong evidence shows that their practices vary widely, even among those who teach at the same grade level within the same school.
In essence, grading is an exercise in professional judgment on the part of teachers. It involves the collection and evaluation of evidence on students' achievement or performance over a specified period of time, such as nine weeks, an academic semester, or entire school year. Through this process, various types of descriptive information and measures of students' performance are converted into grades or marks that summarize students' accomplishments. Although some educators distinguish betweengrades and marks, most consider these terms synonymous. Both imply a set of symbols, words, or numbers that are used to designate different levels of achievement or performance. They might be letter grades such as A, B, C, D, and F; symbols such as &NA;+, &NA;, and &NA;−; descriptive words such as Exemplary, Satisfactory, and Needs Improvement; or numerals such as 4, 3, 2, and 1. Reporting is the process by which these judgments are communicated to parents, students, or others.
A Brief History
Grading and reporting are relatively recent phenomena in education. In fact, prior to 1850, grading and reporting were virtually unknown in schools in the United States. Throughout much of the nineteenth century most schools grouped students of all ages and backgrounds together with one teacher in one-room schoolhouses, and few students went beyond elementary studies. The teacher reported students' learning progress orally to parents, usually during visits to students' homes.
As the number of students increased in the late 1800s, schools began to group students in grade levels according to their age, and new ideas about curriculum and teaching methods were tried. One of these new ideas was the use of formal progress evaluations of students' work, in which teachers wrote down the skills each student had mastered and those on which additional work was needed. This was done primarily for the students' benefit, since they were not permitted to move on to the next level until they demonstrated their mastery of the current one. It was also the earliest example of a narrative report card.
With the passage of compulsory attendance laws at the elementary level during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the number of students entering high schools increased rapidly. Between 1870 and 1910 the number of public high schools in the United States increased from 500 to 10,000. As a result, subject area instruction in high schools became increasingly specific and student populations became more diverse. While elementary teachers continued to use written descriptions and narrative reports to document student learning, high school teachers began using percentages and other similar markings to certify students' accomplishments in different subject areas. This was the beginning of the grading and reporting systems that exist today.
The shift to percentage grading was gradual, and few American educators questioned it. The practice seemed a natural by-product of the increased demands on high school teachers, who now faced classrooms with growing numbers of students. But in 1912 a study by two Wisconsin researchers seriously challenged the reliability of percentage grades as accurate indicators of students' achievement.
In their study, Daniel Starch and Edward Charles Elliott showed that high school English teachers in different schools assigned widely varied percentage grades to two identical papers from students. For the first paper the scores ranged from 64 to 98, and the second from 50 to 97. Some teachers focused on elements of grammar and style, neatness, spelling, and punctuation, while others considered only how well the message of the paper was communicated. The following year Starch and Elliot repeated their study using geometry papers submitted to math teachers and found even greater variation in math grades. Scores on one of the math papers ranged from 28 to 95–a 67-point difference. While some teachers deducted points only for a wrong answer, many others took neatness, form, and spelling into consideration.
These demonstrations of wide variation in grading practices led to a gradual move away from percentage scores to scales that had fewer and larger categories. One was a three-point scale that employed the categories of Excellent, Average, and Poor.Another was the familiar five-point scale of Excellent, Good, Average, Poor, and Failing, (or A, B, C, D, and F). This reduction in the number of score categories served to reduce the variation in grades, but it did not solve the problem of teacher subjectivity.
To ensure a fairer distribution of grades among teachers and to bring into check the subjective nature of scoring, the idea of grading based on the normal probability, bell-shaped curve became increasingly popular. By this method, students were simply rank-ordered according to some measure of their performance or proficiency. A top percentage was then assigned a grade of A, the next percentage a grade of B, and so on. Some advocates of this method even specified the precise percentages of students that should be assigned each grade, such as the 6-22-44-22-6 system.
Grading on the curve was considered appropriate at that time because it was well known that the distribution of students' intelligence test scores approximated a normal probability curve. Since innate intelligence and school achievement were thought to be directly related, such a procedure seemed both fair and equitable. Grading on the curve also relieved teachers of the difficult task of having to identify specific learning criteria. Fortunately, most educators of the early twenty-first century have a better understanding of the flawed premises behind this practice and of its many negative consequences.
In the years that followed, the debate over grading and reporting intensified. A number of schools abolished formal grades altogether, believing they were a distraction in teaching and learning. Some schools returned to using only verbal descriptions and narrative reports of student achievement. Others advocated pass/fail systems that distinguished only between acceptable and failing work. Still others advocated a mastery approach, in which the only important factor was whether or not the student had mastered the content or skill being taught. Once mastered, that student would move on to other areas of study.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, lack of consensus about what works best has led to wide variation in teachers' grading and reporting practices, especially among those at the elementary level. Many elementary teachers continue to use traditional letter grades and record a single grade on the reporting form for each subject area studied. Others use numbers or descriptive categories as proxies for letter grades. They might, for example, record a 1, 2, 3, or 4, or they might describe students' achievement as Beginning, Developing, Proficient, or Distinguished. Some elementary schools have developedstandards-based reporting forms that record students' learning progress on specific skills or learning goals. Most of these forms also include sections for teachers to evaluate students' work habits or behaviors, and many provide space for narrative comments.
Grading practices are generally more consistent and much more traditional at the secondary level, where letter grades still dominate reporting systems. Some schools attempt to enhance the discriminatory function of letter grades by adding plusses or minuses, or by pairing letter grades with percentage indicators. Because most secondary reporting forms allow only a single grade to be assigned for each course or subject area, however, most teachers combine a variety of diverse factors into that single symbol. In some secondary schools, teachers have begun to assign multiple grades for each course in order to separate achievement grades from marks related to learning skills, work habits, or effort, but such practices are not widespread.
Research Findings
Over the years, grading and reporting have remained favorite topics for researchers. A review of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) system, for example, yields a reference list of more than 4,000 citations. Most of these references are essays about problems in grading and what should be done about them. The research studies consist mainly of teacher surveys. Although this literature is inconsistent both in the quality of studies and in results, several points of agreement exist. These points include the following:
Grading and reporting are not essential to the instructional process. Teachers do not need grades or reporting forms to teach well, and students can and do learn many things well without them. It must be recognized, therefore, that the primary purpose of grading and reporting is other than facilitation of teaching or learning.
At the same time, significant evidence shows that regularly checking on students' learning progress is an essential aspect of successful teaching–but checking is different from grading. Checking implies finding out how students are doing, what they have learned well, what problems or difficulties they might be experiencing, and what corrective measures may be necessary. The process is primarily a diagnostic and prescriptive interaction between teachers and students. Grading and reporting, however, typically involve judgment of the adequacy of students' performance at a particular point in time. As such, it is primarily evaluative and descriptive.
When teachers do both checking and grading, they must serve dual roles as both advocate and judge for students–roles that are not necessarily compatible. Ironically, this incompatibility is usually recognized when administrators are called on to evaluate teachers, but it is generally ignored when teachers are required to evaluate students. Finding a meaningful compromise between these dual roles is discomforting to many teachers, especially those with a child-centered orientation.
Grading and reporting serve a variety of purposes, but no one method serves all purposes well. Various grading and reporting methods are used to: (1) communicate the achievement status of students to their parents and other interested parties; (2) provide information to students for self-evaluation; (3) select, identify, or group students for certain educational paths or programs; (4) provide incentives for students to learn; and (5) document students' performance to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional programs. Unfortunately, many schools try to use a single method of grading and reporting to achieve all of these purposes and end up achieving none of them very well.
Letter grades, for example, offer parents and others a brief description of students' achievement and the adequacy of their performance. But using letter grades requires the abstraction of a great deal of information into a single symbol. In addition, the cut-offs between grades are always arbitrary and difficult to justify. Letter grades also lack the richness of other, more detailed reporting methods such as narratives or standards-based reports.
These more detailed methods also have their drawbacks, however. Narratives and standardsbased reports offer specific information that is useful in documenting student achievement. But good narratives take time to prepare and as teachers complete more narratives, their comments become increasingly standardized. Standards-based reports are often too complicated for parents to understand and seldom communicate the appropriateness of student progress. Parents often are left wondering if their child's achievement is comparable with that of other children or in line with the teacher's expectations.
Because no single grading method adequately serves all purposes, schools must first identify their primary purpose for grading, and then select or develop the most appropriate approach. This process involves the difficult task of seeking consensus among diverse groups of stakeholders.
Grading and reporting require inherently subjective judgments. Grading is a process of professional judgment–and the more detailed and analytic the grading process, the more likely it is that subjectivity will influence results. This is why, for example, holistic scoring procedures tend to have greater reliability than analytic procedures. However, being subjective does not mean that grades lack credibility or are indefensible. Because teachers know their students, understand various dimensions of students' work, and have clear notions of the progress made, their subjective perceptions can yield very accurate descriptions of what students have learned.
Negative consequences result when subjectivity translates to bias. This occurs when factors apart from students' actual achievement or performance affect their grades. Studies have shown, for example, that cultural differences among students, as well as their appearance, family backgrounds, and lifestyles, can sometimes result in biased evaluations of their academic performance. Teachers' perceptions of students' behavior can also significantly influence their judgments of academic performance. Students with behavior problems often have no chance to receive a high grade because their infractions over-shadow their performance. These effects are especially pronounced in judgments of boys. Even the neatness of students' handwriting can significantly affect teachers' judgments. Training programs help teachers identify and reduce these negative effects and can lead to greater consistency in judgments.
Grades have some value as rewards, but no value as punishments. Although educators would undoubtedly prefer that motivation to learn be entirely intrinsic, the existence of grades and other reporting methods are important factors in determining how much effort students put forth. Most students view high grades as positive recognition of their success, and some work hard to avoid the consequences of low grades.
At the same time, no studies support the use of low grades or marks as punishments. Instead of prompting greater effort, low grades usually cause students to withdraw from learning. To protect their self-image, many regard the low grade as irrelevant and meaningless. Other students may blame themselves for the low mark, but feel helpless to improve. Grading and reporting should always be done in reference to learning criteria, never "on the curve." Although using the normal probability curve as a basis for assigning grades yields highly consistent grade distributions from one teacher to the next, there is strong evidence that it is detrimental to relationships among students and between teachers and students. Grading on the curve pits students against one another in a competition for the few rewards (high grades) distributed by the teacher. Under these conditions, students readily see that helping others threatens their own chances for success.
Modern research has also shown that the seemingly direct relationship between aptitude or intelligence and school achievement depends on instructional conditions. When the quality of instruction is high and well matched to students' learning needs, the magnitude of this relationship diminishes drastically and approaches zero. Moreover, the fairness and equity of grading on the curve is a myth.
Relating grading and reporting to learning criteria, however, provides a clearer picture of what students have learned. Students and teachers alike generally prefer this approach because they consider it fairer. The types of learning criteria teachers use for grading and reporting typically fall into three general categories: 1. Product criteria are favored by advocates of standards-based approaches to teaching and learning. These educators believe the primary purpose of grading and reporting is to communicate a summative evaluation of student achievement and performance. In other words, they focus on what students know and are able to do at a particular point in time. Teachers who use product criteria base grades exclusively on final examination scores, final products (reports or projects), overall assessments, and other culminating demonstrations of learning. 2. Process criteria are emphasized by educators who believe product criteria do not provide a complete picture of student learning. From this perspective, grading and reporting should reflect not just the final results but also how students got there. Teachers who consider effort or work habits when reporting on student learning are using process criteria. So are teachers who count regular classroom quizzes, homework, class participation, or attendance. 3. Progress criteria, often referred to as improvement scoring, learning gain, or value-added grading, consider how much students have gained from their learning experiences. Teachers who use progress criteria look at how far students have come over a particular period of time, rather than just where they are. As a result, grading criteria may be highly individualized. Most of the research evidence on progress criteria in grading and reporting comes from studies of differentially paced instructional programs and special education programs.
Teachers who base their grading and reporting procedures on learning criteria typically use some combination of these three types. Most also vary the criteria they employ from student to student, taking into account individual circumstances. Although usually done in an effort to be fair, the result is a "hodgepodge grade" that includes elements of achievement, effort, and improvement.
Researchers and measurement specialists generally recommend the use of product criteria exclusively in determining students' grades. They point out that the more process and progress criteria come into play, the more subjective and biased grades are likely to be. If these criteria are included at all, they recommend reporting them separately.
Conclusion
1. The issues of grading and reporting on student learning continue to challenge educators. However, more is known at the beginning of the twenty-first century than ever before about the complexities involved and how certain practices can influence teaching and learning. To develop grading and reporting practices that provide quality information about student learning requires clear thinking, careful planning, excellent communication skills, and an overriding concern for the well-being of students. Combining these skills with current knowledge on effective practice will surely result in more efficient and more effective grading and reporting practices. ucation 2. College & Higher Education 3. Online Degrees 4. History of Grading Systems
History of Grading Systems
By Nicole Lassahn, eHow Contributor * * * Share * * Print this article
Letter grades were first used in the United States in the last part of the 19th century. Both colleges and high schools began replacing other forms of assessment with letter and percentage grades in the early 20th century. While grading systems appear to be fairly standardized in the U.S., debates about grade inflation and the utility of grades for fostering student learning continue. 1. Before Grades * Universities have always evaluated students, but the modern grading system did not always exist. In fact, in the 18th century, there was no standardized means of evaluating students, and certainly no means by which student performance at one institution could be easily compared with student performance somewhere else. One of the first instances of an attempt to evaluate students systematically appeared in the diary of Ezra Stiles, who was president of Yale University in the 18th century. In 1785, he divided students who were present for an examination into four ranks or grades: optimi, second optimi, inferiores and pejores--Latin terms indicating relative quality, best, worse and worst.
The First Grades * It was also at Yale University that a system resembling our current grading system was first used. In the first quarter of the 19th century, Yale kept student information in what it called a Book of Averages; this book also sometimes discussed rules and procedures for setting down exam results. The book mentioned the practice of recording an average of each student's marks--a procedure still used in figuring course grades--and also mentioned marking on a 4-point scale. While there is no mention this early of the letter grades we know today, the 4-point scale is probably the precursor of today's grade point average. Numerical scales also were used elsewhere, but they varied by institution. College of William & Mary used a 4-point scale, with 1 as the best and 4 as the worst. Harvard College used both a 20-point and a 100-point scale. Yale apparently experimented briefly with a 9-point scale before returning to the 4-point scale.
Letter Grades * In the last half of the 19th century, colleges continued to experiment with various scales for evaluating students and also for grouping and classifying them. Some systems functioned by evaluating students individually. For example, the University of Michigan's marking system in 1895 provided students with one of five marks on exams: passed, incomplete, not passed, conditional or absent. Other systems were attempts to rank or order the entire student body, or all students in a class, by placing them into categories, divisions or percentages, such as Harvard's 1877 system that placed students in one of six "divisions" using a grading scale of 100--Division I was students earning 90 to 100 on the evaluation scale. These systems might not have averaged student performance to create comparative ranks, what we call grading on a curve. It was in 1897 at Mount Holyoke College that letter grades tied to a numerical or percentage scale were first used. The college awarded students in percentages 95 to 100 an A, 85 to 94 a B, 76 to 84 a C, 75 a D--the lowest passing grade--and anything below 75 an E, which indicated a failing grade. Our modern F grade was not used, but this system was the beginning of the relatively standard grades we see today.
Early K-12 Grades * It was in the first part of the 20th century that American elementary and high school education also began using standardized grading systems. This period coincided with a substantial increase in the number of students; compulsory-attendance laws had been passed during this period, and the number of public high schools increased from 500 to 10,000 between 1870 and 1910. These changes made the use of written, descriptive reports less feasible, and high schools increasingly began using both percentage and letter grades to evaluate students. In 1912, Daniel Starch and Edward Charles Elliott, two researchers from Wisconsin, examined the reliability of percentage grades and found that there was immense variation from teacher to teacher in both the criteria used to assign grades and the grades themselves. This variation, and the desire for more standard grades, led to an overall move away from point scales with a large range to the smaller types of grade scales we know today.
Grading System Controversies * While grade scales in the U.S. are fairly standard, debates and questions about grading continue today. There are similar questions about variability, because grading can be a subjective process, as well as more philosophical questions about the relationship of grades to learning. Finally, even the grade scale itself is not exactly the same at all schools. One of the largest concerns about variability is grade inflation, the phenomenon in which average grades at private schools are higher than at public schools. While some claim that this discrepancy is caused by private schools' greater selectivity in admissions, implying the student body is smarter at private schools, data collected by Stuart Rojstaczer show that even when schools have the same degree of selectivity, private schools have higher grade point averages than public schools. Faculty members such as Harvey C. Mansfield have publicly complained about the pressure to raise grades beyond what is deserved. One reason for grade inflation is probably pressure from students who are concerned about their grades and their future career prospects. Educators worry that grades can make students more focused on credentials and less on actual learning. It is also the case that grades can take the place of more substantive and individualized assessments; there are many ways of diagnosing whether students are learning, and grades are not always the best method. There is also some debate about whether the practice of grading on a curve is useful in fostering or assessing student learning. Finally, while it is true that a standardized grading scale can be necessary in a world in which students move from school to school and state to state, our grading scales are not as standardized as we think. In addition to variations in grade inflation, meaning the same student might receive different grades at different institutions, schools also vary in their use of the plus and minus system, and some use a point system rather than letter grades.

Writing Thesis Summary of Findings, Conclusion, Recommendations and Sample of the Approved Thesis Study
To Give the Overview of a Thesis Work, Below is the Sample of Approved Thesis Study Exclusive Only for Summary, Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations

ermetes adolfo jr., Yahoo Contributor Network
Sep 11, 2011 "Share your voice on Yahoo websites. Start Here." * -------------------------------------------------
MORE:
* -------------------------------------------------
Macros
* -------------------------------------------------
Approved
FlagPost a comment
Writing Thesis Summary of Findings, Conclusion, Recommendations and Sample of the Approved Thesis Study
"Summary of findings is the last part of the thesis or dissertation. It is where the findings or the result of the thesis study is written. Let's find out some characteristics of summary of findings: 1) Summary of findings should be a short statement such as the main purpose of the study, the population or respondents, period of the study, method of research used, research instrument and sampling design; 2) Findings should be written in textual generalization, that is, a summary of the important data consisting of text and numbers; 3) Important findings should be included in the summary; 4) No new information or data should be included in the summary of findings; and 5) Findings should be stated concisely, not explained or elaborated anymore." Please refer to this link for more informationhttp://thesisnotes.com/summary/writing-thesis-summary-of-findings/
To give the overview of what is really a thesis/dissertation all about, below is the sample of a thesis work exclusive only for the summary, findings, conclusion and recommendations entitled "The effectiveness of structured development lessons in English" using the 4 macro-skills intended for the public science high school students.

The teacher-researcher found out that the students' difficulties in oral and written English were speaking or conversational English, including correct usage, listening and answering questions. The causes for these difficulties were: students have poor background in elementary; English is not heard at home; teachers prefer to speak the dialect often; lack or absence of English books
The main thrust of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of structured development lessons in English using the 4 macro-skills intended for the public science high school students. Specifically, the study answered questions on the level of language proficiency of the freshmen science high school students with reference to pronunciation and correct usage; mean pretest and posttest scores of the students based on the structured lessons of macro-skills' learning performance; significant difference in the mean pretest and posttest scores of the students in listening, speaking, reading, and writing; mean gain in the posttest; and module which can be proposed based on the findings of the study.
The study used the Descriptive Survey Method and the main tool used was the research-made or self-made type of examination (questionnaire), including the record sheet as instrumentally utilized for the 75 students as selected freshmen in first year. The data gathered in this study were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 14--a computer program used for statistical analysis.
FINDINGS
1. Level of Language Proficiency of the Students Pronunciation
Majority (81.9333) of the students got the highest rating scale of 80-89 which was rated Very Good. None of the students as counted individually obtained the rating scale of 50-59 (far below from the passing percentage).
2. Correct Usage
None of the students rated Excellent which belonged to the rating scale of 90 and above.
Majority (77.5867) of the students got the average rating scale of 70-79 which was rated Good.
3. English Difficulties of the Freshmen Students Based on the Macro-Skills of English Language Teaching
The teacher-researcher found out that the students' difficulties in oral and written English were speaking or conversational English, including correct usage, listening and answering questions. The causes for these difficulties were: students have poor background in elementary; English is not heard at home; teachers prefer to speak the dialect often; lack or absence of English books; lack or absence of instructional materials; absence of printed materials at home; there are no television sets at home; teachers have faulty pronunciation; poor emphasis on written communications and there are no cultural shows and public speaking activities.
The teacher-researcher found out the following as difficulties felt or perceived by the students in written English: writing dictation, taking down notes, outlining, theme writing, punctuating, quoting, and observing coherence and unity in paragraph writing. The causes for these difficulties were: students have no appreciation for reading materials; lack of exposure to writing; inadequate writing activities; no ear training; teachers do not have the patience to analyze the mistakes in writing; absence of contents that can harness their potentials in essays, letters, etc.; students are poor spellers; and teachers in the elementary levels do spend their time in useless board work.
4. Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students
It found out in this study, based on the macro-skills, that: the posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 10.95980 while the result of posttest is 6.07959. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is 1.26553 while the result of posttest is .70201; the posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 4.92455 while the result of posttest is 3.42471.
Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .56864 while the result of posttest is .39545; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 3.28425 while the result of posttest is 3.17649. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .37923 while the result of posttest is .36679; the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333. In the standard deviation, the result of pretest is 6.26732 while the result of posttest is 5.29467. Unlike the standard error mean, the result of pretest is .72369 while the result of posttest is .61138.
It found out further that the posttest score in the speaking area got 1st rank which is 87.1200 while the pretest is 80.5467 of which the difference is 6.5733; the posttest score in the reading area got 2ndrank which is 86.7333 while the pretest is 84.4133 of which the difference is 2.3200; the posttest score in the writing area got 3rd rank which is 85.4400 while the pretest is 76.3333 of which the difference is 9.1067.
5. Paired Samples' Test/Paired Differences: The difference between the two means was subjected to a paired t-test.
5.1. Listening skill: the listening area was -7.57333, standard deviation was 10.63291, standard error mean was 1.22778, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -10.0974 and the difference (upper limit) was -5.12692, the c.v. result was -6.168 is greater than the t.v. result which was -10.01974. Therefore, the macro-skill in the listening area was not significant.
5.2. Speaking skill: the speaking area was -6.57333, standard deviation was 5.31742, standard error mean was .61400, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -7.79676 and the difference (upper limit) was -5.34991, the c.v. result was -10.706 is lesser than the t.v. result which was -7.79676. Therefore, the macro-skill in the speaking area was significant.
5.3. Reading skill: the reading area was -2.32000, standard deviation was 2.98265, standard error mean was .34441, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -3.00625 and the difference (upper limit) was -1.63375, the c.v. result was -6.736 is lesser than the t.v. result which was -3.00625. Therefore, the macro-skill in the reading area was significant.
5.4. Writing skill: the writing area was -9.10667, standard deviation was 7.38621, standard error mean was .85289, 95% confidence interval of the difference (lower limit) was -10.80608 and the difference (upper limit) was -7.40726, the c.v. result was -10.677 is greater than the t.v. result which was -10.80608. Therefore, the macro-skill in the writing area was not significant.
6. Mean Gain of the Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students: Mean gain based on the macro-skills of language teaching such as listening, speaking, reading and writing
Mean gain of singled-out freshmen students based on the macro-skills such as listening, speaking, reading and writing as structured in the lessons was used as a result in statistical analysis and computation of the mean pretest and mean posttest. It was disclosed upon interpretation of data that the mean gain in the listening area was obtained as the result of the subtraction of number from the mean pretest which was 75.5333 from the mean posttest which was 83.1067. The findings revealed that only the areas in speaking and reading got the highest posttest percentages. In the writing area, the mean gain was obtained as the result of the subtraction from the pretest which was 76.3333 from the mean posttest which was 85.4400.
To find out and to have the final results: in the listening. In area, the mean posttest was 83.1067 while the mean gain was -7.57333 which had the lowest mean pretest and posttest percentages as compared to the other areas; in the speaking area, the mean posttest was 87.1200 while the mean gain was -6.57333 which got the 1st rank posttest percentage; in the reading area, the mean gain was -2.32000 which got the 2nd rank posttest percentage and also got 1st rank pretest percentage among them; and in the writing area, the mean gain was -9.10667 which got 3rd rank posttest percentage, next to the speaking and reading areas.
It found out further that the posttest mean of the group in the listening area which is 83.1067 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 75.5333; the posttest mean of the group in the speaking area which is 87.1200 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 80.5467; the posttest mean of the group in the reading area which is 86.7333 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 84.4133; and the posttest mean of the group in the writing area which is 85.4400 is higher than the pretest mean of the group which is 76.3333.
CONCLUSION
The researcher concluded in this study that the language education of the freshmen in a science high school rejects partly the theory of Lado and Orleans (2000) which is based on the structured macro-skills' development lessons in English. However, there were some areas of language teaching that the students need to improve. The reason was that some previous English teachers in the elementary levels lacked the competence in treating the objectives of the subject area. Language teacher must possess the needed specialization required to teach the subject. It is further sought that the theoretical approach in teaching the language was proven inadequate. There should be a wider exposure of students to various English language experiences. The teachers must also be sent to various in-service trainings utilizing the macro-skills of English language teaching.
In conclusion, the students were not provided with experiential and practicum-learning orientation. Based on the findings, proposed module was formulated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
These recommendations are then suggested. The proposed module enrichment designed by the researcher based on the findings of the study should be utilized because it gives more emphasis to the activities to enhance macro-skills of the language. The school administration should implement policies that ensure quality teaching and learning in the classroom. The school should continuously provide the necessary teaching materials like newly updated books, supplementary reading materials and teaching aids. The teacher-student ratio should be kept at the optimum to facilitate learning within the time-frame allotted.
The school administration should also endeavor to send the teachers to trainings to enhance their knowledge and skills in both the oral and written aspects to make them effective teachers by modeling to the students. The emphasis should be directed towards the English communication skills development of teachers. The environment is influential in the acquisition of skills. Teachers who are fluent speakers of English make students also become voluble speakers.
The teachers should motivate themselves to take advance courses in English to acquire knowledge in the recent development of the English language in the areas of grammar and usage. English is a growing language. This move will enhance their competence in teaching the subject.
The speech course should be enforced to enhance better speaking competence and capabilities among the freshmen students and to institute a system that will encourage students to study English. * High School Grading System * Grade Description * A Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the grade level content and consistently applies * the benchmarks, and/or concepts, and/or processes/procedures in a variety of contexts * B Demonstrates understanding of the grade level content and applies the benchmarks, and/or * concepts, and/or processes/procedures in a variety of contexts * C Demonstrates understanding and application of most of the benchmarks, and/or concepts, * and/or processes/procedures of the grade level content; needs teacher support to * demonstrate proficiency * D Demonstrates limited understanding and application of the benchmarks, and/or concepts, * and/or processes/procedures of the grade level content; needs more instruction and/or * practice to demonstrate proficiency * R Rarely demonstrates understanding and ineffectively applies benchmarks, and/or concepts, * and/or processes/procedures of the grade level content * N No evidence * I Incomplete * WP Withdrawal Passing * WR Withdrawal Rarely Demonstrates – R is recorded. * ME Medical Excuse * AU Audit * S Satisfactory for Pass/Fail courses * U Unsatisfactory for Pass/Fail courses * *A, B, C, D, S receive credit * CCA Grading System * Grade Description * A Outstanding * B Very Good * C Good * D Improvement Needed * F Unacceptable Progress – No Credit * *A, B, C, D receive credit * Scale & Weighted Grade Points * Scale Scores Weighted Scores * A = 4 points A = 5 points * B = 3 points B = 4 points * C = 2 points C = 3 points * D = 1 point D = 2 points * F = 0 points F = 0 points * R = 0 points R = 0 points * N = 0 points N = 0 points * Work Habit Description * Effort Perseveres and attempts quality work * Engagement Participates and listens * Homework Complete and on time * Responsibility Follows rules and directions; manages time; advocates for self * Score Description * 4 Consistently * 3 Frequently * 2 Sometimes * 1 Rarely * 0 Never