A comprehensive guide for GES staff as we build toward K–5 Performance Reporting implementation in SY 2027–28
DoDEA is shifting to a K–5 Performance Report system beginning SY 2027–28. This guide explains the why, the what, and the how — connecting our HQIP professional learning work directly to this change. SY 2025–26 and 2026–27 are our preparation years. No grading changes are required yet — but building a deep understanding of the core principles starts now.
Across DoDEA, traditional report cards have taken different forms — letter grades, percentage systems, and marking codes like "CD/P/N" — making it difficult for our military-connected families to understand how their child is truly performing against grade-level standards as they move between schools. The shift to performance reporting creates clarity, consistency, and equity system-wide.
Traditional grades often blend academic performance with non-academic factors — homework completion, participation, effort, and behavior — into a single letter or percentage. This makes it nearly impossible for families (or teachers) to know what a student actually knows and can do based on the standards.
DoDEA's performance reporting is built on four research-grounded principles. These were introduced in our SY 2025–26 Quarter 3 CCR professional learning. All GES staff should understand each one deeply.
Performance reporting communicates students' performance based on grade-level standards using a common, finite set of performance levels (1–4). All grades and content areas use the same scale.
Academic performance (what students know and can do) is reported separately from Essential Learner Attributes (Responsibility, Self-Starter, Self-Management, Collaboration).
Educators determine performance levels using the most recent, most consistent assessment evidence — not averages of all attempts. Formative assessments inform instruction; summative assessments determine the reported level.
Students have multiple opportunities to practice and demonstrate learning over time. Reassessment (after targeted feedback and reteaching) replaces early scores with the most recent evidence.
The student demonstrates consistent, accurate, and independent application of grade-level skills, including transferable application across different contexts.
The student demonstrates success with the majority of grade-level skills and concepts. May require occasional support, but work is mostly accurate with only minor mistakes.
The student demonstrates success with a limited set of grade-level skills. Continues to increase understanding with guided support; may make some errors or omissions.
The student demonstrates early awareness of listed skills and concepts and requires frequent support.
Performance levels communicate how well students have mastered the grade-level standard — not how far beyond it they can go. Advanced learners continue to be supported through AAPS extensions and narrative comments, but the scale reports mastery of the standard itself. This keeps reporting criterion-referenced and accurate.
Non-academic behaviors are reported separately using a three-level scale. These four attributes are observable, teachable, and directly support academic learning:
Assumes ownership of learning by managing time and tasks, following expectations, caring for materials, and using digital tools responsibly.
Demonstrates initiative by starting tasks promptly, acting on feedback, and showing flexibility, curiosity, and persistence when learning in new situations.
Attends to age-appropriate tasks, manages emotions and behavior, sustains effort through challenges, and applies questioning and accepts feedback.
Demonstrates respect and cooperation, shows empathy, values different perspectives, and shares responsibility using communication and digital resources.
Demonstrates independence in applying the attribute consistently across learning situations, with application toward new goals.
Becoming more consistent and developing independence in applying the attribute, with occasional support and reminders.
Beginning to develop the attribute with frequent support and guidance, demonstrating emerging understanding and use.
| Traditional Grading | Standards-Based Reporting |
|---|---|
| A single letter or percentage blends academic mastery with effort, compliance, and behavior | Academic mastery is reported separately from learning behaviors/attributes |
| A "B" in math could mean different things at different schools or with different teachers | A "3" in Operations & Algebraic Thinking means the same thing across all DoDEA schools |
| Early scores drag down averages even after a student has learned the material | Most recent and most consistent evidence determines the level — not an average |
| A 0–100 scale often signals failure across large portions of the range (0–59 = F) | A 1–4 scale centers the report on growth and proximity to proficiency |
| "Exceeds Standard" as a category can shift attention to difficulty rather than mastery | The scale measures how well a student has met the standard; extensions are supported through AAPS and narrative comments |
| Formative practice scores count toward the grade alongside summative evidence | Formative assessment informs instruction and feedback; only summative assessments of learning determine the reported performance level |
During our transition years, gradebooks continue to function as they currently do. Looking ahead, assessments of learning (summative) will be recorded and used to determine quarterly performance levels. Formative assessment evidence is kept separately — used to guide instruction and provide feedback, not to calculate grades.
This shift to performance reporting is not separate from our HQIP professional learning — it is the logical destination of everything we've been building. Here's how each HQIP strand directly supports SBR readiness:
Backward design, clear objectives, and success criteria aligned to standards are the exact tools needed to determine performance levels accurately.
The learning zone / performance zone framework from our HQIP sessions directly maps to separating formative from summative evidence — the heart of Principle 3.
FC goal cycles built around standards analysis create the shared understanding of proficiency that makes consistent performance level determination possible.
Using recent and consistent evidence to make instructional decisions is exactly how performance levels are determined. Our MTSS/SST work aligns perfectly.
Multiple opportunities to demonstrate learning (Principle 4) directly supports UDL and the jagged learner profile — students demonstrate mastery in ways that fit them.
When students understand performance levels and use them to set goals, reporting becomes a tool for ownership and growth — a true student-centered practice.
All staff learn the four core principles through CCR professional learning. No grading changes required. Focus: clarity around what performance reporting means and how it differs from traditional grading.
Standards analysis, evidence collection systems, and performance level determination practices are refined. Gradebook organization begins shifting toward separating formative and summative evidence.
The new K–5 Performance Report replaces traditional report cards. Reporting categories, scales, and procedures are fully in place. Family communication is coordinated by DoDEA agency-wide.