Research, practice guidance, HQIP connections, lessons from other districts, and tools to prepare for GES's transition to K–5 Performance Reporting in SY 2027–28.
DoDEA CCR PL SY 2025–264 Core PrinciplesGuskey, O'Connor, Schimmer ResearchHQIP AlignedImplementation SY 2027–28
The Four Core Principles
DoDEA's performance reporting system is built on four research-grounded principles introduced through our Quarter 3 CCR professional learning. Deep understanding of these principles is the foundation for everything else.
Principle 1: Standards-Based Performance Levels
Performance reporting communicates students' performance based on grade-level standards using a common, finite set of performance levels.
📊
The 1–4 Academic Scale
4 — Meeting: Consistent, accurate, independent application including transfer to new contexts
3 — Approaching: Majority of skills demonstrated; occasional support needed; mostly accurate
2 — Progressing: Limited set of skills; guided support needed; understanding is growing
1 — Emerging: Early awareness; frequent support required
💡
Key Implications for Teaching
Standards are organized into Reporting Categories (clusters of related standards)
Performance levels mean the same thing across all GES classrooms — calibration is essential
No "Exceeds Standard" — the scale measures how securely students meet the grade-level standard
Advanced work continues through AAPS and narrative comments
🔬
Why a 1–4 Scale and Not A-F?
Research shows that on a 0–100 scale, almost two-thirds of the range signals failure. A 1–4 scale centers the report on proficiency and growth. Research also finds that keeping performance categories between 3–6 reduces teacher classification errors, increases consistency, and produces more communicative and useful grades (Townsley & Wilcox, 2024; Guskey, Frey & Fisher, 2024).
Principle 2: Academic Performance and Non-Academic Factors Reported Separately
Academic performance levels must reflect what students know and can do based on the standards. Non-academic factors — learning habits and behaviors — are reported separately as Essential Learner Attributes.
📚
Academic Performance Includes
Formative assessments aligned to standards (to inform instruction)
Summative assessments of learning evidence
Performance tasks, constructed responses, unit assessments
Evidence that directly demonstrates standard mastery
🚫
Not Included in the Academic Level
Homework completion rates
Participation or effort scores
Behavior/conduct ratings
Neatness, presentation, punctuality
Extra credit or bonus points
⭐
The Four Essential Learner Attributes (Reported Separately)
Responsibility · Self-Starter · Self-Management · Collaboration — each rated on a +++/++/+ scale. These are observable, teachable, developable over time, and directly support academic learning. Separating them gives families a more complete and honest picture of the whole learner.
⚠️
The "Hodgepodge Grade" Problem
Research describes the common practice of combining academic performance with non-academic factors as a "hodgepodge grade" — as difficult to interpret as a physical condition grade that combines height, weight, diet, and exercise. Separating these gives families meaningful, actionable information rather than a confusing blend (Guskey, 2015; O'Connor, 2018).
Principle 3: Educators Determine Performance Levels Using Evidence from Learning Trends
A body of evidence built over time provides insight into learning trends. Quarterly performance levels are determined using the most recent and most consistent assessment evidence.
📋
Three Types of Evidence — Used Differently
Evidence — Student work, performances, or observations aligned to specific standards
Body of Evidence — Collection of student work showing progress toward proficiency of a standard
Learning Trends — Patterns uncovered by examining a body of evidence over time to provide insight into what students know and can do
📝
Formative Assessment Evidence
Gathered in the learning zone — during practice, feedback cycles, checks for understanding. Used to guide instruction and provide feedback. NOT used to calculate the reported performance level.
🎯
Assessments of Learning Evidence
Gathered in the performance zone — end of unit, summative, performance tasks. These ARE used to determine the quarterly performance level. Reported separately in the gradebook.
⚠️
Why Averaging All Evidence Misleads
The "parachute packer" scenario illustrates this clearly: if you're trusting your life to someone, you want to know what they can do now — not the average of their first try and their tenth try. Averaging all evidence gives equal weight to early attempts and recent demonstrations of mastery, producing a grade that often tells a different story than the evidence actually does (Wiliam, 2020).
Principle 4: Students Have Multiple Opportunities to Demonstrate Their Learning
Students learn in different ways and at different rates. Reassessment — after targeted feedback, reteaching, and practice — allows the reported level to reflect what students can do now.
🔄
What Reassessment Is (and Isn't)
IS: A focused opportunity to demonstrate new learning after standards-based feedback, differentiated reteaching, and targeted practice opportunities
IS: Replacing an earlier score with the most recent evidence when new learning is demonstrated
IS NOT: Unlimited do-overs or repeating the same task without intervening reteaching
IS NOT: Extra credit or a second chance for students who simply didn't try the first time
🌱
Connection to MTSS
Multiple opportunities for practice and reassessment aligns directly with Tier 1 Core Instruction (high-quality initial instruction with formative feedback) and Tier 2 intervention progress monitoring. When students show readiness through new learning, the performance level can be updated.
💡
The Growth Mindset Connection
Students' confidence increases when they know they'll have the opportunity to learn from mistakes, engage in targeted practice, and then demonstrate a new level of understanding. Grades that reflect current learning support student motivation and resilience.
The Research Foundation
DoDEA's Performance Reporting initiative is grounded in a strong body of standards-based grading research. These are the key scholars and findings referenced directly in our CCR professional learning materials.
Guskey, Frey & Fisher (2024) — Grading With Integrity
"Grading schemes that use double- or triple-digit performance levels are fraught with complications at the mathematical level. Performance levels should be communicative and useful — contributing to grading that is fairer, more equitable, and less likely to be biased."
GES Implication: Our 1–4 scale is not arbitrary — it's research-based. Performance level descriptors that are consistent across all grades and content areas are essential to the fairness and accuracy of the system.
O'Connor (2018) — How to Grade for Learning
"For grades to have real meaning, they must be relatively pure measures of each student's achievement of the learning goals."
GES Implication: Separating academic performance from non-academic factors (Principle 2) is not just philosophical — it's what makes grades meaningful and communicative. When grades mix these, they mislead both families and educators about where a student actually stands.
Schimmer (2016) — Grading from the Inside Out
"Grades should be based on a synthesis of evidence reflecting students' current level of learning or accomplishment, not an average of performance over a period of time."
GES Implication: Determining performance levels from the most recent and most consistent evidence — rather than averaging all attempts — is the key shift in how we use gradebook data to determine quarterly levels. This directly aligns with Principle 3.
"Giving students full credit for what they know, regardless of how slowly they got there, is fundamental to developing a standards-based mindset."
GES Implication: Students who take longer to learn the material shouldn't be systematically penalized by early scores. Reassessment (Principle 4) combined with focus on most recent evidence gives all learners a fair opportunity to demonstrate proficiency.
Nguyen (2025) — Grading for Growth: A Blueprint for Equity in the Classroom
"By separating learning from compliance, emphasizing growth over fixed ability, and making success criteria transparent, equitable grading practices can help create educational environments where all students have genuine opportunities to succeed."
GES Implication: For our diverse DoDEA learner population — including MLL students, students with IEPs, and students with interrupted schooling — performance reporting is an equity practice. When non-academic compliance is removed from academic grades, students who are learning but struggling with compliance don't get doubly penalized.
Wiliam (2020) — Avoiding Unintended Consequences in Grading Reform
"When we average all evidence, we unintentionally give as much weight to a student's early attempts as to their later demonstrations of mastery. The average often tells a different story than the evidence does."
GES Implication: The gradebook shift (from averaging to most-recent-and-consistent evidence) is supported by research on unintended consequences of traditional grading. This is why Principle 3 emphasizes learning trends rather than averages.
Connection to DoDEA's HQIP Initiative
Standards-Based Reporting is not a separate initiative — it is the culmination of the HQIP journey. The HQIP Connections infographic maps three years of professional learning from SY 23–24 through SY 25–26. Performance Reporting lives at the intersection of all three years.
🗺️
The Three-Year HQIP Journey Toward Performance Reporting
SY 2023–24: Intentional Planning, Assessment & Alignment — backward design, standards, success criteria, formative assessment, data analysis
SY 2024–25: Learner Variability & Access — MTSS, core instruction, core intervention, student engagement, the Learning Pit, learner variability
SY 2025–26: Assessment, Instruction & Feedback — aligning assessment to instruction, progress monitoring, student ownership of learning
HQIP Practice
How It Directly Supports Standards-Based Reporting
SBR Principle
Intentional Planning (Backward Design)
Identifying key processes and knowledge, defining standards-aligned success criteria, and planning instruction around evidence — this is exactly the foundation needed to determine accurate performance levels. You cannot report reliably what you haven't planned deliberately.
Principles 1, 3
Standards Analysis
Deep analysis of what each standard requires — DCI, SEP, CCC in science; what proficiency really looks like across grade levels — is what allows teacher teams to calibrate performance levels consistently. The Q3 Science Standards Analysis work is a direct SBR preparation tool.
Principles 1, 3
Success Criteria & Single-Point Rubrics
When students know the success criteria in advance, they understand what proficiency looks like. This transparency is essential for accurate self-evaluation, peer feedback, and ultimately the performance level determination. Success criteria ARE the performance level descriptors.
Principles 1, 3, 4
Formative Assessment / Learning Zone
The learning zone / performance zone distinction (introduced in HQIP) maps directly to Principle 3: formative evidence informs instruction; assessments of learning determine the reported level. Keeping these separate is what makes the system accurate.
Principle 3
Focused Collaboration (FC) Goal Cycles
FC meetings built around standards analysis, student evidence, and action items are exactly the collaborative structure needed for consistent performance level determination. Your FC goal cycles can be explicitly designed to build SBR readiness.
Principles 1, 3
Data-Informed Instruction (MTSS)
Using data to make tier decisions — and updating those decisions as students respond to instruction — mirrors the performance level process. MTSS progress monitoring is the model for how recent and consistent evidence determines where a student stands.
Principles 3, 4
Learner Variability & Multiple Representations
Principle 4 (multiple opportunities to demonstrate learning) is directly supported by UDL principles: students demonstrate mastery in different ways, at different rates. Jagged learner profiles inform how we gather evidence — not just which evidence we gather.
Principle 4
Essential Learner Attributes (ELAs)
The four ELAs (Responsibility, Self-Starter, Self-Management, Collaboration) introduced in HQIP are the exact non-academic factors that will be reported separately on the K–5 Performance Report. ELA development is already happening in your classroom.
Principle 2
Learning Walkthroughs
The DoDEA LWT indicators — standards-focused learning environment, flexible grouping, formative assessment, productive struggle, discourse — are the classroom conditions that make high-quality performance level determination possible.
Principles 1–4
💡
Your FC Meetings ARE SBR Preparation
Every time your FC team analyzes a standard together, looks at student evidence, and makes decisions about reteaching — you are practicing the exact process of standards-based performance level determination. Your goal cycles are SBR readiness in action. The GES FC system (scrCycles, scrMeetings, goal cycles) provides the structural backbone for the evidence collection and calibration work that SBR requires.
Lessons Learned from Other Districts
Dozens of school districts across the US have already made the transition to standards-based reporting. Their experiences reveal consistent patterns of what works — and what to avoid. These insights are directly applicable to GES's transition.
1
Start with the "Why" — and return to it often
Districts that struggled most often skipped the deep conceptual work and went straight to the mechanics (new report cards, gradebook software). When teachers and families weren't grounded in the rationale, implementation resistance was high. The most successful transitions spent 1–2 full years on "why" before shifting any grading practices. This is exactly what DoDEA's phased approach is doing.
2
Calibration is non-negotiable
The biggest source of inconsistency in SBR implementation is teachers applying performance levels differently. Highly effective districts use collaborative calibration sessions — teachers looking at student work together, applying the performance level descriptors, and comparing judgments — before the system launches. The FC meeting structure at GES is perfectly designed for this work.
3
Families need multiple touchpoints and concrete examples
A single information night is not sufficient. Districts with smooth family transitions communicated early and often, used side-by-side comparisons of old and new reports, held Q&A sessions, and created video resources. The message that matters most: "a 3 is meeting the standard — it is the goal, not a mediocre grade." Many families arrive with the A-F mental model and need time to rebuild it.
4
The gradebook transition is the hardest logistical challenge
Teachers consistently report that changing how they use the gradebook — separating formative from summative, tracking most-recent vs. averaging — is the most practically challenging part. Districts that provided explicit gradebook organization models, reduced the number of recorded data points, and gave teachers time to reorganize had significantly smoother transitions.
5
Honor roll and recognition culture needs reframing, not elimination
Removing honor roll without a thoughtful replacement created backlash in several districts. The most effective approach reframed recognition around growth, standards mastery, and the Essential Learner Attributes — celebrating students who moved from a 2 to a 4, not just students who were already at 4.
6
Reassessment policies need clear, shared boundaries
Without clear parameters, reassessment became a logistical nightmare in some districts — students requesting unlimited retakes, parents pressuring for do-overs. Successful schools established clear conditions: reassessment is offered after targeted reteaching; students must demonstrate new learning (not just retake the same test); and teachers decide when readiness is evident.
7
Leadership visibility during implementation is critical
In districts where principals were active learners alongside their staff — visible in classrooms, part of calibration sessions, using the language of SBR in walkthroughs — teacher buy-in was dramatically higher. The inverse was also true: when principals delegated the SBR learning entirely to coaches or district staff, teachers were less invested. Your presence in this process matters, De.
In K–5 buildings, reporting categories and performance level expectations must be vertically aligned. A 3 in 2nd grade reading and a 3 in 4th grade reading should both mean "approaching the standard for that grade level" — not a 3 because the 4th grade teacher has higher expectations. DoDEA's agency-level standards analysis work is designed to prevent this inconsistency.
9
Students who understand the system outperform those who don't
Research from districts using SBR consistently shows that when students can articulate what a performance level means, identify where they are, and describe their next steps — academic growth accelerates. Student-facing language, self-assessment tools, and goal-setting conversations are not extras; they're central to making the system work.
10
Military-connected families actually respond positively — once they understand
Districts serving high-mobility military populations (similar to GES) report that once families understand the rationale, they become strong advocates. The consistency across schools is a direct benefit for military families who move frequently. The biggest challenge is the initial mental model shift from the A-F paradigm they grew up with.
Gradebook Organization Guide
While no gradebook changes are required this year, understanding the principles of evidence organization now will make the SY 2027–28 transition much smoother. Here's how to start thinking about gradebook organization aligned to performance reporting.
⚠️
Important: No changes required this year
Gradebooks continue to function as they currently do through SY 2026–27. The guidance below is for building mental models and planning purposes. Specific gradebook tools and procedures will be provided with ample support before implementation.
What to track separately
Formative Assessment Evidence (learning zone) and Assessments of Learning (summative) must be kept in separate categories. Only summative evidence determines the quarterly performance level.
How to determine the level
Look at the body of summative evidence and identify the most recent AND most consistent pattern. A student who scored 2, 3, 3, 3 on summative assessments of the same standard is likely a 3. A student who scored 2, 2, 4 needs teacher judgment about whether the 4 represents genuine learning or an outlier.
After reassessment
When a student demonstrates new learning through reassessment, replace the previous summative score with the new one. Grades in pencil (literally or figuratively) reflects the mindset: current performance, not a permanent record of past struggles.
How many data points
Fewer, higher-quality summative assessments are better than many low-quality ones. Plan 2–4 summative assessments of learning per reporting category per quarter. Formative evidence can be numerous — these are for your instructional planning.
Organizing by Reporting Category
Begin organizing your gradebook by reporting category (the standards clusters on the performance report) rather than by assignment type. This makes performance level determination straightforward at quarter end.
📋
Formative Evidence Examples
Exit tickets used to adjust tomorrow's lesson
Math probes and CFUs
Weekly reading checks
Science notebook entries during investigation
Math workbook pages and CPA activities
Peer feedback on drafts
Progress monitoring probes
🎯
Summative Evidence Examples
Benchmark unit assessments
Performance tasks
Constructed response assessments
Science I-Checks and performance assessments
Writing rubric final scores
Science investigations (summative)
Demonstrations of learning
Family Conference Conversation Guides
When discussing the transition to performance reporting with families — in conferences, at curriculum nights, or in individual conversations — these frameworks help you communicate clearly and confidently.
Explaining the three key terms: Progress, Performance, and Proficiency
Use these precise definitions and then connect to the student's specific situation:
Progress — "Looking at Aiden's scores from Q1 to now, you can see he's moved from a 2 to a 3 in fractions. That's progress — growth over time."
Performance — "Right now, based on what I've observed this quarter, Aiden is at a 3 in Operations & Algebraic Thinking. That's where he is today."
Proficiency — "The goal for all our students by the end of the year is to reach a 4 — that means fully meeting the grade-level standard. Aiden is on track."
"Why did my child get a 3? Isn't that like a C?"
This is the most common misconception and requires a direct reframe:
"I completely understand that instinct — we've all grown up with A-F grading where 3 out of 4 might feel like a C. But in our new system, a 3 actually means your child is approaching the grade-level standard — they're doing the majority of the work accurately, they just need a bit more time or support to fully master every aspect. And a 4 — Meeting the Standard — is the goal, not a bonus above-and-beyond score. A student at a 3 at Q1 who reaches a 4 by Q4 is exactly the growth trajectory we're aiming for."
Explaining why non-academic factors are reported separately
"In the past, your child's math grade might have included their homework completion, participation, and effort alongside their actual math skill scores. The problem with that is: if those things were boosting the grade, it might look like your child understands math when they actually need more help. If they were dragging it down — maybe your child is great at math but forgets to turn in homework — the grade was hiding their real ability.
Now, we report both — separately. You'll see exactly how your child is performing on math standards, AND you'll see how they're doing with responsibility, self-management, and collaboration. Both matter. But you can see them clearly."
Responding to "But my child is an 'A student' — what does this mean for her?"
"Your child's love of learning, strong work habits, and academic drive are absolutely real — and they'll show up on the performance report. Here's what this means specifically for students like her:
Her academic mastery will show as 4s across reporting categories — those are accurate and meaningful
Her responsibility, initiative, and collaboration will show as +++ on the Essential Learner Attributes
Advanced and enrichment work she does beyond the standard will be noted in teacher comments
She will continue to receive challenging work through AAPS extensions
What changes is that we're being more honest and specific about what all of those achievements mean."
Conversation starters from the DoDEA Principle 2 role-play protocol
Use these educator conversation starters in conferences:
"Based on what I see in the performance report..."
"One strength I've noticed this quarter is..."
"One area your child has been working on..."
"Here's how the Essential Learner Attributes are showing up in class..."
"Your child's learning habits support their academic performance by..."
Encourage families to ask questions like: "What does this look like in class?" / "What skills would help my child grow next?" / "How does this connect to the grade-level standards?"
GES Teacher Readiness Checklist
Use this checklist to track your growing readiness for performance reporting. These are the practices and understandings that will make the SY 2027–28 transition smooth and meaningful for your students.
Understanding the System
☐ I can explain all four core principles in plain language to a colleague
☐ I understand how performance reporting differs from traditional grading and can articulate the key distinctions
☐ I can use the three terms — progress, performance, proficiency — correctly and consistently
☐ I understand the four Essential Learner Attributes and can describe what each looks like in my classroom
☐ I understand the distinction between formative assessment evidence and assessments of learning, and why they're kept separate
Instructional Practice
☐ My students can describe what "meeting the standard" looks like for current learning targets (success criteria)
☐ I design formative assessments that specifically inform instruction — not just check completion
☐ I plan summative assessments of learning that require students to independently apply grade-level skills
☐ I provide standards-based feedback that gives students specific guidance toward the performance level descriptors
☐ I have a plan for reteaching and reassessment when students need additional opportunities to demonstrate learning
Evidence & Gradebook
☐ I can identify which evidence in my current gradebook is formative (learning zone) vs. summative (performance zone)
☐ I understand how to determine a performance level from a body of summative evidence (most recent and most consistent)
☐ I am beginning to organize my evidence collection around reporting categories, not just assignment types
FC & Collaboration
☐ My FC goal cycles are grounded in standards analysis — we know what proficiency looks like, not just what the assignment looks like
☐ My FC team has looked at student work together and compared our judgments about where students stand relative to the standard
☐ I use the FC meeting structure to make decisions about reteaching, intervention, and extension based on evidence
Family Communication
☐ I can explain the new system to families in plain, clear language during conferences
☐ I can address the "is a 3 like a C?" question confidently and helpfully
☐ I use the terms progress, performance, and proficiency accurately when talking to families about student learning
🌱
Remember: This is a two-year runway
You don't need to be fully ready today. SY 2025–26 is for understanding. SY 2026–27 is for deepening practice. Full implementation is SY 2027–28. Every item on this checklist that you work toward now is a meaningful step that will make our students' experience of the new system better when it arrives.