GRADING SYSTEM OF K-12 PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Assessment and Rating of Learning Outcomes

The assessment process is holistic, with emphasis on the

formative or developmental purpose of quality assuring student

learning. It is also standards-based as it seeks to ensure that

teachers will teach to the standards and students will aim to

meet or even to exceed the standards. The students attainment of

standards in terms of content and performances therefore, a

critical evidence of learning.

The assessment shall be done at four levels and shall be weighted

as follows:

Level of Assessment Percentage Weight

Knowledge 15%

Process or Skills 25%Understanding(s) 30%Products/Performances 30%

Total 100%

The levels are defined as follows:

1. ““Knowledge” refers to the substantive content of the

curriculum, the facts and information that the students

acquires.

2. ““Process” refers to cognitive operations that the student

performs on facts and information for the purpose of

constructing meanings and understandings.

3. ““Understandings” refers to enduring big ideas, principles

and generalizations inherent to the discipline, which may be

assessed using facets of understanding.

4. ““Products/Performances” refers to real-life application of

understanding as evidenced by the student’s performance of

authentic tasks.

Levels of Proficiency

At the end of the quarter, the performance of students shall be

described in the report card, based on the following levels of

proficiency:

Beginning – The student at this level struggles with his/her

understanding; prerequisite and fundamental knowledge and or

skills have not been acquired or developed adequately to aid

understanding.

Developing – The student at this level possesses the minimum

knowledge and skills and core understandings, but needs help

throughout the performance of authentic tasks.

Approaching Proficiency – The student at this level has

developed the fundamental knowledge and skills and core

understandings and with little guidance from the teacher

and/or with some assistance from peers, can transfer these

understandings through authentic performance tasks.

Proficient – The student at this level has developed the

fundamental knowledge and skills and core understandings,

and can transfer them independently through authentic

performance tasks.

Advanced – The student at this level exceeds the core

requirements in terms of knowledge, skills and

understandings, and can transfer them automatically and

flexibly through authentic performance tasks.

The level of proficiency at which the student if performing shall

be based on a numerical value which is arrived at after summing

up the results of the student’s performance on the various levels

of assessment. The numerical values are as follows:

Level of Proficiency Equivalent Numerical ValueBeginning 74% and belowDeveloping 75 – 79%Approaching Proficiency 80 – 84%

Proficient 85 – 89%Advanced 90% and above

What shall appear in the report card is not the numerical value,

but the equivalent level of proficiency, abbreviated as follows:

B for Beginning;

D for Developing;

AP for Approaching Proficiency;

P for Proficient; and

A for Advanced

At the end of the four quarters, the Final Grade for each

learning area shall be reported as the average of the four

quarterly ratings, expressed in terms of the levels of

proficiency. The general average shall be the average of the

final grades of the different learning areas, also expressed in

terms of levels of proficiency with the numerical equivalent in

parenthesis.

Promotion and retention of students shall be by subject. Students

whose proficiency level is Beginning (B) at the end of the

quarter or grading period shall be required to undergo

remediation after class hours so that they can immediately catch

up as they move to the next grading period. If by the end of the

school year, the students are still at the Beginning level, then

they required to take summer classes.

As a matter of policy every learning deficiency should be bridged

even for those students whose level of proficiency is above the

beginning level.

Honor students shall be drawn among those performed at the

Advanced Level. Subsequent guidelines shall be issued as basis

for ranking of honors.

The total time daily does not include off-school learning

experiences that teachers may require outside of school hours for

the production of products and performances as evidence of

transfer of learning.

Revised Basic Education Curricullum

The following grading system precisely equates rubric, point,

letter, and percentage grades using the following equation:

Rubric Base and Quality Points = (Percentage – 55) x 0.1

PERFORMANCE

DESCRIPTION

QUALITY

POINTS

LETTER

GRADE

PERCENTAGE

EQUIVALENT

PERCENTAGE

RANGEExcellent 4.00

3.67AA-

9592(91.7)

93.33 –

100.090.00 –

93.32

Above Average

to Average3.333

2.67

B+BB-

88(88.3)8582

86.67 –

89.9983.33 –

86.6680.00 –

83.32Satisfactory to

Below Average2.332.001.67

C+CC-

7875

72(71.7)

76.67 –

79.9973.33 –

76.6670.00 –

73.32

Minimum Pass1.00 D 65 60.00 –

69.99Failure 0.00 F 55 50.00 – 59.99

Percentage grades over 100 are averaged as 100

Percentage grades under 50 are averaged as 50

Rationale

Grades are typically given in a 5-step, or more, letter scale (A,

B, C, D, and F) but translated into a final 41- or 401-step

quality point score (0 – 4.0/0) for averaging. Schools typically

set letter grades and their point equivalents. Many faculty,

however, use a 101-step percentage point score (0 – 100) some or

all of the time for assigning or averaging grades before

determining a final letter or point grade. To the consternation

of some students, faculty members are typically free to use their

own percentage system with most opting for what can be called

traditional 7- or 10-point grading scales.

Since the final arbiter of a student’s academic achievement is

generally his or her point score, one could argue the most

appropriate percentage system is one that most accurately mimics

point scores. One could multiply each quality point by 25 to

create a percentage system but that, of course, represents no

academic challenge. Multiplying points by 10 and assigning them

to the top of the percentage system (from 60 – 100)puts one

closer to the mark but a direct translation would mean an A could

only be achieved by the near impossible feat of averaging 100.

Therefore, devising a percentage system that works down from 100

instead of up from 60 is best.

When counting quality points by 10ths, there are 10 steps between

full grades. Therefore, when counting down from 100, assigning 10

percentage points to each full grade range are logical.

Because 0 is its own step on the grading scale, there is an extra

point for the entire grading range that can either be assigned to

the A range or the F range. Assigning it to the A range (90 –

100) translates better to quality points when minus/whole/plus

grades are used, and is the typical convention.

Dividing full grades into minus, whole, and plus grades is more

precise and, so, should be specified in a grading system. Its

inclusion, however, does not require instructors or institutions

to give plus or minus grades for either assignments or final

grades. In particular, one could imagine an instructor–who

prefers full grades–returning assignments with full grades but

then submitting an averaged minus/whole/plus final grade.

Many institutions do not use A+, D+, D-, F+, and/or F- grades. In

such cases, those ranges can be added to the respective whole or

full grade. Conversely, those grades can easily be created

following the conventions used for B and C grades.

Dividing full grades by 3 creates minus/whole/plus grades, but it

also leaves an extra point that must be assigned to a range.

Assigning it to the whole range better mirrors quality points,

and is logical.

Calculating each percentage point in 100ths better mirrors

quality points when using minus/whole/plus grades, is more

accurate, and makes the differences between the placements of

extra points marginal. While this does move 73, 83, and 93 from

their typical positions as whole grades to minus grades, in an

era of grade inflation that can be seen as an advantage.

In combining grades that originate as letters with other letter

grades and percentage scores, it is necessary to assign each

grade a number. Using a percentage equivalent score rather than a

point score is sometimes simplest because grades originating as

percentages do not need to be converted for averaging.Dividing

full, minus, whole, or plus grade ranges by 2 and rounding the

result to a whole or 10th place number creates percentage

equivalent grades that can be equated to point and letter grades.

The result is an exact mapping of quality point scores from 55 –

95 percentage points using the formula: Rubric Base and Quality

Points = (Percentage Equivalent – 55) x 0.1.

As in quality points, with this system if an F is averaged with

an A the result is a C. This becomes problematic, however, when a

missing letter grade assignment is combined with a missing

percentage grade assignment. Each would receive an F but one

could be averaged as a 55 while the other could be averaged as 0.

Therefore, if both letter and percentage grades are used,

percentage grades less than 50 should be averaged as 50 (5 points

below the F percentage equivalent). Conversely, to maintain

parity, the maximum percentage grade should be 100 (5 points

above the A percentage equivalent). An exception to the lower

limit could be made in the case of cheating, so there is a simple

and tangible penalty beyond that suffered for missing or poor

work.

If a five-step rubric is created with 0 to 4 possible points, it

can be directly equated to quality points and, hence,

percentages. If the total value of a rubric equals forty points,

for instance, ten areas with 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 points, or five

areas worth 0, 2, 6, or 8 points, then the total can be directly

equated to percentages by adding 55.

Finally, the suggested overall performance descriptions are

designed to straddle traditional definitions and inflated

realities.