Most Commonly Cited Limitations:Standard IX, Criterion 1 - Practical Grading Criteria 

by Stephanie M. Groves

In February 2000, the Commission’s Standards and Policies Committee set out to identify the problems most often encountered by schools in the accreditation process and to provide assistance to schools in these areas.  This issue’s article will address Standard IX, Criterion 1, which deals with evaluating practical work on the basis of written criteria.

Practical work is evaluated on the basis of written criteria established by the school for the purpose of measuring student learning of practical skills.  The application of such criteria is uniform and consistent.

The two most important things to remember about demonstrating compliance with Standard IX, Criterion 1 are that the grading criteria must be written and they must be uniformly applied.  If one or both of these components is missing, a limitation will be cited.  Although instructional staff will often express dismay over having to develop written criteria for the assessment of practical work, it is important to understand the reasons why the Commission requires such effort.

When the on-site team inquires about how a letter grade or a set amount of points are established for a practical assignment, a common response is, “Well, the teacher just knows how to grade that project because she can just see that it is a B,” or “It was only eight points instead of ten because it just wasn’t quite right.”  Although the team values the experience of instructional staff as much as the school does, it is important to remain cognizant of the fact that the specific, written grading criteria are established as a measure not only to ensure consistency, but also for the student to know precisely the areas on which s/he needs to improve.  If an instructor grades a project with an arbitrary letter grade or random points without clarifying why, the student will have less of a chance to improve. 

A second point to remember is that, even experienced instructional staff might look at the same project and arrive at dissimilar grades.  This scenario could potentially set the school up for students claiming favoritism if s/he does not receive a grade as high as someone else on a parallel project.  The idea of the written practical grading criteria is to take out the subjectivity component and replace it with a uniform and objective system.

A third area to keep in mind is that the development of set grading criteria is meaningless if it goes unused.  A team might review impressive grading criteria in the Institutional Self-Study that was submitted by the school (which satisfies the written criteria component of the standard), but once on-site, it is sometimes found that either the criteria are not routinely utilized by instructional staff or some staff members might use the criteria while others resort to the “Based on Experience” grading system.  The logic will result in a limitation for the school.

So, how should the school go about developing written criteria against which to measure practical work?  The task does not have to be as cumbersome as it might initially appear.  Some schools mirror the practical assessment used by the respective state boards.  There is an advantage to this wisdom since graduates of the school will have less anxiety and have a more informed understanding of what to expect prior to taking the licensing examination.  Other schools simply sit down with instructional staff and set up a point system that can range anywhere from one to five points and then assign a letter grade to each of the points; still others will have a range up to 100 points so that it is more reflective of the theory grading scale.  It is up to the school to develop a system to work within the structures already established.  In other words, work with what you already have instead of “starting from scratch.”  This might make the task seem less intimidating. 

Once a basic point system is established, each instructor can be assigned a few tasks (i.e., hair cuts, perms, sterilization methods) and evolve the criteria.  Then have a staff meeting to discuss the grading system so that all instructors are aware of and agree upon the new assessment methods.  The amount of areas to be graded within a certain project has to be determined by the school.  For example, a manicure can be broken down as follows:

Manicure

1.         Proper set up of table                                                   10 points

2.         Proper sanitation                                                           15 points

3.         Uniform filing/proper filing                                             15 points

4.         Safely/properly pushing cuticle down                             15 points

5.         Hand/arm massage                                                       15 points

6.         Clean polish application                                                15 points

7.         Proper disposal of materials used                                  15 points

                                                                                                100 points

These aforementioned points can be established in any way the school desires, as long as the instructional staff is aware of the point system used.  For example, items one, two, four and seven can each be assigned one point, while items three, five and six can each be worth two points for a total of ten.  Or the school may opt to do a pass/fail system where each area receives a “yes” or “no” response.  If a student misses a set amount of areas (to be determined by the school) then that project would either be considered either as a pass or fail. 

The final component to remember in order to demonstrate compliance with Standard IX, Criterion 1 is that the students must be made aware of the grading criteria so that s/he understands how points are assigned.  Typically this is touched upon at orientation but also structured within the scope of theory as each new phase of training is presented.  It is important for the school to remember that students want to know why and how they are graded on their practical performance and they will be asked about this matter during the on-site evaluation. 

If it is discovered that any of these components are missing or need to be further pursued prior to the on-site evaluation, simply update and supplement as necessary.  It is always better for a school to discover in advance what needs to be done rather than for the team to note any deficiencies on the day of the visit. 

As always, if you have any doubt about practical grading criteria and how to demonstrate compliance, feel free to call the NACCAS office and speak with an accreditation specialist.