This document analyzes and compares the Philippines' Standards-Based Assessment and Reporting (SBAR) policy to standards-based grading (SBG) literature. While SBAR and SBG share similarities like focusing on standards and personal accountability, SBAR differs in its unclear reporting audience, recording of knowledge and skills instead of mastery evidence, and single subject grades. The author recommends professional development on standards-based assessment, expanding report cards, and reviewing proficiency scales to better align SBAR with SBG principles and improve learning.

1. • Educational change
depends on what
teachers do and think -
it's as simple and as
complex as that.“
• -Fullan and
Steigelbauer

2. Grading is tiring.
• Insert tired bear

3. KPUP and Standards-based
Grading in the Philippines:
A Policy Analysis
Dr. Sterling Miranda Plata
Assessment reform advocate

4. Background
• “The difference between failure and honor roll
often depends on the GRADING POLICIES of
the teacher. To reduce the failure rate, schools
don’t need a new curriculum, a new principal, new
teachers, or new technology. They just need a
better grading system” (Reeves, 2008, p. 85).

5. Objectives of the paper
• 1. compare DepEd’s SBAR with SBG literature
• 2. analyse the alignment of SBAR objectives and its
policy

6. SBG Definition
Standards-based grading (SBG) is based on “the
evidence of mastery of content standards and
is not based on assessment methods, such as
quizzes, tests, and homework” (Townsley, 2014).

7. Benefits (Scriffiny, 2008)
• 1. gives more meaning
•2. avoids confusion
•3. reduces paperwork
•4. teaches what quality looks like

8. SBG Mechanics
• 1. Focus on standards
• 2. Expand the report card
• 3. Separate the progress from effort
• 4. Allow students to make up for missed work

9. Existing literature
• O’Connor (2002). How to grade for learning
• Reeves. (2009). Leading to change/effective grading
practices
• Plata. (2007) Exploring assessment reform policy
and implementation
• Canadian Language Benchmarks
• Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages
• WIDA standards

10. SBAR DepEd Memo 73 s. 2012
• “Assessment shall be used primarily as a quality
assurance tool to track student progress in the
attainment of standards, promote self-reflection
and personal accountability for one’s learning, and
provide a basis for the profiling of student
performance.

11. KPUP Definition
• Knowledge (15%)-content of the curr and facts
• Processes/Skills (25%)-for constructing meaning
• Understandings (30%)-enduring big ideas
• Products/Performances (30%-real-life applications

12. Similarities
SBAR
• Goal-focus on
standards
• Personal
accountability
• Does not record
quizzes, HW, etc
SBG
• Goal-focus on
standards
• Personal
accountability
• Does not record
quizzes, HW, etc

13. Differences
DepEd’s SBAR
• Unclear audience of the
reporting system
• Recording KPUP instead of
evidence of mastery
• Single letter grade per
subject
SBG
• Specific audience target
• Recording evidence of
mastery
• Expanded report card

14. SBAR’s purpose and policy
Purpose
• Assessment shall be holistic
with emphasis on formative
assessment
• Focus on content standards
Policy
• KPUP recorded in the grade
book
• Final grade-proficiency
standards

15. From traditional reporting

16. • From transmission • To transformation

17. Recommendations
• 1.PLC on grading for learning
• 2.Professional development on standards-based
assessment
• 3. Expand the report card
• 4. Review existing proficiency scales
• 5. Create can do statements for feedback and self-
assessment
• 6. Use KPUP as guide in designing assessment
tasks

19. Bibliography
Canadian Language Benchmarks. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/language-
benchmarks.pdf
Council of Europe. (2011). Common European framework of reference for languages. Retrieved from
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/cadre1_en.asp
Department of Education. (2012). Guidelines on the assessment and rating of learning outcomes under
the K to 12 basic education curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.ph/downloads/2012/09sep/20120905-DepEd-DO-0073-BSA.pdf
Fairfax County Public Schools. (2013). Elementary grading and reporting handbook for parents.
Retrieved from
http://www.fcps.edu/is/schoolcounseling/documents/ElementaryGradingandReportingHandbookparen
ts.pdf

20. • O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning. California: Corwin Press.
• Plata, S. (2007). Exploring assessment reform policy and implementation in
Philippine public secondary education. Philippine Journal of Linguistics, 97
(7), 52-56.
• Plata, S. (2011). Implementation of curriculum reform: Roadblocks and
potholes. In Dita (Ed). Issues and Trends in Applied Linguistics.
• Reeves, D. (2009). Leading to change/effective grading practices.
Educational Leadership, 65(5), 85-87.
• Sriffiny, P. (2008). Seven reasons for standards-based grading. Educational
Leadership, 66(20), 70-74.
• Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment for learning, the achievement gap, and truly
effective schools. Retrieved from
https://www.ets.org/Media/Conferences_and_Events

21. sterling.plata@dlsu.edu.ph

22. • Full paper will available soon as part of the DLSU
Research Congress 2015 Proceedings.
• KPUP Revolution Seminar April 17-18, 2015,
DLSU Manila