Current Policies Surrounding Assessment in Alberta: Future Implications

  • E. Nola AitkenEmail author
  • Art J. Aitken
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 2)


The authors address student assessment policies in the Alberta context at the provincial and district levels with reference to some international comparisons. The discussion is organised around the topics and issues that emerged from participants in surveys and focus-group forums in the Alberta Student Assessment Study. Participants in the study included superintendents, principals, teachers, government officials, parents, students, and other educational stakeholders. Emerging topics included the politics of assessment, teacher learning, decision making, communication and relationships, leadership, and fairness and equity. Alberta Education policies and regulations formed the basis of the legal mandates that drive assessment practices. Policy handbooks from the largest public school districts in Alberta representing more than 60 % of the student population were examined for student assessment policies and guidelines. A summary of benchmark literature informs the treatment of each issue. The authors found extensive support in policy and in literature for classroom assessment practice, leadership, and professional development. Throughout the policy documents, assessment was consistently positioned as an integral part of instruction and learning. As twenty-first century learning models gain impetus, policy and practice needs to guide fair, balanced, and aligned assessment in a process that represents the interests of students, teachers, parents, and the public.


Assessment policy Politics of assessment Professional development Fair assessment practice Communicating assessment PISA Provincial achievement tests Ontario Poland Finland Singapore 


  1. Adamson, B. (2011). Embedding assessment for learning. In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education: Policy and practice (pp. 197–203). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahearn, E. M. (2000). Educational accountability: A synthesis of the literature and review of a balanced model of accountability. Final Report Deliverable #2-2.2a under cooperative agreement No. H159K70002. Alexandria, VA: Office of Special Education Programs U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  3. Alberta Assessment Consortium. (2005). A framework for student assessment (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Assessment Consortium. Retrieved from:
  4. Alberta Assessment Consortium. (2010). AAC member list. Retrieved from:
  5. Alberta Assessment Consortium. (2013). AAC key visual: Assessing student learning in the classroom. Retrieved from:
  6. Alberta Education. (1995). Government accountability act, 1995. Retrieved from:
  7. Alberta Education. (1997). Teaching quality standard applicable to basic education in Alberta. Retrieved from:
  8. Alberta Education. (2002). Health and life skills: Guide to implementation. Retrieved from:
  9. Alberta Education. (2003). Student evaluation regulation 177/2003. Retrieved
  10. Alberta Education. (2004, December 7). Alberta students show strong results on international tests. News Release, p. 30. Retrieved from:
  11. Alberta Education. (2006a). Accountability pillar. Retrieved from:
  12. Alberta Education. (2006b). Effective student assessment and evaluation in the classroom: Core knowledge and skills. Retrieved from:
  13. Alberta Education. (2006c). Student record regulation. Retrieved from:
  14. Alberta Education. (2007, December 4). Alberta’s 15-year olds place among world’s best on international tests. Retrieved from:
  15. Alberta Education. (2008). Grade level of achievement reporting: Teacher and administrator handbook. Retrieved from:
  16. Alberta Education. (2009a). Guide for education planning and results reporting. Retrieved from:
  17. Alberta Education. (2009b). The principal quality practice guideline: Promoting successful school leadership in Alberta. Retrieved from:
  18. Alberta Education. (2009c). Provincial participation rates and percentages of students meeting the acceptable standard on achievement tests. Retrieved from:
  19. Alberta Education. (2010a). Achievement testing results: 2012-2013 Provincial results. Retrieved from:
  20. Alberta Education. (2010b). The Alberta school leadership framework: Promoting growth, development and accountability. Retrieved from:
  21. Alberta Education. (2010c). First nations, Métis and Inuit education: The Policy Framework. Retrieved from:
  22. Alberta Education. (2010d). Inspiring education: A dialogue with Albertans. Retrieved from:
  23. Alberta Education. (2011). Framework for student learning: Competencies for engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. Retrieved from:
  24. Alberta Education. (2012a). Diploma examination results, 2011-2012. Retrieved from:
  25. Alberta Education. (2012b). From knowledge to action: Shaping the future of curriculum development in Alberta. Retrieved from:
  26. Alberta Education. (2012c). Provincial testing: Achievement testing results. Retrieved from:
  27. Alberta Education. (2013a). Achievement general information bulletin. Retrieved from:
  28. Alberta Education. (2013b, May 9). Alberta empowers more students to succeed. Retrieved from:
  29. Alberta Education. (2013c). Cycle 3 and 4 AISI project summaries. Retrieved from:
  30. Alberta Education. (2013d). Diploma examination accommodations for students. Retrieved from:
  31. Alberta Education. (2013e). FAQ—Education act regulatory review. Retrieved from:
  32. Alberta Education. (2013f). Grade level of achievement reporting. Retrieved from:
  33. Alberta Education. (2013g). Guide to education 2013-2014. Retrieved from:
  34. Alberta Education. (2013h). Ministerial order on student learning. Retrieved from:
  35. Alberta Education. (2013i). School act. Retrieved from:
  36. Alberta Education. (2013j). Student evaluation policy. Guide to Education 2013-2014. Retrieved from:
  37. Alberta Education. (2013k). Student evaluation regulation. Guide to Education 2013-2014. Retrieved from:
  38. Alberta Education. (n.d.). About the accountability pillar. Retrieved from:
  39. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2001). The secretary reports. Retrieved from:
  40. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2006). Student assessment and evaluation: The Alberta teaching profession’s view. Issues in Education, 4, 1–12.Google Scholar
  41. Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2008). Putreal learning first: The teaching profession’s view of student assessment, evaluation and accountability. Retrieved from:
  42. Ball, D. L. (1995). Blurring the boundaries of research and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 16, 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ball, J. (2004). If indigenous knowledge and communities mattered: Transformative education in First Nations communities in Canada. American Indian Quarterly, 28, 454–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Battle River School Division. (2013). Administrative procedure 360. Retrieved from:
  45. Beecher, M., & Sweeney, S. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 502–530.Google Scholar
  46. Berry, R. (2012). Assessment reforms around the world. In R. Berry & B. Adamson (Eds.), Assessment reform in education: Policy and practice (pp. 89–102). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning. New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 173–181.Google Scholar
  50. Borko, H. (2004). Professional and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Burger, J., Aitken, A., Brandon, J., & Klink, P. (2001). The next generation of basic education accountability in Alberta, Canada: A policy dialogue. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 5(19), n.p. Retrieved from:
  52. Burger, J.M., & Krueger, M. (2003). A balanced approach to high-stakes achievement testing: An analysis of the literature with policy implications. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 7(4), n.p. Retrieved from:
  53. Burke, K. (2009). How to assess authentic learning (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  54. Burnaford, G., Fischer, J., & Hobson, D. (2001). Teachers doing research: The power of action through inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Butler, D. L., Novak Lauscher, H. J., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Butler, D. L., & Schnellert, L. (2008). Bridging the research-to-practice divide: Improving outcomes for students. Education Canada, 48(5), 36–40.Google Scholar
  57. (2008, October 2). Edmonton school board releases test results. Retrieved from:
  58. Canadian International Schools. (2013). Facts about the Alberta curriculum. Retrieved from:
  59. Chung Wei, R., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Improving teachers’ assessment practice through professional development: The case of national board certification. American Education Research Journal, 45, 669–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report on the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 69–109). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  61. College of Alberta School Superintendents. (2013). CASS practice standard reflective tool. Retrieved from:
  62. Couture, J-C. (2009). Collateral damage of government’s accountability policies a key focus of 2009 ARA. ATA News, 43(18), n.p. Retrieved from: E2%80%99saccountabilitypoliciesakeyfocusof2009ARA.aspx
  63. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From “separate but equal” to “no child left behind”: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier & G. Woods (Eds.), Many children left behind (pp. 3–32). New York: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  64. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Developing teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Retrieved from:
  65. Darling-Hammond, L., & Falk, B. (1997). Policy for authentic assessment. In A. Lin Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion: Embracing all our children (pp. 51–76). New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Davies, A., & Busick, K. (2007). Classroom assessment—What’s working in high schools: Book two. Courtenay, BC, Canada: Connections.Google Scholar
  67. Demmert, W. G. (2005). The influences of culture on learning and assessment among Native American students. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Dillon, S. (2010, March 16). Array of hurdles awaits new education agenda. New York Times. Retrieved from:
  69. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a data-rich world: Harnessing data for school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  70. Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  71. Eberts, R. (2008, Fall). Today’s students: Reconciling their technology “reality” with their school’s rules. The CASS Connection, 22–23). Retrieved from:
  72. Edmonton Public Schools. (2013). Board policies and regulations: Student assessment, achievement and growth. Retrieved from:
  73. Eisner, E. (2002). From episteme to phronesis to artistry in the study and improvement of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Elk Island Public Schools. (2008). Board of trustees’ policy: Learning assessment. Retrieved from:
  75. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  76. Elmore, R. F. (2003, April). Doing the right thing, knowing the right thing to do: Low-performing schools and performance-based accountability. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Governors’ Association Policy Education Advisors Institute, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  77. Elmore, R. F. (2005). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  78. Eubanks, E. E., & Levine, D. U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New York City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 697–702.Google Scholar
  79. Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Fraser Institute. (2010). Compare the academic performance of your child’s school. Retrieved from:
  81. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  82. Gronn, P. (2008). The state of Denmark. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 40(2), 173–185. doi: 10.1080/00220620802210889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Guskey, T. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6–11. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  85. Guskey, T. R. (2004). Zero alternatives. Principal Leadership (Middle Level Edition), 5(2), 49–53.Google Scholar
  86. Guskey, T. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  87. Harris, D., & Herrington, C. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education, 112, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Hollingsworth, M. (2008). Excellence in IT/ICT leadership: Building blocks to the future. Retrieved from:
  89. Johnson, J. (1997). Data-driven school improvement. Emergency Librarian, 24(4), 9–10.Google Scholar
  90. Joint Committee on Standards for Evaluation. (2003). The student evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  91. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.Google Scholar
  92. Jukes, I. (2008, Fall). Educating the digital generation. The CASS Connection, 34–35. Retrieved from:
  93. Keeney, L. (1998, May). Using data for school improvement. Houston, TX: Report on the Second Practitioners’ Conference for Annenberg Challenge Sites. Retrieved from:
  94. Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Education Administration Quarterly, 44, 529–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Paper commissioned by the Wallace Foundation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved from:
  96. Levin, B. (2008). What can we expect from politics? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 69–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Lingard, R., & Mills, M. (2007). Pedagogies making a difference: Issues of social justice and inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Lissitz, R. W., & Schafer, W. D. (2002). Assessment in educational reform. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  99. Love, N. (2004). Taking data to new depths. Journal of Staff Development, 25(4), 22–26.Google Scholar
  100. Lutkus, A., Grigg, W., & Donohue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: Trial urban district assessment reading 2007 (NCES 2008–455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  101. Manitoba Education. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. Author.Google Scholar
  102. Marshall, K. (2008). Interim assessments: A user’s guide. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(1), 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  104. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  105. McEwan, N. (2005, November). Using evidence to improve teaching and learning. Keynote address presented at the Alternative Education Resource Organization Fall Conference, Toronto, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
  106. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  107. Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27, 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Nettles, S. M. (2007). Revisiting the importance of the direct effects of school leadership on student achievement: The implications for school improvement policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. New grading system sparks controversy in Battle River Schools. (2012). The Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from:
  110. Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2007). Educational assessment of students (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  111. Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of students (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  112. Nixon, R., & Kedersha McClay, J. (2007). Collaborative writing assessment: Sowing seeds for transformational adult learning. Assessing Writing, 12, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) executive summary. (2002). Retrieved from:
  114. O’Connor, K. (2007). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades. Portland, OR: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from: Scholar
  115. O’Connor, K. (2012). Fifteen fixes for broken grades: A repair kit. Toronto, ON, Canada: Pearson.Google Scholar
  116. O’Donnell, S. (2008, October 31). School board to overhaul teaching strategies: Officials want better results on provincial exams. Edmonton Journal, B5.Google Scholar
  117. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 at a glance. Retrieved from:
  118. OECD. (2011a). Finland: Slow and steady reform for consistently high results. In Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from: Scholar
  119. OECD. (2011b). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from: Scholar
  120. OECD. (2011c). Ontario, Canada: Reform to support high achievement in a diverse context. In Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from: Scholar
  121. OECD. (2011d). Vignettes on education reforms: England and Poland. In Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. (pp. 221–226). Paris: OECD. Publishing (data from 2009). doi: 10.1787/9789264096660-11-en
  122. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). Retrieved from:
  123. Peat, D., & Allen, B. (2008, Fall). A conversation about 21st century learning. The CASS Connection, 14–21. Retrieved from:
  124. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  125. Perkins, H. (1990). The rise of professional society. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  126. Popham, W. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  127. Popham, W. (2004). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (7th ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Pearson.Google Scholar
  128. Popham, W. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 4–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Priestley, M., & Sime, D. (2005). Formative assessment for all: A whole-school approach to pedagogic change. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Reeves, D. (2002). The daily disciplines of leadership: How to improve student achievement, staff motivation, and personal organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  131. Reeves, D. (2004). 101 more questions and answers about standards, assessment, and accountability. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.Google Scholar
  132. Richardson, W. (2008). WWW: Network building and the new literacy. The CASS Connection, 36–39. Retrieved from:
  133. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student achievement: the Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning? Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  135. Schnellert, L. M., Butler, D. L., & Higginson, S. K. (2008). Co-constructors of data, co-constructors of meaning: Teacher professional development in an age of accountability. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 725–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Simner, M. (2000). A joint position statement by the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Association of School Psychologists on the Canadian press coverage of province-wide achievement test results. Retrieved from:
  137. Slavin, R., & Madden, N. (2000). Research on achievement outcomes of “success for all”: A summary and response to critics. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 38–40, 59–66.Google Scholar
  138. Smith, F. (1986). Insult to intelligence. New York: Arbor House.Google Scholar
  139. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Statistics Canada. (2013). Measuring up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study. Retrieved from:
  141. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765. Retrieved from:
  142. Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right – using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.Google Scholar
  143. Stiggins, R. J. (2006). Assessment for learning: A key to motivation and achievement. Phi Delta Kappa International, 2(2), 2–19.Google Scholar
  144. Stiggins, R. J., & Duke, D. (2008). Effective instructional leadership requires assessment leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. (2005). It’s about learning (and it’s about time): What’s in it for schools? New York: Routledge Farmer.Google Scholar
  146. Taylor, A. R., & Tubianosa, T. S. (2001). Student assessment in Canada: Improving the learning environment through effective evaluation. Kelowna, BC, Canada: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
  147. Tierney, R. (2006). Changing practices: Influences on classroom assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. TIMMS and PIRLS. (2013). TIMMS and PIRLS international study center. Retrieved from:
  149. Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  150. Tucker, M. J. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform. Retrieved from:
  151. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2004). Changing teacher practices, using curriculum differentiation to respond to students’ diversity. Retrieved from:
  152. Webber, C. F., Aitken, E. N., Lupart, J., & Scott, S. (2009). Alberta student assessment study final report. Retrieved from:
  153. Wiggins, G. (2006). Healthier testing made easy: The idea of authentic assessment. Edutopia. Retrieved from:
  154. Wiggins, G. (2010). Why we should stop bashing state tests. Educational Leadership, 67(6), 48–52.Google Scholar
  155. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  156. Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  157. Williamson, K. (2006, September 30). City’s students shine in exams: Both systems exceed Alberta average [Final Edition]. Calgary Herald, B1.Google Scholar
  158. Wolf, P. J. (2007). Academic improvement through regular assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 690–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Wormeli, R. (2006). Accountability: Teaching through assessment and feedback, not grading. American Secondary Education, 34(3), 14–27.Google Scholar
  160. Young, J., & Levin, B. (2002). Understanding Canadian schools (pp. 60–61). Toronto, ON, Canada: Nelson-Thomson.Google Scholar
  161. Zwaagstra, M. (2012). No-zero grading policies in schools not supported by the evidence. Retrieved from:

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations