If you have not yet read Jessica Grose's compelling New York Times opinion piece titled "Lenient Grading Won’t Help Struggling Students. Addressing Chronic Absenteeism Will," I highly recommend it. Grose offers a thought-provoking exploration of an essential aspect of an ongoing debate within education circles. She delves into why a gap exists between the grades students earn in their coursework and their actual achievement levels, as indicated by test scores, and discusses how certain policies aimed at improving equity may inadvertently exacerbate this disparity.
At least part of the reason for this discrepancy lies in the inherent subjectivity of grading practices, a factor often overlooked. Elements such as student behaviors, attendance, extra credit, and inconsistent grading criteria frequently factor into grade determinations across all educational settings. While these factors may adversely affect students' grades, they can also benefit them. Nevertheless, they invariably contribute to a distorted message about student achievement.
Grades are also susceptible to influence from external pressures exerted by parents, principals, and district leaders, especially when they fall below expectations. The scrutiny that accompanies such pressures often leaves teachers feeling overwhelmed and compelled to 'give in' rather than put up a fight in defense of their grades, resulting in grading practices that may be overly lenient or lack true justification. On the other side of things, every school likely has a teacher notorious for consistently assigning failing grades to numerous students year after year, often with little self-reflection or accountability. When large numbers of students are not successful in a class, who is to blame? It is a complicated question that must be a part of the discourse for a complicated subject.
For at least 20 years, educators have considered the idea of moving toward grading policies that eliminate zeroes in calculations, setting minimum marks at 50%, in an effort to improve equity. Doug Reeves' seminal work on this topic from 2004 still serves as the basis for the debate. Today, there is a growing belief that reforming key practices like grading in this manner will lead to greater equity for students. Several districts across the nation like those in Atlanta, Portland, and Clark County, to name a few, have bravely done this or are considering it, sparking heated debates within their communities. While I applaud these districts and others for taking the issue of equity in grading seriously and acting, this particular path is one that not all are willing to travel for a variety of reasons.
With 20 years of experience in education leadership, including service as Superintendent of the Monrovia Unified School District in California and as a high school principal, I have encountered various perspectives on this matter. There was a time when I too believed that moving away from zeroes and implementing grade 'floors' at 50% made a good deal of sense. I recall numerous instances where students began the school year with minimal effort for various reasons, only to find themselves unable to recover from their poor start due to accumulating too many zeroes in the gradebook. However, after years of discussions with colleagues, students, and stakeholders, I've come to reconsider this approach. I no longer believe that eliminating zeroes from grading is the correct path; instead, I believe there are better solutions.
Grades are intended to serve as precise indicators that clearly communicate students' mastery of and progress toward rigorous academic standards. Given their distinct contrast with more objective and standardized measures such as test scores, any reforms undertaken should aim to make them more accurate, not less. Below, I examine the context of how students typically earn a zero (or a mark below 50%) to illustrate how minimum grade policies can lead to decreased accuracy.
First, consider when a student does not submit the work, take the test or quiz, turn in the project, et cetera. These are the most common scenarios where zeroes are given. Assigning any grade at all in these cases is problematic considering a teacher never actually saw or evaluated the work. A zero mark however at least accurately communicates that the student has demonstrated no evidence of mastery (i.e. zero), something that it is not only understandable but also defensible.
In contrast, substituting a 50% instead of a zero in any of these cases not only conveys an inaccurate message about achievement but also completely distorts the accuracy of the grade. Without any work to evaluate, a teacher cannot reasonably justify awarding a grade of 50%, a mark that presumably signifies some degree of accomplishment, albeit minimal. While I agree with the advocates for eliminating zeroes in grading who contend that the 100-point grade scale is skewed and recognize the difficulty for students to recover from a zero mark, I find it unreasonable to defend this practice given its significant impact on both the accuracy and meaning of grades.
Next, consider the scenario where a student submits work of poor quality. For instance, if a student earns 3 out of 10 on a quiz, or 30%, the grade given is presumably accurate. However, reassigning that earned grade to a 50% instead of its actual value - 30% - due to a 'minimum grade' policy also completely distorts the message about the student's achievement.
I fully grasp the challenges that policies aiming to eliminate zeroes and institute minimum grades of 50% are attempting to address. As previously mentioned, there exists an inherent imbalance within the 100-point grading scale, and students who fall behind may indeed struggle to achieve a passing grade overall, especially after receiving multiple zero grades. Nevertheless, if grades are intended to serve as accurate reflections of achievement, simply assigning a minimum grade of 50% to assignments—regardless of submission—fails to address the core issue. This approach tends to polarize all stakeholders involved, including students, parents, and teachers, and it generates more controversy than it resolves. There is also a notable dearth of quantifiable research demonstrating the broad, meaningful impact of this grading strategy, making such a progressive reform even less palatable in my opinion.
Over the years, I have engaged in numerous discussions with teachers, parents, and students regarding this issue. While many are familiar with the concept of eliminating zeroes as a means to address equity in grading and understand the rationale behind it, most express discomfort with such an approach, viewing it as too extreme—an opinion I share. Instead, the individuals I have spoken with often propose practical suggestions and recommendations that have proven effective in their experience. Below, I outline some of these suggestions, all of which I can vouch for.
Utilize frameworks like Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) to systematically address situations where students fail to submit work or submit work below acceptable standards.
Consider incorporating Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) within MTSS efforts to address behaviors such as failing to submit work.
Implement high dosage tutoring to assist students who submit work of subpar quality in improving their skills, bridging learning gaps, and enhancing academic confidence. I recently authored an article on this topic aimed at school and district leaders.
When work is missing, evaluate grades based on available evidence of learning. If insufficient evidence exists, judiciously use a "No Mark" or "Incomplete" as placeholders until further evidence is obtained.
Provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate mastery through various means.
Address absenteeism proactively at the earliest opportunity.
Involve parents in finding solutions by initiating proactive communication before issues escalate and empowering them to assist.
In addition to these measures, it is crucial to ensure that the tasks assigned to students are genuinely meaningful, relevant, and rigorous. This can be the most challenging aspect for educators, requiring deep reflection, collaboration, careful planning, and a guiding framework. However, it's also the most impactful and meaningful work, leading to improved achievement over time. The efforts undertaken by organizations such as Learner-Centered Collaborative, Transcend, and PBLWorks in partnership with school districts nationwide to create more learner-centered environments are inspiring and merit close examination.
Dr. Ryan Smith, with 20 years of leadership experience in public education, is dedicated to ensuring every student receives an outstanding education and reaches their highest potential. Through his service as Superintendent of the Monrovia Unified School District and in other key leadership roles, his commitment to putting students first has driven success and positive change across various schools and districts. Learn more about Dr. Smith at his website, on LinkedIn, or X.
Opmerkingen