of nonachievement factors when determin- ing grades (effort, ability, conduct, atten- dance). • Grades are something students earn as


compensation for work completed rather than indicators of academic achievement. • Because teachers are concerned with


student motivation, self-esteem, and the social consequences of giving grades, using student achievement as the sole criteria for determining grades is rare. Ultimately, teacher practice regarding


grading is deeply rooted in what an individ- ual teacher thinks is “fair,” not what will im- prove, or accurately reflect, student achieve- ment. But many of the grading practices in force today are, in fact, unfair and demor- alizing, especially to higher ability students. An average or above-average student who works below his ability level is most likely to get the lower grade based on a perception of effort, while lower achieving students get a break if there is sufficient effort to justify it.


A minimum grading system An issue gaining more exposure within


the topic of grading is the number of educa- tors who have come to the conclusion that assigning zeroes for grades is no longer an acceptable practice because of mathemati- cal errors. There are varying implementa- tions, but the concept requires that teachers utilize equal intervals within their grading and point system. In the most common 100- point scale, where 90 and above equates to an A, and 80 and above equates to a B, equi- distant intervals would call for a C to be assigned 70 points, a D 60 points, and an F would be assigned 50 points. Support for the minimum grading sys-


tem lies simply in the mathematics of it all, that a grade of F with 0 points is six times worse than a grade of D, and recovering one’s overall grade after a score of zero is av- eraged into the total is nearly impossible. Despite the mathematical logic, critics


report great disagreement with assigning anything but a 0 for an F grade, with the ar- gument that the policy can unfairly reward students with points they have not earned, and stifle motivation to work harder. That is the opposite of the intended effect, which is to give students a fighting chance at grade


improvement over time and to create con- sistency and fairness between schools (Ven- tura, 2011). Supporters, however, argue that mini-


mum grading keeps students engaged and contributes positively to student motivation. Although school policies rarely discuss


grading in such terms, grades affect student confidence, self efficacy, motivation and fu- ture performance (Docan, 2006). Recogniz-


homework into the final course grade. Deliv- ering consequences for perceived irresponsi- bility is claimed as the reason for including these mishaps into the final grade, though none of these factors provide evidence for the acquisition – or lack of acquisition – of the course content. The third practice in question is averag-


ing every grade throughout the semester into the final grade. If teachers aim to reflect


ing those secondary effects leads to a greater appreciation of minimum grading and an awareness of the subpopulations of students who could benefit from the practice, par- ticularly in certain “high-risk” courses and subjects. The research clearly indicates that grad-


ing practice may not elicit a true picture of what a student knows at the point a grade is given. Teachers commonly use three grad- ing policies that have been labeled as toxic (Reeves, 2008). First, despite evidence that grading as punishment does not work and the mathematical flaw in the use of the zero on a 100-point scale, defenders claim that students need to have consequences for fail- ing to turn work in on time. If a student is earning As on tests, but receives a number of zeroes for missing assignments, will his final grade of averaged scores actually reflect his content knowledge? This same grading mentality is the cause


for the second ineffective practice, including missed class, attitude, behavior and undone


at the end of the semester what content the student knows and understands at the end of the semester, despite student struggles along the way, grading processes would need to change. Perhaps there is another way to communicate the journey.


Survey of current California teachers A survey of teachers was performed by


this researcher, with a sample population including teachers in second through 12th grade classrooms, both public and private. A total of 250 were sent the survey and 167 teachers responded, from 18 schools across San Diego County. Of the 167 respondents, 87 percent represent teachers in grades 6 through 12. An electronic survey consisting of 10


multiple-choice questions asked teachers to describe the extent to which they empha- sized different assessment and grading prac- tices. Specifically, the research questions asked to what degree teachers: • considered non-academic factors in the


May/June 2012 31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40