learning, by continuing to use century-old
grading practices that reflect outdated val-
ues and debunked assumptions, we contra-
dict and undermine our efforts at creating a
positive and academically motivating school
culture. Here are some examples:
We grade so that early struggles
impede success.
A century ago, we believed that a student’s
academic capacity was fixed and immutable,
and that academic success was reserved for a
small percentage of students. Today, we know
that all but the most mentally challenged stu-
dents can meet academic standards.
Our school cultures preach that success
is never out of reach; every student can suc-
ceed with effort and support. However, in
traditional grading, we often make success
difficult, if not unattainable, when students
struggle early in their learning. For instance,
we average students’ scores over time to
generate a final grade. When we do this, a
student’s early low grades deflate and down-
grade any future achievement. Beginning a
term with F’s and ending with A’s means a
student will show a C on the report card.
Not only is this grading practice math-
ematically unsound – no mathematician
would endorse averaging as the most accu-
rate way to describe performance over time
– but it is demotivating and dispiriting to
struggling students. When we average, we
inadvertently undermine the message we
want to send that success is always possible.
We punish mistakes.
We reject the Industrial Revolution en-
dorsement of a “fixed mindset” because of
the overwhelming research on the power of
a “growth mindset.” We preach the value of
risk-taking, that mistakes are important and
even necessary for successful learning.
In sports, we say: “You make mistakes in
practice so you can do well in the game.” In
that vein, we assign homework and class-
work for students to practice and build their
understanding of skills and content, poten-
tially through mistakes, so they can be more
successful on summative assessments, when
it “counts.” Yet many of us score homework
and classwork based on the accuracy of stu-
dents’ answers, even though this is precisely
Grades become more fair and
trusted when they’re based
entirely on what students know
and not on how our schools
judge their behavior.
when we want students to make their mis-
takes.
We’re contradicting ourselves: We say that
mistakes are valuable and necessary, but we
give lower grades because of those mistakes,
sending the opposite message that mistakes
are unwanted and bad. It’s as if we’re lowering
a student’s batting average based on how they
hit in batting practice as well as during games.
We grade based on a student’s
environment and resources.
We used to believe that a student’s aca-
demic potential was dictated by their envi-
ronment, race or gender – a concept that we
wholeheartedly reject today. However, we
often grade in ways that reward students who
have privilege and punish those who don’t.
Let’s return to homework. For those who
don’t grade homework for accuracy, we often
grade for completion. We want students to
attempt the homework even if answers aren’t
correct. The problem is that homework com-
pletion is more often a reflection of a stu-
dent’s income, language and family, and this
grading approach places underprivileged
students at a huge disadvantage.
Which students are more likely to com-
plete homework? The student who has a
quiet, uncluttered space at home, or the stu-
dent who lives in a smaller space they share
with their large extended family? The stu-
dent who has no other responsibilities than
to complete homework, or the student who
also has to care for younger siblings because
of a working or absent parent? The student
who has college-educated parents who can
help when he gets stuck, or the Spanish-
only speaking parent who never completed
middle school?
Grading homework for completion re-
wards students with resources and punishes
those without resources. Besides, if we’re
honest, we have no idea how much help a
student receives or if it is entirely copied, so
we’re rewarding students not for learning
from the homework, but simply for com-
pleting the assignment by any means avail-
able – certainly not a value we want in our
school cultures.
We can employ more equitable and
positive grading.
If we’re serious about improving how his-
torically less privileged communities expe-
rience school, how can our grading be bet-
ter aligned with a supportive and positive
school culture? Can our grading reinforce
contemporary beliefs about a growth mind-
set, preserving hope and motivation even if
November | December 2017
9