麻豆传媒入口

The topic this week opens a huge can of worms in education. For better or worse, in the end it seems that everything comes down to the final grade, which generally generates a source of anxiety for kids and a source of contention among stakeholders when disagreement or confusion presents itself in regards to how the grade was determined, and perhaps most importantly, what the grade really means and if it truly indicates learning.聽In short, one little letter has the power to make a huge impact on a kid鈥檚 life. Of course, this is nothing new. It has always been the case, and little has changed. Grades have been and remain the center point in education, which are often accepted as the final word on learning, the final indicator of success or failure. But what if the final word is flawed?聽What if grades are not really true indicators of learning, success, or failure? I wonder. And though my wonders may lure me to wander into a huge realm full of questions never asked and answers oft ignored, I will stick to one worm in the can for now: zeroes. We will explore the general topic of grading practices in greater depth next month. 聽

The great majority of kids who fail do so because of the dreaded zero, which is most generally the result of a missing assignment, not necessarily an indicator of low-or-no proficiency with course content. So, invariably, zeroes kill grades, often creating holes that kids cannot crawl out of, resulting in many giving up and failing a course. So, too, even kids who do not fail courses suffer the unfair penalty of zeroes, which often drastically decrease their grades. So what? If they didn鈥檛 want the penalty, they should have completed the assignment. One should not get something for nothing. Kids need to learn. Yes, they do, but some lessons make more sense than others. And zeroes don鈥檛 really make sense when we examine traditional grading scales.

Most grading scales roughly reflect a 10-point-increment scale, moving down the scale from聽A聽(100 - 90) to B聽(89 - 80) and so on. Again, this is nothing new. We all were subject to such a scale, and kids still are today. 聽And, as we continue down the scale, it remains uniform until we get to F,聽and then it abruptly dives from 59 to 0. F's聽should stop at 50. There are no G聽through K聽grades, only F鈥檚.聽In terms of numbers, scores given in this range may reflect a degree of completion (a kid did 3 of 10 problems, so he gets 30%), but in terms of learning, scores given in this range whether it鈥檚 59, 34, or 17 reflect one thing: failure. When kids or parents see scores below 60, they generally understand that that indicates a performance well-below standard; students have not been successful with the content.聽When we start assigning numbers within this range, what are we really seeking to communicate? 聽Let鈥檚 take a 52%. Are we really meaning to suggest that this is a聽lesser聽fail than聽a 33%, which should then suggest a greater fail? This then continues down the scale, approaching the zero, a sign of complete and utter failure. Kids in this range for various reasons are well-below the grade-level standards that we have established in our classrooms. That鈥檚 the message, generally intended and generally received. This is clear.

What I wonder is if we also have to attach a punishment in the form of a sub-50-point score? Somehow, it just doesn鈥檛 seem fair. Why can鈥檛 we let an F聽be an F?聽We let A鈥檚 be A鈥檚聽and B鈥檚聽be B鈥檚.聽Why not F鈥檚?聽Why do we have to let the bottom drop out? A bottom that drops the kids off a cliff they can rarely re-climb, especially in classrooms where they cannot turn in late work or redo assignments.聽Is this really fair for kids? Is this ethical in an arena where the stakes are so high? I鈥檓 not sure.

Four years ago, I quit zeroes. They are no longer allowed in my classroom. I still have F鈥檚聽which communicate, in number聽and聽learning, performances well-below standard. Kids still receive failing scores in my classroom, but I don鈥檛 tack on punishment, additional insult to injury in the form of sub-50% scores; 50% is now the lowest score possible in my class. The kids know from the mark that they have failed to meet standard; I don鈥檛 need to crush them more with added penalties. It makes sense to me, it makes sense to my kids, and it makes sense to parents. It鈥檚 also beginning to make sense to some of my colleagues, who, too, have adopted a no-zero policy. But not all. Some of my colleagues have accused me of malpractice, suggesting I am ruining kids鈥� lives by not teaching them a lesson. And I guess of that I am guilty. But I sleep at night knowing that I have given kids a fair shake, and while I may not be teaching them the harsh lessons of life, I am giving them opportunity by creating a realm of possibility in room 219.

Your turn. Is the practice of giving zeroes fair? Please, join the conversation. Your words matter.

Originally published on Let's Change Education: ""