collection of facts and skills whose value
is questionable—yet never questioned.
Portfolios, for example, allow students
to thoughtfully gather meaningful examples of learning; they can be constructive if they replace grades rather than
being used to yield them. But there’s
little point if the curriculum is dominated by worksheets.
Improving Grading:
A Fool’s Errand?
I had been advocating standards-based
grading, which is a very important movement in its own right, but it took a push
from some great educators to make me
realize that if I wanted to focus my assessment around authentic feedback, then I
should just abandon grades altogether.
—New Jersey middle school teacher
Jason Bedell (2010)
Much of what is prescribed in the
name of “assessing for learning” or “for-
justify the grade” (Wilson, 2009, p. 60).
Teachers report that students, for their
part, often just turn to the grade and
ignore the comments. Research con-
firms that narratives are helpful only
in the absence of grades (Butler, 1988;
Pulfrey et al., 2011).
n It’s not enough to use “standards-
based” grading. That phrase may sug-
gest more consistency or a reliance on
more elaborate formulas in determining
grades, greater specificity about what
each grade signifies, or an increase in
the number of tasks or skills that are
graded. At best, these prescriptions do
nothing to address the fundamental
problems with grading. At worst, they
exacerbate those problems. In addition
to the simplistic premise that it’s always
good to have more data, we find a
conviction shared by the behaviorists of
yesteryear that learning can and should
be broken down into its components,
each to be evaluated separately. More
mative assessment” leaves me uneasy:
frequent temperature-taking produces
The recommended practices often seem piles, you’re still grading them.
exactly the kind of disproportionate
prefabricated and mechanistic; the
n It’s not enough to tell students in
attention to performance (at the expense
imperatives of data collection seem to
advance exactly what’s expected of
of learning) that researchers have found
upstage the students themselves and
them. Teachers may persuade them-
to be so damaging.
the goal of helping them become more
enthusiastic about what they’re doing.
Still, if it’s done only occasionally and
selves they’re being fairer to students “if
they specify, in listlike fashion, exactly
what must be learned to gain a satis-
The term “standards-based” is some-
times intended just to mean that grading
is aligned with a given set of objec-
with humility, I think it’s possible to
factory grade.” But this strategy only
tives, in which case our first response
assess for learning. But grading for learn- serves to reinforce the assumption that
should be to inquire into the value of
ing is, to paraphrase a 1960s-era slogan, school is “a test, rather than an adven-
those objectives (as well as the extent
rather like bombing for peace. Rating
ture in ideas” (Nicholls & Hazzard,
to which students were invited to help
and ranking students (and their efforts
1993, p. 77).
formulate them). If grades are based
to figure things out) are inherently
n It’s not enough to disseminate
on state standards, there’s particular
counterproductive.
grades more efficiently—for example,
reason to be concerned because those
If we take the research seriously, then by posting them online. There is a
standards are often too specific, age-
the absence of grades is a necessary
growing technology, as the late Gerald
inappropriate, superficial, and standard-
condition for promoting deep thinking Bracey once remarked, “that permits
ized by definition.
and a desire to engage in it. It’s worth
us to do in nanoseconds things that we
Finally, “standards-based” may refer
lingering on this proposition in light of shouldn’t be doing at all” (Mathews,
to something similar to criterion-based
a variety of efforts to sell us formulas to 2006). In fact, posting grades online is
testing, in which the idea is to avoid
improve our grading techniques, none
of which addresses the problems with
a significant step backward because it
enhances the salience of those grades
grading students on a curve. This prac-
tice surely represents an improvement
grading, per se.
and therefore their destructive effects on over a system in which the number of
n It’s not enough to replace letters or learning.
top marks is made artificially scarce and
numbers with labels (exceeds expecta-
n It’s not enough to add narrative
tions, meets expectations, and so on). If
reports. “When comments and grades
you’re sorting students into four or five coexist, the comments are written to
students are set against one another. But
here we’ve peeled back the outer skin of
the onion (competition) only to reveal
