they must speak only to the posted curriculum. The Problem with Averaging We know that averaging grades falsi- fies grade reports (Marzano, 2000; O’Connor, 2009, 2010; Reeves, 2010; Wormeli, 2006). Henry receives an F on the first test but then learns the material and receives an A on a new assessment of the same material; unfortunately, the average of these two, a C, is recorded in the grade book. This is not an accurate report of Henry’s newfound proficiency in the topic. If we trust the new test as a valid indicator of mastery, Henry’s ear- lier performance is irrelevant. Although this example uses two grading extremes (A and F), averaging rades, no matter the distance between the two or more scores, decreases accu- racy. Looking at the most consistent levels of performance over time makes for a more accurate report of what stu- dents truly know, and it provides higher correlations with testing done outside
the classroom (Bailey & Guskey, 2001; Effective assessment
of the F range—or the most hope-Marzano, 2000; Reeves, 2010).
ful, recoverable end of that range? It’s
It’s unethical and inaccurate to
include in a grade digressions in per-
formance that occur during the learn-
is revelatory; it reveals
the student’s story.
a bit silly to have varying degrees of
“F-titude,” when an F means “no evi-
dence of the standard yet.”
ing process, when a grade is supposed
to report students’ mastery at the end
The larger question really is whether
we’re teaching to make sure students
of that process. It’s also inaccurate to
a more accurate report of students’
learn the curriculum or just presenting
rely solely on single-sitting assessments mastery. Recording a zero on a 100-
the curriculum and documenting stu-
for the most accurate report of what
point scale for a student’s lack of work
dents’ deficiencies with it. A “gotcha!”
students know and can do. Instead, we on an assessment not only falsifies the
mind-set doesn’t serve our mission.
look for evidence over time.
report of what he or she knows, but also
Educators who consider reappointing
immediately generates despair: Only a
the zero as, say, 50 may worry that
The Problem with Zeroes
mammoth pile of perfect 100s can over- students will brag to classmates, “You
Determining grades using the 100-point come the deficit and result in a passing worked hard, but I did nothing and still
scale is ill-suited to measuring and
D grade. So why bother?
got a 50!” But students are the first to
reporting performance against specific
When considering whether to leave
realize that they don’t get something for
standards. If we’re calculating grades
a score as zero or reappoint it as a 50,
having done nothing. Unfortunately,
mathematically, smaller scales with
59, 60, or higher (all still in the F range) some teachers invoke the compensa-
clear descriptors—such as 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, in an effort to equalize its skewing
tion metaphor here, claiming that they
and 4.0, in which all possible scores,
influence, we’re really deciding among
would not pay someone $50 for a job
including 0.0, have equal skewing
variations of F. Do we record the lowest, that he or she didn’t do. In that context,
influence on the overall score—create
most hurtful, most unrecoverable end
this is correct, of course, but the analogy
