Through Clarity of Purpose
Schools have used grades for a variety of purposes: communication,
self-evaluation, sorting and selecting,
motivation, and program evaluation
(Guskey, 1996)—and therein lies the
problem. Some teachers emphasize one
purpose, and some emphasize another.
Consequently, they use different criteria
for determining grades, which can result
in students who achieve at the same
level receiving different grades.
To achieve consistency, schools and
has nothing to do with
the problem of zeroes on
the 100-point scale.
Inaccurate grades
play havoc with
If we’re required to average grades, a
single missing assignment—a zero—on students’ lives and our
the 100-point scale disproportionately
skews the report: 100 + 100 + 100 + 0
professional integrity.
districts must achieve consensus about
the primary purpose of grades and then
publish a purpose statement that is
available to all. Our premise here is that
“the primary purpose of . . . grades [is]
to communicate student achievement to
students, parents, school administrators,
yields an average of 75, whereas a
postsecondary institutions, and employ-
100 + 100 + 100 + 50 yields an average
ers” (Bailey & Mc Tighe, 1996, p. 120).
of 87. 5, which is closer to the truth of
elements from academic elements on
overall competency if we’re aggregating the report card. Provide separate scores Through Performance Standards
all assessments equally into a single,
for each major standard or outcome
“What is good?” and “How good is
final grade. A more accurate report,
within the discipline. We must end
good enough?” are ultimately what
however, would declare that three stan- grade averaging, and if forced to use
assessment and grading are all about,
dards were mastered and one was not,
it, we must look at the evidence of
so defining the performance standards
and there would be no overall grade.
students’ mastery over time. Make sure clearly, making them available to all,
Averaging muddies the grading waters, that no one grade has undue skewing
and ensuring that everyone understands
particularly with zeroes on the 100-
influence on that average.
point scale.
Accurate grades provide feedback,
Doug Reeves (2004) reminds us that document progress, and inform our
a zero on the 100-point scale is six
instructional decisions. Inaccurate
them are essential steps to achieving
consistency in grading.
A pure standards-based system would
have only two levels of performance—
levels—six increments of 10—below
grades play havoc with students’ lives
proficient or not proficient. However,
a failing 60 and that this equates
and our professional integrity.
at most grade levels we may want to
mathematically to a - 6 on the 4.0
identify additional levels, such as above
scale. It would be absurd to record a
proficient, below but close to proficient,
- 6 on a 4.0 scale when Ben does not
Consistent
and well below proficient. This would
submit an assignment; it’s inaccurate
and unfair. Ben would have to climb
six levels higher just to get even with
absolute failure. This practice is sense-
Students in the classroom of teacher
x who achieve at the same level as
students in the classroom of teacher
result in a four-level system. Although
there is no one right number of levels,
fewer than 10 is advisable because
there’s a limit to how well the English
less, and it voids a school’s claim to be
y should get the same grade. Schools
language can describe different levels
standards-based.
should strive for consistency in all their and how well teachers, students, and
For higher accuracy and effective-
ness in grading, separate nonacademic
classrooms, and districts should strive
for consistency in all their schools.
parents could understand the differences among them.
