Running head: grading policy1

A Consideration of Grading Policy

Valerie A. Brown

grading policy 2
A Consideration of Grading Policy
Grades are not an essential part of the instructional process; teachers can instruct and students
can learn without them (Frisbie & Waltman, 1992, p. 35). Nevertheless, since their inception
they have become an almost universally entrenched practice internationally as well as here in the
United States (Sadler, 2009). It seems clear that grades, in one form or another, are here to stay
persisting largely because various stakeholders such as parents, institutions of higher learning,
and prospective employers need to either communicate or receive information about students
(Sttiggins & Chappuis, 2012, pp. 228-229) Policies concerning how these grades are
determined, however, vary widely, and in their efforts to arrive at a final distilled product
teachers often conflate an assortment of factors into the final distilled product (Guskey, 2006, p.
15; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, pp. 228-229). In order to function effectively as a means of
communication, grades must worthy of consistent interpretation. In order to achieve this a
clearly defined purpose regarding exactly what grades should communicate must be defined
(Carifio, 2009, p. 24). This has proven to be a deceptively simple chore however, sparking
perennial debate (Guskey, 1994, p. 14)
Grading Purposes
Grades can serve many functions. For instance, in addition to serving as a means of
communication between schools and parents, they can be used to provide incentives for students
to learn, a basis for them to self-evaluate pursuant to future goals, or by prospective employers or
institutions of higher education in determining employment or admission opportunities (Guskey,
1994). Optimum functionality for each of these purposes simultaneously, however, is impossible
(Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p. 237; Frisbie & Waltman, 1992, p. 37; Guskey, 1994). Thus
teachers are required to make judgement calls concerning what factors to include in the grades,

grading policy 3
how to define those factors, and the relative importance of those factors thereby opening the door
for much subjectivity in the form of individual teachers personal philosophies to pervade the
communicated product (i.e. the grade) (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012). Consequently the various
recipients of the information are provided with an amalgamated product of unknown
composition and no basis from which to interpret.
McMillan & Nash (2000) found that in order to decide which factors to consider and how
to weight them teachers experience a tension between their internal beliefs or values, and
external realities imposed upon them such as mandated high stakes testing and district grading
policies. Factors commonly considered in teachers grading policies include achievement,
aptitude, effort, compliance, and attitude (Campbell, 2012, p. 31; Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p.
228-229). Among these, including achievement is undisputed as it is considered the most
valued result of schooling (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p. 230). As there is currently no
accepted way to either define or measure aptitude, and students risk negative consequences on
the basis of potentially incorrect inferences predicated on such possibilities as prior achievement
levels, Stiggins & Chappuis (2012) assert that it should not be a factor in grading. Effort has a bit
more merit as a factor, but is already somewhat accounted for as a part of achievement from
which it cannot be easily separated (Brookhart, 1993, p. 296). Additionally, teachers perception
of effort may be intentionally swayed by savvy students or may be related to students culture,
personality, or participation all of which are outside of their direct control (Stiggins & Chappuis,
2012, p. 233). For these reasons alone, grading effort as a motivational consideration is
discouraged (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p. 235). Guskey (1994) contends that while grades
may offer some value as rewards, [they have] no value as punishments. In his view,
compliance as a grading factor uses punishment in the form of low grades which often leads

grading policy 4
students to withdraw from learning rather than prompting greater effort. Finally, attitude as a
grading factor suffers from some of the same issues discussed above; it is hard to define as
perceptions can be faulty, and savvy students can be manipulative (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p.
238).
Also of concern, as teachers strive to balance competing objectives, complex grading
policies are frequently corollary. This too is problematic in that more complex the grading
policy, the less the likelihood that students and their families will understand (Carifio & Carey,
2009, p.25).
Host Teacher Grading Practices
The survey results of the interviewed teachers corroborate the preponderance of grading
practice research; except in the case of a district mandated policy, practices are idiosyncratic
showing little standardization with other teachers (Campbell, 2012, pp. 30-31; McMillan &
Nash, 2000, p 35). Host teachers graded primarily on achievement with the portions derived
from non-achievement factors generally intended to initiate greater effort. Additionally they
regarded effort grades as a potential consideration in deciding borderline grades. While aptitude
was not generally a factor, it was considered to the extent that students qualified for
accommodations such as amended length of assignments or extended time, however these
students were still held accountable for learning the same material. In several cases host
teachers expressed their belief in promoting mastery through allowing reworks subject to certain
stipulations designed to improve understanding in order to regain partial credit.
Teachers policies were subject to certain provisions. Certain courses entail a state
mandated Georgia Milestones end of course (EOC) test that comprises 20% of the final grade

grading policy 5
(Georgia Department of Education, 2015). Additionally, North Hall High School policy
disallows a single grade other than an EOC from counting more than 10% of the final grade.
Research Supported Practices
According to Reeves (2008) and Brookhart (1993), most teachers do not follow the
research-backed guidelines for best grading practices. Three common practices in particular are
especially ineffective: using zeroes for missing work, averaging all scores throughout the grading
period, and using a semester-killer a single assignment capable of making or breaking
students grades (Carifio & Carey, 2009; Reeves, 2008). Grades of zero, and potentially
semester-killers have a detrimental effect on students overall term grade from which it is
improbable to impossible for them to recover; motivation is thus squelched as the student has
lost control (Reeves, 2008, p. 86). Use of a minimum grade such as a 50 can help to address this
situation as can insisting upon completion of all assignments (Carifio & Carey, 2009, pp. 25-26;
Reeves, 2008, p. 86). Averaging of all term grades equates early term learning with that at the
end of the term which is more reflective of the final level of achievement (Reeves, 2009, p. 86;
Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p. 245).
Personal Proposed Practices
After much thought and with full understanding that experience will probably change my
plan I propose to grade tests at 50%, quizzes, class work and homework at 30%, and per
probable district policy, the final at 20%. My rationale for the heavy weighting on tests is that
they most closely reflect achievement which I feel outweighs test anxiety concerns. While these
are certainly valid (I have recent personal experience with anxiety!), my intent is to assess
frequently so that students become more accustomed to the process and each tests impact will be
less. I plan to allow reworks of tests for all students, even those who received an A initially,

grading policy 6
however there will be stringent requirements (written explanation of what went wrong and why
including reworked problems) to recover up to half credit. In addition I will replace individual
test grades with the grade achieved for equivalent sections on the final. I chose to lump quizzes,
class work and homework together as I feel they are all more formative type endeavors. While
there must necessarily be some consequential grades derived from these areas, I plan to parrot
some of the techniques I have observed regarding group, or some variation of open-note quizzes
interspersed with more traditional ones, and most homework and class work will graded for
completion with either verbal or written feedback. Projects will be assessed as a test grade and
completed individually to avoid an inaccurate representation of a singular student based on
multiple students achievements (Stiggins & Chappuis, 2012, p. 246). Finally, I feel that as
educators with personal pedagogies, we are representative of the tradition of pedagogues of
ancient Greece, and as such should be concerned with shaping through mentorship our students
according to the values of our society much in the way that the pedagogues of old instructed their
wards in more than subject areas. It is for this reason that unless afforded the option of multiple
grades to communicate purposes other than achievement, I feel that in spite of current research
guidelines there should be a penalty for late work of 10 points per day until the maximum
achievable grade for that assignment is a 70. As Caneva (2013) asserted in her article entitled
For Students Sake Say No to No-Zero Policy on Grading students do not benefit from lowered
academic expectations and that is the unintended effect of the removal of consequences.
As a final note two statements will continue to resonate in my mind. First, the
difference between failure and the honor roll often depends on the grading policies of the
teacher (Reeves, 2008, p. 85), and Regardless of the method used, grading and reporting
remain inherently subjective (Guskey, 1994, p. 15).

grading policy 7
References
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From - To.
Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name.
Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers' grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement In
Education, 7(4), 279-301.
Campbell, C. (2012). Learning centered grading practices. Leadership, 41(5), 31-33.
Caneva, G. (2013). For students' sake say no to 'no-zero policy' on grading. Catalyst Chicago.
Retrieved from . http://catalyst-chicago.org/2013/10/students-sake-say-no-no-zeropolicy-grading/
Carifio, J., & Carey, T. (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy
recommendations. The High School Journal, (1), 23-37.
Frisbie, D. & Waltman, K. (1992). Developing a personal grading plan. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practices, 11(3), 35-42.
Guskey, T. (1994). Making the grade: What benefits students?. Educational Leadership, 14-19.
Guskey, T. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 670-675.
Georgia Department of Education. (2015). Georgia Milestones Assessment System. Retrieved
from https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-andAssessment/Assessment/Pages/Georgia-Milestones-Assessment-System.aspx
McMillan, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000) Teacher classroom assessment and grading practices decision
making. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in
Education, New Orleans, LA.
Sadler, D. R. (2009). Grade integrity and the representation of academic achievement. Studies in
Higher Education, 34(7), 807-826.

grading policy 8
Stiggins, R. J. & Chappuis, J. (2012). Report cards: summarizing assessment of learning. In An
introduction to student-involved assessment for learning (6th ed.), (pp. 226-255). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

grading policy 9
Tables
Table 1
Survey of Mathematics Teachers Grading Policies
Teacher

School

Daily

Quizzes

Homewor

Work

Habersham

Final
Exam

Combined

Cantrell

--

Johnson

20%

Meadowcreek

Tests

20%
10%

60%

20%

--

50%

20%

Combined

Hunter

35%

5%

40%

20%

Shabaz

35%

5%

40%

20%

Kidd

36%

4%

40%

20%

Woodworth

40%

--

40%

20%
15%

North Hall

Combined
Rogers

42.5%

42.5%

White

50%

50%

Sabo

20%

25%

20%

35%

Self

--

30%

20%

50%

40%

--

Tench

--

20%

20%

40%

20%
20%

Notes: Teachers were interviewed by resident Piedmont College Fellows. Some teachers used minimum grades
citing student self-efficacy. Cantrell allows multiple re-works on homework and quizzes for declining credit.
Johnson grades daily work and homework (usually joint) for completion. Hunter and Shabaz are constrained by
Gwinnett County School Districts mandated grading policy. Kidd allows test re-works to regain credit and grades
homework for completion. Rogers rarely allows re-tests and grades homework for completion. Self includes
homework in daily work and allows test re-works to regain credit. Tench penalizes late work and grades
homework 75% completion, 25% accuracy. White gives occasional daily grades for effort. Woodworth allows grade
replacement to reflect mastery and does not grade homework. Sabo, Self, and White adjust percentage after finals.