Grading

Grading (to state the obvious) is a system of assigning a generalized/holistic mark, based on a scale, to students' performance. Teachers typically recognize the important role of effort in achievement and motivation, and grades therefore should not be considered unidimensional measures of pure achievement, as has been assumed in the past (Brookhart et. al., 2016). Studies suggest that grades are valued indicators of numerous factors that matter to students, parents, schools, and communities (Brookhart et. al., 2016).

Grading vs Assessment vs Feedback: Grading should not be confused with Assessment, which is evidence teachers collect of student knowledge, skills, thinking, or learning in order to evaluate what students understand, know, and are able to do, and which can form the basis for engaging students in feedback loops. While grading and assessment are not the same; they are often related. We grade assessments, and assessments reflect learning that has occurred. However, the concept of grading and assessment is complicated, and has been further complicated by the many ways that education reform has manifested itself in the classroom (Miller, 2011).

It is also important for teachers to understand the difference between grading and feedback. For instance, the difference between "points" used for grading, and "feedback" from assessments designed to help students understand and improve (i.e. "√+, 4 points" is not the desirable kind of feedback, called elaborated feedback, because it does not describe current performance, desired performance, or strategies for improvement). While grades are technically a form of feedback, they are a kind of feedback called "knowledge of results." Research suggests that this kind of feedback is not very effective for advancing learning relative to elaborated feedback) (Brookhart, 2016).

While grades have several limitations (discussed below), they have been found to be predictive of several aspects of school success, such as matriculation, graduation rates, and college success, and may be more useful than standardized tests in this regard (Brookhart et. al., 2016).

Limitations of Grading: Despite the fact that grading and reporting are foundational elements in nearly every educational system; and despite arguments by experts that grading should be valid, reliable, meaningful, accurate and fair (Munoz & Guskey, 2015); research indicates that grades typically represent a mixture of multiple factors that individual teachers value (Brookhart et. al., 2016); and because teachers rarely share common understandings of criteria for grading (Brookhart et. al., 2016), grades provide little in the way of concrete and usable information about student learning (Brookhart, 2016). Evidence on grading suggests that grades may be motivating factors for high achieving students (but also may contribute to a fixed mindset and risk aversion in high achieving students), but tend to be demotivating for students who struggle, contributing to disengagement in learning (Guskey, 2000). Research further suggests that secondary teachers often believed that grading serves a classroom control and management function, emphasizing student behavior and completion of work (Brookhart et. al., 2016), which may contribute to its demotivating effects. Finally, in many middle/high schools, course grades are calculated by averaging assignment scores over the course of a term, semester, or school year. While schools have used grade averaging for decades, the practice can misrepresent important aspects of academic achievement, particularly the learning progress that students make over time (i.e. Over the course of 10 assignments focused on writing, a student who achieved 85 points out of 100 on each would earn a "B;" while a student who struggled with the concepts early, worked hard, and subsequently mastered the concepts and scored 95% on the culminating assessment might earn an "F." The two grades do not accurately represent either the students efforts or their level of mastery) (New England Secondary Schools Consortium, 2016).

Suggested practice: Teaching to learner differences requires students to be able to take different pathways to shared expectations and outcomes. If students are “graded down” for each struggle along the way, they are effectively being punished for engaging in a learning process (Wormeli, 2018). In universal access and differentiated settings, teachers emphasize grades based on the student's ultimate demonstration of learning relative to the outcomes, not based on their progress along the way (Wormeli, 2018). In addition to having clear criteria and using valid evidence (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006), as described above, this requires teachers to base grading primarily on “summative” demonstrations based on valid performance assessments rather than by averaging students work along the way (and therefore punishing practice and learning from failure). Based on a similar principle, teachers should also allow multiple opportunities for students to provide summative evidence (multiple and varied assessments of learning standards, revisions, retakes, re-submissions, etc.). Finally, teachers should avoid “averaging” assessment results, either within an identified skill or across skills. Instead, teachers should based summative assessments on the student’s ultimate demonstration of the outcome, and should report separate skills separately (separating effort and practice from demonstrated knowledge and skills, for example) (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006).

Best Practice (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; Wormeli, 2018):

Base grades on attainment of clear standards that are understood by students rather than averages.
Base grades on rubrics that describe performance expectations across elements rather than basing them on points.
Allow for unlimited (to the degree possible and reasonable) opportunities for students to learn and demonstrate their learning (assessing in multiple ways; allow unlimited opportunities for revision, re-submission, alternative assessment, etc.).
Allow submission of late work without penalty.
Coaching/support students towards mastery (rather than punishing non-mastery).
Base grades on performance relative to established criteria (standards or learning outcomes), never on arbitrary norms.

Things to avoid (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; Wormeli, 2018):

Do not grade practice (i.e. homework).
Do not include effort, attendance, or behavior as components of academic grades (unless you are able to describe and assess subject specific work habits that are a component of mastery of the discipline). Similarly, if the grade is meant to represent mastery of an academic skill, do not penalize elements that are not related to that skill (i.e. do not penalize not putting one's name on the paper if the grade is meant to represent historical knowledge).
Do not including bonus points or extra credit as a means of improving grades (this is a variation on the averaging prohibition - multiple/additional opportunities to demonstrate mastery is desirable, bonus points to raise the average are not).
Do not assign "zero" on a 100 point scale (even if no is not completed), as this is not an accurate representation of student learning, and instead is a from of punishment. (On a 100 point scale, the lowest grade should be a 50). Again, if you stop averaging, this becomes a non-issue.
Do not using grades as a form of public ranking of students (although there may be reasons for students to be open with peers on areas of strength and areas where they need support - these should be descriptive "I'm still developing in the area of thesis sentences" as opposed to grades/appraisals.)
Do not use grades as a form of accountability or punishment (coach students instead).
Do not use group grades to evaluate a single student's performance (there may be some exceptions if your are evaluating effective collaboration).
Never grade on a curve or use comparative or relative student performance as an element of grading, either directly or indirectly.
Never use norm referenced terms to (i.e. "above average" or "below average") to describe criterion referenced attributes (i.e. the students mastery of a standard).

Working within a grading system: It is understood that many educators work in systems that make aspects of these assessment principles impossible (many schools still require teachers to submit final grades, which by definition are based on a weighted average of different skills and criteria). In such circumstances, how assessment practices fit with grading is important to consider. For teachers committed to teaching to learning differences, integrity demands that they seek to move the aspects of their own teaching as far possible, while balancing their own “actionable space” with their professional obligations and commitments to their colleagues, school, and school system (Mintrop, 2012). So the important question for a teacher committed to teaching to learner differences may be “What can I do to adjust how I assess and grade students?” rather than, “What can’t I do because the grading or reporting system at my school makes it difficult?”