The Case for the No Zero Scale
Is Our Grading System Fair?
By Monte Syrie
January 26, 2016
"A zero has an undeserved and devastating influence, so much so that no matter what the student does, the grade distorts the final grade as a true indicator of mastery. Mathematically and ethically this is unacceptable.” -- Rick Wormeli quoted in O’Connor, K., A Repair Kit for Grading, ETS/ATI, Portland, 2007, 92
The topic this week opens a huge can of worms in education. For better or worse, in the end it seems that everything comes down to the final grade, which generally generates a source of anxiety for kids and a source of contention among stakeholders when disagreement or confusion presents itself in regards to how the grade was determined, and perhaps most importantly, what the grade really means and if it truly indicates learning. In short, one little letter has the power to make a huge impact on a kid’s life. Of course, this is nothing new. It has always been the case, and little has changed. Grades have been and remain the center point in education, which are often accepted as the final word on learning, the final indicator of success or failure. But what if the final word is flawed? What if grades are not really true indicators of learning, success, or failure? I wonder. And though my wonders may lure me to wander into a huge realm full of questions never asked and answers oft ignored, I will stick to one worm in the can for now: zeroes. We will explore the general topic of grading practices in greater depth next month.
The great majority of kids who fail do so because of the dreaded zero, which is most generally the result of a missing assignment, not necessarily an indicator of low-or-no proficiency with course content. So, invariably, zeroes kill grades, often creating holes that kids cannot crawl out of, resulting in many giving up and failing a course. So, too, even kids who do not fail courses suffer the unfair penalty of zeroes, which often drastically decrease their grades. So what? If they didn’t want the penalty, they should have completed the assignment. One should not get something for nothing. Kids need to learn. Yes, they do, but some lessons make more sense than others. And zeroes don’t really make sense when we examine traditional grading scales.
Most grading scales roughly reflect a 10-point-increment scale, moving down the scale from A (100 - 90) to B (89 - 80) and so on. Again, this is nothing new. We all were subject to such a scale, and kids still are today. And, as we continue down the scale, it remains uniform until we get to F, and then it abruptly dives from 59 to 0. F's should stop at 50. There are no G through K grades, only F’s. In terms of numbers, scores given in this range may reflect a degree of completion (a kid did 3 of 10 problems, so he gets 30%), but in terms of learning, scores given in this range whether it’s 59, 34, or 17 reflect one thing: failure. When kids or parents see scores below 60, they generally understand that that indicates a performance well-below standard; students have not been successful with the content. When we start assigning numbers within this range, what are we really seeking to communicate? Let’s take a 52%. Are we really meaning to suggest that this is a lesser fail than a 33%, which should then suggest a greater fail? This then continues down the scale, approaching the zero, a sign of complete and utter failure. Kids in this range for various reasons are well-below the grade-level standards that we have established in our classrooms. That’s the message, generally intended and generally received. This is clear.
What I wonder is if we also have to attach a punishment in the form of a sub-50-point score? Somehow, it just doesn’t seem fair. Why can’t we let an F be an F? We let A’s be A’s and B’s be B’s. Why not F’s? Why do we have to let the bottom drop out? A bottom that drops the kids off a cliff they can rarely re-climb, especially in classrooms where they cannot turn in late work or redo assignments. Is this really fair for kids? Is this ethical in an arena where the stakes are so high? I’m not sure.
Four years ago, I quit zeroes. They are no longer allowed in my classroom. I still have F’s which communicate, in number and learning, performances well-below standard. Kids still receive failing scores in my classroom, but I don’t tack on punishment, additional insult to injury in the form of sub-50% scores; 50% is now the lowest score possible in my class. The kids know from the mark that they have failed to meet standard; I don’t need to crush them more with added penalties. It makes sense to me, it makes sense to my kids, and it makes sense to parents. It’s also beginning to make sense to some of my colleagues, who, too, have adopted a no-zero policy. But not all. Some of my colleagues have accused me of malpractice, suggesting I am ruining kids’ lives by not teaching them a lesson. And I guess of that I am guilty. But I sleep at night knowing that I have given kids a fair shake, and while I may not be teaching them the harsh lessons of life, I am giving them opportunity by creating a realm of possibility in room 219.
The Case Against Zeros in Grading
Teachers can rethink their grading practices to make them more mathematically fair for students and allow for redemption for a missed assignment.
October 6, 2021
Harry Campbell / The iSpot
Let’s say a student fails to turn something in. What grade should they receive? I have asked this question of a lot of teachers lately, and here are the most common answers I’ve gotten: “Zero.” “Nothing.” “-5.” “An F.” “A K.” What?
I’m currently in my 19th year of teaching, and my answer to this question has evolved significantly over time. I was a staunch “Give them a zero. I don’t give points for doing nothing. You earn them.” However, in the past two years, my answer has evolved to include some nuance that I believe is more mathematically fair to students and allows for redemption.
UNDERSTAND THE GRADE BAND REALITY
I’m a math teacher and I love number lines. So what does this have to do with grades? Let’s envision a number line with the traditional 0–100 grade scale on it. Way over on the right would be the A grade band (90–100). The B band would be from 80 to 90, a C from 70 to 80, and a D from 60 to 70.
When a student receives an F, that grade band doesn’t continue with that nice equal 10-point interval from 50 to 60. When we give students a zero, that zero is in grade purgatory! If we continued the equal-interval spacing of 10 points per letter, a zero would actually be a K. I think K stands for “Kill Grade.” Let me explain.
Think about a student who does consistent B (85) work. Their first two assignments are solid 85s, so the average is an 85. If this student doesn’t turn in the third assignment and receives a zero, their grade drops to an F (57). Because of that one zero, it will take that student 14 more 85s just to get their grade back to an 80.
Alexis Tamony takes a deep dive into the math of zeros in grading.
To be clear, a student could have 15 total 85s in the grade book and one missing assignment (traditional zero), and their grade would still be C because of the way that zero mathematically affects the grading system.
Our students know this. They get in a hole because of some missing work or some zeros and they inherently know that they may never be able to get out of it no matter what they do. They can consistently turn in good work, but their grade hardly improves because of the math behind the K (the zero).
THINK PHILOSOPHICALLY TO REDEFINE ‘0’
When I realized this, I had to philosophically understand what I wanted my grade book to be: an accurate reflection of student knowledge. I also don’t want my grading practices to be demotivating. I needed to make a change and wrap my head around “giving them something for nothing.” It seemed as wrong as the K grade. So here’s what I did: I had to reframe the concept of a zero.
If we think about grades on an equal-interval basis, each grade band is worth an equal value of 1. An F is 0, a D is 1, C is 2, B is 3, and A is 4. If we make each grade band equal, then failure isn’t disproportionately weighted. If we still have to use the 0–100 scale (which is mathematically skewed to failure), then we have to hack the traditional grade book and convert that 0–4 equal-interval scale into a 50–100 scale. Essentially, this makes 50 the new zero. We redefine the floor of our grading system to make it more mathematically accurate and less punitive. I’m not giving them something for nothing. I changed the narrative to redefine the floor at 50, so that failure isn’t worth more than success.
Let’s revisit our student who does consistent B work. The student does B-level work on two assignments and then misses one. Instead of giving that missing assignment a K (0), we give it an F (50). We use our new floor of 50 for a missing assignment. The student’s overall grade significantly drops to a 73, but it takes only four more Bs to get back into the B band. The F allows for redemption. The K doesn’t.
I spent this past summer involved in a study on Joe Feldman’s book Grading for Equity with 55 secondary teachers and administrators in my district in Sonoma, California. One of the practices discussed in the book that is an easy one to defend and implement is this idea of redefining the zero.
Many of my experienced colleagues are rethinking their use of the zero because they’ve seen the stark reality of what it takes to overcome a K. I encourage you to think philosophically about what you want your grading practices to encourage and convey to students. Are your grades an accurate reflection of what a student knows? Do your grading practices align with your teaching philosophies? Discussing my grading practices with colleagues was one of the best professional development exercises I have undertaken in 19 years.
The Case Against Zeros: Why I Switched to a No Zero Grading Policy
Saturday, November 6
I tried something new and drastic his year. I got rid of all of the zeroes in my grade book, and I don’t think I am ever going back. Whether you are considering giving the zero a boot, or if you are staunchly in the camp of holding onto the zero forever, I encourage you to read on.
I’ve grappled with moving away from a standard grading scale for a few years now, but I was never able to set the ball into motion. I think the two biggest reasons that held me back for so long were held in long-standing, archaic reasons. First, the standard grading scale is the way that things have always been done, and secondly, in real life, you don’t get something for doing nothing.
Those are probably the two most prevalent for holding onto the beloved zero. And in all honesty, after switching to a no-zero policy, those two reasons are, quite frankly, garbage.
Why did I switch to a no-zero policy?
I should have switched years ago, but I wasn’t ready to do so. However, after returning to full, in-person instruction after more than a year of pandemic teaching and learning, I knew the time was right. Here are five reasons why I switched to a no-zero grading policy. At the end of the post, I’ll share what I switched to instead of a zero.
Mathematically Unjust
Mathematically, a zero just does not make sense on a standard grading scale. If an F is from 0-59%, and a D is 60-69%, and so on, the largest portion, nearly 60 percent, of the grading scale constitutes an F. If a student receives an A and a C on two assignments, and then does not turn in another equally weighted assignment, they then have a 56%, an F. That averaged grade of the three assignments does not accurately assess the student’s skills.
Grading Behavior
Similar to reducing a student’s score for turning in work late (and that is also another topic for later discussion), assigning a zero does not assess the students academically against the standards. Instead, it provides an academic grade for a behavior. And oftentimes, it is a behavior in which the student might not have total control. When a teacher places a zero in the grade book, it tells the student that the assignment is done and over with. Some students may no longer seek to complete the assignment, the student may lose out on an important learning opportunity, and the teacher does not get the opportunity to assess the student on that skill.
Decreases Motivation
Nothing kills a student’s motivation more than the feeling of hopelessness. When a student feels as if there is nothing they can do in your class to raise their grade, or even worse, nothing they can do to pass the class, they lose motivation. Why would a student even want to continue working and putting in the effort if they think it will be fruitless? And on the same token, is it even fair of us to ask a kid to sit, cooperate, and try when we, the adults, aren’t even working with them to provide another chance? As mentioned above, the zero grade assesses behavior and situations that might not be in the student’s control.
Harms students at greatest risk
Students do not want to fail. They do not want to have super Fs. Each new semester is a fresh start. However, just a few missing assignments can seem like an insurmountable challenge, one in which students cannot overcome. Just like how deducting points for late work grades behavior, so does applying a zero for missing work. Our students who are at the greatest risk are the ones more likely to have some missing assignments. So often, students are in positions in which they cannot control, and in many cases, we aren’t privy to information about our students that will best help us help them. Maybe our students weren’t able to complete an assignment because they had to watch their siblings while a parent was at work. Perhaps a student couldn’t complete the assignment at home because they didn’t have internet. Perhaps our students are juggling school and a part-time job to help make ends meet at home. Those reasons do not justify a zero. They justify understanding and compassion.
More punitive than motivational
Some may think that a big fat zero will motivate students to try harder and turn in future assignments, but the opposite is true. A zero in the grade book is more punitive than motivational. As with the example above, if a student has an A and a C on two assignments, their average is a B in the class. Throw in an equal amount of zeros into the mix, and suddenly, that B student is now an F student. The zero for the missing work is more of a punitive stance.
So, since I’ve laid out some of the important reasons for not giving zeros in the classroom, what did I choose to do in my classroom?
Last year during remote instruction, I had a 50% grading floor, meaning that my grading scale went from 50-100%, with 50-59% being an F, a 60-69% being a D, and so on. During remote instruction, I felt that was adequate. However, going into the new school year, I wanted to have a grade that established a distinct difference between not turning in anything and students turning in incomplete work. For this year, I chose a 40% grading floor, meaning that all of the missing assignments are marked as missing and entered in at 40% credit. When I explained this to my students, I explained that my grading scale is a 40-100% scale, with 40-59% being an F.
Through implementing this no zero policy for my grade book, I’ve found that students are more motivated to move out of the F range because they feel like it is more feasible. I’ve found that students are less stressed about circumstances out of their control because they know that one missing assignment won’t tank their grades. I’ve found that student-teacher relationships are stronger because they don’t view me as a wall, but rather a gateway to their success.
Sure, there are still a few kids who will inevitably fail each class. Those students who hover in the 40-46ish percent range, the ones who do not turn in work at all, will, unfortunately, still fail. However, toward the end of the school year, they will see their grade in the 40 percent range, rather than in the teens, and have hope if they want to try to earn a passing grade. I keep telling my students, even toward the end of the semester, that it is not too late and that they can still bring their grades up.
After switching to a no-zero grading policy, I don’t think I’ll ever go back to including zeros again.