The Grading System Needs To Change

Image Source: Gary Varvel

Grades Suck At Performance Evaluation

In the American education system, students are assigned grades in each of their classes to evaluate their academic performance. Assignments are usually graded on a scale of 0-100 points, with 0 points being the worst possible grade, 70 points being a passing grade, and 100 points being the best possible grade. These points can be further classified into the letter grades shown below:

A: 90-100 points

B: 80-89 points

C: 70-79 points

D: 60-69

F: 0-59

Letter grades sometimes include a plus or minus sign, indicating that a grade is arbitrarily in the bottom, middle, or top of its letter’s range; an A+ could be 100 points and A- could be 91 points. Note that the letter E is curiously absent from the letter grading system because it could be misinterpreted as denoting “excellence”. 

This point system is problematic largely because it can misrepresent a student’s performance. For example, if a student receives a 100 on a multiple-choice test, it is unclear what their perfect score means. Did they master all of the concepts? Did they guess correctly on an unfamiliar question? Did they cheat? And if another student missed a question on the same test, does it mean that they made a silly mistake or misread a problem? Did they forget to check their work? 

Even assignments for subjects with precise answers, like math, cannot be perfectly graded. Silly mistakes, oversights, lack of diligence, luck, and academic dishonesty will always ruin the accuracy of grades. Not only is it impossible to perfectly gauge a student’s understanding of class material with graded assignments, but it is impossible to grade fairly. In subjects like English, where there is rarely one correct answer, teachers cannot grade objectively, their best efforts to establish clear grading criteria notwithstanding. Additionally, when teachers establish and follow grading criteria, their perception is skewed by human biases and subjectivity. Just as different book reviewers can express unique opinions about a book, different teachers can grade the same assignment uniquely. 

Resubmission And Late Work Policies

Teachers may institute a resubmission policy that allows students to redo assignments if their initial grade is unsatisfactory. Such policies aim to be fair to students, offering them second chances out of understanding the vagaries of life. I support this policy, as it is consistent with the ideal grading system I will prescribe later. I also have a few suggestions to ensure its effectiveness. First, resubmission policies should be specific to their respective assignments. It does not make sense for daily work to follow the same resubmission policy as an exam. Second, students should have some say in how they are graded. Teachers can hear them out and acknowledge when to amend their grading rubrics. This way, resubmission policies are fair and appropriate for each assignment, easing stress on the student and establishing the teacher-student relationship as fair. 

Late work policies allow students to submit assignments late, typically with a penalty. I agree with this policy because it incentivizes students who haven’t submitted an assignment–possibly due to forgetting or lacking time–to hold themselves accountable for previous work. However, it can condition students to ignore deadlines and be unpunctual, which proves detrimental in the work world. The solution, again, is to specify late work policies for each assignment, or each type of assignment. Sometimes it is better to encourage students to submit work after a deadline instead of ignoring it by applying a grade penalty. Other times it might be better to deny late work. You’ll notice that, like resubmission and late grade policies, other grading policies should be adjusted as seen fit by the teacher. 

Grades Create A Toxic Academic Culture

If you thought the system couldn’t be more convoluted, you’re wrong. In high school, classes can be offered at multiple levels of rigor. For instance, my high school offers on-level, honors, and AP (Advanced Placement) versions of most of its core classes. Honors classes provide a GPA boost to compensate for their difficulty increase. AP classes, which cover college-level content, provide an even greater GPA boost to further compensate for their notorious rigor. This means that taking harder classes is encouraged, potentially at the expense of a manageable workload. Students may therefore take on an unmanageable workload, neglecting their sleep and mental health to earn a grade “worthy” of a top college. To say I am concerned would be an understatement.

High schools may also institute a system that ranks students by GPA. College admissions officers might recognize that a student is more than their class rank, but parents and students struggle to. Instead of motivating students to apply themselves more in their classes, class ranks engender a toxic, overcompetitive culture. One article written by Thomas R. Guskey, a professor of educational psychology at the University of Kentucky, claims that the purpose of ranks is to select talent when it should be to develop talent. He writes that “determining class rank does not help students achieve more or reach higher levels of proficiency. With the possible exception of the top-ranked student, class rank also does nothing to enhance students’ sense of self-worth, their confidence as learners, or their motivation for learning. On the contrary, evidence indicates ranking students may diminish student motivation.” 

Furthermore, parental pressure to get good grades can strain familial relationships by undermining unconditional love and making children feel unworthy of parental affection. One study conducted by the University of Ploiesti suggests that children are academically motivated by a desire to keep peace in their families. This sounds like a magnificent way of encouraging the intellectual and healthy development of the workforce!

This toxic culture is only exacerbated by three factors: grading curves, academic dishonesty, and luck. 

1. Grading Curves

Some teachers implement grading curves when a class performs poorly on a difficult assignment, intending to bolster grades out of fairness. Many grading curves exist, but the amount of points they supplement commonly depends on the top scorers of a class. One outstanding student or skilled cheater with an abnormally high score can ruin the curve for other students. I remember bombing my AP Computer Science: A final with a 69, which was close to the class average. My friend scored the highest in the class, with an impressive 97 on the same test. My teacher decided to add the number of points required to bring my friend's score to 100 on all of our tests, leaving me with a 72. Fortunately, I still maintained an A in the class and there were no hard feelings between my friend and the class, but the same scenario could have easily spiraled out of control in a more competitive environment.

2. Academic Dishonesty

95% of students admitted to participating in some form of cheating in school. That’s 95% of students violating serious policies, despite the strict consequences. When internally prioritizing grades over learning, they become open to cutting corners. At its best, academic dishonesty involves students taking the expedient approach to an assignment. At its worst, however, academic dishonesty lures well-intentioned students down a path of dishonesty that pervades their character. Who’s to say that the same person who cheats on a test won’t deceive their boss in the future? Moreover, academic dishonesty fuels competitive cultures by forcing students to cheat to keep up with the top students of their class who suspiciously “earn” perfect scores. Add more statistics.

3. Luck

It’s impossible for schools to eliminate any element of luck in class ranks, but there is one particular source of luck plaguing the ranking system: class variation. That is, students, take different classes with unique teachers that can heavily impact their grades. For example, if there are two AP Chemistry teachers at a school and one of the teachers grades significantly more generously, some AP Chemistry students will have a significant advantage in the competitive ranking over their peers. I’m not suggesting that every student ought to take identical classes, but a fair competitive ranking can never exist. 

Grades Demotivate

Advocates of grades commonly assert that grades motivate students to apply themselves. In terms of extrinsic motivation, students can be motivated to earn high grades to improve their chances of being accepted to a top college. Notice that the motivation to earn high grades is founded on the value of top colleges–not the value of learning or integrity. The problems of toxic academic culture still run rampant here. Graders are not only flawed extrinsic motivators for ambitious students, but they fail to properly motivate other unambitious students. The kinds of students who merely want to pass their classes to be accepted to any college are again, not motivated by the value of learning and integrity, but by the value of passing grades in college admissions. Unfortunately, these misplaced priorities extend to the most lackadaisical students too. Students who don’t care about their grades at all are unmotivated by grades and will likely suffer the consequences of a poor academic record in their career.

So students either aren’t extrinsically motivated by grades or are extrinsically motivated for the wrong reason because of the ineffective system. Great. But where does the intrinsic motivation come from? Research conducted by Christina Hinton, a faculty member of the Harvard GSE, and Thomas Callahan, a director of the Merck-Horton Center for Teaching and Learning at St.George’s, have identified three principles of self-determination theory.

1. Optional Autonomy

First, Hinton proposes optional autonomy, the idea of providing a structure that students can modify as they see fit. I’ll concede that younger students may not be mature enough to devise a personal learning structure, but autonomy can start simple. For example, kindergarteners could choose what book they want to read after being told a summary. The grading system does not directly prevent autonomy, but when used incorrectly it can confine students and impede them from learning independence and decision-making.

2. Relatedness

Second, Hinton discusses the principle of relatedness, the desire to feel connected and loved by others. Lack of relatedness is linked to “student anxiety, lower intellectual achievement, diminished self-control, and poorer health,” while a presence of relatedness is linked to “a sense of belonging…experience more meaningful relationships, higher self-esteem, better academic performance, and improved well-being.” Hinton recommends group projects and Callahan recommends reducing the physical separation between teacher and student in the classroom to help “students feel connected to one another by providing them with a safe environment to ask questions, discuss ideas, and take risks.” Grades, which create a toxic academic culture, can diminish relatedness when implemented ineffectively. 

3. Competence

Third, intrinsic motivation is driven by competence, the belief that although schoolwork is challenging and expectations are high, students can handle the challenge. Hinton and Callahan believe that “teachers can cultivate competence by introducing activities that are optimally challenging” and “provide noncritical feedback, along with information on how to master the task.” He took a novel approach to applying this principle when teaching his students to memorize unfamiliar vocabulary. After asking his students to find challenging words in their classwork, he teaches them strategies to use flashcards to learn new vocabulary. Unlike other teachers, Callahan believes that his “goal is to give them the tools to be competent — not just tell them ‘nice job.’” The grading system can breed competence by challenging the students, but as we’ll discuss in other chapters, the school system collectively struggles to uphold the principle of competence. 

Alternative Systems

So, grades suck at performance, create a toxic academic culture, and demotivate. Splendid! To any teachers and school administrators reading this, don’t fret, because I’ve come to save the day with proposed revisions to the grading system. 

Revision 1: Teaching For Mastery

Given that grades cannot represent a student’s performance perfectly, it is appropriate to prioritize learning over grades. This is easier said than done, as we’ll examine later in chapters about assignment design and teaching. Sal Khan, the founder of Khan Academy, posits that students should fully master concepts in class before advancing to new topics. He says that “it’s the way you learn a musical instrument: you practice the same piece over and over again, and only when you’ve mastered it, you go on to the more advanced one.” Khan’s proposal removes the pressure to perform perfectly and allows students to work at their own pace while ensuring that they are more than prepared to tackle later concepts. 

Revision 2: Earn Up To A Perfect Score

Many people have suggested that students start with a score of 0 in a course and earn their way up to a perfect score, as opposed to starting with a perfect score that is whittled down by every mistake. Extra credit projects, challenge problems, and bonus topics can be optionally assigned to reward curiosity and effort. It should be impossible to achieve a perfect score without completing these optional assignments. This way, students are motivated by grades to apply themselves of their own volition, shifting focus away from the grade itself. This approach can also incentivize peer-to-peer collaboration, which sparks further classroom interest.

Revision 3: Remove Ranks

The value of removing class ranks is self-explanatory; it lowers motivation to cheat, encourages collaboration, and promotes a culture of collective altruism. Once competitive belligerence is dispelled, students’ goals shift from earning higher grades than their peers to ensuring everyone earns a higher grade. Why pit students against each other for scarce positions when a mutual benefit is a possibility? This message, which may be easily supported by distablishing class ranks, further extends to life, where students can be raised to pursue a mutual benefit. I’ll discuss this in more detail in other chapters. 

Revision 4: Pass/Fail systems

Pass/fail grading is a system where assignments are either given a passing or failing grade, unlike the traditional letter grading system. A study published in the Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges measured the impact of instituting this system in the first two years of medical school. The researchers compared a control group graded under the standard system to a class graded under the pass/fail system, finding that “the pass/fail class exhibited a significant increase in well-being during each of the first three semesters of medical school relative to the graded class, greater satisfaction with the quality of their medical education during the first four semesters of medical school, and greater satisfaction with their personal lives during the first three semesters of medical school.” Furthermore, “The graded and pass/fail classes showed no significant differences in performance in first- and second-year courses, grades in clerkships, scores on USMLE Step 1 and Step 2CK, success in residency placement, and attendance at academic activities.” 

If these results are proven to enhance mental health among students without compromising their learning, a similar system ought to be implemented in primary and secondary education. There are some caveats to beware of, though. Medical school is heavily focused on bulk memorization, meaning small gaps in understanding carry little harm. In contrast, many other subjects, like mathematics, contain concepts that demand a comprehensive understanding of prerequisite material. Ergo, it may not be suitable for a math test regarding, say exponential functions, to permit a 70% understanding of the material; a student who does not grasp every question will struggle with logarithms. 

Revision 5: No Grades

The no grades movement is one of the most followed movements in all of education. Countless research corroborates the movement, citing improved intrinsic motivation, achievement, and well-being. However, I must warn against this philosophy in subjects with specific concepts, such as math and science. When students need to understand specific material thoroughly, it is important that they receive precise feedback. I acknowledge that precise feedback can be stress-inducing and demoralizing, but these problems can be mitigated by treating grades as a feedback system instead of a defining performance metric. Ideally, students should see their mistakes and learn from them, without a number that can fail them or stain their academic records. Grades may be more appropriate in humanities subjects, where skills prioritize freedom, creativity, and artistic improvement that may be refined by listening to qualitative feedback. 

Conclusion

The grading system is flawed because it fails at performance evaluation, creates a toxic academic culture, and demotivates. These issues can be solved by teaching for mastery, allowing students to earn up to a perfect score with autonomy, removing ranks, creating pass/fail systems, and removing grades. You might have noticed that three of these solutions seem to contradict each other: allowing students to earn up to a perfect score with autonomy, creating pass/fail systems, and removing grades. This is because I want to underscore the need for prudence in choosing how to implement these systems. As with all advice, different actions work for different people, so teachers should experiment.