When Minimum Grading Policies Backfire: How Can We Transform the Politics of Failure?

• In Event: When Education Policy Backfires and What We Can Learn

Abstract

Failing courses often occurs because students accumulate grades of 0 for uncompleted assignments, and it becomes statistically impossible to achieve a passing grade of 60 when even a few zeros are averaged together. Policy arguments have been made regarding how to adjust the statistical impact of zeros so that students still can have opportunities to recover from early failure and pass courses. One policy that has been advocated treats the grading scale as a 50-100 point scale (corresponding to the 0.0 to 4.0 scale) and eliminates the numerically small versions of the “F” grade (grades below 50) that prevent so many students from recovering from failure. In response to this widespread discussion among educators, many schools and districts that use a 100 point scale have begun mandating a “no grade lower than 50” policy. In this way, students who continued to receive failing grades would still fail the course, but those who show promise of making significant efforts to improve would then have a statistical chance of then passing the course.

In this study, I conducted a political analysis of districts in Texas that sought to implement grading policies that help students recover from early failure. In the end, the decision by numerous Texas districts to mandate a “no grade lower than 50” policy generated considerable public outcry. This public opposition was driven by deeply held beliefs about justice associated with the 100 point grading scale that were not addressed in districts’ top-down decision-making about grading reform. Because of this largely unquestioned commitment to the 100 point scale, many teachers and other members of the public viewed “no grade lower than 50” as giving students (who in their minds earned less than a 50% grade average) an unjustified and undeserved gift.

The top-down mandated district policy of “no grade lower than 50” backfired because of inadequate dialogue and persuasion regarding the quantification of grade failure. The top-down policy initiated by districts did not involve the persuasive dialogue with teachers that might have convinced key players to embrace a new five-point grading scale. Top-down efforts by districts to reform grading policies generated a groundswell of grassroots opposition that led, in the case of Texas, to state policy that outlawed the attempts of more districts statewide from changing their policies. This illustrates how top-down district policies on grading reform can indeed be counter-productive. I argue that a more productive district approach must be more collaborative in nature, involving considerable time in dialogue and persuasion with teachers about how to address student motivation issues and the ramifications of failure on high stakes universally required tasks. Engaging teachers in collaborative dialogue about how to best help students achieve success is a necessary first step in addressing the high rates of high school course failure that lower graduation rates and opportunities for college enrollment. The lessons for district policymakers revolve around the need for involving district teachers and stakeholders in an inclusive learning community involving dialogue and persuasion around divisive issues such as grading policies.

Author

• Martha Abele Mac Iver, Johns Hopkins University