What Defines a Grading System?
What should constitute a grade? Why should we spend time thinking about this question? I recently wrote a brief comparison of traditional and standards-based grading systems. That exercise led me to think about the meaning of the word “system” as it applies to grades.
Merriam-Webster offers several definitions, three of which apply to a discussion of grading systems:
- A regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole.
- An organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole.
- An organized or established procedure or a manner of classifying, symbolizing, or schematizing.
(Merriam-Webster’s, 2024)
How Systematic Is Traditional Grading?
As I began to compare traditional and standards-based grading systems, I realized how much I had taken for granted in using the word “system.” If a system is about unity, organization, and an effort to explain the whole, does that term apply to grades and grading? Are we talking about a system within a single classroom? Across an academic team? A school? A school district? Suddenly, it seemed like comparing the idea of a traditional grading system with the idea of a standards-based grading system needed some practical grounding. How systematized is any grading system?
The Importance of Systemization in Grading
In thinking about the first two of JumpRope’s Core Values: Clarity and Equity of Opportunity, and in thinking about a student’s journey through school, I’d argue that a practice as impactful as grading and a tool as communicative as grades deserves a home in a comprehensive system.
This is the thinking behind a school or district developing a grading guide. It also speaks to the thinking that led to:
- The creation of the bell curve.
- The 0 to 100% scale.
- The more narrowly defined ABCDF system.
- The verbiage associated with standards-based grading.
The meaning of a student’s grade must, in some way, be transferable. This post and my next address gaps in the systemization of grades and grading.
Historical Challenges in Grading Reliability
Let’s look at the system of traditional grading first since it pre-dates standards-based grading and since standards-based grading is largely a response to traditional grading. My next post will explore standards-based grading as a system.
Early studies found that grading practices were, in fact, not systematized. According to Brookhart et al. (2016), there are indications of significant variation among the grades teachers assign to students. These studies found that reliability from one teacher to the next was especially weak in lower-quality student work. That is, there was a greater range in grades from teacher to teacher for students who were seemingly less good at doing the tasks school required. Moreover, sometimes, a single teacher’s reliability, from one read of student work to a second read of the same work, bore out different grades (Brookhart et al., 2016).
The culprits of the lack of reliability, according to Starch (1913), were things like:
- The inability to make distinctions between “closely allied degrees of merit” (p. 630)
- “differences in the relative values placed by different teachers upon various elements in a paper, including content and form” (p. 630)
- “differences among the standards of different teachers” (p. 630)
Other early studies found variation in grading criteria, and the absence of clear criteria led to inconsistency in grades. And finally, inconsistency was also marked by stringency in practice, or its absence, from one teacher to the next (Brookhart et al., 2016).
Attempts to Improve Reliability in Traditional Grading
While the culprits that challenge reliability remained in play as time passed, one of the first steps we saw in the traditional grading system to reduce reliability errors was in the early 20th century, when institutions shifted from the 100-point scale to a 9-point letter scale (i.e., A+, A−, B+, B−, C+, C-, D+, D−, and F).
Interestingly, Starch (1915) went further to test a reduction in reliability errors by moving to a five-point scale, much like what we see in a standards-based system. His contributions, along with others in the early part of the 20th century, helped educators move away from the 100-point scale to more fully embrace the ABCDF letter grade scale commonly used today (Brookhart et al., 2016).
Persistent Challenges in Grading Coherence
Studies from the latter part of the 20th century reveal improvements and similar challenges to the notion of coherence within a system. In a review of 19 empirical studies, Brookhart (1994) found several themes that speak to reliability concerns:
- In an attempt to grade fairly, teachers try to be transparent with what will be assessed and how it will be assessed, and they also consider effort in their grading.
- Teachers’ beliefs and values influence their views on the purpose of grading and/or the relative consideration of noncognitive variables, creating inconsistencies from one teacher to the next.
- Twelve of the studies found that teachers’ grades included variables such as ability, effort, improvement, and completion of work.
The Role of Teacher Philosophy in Grading Practices
Teachers want their students to succeed. Toward that end, they include things like effort, work habits, and participation in academic grades. They make adjustments to their grading practices in an effort to support and benefit students.
One qualitative study found that influenced by their philosophies and beliefs regarding student motivation, teachers include student effort in calculating grades (McMillan & Nash, 2000). They believe that academic achievement is tied to behaviors and habits that influence academic achievement, so they include assessing those things in determining grades (Brookhart et al., 2016).
The Systemic Implications of Grading Variations
Some teachers believe that the application of varied grading practices within a single classroom and also from one classroom to the next enables them to grade accurately and fairly. They see these variations as strengths, not as drawbacks (Brookhart et al., 2016). In fact, differences in teachers’ grading systems, including variables like effort and timeliness, make it possible for two students whose academic performance is the same to receive different grades (Feldman, 2019).
The Need for a Shared Understanding of Grading
The question arises, then, if we are looking for a system, at what point does variable consideration of things like effort, work habits, and participation undermine the system itself?
At JumpRope, we believe the primary purpose of grades is to communicate learning. To do that honestly and effectively, we must begin by working toward a common understanding of whichever system we use and consistent application of it.
If you’d like to learn more about how JumpRope can assist you in implementing a standards-based grading system, reach out today for a discussion.
Works Cited
Feldman, Joe (2019). Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms Corwin.
Brookhart, S. M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 279–301. DOI:10.1207/s15324818ame0704_2.
Brookhart, Susan M.; Guskey, Thomas R.; Bowers, Alex J.; McMillan, James H.; Smith, Jeffrey K.; Smith, Lisa F.; Stevens, Michael T.; Welsh, Megan E. (2016). A Century of Grading Research: Meaning and Value in the Most Common Educational Measure. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 803–848. DOI:10.3102/0034654316672069.
McMillan, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000, April). Teacher classroom assessment and grading decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). System. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system.
Starch, D. (1913). Reliability and Distribution of Grades. Science, 38, 630–636. DOI:10.1126/science.38.983.630.
Starch, D. (1915). Can the variability of marks be reduced? School & Society, 2, 242–243.
