In an effort to reduce failure and drop-out rates, schools have been implementing minimum grading. One form involves raising catastrophically low student quarter grades to a predetermined minimum—typically a 50. Proponents argue it gives struggling students a reasonable chance to recover from failure. Critics contend the practice induces grade inflation and social promotion. The authors performed a quantitative study of seven years of grading data from one school where minimum grading had been implemented to better evaluate these competing claims. Statistical analyses revealed no evidence that minimum grading was inducing either grade inflation or social promotion. These and other related findings have implications for educators looking to institute reforms that lead to fairer and more accurate student assessment.
AbediJ.DietelR. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 782–785.
2.
BrookhartS. M. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 123–142.
3.
BrookhartS. M. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7, 279–301.
4.
BrookhartS. M. (2009). Grading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Merrill.
5.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C (1966). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing.
6.
CarifioJ.RhodesL. (2002). Construct validities and the empirical relationships between optimism, hope, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 19, 125–136.
7.
ChapmanC. (2009, December12). State’s failure to pay forces program cuts. Morris Daily Herald. Retrieved from http://www.morrisdailyherald.com
8.
CherryT. L.EllisL. V. (2005). Does rank order grading improve student performance? Evidence from a classroom experiment. International Review of Economics Education, 4, 9–19.
9.
CovingtonM. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 5–20.
10.
CovingtonM. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CraftH. (1997). Grading: The games we play. Principal, 77(2), 57–58.
12.
CrossL. H.FraryR. B. (1999). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike. Applied Measurement in Education, 12, 53–72.
13.
DocanT. N. (2006). Positive and negative incentives in the classroom: An analysis of grading systems and student motivation. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 21–40.
14.
DunhamL. (2008). Why zeros should not be permitted. Principal, 87(3), 62.
15.
FergusonG. A.TakaneY. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book.
16.
FriessS. (2008, May19). At some schools, failure goes from zero to50. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday.com
17.
GuskeyT. R. (1994). Making the grade: What benefits students?Educational Leadership, 52(2), 14–20.
18.
GuskeyT. R. (2002). Computerized gradebooks and the myth of objectivity. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 775.
19.
GuskeyT. R. (2004). 0 alternatives. Principal Leadership: High School Edition, 5(2), 49–53.
20.
GuskeyT. R. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 670–675.
21.
HernandezM. D. (2009, November17). Teachers pledge lawsuit if grade policy unchanged in El Paso. El Paso Times. Retrieved from http://www.elpasotimes.com
22.
HuS. (2006). Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report Series, 30(6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23.
KohnA. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
24.
KohnA. (2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28–33.
25.
KoretzD.BerendsM. (2001). Changes in high school grading standards in mathematics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
26.
MarzanoR. J.HeflebowerT. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 35–39.
27.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2010). Mill City High School. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass .edu/mcas/
28.
MiltonO.PollioH. R.EisonJ. A. (1986). Making sense of college grades. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
MontgomeryD. (2009, November19). Half-dozen districts sue over Texas law prohibiting minimum grades. Dallas Star-Telegram. Retrieved from http://www.star-telegram.com
30.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales (NCES 2007–482). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
NettlesA. (2009, December21). Montgomery public schools cut funding to groups that aid at-risk students. Montgomery Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com
32.
NewtonX. A.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.ThomasE. (2010). Value-added model of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), 1–24. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810.
PetersE. (2009October20). Minimum grades no longer allowed. Abilene Reporter-News, Retrieved November 20, 2009, from http://m.reporternews.com
35.
ReevesD. R. (2004). The case against the zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 324–326.
36.
RichmondE. (2008, February4). A floor for failing grades: Parents, educators debate whether kids should get 50 points for doing nothing. Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved from www.lasvegassun.com
SmallwoodM. L. (1935). An historical study of examinations and grading systems in early American universities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
StarchD.ElliotE. C. (1912). Reliability of grading high school work in English. School Review, 20, 442–457.
40.
StarchD.ElliotE. C. (1913a). Reliability of grading work in mathematics. School Review, 21, 254–259.
41.
StarchD.ElliotE. C. (1913b). Reliability of grading work in history. School Review, 21, 676–681.
42.
TomlinsonC. A.McTigheJ. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction & understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
43.
WormeliR. (2006). Fair isn’t always equal: Assessing and grading in the differentiated classroom. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
