We are use to the old tradition way of grading and reporting, usually the 4 point scale, A, B, C, D, F. This 0-100 point scale poses a big problem many of us don't usually recognize. According to Thomas R. Guskey's
On Your Mark (2015) the shift to percentile grades during the late 19th and 20th century was gradual. Few educators questioned it and it was adopted through the American educational landscape. In 1912 a couple of researches in Wisconsin found the use of percentile grades were not reliable and accurate indicators of student achievement. Both Dueck and Guskey have looked at the 0-100 point scale and have concluded that this structure implies a 60 point difference between a D and an F. All other have a 10 point difference between each letter grade. What an academic penalty we are giving students.
(Guskey, 2015; On Your Mark)
Myron Dueck and Thomas Guskey both agree that his huge range of failure grades puts students at a disadvantage. Even if a student received a zero on an assessment, it will take about 9 perfect scores to make up the percentile difference to reach a passing mark. ( More on zeros later.)
Dueck goes on to share what he calls, "The Four Conditions for Punitive Action." He calls it CARE guidelines.
Care,
Aim
s, Reduction,
Empowerment.
Care: When students opt to ignore assignments, penalties may serve to make teachers feel as though they've addressed the issue, but they do not increase student
accountability or
responsibility.
Aims: Punitive grading does not complement the overall aim to measure learning outcomes, increase student confidence, and provide an environment of fairness and equity.
measure evidence of learning or capacity against a set of standards.
behavioral penalties
do not relate directly to learning outcomes (in fact both Dueck and Guskey agree on this as well).
"lates" and zeros
do not inspire academic confidence.
punitive grades diminish fairness and equity