Don't Give a Zero! Try 50, 59, or 60. (Or not.)

Here's the first in a miniseries about the folly of awarding a grade of zero for late work or work not turned in.

Part 1: The Math of Zero in a Percentage Scale

I was talking to a colleague recently about how although there is no one "right" way to grade, there certainly are justifiable and unjustifiable grades.

Then I said, innocently as I could manage,"...and giving kids zeros as a penalty for late work or for work not turned in is a perfect example of unjustifiable grading."

He immediately went on the attack. "I've heard that the school board is about to require us to not give zeros! That's outrageous! No work, no grade! We have to teach kids to be responsible!"

I didn't know which of the four positions he took to reply to first, so I chose the easiest.

"Nope," I said, "the school board is not about to require the high school to quit giving zeros. We're in a conversational mode, and I hope people are willing to think about standards-based grading and talk it over."

"However," I followed up with, "have you given any thought to the math of zero?"

"What do you mean, the math? Zero is zero. Nothing is nothing. No work, zip. End of story."

Realizing that I had no graceful exit strategy from this conversation if my colleague proved resistant to my charm and logic, I set up a problem for him to analyze.

"Think about this," I suggested. "Everyone is familiar with a 4.0 GPA scale, right? What if the F (a zero, right?), in a 4.0 scale had the same weight as a zero in a scale of 0-100, the percent scale we use almost universally for grading?"

"What are you getting at?" he asked.

"Just this," I said. "In a 4.0 scale, A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, and F=0. The difference between a D and an F is just one point. On the percentage scale, the difference between a D and a zero is 60 points. Does that seem proportionate to you?"

"No," he said, as the math began to register. "On a 4.0 scale, if it were equivalent to a percentage scale, the F would be, what, negative 6?!"

"That's in the ball park," I said. "Isn't it amazing that we teachers don't ask these kinds of questions more often when we talk about grading?"

"Yeah," he said thoughtfully.

"Look," I said, "here's a two-page article from the Phi Beta Kappan on the destructive effect of zeros . It's written by Doug Reeves, an international education consultant based in Colorado. He explains it far more eloquently than I can. Check it out."

The following week, I asked him if he liked the article. "Man," he said, "I am DONE with zeros!"

"Pass it on," I said, "because there's more..."

(Next up: Why Zero Isn't A Grade At All)

What's Wrong With This Picture?

Here's the lead from an education story in today's Washington Post.

Knowing State Tests' 'Cut' Scores
By Ian Shapira
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 22, 2007; Page B01

Charonda Godette and her mother are staring at a sheaf of black-and-white test reports in their kitchen, frustrated by a blunt indictment repeated over and over: "Fail/Does Not Meet." In her first three years at Potomac Senior High School in Prince William County, the 17-year-old has flunked a slew of Virginia Standards of Learning exams: Earth science. Algebra II. And geometry -- three times.

What also confounds Charonda and Carole Godette is something the reports omit. They do not show the number of correct answers required to pass the exams. (Boldface mine -- Hugh)

There are a number of questions whirling about in my mind after reading this article, including:

1. Should state assessments model what best practices teach us about good assessment? (For example, good assessment includes useful feedback to increase learning and achievement.)

2. Would state education departments be playing such silly games (trying to second-guess teachers with regard to how they will teach the subject matter vis-a-vis the state "assessment") if NCLB was out of the picture?

Folks, if this is the wave of the future, we are in deep yogurt. I'm scratching my head, trying to understand the value of concealing passing scores. Part of me thinks that if the teacher does good job reaching students and teaching the subject, the state tests will take care of themselves. But if we violate the integrity of assessment and try to make kids hit moving targets, aren't we creating yet another distraction to getting the job done?

Yet more reasons, I believe, to abandon federal interference in state education.

If the feds want to do something, let the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith do its work, but contribute funding to states whose economies lag, and thereby level the playing fields.

I don't mind some of my federal tax money going to another state that needs the help, if the feds would strip away the overlaying bureaucracy that currently wastes financial and emotional resources in every state.

Note: I intended to post tonight about what our district is doing to promote racial tolerance. I'm currently waiting for a report from our assistant supe in charge of operations, and curriculum and instruction. I'll post as soon as I get the word. There's a lot going on, including board of ed sessions to increase board member awareness of diversity and racial tolerance needs and challenges.

Artwork: Relativity by M.C. Escher, 1953, lithograph, 27.7 × 29.2 cm