Many students are aware that the minimum grade teachers are allowed to administer has been in flux over the past few years at IHS. Before the pandemic, teachers were given large amounts of flexibility regarding their grading policies. Each teacher had their own system, which was outlined in the class syllabus. However, over the pandemic’s worst years, the grading system at IHS changed dramatically. According to a new school wide policy, students could receive no lower than 55 percent on an assignment, regardless of whether or not they had turned it in. As of this year, that minimum has been lowered to 45 percent for uncompleted work. Although if an assignment is turned in, teachers are still not allowed to give the student any lower than a 55 percent, no matter the quality of work.
ICSD’s reasoning behind the policy of grade minimums is that it promotes equity and gives every student a fair shot at reaching their maximum potential. While cultivating equity in our grading policies is certainly an important endeavor, The Tattler Editorial Board argues that the current system does not promote equal opportunity or students’ learning goals. Instead, minimum grades only serve to increase students’ averages in classes while not helping them keep up academically. Equity, in practice, is giving students the support that they need to succeed. It is not, however, raising students’ grades to hide problematic data inequities.
Policies like the minimum grade policy become an issue when they disguise fundamental problems in our education system. ICSD’s focus should be on cultivating a safe and equitable environment where students can learn, regardless of extraneous factors. Instead of pursuing policies like the minimum grade plan that have no tangible positive effect on students’ actual learning, the district should focus instead on policies that impact students in the classroom—such as more consistent and less harsh late policies and grading systems that focus on mastery rather than performance on examinations. The Tattler Editorial Board recognizes that improving the situations making it difficult for students to learn is something ICSD must continually strive to achieve, and that it is a complex and multifaceted problem. However, it is clear that the current grading system is failing students, regardless of the implementation of the minimum grades policy.
Benjamin Kirk, a math teacher at IHS, stated to The Tattler, “Giving a zero for incomplete or unsubmitted work is pretty disastrous for someone’s score. Somebody could be getting three 90s and then a 0 and their grade is in the low 70s now. I haven’t done the math. [Three 90s and a 0 results in a grade of 68].” The minimum grade policy does not fix this broader problem—three 90s and a 45 still results in a grade in the 70s. The simple fact is that the minimum grade rework emerges from an understanding of grading that relies upon the idea that grades represent learning. Based on this idea, if minimum grades increase overall grades, then it is a simple logical step to assume that minimum grades are also aiding students’ learning. However, reality is not this simple. Our current grading system is not representative of students’ learning, and IHS needs to move towards adopting one that does.
Instituting policies like minimum grade systems can be an element of equitable academic policy when part of greater change in a school system. For instance, systems of grading like standards- based grading incorporate minimum grades, but also allow students the opportunity to reassess on certain topics once they gain more familiarity. Standards-based grading has already been adopted by various classes across IHS, and The Tattler Editorial Board encourages the school and district administration to strive to implement such systems consistently across the high school. Another idea suggested by Kirk is the abolition of numerical grades altogether. Grading would revert to letter scores, from F through A+. Letter grades are easily converted to a GPA. Student stress levels could also be reduced by not distinguishing between scores such as a 93 and 95, while still providing a relatively precise method by which to measure student performance.
Mastery-based grading systems have seen broad success across the United States. The School of Education at American University proposes a mastery-based grading system that allows students to become proficient in a skill or concept and be able to continue learning without the stress of testing. The shift away from tests is a new idea that is being worked into education and reflects a more realistic real life scenario of having a concrete grasp on the content instead of the common memorization required to pass the exam. After all, most professions will not require that a student take weekly exams and success will largely be determined by how well someone can apply a concept to a specific situation. This new approach to standardized grading is already being applied in certain European countries and is being utilized as an oral exam instead of a written test. Oral discussions foster a much better environment for students, prioritizing skill proficiency rather than memorization, and a study done by University of California San Diego, found that oral discussions not only boost final exam scores but encourage students to reach out for help and implement feedback.
Grading policies at IHS are in desperate need of reevaluation. The numerical 0-100 grading system is not working for students at IHS in terms of representing their learning or creating a more equitable learning environment, and the institution of minimum grades is not solving this problem. If IHS and Ithaca City School District as a whole move toward more sustainable and modern ways of learning that are based on mastery, students and teachers would benefit. As ICSD continues to grapple with ways to improve equity and student performance, solutions must be carefully considered and implemented with feedback from students and staff.