Most educators have moved towards no-zero grading policies. These decisions are in line with a larger goal of asset-based learning. After all, students never bring NOTHING to the table. Their thoughts, emotions, and backgrounds can all potentially become the basis of long-term growth in the courses’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA).
Nevertheless, where it gets less clear is what is the minimum grade a student should be able to receive. For example, a student might make a few basic factual comments during a simulation yet otherwise remain silent for the remainder of the summative – not engaging in discussions, not responding to points made by others, and not designing a final resolution document with classmates. If I go by a standards-based rubric, do I interpret the speaking skill as basic or does it fall off the standards as below basic? In the 2016 meta-analysis of 100 years of grading policy research, the authors, Brookhart et al., argued that, “Grades, therefore, must be considered multidimensional measures that reflect mostly achievement of classroom learning intentions and also, to a lesser degree, students’ efforts at getting there.” Baring specific special needs to count this as passing and “basic” would do an injustice to the student’s potential to grow and learn. A basic level would refer to a more participatory student throughout.
The issue arises in that many schools have standards-based grades glued onto standard A-F grades. Under these policies assuming a basic standard at 65%, 50% seems a reasonable minimum. It emphasizes the student has not reached basic abilities to conduct the standard with sufficient efforts. At the same time, it is a grade that can be overcome either through future projects or reassessment opportunities. With sufficient feedback, educators can set their students up to reach higher levels and create a virtuous circle of KSA gains that will hopefully lead them to higher grades and their class and beyond.
Andrew Levin 