Two years ago, we were discussing with a colleague the positive impact we were witnessing by allowing our students to retake assessments. The colleague ultimately asked us, “Aren’t you afraid of grade inflation?”
Well, since you asked…
Check out this excerpt from Cathy Vatterott: Rethinking Grading: Meaningful Assessment for Standards-Based Learning. July, 2015.
“In the traditional grading paradigm, when teachers grade everything, the grade means nothing. When teachers combine so many things into one rating, many nonacademic factors cloud the grade—the picture becomes muddy and not reflective of learning. This practice results in two types of grade-learning mismatches. Sometimes, high-achieving students demonstrate mastery of content on assessments and class assignments, but receive a low grade because of poor behavior or because some assignments are missing or have been turned in late. Grading everything also makes it easy for low-achieving students to manipulate the system and mask poor academic performance. In that case, a student receives a high grade for the course because they are well behaved, follow rules, and have dutifully turned in all work on time, even though they show little mastery of the content (O'Connor, 2009). Their behavior has "saved" them, but a high grade without mastery of the content is no gift (Vatterott, 2009).”
Grade inflation has been a long standing criticism of certain academic entities. Though many interpretations of the term Grade Inflation may exist, for the purposes of this article, let’s just say it’s the result of assigning a grade that is higher than what should be designated based on a central measure of a student’s understanding. For example, the type of grade inflation we are referring to is mentioned above; teachers allowing low-achieving students to mask a lack of understanding of learning standards by manipulating the grading paradigm through behaviors that aren’t a demonstration of a mastery of content. Certain behaviors have become so pervasive that we don’t even notice the impact they have on grade inflation. Does turning in a notebook (complete with the correct type of binder and in a specific order) demonstrate mastery of a math or science standard? What about those homework assignments that are simply scanned for completion and then returned to the student with nothing but a checkmark? And who could argue about getting a few extra bonus points because a student volunteered for an academic club or simply signed their syllabus? And don’t get us started on the practice of dropping a lowest test grade. When added together, these little things have a sizable impact and give a false representation of a student’s ability. Parents may not complain, students may not complain, administrators won’t complain and teachers are happy to help kids get that highly coveted grade. Learning is the only casualty in this scenario.
Our response was, “Retaking assessments is not causing grade inflation. It’s actually giving a BETTER representation of what the student has learned.” Though we wanted to critique the aforementioned practices that we knew were being implemented in most classrooms, we decided to drop the subject and move on.
Now, guess what topic has never been openly discussed with colleagues. That would be grade DEFLATION. As mentioned in the Vatterott’s excerpt, sometimes mastery of content is disregarded and/or devalued due to behaviors that have nothing to do with content knowledge. Examples include: half credit for late work, point reductions for having the wrong font or other non-content formatting issues, penalizing students for not having a pencil (or calculator or name on their paper), only offering partial credit for retakes, or simply giving a zero because the student failed to fulfill their responsibility of asking the teacher for the makeup work. Of course, we realize responsibility is important and students need to be taught how to be present, compliant and to follow directions. And if a teacher feels like teaching these virtues is important, then they can choose to do so. However, it shouldn’t be at the expense of accurately assessing a student’s ability on a specific standard. The grade on any assessment should be the teacher’s best interpretation of this ability at that particular time. Without an accurate grade, it’s nearly impossible to offer quality feedback (to the student or their parents) or modify instruction to meet the individual needs of the student. For those who are compelled to offer lessons on responsibility and compliance, there can be a separate grade (see Why Do We Care) that does just that. It may not be an educational standard, but at least it would segregate learning from responsibility. Feedback and remediation can be adjusted to address those specific deficiencies.
Grade deflation targets behaviors that are sometimes out of a student’s control. Those with weak executive functioning ski
lls, with little support at home, or simply need more time to truly grasp the concepts. The difference between grade deflation and grade inflation is that deflating grades typically isn’t even called out for what it is. In fact, many school handbook policies actually promote grade deflation. Even though it has a profound negative impact on the students, some educational models refuse to even acknowledge the inequities it creates. The goal of any student should be to learn. When that learning is not rewarded with an accurate grade, the motivation will dry up. And once again, learning will be the casualty.
Comments