Tomorrow, the school board governing North Carolina's largest school district will consider a proposal to prohibit teachers from awarding the grade of zero to students who fail to turn in work. Some advocates hope to convince the board that the minimum grade on any assignment -- even for a student who fails to turn in the assignment -- should be fifty.
The argument against zero goes something like this. Students receive one and either become discouraged or rationally compute that it is mathematically impossible to recover from the grade to pass the course and thus give up, increasing their risk of dropping out and other adverse outcomes.
The pro-zero side points out the perverse nature of handing out half-credit for no work. Students might rationally conclude that there isn't much point in doing the work. So they might pass more courses, but won't necessarily learn any more, and some -- those motivated by the fear of a zero in the first place -- might learn less.
What's the "right" thing to do? That depends, as it turns out, on what you think schools are for in the first place.
The root of the problem, as pointed out by independent consultant Ken O'Connor, is the separation of grading standards from learning. There are good intentions behind the separation. If you were educated in American schools, you most likely have heard some version of the phrase "if you hand in your homework, it is basically impossible to fail this course." That's a reassuring statement for students who might otherwise be intimidated by the subject matter. But it leads directly to the debate over zeros: when it is impossible to fail except by neglecting to hand in your work, the only students failing will be those who neglect to hand in work.
Effort-based grading leads to another problem: students can pass courses without mastering the subject matter. The consequences of this practice in the K-12 system can be seen in the higher education system. The majority of North Carolina high school graduates entering the state's two-year community colleges need to retake high-school level coursework in at least one subject before they can proceed to courses that earn college credit.
The fundamental question underlying the entire debate is as follows: under what circumstances should students fail? One can think of this as a multiple choice question:
a) Students should fail when they do not demonstrate mastery of course subject matter. This is the old-school definition of failure.
b) Students should fail when they do not turn in assignments. This is a kinder, gentler policy, forgiving those who try hard but do not master the subject matter. In a world where persistence matters more than knowledge, this policy makes more sense.
c) Students should never (or perhaps just rarely) fail. This policy makes the most sense if you believe that staying in school matters the most, regardless of what you may or may not learn while there.
So, the question of when students should fail in turn boils down to a basic question about the true function of education. Are we endowing students with knowledge that will make them happier and more productive? Are we reinforcing "non-cognitive" skills -- showing up, putting in a good faith effort? Or are we primarily interested in handing out diplomas, based on the notion that having the sheepskin makes the greatest difference?
The cognitive skill vs. non-cognitive skill vs. sheepskin debate is surprisingly unsettled in the academic literature. So don't be surprised to see debates about zeros continue on for years to come.
Comments