Traditional grading systems aren鈥檛 getting an A-plus from most educators.
In fact, fewer than 1 in 6 educators鈥�13 percent鈥攕urveyed by the EdWeek Research Center earlier this year say that A through F or numeric grades are a 鈥渧ery effective way鈥� to give feedback to students.
Still, educators clearly see the system as having some merit. Nearly half鈥�42 percent鈥攐f the teachers, principals, and district leaders find A through F or numeric grades at least 鈥渟omewhat effective.鈥� About a quarter find them 鈥渟omewhat ineffective,鈥� while more than 1 in 5鈥�21 percent鈥攆ind them 鈥渧ery ineffective.鈥�
Despite those mixed reviews, traditional systems appear to remain the norm across the country, the survey found. More than three-quarters鈥�77 percent鈥攐f educators surveyed said that their districts use either the A through F grading system, a numerical grading system, or a combination of the two. Just 11 percent of educators said their districts use another type of system. The EdWeek Research Center nationally representative survey of 863 educators was conducted from March 29 to April 11.
Still, some teachers worry that these systems aren鈥檛 nearly nuanced enough to capture student progress, and that students with a succession of low grades may get discouraged and give up on trying to master the material.
鈥淭he traditional 0-100, A-F grading system does not communicate learning,鈥� wrote Jonathon Medeiros, a language arts teacher at Kaua驶i High School in Hawaii, in an email. 鈥淚t communicates behavior, privilege, and positionality. Worse than that, the A-F scale promotes giving up and cheating to get the grade, moving students away from the desire to grow and learn.鈥�
Micah Miner, the district administrator for instructional technology and social studies for the Maywood, Melrose Park, Broadview school district outside Chicago, agreed that the A through F system doesn鈥檛 give students and their parents enough of a picture of which material they鈥檝e mastered and what they are still struggling with.
Over the past four years, Miner鈥檚 district has moved to a standards-based system, where students are given a 1 through 5 rating to show how close they鈥檝e come to grasping a particular skill or concept.
For instance, a social studies teacher might tell a student that they have a good understanding of how the American Revolution influenced civics by giving them a 5 on that standard. But the student may still struggle with some of the historical specifics, meaning they would only get a 3 on the history standard for that unit, Miner explained.
That kind of system can give students a more detailed understanding of their progress, strengths, and areas for improvement, Miner said. However, he acknowledged that teachers may struggle to make the transition to this type of grading.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a harder thing to do,鈥� said Miner, who helped his district move to the standards-based system. 鈥淚t鈥檚 more objective, and you鈥檙e giving more specific feedback and that requires more time.鈥�
Parents may have an even more challenging time making the switch, others argued.
Zack Kleypas, the superintendent of Texas鈥� Thorndale school district and a former principal, said that while A through F and traditional numeric systems aren鈥檛 perfect, they offer an easy-to-grasp metric for families.
鈥淚t easily communicates to most parents whether a kid鈥檚 doing really good, kind of good, not so good, or bad,鈥� Kleypas said. 鈥淔or that reason, I like it, because if you change that paradigm too much, then you have to spend a lot of your energy training parents to comprehend a completely different system.鈥�
The system though, could be tweaked to give students and families more information about how students performed on each of the standards that make up that overall letter grade, Kleypas said.
Data analysis for this article was provided by the EdWeek Research Center. Learn more about the center鈥檚 work.
