Tom Guskey on Solving the Problem of Inconsistent Grading

            In this Kappan article, Thomas Guskey (University of Kentucky) says the main reason for parent pushback on standards-based grading is inconsistency among teachers. Within the same school, he says, “What counts as part of the grade, what doesn’t count, and how different aspects of students’ performance are weighted in determining grades – all can be different.” Such variations in grading policies from classroom to classroom, says Guskey, are unfair and inequitable because: 

• Some students game the system, calculating and manipulating points for good grades. 
• For other students, the grading game is a mysterious puzzle they must figure out in every class, and their grades don’t reflect their actual learning. 
• When parents ask their children what grades they expect, kids often have no clue. 

“Before standards-based or competency-based grading reforms can be implemented,” says Guskey, “this inconsistency in grading must be addressed.” Here are three steps he believes schools and districts need to take: 

• Reach consensus on the purpose of grading and report cards. This involves deciding what information grades will communicate, the primary audience, and the purpose. Guskey shares these exemplars: 
• Elementary: The purpose of this report card is to describe students’ learning progress to parents and families, based on our school’s learning goals for each grade level. It is intended to inform parents and families about learning successes and to guide improvements when needed. 
• Middle/high: The purpose of this report card is to communicate with parents, families, and students about the achievement of specific learning goals. It identifies students’ current levels of performance regarding those goals, areas of strength, and areas where additional time and effort are needed. 
• The American School of Paris: The primary purpose of grading is to effectively communicate student achievement toward specific standards, at this point in time. A grade should reflect what a student knows and is able to do. Students will receive separate feedback and evaluation on their learning habits, which will not be included in the academic achievement grades. 

In the Paris school’s statement, Guskey highlights the importance of grades reporting mastery of standards, not averages (which allow early stumbles to unfairly pull down students’ grades), and separating students’ academic achievement from other areas of performance. 

• Use grading scales with 4-7 levels of performance. Guskey believes that 100-point grading scales offer “the illusion of precision” but are actually more vulnerable to teacher subjectivity and unreliability. Researchers have found that using fewer grading levels increases inter-rater reliability and reduces teacher subjectivity and variability from class to class. “Teachers with comparable knowledge and experience,” says Guskey, “are far more likely to agree when distinguishing an A level from a B level of performance than when distinguishing a 90 from an 89 using the percentage scale. The use of clear and well-defined scoring criteria, along with a limited number of grading categories, helps ensure a shared understanding among teachers and promotes more-consistent grading practices.”

• Separately report academic and non-academic student performance. “Hodgepodge” grades that combine academic attainment, progress/improvement, and other areas (effort, class participation, collaboration, responsibility, initiative, organization, self-regulation, low-stakes assessments, homework) make report cards “a confusing amalgamation that is impossible to interpret clearly and accurately,” says Guskey. He advocates separate reporting of these three categories on report cards and transcripts, which produces a more-accurate picture of academic performance, progress, and other areas. What’s more, he says, it’s less work for teachers since they don’t have to calculate an amalgam of student performance in the different domains. 

            “These steps,” Guskey concludes, “address the greatest concerns of parents and families, facilitate better communication between school and home, and ensure greater honesty, accuracy, and equity in grading.” 

“Addressing Inconsistencies in Grading Practices” by Thomas Guskey in Kappan, May 2024 (Vol. 105, #8, pp. 52-57); Guskey can be reached at Guskey@uky.edu. See Marshall Memo 962 for another Guskey article on grading.

Please Note: This summary is reprinted with permission from issue #1035 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.