No-Zero Grading Policy: Beneficial or politically-correct?

Recently, some school districts have instituted a new grading policy where you cannot get a zero on any assignment. If you do not do it, you would receive a minimum of 50%. If you cheat on a test and are caught, you get a 50%. The justification for this new system: If a student had a really bad first month or week or so of the quarter, but then wanted to turn it around, they would not be so deep in a hole that it would be impossible to recover. Do you think that this policy is helpful, or is it just giving an benefit to the students who slack off and don't do their work, while the hardworking students get nothing?

To learn more about the system, see this article that I read about it

http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/no-zero-grading-raises-concerns-por...

Tags: 50%, education, grading, no, policy, school, zeros

Views: 3925

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

           I think that such a system would only be really well implemented with a completely new grading system. Otherwise, many students  could simply "fail" half of everything, get about a b on everything else, and end up with anywhere between a mid-d to high-c by the end of the quarter.

          Such a system may seem to have the interests of the students in mind, but such short-sited solutions to an overall long-term problem will end up crippling the minds of the youth who, otherwise, may have applied themselves. I don't believe in the grading system as it is, but it definitely has one thing going for it, and that's encouragement. It encourages students who wish to succeed in society to apply themselves and, hopefully, educate themselves. If you take away this encouragement, making the consequences extremely slight for failure, then what is left to say about such a system? It has nothing going for it. Only the positive reinforcement of getting an A, none of the negative reinforcement of the possibility of failure. And without the possibility of failure, what is there to give an A worth? It loses any intrinsic value it may have had, which already isn't a lot for many students, who just want to pass, and don't really care how good their grade is, or can be.

I think this is just an added benefit to the students who slack off.  I don't think this grading policy should be implimented into schools because if someone doesn't do their homework, that is their decision and they deserve to get a zero.  Likewise, if a person cheats on a test, they deserve to get a zero.  If someone had a really bad first week, then there shouldn't be that many points in their grade and it should be easier to bring it up.  If they can't bring it up, then they just learned an important lesson on why you need to work hard in school and life.

I believe this system is great, for the people that slack off and the people that want to turn it around.

If someone chose to not turn it around, they still have an F. It doesn't matter if the F is a 0% or a 50%, it's still an F. So it is still harsh enough for that type of person.

For those who want to turn it around after they didn't do anything for a couple weeks, it at least gives them a chance at getting a decent grade, whereas giving out a zero would make recovery unimagianble.

 

You have to be careful with the system though because some students might find a way around doing work. They might only put effort forward on 50 percent of the work given and somehow stiull manage to get an A.

This is a very interesting topic. I believe that it is unfair to aid the people that slack off. They should not be able to increase one side of the spectrum while forcing the other side to maintain and work just as hard with little reward. Good Job

I believe this system, while interesting, is flawed. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great. There have been times when I've had rough patches, bad starts, or just so much homework that it's difficult to get finished. A 50% is still an F sure, but at least it's points and won't take as massive a chunk out of a grade. That said, this idea probably won't fly. Most of the time, it's hard enough to get students motivated. If those students who don't work anyway are given free points, they won't be motivated. They then have no drive to succeed, and then this lack of motivation might get into everything they do, leaving the country lazy. So while I can see how this policy can benefit some students, I don't think it will work

It's hard to say, but I think that this actually could be a good idea. It would inspire kids who normally don't care, to try to score a good grade in the class. Even though it would be irritating to some of the people that really did work hard to get good grades, it's not like it would change their scores. If anything, having a policy like this would improve them! And who in their right mind would turn down a well earned high grade!? Hopefully no one. I think that this grading system could really impact the students in our schools by giving them a reason to try harder, which won't only effect test grades, but overall learning expirience, and real life goals!
I think that this is a really interesting topic to consider, but personally I just don't think that it's fair to help those who are constantly slacking off while those who consistently work hard to maintain their grades are forced to pay the price for those who don't.

I believe that this system is useful because there can be instances in a person's life that causes them to fall back in class. This could be used to help children who can't control the outcome in which they have to live their life differently.

Like other readers, I agree that this new system would only benefit the slackers in class.  People who are constantly working in class shouldn't have to worry at the end of the quarter about their grade because it would only be a reflection of their previous efforts.  The only students gaining from this system would be those too lazy to put the necessary effort in.

Regardless of getting a bad start or not, slackers are still responsible for ALL of their work.  Just because they couldn't motivate themselves to try 100% of the time, shouldn't mean that they get advantages.  50% is NOT a hard score to achieve.  All you have to give is an ounce of effort to get higher.  Because kids don't feel like trying shouldn't mean that they get benefits.  If anything, they should get less than a zero.

I think that it can go either way. It really does help students who have a pretty bad month or whatever in school. For the slackers, I geuss it's easier for them to pull their grades up, but if they've been lazy all year it will be very hard for them to turn 180 degrees and start doing hard work. I think it's overall good because pulling out of a 50% is still hard so the kids who work hard and are used to working hard will not have as much trouble getting out of it as the slackers will.

I think this grading system is helpful but easy to take advantage of by slackers. Of the minimum was 25% then students wouldn't be in so deep, but it would be almost impossible to slack off and get away with a good grade. Either that or limit the timeframe of receiving a 50% minimum to 2 weeks.

RSS

© 2014   Created by Russ Anderson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service