Zeros don’t work; never have, never will! While a good number of schools/districts have already addressed this issue through a shift in policies and practices, the knowing-doing gap is still alive and well. No topic exemplifies the emotional nature of grading discussions quite like a discussion about using *zeros*. What’s unfortunate is that these discussions are often isolated to questions about student responsibility and accountability, and while those are important issues to be addressed, the resulting inaccuracy of what ultimately gets reported to parents gets lost in the shuffle. Discussions about zeros are less about letting students off the hook and more about the accuracy of the grades teachers report.

Now before we get into the specifics about zeros, let me first confess that, early in my career, I was the *zero guy*. Like many of you, having received no instruction on sound grading in my teacher prep program, I started by doing what was done to me, including using zeros for work that wasn’t submitted. In my first five years of teaching especially, I was the epitome of a punitive grader. I used zeros, penalties, and any other traditional practice that served to punish students for not following through. Not only that, I felt justified in doing it; I thought it was what I was supposed to do. I confess this for two reasons. First, I know what it is like to be fully invested in using punitive grading practices. Second, I know what it takes (and how challenging it can be) to move away from these practices.

Here are some of the specific issues with using zeros in today’s context:

* It’s inaccurate:* In most cases, a zero reflects what the student hasn’t

*done,*not what the student knows or understands. This is not about the earned zero where the student completed all of the work but failed to answer any questions correctly or submit any semblance of a correct response; that’s a different issue. Again, what gets lost in all of the conversations about

*responsibility*is how a zero has a devastating effect on a gradebook and ultimately renders the student’s final grade as inaccurate as it relates to a student’s true understanding of the material at hand.

* It’s random:* Let’s break this practice down and call it out for what it really is. When using zero for work not submitted, teachers randomly assign a score to work they have not laid eyes on. How precise is that? With all of the heavy-lifting teachers do in establishing performance criteria, levels of proficiency, and the calibration of inferences with each standard, it is surprising that teachers would do something so imprecise and arbitrary. Now, as long as we’re randomly choosing numbers, why not 4? Maybe 13? How about 59? Each of those options is no less accurate; they’re random scores assigned to work that hasn’t been seen.

* It annihilates the average:* This is not an endorsement of using the mean average to determine students’ grades, but teachers who currently use the mean average must realize that

*zero*is explosive to a gradebook. The most lethal combination in any gradebook is an outlier score paired with mean averaging. While a valid mathematical

*calculation*, mean averaging doesn’t always yield useful information; the

*determination*of grades is skewed when a meaningless average is the result. If LeBron James walked into a room with three teachers, the

*mean average*salary in the room would be $16 million per year. As accurate as that mean average calculation is, the resulting information in no way gives a clear representation of the financial situation amongst the four individuals in the room;

*zero*has the same impact only on the opposite end of the spectrum. As well, consider this: a student who begins with a

*zero*would have to earn 70% 140 times in order to earn a 70 (69.5% to be precise) as an overall grade. It’s not difficult to see why many of students are inclined to give up once a zero has been inserted into their gradebook.

* It’s mean!* Not only are there statistical considerations regarding

*zero*, there are also emotional considerations too. Sure, there are always exceptions to the rule, so while a few students may be motivated by

*lower*grades, most are not. Using zero is a choice, one I made early in my career, one some teachers currently make, and one we can all move away from. As Tom Guskey writes:

“Teachers also use zeros as instruments of control. In most instances, teachers have little direct influence over the privileges that students most value or the punishments they most fear…But teachers do control grades, and grades can indirectly influence those privileges and punishments. A low grade often prompts parents to enforce punishments that are more persuasive and more compelling to students than those that a teacher can enforce.” (Guskey, 2004)

Too cynical? Possibly. However, it is also naïve to think that teachers don’t know what the residual effect of a zero will be beyond the gradebook. Nothing gets parents’ attention quite like a *zero* and a subsequent low grade. While not every single teacher approaches the zero in this calculated a fashion, collectively we know exactly what we’re doing.

* It holds students less accountable!* The biggest myth about

*zeros*is that it holds students

*more*accountable. First, ask teachers which portions of the learning in their subjects are optional and they will undoubtedly answer,

*“none of it.”*Now imagine a student is assigned a zero to be held

*accountable*for not submitting an assignment. Let’s imagine that the

*zero*lowers the student’s grade from a 79% to a 74%. Now what? If the student is satisfied with the new level of achievement (in this case a 74) the teacher will never get the work from the student; in essence, the assignment was rendered

*optional*. That’s not accountability. If the assignment is mandatory then the student should be expected to complete the work regardless of the timing, otherwise we’re emphasizing

*when*a student learns over if they learn.

* It’s not teaching anything.* Punishing irresponsibility does not teach responsibility. Somewhere along the way we’ve collectively become convinced that punishing the absence of a skill will produce the skill. That’s not

*teaching*. If students don’t know how to write an argumentative paper, we

*teach*them; if students can’t add fractions, we

*teach*them. If students struggle to meet deadlines or complete work, we need to

*teach*them. The only thing that teaches a student how to be responsible is when someone – likely an adult – actually

*teaches*them how to be responsible. Claiming to be

*teaching*responsibility is a hollow claim when the only action is to

*punish*irresponsibility. If we want responsibility, we need to teach it.

* There is no research support.* There is no research that supports the use of low grades as effective punishments or universal motivators. Again, there are always exceptions to the rules, but those students are just that – exceptions. It is true that the research on standards-based grading is in its infancy (Brookhart, 2013), but traditional grading has been around for decades and there is little evidence that it produces the desired results. With all who’ve used

*zeros*(both past and present) you’d think someone would have made it their business to validate it as a best practice through clinical research. There is simply no evidence that using zeros teaches students the lessons of responsibility or holds them accountable (Kohn, 1993; Guskey, 2004; O’Connor, 2011)

So, what should be done instead? Most agree that an “I” or “Incomplete” is more appropriate because it is the most accurate. If a marathon runner severely twists her ankle at mile 19 and can’t finish the race, what is her time? Exactly, she doesn’t have a time. When the results are published in the local paper the next morning, beside her name it will read DNF (Did Not Finish). There is no prorated or *best-guess* time. All that is reported is what’s accurate; the runner did not finish. In our gradebooks, when a student hasn’t submitted a required assignment necessary to determine an accurate grade then the student doesn’t have a grade.

The vast majority of teachers I’ve worked with say students are held *more* accountable by using the “I” for missing assignments. They’ve seen *more* work being completed and parents being *more* supportive of this practice. The threat of a low-grade is not a motivator; we will never *zero* students down to an academic epiphany. Zeros don’t work; never have, never will.

**References:**

Brookhart, S. (2013b). Grading. In J. McMillan (Ed.), *Sage Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment* (pp. 257–271). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Guskey, T.R. (2004). Zero alternatives. *Principal Leadership, 5*(2), 49-53.

Kohn, A. (1993). *Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentives plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes.* Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

O’Connor, K. (2011). *A Repair Kit for Grading: Fifteen Fixes for Broken Grades with DVD* (2nd ed.). Portland, OR: Pearson Assessment Training Institute.

I always use an I when a student has to revise. It gives them hope. I believe that there is a use for zeros though. ..when a student plagiarizes or cheats. If that’s the only one they ever see from you, it sticks. ..

Do not use zeros as punishment. Separate the punishment from the grading as grades should only reflect academic achievement. If a student cheats, assign a consequence and require them to redo the assessment.

I agree with your arguments above and have effectively used “I” for Summative Assessments that are considered mandatory to accurately reflect student learning and performance in the course/program. Fortunately, I have also done so with the support of administration. What do you do if at the end of the course the student has failed to complete the previously “Incomplete” work, despite your teaching, support, flexibility and encouragement? Do you then enter a “Zero” on the particular assessment/s because the student has failed to demonstrate the required learning expectations through failure to provide evidence? If not, do you only consider the work that had been submitted and allow the overall grade to then also be an inaccurate reflection of the student’s overall learning and performance in the course?

I agree with most of what is posed in this article. I have no problem putting in an “I” to indicate incomplete rather than a zero score. My problem is, at some point, grades are due and at that time I will need to turn all of those “I”s into zero scores, which will then take what appears to be a passing grade to a failing grade. That is when parents have the most rage. How do you avoid this situation? Would you have to be in constant contact with the parents to remind them that all of the incomplete assignments have to be completed or the grade will quickly fall once they are changed to zeros? Thanks for listening.

Great stuff here! Too often educators think about how changing a grading policy will impact them and the time it takes to change our grading policy. Not doing work is a behavior and not evidence of a lack of learning and it should be treated as such. If you start contacting parents, like you would for a discipline issue, as their students don’t turn in work you will solve many of the communication issues. Nothing is going to work for everyone but try this and I bet you are going to see positive results.

Superb teaching here. Teaching a student to clearly understand the responsibility frees them to accomplish the expectations of them. Just giving them a zero only depresses and discourges them when they didnt fully udnerstand to begin with. The old Biblical saying for teaching the young are: Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little.” Build upon their understanding and they will joyfully meet your expectations. Threatening zeroes is cruel emotional punishment. But of course that is what students really want from their teachers anyways – right?