School Reform: Grading Policies in

Compton Unified School District

March 11, 2016

Stephen Franklin
EADM 730 Politics, Legislative Action and Educational Change
Dr. Deborah Stine

1 | Page

Abstract

As it relates to school reform, and the role of schools, the development of a supportive
network has been shown to have a powerful influence on high school completion and the
development of academic resiliency. Rodriguez (2007) states a major focus of any school
reform, particularly at the high school level, should center on forging a deliberate culture of
success for low income Black, and Latina or Latino students. (p. 1) A key first step in
developing a supportive school network and culture is to examine those existing policies that
may contribute to a push out factor or contribute to high school non-completion. Grading
policies are long overdue for a complete overhaul. Compton Unified School District (CUSD),
this school year has begun a system-wide review of grading policies, with particular focus on
secondary schools with high schools being in the forefront due to concerns over graduation rates
and excessive D/F rates.
Campbell (2012) points out that grading polices tend to be firmly held beliefs that are
very near and dear to education professionals. She goes on to say, you will not likely find a
more emotional topic than classroom grading policy in the secondary school faculty meeting, and
neither scholarship nor common sense have influenced teacher opinion or grading policy in may
schools (p. 1) The practice of grading as punishment has been shown throughout extensive
research to be an ineffective strategy (Reeves, 2004; Campbell, 2012; Friedman, 1998; Erickson,
2011; and Hanover Research, 2013), yet it still continues. In their study, Bradley & Renzulli
(2011) looked at the effects of being pushed out or pulled out of high school and reported, It is
possible that Latino students are pulled out of school as a result of a cost-benefits analysis in
which the student realizes there are institutional barriers to success through education and thus
find greater value in other activities such as getting a job or caring for family. (p. 526)
2 | Page

Introduction
Leaving school before high school graduation dramatically reduces opportunities over the
life course, especially among poor and minority adolescents (Ensminger, Lamkin and Jacobson,
1996). The research has shown this time and again, yet the problem persists. Many studies have
focused on the dropout problem, most have looked at high school dropout from a dichotomous
point of view: a student either drops out or they dont. Few have sought to examine the various
causes that may affect a students decision to discontinue their education. Bradley & Renzulli
(2011) completed a study that expanded the view on high school dropout phenomenon. In place
of the typical dichotomous stance in much of the literature, the authors introduced a model that
offers three outcomes; in school, pushed out or pulled out. Bradely & Renzulli go onto to state
It is beneficial to conceive of dropout as occurring due to either push factors that force a
student out of school, or pull factors that interfere with a students commitment to his or her
education.
The notion of push out versus pull out relates to my study on the impact of student
resiliency to examine further the various factors that contribute to students being pushed out or
pulled out of high school from a resiliency lens, and the resulting impact on college
matriculation. The extant literature has illuminated several key factors that either do, or may
have an effect on high school completion. The objective of my study is to examine more fully the
effects of student resiliency in addressing these various factors
As it relates to school reform, and the role of schools, the development of a supportive
network has been shown to have a powerful influence on high school completion and the
development of academic resiliency. Rodriguez (2007) a major focus of any school reform,
particularly at the high school level, should center on forging a deliberate culture of success for
3 | Page

low income Black, and Latina or Latino students. (p. 1) A key first step in developing a
supportive school network and culture is to examine those existing policies that may contribute
to a push out factor. Grading policies are long overdue for a complete overhaul. Compton
Unified School District (CUSD), this school year has begun a system-wide review of grading
policies, with particular focus on secondary schools with high schools being in the forefront due
to concerns over graduation rates and excessive D/F rates.
Punitive Grading Policies
Campbell (2012) points out that grading polices tend to be firmly held beliefs that are
very near and dear to education professionals. She goes on to say, you will not likely find a
more emotional topic than classroom grading policy in the secondary school faculty meeting, and
neither scholarship nor common sense have influenced teacher opinion or grading policy in may
schools (p. 1) The Hanover Research (2013) reports that grading policies are one of the most
scared traditions in American schools and has acquired almost cult-like importance. Guskey &
Bailey (2001) point out, often in gradingwe continue to use old policies and practices, not
because of their proven merits, but simply because, weve always done it that way and never
asked, why? (p. 3) The discussion around school grading policies, is not new, in fact it has
gone on for several decades. Increased concerns with the trend of low graduation rates has
brought this topic to the fore once again. This is particularly true in CUSD.
The focus on examining and revising grading policies district wide in CUSD began at a
Secondary Principals Meeting in November of 2015. Each middle and high school administrative
team was provided data reflecting each schools D/F rates over the past three years,
additionally each high school administrative team was given a print out that showed their
respective graduation rate for the same period of time. Each administrative team was then asked
4 | Page

to brainstorm and then share out one step that they could begin today, that would begin to target
their D/F rates. The answer almost universally was to revise grading policies. Freidman (1998)
states, the foundation of grading is fairness. (p. 81) He goes onto say, teachers should know
that grading competently is perhaps the most important service they provide their students. (p.
81). That said, grading polices in CUSD and many schools and districts across the nation are not
about fairness, rather they are about punishment for those students who dare not to complete an
assignment. Reeves (2004) refers to curmudgeonly teachers and their likely stance as it relates to
grading, give the miscreants who failed to complete our assignments the punishment they richly
deserve. No work, no credit end of story. (p. 324)
The practice of grading as punishment has been shown throughout extensive research to
be an ineffective strategy (Reeves, 2004; Campbell, 2012; Friedman, 1998; Erickson, 2011; and
Hanover Research, 2013), yet it still continues. In their study, Bradley & Renzulli looked at the
effects of being pushed out or pulled out of high school and reported, It is possible that Latino
students are pulled out of school as a result of a cost-benefits analysis in which the student
realizes there are institutional barriers to success through education and thus find greater value in
other activities such as getting a job or caring for family. (p. 526)
Of particular interest, and a focus that has gained renewed traction is the elimination or
replacing of the zero grade in secondary schools. For most teachers, if the numbers 4, 3, 2, 1, 0
were written, and then ask these same teaches to assign the corresponding letter grade, an F
would equal 0. Reeves (2004) states, this both defies logic and mathematical accuracy. (p.
324) On a 100 point scale, the intervals between letter and numerical grade is typically 10 points.
The break point as typically at 90, 80, 70 and 60, but when the zero grade is applied on a 100
point scale, the interval between a D and F is not 10 points but 60 points. Using the 10 point
5 | Page

interval that separates letter grades A-D, the mathematically accurate value for an F is 50
points. Two other equally ineffective grading strategies involve; 1) including non-academic
factors into the course letter grade, such as absence, attitude, undone homework and behavior,
and 2) averaging every grade throughout the semester. All three of these grading practices are
punitive and deflationary in nature. Campbell (2012) points out that a final grade for the course
should be based on content standards and academic achievement only.
The extant literature has shown that using punitive grading to motivate students is
counter-productive, ineffective, and educationally indefensible. Freidman (1998) points out that
while court rulings have been mixed in cases in which punitive grading practices have been
utilized, the overriding principle is that if grading practices can be characterized as arbitrary,
capricious, or in bad faith, then grounds may exist for legal action. If we relate the notion of
punitive grading as a tool to motivate students, to the often attempted, but short lived
discussions on performance based pay for teachers to motivate teachers, we can see where
both practices have flaws. David & Cuban (2010) point out the prevailing notion, for those who
are proponents of performance based pay for teacher is that more money will motivate teachers
to teach better and thereby produce increased student learning. (p. 46)
As David & Cuban (2010) point out the main reason why efforts at establishing
performance based pay initiatives are difficult to sustain is the issue of fairness and objectivity.
At the heart of this debate is determining the basis for whether one teacher is more effective than
another. David & Cuban point out, bonuses are not likely to motivate teachers to improve if
they are based on measures perceived to be biased, unfair, or capricious. (p. 48) The question
then should be, if teachers will not accept or support a practice they view as biased or unfair,
why then turn around and apply grading policies that are equally biased, unfair and capricious?
6 | Page

To insist upon using the zero on a 100 point scale asserts that homework or classwork not turned
in deserves a penalty that is six times more severe than completed work of poor quality and
receives a D. Again, the notion that punishment through grades will motivate students is false.
Erickson (2011) points out that by automatically assigning a zero or 50% to late or missing work,
results in students feeling little to no incentive to complete late assignments. Motivating students
with zero rarely works, and in the end causes students to give up. Giving up becomes
deflationary, is counter to developing academic resiliency, and lead to a push out factor that
contributes to high school non-completion.
Teachers who embrace the zero as a means of teaching their students about the real
world miss the point. Erickson (2011) points out rarely in the real world does failure to
complete a task, result in not needing to complete the task. (p. 44). The consequence for not
completing work by the due date, should be doing it. Using the zero as a grading practice,
reinforces the notion that schools are about accumulating points not knowledge and skills. The
same applies to issues of academic dishonesty, recording a zero is a quick punishment for
cheating or plagiarism, however, it provides no real information to the teacher what the student
does or does not know. Erickson (2011) points out that often times when the zero is assigned, the
conversation centers around the student receiving the zero, with no real explanation as to why the
zero was earned. This amounts to punishment without fully understanding the crime.
A more appropriate response might be to have the student retake or redo the assignment
with a preassigned point penalty that is reasonable without being punitive, say subtracting 7-10
points. This allows to teacher to truly gauge student knowledge to be able to provide a more
meaning and accurate assessment. An alternative would be to assign the mathematically accurate
failing grade of 50. The student failed to turn in an assignment, or perhaps cheated on an exam so
7 | Page

a failing grade would be appropriate. They are not as Reeves (2004) states sent to a Siberian
labor camp (p. 325). Reeves goes onto point out that even sentences at a Siberian labor camp
comes to an end, the zero on a 100 point scale, however, lives on forever. For anyone who has
every taught in a classroom, they realize that just two or three zeros in a semester, is sufficient
enough to cause a student to fail a course. Just a few course failures is enough to lead a student to
non-completion or school leaving due to push out factors from the school itself. To provide
another example, the student fails the assignment with a zero, but earns an overall grade of a
D. That D is factored into the students GPA until he/she graduates from high school.
Erickson (2011) points out, that just one mistake continues to haunt the student for up to four
years, a mistake from which the student can never recoverSiberia. The use of the zero on a 100
point scale is punitive, deflationary and counter to efforts to increase student motivation and the
development of academic resiliency.
Grading Alternatives
Hanover Research (2013) examined three alternatives to the traditional 100 point grading
scale include; a 50 point scale, a four-point scale, and Zeros Arent Permitted. The Zeros
Arent Permitted (ZAP) approach still allows students to be graded on the 100 point scale, but
requires that schools enforce policies that do not allow a student to receive a zero. Components
of this approach, include teachers assigning an I or incomplete grade, thus not allowing
students to shirk away from doing the assignment. Students who receive an I are assigned to an
afterschool lab to complete missing assignments. This approach is labor intensive, and if the
school does not have an effective or consistent enforcement, the student ultimately will receive a
grade of zero.

8 | Page

The 50 point grading scale would be the easiest to implement, as it leaves the core
structure of the already familiar 100 point grading scale intact. Which means teacher would not
have to adjust to or learn a new grading scale. On the 50 point scale, students would receive
grades between 50-100 points, meaning the letter grade of an F would equal 50 points versus
the current zero. As stated in the Hanover Research (2013) the 50 point scale diminishes the
effect of a single poor grade on a students overall evaluation. (p. 8).
The four-point scale requires a complete and dramatic shift in ideology, away from the
traditional grading scale. Rather than give students grades between 0-100, on the four-point scale
grades are assigned; 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, which corresponds to the existing letter grades of F, D, C, B, A.
As the intervals between each grade is the same, an interval of 1, the zero grade on this scale is
proportionate and less deflationary when compared to the zero grade on the 100 point scale. For
those teachers who want added specificity, teachers can assign grades using decimal point such
as; 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, etc. Instead of the gift of 50 points for not completing an assignment, students
who fail to complete an assignment still receive a zero, which may satisfy stakeholders who
support punitive grading or who are opposed to granting credit for incomplete work. (Hanover
Research, 2013, p. 9)
From a school district and site administrators perspective the 50 point or four-point scale
would be the most appealing grading alternatives, with the 50 point scale being the easiest to
implement, relatively speaking. It would be the easiest to implement due to the 100 point grading
scale that is already in use, instead of continuing to zero, the current scale would stop at 50. The
challenge would be addressing the concerns of those teachers and stakeholders who would view
the grade of 50 as a gift, instead of recognizing the 50 as a failing grade.

9 | Page

District Reform
The first step to addressing punitive grading in the Compton Unified School District
(CUSD) as previously mentioned began at the November 2015 Secondary Principals meeting.
CUSD had a newly appointed Assistant Superintendent for PreK-12- Education, with Senior
Directors for Secondary, Elementary, Special Education, English Learners, and Special Projects
reporting to her. This single move helped to centralize efforts and focus district-wide.
The Assistant Superintendent asked each site, particularly the high schools to meet with
their staffs to review each departments current grading policies, and then to have each
department develop a consistent grading policy that everyone would use. Once established, these
staff developed policies would be shared with the principals, and ultimately shared with district.
CUSD had not formally shifted to or adopted a 50 point of four-point grading district-wide,
however, that move seems eminent.
The CUSD Board of Trustees working with our Superintendent and Assistant
Superintendent PreK-12 revised existing Board policy and Administrative regulations effective
January 1, 2016 in response to the grading policy data they received from the secondary schools.
Highlights from the newly revised Board Policy 5121 (BP 5121) and Administrative Regulation
(AR 5121) are telling. BP 5121 under the heading Grade Point Average states:
The Superintendent or designee shall determine the methodology to be used in
calculating students grade point averages (GPA)

AR 5121 addresses the issue of projects or assignments that count so heavily towards a students
quarter or semester grade that they become semester killers. Meaning a poor grade on this
single assignment virtually assures that a student will receive a failing grade for the semester.

10 | P a g e

No single assignment or test will compute to more than 25% of a quarterly or semester
grade

AR 5121 addresses the requirement for teachers to allow and assist students to complete missed
assignments due to excused absences, including suspension. Previously students on suspension
received the double jeopardy penalty of being suspended for misbehavior, and being denied an
opportunity to complete missed assignments or tests. This practice denied students a chance to
redeem themselves from a poor decision and ensured a repeat occurrence due to disengagement
with classroom instruction. AR 5121 established a clearly defined and reasonably time frame for
the completion of missed assignments, which removed the often arbitrary and capricious
deadlines teachers often imposed.
Specific plans for make-up work shall be established as Independent Study. Incomplete
grades will become failing grades if required work is not completed by the end of the
quarter following the issuance of the incomplete grade

AR 5121 was reworded so as to make clear, the steps that teachers must follow when it becomes
evident that a student is in danger of failing. While California Education Code 49067 has the
established the expectation, AR 5121 reiterates the same.
Whenever it becomes evident to a teacher that a student is in danger of failing a course,
the teacher shall arrange a conference with the students parent/guardian or send the
parent/guardian a written report, at the end of each quarter (Education Code 49067)

These steps taken by CUSD to address low graduation rates and high D/F rates due to punitive
grading policies are a tremendous step towards school reform, particularly at the high school
level, that places focus on forging a deliberate culture of success for low income Black, and
11 | P a g e

Latina or Latino students. (Rodriguez, 2007, p. 1). These steps also work to counter systemic
barriers that contribute to push-out factors leading to high school non-completion and prevent the
development of academic resiliency.
References:
Bradley, C. and Renzulli, L. (2011). The complexity of non-completion: Being push or pulled to
drop out of high school. Social Forces, 90(2), 521-545.
Campbell, C. (2012). Learning centered grading practices. Leadership, 41 (5), 30-33
David, J. L. & Cuban, L. (2010). Cutting through the hype: The essential guide to school reform
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Ensminger, M., Lamkin, R., and Jacobson, N. (1996). School leaving a longitudinal perspective
including neighborhood effects. Child Development, 67 (5), 2400-16
Erickson, J. A. (2011). A call to action: Transforming grading practices. Principal Leadership,
February, 42-46
Freidman, S.J. (1998). Grading teachers grading policies. National Association of Secondary
School Principals, NAASSP Bulletin, 82(597), 77- 83
Guskey, T. R. & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Developing Grading and Reporting Systems for Student
Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Hanover Research (2013, July). Replacing zero grading at the secondary level.
Washington, D.C
Reeves, D. B. (2004). The case against the zero. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-325
Rodriguez, L. F. (2007). Teachers know you can do more: Understanding how school cultures
of success affect urban high school students. Manuscript submitted for publication.

12 | P a g e