Grading policies in schools have long been a subject of debate, and one of the most controversial trends in recent years is the “no zeroes” policy. On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Daniel Buck, a teacher and senior visiting fellow at Fordham, joins Mike Petrilli to explore the implications of these policies, explaining why he believes they may be the worst of all worlds for both students and teachers.
Understanding the “No Zeroes” Policy
A “no zeroes” grading policy essentially mandates that teachers cannot assign a grade of zero to a student who fails to complete an assignment or project. Instead, the lowest possible grade a student can receive is often a 50% or some other minimum, regardless of whether they submitted the work or not. Proponents of this approach argue that it encourages students to keep trying, reduces failure, and ensures that a single missed assignment doesn’t unduly harm a student’s overall grade.
However, critics, including Daniel Buck, argue that this policy is problematic for a number of reasons. Buck believes that it undermines the purpose of grading, which is to reflect a student’s understanding and mastery of the material. When students are given grades that do not correspond to their actual performance—especially when they fail to submit work—it can mislead both students and educators about the student’s true progress and abilities.
Why Buck Opposes “No Zeroes” Policies
Daniel Buck is a strong opponent of the “no zeroes” policy, claiming that it creates a system where consequences for failing to complete work are minimal, leading to a lack of accountability. In his view, this policy fails to teach students valuable lessons about responsibility, time management, and the importance of completing assignments. Buck argues that giving a student a minimum grade for no work at all is counterproductive and sets them up for failure in real-world situations, where there are often tangible consequences for not meeting expectations.
In his Fordham post, A ‘No Zeroes’ Grading Policy is the Worst of All Worlds (June 16, 2022), Buck critiques the policy for removing an essential aspect of grading: differentiation based on effort and achievement. He contends that grading should be an accurate reflection of a student’s performance, and “no zeroes” policies distort that reality, ultimately leading to a less rigorous educational experience.
The Case for “No Zeroes” — and the Response
Douglas Reeves, a notable advocate for educational reform, has responded to Buck’s criticism in Revisiting ‘The Case Against the Zero’ (June 23, 2022), offering an alternative perspective. Reeves suggests that the goal of education should be to support students in their learning journey, not penalize them for failure. He argues that “no zeroes” policies can be a useful tool for students who struggle, giving them a chance to improve and demonstrate their learning over time rather than permanently hindering their academic performance due to a single mistake or oversight.
Reeves acknowledges the need for accountability but maintains that the traditional grading system, with its focus on punitive measures for non-completion, can alienate students, especially those who face external challenges such as socio-economic hardship, lack of support at home, or mental health struggles.
In his reply to Reeves, Buck reiterates his concerns, cautioning against “reckless grading” that prioritizes fairness over rigor. Let’s Not Get Reckless with Grading: Replying to Douglas Reeves (June 23, 2022) is Buck’s defense of the idea that grading should be an accurate, honest reflection of a student’s work. He argues that an overemphasis on leniency can create a culture of mediocrity, where students are not held to high standards and are shielded from the natural consequences of their choices.
The Bigger Picture: Impact on Teachers and Schools
This debate over grading policies also connects to larger issues in education. One of the key points raised in the Education Gadfly Show podcast is how high-stakes testing and grading policies affect teacher turnover and the distribution of teachers across grades and schools. In a related study reviewed by Amber Northern on the Research Minute, Testing, Teacher Turnover, and the Distribution of Teachers Across Grades and Schools (April 2022), the researchers found that standardized testing can lead to increased teacher turnover, as teachers who feel pressure to focus on test preparation may leave for schools with less emphasis on testing.
Such studies underscore the complexity of educational policies and their effects on both students and teachers. While grading systems like “no zeroes” may aim to improve outcomes for struggling students, they also impact teacher satisfaction and the overall culture of learning in schools.
The debate over “no zeroes” grading policies highlights the ongoing tension between fairness, accountability, and the need for academic rigor. While “no zeroes” policies may provide some benefits in terms of supporting struggling students, critics like Daniel Buck argue that they ultimately fail to prepare students for the challenges they will face in life beyond school. On the other hand, proponents like Douglas Reeves advocate for policies that prioritize second chances and support.
As this debate continues, it’s important for educators, policymakers, and the public to carefully consider the long-term implications of these grading practices and how they align with the overall goals of education. The discussion is far from over, and it will be crucial to find a balanced approach that both encourages students to succeed and holds them accountable for their learning.