One common objection to using the more contemporary 50-100 scale (i.e., 50 being the lowest score possible) is that students who in the past have had scores of zeros, 20s, and 40s in a 0-100 system now “get something for nothing.” This argument fails to account for the lack of understanding and knowledge that a 50 represents when it’s the lowest score. That is, the lowest grades—whatever they are—don’t reflect much learning under any system. Whether a student in one system has a grade of 40 because grades are averaged, or in another system has a 60 because they aren’t, the student isn’t walking away with much understanding and knowledge either way. One difference between these systems is being denied other learning experiences, either by having to retake a course, or having certain doors closed for their future. Let’s look into this…

Math & “The Work”
I once heard of a teacher rejecting the minimum 50 because they were concerned that a student could get a 90 their first quarter, then rock bottom minimum for the rest (i.e., have 50s for the remaining three quarters), end up with a course grade of 60, and thus pass the course. This is completely true. Of course, passing is not the same as learning. It’d be one thing if the difference between passing and learning were the main concern, but it’s not. The main concern I’ve heard is of the minimum 50 system somehow discouraging students from “doing work.” A teacher might very well switch to this system and notice fewer students completing work, sure. As I usually find, however, more equitable grading and assessment practices like the minimum 50 tend to expose existing problems that students have been dealing with for decades, such as complacency. To the casual observer, complacency might look like engagement, right? The teacher assigns a zero if students don’t turn in homework, so students turn in homework so they don’t get a zero. This is coercion. Students being held hostage by the threat of a low grade might look like they’re “doing work,” yet this is often merely the appearance of learning. Put it this way, if the only way students appear to learn is by forcing them into completing tasks, we’re not in a good place.

Back to that main concern, though, which is that in a minimum 50 system, students might do just enough of work to get a 90 one quarter, then bail on the rest. Yes, that’s a possibility. In a 0-100 system, though, guess what? It’s pretty much the same. Students might do slightly more of that work to avoid low grades in order to maintain the 60 average every quarter, but the value of that work is not any greater. The result is not much learning, either way. It’s just more hidden in that 0-100 system; the illusion of learning and engagement.

Harvard
I wrote about my experience with Harvard points for their Instructional Leadership Certificate, and I’ve got more timely evidence to share. They’ve updated course requirements to earn the certificate so one must get 300 community discussion points, and complete 5 of 7 weekly assignments. I maxed out the community discussion points after the second week with simple posts and replies that made sense (i.e., nothing fancy), and have been completing the one assignment weekly. So, I did what a typical student might do and figured out what my grade would be if I stopped doing assignments altogether! To be more accurate, though, I started doing math by changing grades (highlighted in yellow) to find out how few assignments I’d have to complete in order to get the minimum 80% for the course. Here’s a screenshot:

This means that I could literally walk away after next week, doing absolutely nothing, and earn credit for the course. Obviously, this coursework is not meaningless to me, so I won’t. If it were meaningless, however, I could do exactly what the main concern over the minimum 50 is, stop doing work entirely, take my course credit and run. In case it’s unclear, reality is that I’d miss out on two full modules (of the six). That’s not much to write home about. In fact, my content knowledge would be 66% of what’s possible, not too far from a minimum 60 in order to pass in most high school courses. The interesting part is that my Harvard course is being graded on the 0-100 scale. In other words, the main concern of the minimum 50 is still present in a 0-100 system. That is, students already often get “something for not much” in a 0-100 system.

In sum, any new grading system will not get students who learn very little magically learning a great deal more, but it’s certainly a start. The minimum 50 can expose hidden underlying issues that need to be addressed. Once they are, the likelihood of those students learning a great deal more increases quite a bit.