Running head: A Review of the No-Zero Policy

A Review of the No-Zero Policy: Understanding the History, Contemporary Politics and Future for this Unwritten Policy

Chris England Ryan Ennis Scott Richmond Karli Smith University of British Columbia Okanagan

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

Summary of the History on the Issue The no-zero policy is a policy that does not allow teachers to give students a mark of zero for missing or late assignments. The rise of this policywhich is largely unwrittenis due to a variety of factors. The majority of the literature on this topic stems from a media outbreak in more recent years. One issue in particular sparked the majority of conversation and opened the doors for heated debate, acknowledging that many schools were trending towards the no-zero policy. But why are so many schools trending towards a policy that is so controversial? Certain research studies and observations in the late 1980s and early 1990s helped influence the policies of the current educational system. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many academics began to focus on student behaviour and performance as part of the never-ending strive to improve the educational system. Additionally, advances in psychology and how we understand human development caused academics to revaluate the importance of behavior. This shift in focusto behaviour and performance at a psychological levelcorrelated with the advancements in our understanding of the human brain. Around this time, certain studies, including work by Dauber, began to investigate the effects of holding students back a grade (a process referred to as retention). The idea was that [r]etention allows children to repeat the curriculum that they have failed to master in order to help them acquire the basic skills necessary for future success (Dauber, 1993, p. 328). However, research began to come forward that shed light on the damaging effects of retention. Ken Shroeder notes from major studies of the past four year that students who started out with lower-than-average math skills in first grade but were promoted each year anyway were doing better in math as fifth-graders than comparison groups held back a grade to let them catch up (Schroeder, 1990, p. 66). In Schroeders study group well over two thousand students were

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

observed and the overall consensus was that [r]etention slowed down students growth in learning. Not only did retained students never catch up, they actually fell farther and farther behind (Schroeder, 1990, p. 66). Retention came to be viewed as a damaging practice and used with caution. However, from this research come the foundations on which the no-zero policies today are built. Later, with a base of research denouncing retention, Dauber et al. examined which students were being held back from their peer group and why. They found that that it might be possible to develop a diagnostic instrument from information early enough in childrens school careers to identify potential problems before retention became necessary, and possibly even to avoid some retentions by providing needed services and supports (Dauber, 1993, p. 327). Educators began to discern which students would benefit from retention, and which students could be helped to avoid it. Indeed, research revealed that [r]etained children are disproportionately poor, African-American, male, and more often the children of high school dropouts (Dauber, 1993, p. 332). The study notes that [c]hildren are less likely to be retained if their parents believe them to be more able (Dauber, 1993, p. 341). The potential for a student to move forward stemmed from two bases. Firstly, in most cases, parents are able to refuse to have their child retained, and are able to have them moved into the next grade regardless of having received failing grades (a process referred to as promotion). Secondly, children are more likely to succeed if their parents are available simply as a tool for motivation. Daubers study on retention recognized that expectations and encouragement play a role in student performance: Parents who believe that their low-performing children have higher ability than their academic performance indicates may interact with their children at home differently from parents who agree with the schools appraisal, thereby possibly even helping them succeed (Dauber, 1993, p.

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

341). It is evident from Daubers evaluation in the link between student success and motivation that the formations toward a no-zero type policy were beginning: Assessments should identify children with academic difficulties, and also should be able to recognize academic success in children who overcome their early skill deficiencies (Dauber, 1993, p. 342). The assessment of academic achievement rather than behaviour is one of the foundations of no-zero policies; it recognizes the strides underachieving students make, while allowing them opportunities when behaviour gets in the way of academic success: zeros are typically assigned to punish students for not displaying appropriate effort or demonstrating adequate responsibility (Guskey, 2000, p. 26). The developments in understanding how assessment impacts students eventually gave rise to a no-zero type policy in many educational systems.

Summary of the Policy Research on the Issue British Columbia does not have a written policy toward grading a zero on missing or incomplete assignments, but it heavily influences the model that assigns a grade of I in lieu of zero. In British Columbia, the Ministry of Education outlines that a failing letter grade may only be given if an incomplete has been assigned first: F = (Failing) The student has not demonstrated, or is not demonstrating, the minimally acceptable performance in relation to the expected learning outcomes for the course or subject and grade. The letter grade F may only be assigned in an I (In Progress) letter grade has been previously assigned for that course or subject and grade. (BC Ministry of Education, p. 54). For whatever reason the studentis not demonstrating minimally acceptable performance in relation to the expected learning outcomes, and thus receives an in progress and is given the

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

opportunity to alter his or her behaviour in order to demonstrate comprehension of the given material. This can be interpreted as no-zero policy because Where an I (In Progress or Incomplete) is assigned, teachers must be prepared to identify what the problem is and specify a plan of action that is intended to help students achieve the leaning outcomes (BC Ministry of Education, p. 55). In other words, a zero cannot be assigned, and the teacher must come up with another way to help teach the student the content. Schools tackle this process in a variety of ways. Some schools that we had the opportunity to converse with through our research assign special teachers to track down students with outstanding incomplete marks and have them make up for them throughout the school year on a weekly basis. Other schools have a make-up day or make-up week near the end of the term where students with outstanding incomplete marks go to make up for them. Some schools leave it entirely up to the teacher to track these students and deliver alternative forms of assessment to them. While there are unwritten policies in place, it is important to distinguish between a nozero policy and a no-fail policy. The BC Ministry of Education does not have a no-fail policy in place, because if a student does not complete incomplete assignments, it may result in a fail. In order to see the full benefits of omitting a zero, we must recall that not giving zeros does not translate to the student getting pushed through or treating them in as unequal manner. Students who are given Is, as mentioned above, can still fail a course, should they not complete the necessary work. In addition to possible confusion between the No Fail policy and the unwritten no zero policy, a major tension with the assignment of a zero is whether it is reflecting achievement or behaviour. In 2009 the Alberta Student Assessment study found that as a way to optimize classroom assessment practices, these four principles should be implemented:

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

1.

Educators must know and understand the document Principles for Fair Student

Assessment Practices for Education in Canada 2. 3. 4. Assessment must not be used to reward or punish. Assessment of achievement is not aggregated with assessment of behaviour No-zero policies support student-learning outcomes (Alberta Assessment

Consortium, 2011, p. 1) A zero for missing or incomplete work reflects student behaviour; the teacher is assessing the students ability to complete and submit the assignment rather than assessing the students comprehension of the material. The Alberta Assessment Consortium states that zero cannot be used to properly assess achievement: Teachers must have a credible body of student work in order to make an informed professional judgment as to the students level of performance. If a student has not completed sufficient assignments to allow the teacher to make this informed judgment, then a code of Incomplete is an accurate way to communicate the students current level of performance. (The Use of Zero: Not the Real Issue) The Alberta Assessment Consortium goes on to explain that incomplete work reflects a students behaviour, and not achievement; grades communicate information on how the student is performing with respect to curricular outcomes, and this is central to the argument in support of no zero policies. They state that the resulting mark is inaccurate when it represents behaviour and not achievement (The Use of Zero: Not the Real Issue). The main aim of assessment is to obtain an accurate representation of student performance and interaction with curriculum, and this cannot be done if zeros are assigned for poor behaviour.

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

Summary of the Contemporary Politics of the Issue The contemporary politics on the no-zero policy are vast and impassioned. Most Canadians have attended public schools and have an opinion on the subject, resulting in strong proponents and opponents. Proponents of the no-zero policy believe that it is unfair and unrepresentative of student achievement to give a student a zero for untimely or incomplete work. Opponents of the no-zero policy believe that students should be held fully responsible for their own achievements and behaviours. Proponents: The proponents of the no-zero policy agree that assigning a mark of zero is not useful for learning. Ross notes that, assigning zeroes to students work seldom reflects what a student has learned or is able to do (Ross, 2012). In other words, assigning a zero more commonly reflects behaviour rather than performance. Additionally, those who oppose giving zeros to students do not believe a zero will help motivate student learning. A big question that circulates around this issue is: What to do when students fail to complete and assignment? Reeves suggests that The most common answer is to punish these students, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, there is an almost fanatical belief that punishment through grades will motivate students (Reeves, 2004, p. 325). There is a lot of heated debate revolving around the topic of zeros as punishment. Contrast these effective practices with three commonly used grading policies that are so ineffective they can be labeled as toxic. First is the use of zeroes for missing work. Despite evidence that grading as punishment does not work (Guskey, 2000) and the mathematical flaw in the use of the zero on a 100-point scale (Reeves, 2004), many teachers routinely maintain this policy in the mistaken belief that it will lead to improved student performance. Defenders of the

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

zero claim that students need to have consequences for flouting the teacher's authority and failing to turn in work on time. They're right, but the appropriate consequence is not a zero; it's completing the workbefore, during, or after school, during study periods, at quiet tables at lunch, or in other settings. (Reeves, par. 5) Furthermore, a zero has an unfairly negative impact on a students overall grade for the semester. Giving a student a zero for work that was missed not only negatively impacts the mark for the course, but can furthermore impact the students future: Just two or three zeros are sufficient to cause failure for an entire semester, and just a few course failures can lead a student to drop out of high school, incurring a lifetime of personal and social consequences (Reeves, 2004, p. 324). Therefore proponents of the no-zero policy do not view zeros as a useful motivational tool. Additionally, proponents of the no-zero policy disagree that zeros are given in order to help improve student performance. The aim of education is to improve learning and performance. Reeves notes, the most effective grading practices provide accurate, specific, timely feedback designed to improve student performance (Marzano 2000, 2007; O'Connor, 2007). In the best classrooms, grades are only one of many types of feedback provided to students (Reeves, 2008). One of the administrators that we interviewed stated: What a student can demonstrate regarding the skills, attitudes, and competencies as they relate to the learning outcomes should be reported as their grade. Whether they are belligerent, hand in assignments late, cause disruptions, etc., etc. should be considered when we make our decisions of G, S, or N (good, satisfactory or needs improvement). We don't do enough to recognize the importance of these designations.

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

A zero is a type of feedback that is punitive, and does not suggest any steps to improve. A zero implies that the student has no comprehension whatsoever of the subject, which is generally a false representation of the truth. The aim of the educator is to provide feedback that will foster learning and improvement: neither of which is accomplished with a zero. Finally, there is a disconnection between the way that adults and students view zeros. On teachthough.com, the differing stances taken between adults and students is explained: Our first mistake is believing that students see zeroes the way we do, but students do not see them the way we do. As teachers we know that zeroes are bad for several reasons: 1. Zeroes mean nothing to most students and are not a motivator for

improvement. 2. 3. 4. They do not reflect the students ability or lack of ability. They can make a students grade tank quickly. A zero does not teach a life skill. (Teach Thought, 2013)

Zeros are non-motivational. Many adults believe that students will learn responsibility through the assignment of zeros, but proponents of the no-zero policy disagree due to the aforementioned reasons. Opponents: Opponents of the no-zero policy believe that assignment of zeros for late or incomplete work is a sound learning practice. Smusiak suggests: Failure is a learning opportunity. It teaches kids about responsibility, accountability, consequences, learning from your mistakesthe intangible, transferrable skills that help us succeed in adulthood. And most importantly, it helps kids develop resiliency (Smusiak, 2012). For many reasons, opponents to a no-zero policy believe that a zero is a helpful learning tool.

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

10

Furthermore, opponents believe no-zero policies should be avoided simply because they are controversial. Zwaagstra notes, There are many reasons school administrators should avoid no-zero policies. Oneis that the no-zero policies inevitably bring controversy with them, something acknowledged by even their strongest proponents (Zwaagstra, p. 14). While it is agreeable that these policies do have a level of controversy, this argument presented is fallacious. This statement would be the equivalent of saying that the abolitionist movement on slavery should have been avoided in the United States because it was controversial. The presence of controversy is not a sound reason to avoid discussion or implementation of a policy. In fact, controversy is usually an indicator of something that is very important. Another argument put forth by opponents of the no-zero policy states that the policy interferes with the professional opinion of the teacher. Zwaagstra writes, No-zero policies also unreasonably interfere with the professional discretion of teachers to determine grades (Zwaagstra, p.14). In other words, teachers are unable to use their own discretion to determine how students are assessed. While this is very true, it poses another interesting question: To what extent should the teacher be free to decide the future of their students? Teachers are people, and people are not infallible; at the same time, teachers are professionals, and who is better trained to know what students need to better their education? While this topic it too broad for our paper, it is an interesting topic as professional discretion is something that is currently being revised and reduced in many educational systems. Opponents of the no-zero policy disagree with it because they had a system that did give zeros. Smusiak writes, When I was in high school (1997-2002), if you didnt do the work, you got a zero. Some of my high school teachers gave a zero as soon as the due date passedthere was no room for late assignments, unless you made arrangements prior to the due date

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

11

(Smusiak, 2012). While this is not a strong argument, it is prevalent in the media coverage of nozero policies. The majority of Canadian citizens have attended public school, so many people are inclined to compare their experience to the experiences of youth today. But, as many authors have noted (e.g. Ian Jukes, Frank S. Kelly, Ted McCain), youth today are not the same as they were when we went to school; therefore, the way we connect with and teach students today does not need to be the same as it was when we went to school. While comparisons to past systems are often made, the reality is students today do not learn the same, nor are they motivated in the same ways. Additionally, many arguments against the no-zero policy focus on fairnessor unfairnessbut this tends to oversimplify what a no-zero policy requires of students. Smusiak suggest that while a parent would not wish for their child to receive a zero on an assignment that he or she fails to complete, they likely would not wish for their child to simple pass, but thats exactly what happens if your child attends a school with a no-zero policy (Smusiak, 2012). Smusiak (as well as many others) assume that the no-zero policy automatically lets students pass an assignment if it is not submitted. However, as noted above, this simply is not the case. While this argument appeals to ones sense of justice, it fails to consider the full context of the policy and thus misses the more appropriately just nature of a no-zero policy. On the other hand, opponents of the no-zero policy offer strong arguments against the policy in regards to lessons learned within the school system that are outside of official prescribed learning outcomes i.e. life lessons that prepare students to enter society outside of a school environment: Zwaagstra argues, Finally, no-zero policies fail to prepare students for their working lives after school. Employers do not pay employees to do nothing, and universities do not give credit to students who choose not to hand in their assignments (Zwaagstra, p. 14).

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

12

The ability to meet deadlines is an important skill for all people. Life has deadlines: bills, work, activities, appointments, etc. However, this argument seems to assume that zeros are the only effective way to teach students how to meet deadlines. The consequences of failing to meet the deadline are quite severe, but there are other waysless punitive waysto teach students how to meet deadlines. One educator we interviewed explained this well for us: Interestingly enough, a couple of years ago I taught an English 11 class and had due dates, and those that handed it in on time would receive their papers back within 48 hours - with all of my written feedback (though no grade attached), they would then be able to hand in their "better copy" (with their first draft) and I could see the improvements that they made - or identify what they apparently couldn't revise well enough. Those that handed an assignment in late, would still get a grade (no penalty), but due to timing, would receive none of the additional feedback (unless they came in to see me during their own time). What I discovered was that kids loved feedback and the chance to do better so, it was a very rare occasion that I received any late assignments. In our current model which means that I only see kids (formally) twice per week, our first assignment came in 100% on time. This is one example of a way to teach students responsibility without the strongly punitive measures a zero gives.

Policy Analysis of What We Should Do Next on this Issue Collectively we agree that the majority of the arguments against the no-zero policy are due to misinterpreting or misunderstanding what the policy actually entails. The no-zero policy does not make school easier for students or make them any less accountable for their education;

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

13

it does not give them the chance to give up and take a zero. Guskey explains that students are not, let off the hook with a zero. Instead, students learn that they have certain responsibilities in school and that their actions have specific consequences. Not completing assigned work on time means that students must attend special after-school sessions to complete the work (Guskey, 2000, p. 27). The student will have to complete the assignment regardless when the assignment it handed in, which demands more effort both on the part of the student and the teacher. A common misunderstanding is that students are getting credit for doing no work, when in fact, a mark of incomplete is a more accurate representation of the students achievement: it is unlikely that the student knows nothing of the subject. A no-zero policy makes the teachers more accountable for their students learning, but this does not mean the students becomes any less responsible. Many opponents of the no-zero policy argue that students should be the ones accountable for their own education. One teacher writes about her realization of this shared responsibility: During my first year of teaching, I had a 7th grade student who refused to do any work. I kept telling him, If you dont do the work, youll fail and have to repeat the 7th grade. I believed in teaching personal responsibility. But when I saw him the next year sitting in 7th grade, I realized that his learning was my responsibility, too, and I had failed. (Batts, 2012, p. 92) Our group agrees that the role of the teacher is to be a mentor and someone that passes along positive learning skillsa role that requires responsibility for both teacher and student. We align with Guskeys standpoint in that students should still be able to learn responsibility and be held accountable for their work. The fact is there are many alternative way in which to teach students these skills without using zeros. Guskey explains further:

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

14

Nevertheless, no evidence demonstrates that assigning zeros helps teach students these lessons. Unless educators are willing to admit that grades are used to show evidence of students lack of effort and responsibility, then alternatives to the practice of assigning zeros must be found (Guskey, 2000, p. 27). For the most part, our group all agreed that marks should be reflective of achievements (if marks are to be assigned at all). We agreed that behaviour should not be graded, but instead, they should be fostered to instill and develop learning skills: a responsibility for both teacher and students. In conclusion, our group strongly believes that assessment practices should only be done in the best interests of the students learning, which does not include the use of zeros for missing or incomplete assignments. For the most part we believe that the design the BC Ministry of Education presents with the use of I before F is fair. We believe that the failure to complete assignments is not an achievement problem, but a behavioural one and that a no-zero policy is beneficial for learning. We believe that both teachers and students must be aware of the reason for assessment: assessment is the process of gathering evidence of what a student knows, understands, and is able to do. It can also help to identify students' learning needs (BC Ministry of Education). In this sense, assessment is not the measure of a students behaviour, but rather, the measure of a students comprehension of a given set of content. In the case where a student fails to hand in an assignment or the assignment is not of his or her own work (i.e. plagiarized or copied material) the student should receive an I until the assignment is completed. We all agree that students should have access to diverse assessment strategies, because everyone is different and can show what they know in different ways. In fact, the Principles of Fair Student Assessment and Practices for Education in Canada requires teachers to provide more than one

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

15

assessment methodto ensure comprehensive and consistent indications of student performance (Principles of Fair Student Assessment and Practices for Education in Canada). Finally, if a student ends the term with an I, he or she should be required to provide the necessary resources for a teacher to make a professional assessment of the students learning relative to the prescribed learning outcomes for the course. If a student fails to comply, or exhibits a level of learning that does not meet the prescribed learning outcomes, he or she should be required to repeat the course material. Repetition of a course material should not be meant as a punishment, nor should it influence the students educational progression with his or her peer group. Rather, repetition of a course should be required in a time that is outside of the regular school schedule (i.e. weekends, lunch time, after class, summer school or distance learning). Although the unwritten no zero policy brings about controversy, it is ultimately used as assessment for learning and is beneficial to students and teachers alike.

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

16

References Alberta Assessment Consortium. Support for No-Zero: The Alberta Context. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.aac.ab.ca/resources/pdf/No-Zero_Policy_Alberta_Context.pdf Alberta Assessment Consortium, (n.d.). The Use of Zero: Not the Real Issue. Retrieved from: http://www.aac.ab.ca/resources/pdf/The_Use_of_Zero.pdf Alberta Assessment Consortium, (n.d.). No-zero Policy Alberta Concept. Retrieved from: http://www.aac.ab.ca/resources/pdf/No-Zero_Policy_Alberta_Context.pdf Batts, Lori. Whose Responsibility? Educational Leadership. Volume 70, Issue 2. . pp. 92. Oct 2012 BC Ministry of Education. Provincial Letter Grades Order. http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/legislation/schoollaw/e/m192-94.pdf BC Ministry of Education, (n.d.). Classroom Assessment and Student Reporting. Retrieved from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/classroom_assessment/ BC Ministry of Education, (n.d.). Principles for Fair Student Assessment and Practices for Education in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/classroom_assessment/fairstudent.pdf Dauber, S. L. et Al. Characteristics of Retainees and Early Precursors of Retention in Grade Who is Held Back. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Journal of Developmental Psychology. Volume 39, Issue 3, pp. 326-343. 1993. Guskey, T.R. (2000). Grading policies that work against standards and how to fix them. NASSP Bulletin, 84(620), 20-29.

A Review of the No-Zero Policy

17

Teach Thought.com. No Zero Policy: Students Dont See Zeros The Way Adults Do. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/teaching/no-zero-policy-students-dont-seezeroes-the-same-way-adults-do/ Reeves, D.B. (2004). The case against zero. Phil Delta Kappan, 86(4), 324-325. Reeves, Douglas B., (2008). Leading to Change / Effective Grading Practices. Teaching Students to Think, 65.5, 85-87. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/feb08/vol65/num05/Effective-Grading-Practices.aspx Ross, W. (2012). The problem with zeros. Retrieved from http://blogs.ubc.ca/ross/tag/no-zerograding-policies/ Schroeder, Ken. In BriefDegrading Grade Retention. The Education Digest. Volume 60, Issue 9, pp. 66. 1990 Smusiak, C. (2012). Why schools need to scrap the no-zero policy. Retrieved from http://www.canadianfamily.ca/parents/why-schools-need-to-scrap-the-no-zero-policy/ Zwaagstra, Michael, (2012). Zero Support for No-zero Polices. FCPP Policy Series, 140, 1-17. http://www.fcpp.org/files/5/PS140_ZeroSupportID_AG20F1.pdf