If schools tolerate missing assignments, shoddy work, unlimited retakes, cheating, and late submissions, that is precisely what they’ll get.
If schools tolerate missing assignments, shoddy work, unlimited retakes, cheating, and late submissions, that is precisely what they’ll get.
T he American education system continues to erase its commitment to accountability, academic standards, achievement norms, end-of-course exams, and other marks of rigor. Standardized tests are unfair, classics racist, and school accountability oppressive. And now student grades are being chipped away, too.
Throughout the past decade, bestselling books have advanced an ill-begotten theme called “equity grading,” arguing that it’s traumatizing to assign failing grades or unfair to accept only written math problems instead of diagrams, spoken word poems, or plays about it. As early as 2013, entire states such as Oregon experimented with these theories, nixing penalties for late assignments and grades for homework.
The pandemic then provided justification for an overhaul of grading practices, normalizing what had been expert musings and scattered experiments; schools across the land relaxed grading standards and graduation requirements. Should a student receive a permanent blemish on their record because they struggled to learn pre-calculus via Zoom?
Unfortunately, these temporary policies are proving permanent — gaining momentum even. Districts from Las Vegas to Portland, in states from Virginia to Connecticut have dropped grades for homework, removed penalties for late work or cheating, and further adjusted grading scales toward leniency. One popular policy requires teachers to give students at least half-credit even if they turn in no work.
When I was a teacher, I asked my classes what would happen if our school implemented such a policy. Their opinion was immediate and unanimous: The majority of students would complete less work, knowing they could scrape by with less effort. Apparently, some ideas are so obviously counterproductive, even to adolescents, that only education consultants and equity hawks would recommend them. One is reminded of Orwell’s 1945 remark, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
The folly of such policies is borne out by solid research. A policy brief from my Fordham Institute colleagues Adam Tyner and Meredith Coffey collects this research and explains the dangers of policies that lower academic standards and expectations. For example, they cite a 2020 study showing that students assigned to “teachers who graded more strictly” indeed went on to show “greater test score growth.” They also cite a study of college students where “students who expected a ‘C’ in their class studied about 50 percent more than students who expected an ‘A.’”
Consider what happened after North Carolina changed its grading scale in 2014, making it easier to achieve a higher letter grade. Tyner and Coffey describe a 2023 paper that examined the policy’s effects and found that low-performing students started skipping class more often.
Common sense says that external motivation via strict grading will encourage effort and raise achievement. Tyner and Coffey reaffirm what I’ve argued in these pages before: There is simply no evidence that making grading easier does anything but depress academics. What looks fair, generous, and humane in “the literature” crumbles when it hits the cinder-block walls of a real school.
One need not belong to the “intelligentsia” to make out how things work in practice: Remove the consequences for not turning in top-notch schoolwork on time, and kids will slack off. If one can submit only a few incomplete assignments late and still pass, why not skip homework club? Adolescents might be rebellious by nature, but they’re not idiots.
I’ve seen grades work in the classroom. A few years ago, a favorite student finished his end-of-unit essay on Romeo and Juliet in a few class periods before squandering class time watching videos while his peers worked. But his draft wasn’t good. I left extensive comments on it, provided him with a rubric, and reminded him how large this essay loomed in the report card. But he made no revisions and, upon receiving a failing grade, was crestfallen.
Later that year, however, he asked for feedback on the draft of another essay, skipped recess to meet with me individually, and produced a superior product, garnering a far better grade. More importantly, through the process, he learned much about how to structure formal writing, how to outline a thoughtful argument, and how to ask for help. He beamed with pride, even boasting to his classmates.
When I defied school policy and implemented a zero-tolerance rule for late work, completion rates improved. There was no crowd of students surrounding my desk at semester’s end to beg for make-up work. I set an exacting standard early on, and students rose to meet it. The class learned more overall as more students completed work in a timely manner. By year’s end, my class had the highest collective reading gains in the school.
In classrooms, you get what you tolerate and what you demand. If schools tolerate missing assignments, shoddy work, unlimited retakes, cheating, and late submissions, that is precisely what they’ll get. “No ordinary man” would be surprised.