In November, I was able to attend the district’s grading workshop, where I became informed of the district’s new grading practices. Months later, these practices still leave me extremely puzzled.

Three main arguments were proposed. The first that homework should not be graded, the second that there should be no zeros assigned for late work, and the third was the new second chance learning policy.

Of the new practices, the ungraded homework strategy is the only one I can stand behind. While I understand that grading homework incentivizes student completion, requiring student homework is unfair to some students. Oftentimes, homework can be repetitive. Other times, responsible students know where time must be spent, and homework can serve as a distraction from a task that should take greater priority.

However, the other grading practices leave me confused. Allowing late work without punishment is incredibly unjust to the students who complete work on time. When a prospective employee shows up late to the interview, they likely do not get the job. When a teacher fails to complete their SGOs on time, there are ramifications. Yet, students’ irresponsible behaviors are met with no consequence.

Students need to be taught that work should be done on time. Yes, extenuating circumstances should be taken into account, and teachers should adjust due dates accordingly. However, in my 12 years of experience in this district, I’ve never had a teacher ignore circumstances such as family emergencies or illness.

When a teacher announces that an assignment is due on a given Friday, is it fair for a student to submit it the following Monday? If I was the student who submitted my work on time, I’d feel very angry if a peer gets undeserved extra time without any consequence.

While the no zero policy is troublesome, the practice that angered me most was the new idea of second chance learning. This allows for a student who failed an assessment to retake an alternate form of assessment for up to full credit.

Upon first hearing the explanation, I was furious. The practice is extremely flawed. How is it fair that a student who fails a test can retake it and get a higher grade than a student who succeeded the first time?

I admire the district’s initiative for students to achieve mastery. It is commendable. However, there are other ways to do this than inflating the grades of students who fail initially. If the cutoff of retake eligibility is a 65%, then a student retaking should not be allowed to achieve higher than a 65%. This would eliminate the unfair fact that students who succeed on the first attempt could end up with a lower grade than a student who failed.

Another possibility would be allowing retakes for all students, but only allowing half the points to be earned back. For example, a student who earned a 70 initially can earn back to an 85, a student who earned a 90 initially can earn back to a 95, etc. This still provides a second chance for students to demonstrate mastery, while rewarding those students who learn the material for the first examination.

Hopefully, the district makes necessary changes to its newfound grading practices. The current practice slights students that do well the first time, and rewards those who may slack. Change is imperative, and opponents to the practice can only hope that those in charge listen.