Lexington High School is unique in many ways, including its math grading system. As of now, there exists two similar scales: the five-point scale and the nine-point. While there are benefits to LHS’s math grading system, we believe it is flawed and requires further discussion. To resolve this issue, the math department should instate clearer standards for teachers and students alike.
LHS presumably uses the point-based grading system to assess students’ mastery of the math subject on a more holistic basis. Even with a wrong answer, students can earn a few points for having the right ideas. By using these scales, math teachers encourage comprehension over sheer accuracy.
However, the five-point and nine-point scales require improvement. Their subjectivity renders them inconsistent and unfair. Although students may have conflicting preferences over grading scales, one thing is clear: different teachers use the scales in different ways.
Sophie Monteiro, a sophomore who has used both grading scales, preferred the nine-point scale and mentioned that teachers may use the five-point scale inconsistently.
“Some teachers can give you 3.5s or 4.5s, but my teacher doesn’t really do that,” Monteiro said.
Sreehitha Bodepudi, a junior who has also used both grading scales, preferred the five-point scale. In her experience, the nine-point scale was too ambiguous.
“With the nine-point scale, there were so many options that, depending on your teacher, one mistake could bring you down to a 6 or a 7,” Bodepudi said.
Although these two students differ in their preferences, their criticism of the math grading system is similar. The grading system uses general phrases like “exemplary correct solution”, “correct solution”, and “major error in solution”, which allow each teacher to interpret a scale that should be standardized. This results in students receiving different grades for similar work.
LHS’s math grading system warrants clarification. Firstly, the math department should decide whether teachers should use decimals or whole numbers in order to minimize inconsistencies between teachers. Additionally, teachers should decide on exactly what they want to see for each question on an assessment–the correct answer, the most efficient method, units–and grade based on those standards. Teachers should then effectively communicate these standards with their students.
Other departments use this approach with success. For example, some science teachers have rubrics that list topics they want to see in free-response questions. If students addressed those points, they would earn full scores; if they missed an important topic, they would lose a point or two.
Overall, LHS’s grading system shows potential but is plagued by ambiguity. Why did someone from another class get a 4.5 while I got a 4? Does my mistake warrant a 7 or a 6? What do “exemplary”, “correct”, and “major” mean? If the math department could answer these questions, LHS’s inventive math scales could be easier for teachers, more understandable for students, and less subjective to the teacher.
