Faulting the Case Against the Zero

¶ … against the Zero' was published by Douglas Reeves in 2004, claiming that the inclusion of the zero on a 100-point scale was not only discouraging to students, but also mathematically inaccurate. Reeves found issue with the use of the zero to correspond to grade F. In the 100-point scale. He posited that the interval between the letter and numerical grades ought to be constant for a grading scale to be mathematically accurate.

To this end, the four-point scale is rational and accurate since the one-point numerical increment between the numbers 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0, is proportionate to the increment between each letter grade on the corresponding A, B, C, D, and F. grade basis. On the other hand, the 100-point is scale is inaccurate given that the numerical interval is ten points between grades A, B, C, and D, with break points at 90, 80, 70, and 60, but is sixty points between grades D. And F, if grade F. is taken as to correspond to 0.

Reeves, therefore, holds that either the four-point scale be used in the assessment of academic performance, or students who fail to hand in their assignments be awarded 50% (grade D's 60 points minus. I totally disagree with Reeves' argument because it is misleading, and is more of an inflated hoopla. Taking the example of a class covering ten crucial ideas; how many ideas would a student have to cover so as to receive class credit? Logically, a student who receives credit ought to have mastered not less than six of these.

However, if Reeves' logic is brought into play, it would call for the award of a passing grade to any student who has mastered at least two of the ten crucial ideas. Reeves' solution is in this case nothing but a guise for artificial grade inflation. Whereas there is need to encourage students to perform well and keep them from dropping out of school, attempting to boost their self-esteem by simply pushing them forward is not a sustainable solution.

All it does is slow down their intellectual growth and damage their self-esteem in the long-run. Assuming, for argument's sake, that Reeves' argument is adopted; a hypothetical scenario could be taken where a student who does not attempt and, hence, does not hand in an assignment, is awarded 50%; and another who puts in a lot effort, completes the assignment but, just because they had missed a crucial concept, misses a majority of the test questions, and is given a 60% score (grade D).

It is undisputable that the indolent student benefits from this plan, while the struggling, yet devoted learner gets discouraged and ends up with a damaged self-esteem and a diminishing desire to succeed. In the end, the plan only discourages the hard-working students and gives the indolent ones false hopes of success, and short-lived self-esteem. I may not have extensive teaching experience, but I could.