Why the 100-Point Grading Scale (and zeros) Might Be Failing Our Students
I must admit, there was a time when I wholeheartedly believed in assigning zeros to students. I was the worst, no lie. You didn’t do the work-zero. After all, if you don’t show up to work, you don’t get paid. This sounds solid in theory. It makes it sound fair. You don’t do the work, you don’t get a score. The problem is that education is about equity, not just equality. This may be the point in the post where you say, “Am I in enemy territory?”. Think about the last time you saw a student’s grade drop dramatically because of one missing assignment. Was that truly a reflection of their learning—or a reflection of the math behind the grade?
For decades, the 100-point grading scale has been the gold standard in schools. It’s neat, familiar, and feels precise. But when we really break it down, that same system can skew accuracy, amplify inequalities, and unintentionally discourage students—especially when it comes to “the zero”.
The Problem with Zeros
Let’s do some math (just for context, I’m not a math person AT ALL). On a 100-point scale, an F often spans 0-59 points. That means the “failure” zone is nearly three times as wide as all the passing ranges combined (someone check my math). If a student earns mostly 80s but misses one assignment and gets a zero, the overall average plummets. That’s not a penalty—it’s a cliff dive.
A zero isn’t just “no credit”. In traditional averaging, it’s a mathematical sledgehammer that can make recovery nearly impossible. For students who already struggle with motivation or resources, it sends a clear message: Why even try?
What the Research Says
Assessment experts like Thomas Guskey and Ken O’Connor argue that grades should reflect what students know and can do—not compliance, punishment, or the speed of submission. In fact, many schools are moving toward grading scales that reduce the weight of a single missing assignment, or replacing zeros with a minimum grade (like 50) to keep the math balanced.
So what are practical ways to rethink a traditional grading scale? Especially if your district is not here for the updates.
Consider a minimum score: After all, an F is an F, whether it’s a 0 or a 50.
Separate academic mastery from behavior: Missing work is a behavior issue that definitely needs to be addressed, but this doesn’t take away from what the student knows.
Allow for Reassessment: Give students opportunities to show growth without being permanently anchored by a poor score.
Changing grading practices isn’t about lowering expectations—it’s about making them fairer, more accurate, and more human. The 100-point scale and zeros might be “how we’ve always done it”, but that doesn’t mean they’re the best practices moving forward.
