Opinion & Perspective
Grading From the Wrong Perspective: The
Case for Descending Grading
Andrew Woollock
It was while watching the film Chelsea Walls that Kris Kristofferson
awoke me from my slumber and drew my attention to the way I had
been taught to grade and was now unwittingly bringing to bear on
my students. During an otherwise unremarkable film Kristofferson’s
moody character delivers (in respect of relationships) the following
enlightened line: “I give people one-hundred percent, and what theytake away is up to them!” What a fantastic idea, I thought, and an evenmore marvellous personal philosophy. What if, I pondered, I appliedthat same rationale to my teaching and specifically to the way I gradestudents?
In stark contrast to Kristofferson’s idea, both my schooling in the
UK and discussions with university colleagues here in Japan would
appear to support the view that when appraised in an educational
context, we don’t start with one-hundred, but rather we start with zero.
Further apply that rationale to grading and you have a system which
grades students in an ascending fashion i.e. that everyone starts at zeroand works their way upwards towards one-hundred percent. Resultant
at least in part from this accumulative methodology it would also
appear that many teachers come to feel that they are giving grades,
which students then accrue. I wonder how many readers have heard
teachers say: “I never/seldom give As”. But hold on. Let’s stop andrewind a moment: “GIVE As!” Give? Are we giving grades? Why is it
we feel we are giving anything? Are students not actually working forand earning grades? If, at the beginning of term teachers issue students59

Woollockwith a syllabus, on which one’s grading policy is clearly established,
and if a student meets those criteria (i.e. does not lose any points), thensurely, at the end of term they should end up with the sum of what they
started with and therefore arrive at a grade which reflects their efforts,
and not a grade that we are electing or giving per se.
In this brief article, I would like to highlight four reasons why the“descending” approach to grading should be adopted for university
students. I then conclude by offering a brief note of caution on a recent
educational directive concerning grade distribution.
With a descending approach to grading, students understandunequivocally the requirements for obtaining a predefined score
At Japanese high schools the guidelines and grading procedures arearguably more rigid and understandable. Incoming university students
have thus far been working within a framework where a perfect score
hyaku ten is both a realistic and attainable goal. Contrast that, if you
will, with the ambiguous grading that often prevails in many English
language classes (no negative inference intended), especially in oral
communication classes. Hence, it is no wonder that when Japanese
students first enter university, they are often confused or overwhelmedby the contrast in grading styles. By starting at one hundred percent,however, they know where they are and what to do to maintain that
position. It is much easier to start at the top and maintain that position,
than it is to climb up. On the other hand, starting at the bottom andclimbing up confuses learners, as they don’t know how far up they
have climbed. In the case where the teacher assigns a score less that
perfect, e.g. ninety percent, the student will categorically understandthat their performance was ten percent less than perfect and they canset about addressing that shortfall.

60

Woollock, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 59-64

A clear framework for improvement is established
Using the descending grading approach, the disparity between
one-hundred percent and the actual grade earned indicates one of
two things. Firstly, to lesser or more degrees, it indicates the distance
between what a student has been taught and what they should havebeen taught. If they have not been taught all that they have beensubsequently graded or evaluated on, there will naturally be an
information-gap and they will thus, be unable to attain a perfect score.
Secondly, assuming the above not to be the case, then the disparity
would simply highlight the distance that they are “off target”. That isto say, it merely illuminates the knowledge or information which thelearner is missing and needs to acquire. In this latter case it is importantthat the student learner understands this situation to be a positive idea
insofar as it now points the way towards further learning in which theyshould engage to hit the target. It should be clearly understood by thelearner, that this score does not imply how imperfect they are in thetraditional sense of the word, nor does it indicate that they “failed” perse. Rather, it indicates what they can do to improve. As a cautionary
note, it should also be reiterated at this conjuncture, that the above
rationale is based upon a working model of a student who is aiming
and striving to fulfill the grading criteria illustrated in the syllabus, andnot one who is tardy or frequently absent.
Students feel empowered and also encouraged to take responsibility
for their actions and the consequences of those actions
This next argument is that descending grading is more in line with
the quasi-Buddhist belief system of Japan, and is therefore a moreculturally appropriate approach and one which the Japanese learnershould find easier to grasp. That is to say a Judaeo-Christian or “Godcentric” approach to grading would have the student starting at the61

Woollockbottom with nothing and effectively appealing for consideration. One
could easily correlate this with the notion of a being born a sinnerand appealing to some supreme being who sits in “judgement”. In
stark contrast, the Buddhist (student-centric) approach with its notableabsence of an external deity sitting in judgement, precludes the learnerfrom the necessity of having to engage in any kind of appealing. In thisscenario, one would see the individual accepting their own ultimate
responsibility and not seeking an external body to which one may
appeal for mercy or understanding (or higher grades!).
This notion really acts to re-enforce the idea of individual
accountability and responsibility, which is an important step in thetransition from childhood to adulthood. A transition in which, for theaverage student, university should be playing a key part. If, therefore,
from the outset in April, a student fully understands what is required,
and they understand that they are beginning the new term with a one
hundred percent A grade, then that student knows that they (and onlythey) are ultimately responsible for the final grade they receive. That isto say, when you grade from the bottom up, if a student attains a poor
grade, they may well feel recourse to complain and you might wellhere these words “You failed me”. And technically you did, because inawarding insufficient points in an ascending format, the instructor doesin actuality fail the student. Of course, the student may not have met
the requirements, but the learner may well find it hard to see such logic.
By grading in the descending format a student clearly understands thatthey had it, and lost it; because they started with one hundred percent.
In that regard, one’s correct response to the above complaint would
simply be to point out the obvious, “No, you failed yourself” because
they are ultimately responsible for their own actions (and lack thereof).
This seems an altogether more reasonable working model than theconverse, and helps the student make the transition from childhood(primary and secondary schooling) to adulthood (university) and thenon into society.
62

Woollock, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 59-64

Not only is marking easier, but the final calculation of grades easier
too
Finally, because the grading works in “reverse” to the formula
typically adopted, rather than sum up the constituent parts of thegrade, all one has to do it to calculate how far from the target, or the“ideal” a student was and subtract any points accordingly. The teacher,having established a clear ideal and the route to meeting that ideal,
simply compares and weighs what they have against what they would
like and subtracts any points as appropriate. If a student has met thecriteria throughout the term, then their grade requires no calculation
whatsoever because the natural outcome of such performance would
be one hundred percent, and an “A”. So, at the term’s end when grading,
one would first simply draw out from the register (and the accumulatedgrades), those students who have attained that which was set out in thesyllabus as being required. From there one simply established a sliding
scale, eventually moving further and further away from the target.
I hope that the arguments presented here will encourage debate on
this subject and stimulate those who are not following the descending
approach to adopt its use with their future university classes. To conclude
this article, however, I would briefly like to comment on a coupleof other aspects relating to grading policy: how some universities areoffering grading guidelines to instructors pertaining to the number of
each grade (e.g. A,B,C) that should be assigned and how the highest
grades should be not be given to low proficiency students.
Usually associated with the overall hierarchy of class levels based
upon the prevailing rank of the classes across the board, a grading“quota” is often advised. This grade “fixing” is clearly an unacceptable
practice that can neither be substantiated or rationalised by any soundpedagogical principles and should be rejected as such. Unless theeducational establishment offers standardised syllabi, then they haveno idea what each particular instructor is looking for or grading on.
63

WoollockThus, it can be reasonably assumed that to ask for a specific numberof each grade to be assimilated is both unwise and impractical. Also,
as the quality of the students and the work they produce naturally
varies from class to class, this alone would render the standardisationof grades as an utter fallacy.
Lastly, to say that only students from higher proficiency classes are
eligible for perfect scores is a very sad state of affairs indeed, for it not
only indirectly states that students who are not in the upper band are
not worthy of being awarded a higher grade, but it effectively renders
such students efforts entirely worthless. By adopting this approach, anycollege is effectively telling students not to strive for the best score they
can reach, because if they are in a lower class they will never achievethat goal. They will never earn a grade which truly reflects their efforts,
only a grade which is predetermined before they start, and that seems
entirely unjust.
Andrew Woollock can be contacted at: andrewwoollock@yahoo.
co.jp

64