In any assessment, there will be subjectivity. The most subjective subject to teach is arguably English because of the amount of essays and responses that need to be written. However, the grading system tries to prevent this as best as possible by putting instructors through pedagogy programs, one of which is grade norming and having teachers use rubrics for each assignment. This form of training seeks to establish a general standard by which all teachers should base their grades off of. Surely, the system is not perfect and recognizes potential errors, yet this standard seeks to ensure that every student is being graded in the same way by the same criteria.
Furthermore, these norming sessions are far from easy. These programs require potential teachers to go through tedious evaluative practices, that last 60-90 minutes, in order to test them to sufficiently identify the “benchmark” that qualifies for a students’ passing grade. Commonly, the process goes as follows: a lead faculty member of the program chooses 5-10 essays, the essays are then duplicated and distributed amongst the teachers, the teachers are to assign grades and give feedback, teachers are then required to justify why they gave their grade, then they discuss their scores (“The Campus Writing Program” n.p.). To see the whole process, visit the Associate Instructor Discipline Training on the University of Indiana site. It is evident that teachers are not handed their position and arbitrarily assign grades based off of variable factors, such as how they are feeling that day or how much they like the student. Training for grade norming is a typical process that every teacher must complete in order to be given the ability to assign grades to students.
While the process of grade norming is frequently employed, it is important to acknowledge the possible deviation from the training that may occur and its negative implications. Though teachers give rubrics that outline exactly what they are looking for in an assignment and expect the students to respond accordingly. However, there lies an inherent bias when teachers assign grades to students. Something to consider is the notion that teachers are more likely to be more forgiving to students in upper level classes by justifying their failure through excuses, such as: “I could tell she knew what she was doing” or “She was just having an off day.” On the other hand, teachers are more likely to harshly grade students who aren’t as advanced and justify their grades by making assumptions, such as: “He must have cheated” or “He received help on this homework assignment” (Allen 220). Cross and Frary elaborate on this as they discuss the factors which influence a student’s grades besides academic achievement. Besides the teachers perception of the student based on advancement and character, Cross and Frary also found that the amount of effort a teacher perceives a student puts into his or her work, the motivation they exhibit, and their attitude are influential factors in the grades they receive(4). These deviations from the fundamental use for the grading system not only give students an inaccurate form of self-evaluation, but they also do not put students on the same playing field assessment-wise. By dividing students up based on their advanced training in subjects, a viewpoint that will be discussed later, teachers are more inclined to form opinions about their students as a whole which discourages the efforts of creating an even playing field that grade norming and rubrics promote.
The Impact of Grades 