Contract Grading Schemes

This practice was first introduced in 1974 by Professor of Finance and Marketing Emeritus, Elmer G. Dickson, at the California State University, Chico.[2] . Initially, contract grading was a response to studies that suggest a high degree of subjectivity in most grading processes. These studies—conducted since the turn of the 20^th century—have primarily been concerned with the efficacy of implementing a percentage scale to judge students against “absolute standards” meant to reveal proficiency. Their findings demonstrate that an instructor’s criteria for mastery is deeply contextual and subjective, meaning that there is actually a widely variable set of standards that students are being judged against in both humanities and STEM classrooms.[3] Plainly, these studies lay bare the implicit (and explicit) biases that have tremendous control over how students are judged. Conversations around contract grading and other alternative grading schemes recognize that learning and retaining the tools to execute even the most basic fundamentals of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education are also contextual. In other words, grading systems designed to locate students on an even playing field with their peers often fall well short of their primary goals. Contract grading was thus established to fill this gap by accepting grading as a subjective enterprise and developing solutions that pursued a more student-centered approach.

Alternative assessment schemes such as contract grading introduce an intervention by, first, acknowledging the fallibility of traditional grading schemes, and then, by posing an alternative that gives greater weight to the labor of learning, student choice, and cooperation than to outcomes that students may (or may not) be able to produce. In 2019, Asao Inoue, Professor of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences and Director of University Writing at the University of Washington, Tacoma, posed contract grading as an intervention for assessing students based on the “quality” of their work, and, critically, infusing that assessment with compassion. Inoue argues that implementing labor-based grading contracts is a means to radically push back against traditional grading and its imbrications with dominant colonial discourse. In writing classrooms like the one’s Inoue facilitates, he discusses assessing writing quality like language and syntax as structurally racist. In his words, such a practice produces “political, cultural, linguistic, and economic dominance for White people.”[4] Simply, Inoue is attempting to implement a compassionate policy of fairness that considers each student individually and (literally) on their own terms.

Most importantly, scholars and fellow instructors like Inoue are advocating on behalf of student well-being and attempting to introduce a learning culture that broadens itself to make space for everyone. Instead of a model that unintentionally misses student needs, it gives a new way to consider mastery and to invite students into a radically different kind of learning practice. If a greater appreciation for diversity that seeks to implement equity and inclusion is the goal, why not start here?

At the core of contract grading is the desire to infuse a more cooperative teaching and learning atmosphere, especially between instructors and students. Most instructors will be familiar with students coming into their classroom spaces representing not just a wealth of cultural, racial, or gendered diversity, but also a wide array of educational backgrounds based on factors such as the socioeconomic location of families and guardians that the students represent, whether students have come from private or public institutions, as well as state and local funding to local school districts or to the private institutions that they attended. Beyond that, there is a great deal that is not easily uncovered about students, such as preferred learning styles or accessibility accommodations that might be necessary. Contract grading schemes can be tailored to the needs of individual learners, demonstrating the potential to address each student’s goals and take into account the skills that they already possess while addressing critical gaps in previous training or education. 

When students feel more at ease with their learning, there is a greater opportunity to set expectations for introducing skills that they may not have attempted before. When students worry about failure, they are less inclined to attempt skills that might lead to that result. And for many students coming into post-secondary education, the fear of failure has real stakes, particularly those who view education as a pathway to upward mobility.[7] Those students—specifically first-generation, or those from underserved racial and ethnic groups—are more at risk of being lost amidst the normative pathways of higher education. More to the point, traditional grading schemes tend to further achievement gaps,[8] thus reinforcing and even broadening equity gaps. Kevin Bell, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Digital Futures at Western Sydney University drives this point home, saying, “Fragile learners who lack confidence and whose self-doubt is exacerbated by failure will almost certainly not loop back round for another try. Given the obstacles these learners are facing, the costs they are incurring, and the life-load they are carrying, if they fail they generally do not (or cannot) come back.”[9] But if failure is off the table, the possibility that students might feel empowered and excited to try difficult things is much greater. For instructors, this can create a space to introduce material in the classroom beyond levels attempted before. Students have the potential under these circumstances to take risks that they might have been too anxious to attempt previously, including risks that build critical problem-solving skills.

On the other hand, most students are already familiar with how to behave in classrooms where traditional grading schemes are used. The chances that students coming into your classroom have recently completed their secondary education journeys and have become used to grading schemes like standards-referenced grading, or percentage scale grading. Introducing something different from this, if not explained clearly and often, has the potential to increase student anxiety. Even if an alternative scheme is well explained, there is a chance that students’ initial impressions of a very different approach to grading will make students uneasy until they have a chance to get used to it. Thus, an approach that uses contract grading is a commitment, and likely one that will need careful forethought, planning, alteration, and implementation. 

As an instructor, you also may want to limit the control your students have for some aspects of your course, such as attendance and participation. Beyond setting your expectations for your students’ behavior, introducing an environment where there is an abundance of choice can have unintentional effects on student anxiety and ability to engage in class. While contract grading could still fit the needs of nearly any classroom, deciding when and where to introduce measures of student freedom must be carefully planned based on the needs of the classroom.

You may assume that contract grading will not work for your discipline, and while you may be right, you may also be intrigued by the potential for flexibility that contract grading introduces. Perhaps you find yourself, as an instructor, thinking that while you may not be on board with all the arguments of contract grading, that you are still feeling a bit stale in your assessment approach particularly because you feel a lack of engagement from your students. Contract grading offers a workable solution for almost any kind of classroom that can be designed to fit needs dictated by the learning goals that your particular curriculum dictates. From the three examples listed above, there are many ways to implement contract grading into your syllabus and lesson planning through combining or re-working what you see.