Imagine a student who aces every test, submits flawless assignments, and clearly masters the material, yet receives a lower grade because they are shy or miss class for a valid reason. Now, imagine another student who attends every class and speaks up often but struggles with the content. Should these two students receive the same grade? Participation and attendance should not weigh as much as academic performance. Instead, grades should reflect your level of understanding of a subject. Including participation and attendance unfairly penalizes shy students, wrongly assumes that simply showing up reflects understanding, and introduces subjectivity into what should be an objective evaluation.
A grade’s primary purpose is to measure a student’s understanding of a subject. When participation and attendance factor into grades, teachers end up grading behavior instead of knowledge. Research shows that grades are most effective when they measure academic ability. For example, a National Bureau of Economic Research study found that test performance is the strongest indicator of learning, while attendance has little impact on long-term success.
Katherine O’Donaghue, a 9th-grade geometry teacher at Mamaroneck High School, believes otherwise, feeling that “attendance should be a major factor in your grade. If you aren’t showing up to my class, interacting with others, and getting the correct material, then I’m concerned about how you’ll perform.” While access to material is crucial, interacting with others can be difficult for shy or anxious students.
Grading participation and attendance is based on the flawed idea that being present guarantees learning. However, a student can be physically in class while still being distracted or disengaged. Presence doesn’t necessarily mean you understand a topic. By tying grades to attendance, we falsely equate being there with learning, undermining the accuracy of grades as a measure of mastery.
Participation grading also introduces subjectivity. One teacher might reward frequent speaking, while another values written contributions or quiet engagement. Biases, even unconscious ones, can affect these judgments, leading to inconsistent and unfair grading. Without clear, objective standards, participation grades become unreliable.
Chase Ridder (’28), a student who admits to rare participation but identifies himself as hardworking, shares that “I like my classes and usually get As on tests, but I don’t participate much because I like keeping to myself in class. It’s frustrating because even though I’ve mastered the subjects, I don’t always get the grade I deserve.” His experience shows how grading participation can penalize students who excel academically but aren’t outspoken.
Grades should reflect what students know, not how often they speak in or attend class. Participation and attendance can be encouraged through incentives like extra credit, class engagement activities, or positive feedback, rather than making them a significant part of a final grade. This approach motivates involvement without penalizing students who may learn and communicate differently. Keeping grades focused on mastery ensures a fairer, more accurate system that aligns with education’s true purpose: learning.
