In my Ed Psych class, we've been talking a lot about fair grading and what should make up a final grade. We talked about how a student's final grade for a course should not be simply an average of all their grades, since that "muddies" their final mark. On a similar note, we should not be giving grades for things like participation, readiness, an organized binder, etc., since those things do not test how well the student knows the course material. I'm able to fully subscribe to everything up until the case against zero. I understand that putting in a 0 for an assignment that's not handed in is kind of unfair in our current system, since that 0 will get averaged in and thus the student's final grade won't be representative of their knowledge of the material. So what do you do? If you want your final grades to accurately represent knowledge, you can't give a student a 0 for a missing assignment. But in the same strand, you can't NOT give them a 0, since other students put time and effort into the assignment. Do you give them a grade of "failing minus 1" (i.e. 65 - 1 = 64)? What about the students that actually worked on it that failed? One article we read said that you should never assign a grade of less than the failing cutoff, i.e. if 65 is failing in your school, you should never give a student a 64 or lower on a completed assignment. Then we read an article that said we should stop grading assignments from 0 - 100, and instead from 0 - 4, with 0 being "did not meet expectations," 3 being "met expectations," and 4 being "exceeded expectations". Then the final grade will be based on their assignments, plus a final cumulative exam. What do you think of all this? I guess I'm just so used to the current system that it seems a little strange, but the articles make very good points.