The words we choose to describe something make a big difference: Whether it is a protest or a riot or an insurgence is a recent example, of course. Those shifts in diction shape how we interpret the information.

As I wrap up the quarter with my seniors, I am doing something I’ve done before, but this year I described it a little differently, and this has completely changed the way many of my students are approaching it.

The short of it: Instead of a cumulative final project or recall-the-facts exam, my students in senior English are compiling a portfolio of work samples of their choice. They then reflect on how each shows their growth on or progress toward any of the ten core outcomes of my class. They write (or narrate) reflections where they describe what the outcome means, what aspects of their work show growth or proficiency related to the outcome, and so on. They can also make whatever revisions they want to improve any of their work samples, even if it was originally turned in back in September. Nothing revolutionary: I’ve done some variation on this summative assessment every year.

The little change I made? I reframed the way I described how I’d be grading. I’m using the same scales/rubrics (more or less) as always. But I made a point to describe my grading plan as “merit-based, additive grading” rather than “demerit-based, subtractive grading.” Basically: I’m looking for what you’re doing right rather than what you’re doing wrong. The line that resonated with many students: I’m not taking any points away.

When I introduced this, one class period in particular engaged in some good zoom chat conversation about how this was a relief. Instead of worrying they’d lose points for small errors, they could focus on showing whatever they knew how to do well. A while later, in a writing conference, one student remarked about how he liked the “additive” grading because he didn’t have to worry about meeting some arbitrary word count, he could focus on saying what he needed to say (he happens to be, unlike me, a man of few words). Another expressed relief because she was always worried about her grammar, but knowing that I wasn’t going to “take points away” for mistakes made her worry less about that.

Yes, I know that this is the essential premise of “standards-based” grading. But even that paradigm has a degree of “demerit” or “subtractive” language to it. (And if we really want to get into it, much grading that tries to pass itself off as “standards-based” is actually just “standards-referenced,” and that even many places that use a “standards-based” grade reporting system simply use demerit conversions to arrive at a score derived from what is lacking, not what is present, in a student’s performance… but I digress.)

What matters more than all of this is what my students heard: I am giving you credit for what you know and can do, not taking away credit for what you don’t know or can’t show yet. Write me a sentence and I’ll give you credit for what you do say, not punish you for what you don’t.

That little shift in how I explained my approach seemed to make a difference. Even though I, in my teacher brain, was viewing my assessment approach as standards-based, additive, and merit-oriented, if my students didn’t feel that, they’d start building the portfolio presuming I was looking to ding them for errors. They had all the points, and my mission was to find reasons to take them away.

Nothing I’m reflecting on here is new. Better teachers than me have been doing this forever. My great learning in this moment: My words, the way I explained grading, changed the way many of my students approached the task. Nevertheless, I still operate in a grading system of percentages and points-deductions. I wish I could say that every assessment I design and implement can be viewed through that additive lens.

The question I’m pondering for my own practice: What will it mean to to truly shift my assessment practices to be additive, not subtractive? And how can I use this to help my students see that every time they do work for me, it is about what they can do, not what they can’t?