(Un)grading on the Syllabus

Describing your system to students

Okay, don’t panic, but it’s August. Time to put away that summer writing project you’ve barely begun and start dusting off your fall syllabi instead! That’s what I’m doing—that, and vacillating between angst and excitement.

I thought now might be a good time to start a conversation about how we frame ungrading on our syllabi. Often, students’ first exposure to a new grading system will be through the syllabus language that describes it. While that language isn’t, in my opinion, the most crucial part of introducing ungrading to a class, it is undeniably important in forming students’ first impressions.

Based on a quick Google survey, there seem to be a few different approaches to crafting ungrading syllabus language. One question I’m always asking myself is how many details to provide to students right off the bat. Some people prefer to share all the ins and outs of the grading system in the syllabus alongside other course policies. There’s a definite advantage in giving that information to students right away, so that they can decide whether or not the class is for them. 

My own preference is to keep it short and sweet on the syllabus, so that I don’t overwhelm students on the first day of class, and to share more extensive details later on. Here’s what I included on syllabus my last year, under the heading “Evaluating Your Work”:

In this class, you’ll read, think, write, and collaborate with each other, completing work that is difficult to quantify or reduce to a single number or letter grade. Instead of assigning letters or numbers to your work, I’ll provide substantive feedback on every major assignment you submit and will indicate whether I think the submission is developing, proficient, or excellent in achieving each of our learning goals. For these assignments, you will have the opportunity to revise and receive more feedback should you wish to do so.

We will meet once at midterm and once at the end of the course to discuss your progress. In our last individual meeting, you will assign yourself a final grade in consultation with me (and subject to my approval). At this meeting, you will use your Self-Assessments and other evidence from your work to make a case for what grade you think you should receive—taking into account the quantity of work you submitted, the quality of work submitted, and your growth as a writer. I will, in turn, provide my own assessment of your progress toward our learning goals. The meeting will offer a holistic assessment of your work this semester rather than an average of graded activities. 

We will talk more about the evaluation procedures for the course, and why I use them, at the beginning of the semester, but I invite you to contact me with questions or concerns about this system at any time.

Okay, so maybe it’s not that short. But it does leave a lot of open questions. What will the feedback and self-assessments look like? How are we measuring quantity, quality, and growth? What do I need to do to make sure I get an A in the course? 

I provide these details in a separate Course Progress Tracker document (currently under construction for the fall). Students have access to this document on the first day of class, but we don’t go over it in detail until the second or third day. I prefer to devote most of our time on the first day to community-building, rather than getting into the weeds of course policies. I find it works well to introduce students to the idea of the grading system on the first day, let it percolate for a bit, and then start to answer their questions on the second day. 

Another question I’ve asked myself is whether or not to name what I’m doing by using the terms “ungrading” or “collaborative grading.” In the past, I’ve chosen not to do this. I’m not sure “ungrading” is a particularly helpful term for students—at least, not if they’re unfamiliar with the basic idea. Now that I’ve decided to call my system “collaborative grading” when speaking with other teachers, I’m wondering if I should start using that term with students as well. While I haven’t missed the label in the past, it’s something I’ll consider for the future. 

On a deeper level, I’m asking myself how to frame the “why” behind what we’re doing in the syllabus statement. Presently, the rationale for my grading system is not very clearly explained. The statement begins with the idea that the work of the course is hard to quantify and not reducible to a letter grade. Which is true! But I think this idea is something I copied from colleagues’ syllabus statements for my first experiment with collaborative grading. I’m not sure if it’s reflective of the primary reasons I, personally, use collaborative grading. 

Jesse Stommel begins his syllabus statement, published in 2021, with a similar idea: “This course will focus on qualitative not quantitative assessment, something we’ll discuss during the class, both with reference to your own work and the works we’re studying.” Jesse goes on to note that he will be engaging with students’ work rather than simply evaluating it, which I think is an important distinction. He clarifies that this is intended to help students “focus on working in a more organic way, as opposed to working as you think you’re expected to,” another crucial point.

But I’m really drawn to the “why” in Jessica Zeller’s 2020 statement. She begins by stating, “In this course, you have complete autonomy over your grade” and goes on to explain that since grades are not true representations of learning, she plans to “hand the red pen” over to students. The best part, however, is the end of the statement:

My hope is that working without grades allows you some space to try new things, fail miserably, laugh at yourself, and try again, without pressure. We’ll do the work of the course for its own sake—for the sake of learning something new. I trust you. I trust your work ethic. I trust your integrity.

“Start by trusting students” is Jesse’s “four-word pedagogy,” and many of us have found that this orientation is essential to employing a new grading system successfully. I love how Jessica makes that trust explicit, and the way her unique goals and voice come through in this part of the statement. 

Like Jessica, I highly value student autonomy, and that’s something I’d like to incorporate into my statement. One of the major reasons I employ collaborative grading is that I want students to take ownership of their work—to write for themselves, not for me—and I’m pondering how I might best convey this on the syllabus. 

What do you say about grading on your syllabus? I’d love to hear more ideas. Please share in the comments!