Is “60 Ways to Fail” Grading Justice or Grading Fraud? The Dangerous Myth of ‘Fairness’ in Education
I am an author, but I am also an educator, so while I do try to keep the two separate, I do feel like it’s important to balance that with the idea that I want to encourage my students to use their voice, which means I have to use my own to speak out when I can, and when I should. Administrative personnel in my district, and as I understand many others, are switching up on the traditional grading system. Teachers grade on a four point scale as opposed to the traditional 100 point scale, with the argument that a 100 point scale in which a student must achieve a 60 or greater score is "60 ways to fail."
I’ve taught Art, English, Philosophy, Science, Computer Science, Multimedia, Robotics and STEM, as well as have had some fair amount of philosophical exposure and experience through my prior career as a military servicemember and my degree in theology. Through experience with the hundreds of children I’ve taught, as well as the diverse thinking I’ve been credited with being able to bring to the table, I’ve created a breakdown of why this logical travesty is wrong, and every level it’s wrong on.
Essentially, the fallacy in the argument that a "100-point scale is 60 ways to fail" is a false dilemma (or false dichotomy) and a misrepresentation of numerical distribution. It assumes that every point on the 100-point scale represents failure except for passing scores, which is a misunderstanding of how grading scales work, and why we assess students in the first place.
Why a 100-Point Scale is More Accurate and Equitable:
Greater Precision in Measurement
A 100-point scale allows for finer distinctions in student performance. A four-point scale (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) forces large groups of students into the same category despite meaningful differences in their work. For example: A student that would have traditionally scored 76% and another scoring 89% both show a difference in mastery, but on a four-point scale, they might receive the same score. Thus, a smaller point scale doesn’t actually prevent grade inflation or point chasing, but rather the opposite. Now, it’s all that can happen. Meaningful distinctions are irrelevant; what would have been a 76% is now a 100%. Students that would not care to achieve beyond that are rewarded, and students that would have wanted to stretch for absolute mastery are disincentivized to do so. It doesn’t make feedback more meaningful, but less. It doesn’t fix anything.
The typical passing threshold is 60/100 or 70/100, depending on the school. That means there are not "100 ways to fail"—rather, there are 30-40 failing points and 60-70 passing points, making the claim factually and normatively incorrect. A four-point scale might define only one category as "failure," but it greatly oversimplifies the spectrum of student learning.
Loss of Differentiation Creates Injustice
Much in the way of the previous problem, Standards-Based Grading compresses all students into fewer categories, often leading to arbitrary grading decisions. For instance, if a student who understands 95% of the material gets the same score as someone who understands 80%, it penalizes high achievers and artificially boosts low performers. In contrast, a 100-point scale allows for nuanced evaluation, distinguishing small but meaningful differences in understanding.
A four-point scale forces teachers into forced equalization, where students who deserve a low B (e.g., 82%) are indistinguishable from those who barely pass (e.g., 70%). If teachers attempt to "map" a 100-point scale onto a 4-point scale, it arbitrarily bunches scores, forcing both grade inflation and unfair penalization, not preventing it. The notion that a four point system avoids grade inflation or bunching, once again simply ignores the problem of oversimplification. What it actually does it prevent anything else except those problems.
It can only reflect Logical inconsistency with other assessments.
Most standardized tests (SAT, ACT, AP exams, state tests) use scaled scoring based on a continuous range of performance, not an arbitrary obtusely-tiered system. If real-world evaluations (college admissions, professional assessments) use more detailed scoring, a four-point system fails to prepare students for these standards.
A 100-point scale is not 60 ways to fail. It is 100 chances to succeed.
The traditional grading scale is a more precise, fair, and mathematically sound way to measure student performance. The false dilemma of "fail or pass" ignores the spectrum of learning, and the loss of precision in a four-point system actually increases inequities rather than reducing them.
The push for a four-point scale is pedagogically lazy, seeking to obscure differences rather than accurately identify them.
Moreover, the district has allowed parents to advocate for a system of grading that gives students who have all threes an A, the same grade as a student who achieves all fours. This grading system is not just mathematically flawed—it is a complete rejection of logic, fairness, and intellectual integrity. But doing so was only the next step in a system that forces educators to accepts obscuring data as normal.
Let’s break it down from multiple angles: philosophical, mathematical, and practical.
1. Philosophical Fallacies: The Death of Meritocracy
This system violates the fundamental principle of justice—that individuals should be rewarded in proportion to their effort and achievement.
If a student who consistently achieves at the highest level (fours) receives the exact same grade as a student who only meets the basic standard (threes), then excellence is meaningless.
This is a textbook example of egalitarian leveling, where genuine achievement is punished by making it indistinguishable from mediocrity.
In philosophy, this is known as "the leveling down objection"—where fairness is wrongly equated with making everyone the same, even if it means lowering the top to accommodate the bottom.
This also de-incentivizes intellectual courage and perseverance. Why should a student push themselves for deeper understanding if they cannot fail, and if merely doing the bare minimum yields the same result? It destroys intrinsic motivation and fosters a culture of minimal effort.
2. Mathematical & Logical Decimation: The Absurdity of Grade Compression
Grading systems exist to differentiate levels of understanding and performance. This system obliterates that purpose.
Compression of Scale = Destruction of Meaning
Traditional grading has multiple levels of performance (A, B, C, etc.), which ensures differentiation. A system that collapses two distinct performance levels (threes and fours) into the same grade (A) destroys the granularity needed to fairly assess student learning. This is functionally the same as saying: A sprinter who finishes first and one who finishes fourth both deserve the gold medal because they were “close enough.”
This equivalence fallacy makes assessment useless.
Basic Math: Why This System is Nonsensical
Let’s say a student earns all 3s across assignments. This means they are consistently meeting but not exceeding expectations. Another student earns all 4s, demonstrating higher-level mastery.
If both receive an A, what exactly does that A signify?
If an A means “exceptional mastery,” then the student with 3s did not earn it.
If an A means “basic proficiency,” then it renders excellence invisible.
Mathematically, this system forces an artificial ceiling on high achievers while boosting lower performers beyond their actual competency. Maybe we should just stand up for our own expertise? Let’s let parents worry about parenting, and not all of us kid ourselves with this foolish notion that parents know how to conduct the art and science of education better than we do. Clearly, and as much as they object, they don’t.
3. Practical Consequences: The Real-World Nightmare
This policy doesn’t just harm high-achieving students—it deceives everyone involved.
Colleges and Employers Will Not Be Fooled
If every student has an A, then the grade is meaningless as a distinguishing factor. Colleges will demand external verification (SAT, ACT, essays, etc.), rendering school grades untrustworthy. Employers seeking competent individuals will devalue the credentials of students from this district.
Destruction of Accountability & Work Ethic
When students realize that effort and mastery don’t matter, they stop striving. Whereas, failure and consequences teach children that their actions matter. This is the "Participation Trophy Effect"—when people are rewarded regardless of effort, the drive for improvement disappears. Over time, this policy breeds entitlement and resentment: Entitlement from students who expect rewards regardless of effort, and Resentment from students who worked harder but were devalued. They never learn to value failure, and so they never learn to persevere.
Cascading Academic Decline
Incompetence spreads when students are falsely told they are excelling. The next level of education (high school, college) will expose the reality, and students will be blindsided by their actual deficiencies. This policy ultimately sets students up for failure when real standards return. This is a regular occurrence in states like Texas, and even has its own common colloquialisms in common-core states, e. g. ‘the Texas Delusion.’
It destroys differentiation, making grades meaningless.
It demotivates excellence while rewarding mediocrity.
It sets students up for future failure by creating false confidence in their abilities.
It undermines the credibility of the entire school system, making its grades untrustworthy.
This is not equity—this is intellectual fraud. And fraudulent grading is a disservice to every student who actually wants to learn to succeed.
Mathematical Complexity, the Coastline Paradox, and the Foundations of Equity in Education
Mathematics is often perceived as a rigid system of numbers and formulas, yet it is deeply intertwined with philosophy, history, and justice. The desire to oversimplify complex mathematical structures—especially in educational assessment—frequently leads to misrepresentation of reality and inequitable outcomes. Two mathematical concepts, the Coastline Paradox and the historical evolution of numerical bases, highlight the necessity of mathematical resolution and precision. These ideas demonstrate why educational systems must embrace, rather than reject, mathematical complexity to ensure fairness and justice.
The Coastline Paradox: The Illusion of Simplification
The Coastline Paradox, first introduced by mathematician Lewis Fry Richardson, is a phenomenon in which the measured length of a coastline changes depending on the resolution of the measurement. If one measures a coastline using a ruler 100 kilometers long, the result is significantly shorter than if one uses a ruler 1 kilometer long. As the unit of measurement decreases, the measured length increases indefinitely, approaching a fractal-like nature. This paradox reveals an essential truth: reality cannot always be neatly reduced to simple, discrete categories without losing important information.
In education, grading policies that force coarse, simplified metrics (such as three-point scales or collapsing different levels of mastery into identical grades) suffer from the same problem. Just as coastlines become longer when examined at finer resolutions, student achievement and learning are nuanced and cannot be effectively measured with broad, indistinct categories. The resolution of measurement matters—detailed assessment provides a truer picture of a student’s abilities, just as higher-resolution coastline measurements yield more accurate lengths.
The Complexity of Base Mathematics in Ancient Cultures
The history of numerical bases in ancient cultures further illustrates the importance of mathematical complexity in problem-solving. Different civilizations developed distinct numerical systems to suit their needs. The Babylonians, for example, used a base-60 system, which allowed for efficient division and is still reflected in our measurement of time (60 seconds per minute, 60 minutes per hour). The Mayans developed a base-20 system, which influenced their advanced calendrical calculations. Meanwhile, the ancient Egyptians used a hybrid base-10 system for accounting and commerce.
These diverse numerical structures show that mathematics is not merely an arbitrary construct but an evolving tool that adapts to the complexities of human knowledge and societal needs. If these civilizations had insisted on oversimplifying their numerical systems to a single, inflexible base, they would have lost the ability to perform essential calculations in trade, astronomy, and governance. Similarly, an education system that simplifies grading and assessment beyond what is necessary for accurate differentiation fails to capture the depth of student understanding and undermines both accountability and equity.
Refuting the Objections: The Necessity of Resolution in Measurement
Some critics argue that over-precision in grading leads to false distinctions and that simplicity ensures fairness. However, this argument collapses upon closer examination. The idea that education should prioritize simplicity over precision fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of measurement. Justice in education is not achieved by obscuring differences but by recognizing them accurately.
The Coastline Paradox directly contradicts the claim that finer resolution is unnecessary—as measurement becomes more precise, reality comes into clearer focus. A grading system that lacks sufficient resolution obscures meaningful differences, misleading both students and educators. Just as a low-resolution map distorts geographic reality, a coarse grading system distorts academic reality.
Similarly, historical numerical systems reveal that civilizations thrived by embracing mathematical complexity, not rejecting it. The Babylonians, Mayans, and Egyptians did not flatten their numerical structures for convenience; they optimized them for precision. If mathematical systems had always defaulted to simplicity, human progress would have been stunted. Why, then, should we impose an artificially coarse grading system on education?
Furthermore, the claim that simplified grading promotes equity is demonstrably false. Flattening distinctions does not eliminate privilege; it conceals it. Students with external advantages—private tutoring, enriched environments, and better resources—will continue to excel, but without a grading system capable of distinguishing their actual level of achievement, struggling students are left behind with no clear indicators of where they need to improve.
Grading as a Scientific Process: Why Failure is Essential to Learning
Grades are not just about passing students—they are about doing good science. Education, at its core, is an experimental and iterative process, much like the scientific method. The purpose of assessment is to gather data, identify areas for growth, and refine our approach to learning. Without the ability to pinpoint mistakes, we cannot guide students toward meaningful improvement.
In scientific research, failure is not an endpoint—it is a crucial step toward discovery. Every scientist understands that mistakes are not setbacks; they are opportunities to refine methods and expand knowledge. The same logic applies to grading. A 100-point scale, when used effectively, provides a detailed framework for engaging students in their own learning journey. It offers a precise record of progress, showing where a student excels and where they need support.
By reducing grading to a simplified 3-point scale, we risk losing valuable data that helps students grow. If we cannot measure the depth of misunderstanding, we cannot accurately guide students toward mastery. The 100-point system, rather than being a punitive tool with “60 ways to fail,” is a structure that allows for productive failure—a roadmap for success built on iterative learning.
A Plea for Precision: Recognizing and Celebrating Differences
As someone with a learning disability, I know firsthand the struggles of being measured unfairly. I have lived through the frustration of assessments that fail to recognize my progress because they were designed with simplicity rather than accuracy in mind. But education is not meant to be simple. It is meant to be fair.
When educators obscure distinctions between students, they rob those of us who have fought to overcome obstacles of the recognition we deserve. More than that, they deny struggling students the guidance they need. Without fine resolution in assessment, teachers cannot properly diagnose learning gaps, and students like me are left in the dark, uncertain about what to improve or how to grow.
A grading system should not just sort students into broad categories—it should illuminate the path forward for every learner. Every student has a unique journey, and education should celebrate those victories, not flatten them into indistinguishable numbers.
To simplify grading in the name of equity is to deny students the dignity of their struggle. It is not equitable to pretend that my hard-won growth is the same as the progress of someone who has not faced the same barriers. It is not fair to ignore the differences in learning styles, effort, and perseverance that make education meaningful.
Teachers are not merely gatekeepers of information; they are the ones who help students transform their challenges into triumphs. But they cannot do that if they refuse to measure those challenges properly.
Resolution as the Path to Educational Justice
True justice in education does not come from artificially flattening distinctions between levels of achievement. It comes from recognizing and measuring those distinctions with precision. Just as the Coastline Paradox teaches us that higher resolution leads to more accurate measurement, and numerical history teaches us that complexity enables functionality, education must adopt a model that values detailed, nuanced assessment rather than reducing students to broad, indistinct categories.
A grading system that lacks sufficient resolution harms all students:
High-achieving students are devalued when their excellence is indistinguishable from basic proficiency.
Struggling students are misled when they are given the same grade as those with superior understanding, leaving them unprepared for future academic and professional challenges.
Teachers lose essential feedback tools, making it harder to diagnose and address learning gaps.
Mathematics, when properly understood, is not a system of oppression or excessive difficulty—it is a tool for fairness. Precise measurement, clear differentiation, and the ability to recognize subtle variations are necessary for both mathematical accuracy and educational justice. Just as coastlines demand finer resolution for true measurement, and ancient civilizations thrived on numerical complexity, education must embrace mathematical sophistication to create a truly equitable system.
Simplifying complexity for the sake of convenience is a philosophical and mathematical error. The Coastline Paradox and the evolution of base mathematics in ancient cultures illustrate why mathematical precision is necessary for meaningful understanding. Education, like mathematics, should not aim for the illusion of simplicity but rather for accuracy, differentiation, and fairness. If we are to create a truly just educational system, we must recognize that resolution, not reduction, is the path to equity.
M. G. Claybrook is a theologian, veteran, author, former minister, former salesman, educator, artist, guitar player, karaoke enthusiast, Christian, husband, father, and most importantly a human living in Chicagoland.
