So…here, we mark all math tests on a rubric. So each section has A, C and E requirements (the have letter grades, A, B, C, D, E, and F here). And you can get “method marks” which is pretty much like “good thinking but wrong answer” marks that can help you get the in between grades. So for example if you met all the E requirements, and showed your work which was “good thinking, wrong answer” for the C requirements, then you would get a D.
The interesting thing about it is that we take the LOWEST mark on the rubric. So if you got 5 As, and 1 E, then your final mark would be a D, as the As would “raise” your E mark, but since you didn’t meet all the C requirements, you couldn’t get a C.
It’s interesting, and I like the idea in some ways. I went all the way through to 10th grade without ever learning certain concepts in math, but still getting As, because I knew the majority of the math, really really well. This way doesn’t allow you to do that – if I knew 80% of the course really really really well, but couldn’t do one part, I’d fail. Which means that the next year’s subject teacher knows that you can at least do the bare minimum (which for us, really is the bare minimum…).
In some ways, it makes marking easier, as I’m not agonizing over the points, or what to do when a kid comes up with a brilliant way to solve a problem, but not what we did in class so now the marking scheme is all messed up – and in other ways, it’s a pain in the butt. They’re allowed to re-test as many times as they like (with different, and harder tests) but! when you give out a lot of Ds to A or B students, that’s a lot of kids who want to re-test, and despite having a re-test contract, it can be a pain.