The Myth of Teacher Objectivity in Student Assessment

Teachers strive for grading objectivity, but human judgment is always involved. Uniformity might be all that is possible.

The business of determining student grades – whether on assessments or for final evaluations – has always been problematic. Most teachers want to be fair and they want good testing instruments. Many will use assessments that are supplied with textbooks to improve objectivity, as they doubt their test-making ability.

Perfect Assessment is Illusive but Quality is Possible

When teachers create their own assessments, objectivity is a valid issue. Teachers will try to assess those standards supplied by the state or another source. Teaching standards are thereby removed from teacher judgment – objectively.The desire to achieve objectivity may be there, but where humans have decisions to make, subjectivity plays an important role.

As a part of the instructional process decisions are made that render strict objectivity impossible. For example, teachers will choose the materials and design the instructional plan. The materials chosen may vary among teachers. Some will give lots of notes, while others will give lots of homework. Some will grade homework, some will not. The various evaluative components will like be weighted differently among different teachers of the same subject.

For reasons given above, and others not yet mentioned, principals have a valid reason for wondering why different teachers have such diverse pass/fail rates. Teachers will sincerely assert that they have been “objective” in assessment and evaluation, but when administrators compare student grades they are often baffled. 

The temptation is to label some teachers as “good” and some as “bad.” The “good” classification will likely be applied to the teachers whose students achieve the best grades, but without a clear understanding of how individual instructional methods, materials, and measurement – assessment – it is not possible to judge teachers by their students' grades.
Perhaps Objectivity is Not Essential to Good Teaching

When students are given school-wide standardized tests all teachers receive the same instruction booklets, all receive the same testing materials, and all are trained to give the test in the same manner. The tests are secured and machine scored – at least the multiple choice part. Objectivity rules the day – or does it? There are still human factors involved in how well teachers administer the tests. Before the tests even reach the school they had to be written, and subjective measures were applied.

Testing companies spend huge amounts of money to assure that tests are valid and reliable. The process can take years and involve multiple revisions before they are published for use. Sometimes they are referred to as “objective tests,” but human involvement compromises objectivity.

Absolute objectivity is not possible when humans are involved. To improve learning, teachers need to improve uniformity in what they do as compared with what other teachers do. This won’t require robotic teaching, but it will require that teachers discuss among themselves the ways they teach and how they assess students. Uniform materials, methods, and standards will place educators closer to being able to reliably comparing teacher effectiveness.

Improved Staff Development is Important for Uniformity of Instruction

As teacher accountability gains momentum, administrators will need to provide staff development that will enhance the uniformity of instructional techniques and methods. Educators must make clear what is and is not proper in the instructional process. It is not proper, for example, to take points off a student’s grade for disciplinary reasons, yet it is still done by many teachers.


Objectivity is a fine goal, but it is out of reach. Teachers must be willing and able to give credit when it is due. For example, if an otherwise poorly performing student has an unusually strong day in participating and making solid contributions that indicate rarely seen excellence, then the teacher should make a note of it and give credit. What this action lacks in objectivity can be corrected by applying it uniformly with all students. Teachers are supposed to be trained to make subjective judgments about student learning. Evidence of progress in learning is not always visible on a formal assessment.

There is a Place for Subjectivity in Assessment

Before dismissing subjectivity as heretical, imagine the dilemma of a patient suffering from severe, intractable pain. The patient can choose to be diagnosed by a computer program that works by the objective elimination of symptoms – free from emotional contamination. Another choice is to wait a day and be diagnosed by an experienced physician who will undoubtedly draw on subjectivity-based exceptions and personal experiences. Which will he choose? The best answer is likely, "It depends."

Total objectivity should not guide educators in the learning process. It is there to point teachers in a correct direction, but they must understand human fallibility. There may be subjective evidence that a student’s final grade should be one point higher and result in a passing mark. If there is, then teachers should exercise the expertise they have. It is not lack of objectivity that is the problem, but lack of uniformity. Educators will find uniformity an easier issue to address.