How I Grade CSP Python Without Drowning in Code

If you teach CSP Python, you’ve probably felt this moment: you open a stack of student code submissions and think, “This is going to take my entire weekend.”

Here’s the truth: grading code can become endless if every assignment requires you to read every line like you’re doing a code review at Google.

The goal is not to grade everything all the time. The goal is to grade the right things with a system that:

• keeps students accountable
• rewards real understanding (not copying)
• gives you quick, consistent feedback loops
• doesn’t destroy your evenings

My grading principle: “Grade the thinking, not the typing”

In beginner Python, the most important learning is invisible: reading code, predicting output, debugging, and explaining decisions. If you only grade “does it run,” you miss the thinking.

I use a mix of quick checks, rubrics, and targeted review so I’m not buried in code, and students still learn.

System #1: The 3-level rubric (fast + fair)

Most beginner coding work can be graded with a simple rubric that fits on one line:

• 3 = Meets (works + requirements met + clear effort)
• 2 = Developing (partial / minor issues / missing one requirement)
• 1 = Needs Support (major issues / incomplete / unclear)

This is the key: I don’t create a brand-new rubric for every assignment. I use the same structure and only change the requirements checklist.

Example “requirements checklist” (what I actually look for)

• Uses variables correctly
• Uses input/output correctly
• Uses an if/else or loop (if required)
• Produces the expected output
• Includes comments or a short reflection (if required)

System #2: Grade one feature, not the whole program

A huge time saver: decide the one feature you care about most for that assignment. Then grade that.

Example: If the lesson focus is loops, I’m grading: “Is the loop correct and purposeful?” Not “Is every print statement perfect?”

This makes grading faster and clearer for students: they know what matters.

System #3: “Run it, scan it, score it” (the 60-second method)

For most beginner submissions, you can grade in under a minute if you follow a consistent routine:

1. Run it (Does it execute? What does the output look like?)
2. Scan it (Find the key area: variables/if/loop/function)
3. Score it (3/2/1 rubric + one quick comment)

If you catch yourself “reading every line,” stop and ask: “What is the target skill for this assignment?”

System #4: Require a 1–2 sentence student reflection

This is the easiest way to grade understanding without reading every line. Add one question like:

• “What did you change from the starter code and why?”
• “What bug did you fix today and how did you fix it?”
• “What is one thing your program does that you’re proud of?”

That reflection gives you a window into their thinking. It also discourages copy/paste submissions.

System #5: Use checkpoints instead of giant submissions

If a project is big, don’t grade it only at the end. Grade 2–3 checkpoints:

• Checkpoint 1: program runs + variables set up
• Checkpoint 2: logic works (if/else or loops)
• Checkpoint 3: final polish + requirements met

This reduces last-minute disasters and makes the final grading easier because you’ve already seen the work.

System #6: A simple “code integrity” check (no drama)

To keep grading fair, I do occasional quick spot checks:

• Ask a student to explain one line of their code
• Ask them to change one variable and predict what will happen
• Ask: “Where did you get stuck and what did you try?”

This isn’t a “gotcha.” It’s a norm: “You should be able to explain your own work.”

My favorite teacher time-saver: comment banks

Instead of writing unique feedback every time, I reuse a comment bank:

• “Great job meeting all requirements. Next: add a comment to explain your logic.”
• “Your program runs, but one requirement is missing: ______.”
• “You’re close. Fix the error on line __ and re-run.”
• “Add a reflection sentence: what changed and why?”

Fast feedback is better than perfect feedback.

Bottom line

You don’t have to choose between “grading fairly” and “having a life.” A consistent rubric + targeted checks + short reflections lets you grade faster while still building real student skill.