Grading for Equity: Reflection Questions (Ch 4)

As part of a summer professional reading group, some colleagues and I elected to read Grading for Equity, by Joe Feldman. It's a big topic, so I wanted an excuse to do some reflective writing on it, so I can try to understand it more deeply. Fortunately, Feldman wrote some "Questions to Consider" at the end of each chapter, and so I hope to use those to guide regular reflections.

Chapter 4: Traditional Grading Hides Information, Invites Biases

On the term "traditional grading". Throughout the book, Feldman refers to "traditional grading," and I *think* I know what he means, and I *think* a lot of teachers would. But I'm not sure I believe in it as a useful euphemism. The descriptor "traditional" feels like it's being used to mean "outdated" here, and I know few professionals who would be okay with someone describing their practice as such. But what makes it hard is that I'm not sure what other way to describe it? Like, we have "standards-based grading," and "competency-based grading." What is the more precise, accurate term? Or is that the point...that there is no central core "idea" after which to name the practice?

Teacher-to-teacher variance. Feldman also talked about how problematic it is that for most teachers in most schools (at least in the U.S.), grading policies changes from teacher to teacher. I think students typically understand that this is the norm (at least by the time they get to high school), and just figure out how to deal with it. But also, Feldman points out that this extra layer of complexity, in an already complex system, is yet another barrier to students understanding and owning their grades.

But forcing all teachers in the same district, or even just the same school, to have identical grading policies in all respects...on one hand, that sounds utopian, and on the other, it sounds horrifying. This is the classic "autonomy" vs. "uniformity" conflict, which has no real solution I think? But it *can* be mitigated by investing heavily in teacher-teacher collaboration, co-developement (as opposed to individual development), effective coordination, and an abundance of resources. But that's not easy to make happen because [insert anti-capitalist rant].

Complexity in grading systems. My school is working to be competency-based, and I think that what we're doing is super cool. But it's also pretty complicated at times, especially for 9th graders who have spent the last 8+ years in schools that likely have "traditional grades." Over the years, students eventually get used to it, and it's fine (or so I'm told--I've only had one year of teaching remotely with 9th graders). And more often than not, in order to make the grading system accessible for students and families, we end up focusing students on just the final "overall grade." That's because it looks like a regular 0-100 grade, with all the associated feelings and expectations behind it. So on the surface, the grades contribute to many of the unhealthy and oppressive practices that "traditional" grades do. But there is technically some underlying theory that goes into the the calculation of that "overall grade" using out principles of competency-based grading. So...that's better, right? Right?

I do think that being a math teacher has seriously benefited my ability to understand the math underlying grade calculations. Even as a student, I remember doing tons of calculations along the lines of "if I get X% on this assignment, which is in category Y, which has an associated weighting of Z%..." Which is good high school level math, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't think every high schooler can do it. Heck, I don't think every teacher can do it. And that's not great. The more complicated the grading calculation, the further it removes students from owning and understanding their grades, and the more it feels like an arbitrary system purely run on bias.

So how complex should grading systems be? We definitely want to avoid what Feldman identifies as the "Omnibus" grade--a barrel-ful of information in a thimble-size container. But if we make it super complicated, that becomes its own possibly not-better system. So why not just invest in taking the time to teach students and families how the system works? That takes a lot of time that might not be worth it, especially if you need to get your own grading "orientation" for every different teacher you have. I guess and important distinction is that of "sophisticated" vs. "complicated." A sophisticated grading system can do "what we need grades to do" (whatever that is?), and can do it with nuance, sensitivity, and accuracy.

How simple should grades be? I don't think we need to come up with a better way to calculate a better summary statistic of the right combination of the right things, so we can all have one, perfect "score." I don't think it should even be *possible* to boil down all your learning into one score. Yeah, that's useful for quickly sorting students, and efficiently assigning privilege and access, and for pressuring students to perform. But like...who wants to do *any* of those things?

If we can't do grades "right," should we do them at all? In this chapter, Feldman also talks about bias, implicit and otherwise. And maybe he's just getting us fired up before delivering some strong, effective, bias-free systems in the last part of the book. If the goal is to create a system that abolishes implicit bias, and systems of oppression...what do we do if we *can't*? What if the idea of summarizing growth and learning with just a few statistics that we would recognize as "grades" is inextricably rooted in oppression and contrary to how "learning" happens? Is it then our responsibility to abolish the concept of grades?

I know some would say that grades are the "lesser evil," but lesser for whom? When we resign ourselves to "surviving" a lesser evil, we are essentially saying that some should be expected to suffer because...we can't find another way? Who has the right, the power, to decide who gets to suffer?

Questions to Consider

1) What confidence or uncertainty do you have that two teachers in your school would assign the same grade to a student?

• Within my department, at least, given the grading structures in place for us as a whole department...assuming we when through the same "volume" of content at the same pace and students received the same instruction...I'm 90% sure that our final grades would be within 10% of each other. Which doesn't sound that good, but I actually do think that's better than the industry average, so to speak. It helps that one of my school's big thing is their grading system, so there is some meaningful investment in allowing us to talk through things together, and connect.

2) Are there teachers with reputations as "hard" or "easy" graders? What, specifically, defines them as that? How does this categorization make you feel? How does it make that teacher feel? How do students react?

• Certainly. And here are some responses I can imagine teachers having, either because I've had them myself, or have seen them in other teachers:
• The "easy" grader might feel...
• "I am being sensitive to students' needs."
• "Grading isn't so surgically precise that it's worth making students feel bad about them."
• "Grades don't actually matter."
• "Giving low grades restricts student access to critical resources like scholarships, in-school prestige, and access to post-secondary options."
• The "hard" grader might feel...
• "I have high expectations for students."
• "If I grade harder, they'll work harder."
• "Other teachers coddle students, which is unfair to them and the teachers that don't want to coddle them."
• "Students have it easy in school. Try having a boss!"
• I think that the vast majority of teachers would consider themselves as "warm demanders" (Lisa Delpit, 2013), and as "tough but fair." I think that students are much more likely to categorize teachers as "easy/hard" graders, than teachers are themselves. I think that there is a general teacher culture to prefer being viewed as "too hard" rather than "too easy," or at least that's the perception that feels like it gets rewarded/validated by leadership. Which feels contrary to "err on the side of doing the less harmful thing"? But then again, I think I just revealed to you a bit of my internal vibes re: "hard" vs. "easy" graders.