Over the summer, I read Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms, by Joe Feldman. I blogged my way through the book, as a kind of reading journal. (See the first post here). Blogging throughout the book helped me to process what I was learning. So I'm going to do the same thing with another book, also about grading--Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), which was edited by Susan D. Blum.
Grading for Equity helped me to better understand, and refine, my practices around assessment and grading. However, it also made me more aware than ever how many issues come not from "how" we grade, but really "that" we grade. That is, grades (as we commonly understand them) are oppressive not because we are doing them ineffectively, but precisely because we *are* doing them effectively.
This effort to abolish grades feels connected with the general abolitionist, anarchist, communalist philosophy I'm increasingly aligned with. Traditional grading, and even progressive Standards-Based Grading (SBG) or Competency-Based Grading (CBG), is a social organization theory rooted in domination. In this way, it's like capitalism, or white supremacy. At it's best, however, education is about the humanization of the learner, a goal antithetical to domination. So when we are doing our best to grade effectively, we are actually doing our best to run in the wrong direction.
Even just reading the few pages in the Foreword and Preface, I can feel myself straining against the fear, doubt, and uncertainty of abolishing such a deeply-rooted institution as grading. Immediately I can feel myself thinking things like, "Well I do that because..." or "That would never work because..." or "That's not my exact situation, so that doesn't transfer..." But I know that this is the natural arc of learning, which often comes with un-learning. So I will try to note and observe these doubts as they come up, track them, and be keep them in the, "We'll see!" category until I've done a bunch more research and learning.
So here are some ideas/reactions I've got so far, and they're mostly questions at this stage of reading:
Feedback Without Grades
During my student teaching, my coaches talked a lot about including a "Criteria for Success," where students can see listed out all the things they need to do/show in a task in order to meet the objective. These weren't necessarily attached to grades--they were just meant to make sure the student and teacher were on the same page.
While I could see the value, I also feel that having a precise "Criteria for Success" posted right there on the paper could be a spoiler for a lot of things. Part of the goal of learning, I feel is the internalization of those criteria. So yeah, we can include it in tasks, but when it comes time for me to really ask a student to "show what they know," it feels important not to include that on the paper.
I also don't believe that all learning objectives can be distilled to a discrete list of elements that can be conveniently listed on a checklist. But how much of that attitude is simply a reflection of my lack of understanding of how to make and use a Criteria for Success? How much is a subconscious effort on my part to "withhold" critical information, and so ensure that I have the ultimate power of assessment and the ordainment of "proficiency"?
This is all to say, I might be coming around on the value of using a Criteria for Success. I even started using them (albeit half-heartedly), by posting them at the top of quizzes. But I don't talk about them with students, so there's no reason to believe they're using them. I don't use them when grading, because I've already got an idea in my head of what I'm looking for, and "I'll know when I see it." Which is cringey to say out loud. But here's an example of the top of a quiz on a topic in my Algebra I class:
What brought this up was the idea of trying to provide students with feedback (at best) or judgement (at worst?) without actually assigning a single summary statistic, i.e. a grade. What if I just posted this Criteria for Success (CfS), and when I was grading I just checked off what they did, and what they didn't do? So when they got it back, they'd know what they did and what they didn't do?
On this quiz, for example, there were a lot of students who didn't realize that it was useful (essential, really) for them to analyze the tables I gave them, and try to find a common difference or common ratio. If all students understood how to use this CfS, that would not have happened. So a student would only have missed that part of the quiz if they simply did not know how to find a common difference/ratio. And that's better info for me, right? Right?
Utility of Grades
At one point, the book cites a collection of studies that point out that GPA is not a meaningful indicator of postgraduate success. But they're talking about undergraduate GPA vs. success in the workforce, and GPA vs. success in MD/PhD programs. I suspect that high school GPA is a better indicator for postsecondary success, even if it's for all the wrong reasons (privilege, etc.). I'd love to read more research on that, and hope this book talks about that.
In general, I suspect that there are a lot more conversations around "Ungrading" at the undergraduate level, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is ageism, and the willingness to extend humanity to adults (even 18-21 year olds) sooner than you would a child. As a high school teacher, mostly specialized in 9th grade math, I very much hope that this book has research and experience grounded in high school and middle school education.
No comments:
Post a Comment