OPINION: Tests can be taken multiple times, no penalties for late work, a score of 21 is passing
Here’s a surprise (not): San Francisco Unified School District Superintendent Maria Su is implementing — unilaterally — a so-called “Grading for Equity” plan which will “train teachers […] in a system that awards a passing C grade to as low as a score of 41 on a 100-point exam.”
According to The Voice, Su did not seek the approval of the district’s board of education, and the district is “negotiating” with consultant Joe Feldman regarding trainings.
Essentially, Grading for Equity does not allow counting homework and “weekly” exams towards students’ grades. Only scores on a final exam are to be counted, and that exam “can be taken multiple times.”
A score of 80 on the exam is counted as an “A,” and — hilariously — a student can pass with a score as low as 21.
In addition, penalties for late assignments aren’t allowed, nor for class latenesses. Nor skipping class altogether.
The Voice’s John Trasviña, former dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law, rightly notes Grading for Equity “de-emphasizes the importance of timely performance, completion of assignments, and consistent attendance […] all elements essential for students to be college and career ready when they graduate.”
It also goes against one of Superintendent Su’s stated responsibilities — “not [to] allow curriculum and instruction that is not rooted in excellence.” But if you think about it, it all fits in with the city’s pathetic government.
For consultant Feldman, “equitable grading practices” include grades that “weight more recent performance” and “exclude participation and effort,” allow “retakes and redos,” and make use of rubrics for assessment.
(To his credit, Feldman also advocates veering away from grading group work — only assess the individual student’s.)
Feldman notes the obvious in that “teachers grade differently,” and that’s a problem: Such “variability,” he says, result in “grading practices that are inequitable — mathematically unsound, biased and demotivating.”
He says “A student’s grade can become more reflective of how the teacher grades than of the student’s academic performance.”
MORE: Harvard, Yale students demand ‘universal passing’ for online courses because of ‘equity’
First, Trasviña’s point about getting students “college and career ready” is, if it really needs to be said, spot-on. So teachers grade differently — do college professors and companies all follow the same practices and expectations?
Will company managers and supervisors permit “retakes and redos”? Are we likely to see something like this in the real world: Hey Joe — that company decided to go with another contractor because you never submitted our bid. But no worries … take another stab at it with the next company, ok?
Feldman (pictured) is correct in that teachers’ grading practices need to make sense (I’ve seen my fair share during my career that made me go “Wha-a-a-a-a?”), but that’s where competent administrators come in — to make sure the grading is logical … not that every teacher follows the same system.
Indeed, (grading) variability is part of what made school fun, at least for my and my daughter’s generation. Some teachers were tough graders, others easy. You knew what to expect and worked/acted accordingly.
Just like being employed in the real world, right?
Another head-scratching aspect about Grading for Equity is that it leads to a “sharp decrease in A’s” among students who don’t get free or reduced lunches which, according to Feldman, reflects “the inequitable inclusion of extra credit and other resource-dependent grading criteria.” (There also were fewer students getting D’s and F’s for obvious reasons.)
In other words, it strives for equality of outcomes.
The mindset that presumes people of lesser means won’t do what it takes to ensure their kids can read, work hard, etc. never ceases to amaze me.
Of course, as noted, it is San Francisco we’re talking about here, so Grading for Equity just might be the, er, “preparation” local students need for their life in the city.
MORE: K-12 schools spent $19 million in federal tax dollars on ‘restorative justice,’ ‘equitable grading’
IMAGE CAPTION & CREDIT: How equity affects actual achievement; Pat Cross/The College Fix. INTERIOR IMAGE: Joe Feldman/X
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
