Back-to-back posts because I was playing a board game this weekend and forgot to post that night! I have a really hard time being critical of this book, considering in many ways it helped launch my classroom assessment and grading research. Granted, the more I learn, the more asterisks I attach to ideas in Grading for Equity, which is tough for me to admit. I simultaneously recommend that all educators read this to understand basic concepts, like standards, while I also acknowledge that it’s still a grade-focused, and possibly grade-heavy approach. That is, standards-based grading (SBG) is a lot closer to traditional grading than many might think, and has the potential to result in even more grades, just in new packaging (e.g., “Needs Improvement,” and “Proficient”). Therefore, here are my thoughts after my first rereading of this book since really diving deep into classroom assessment and grading literature.

Standards
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to grasp the concept of assessing standards. From what I’ve seen, people have moved beyond SBG, but as far as I can tell there’s a prerequisite found in the SBG concept. It goes something like this: learn about establishing standards so you can use them to get students focused on improving their own learning, then basically leave grades out of the entire equation as much as possible. In that regard, this book has you covered on the standards side of things.

Grading = Summative = To Report Achievement = End of Learning
To ground every grading practice in classroom assessment theory, we must acknowledge that grading is a summative function that occurs at the end of learning for the purpose of reporting achievement. Therefore, any practice that involves frequent grading throughout the learning process is at odds with the literature. For example, retakes are an excellent idea, but grading every assessment is not. In fact, having a student retake an assessment is evidence that they are still in the learning process. No grades should be assigned at any point except the end of learning. Theoretically, this “end” is hard to pin down, especially with the concept of complete mastery (e.g., when does someone…master…their native language?) and lifelong learning. Practically speaking, however, this is when teachers must report achievement (e.g., progress report, quarter/semester/trimester). It is fair to say that any system advocating for any kind of grading or rating more often than these required moments is too much.

Preface to 2nd Edition, Prologue, Chapters 1-5
This acknowledgment of remote learning conditions under COVID-19 is very well written, and includes logical arguments for putting equity front and center, like “when something harms everyone, it acutely harms the most vulnerable; and when the vulnerable are harmed by something, it’s actually harming everyone” (p. xv). Feldman also writes about avoiding using the treat of low grades to motivate students, or using grades as a classroom management strategy, and how these problems have always been around.

The prologue and first chapter are quite good. They cover Feldman’s “why,” and are extremely clear. Chapters 2-5 continue with foundational info, grading history, and a general overview of grading problems. One reason I hesitate to be critical is that this first third of the book essentially aligns with everything I’ve read. Perhaps it’s fair to say that I recommend reading this without question.

Yes, And Yet…
In this next section, I’d like to present ways I agree with Feldman, and then some further considerations.

Chapter 7. Yes, zeros are awful. Yes, the 100-point scale makes no sense.

Chapter 8. Yes, averaging is a problem. Feldman notes that performance on an assessment is just a singular event and might not reflect understanding, which is why multiple sources of evidence are needed to derive a grade on any given standard. This means at least 3, and often more. Hence, potential for their to be lots of grade, especially given reassessment. And yet, this is only true if scores or ratings are being used to determine a final grade at all. Feldman writes “their performance is all we have to derive our grade” (p. 106), which is not true in self-assessment and self-grading approaches. In other words, there are grading systems that bypass the need to worry about weighting and minimum number of assessments.

Chapters 9 & 10. Yes, extra credit, late work penalties, punishing cheating in the grade, grading student behaviors, and grading homework are no-nos. And yet, none of these are a problem if you’re not grading individual assignments whatsoever. This larger point, once again, bypasses the need to think of all those other things as practices to avoid.

Chapter 11. Yes, the A-F symbols are abstract, and 100 points too many. And yet, they’re 100% understandable, even if differently interpreted. That is, parents understand a B. They generally do not understand something like “approaching.” I worked with a wealthy MA district that had parents revolt against a new grading system for this very reason. Although they’re part of what Brookhart (2011) calls “side issues” that teachers tend to get bogged down by, they’re also the most obvious changes, and in this case cause the system to collapse. My recommendation is to stick with what’s familiar when reporting achievement, once, when it’s absolutely necessary (e.g., progress reports, quarter/semester/trimester), and just use fewer values (e.g., 55(F), 65(D), 75(C), 85(B), 95(A), 100(A+)).

Also, yes, give unlimited retakes without any conditions attached, and in fact think of them as mandatory until the student shows they’ve met the standard/expectations. This is best understood through the idea of a student working on writing assignment. An ELA teacher wouldn’t just take draft #2 and be like “well, I guess this is as good as you can do” and be done with it. I’m thinking of multiple revisions until the student has a high quality piece of writing, regardless of revisions. That should be the same with any class. And yet, portfolio systems where students add their [completed] work shouldn’t really have any in-progress work. What was probably a series of retakes/edits/revisions shows up as the final product. Systems like this bypass the need for retakes, especially when individual assessments are not graded or rated.

Chapter 12. Yes, grades should be transparent and understandable (conf. familiar, but fewer values above). And yet, nothing in the literature suggests that students should be more aware of grades. That is, encouraging grading practices that keep the focus on gaining points and certain grades is bad (re: “every student can…know how to get the grade they want” p. 193).

Also, yes, rubrics can help define expectations/criteria. And yet, the more detailed and involved these are, the more restrictive they seem to be. I was just consulting with a teacher whose students said that self-assessing felt like too much work. One reason is because every level detailed every criteria in sentence form. This took two pages. Instead, a single-point rubric approach is clearer for students.

Chapter 13. Yes, the “soft skills” shouldn’t make their way into the grade. And yet, reporting these separately creates another system to keep track of and another grade. Just make them part of the conversation and leave in comments when necessary.

Chapter 14. A review of everything above. See specific notes.

Chapter 15. This is good! Yes, the idea of “coherence” over “consistency” is a really good one. Like all recommendations, teachers need a lot of training, so any schoolwide system change needs to be allowed YEARS to do so.

Summary
In short, the one big problem I have comes down to one crucial word: grading. If there were just less of it throughout the book, ideas would be pure gold. I recommend scouring the chapters for equitable practices, but use a system that reduces grading and rating. Right now, the main one I know of is portfolio + self-assess/self-grade.