Copy
[Remember to "allow images", and move this email to your primary inbox.]
View this email in your browser
A newsletter designed to provide resources and ideas to the community of educators committed to providing more effective, equitable, coherent, and caring schools and classrooms.
Spring 2019
Want to use the summer to learn about equitable grading?
Here are THREE opportunities!

 
1) Take the Grading for Equity online course. Learn about equitable grading with videos and online exercises--all self-paced and on your schedule! Understand the harms of our traditional approach to grading and learn specific grading practices that are accurate, bias-resistant, and motivational. The course runs from June 17 - August 2, and includes a certificate of completion. Enroll HERE
 
2) Attend the NAIS Equity Design Lab's Institute: Grading for Equity. Join educators from across the country for a two-day session to learn equitable grading and assessment practices that minimize grade inflation, close achievement and opportunity gaps, reduce stress, and become a lever for creating stronger teacher-student relationships and more caring, engaging classrooms. Come alone or with a school team. Click here for more info.

3) Sit in the sun, sip on a lemonade, and read Grading for Equity--a practical guide for how to use more equitable grading and assessment practices.
Good Reads!

"How Teachers Are Changing Grading with An Eye On Equity" by K. Schwartz, published by KQED Mindshift Blog (Feb. 10 '19) [Teachers' perspectives and experiences with improving grading]

"New Studies Point to a Big Downside for Schools Bringing in More Police" by M. Barnum, published on Chalkbeat (Feb 14, '19) [Research showing that zero-tolerance policies and suspension/expulsion for low-level offenses are inequitable and harm student achievement, attainment, and welfare]

"The Opportunity Myth" by Fordham Institute [How schools' promises that students are prepared for post-secondary success and work are not true because, among many reasons, inflated grading]

"What Traditional Grading Gets Wrong" by J. Feldman, published in Education Week (Jan 23 '19) [How traditional grading weakens teaching and learning and undermines equity]

"Equitable Grading: Tales of Three Districts" by J. Feldman, published in School Administrator Magazine (May '19) [How three different districts approached systemwide grading improvements]
Is Averaging Student Performance Inequitable?

You’re teaching a unit on a specific skill, and during the unit, one student earns the following sequence of scores on graded assessments:
 
64, 70, 78, 90, 98.

What grade should the student receive for that unit?

When I work with teachers and administrators on grading practices and propose that hypothetical, everyone in the room, almost with-out fail, pulls out their cellphone calculator and averages the scores, awarding the student an 80. When I ask why they chose to average the scores, they often look at me with confusion. Why wouldn’t the scores be averaged? There’s a deeply embedded belief that averaging a set of scores is the most accurate and fair way to grade — a belief bolstered and reinforced by its use in nearly all grading software. Why would we question this tried-and-true method of calculating scores?

Simple Averages
The first problem is that the student’s average of 80 translates into a B-minus, a level the student never actually performed. We clearly are not accurately describing the student’s proficiency at the skill by giving her or him the grade of B-minus. Also, the choice to average doesn’t capture the student’s growth and punishes a student for early challenges. It is a matter of equity. The student clearly struggled at the beginning, whether from having a weak educational background, fewer supports at home or some other factor, but by the end of the unit, the student had apparently mastered the skill or content.

Compare this to the student who had a stronger educational back-ground or more support at home. This student might have demonstrated consistently high performance of A’s from the beginning and would therefore have a higher final grade when we averaged, even if these two students had identical performance of an A at the end of their learning.
Grades that average scores over time reflect the advantages or disadvantages of students’ circumstances and backgrounds, putting those who take longer to learn material or who start with weaker knowledge at disadvantage, and even hiding student growth.

Reaching Mastery
If we grade students equitably and accurately, each of the students in the hypothetical scenario should earn an A. They started at a different place and have followed different learning paths, but each ultimately demonstrated mastery. It should be clear how averaging performance over time would discourage students who struggle early and who are daunted by the challenge of salvaging their low initial performance. When students receive poor grades early, they may see the hill to redemption as too steep and simply give up.

Regardless of where a student started or the rate at which a student learns, grades are equitable when they reflect only whether the student, by the end of their learning, has learned the material.

 
For more information and resources, visit us at crescendoedgroup,org. 
Follow us on
Facebook or Twitter!

Or contact us at info@crescendoedgroup.org.
Copyright © 2019 Crescendo Education Group, LLC, All rights reserved.


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp