Are You Assessing for Equity?
It’s an important question. One that all educator should ask themselves.
Grading is an embedded assessment structure that’s been around since the early 19th century. Most teachers aren’t fans because the process is laborious, steals time from actually teaching, and is an ineffective motivational tool.
But the real downfall is that the traditional A-F grading system is highly subjective. It places the entire academic assessment of a student on one teacher who is human and can possess unconscious bias. Left unchecked, that bias impacts decisions.
We know grades hold great weight. They are the basis for academic awards, athletics and club participation, graduation, college admission, and scholarship funding. Grades have the power to dictate the trajectory of a person’s life and yet they aren’t parsed equitably.
Studies of year-end achievement demonstrate that, even within the same grade at the same school, assessment criteria differ greatly from classroom to classroom. It’s only when teachers evaluate their grading practices, that they discover their approach can do more harm than good.
“In the real world, people have to be accountable,” noted Elizabeth Denevi, Ph.D., author of Learning and Teaching While White: Antiracist Strategies for School Communities, “so the question is how do grades help kids to achieve that skill?” She added, “For instance, should we give students a zero for not participating in class or because they didn’t turn in a project on time? Does that zero reflect their mastery of the subject? Or is there a belief that the zero is a motivator?” Student testimony consistently underscores that a low grade is a demotivator and causes them to give up, especially if they can’t figure out how to climb out of that zero.
“Kids don’t participate in class or turn in assignments for a lot of reasons. Some of which are out of their control,” said Denevi and she highlighted that low grades are often associated with socio-economic factors. “Should we have the same expectations for all students? What about those who have no support at home? Maybe they don’t have a quiet place to complete an assignment or they are the caregiver for their siblings in the evening.” Denevi has observed that school systems are so focused on equality that they all do everything the same way, often without allowing equity to play a role.
Cue Assessing for Equity, a five-session virtual series facilitated by Denevi and her East Ed associate Lori Cohen. The workshops dig into common grading practices and offer equity checks so that participants can rethink their assessment methods. The course content also encourages open and transparent conversations with students and suggests that the students themselves should have a say in how well they believe they are doing with the work. “It’s through authentic dialogue that we can better determine an individual’s mastery of a subject as well as improve it,” said Denevi.
The duo believes that if the assessment process was less transactional, (do this and you’ll get this grade) and focused more on mastery, it would offer marginalized students another path to success. Of course, that type of change would mean setting new expectations about assessment and having explicit conversations with students and parents. “The idea of moving away from traditional grading practices can be an overwhelming prospect for teachers as well as administrators,” said Denevi, “so we counsel attendees to consider mini shifts so it isn’t a wholesale change.”
If you are interested in shifting your culture of assessment in service of more equitable outcomes for your students, learn more and register for the Assessing for Equity five-session series by clicking here. The monthly workshops begin in November.