Equitable grading practices strive to make grades more accurate and fair by removing bias and separating behaviors 鈥� like handing in a late paper 鈥� from academic mastery or understanding the subject matter. The educators were polled as part of the first nationally representative teacher survey on the issue that was conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in partnership with RAND. 

鈥淟enient grading, grade inflation. It kind of feels like maybe it doesn’t really matter that much, and it鈥檚 a victimless crime or something,鈥� said Adam Tyner, who authored on the survey and is the national research director at the Fordham Institute, a right-leaning education reform think tank. 鈥淏ut it actually has real consequences for students.鈥�

He pointed to demonstrating that when teachers lower standards, students learn less.

鈥淚 hope people will listen to the teachers and really take it seriously that there are legitimate concerns with some of these policies that need to be aired out and discussed,鈥� he added.

At a last week hosted by the Fordham Institute and education nonprofit , researchers met to discuss the report鈥檚 findings. Adam Maier, analytics director at TNTP, noted that 鈥渢hese practices are attempting to solve a real problem.鈥�

Current, traditional grading models send kids mixed signals that don鈥檛 accurately reflect their achievement, he said. In the process of addressing these concerns, though, reformers are 鈥渟tripping away some of the other useful things about grades.鈥�

To understand the implications, researchers asked teachers about five policies, which they said they took from Joe Feldman鈥檚 2018 book and deemed to be particularly 鈥渃ontroversial.鈥� Those included:

• No zeros 鈥� Mandates that teachers assign a minimum grade of 50% (or something similar) for missed assignments or failed tests.
• No late penalties 鈥� Gives students the right to turn assignments in late without penalty.
• Unlimited retakes 鈥� Gives students the right to retake tests/quizzes without penalty.
• No homework 鈥� Prohibits teachers from including homework assignments in a student鈥檚 final grade.
• No participation 鈥� Prohibits teachers from basing any part of a student鈥檚 grade on class participation.

At least a quarter of teachers said their school or district had adopted each of the three most common practices: unlimited retakes, no late penalties and no zeros. This was especially true for middle school educators, about 40% of whom reported they were in use.

While teachers didn鈥檛 support the majority of the policies, some were particularly unpopular, such as mandating a minimum 50% grade, regardless of work completed. The vast majority of educators surveyed (81%) said this was 鈥渉armful,鈥� a trend which held true regardless of the teacher鈥檚 race, years of experience or the race of the students. 

This criticism was mirrored in the open response portion of the survey, where it was 鈥渢he most mentioned鈥攁nd most widely ridiculed鈥攇rading policy,鈥� according to the report.

鈥淚 don’t believe there was a single unambiguous comment in support of no zeros or minimum grading,鈥� Tyner said.

鈥淲e have gone to the 鈥楧o nothing, get a 50鈥� grade policy,鈥� wrote one teacher. 鈥淪tudents have figured out that, if they work hard for a quarter (usually the first) they can 鈥榗oast鈥� the rest of the year and get a D.鈥�

Feldman, who authored the book on these practices, challenged the findings in an interview with 社区黑料, arguing that the survey鈥檚 authors misrepresented his theories and practices.

鈥淲hat they seem to have asked is what are the teachers鈥� opinions of equitable grading practices when we deliberately mischaracterize and oversimplify the practices, and regardless of whether the teachers were trained to use the practices or even know what they are,鈥� Feldman said.

In an emailed statement, Tyner refuted this claim saying, 鈥淲e do subject all of our work to external peer review, and this report was reviewed by Dr. Sarah Morris, who wrote her doctoral dissertation on the implementation of these policies.鈥�

Feldman did note that there鈥檚 been a tendency within districts and schools to oversimplify the practices, especially in cases where, 鈥渢hey were searching for a quick solution during the pandemic or they were just jumping on the equity bandwagon.鈥�

When that happens, and educators are mandated to use flawed versions of the practices, it unsurprisingly doesn鈥檛 go well 鈥� a sentiment he thinks may be reflected in the survey results.

鈥淭here was pushback and a lot of resentment and misunderstanding and [it] sort of collapsed or exploded,鈥� he said.

鈥楧ooming it to failure鈥�

Educators have long grappled with how to accurately and fairly assess students, and debates about the benefits of 鈥渢raditional鈥� versus 鈥渆quitable鈥� grading practices are not new, though they have become particularly divisive in the years since the pandemic. 

Researchers have been studying these reforms and standards-based grading for decades and argue that, when implemented correctly, they should more accurately reflect what students know and correct for both inflating 鈥� and deflating 鈥� grades. 

But, a misunderstanding of the true principles, a lack of proper training for educators and a rush to quickly adopt a complex new system has often led to messy execution, according to experts.

鈥淭he ideas 鈥� on the surface are good, but it’s just that adaptations or nuances and caveats need to be taken into consideration when you move to implementation,鈥� said Thomas Guskey, professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky鈥檚 College of Education and a leading expert on grading and assessments.

Guskey said the survey results track with what he鈥檚 heard from district leaders across the country who are trying to use Feldman鈥檚 policies. Guskey is optimistic, though, that people will be able to distinguish between grading reform efforts as a whole and Feldman鈥檚 practices in isolation.

鈥淢y great fear,鈥� he said, 鈥渋s that people will look at this, and they will see these five particular aspects of 鈥榞rading with equity鈥� as being corrupted 鈥� What I hope is that it prompts people to probe these more deeply, understand the nuances behind them and see what adaptations need to be made within each of the five to make sure it does succeed.鈥�

Tyner agreed that there were rigorous ways to implement standards-based grading and more equitable practices.

鈥淣ot everything associated with trying to make grading more fair or more equitable or more accurate is lowering standards,鈥� he said, 鈥淎nd I think we should absolutely advocate for those policies.鈥�

In a Tyner released last year, he looked at 14 different equitable practices, some of which he found were useful and rigorous. For example, rubrics and anonymized grading are tools which can combat racial bias in grading, which he noted was real and well documented, without lowering standards. 

For this most recent survey, the authors zoomed in on five of the 14 practices 鈥渢hat have stirred the most controversy around the country and that we were hearing about in the media a lot.鈥�

While just over half of teachers worked in a district with at least one of the policies, only 6% reported adoption of four or more and 2% reported adoption of all five, a finding which surprised Tyner.

鈥淚 kind of thought we were going to find some districts that were doing all of this stuff, and most districts would be doing none of it,鈥� but instead, 鈥渢here’s a lot of districts that are just maybe experimenting with one or two.鈥� 

Ken O鈥機onnor, an author and consultant who has spent decades studying grading reform, pointed to this finding as a problem with implementation: These practices are not meant to be used piecemeal but rather as part of a cohesive system, he said.

By picking one or two in this way, 鈥淵ou’re almost dooming it to failure,鈥� he said. It鈥檚 essentially like saying, 鈥淚 want to bake a cake, but I’m only giving you half the ingredients.鈥�

Teachers did, in fact, critique these policies: Just over half (56%) reported that the 鈥渘o late penalties鈥� policy was harmful, and the majority said basing part of a student鈥檚 grade on participation and homework was helpful 鈥� in opposition to equitable grading practices. In their open responses, teachers also suggested that they feel pressure to inflate students鈥� grades, even if there aren鈥檛 explicit mandates to do so.

鈥淐ounselors can override teachers’ grades if a parent calls because they are concerned that their child’s grades aren’t fairly representing the student’s efforts,鈥� wrote one.

Notably, such a policy is never advocated for in equitable grading theories.

The 鈥渦nlimited retakes鈥� policy was the most embraced, with 41% of teachers reporting it was helpful and 37% reporting it was harmful.

鈥淚 like the idea of students being able to edit/improve their work based on feedback from the teacher,鈥� wrote another teacher. 鈥淗owever, if they do not have deadlines or policies in place to encourage them to try their best the first time, teachers will have to grade almost every assignment more than once.鈥� 

While most educators (58%) said it was important to have clear, schoolwide grading policies, a substantial minority (42%) believe that they should be able to use their own judgement when it comes to grading.

Tyner said moving forward he hopes educators will 鈥渢ake the best from the reforms and from traditional grading, because there鈥檚 nothing wrong with trying to make grading more fair and more accurate. It鈥檚 only when the implication is that we might be lowering standards and expectations for students that we need to just be really, really careful with what we’re doing.鈥�