Up top, I love what you’re doing. I comment because I’m surprised that I disagree with something and I would like to learn more.
I might need some more explanation or context about why the grading for equity changes are bad. Maybe we use the words grading and reporting differently in Australia? I teach at a high school and I mark on a rubric, I don’t include lateness, effort, or participation, I don’t include classwork in the grade and the grade is basically all summative assessments, unless I don’t have them in which case I’ll go for formal formative assessment. I provide retests if I think the class in general can do more than they’ve shown on their assessment (sometimes based on the fact that my assessments are imperfect). I’m not sure what the “minimum 50% or 0-4 scale” bit means.
When we report, we turn our 5 level rubric results (below standard, approaching standard, at standard (based on Australian Curriculum Achievement Standard), above standard, well above standard) on a range of topics into a mark on a 9 point scale (below = 1, approaching = 2 or 3, at = 4, 5, or 6, above = 7 or 8, well above = 9) and the families get that, plus a “tick” each for “shows respect”, “acts responsibly” and “learning focus” in one of four levels (needs attention, acceptable, good, excellent). They also get a piece of assessed work from each subject.
I don’t know why we would want to grade based on lateness, effort and participation. If a kid is not putting in effort and not participating, I would address that with the kid in the moment and the following days, maybe twice or thrice before contacting the family and working with them on it. I kind of can’t fathom using whether or not they do their homework in the grade. Why would you do that (not rhetorical, interested in answer)? As a motivator? I think it would work as a motivator, but if you want kids to be intrinsically motivated with an internal locus of control, then coercing them into doing their homework doesn’t seem like it works towards that.
It was a change to mark on rubrics, but I was always all for it. Marking based on percentages makes no sense to me at all. What is it, Goodhart’s Law? If you want a kid to learn how to do the things, best to measure directly “can they do the things?” If there’s a progression of knowledge/skills, show them the progression and guide them through it. It really does make marking fairer when there’s a common description for what a pass mark is (the “at standard” content descriptor from the achievement standard), and the assessments all have a question to directly address that descriptor.
I think there’s a perceived moral wrapper on the changes, one which I perceive because I’m slightly triggered by the word equity wherever I see it, but I think the changes themselves are sensible. What am I missing?
Very good questions. I broadly share your instincts on this, but there are several areas that give me specific cause for skepticism here. Quoting from the Voice for SF article:
> Grading for Equity eliminates homework or weekly tests from being counted in a student’s final semester grade. All that matters is how the student scores on a final examination, which can be taken multiple times. Students can be late turning in an assignment or showing up to class or not showing up at all without it affecting their academic grade. Currently, a student needs a 90 for an A and at least 61 for a D. Under the San Leandro Unified School District’s grading for equity system touted by the San Francisco Unified School District and its consultant, a student with a score as low as 80 can attain an A and as low as 21 can pass with a D.
While I personally prefer only being graded on final exams as a student, I tend to think including intermediate tests as part of a grade is better pedagogically because it keeps students more focused on the course material throughout rather than encouraging cramming. The shifts in terms of scoring look designed to ensure as few failures as possible, even when students functionally learn nothing, and depending on how retakes are implemented (eg if individual students with low scores can retake easily), they cause a bit of an issue. In general, it does seem to be an attempt to equalize across demographics in a way tending to decrease accuracy of assessment and signal available in the grades.
I'm skeptical of the way grading systems work in general, but even more skeptical that the lens through which they're making the changes will land them on pedagogically effective practices. I generally share your instincts here re: homework, lateness, effort, and participation; on the other hand, from an evaluator's point of view, grades are useful as distinct from test scores in part as a signal of conscientiousness, and I like reducing conscientiousness loading because it helps students who (like me) do better on tests than on consistency sail through comfortably.
Some of the specific changes are strong, some defensible, some very questionable; the frame around the changes is questionable and to me suggests an aim to "fuzz" results a bit in unhelpful ways. My own instincts broadly align with your approach, though.
Thanks for the clarification and further thoughts!
The whole idea of a "score" seems useless to me. It depends on what the test is as to what the score means. Maybe 80 and 21 are fine for passing, if that's what the material dictates - but it would end up being a judgement call which is what you want to avoid. It is avoided by having a common statewide/national "at standard". I thought grading for equity wanted rubrics which means not score?
I agree about big final tests and definitely don't like the idea of everything coming down to a final test on a unit - cramming is obviously bad. More formal formative assessment (intermediate tests) that can be used as evidence of learning against the rubric is good - I should probably do it even more than I do now.
Sorry but this comment about national education policy- "actually incredibly local and decentralized' is untrue. State-run education (and by this I mean *the state*, not your state) in this country is the original hive mind. Any little locality that tries to step out of line is squashed as quickly and ruthlessly in rural Wyoming as it is in NYC by the unions, and the school boards (who have their own union), and the democratic party in their state (which is a far left union), and any other union that can get in on the fun.
There needs to be no national policy. There needs to be no national money going to any school in any state. There should be no distribution of the wealth of Americans to failing school districts in Milwaukee in order to facilitate them stealing the money and continuing to fail so they can get more money. There should be no national tests. There should be No Public Education.
It is an utterly failed experiment and it has made us dumber and dumber with each passing year.
Were this not true, the individual states would not constantly change the tests they use by which they all claim to be improving and by which they justify "needing" more money for education.
Up top, I love what you’re doing. I comment because I’m surprised that I disagree with something and I would like to learn more.
I might need some more explanation or context about why the grading for equity changes are bad. Maybe we use the words grading and reporting differently in Australia? I teach at a high school and I mark on a rubric, I don’t include lateness, effort, or participation, I don’t include classwork in the grade and the grade is basically all summative assessments, unless I don’t have them in which case I’ll go for formal formative assessment. I provide retests if I think the class in general can do more than they’ve shown on their assessment (sometimes based on the fact that my assessments are imperfect). I’m not sure what the “minimum 50% or 0-4 scale” bit means.
When we report, we turn our 5 level rubric results (below standard, approaching standard, at standard (based on Australian Curriculum Achievement Standard), above standard, well above standard) on a range of topics into a mark on a 9 point scale (below = 1, approaching = 2 or 3, at = 4, 5, or 6, above = 7 or 8, well above = 9) and the families get that, plus a “tick” each for “shows respect”, “acts responsibly” and “learning focus” in one of four levels (needs attention, acceptable, good, excellent). They also get a piece of assessed work from each subject.
I don’t know why we would want to grade based on lateness, effort and participation. If a kid is not putting in effort and not participating, I would address that with the kid in the moment and the following days, maybe twice or thrice before contacting the family and working with them on it. I kind of can’t fathom using whether or not they do their homework in the grade. Why would you do that (not rhetorical, interested in answer)? As a motivator? I think it would work as a motivator, but if you want kids to be intrinsically motivated with an internal locus of control, then coercing them into doing their homework doesn’t seem like it works towards that.
It was a change to mark on rubrics, but I was always all for it. Marking based on percentages makes no sense to me at all. What is it, Goodhart’s Law? If you want a kid to learn how to do the things, best to measure directly “can they do the things?” If there’s a progression of knowledge/skills, show them the progression and guide them through it. It really does make marking fairer when there’s a common description for what a pass mark is (the “at standard” content descriptor from the achievement standard), and the assessments all have a question to directly address that descriptor.
I think there’s a perceived moral wrapper on the changes, one which I perceive because I’m slightly triggered by the word equity wherever I see it, but I think the changes themselves are sensible. What am I missing?
Very good questions. I broadly share your instincts on this, but there are several areas that give me specific cause for skepticism here. Quoting from the Voice for SF article:
> Grading for Equity eliminates homework or weekly tests from being counted in a student’s final semester grade. All that matters is how the student scores on a final examination, which can be taken multiple times. Students can be late turning in an assignment or showing up to class or not showing up at all without it affecting their academic grade. Currently, a student needs a 90 for an A and at least 61 for a D. Under the San Leandro Unified School District’s grading for equity system touted by the San Francisco Unified School District and its consultant, a student with a score as low as 80 can attain an A and as low as 21 can pass with a D.
While I personally prefer only being graded on final exams as a student, I tend to think including intermediate tests as part of a grade is better pedagogically because it keeps students more focused on the course material throughout rather than encouraging cramming. The shifts in terms of scoring look designed to ensure as few failures as possible, even when students functionally learn nothing, and depending on how retakes are implemented (eg if individual students with low scores can retake easily), they cause a bit of an issue. In general, it does seem to be an attempt to equalize across demographics in a way tending to decrease accuracy of assessment and signal available in the grades.
I'm skeptical of the way grading systems work in general, but even more skeptical that the lens through which they're making the changes will land them on pedagogically effective practices. I generally share your instincts here re: homework, lateness, effort, and participation; on the other hand, from an evaluator's point of view, grades are useful as distinct from test scores in part as a signal of conscientiousness, and I like reducing conscientiousness loading because it helps students who (like me) do better on tests than on consistency sail through comfortably.
Some of the specific changes are strong, some defensible, some very questionable; the frame around the changes is questionable and to me suggests an aim to "fuzz" results a bit in unhelpful ways. My own instincts broadly align with your approach, though.
Thanks for the clarification and further thoughts!
The whole idea of a "score" seems useless to me. It depends on what the test is as to what the score means. Maybe 80 and 21 are fine for passing, if that's what the material dictates - but it would end up being a judgement call which is what you want to avoid. It is avoided by having a common statewide/national "at standard". I thought grading for equity wanted rubrics which means not score?
I agree about big final tests and definitely don't like the idea of everything coming down to a final test on a unit - cramming is obviously bad. More formal formative assessment (intermediate tests) that can be used as evidence of learning against the rubric is good - I should probably do it even more than I do now.
Again, love what you guys are doing, keep it up!
Sorry but this comment about national education policy- "actually incredibly local and decentralized' is untrue. State-run education (and by this I mean *the state*, not your state) in this country is the original hive mind. Any little locality that tries to step out of line is squashed as quickly and ruthlessly in rural Wyoming as it is in NYC by the unions, and the school boards (who have their own union), and the democratic party in their state (which is a far left union), and any other union that can get in on the fun.
There needs to be no national policy. There needs to be no national money going to any school in any state. There should be no distribution of the wealth of Americans to failing school districts in Milwaukee in order to facilitate them stealing the money and continuing to fail so they can get more money. There should be no national tests. There should be No Public Education.
It is an utterly failed experiment and it has made us dumber and dumber with each passing year.
Were this not true, the individual states would not constantly change the tests they use by which they all claim to be improving and by which they justify "needing" more money for education.