Ben Forta

SFUSD has paused implementation of a controversial “grading for equity” plan amid significant backlash from parents, politicians, and even Board of Education members.

Some of the concerns raised feel valid, others appear to be more emotional than rational. Students absolutely should be allowed to retake tests, within reason (albeit with far fewer tests, I’ll get to that shortly). Not penalizing for factors that students may have no control over, like lateness, is the right thing to do. Ignoring effort and participation is nonsensical, those are precisely what we should be assessing most. I have no idea what “omitting classwork from grading” means. Homework should have gone the way of the dodo years ago. Similarly, basing 100% of the grade on “summative” testing is a practice that should have long ago been abolished

No surprise, but there is an enormous amount of misinformation out there, and having read through the details I believe the pause is good news. And bad news, too.

I fully appreciate the desire to rethink grades. There is overwhelming evidence that shows that better grades can encourage students, and poor grades can demoralize them. It’s textbook self-fulfilling prophecy. Giving a challenged student a poor grade is likely to discourage them further; often guaranteeing perpetuating the vicious cycle of ongoing classroom disillusionment, low self-esteem, behavioral issues, academic attrition, poor job prospects, and a lifetime of struggles. If educators want to encourage their students, and they really do, then we desperately need a more constructive way to provide feedback and motivation.

On the flipside, simply lowering grades across the board in the name of “equity” is a race to the bottom; it helps no one. It definitely won’t encourage students who are achieving in the current system. On the contrary, it’ll make it harder for them to differentiate and become the best versions of themselves. But, more importantly, it also risks setting up those who are struggling for a lifetime of challenges by not adequately prepping them for the real world. We don’t need more examples of illiterate students graduating with honors (yes, that has indeed happened). Lowering standards, lowering expectations, can never be the answer.

As for “summative” testing, there is broad consensus that the education system in general (and especially higher education) is far too dependent on final exams. Trying to ascertain student growth and achievement by looking at a snapshot of time is a practice that must end; it made no sense when I was in school decades ago, and it makes no sense today. Exams don’t measure academic achievement, they measure the ability to take exams; some students will always do better than others because they are better at that form of evaluation, others (and I was always in this category) won’t no matter how hard they try.

I’ll give SFUSD credit for wanting to address these challenges, but the proposed solution was overly simplistic, appearing more focused on being able to say “we are now equitable” than on actually improving outcomes for all. Which is why the pause is good news. But the bad news is that I’m not seeing enough of an appetite to make real comprehensive changes; odds are we’ll end up with the current flawed system, or the new plan will be un-paused, perhaps with minor changes to placate some critics.

The right answer is indeed real comprehensive change. What could that look like? This is an important topic, one worthy of far lengthier analysis and discussion. But a few key points to consider:

For starters, assessment cannot be primarily knowledge based, not in an era when anything can easily be looked up anyway. Rather, assessment needs to be on how information is researched, the ways it is critiqued and synthesized, how well students collaborate, how findings are communicated, and so on. And no, to be clear, I am not suggesting that there is never a need for assessing memorized knowledge. But I also remember the hours I spent trying to memorize my times tables (and the punishments for getting them wrong), I always struggled with them, and to this day I get them wrong. But I’ve also gotten really good at calculating in my head on-the-fly. As a general rule, if it can be looked up easily, there is no reason to memorize it, so let’s not bother assessing that. (Somewhat related, this is also part of the answer to the challenges posed by AI “cheating” in the classroom).

What we should be assessing is the journey. Rather than using exams to measure a snapshot of time, look at how students worked (recognizing and accommodating different paces and styles), where and how they found information, how they critiqued and evaluated it, how they accepted and incorporated feedback, how they iterated and refined, how they demonstrate critical thinking, how they communicated (again, allowing for diverse communication options), and so on. Doing so will assess what we really need to know, namely, do students have the skills they need to success today and in the future?

And most importantly, assessment cannot be a one-size-fits-all. Yes, it’s a whole lot easier to lay out all the exam papers and check Answer A side-by-side, making notes on each in black or red ink. But if you really want to assess meaningfully, students need to be able to share what they have learned in whatever ways best suit them, written, verbal, video, and more. (And yes, this increases the burden on teachers, I know, which is why we should be paying them more, but, that’s a separate discussion).

This last part aligns with what SFUSD is attempting to do, giving teachers the flexibility to assess as best suits their students. But let’s not do this by lowering expectations. The goal should not be “equity”, it should be allowing all students to excel, recognizing that excellence comes in lots of different forms.