In defense of Equity Grading and Instruction
A recent opinion piece at the “Intellectual Takeout,” reposted from the author’s Substack, attempts to make a strong case against Portland’s recent choice to implement “Equity Grading.” It’s a winey piece that smacks of privilege and ableism.
“The initiative also calls to only "base grades on summative assessments, instead of classwork, homework, formative assessments, etc." Should a student cheat or fail to submit an assignment on time, teachers should provide a grade of at least 50 percent, the district handout outlining the initiative says. The initiative also calls to replace the typical "0-100" grading scale with a "0-4" scale.”
It sounds dangerous. It sounds like it’s doomed to fail. The author, however, relies upon the Washington Free Beacon. The Washington Free Beacon is an American reactionary online news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. The Free Beacon was founded in 2012 by Michael Goldfarb and Matthew Continetti, neither of whom could be seen even remotely as proponents of the free public school or of education in general. The author, too, has a history of antagonism against the public school movement. In a word, there’s a definite bias to the story.
Some pull-quotes and quick rebuttals
No scores of zero: “Provide a minimum grade greater than or equal to 50% for work that does not meet expectations, is incomplete, or is missing,” the handout reads.
What’s the philosophy behind the “No Zero” policy? The philosophy behind not giving students a zero grade if they've at least tried is grounded in educational principles that prioritize student learning, growth, and fairness. This approach is associated with the idea of “grading for learning” rather than punitive grading.
No academic consequences for cheating: “Provide alternative consequences to cheating, instead of zeros.”
Agree or disagree, cheating is a behavioural issue, a choice that is made. It’s not necessarily an indication of academic performance. Most so-called equity grading protocols separate behaviour from performance. There’s also room here for a conversation around the “school-to-prison-pipeline” that seeks to punish even small infractions. How exactly does the “you panicked, cheated, and now you fail my class” help students who are struggling. Why not ask why the student made the choice, then seek to remedy the reasons behind the choice?
Let the kids turn in work when they feel like it: “Do not penalize students for submitting late work.”
What exactly is the goal of learning? Do you want children to learn and grow? I do. Some take more time than others. Being flexible with deadlines, allowing students to re-assess, and understanding their often complex home situations allows them to lessen the emotional load of schooling.
Lower the incentive for studying outside the classroom: “Do not grade homework and/or do not include homework as part of a final grade.”
Homework assumes that one has a home, a place within that home to focus and study, and support at home should questions arise. This is simply not the case for a majority of students in Title 1 schools. Unpacking privilege requires us to know our students, their families, and their communities. As before, why punish the child for living in poverty? As if it’s their choice to do so.
The Hidden Curriculum
They say that we autistics are horrible at unwritten rules. Well, the author’s “takedown” of equity grading is actual a reinforcement of one of the most prominent of education’s unwritten rules, the “Hidden Curriculum.” Just what is the “Hidden Curriculum?” Here’s Stephanie Erickson, author of last year’s The game of grades and the hidden curriculum:
… More often than not, however, students ask questions such as, “Will this be on the test?” and “How many points is this assignment worth?” Even more frustrating is students chasing points to get a better grade, or asking for “extra credit.” Traditional grading systems reward students who are savvy with their time, know how much each assignment is worth, and ask professors and teachers for points back that they feel were unfairly taken away. They are rewarded with high grades that translate to being recognized with placement on honor rolls, access to scholarships, and opportunities to take advanced course work. By the time students are in their first physics class, often taught at the end of their K-12 science education, many “high achievers” have mastered this game of grades. Still, others either choose not to participate in the game or simply have not learned the rules. Grading practices and these unwritten rules of the game are part of the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum involves the aspects of education that are not transparent and are the unwritten lessons and expectations of schooling. These lessons and expectations are oftentimes rooted in cultural practices and, in the case of many education settings in the United States, a homogenized white middle-class culture. The hidden curriculum is an aspect of education that is harder for students outside of the dominant culture, or who are otherwise oppressed, to access. It is critical that we examine our grading practices for the hidden curriculum embedded in it if we are to make assessment more equitable and less punitive, and motivate learning for learning’s sake …
Equity Grading and Instruction (EGI)
I will say, straight away, that I’m a strong proponent of EGI. I use it in my Developmental Maths class. My co-teacher and I use it in our classes as well (geometry / stats). I’ve been interacting with it, in its various forms, for my entire life.
In my best-selling 2008 book, Forensic Photoshop, I introduced the forensic science world to EGI. There, it was called the “What - How - Why” model. That model wasn’t new. It was my adaptation of the traditional Apprentice - Journeyman - Master model from the trades, one that’s as old as time. I am, after all, a 5th-generation trade unionist. I do have a bit of experience with this model.
Before the book came out, I was teaching up and coming forensic scientists how to do amazing things with Photoshop in processing multimedia evidence. I had created a blog on Google’s Blogger platform called the Forensic Photoshop Blog to help spread the word. In one 2007 post, I presented the model for the readers that would eventually find it’s way into the book.
I know what I want to do (apprentice), I know how to do it effectively and efficiently (journey level), and I know why it works and why it's the appropriate way to do it (mastery). (source)
In the classroom, it looks like this:
Is the goal of learning a mastery of the subject matter? I think it is. With EGI, learning targets are assessed. If a student does not do well, they’re offered opportunities to reassess. Again, the goal is mastery. If a student reassesses, and does well, the old score is erased. It doesn’t impact their overall grade. Only the top scores count?
Is this fair? Consider the traditional grading structure. A student assesses a learning target and gets a 50/100. They perform their error analysis, learn, grow, and reassess. They do quite well on the reassessment, scoring an 85/100. But traditional grading doesn’t remove the older score. The 50 and the 85 are put together - a 67.5% (D). Thus, the final score on the learning target is the average of the two, which discounts the student’s actual achievement. They get a D when they’ve actually approached or achieved mastery of the target. Plus, with traditional grading, demonstrating mastery by assisting your table partners or classmates in their journey to mastery might be considered as extra credit, or not considered at all. In EGI, it’s part of the rubric. Thus, EGI is quite similar to the medical school style of teaching: “see one - do one - teach one.” EGI truly gets students ready for college and career.
The real agenda?
Further down the page, the author reveals her true feelings:
“Why, the question naturally arises, would the devil be so intent on destroying true education? The simple answer is that good education creates good societies and “great men,” while bad—or democratic, equitable education—destroys them, turning those who are trained under this form of equity against all that’s good, true, and beautiful in this world …”
“The devil?” “True education?” “Great men?” Remember the bold part of Stephanie Erickson’s pull-quote? “The hidden curriculum is an aspect of education that is harder for students outside of the dominant culture, or who are otherwise oppressed, to access.” Putting this together, we can infer that “the devil” is trying to subvert the “true education” that produces “great men” by making education “harder for students outside of the dominant culture, or who are otherwise oppressed, to access.” No thanks. Count me out of the “true education.” In Annie Holmquist’s “true education” world, there is no place for people like you and me.
A path forward
Annie Holmquist longs for the days of “true education.” I don’t. Her worldview produced a system that graduated me functionally illiterate. I didn’t get the unwritten rules of the Hidden Curriculum. As hard as I may have worked, the system wasn’t designed with people like me in mind. There were many traps, tricks, and scams along the way. I fell for them all. Now, as an educator, I choose to break that toxic cycle. I choose to embrace my working-class past and bring that element of mastery education into my classrooms. I choose to make learning and growth accessible and achievable.
Last year (2022), I conducted a small-scale study through my affiliation at Loyola Marymount Univ. to see if I could improve the reading comprehension scores of my students on the District’s standardized tests via a focussed intervention. I used the principles of EGI in my lessons. I brought lessons that had something for everyone, my analytic processors and my gestalt processors alike. The data showed that everyone who participated in the intervention grew significantly. The cohort’s scores on the test improved, they were comprehending what they were reading. Many moved from “way below baseline” to “at grade level.” Some moved “above grade level.” One, a ninth grader (an autistic English language learner), went from “below baseline” to the third highest score in the school. Again, the goals of EGI are learning, growing, and understanding the learning targets at such a level that one can teach one’s peers and help bring them to mastery.
Now, on the back of those results, I’m writing another book. I’ve already shared a bit about it here. It’s called Holistic Language Instruction. I can’t wait to share it with you.