"Grading for Equity" is based on a flawed theory of action

Mastery-based learning demands high standards, regular testing, and lots of support

Joe Feldman’s “Grading for Equity” program has spread across the country. Yet it’s based on a flawed theory of action that’s likely to compound inequities rather than address them.

Here’s a recent piece from RealClear’s Vince Bielski describing the core tenets of the “Grading for Equity” program:

Feldman asserts that schools have a “moral obligation” to close the achievement gap, and his fix is far-reaching: no points for daily homework and classroom behavior, eliminating the distinction in the gradebook between students who lead discussions and those who disrupt them, and no penalties for the late submission of assignments, which shouldn’t be given much weight in grading.

Grades are all about tests. Teachers assess only what really matters – learning – based on a set of well-defined standards and demonstrated on a test at the end of a unit. This summative evaluation doesn’t really count either, because students who don’t ace it get a chance to review their mistakes and take the exam again, and possibly a third time. It’s better to encourage them to master the material, the consultant says, than accept a demoralizing low mark.

Here's the kicker: Even the student who keeps failing the test, or doesn’t show up to take it, gets 50% credit. On a 100-point scale, Feldman says, a zero is disproportionately punitive for the lowest mark, when a passing grade begins at 60%.

There are some things to like here, particularly the emphasis on measurement of real learning gains. You could glance at Feldman’s ideas and see some parallels with what some people think of as mastery learning.

Except… has Feldman been around many young people? Does he know much about human behavior? Lowering standards and letting people procrastinate is not a recipe for success, especially for students who are struggling academically.

Kids need a target and frequent evaluations of their progress.

Feldman’s ideas also reminded me of the concept behind Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), a higher ed fad from a few years ago. In theory, MOOCs could have democratized information by making it freely available to anyone who wanted it. In practice, however, MOOCs tended to exacerbate inequities because they relied on self-motivated learners to persevere through the online classes. MOOCs may be great for some people, but they weren’t a solution to achievement gaps.

We also see this in studies of other forms of competency-based learning platforms. The tools are often great for individuals who manage to stick with them and use them regularly, but many students do not. A piece from Laurence Holt last year dubbed this the “5 percent problem” because 95% of learners become disengaged and need more support.

Feldman’s principles also ignore basic elements about how people learn. I recently finished the book Make It Stick: The Science of Successful Learning, and it hammers home the idea that frequent low-stakes assignments and quizzes help people build knowledge over time so that it becomes stored in their brains. Here’s one key passage from the book:

Poorly prepared students seldom survive entry-level science courses. As a result, even students whose interests and aptitudes might lead them to successful science careers never get through the door. For whatever reason, these students do not have a history from high school or family life of learning how to succeed in these highly challenging academic settings….

In their experiments, [University of Washington Professor Mary Pat Wenderoth] and their colleagues compared the results of “low-structure” classes (traditional lecturing and high-stakes midterm and final exams) with “high-structure” classes (daily and weekly low-stakes exercises to provide constant practice in the analytical skills necessary to do well on exams.) They also teach students the importance of having a “growth mindset”… that is, that learning is hard work and that struggle increases intellectual abilities.

The results? High-structure classes in a gateway biology course significantly reduced student failure rates compared to low-structure classes—narrowing the gap between poorly prepared students and their better prepared peers while at the same time showing exam results at higher levels on Bloom’s taxonomy. Moreover, it’s not just whether the students completes the practice exercises that matters. In the classes where exercises count toward the course grade, even at very low stakes, students achieve higher success over the course of the term compared to students in classes where the exercises are the same but carry no consequences for the grade.

In other words, Feldman’s “grading for equity” prescriptions are more likely to grow initial learning gaps rather than close them. High standards are good; regular tests and quizzes keep kids on track and help them avoid procrastination; and regular, deliberate practice helps people master new skills. “Grading for equity” embodies none of these things, and as a result schools adopting Feldman’s principles are more likely to increase inequities rather than reduce them.