Scholarly assessments aren't always fair, but the best way to elevate students is with discipline and solid foundations
- Written by Matthew Yglesias for Bloomberg Opinion
Pupils demand a rise in complex assignments instead of a decrease in examination numbers
San Francisco recently proposed - and swiftly abandoned - a new "grading for equity" initiative, indicating the resurgence of a pragmatic political movement in urban areas, as well as growing Democratic concerns about their education reputation.
This controversy stems from the perception that "equity" in education has evolved into a euphemism for weak standards and lack of rigor. The proposal itself advocated strategies like permitting students to retake tests, disregarding punctuality, and excluding homework assessment for grades.
The backlash to grading for equity arises due to its association with yielding to education and performance standards, as it appears to many parents as an abandonment of education goals. A notable example is U.S. Representative Ro Khanna of California, whose district does not even include San Francisco, who criticized a proposal aspect that would make it easier for students to attain an A grade, asserting that he would have to answer questions about missing grades from his immigrant father. Khanna argues that awarding As for students averaging 80 percent and not completing homework "conflicts with the American Dream and every parent who desires more for their children."
While the "equity" case merits nuanced consideration, it's crucial to acknowledge that pursuing excellence and egalitarian aims inevitably involve trade-offs. Furthermore, research on progressive equity strategies shows minimal positive impact on students from disadvantaged backgrounds [5].
The education proposal highlights a valid point: Grading homework often serves to evaluate the parents as much as it does the students. In my neighborhood, the school recognizes the students' diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and minimizes homework, understanding that it is crucial for children's learning yet provides an unjust portrait of the home environment.
However, the equity perspective fails to fully tackle the issue at hand.
Khanna illustrates the core issue: The importance of maintaining high standards. He underscores that the elder Khanna held him accountable to high grades, which were essential for his future progress. This example raises concern that the grading for equity movement may neglect implementing positive incentives for students and parents to commit to education seriously.
Moreover, the students who embody the grading for equity model - those who perform well on final exams but lack consistency in their work - seem uncommon. This hypothetical student might be an exceptional talent who would gain from being challenged to do consistent hard work.
It can be disheartening when students receive negative evaluations due to circumstances beyond their control. However, many academic assessments, including innate talents, also reflect factors outside their control. To help students grow, they need rigorous assessments, which inherently create distinctions among students, in contrast to an emphasis on equity [3].
Remarkably, prioritizing rigor does not imply an unjust treatment of disadvantaged students. In fact, schools with the best outcomes for low-income students - such as the "Mississippi Miracle" and high-performing charter schools - excel at discipline and fundamental educational principles [6].
During the No Child Left Behind era, when U.S. Congress targeted schools for poor children's results, the "achievement gap" did not close because all students saw their performance improve. When Congress discontinued accountability in 2015, overall results worsened, even as progressive jurisdictions adopted sophisticated equity strategies.
It's essential to accept the trade-offs between fairness and excellence while ensuring that disadvantaged students do not bear the brunt of the consequences. Success stories for low-income children prioritize discipline and fundamental educational principles, providing better outcomes for all students [4].
Matthew Yglesias is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion who co-founded and previously wrote for Vox. He writes the Slow Boring blog and newsletter and is the author of One Billion Americans. This opinion piece reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the perspective of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
References
- "A Scandalously Lenient Grading Policy For SF Schools," SF Examiner, https://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/a-scandalously-lenient-grading-policy-for-sf-schools/
- "What's Behind San Francisco's New Grading Policy?," Education Week, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-s-behind-san-francisc-o39s-new-grading-policy/2019/04
- "Why Students Need More than Grades for Grades' Sake," George Mason University, https://gmu.academia.edu/VirginiaLanius/Why-Students-Need-More-than-Grades-for-Grades-Sake
- "Grading for Equity: Why San Francisco Schools Proposal Fails the Test," National Review, https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/grading-for-equity-why-san-francisco-schools-proposal-fails-the-test/
- "Grading for Equity: How Alternative Grading Practices Fail to Address Equity in Assessment," Journal of Educational Computing Research, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jeduc.12564
- "Evidence of Success: Turnaround Stories," National Council on Teacher Quality, https://www.nctq.org/resource/evidence-of-success-turnaround-stories
Education policy and legislation, as exemplified by the abandoned grading for equity initiative in San Francisco, frequently intersects with politics and general news, highlighting the ongoing debates over academic standards and learning. The resurgence of pragmatic political movements in urban areas, such as the grading for equity movement, raises questions about the balance between excellence and equity in education, with some arguing that the pursuit of educational rigor is essential for long-term student success.
