Equitable grading will not lead to human flourishing
But competency-based learning can
Oak Park and River Forest (OPRF) High School's recent strategic planning session highlighted their consideration of an equitable grading policy for the 2022-2023 school year. The administration plans to change their grading policy because "traditional grading practices perpetuate inequities and intensify the opportunity gap," and to do so they are exploring practices such as "competency-based grading, eliminating zeros from the grade book, and encouraging and rewarding growth over time." This move has predictably garnered skepticism as a plan for race-based grading, which is understandable given that historical racism and racial inequality have been the stated impetus for similar changes to traditional grading. Although the word equity rings alarm bells for many, calls for competency-based learning, which measures mastery and student growth over time, are not new and worth considering.
But before we can evaluate the efficacy of equitable grading, or any other school policy, we need a shared understanding of the purpose of schooling. As I have argued before, and will likely continue to argue ad nauseam, we need to first answer the question: what is the purpose of schooling? Only then can we address questions such as: what is the purpose of grading, and what should teachers grade?
If the highest purpose of public schooling—the telos—is civic education, a focus on self-government and human flourishing, as I assert it ought to be, then competency-based learning can help us meet that purpose, but equitable grading cannot.
Competency-based learning places heavy emphasis on mastery—one must show that they have mastered the given content before they can advance to higher-level material and skills. Given this objective, students may work on the same problem set, redoing work if necessary, until they can prove this mastery through appropriate assessment measures. The goal is to observe student progress over time rather than displaying knowledge at one fixed point in time then moving on whether they scored high or low on the given assessment. In many respects, competency-based learning is more challenging for students. They can't just accept a letter grade D and move on, as some students would be happy to do; they have to continue the work until they get it right. This method of teaching and learning, if structured well, is a means to satisfy all four purposes of schooling (getting a job, climbing the social ladder, emancipation from oppression, and preparation for democratic society), thus can satisfy the highest purpose of civic education.
The purpose of equitable grading, as described by EAB, is to strictly focus on academic mastery—the extent to which students have learned the content—and remove more subjective elements like submitting assignments on time, school attendance, and classroom participation from consideration in grading. When a student's GPA is calculated at the end of a term or school year, only their mastery of the content taught should be considered, argues EAB, no matter how they got there. Notably, EAB aligns their equitable grading with the goals of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) initiatives, focusing specifically on low-income students and students of color. They presume grading policies, at least in part, are what produce disparities in academic outcomes between these and other groups. Thus, equity and justice require giving students from low-income backgrounds, who face challenges that more affluent students may not, more time to complete assignments, for instance.
If OPRF High School, or any other public school, constrains competency-based learning within the requirements of equitable grading, which insists upon allowing late assignments, being lax on attendance, and indifference toward student participation, then the telos of civic education cannot be met through this form of teaching and learning—and competency-based learning by no means requires this approach. Under equitable grading, if students meet graduation requirements, they may be prepared to get a job and go to college on paper, but they will not be prepared to self-govern in a democratic society. Showing up and submitting work on time, even if one is asked to make changes or redo aspects of their work, which occurs routinely in many career settings (if I had an editor, they'd likely request changes to this article), are hallmarks of a person able to self-govern and flourish in society. As is participation. Whether at work, in one's community, or in one's home, making one's unique or expected contribution is also necessary to flourish in professional and personal relationships.
Allowing any student, whether students from low-income backgrounds or students of color, to consistently turn in assignments late, show up late, or not at all, to class, and slump quietly in the back of the classroom is not preparing them to be capable adults. And, frankly, this attitude towards students is disrespectful. Lowing the bar, especially when it's done for some students and not others, says to those students that you don't expect as much from them or that you don't think they are competent enough to meet the demands of school. If schools are truly interested in human flourishing, or emancipation from oppression for that matter, they will hold the same high bar, or perhaps higher, that society expects of them.