When the Equitable Grading bill was vetoed last year, we lost more than common-sense standardization. The credibility of high school grades is also at stake.
Educational expert and author of the renowned book “Grading for Equity,” Joe Feldman reached out to speak with us after reading our opinion piece Anthony Meyer: sign the equitable grading bill. In our conversation, Feldman said that admissions officers are “leaning more on standardized tests because the variability of the grading practices of teachers is making them lose confidence in the validity of [grades].”
The National Association for College Admission Counseling’s (NACAC) official platform reiterates this changing dynamic. In a college admissions analysis, NACAC states: “even in the same school, the depth of course content and grading practices can vary by classroom.” A 2020 NACAC report asserts that standardized tests have become a “counterweight” to the information that grades provide, as schools have “entrusted the College Board and ACT” with determining qualification. Without standardization, grades are losing credibility and, Feldman added, “weakening [teacher] professionalism.”
While the Equitable Grading Bill aimed to address these same concerns, its defeat nine months ago revealed a fundamental problem: some teachers were unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue about reform.
In light of this experience, we believe that as a school, we need to improve at having constructive conversations. Achieving this requires teachers to be willing to engage in productive discussions with students and for students to feel confident advocating for change.
In our conversation, Feldman emphasized the need “for teachers and students to be able to engage in shared discussions about what their vision is [for learning and grading.]” We couldn’t agree more. The high school is a place for students to learn to self-advocate, but it can feel difficult to engage in such self-advocacy if students fear they will be ignored, or worse, reprimanded.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen some teachers shut down conversations about change rather than engage with student concerns. Students, just like teachers, have strong opinions on how school should be, and as stakeholders, deserve to be heard. Some of what we’ve seen goes beyond declining to engage; it’s active intimidation to discourage conversation about student rights. We’ve heard about teachers who get exasperated when students cite their Handbook-protected rights. One of our teachers chastised students for trying to “Handbook” them, dismissed their concerns and then further berated the students for bringing the issue to curriculum coordinators.
We do know many teachers follow Handbook regulations religiously and are always willing to change a deadline or an assignment if they realize they are in violation of a policy.
However, in a school that prides itself on the active role students play in determining their rights and responsibilities, we must make sure all students and teachers respect the Handbook and its protections. If we want to encourage students to self-advocate, then we need to empower them to speak about their existing rights. When discourse is declined and actively discouraged, there can be no constructive discussion.
Of the teachers with whom we discussed new policies, another obstacle arose: students and teachers both struggle with balancing realism and idealism.
From talking to teachers about grading, we’ve seen a disconnect: teachers often take an idealistic stance while students approach the issue practically. Students care about grades because of their importance for college admissions. However, when discussing the Equitable Grading Bill, many teachers dismissed it, saying we wrongly prioritized grades over learning. We often heard, “you should learn for the sake of learning.”
We understand this perspective; in an ideal world, students would focus on insights over grades. Yet, it feels like teachers shut down grading reform conversations from an ideological high ground while students address the system as it actually exists.
Feldman talked to us about this disconnect: when he asked students whether they measure success by learning or points, they always answered points. He explains why this happens: teachers tell students not to worry about grades and to “love learning,” yet “the entire language of learning has been framed in terms of points.”
Ideals are important to both teachers and students. Yet, idealism alone doesn’t create change; realism is important to temper bold new ideas and make them feasible for the here and now. We experienced this ourselves: over 18 months and 10 versions of the Equitable Grading Bill, we scaled back our original omnibus bill to a realistic compromise that respected teacher autonomy. Compromise, as we learned, is a key component of any debate.
If we as a community fail to have meaningful conversations, we risk teaching students a dangerous lesson: that speaking up doesn’t work. Schools are training grounds for civic participation, meant to embolden young adults to participate in society. When students learn to advocate for themselves in the classroom and see that advocacy leads to constructive dialogue, they develop the political efficacy needed for democratic participation. However, when students are dismissed or face retaliation, they learn the opposite. We’ve noticed students becoming more timid in advocating for their rights when they fear contempt from teachers. This learned helplessness doesn’t stay in the classroom; young people already participate at much lower rates in political processes compared to older adults, and schools that silence student voices only reinforce this trend.
Teachers: when students raise concerns about grading or cite the Handbook, engage with them as fellow stakeholders in education, not as challengers to your authority. Students, don’t let the fear of retaliation silence you; it’s your right and responsibility to advocate for yourself and your classmates. Stand with your peers when they speak up, and know that collective voices are harder to dismiss than individual ones.
And to our entire community: let’s recommit to the constructive dialogue that makes change possible. If we teach students that their voices and concerns about their own learning don’t matter in school, how can we convince them that they can affect change in the real world?
