“Equity Grading”

[Anonymous]

I did not read all the pages, but here are my thoughts: perhaps Braddock is seeing an issue wherein students are just giving up on learning altogether. Failed a test? No chance of getting a better grade? Then the students quit. Maybe Braddock’s goal is to have students actually learn something. It’s not really about getting the best grades — it’s getting the kids to learn. If they can do that with “equity learning,” then perhaps their student population is better off in the end than just from quitting or dropping out of school. Maybe enough students there are at risk of failing altogether, that equity learning makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not read all the pages, but here are my thoughts: perhaps Braddock is seeing an issue wherein students are just giving up on learning altogether. Failed a test? No chance of getting a better grade? Then the students quit. Maybe Braddock’s goal is to have students actually learn something. It’s not really about getting the best grades — it’s getting the kids to learn. If they can do that with “equity learning,” then perhaps their student population is better off in the end than just from quitting or dropping out of school. Maybe enough students there are at risk of failing altogether, that equity learning makes sense.

This isn’t based on any one school. It’s a new education theory that some are applying. It’s not like LB saw a problem and wanted to address it. It’s more like LB learned about this new education theory and wants to apply it. Grades of the lower performing kids will go up, which will make it appear like it’s a success. Why not apply the same policy for kids who are not turning things in only? Wouldn’t it be more equitable to only apply this if the exclusion of these buffer grades helps a student rather than apply it to those that it helps AND those that it hurts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much about not allowing late work but more about eliminating a grade for homework, classwork and class participation. The idea is that a kid who fails to routinely do that type of work has a low grade for those areas, and even if he aced a test, his grade is still brought way down. By eliminating all of the other non major work grades, and focusing just on the major work grades, the students are graded solely on what they know, not what they are still mastering. That means if a kid gets a B on a quiz but an A on the test, the quiz is thrown out because the test showed mastery.

Obviously, this hurts the students who put the effort in from the beginning because he gets no credit for that and no grade buffer added in to help raise a lower test grade. Other HSs in FCPS already do this. It should be universal throughout FCPS one way or another and I would prefer it gone.

My niece attends a school that uses this. As a former teacher, I hate it. It punishes the kids who are hard workers but maybe not all As all the time.

It rewards content mastery which is the whole point of education, whether you master the material.

The real world cares about results/mastery not hard work, as a manager I don't care how much effort my folks put in I only care about the end product which is only possible based on mastery of how to do it.

Presumably you also care that the end product is ready for review/delivery by next Friday instead of five months from now.

I agree with the PP. Where do you draw the line? The student misses the final test? I don't care how good your work is as a manger, if it's past the deadline, I can't use it. And in the "real world" there are often countdown meetings, and check-ins etc etc. It's probably (at least in my line of work) very unusual to be given a project with an XYZ deadline and not have any check ins/meetings in between.

Well, lucky 14 through 18-year-olds are not in the real world yet. They are still in the learning process which means the learning of the material should take precedence, not training them yet

So the life skills that we learned in school, time management and organization and prioritization, our kids don't deserve to learn that until they're adults.

What's wrong with our kids? Why don't they deserve that?

Because racism.

[Anonymous]

All you guys sitting on the fence on the TJ issue - this should be an eye-opener. The SJWs are coming for you. If you are wealthy or prioritize hard work or are achievement oriented - you are in their crosshairs.

This school board is nuts. And running wild.

[Anonymous]

Once again, FCPS is catering to the lowest denominator.

[Anonymous]

It’s not really grading for equity; it’s grading for self-interested administrators who benefit from inflated passing and graduation rates and statistics that make them look better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not really grading for equity; it’s grading for self-interested administrators who benefit from inflated passing and graduation rates and statistics that make them look better.

absolutely. equity is just an excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I be a contrarian? I grew up in a very traditional school system where your final mark was based on formal assessments like essays or presentations, mid semester exams, and a more heavily weighted end of semester exam. There were no marks for homework, attendance or class participation. Clearly if you didn’t do these, that would be reflected in your final performance. Why should anyone just get marks for handing in their homework???

I agree except for one point: many systems moving to this type of grading also allow for test retakes and paper resubmissions. I used to teach in a county that did test retakes. I grew tired of hearing students say they “forgot” to study, so they would use my initial test as a practice and then retake it later for “real.” Since retakes required the student to stay for additional tutoring first, it also meant I had to stay past duty hours and teach lessons again. Yes, I felt abused by students simply gaming the system as I was forced to work more so they could avoid studying. Honestly, it’s one of the reasons I left that district. There was no incentive to try and do well the first time, so I would argue this grading system definitely encourages laziness. Sure, the student can eventually demonstrate mastery and some will argue that’s all that matters. I disagree, especially because it discourages the same traits we would want to see in the students as they grow into adults (self-discipline, for example).

The incentive is you get to move on. My kid has done a test retake twice. It's not easy! And class keeps moving so now the kid must do the remediation and prepare for the retake and retain the information for the next unit. No one really wants to do that.

[Anonymous]

APS is proposing to scrap their version of Equity Grading...hoping fcps does the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS is proposing to scrap their version of Equity Grading...hoping fcps does the same thing.

Sound like a version of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).
Each state creates an education plan for its schools within a framework provided by the federal government. The law gives parents and caregivers a chance to weigh in on these plans. Each state plan must describe:

Academic standards
Annual testing
School accountability
Goals for academic achievement
Plans for supporting and improving struggling schools
State and local report cards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS is proposing to scrap their version of Equity Grading...hoping fcps does the same thing.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:APS is proposing to scrap their version of Equity Grading...hoping fcps does the same thing.

This isn't accurate - APS is continuing to move to Standards Based Grading in middle and high school.

Generally, APS is more progressive than FCPS, several years "ahead" of FCPS. So when APS finally scraps their version of Standards Based Grading, it will take a while for FCPS to follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not really grading for equity; it’s grading for self-interested administrators who benefit from inflated passing and graduation rates and statistics that make them look better.

A school with the demographics of LBSS shouldn't even have to resort to these games. I can understand administrators in the high-ESOL schools needing to grasp at straws because they get hammered with disapproval ratings when ESOL success rates are inevitably low, though not because it's truly any fault of their own. But c'mon, LBSS completely lacks FARMs and ESOL issues that other schools must contend with. LBSS should be smooth sailing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All you guys sitting on the fence on the TJ issue - this should be an eye-opener. The SJWs are coming for you. If you are wealthy or prioritize hard work or are achievement oriented - you are in their crosshairs.

This school board is nuts. And running wild.

-Signed, Glenn Youngkin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not really grading for equity; it’s grading for self-interested administrators who benefit from inflated passing and graduation rates and statistics that make them look better.

A school with the demographics of LBSS shouldn't even have to resort to these games. I can understand administrators in the high-ESOL schools needing to grasp at straws because they get hammered with disapproval ratings when ESOL success rates are inevitably low, though not because it's truly any fault of their own. But c'mon, LBSS completely lacks FARMs and ESOL issues that other schools must contend with. LBSS should be smooth sailing.

I posted above that this is not because of an issue at LBSS; it is implemented because they think it is a more equitable system. It definitely raises grades for many, but also hurts many grades.