For many of us, one of the most startling parts of last year was the removal of the zero from our grading scales.  The move may have felt seismic but, as with everything else, we have managed to adapt and continue on.

Meanwhile, the conversations around equitable grading have never stopped.  In fact, this year, those conversations are continuing monthly among the 36 members of the Equitable Grading Think Tank.  Represented on the team are a wide variety of secondary teachers as well as site and district administrators (names appear below), all of whom are deeply committed to representing their sites and our district with integrity and fairness, all of whom welcome your questions if you want to reach out.

To prepare this post, I spoke with Stephen Duvall, the group’s facilitator, current principal of Cascade, and incoming Director of College and Career Readiness, and two members of the group’s leadership team: Katie Lyons, middle school science teacher currently Cascade, previously at Marshall; and Mary Wellington, 24-year middle school Spanish teacher currently at Pacific Crest as well as long-time BEA site rep.

How is the Equitable Grading Think Tank organized?

SD: We meet monthly, during teacher-directed SIW’s.  Based on applications, we’ve pulled together a group of teachers from middle and high schools across the district to have a voice in exploring equitable grading practices as a whole, and to look at making recommendations – including PD recommendations – by the end of the year.  We also have folks on the team from downtown and from Information Technology so that, whatever recommendations we make, we have had all the necessary voices at the table. We’ve tried to achieve representation from every site, but there were a couple unable to participate at this time.

MW:  So far, we’ve met twice.  We all read Grading for Equity by Joe Feldman this summer and then we met to discuss.  So far, we have focused on getting started by getting clear and unified about the ‘Why’ behind this work.

SD: We have all been tasked with keeping this work from living in isolation, with going back to our buildings and being conduits for our work.  We want to be 100% transparent.  Even if a teacher’s site did not have a representative apply to participate in the group, that teacher should not hesitate to reach out to us for more information and updates.

The team has also Partnered with Creative Leadership Solutions who has been very helpful in giving us a lot of resources to look at, and research to review.  That organization has been very helpful in giving us ideas for how to have these conversations, and what conversations to have.

KL: We’re not here to push a model.  We’re here to make recommendations after analyzing as many angles as we can.

What are the biggest learnings of the group so far?

KL: Learning why traditional grading practices are inequitable.  The district has done a lot of work highlighting its own inequities – it’s a very valuable, reflective moment we’re having right now.  This group pairs so nicely with those reflections, and the need for change can feel like it matters so much.

SD:  The overall recognition that there is a need for a change. In broad terms, there is a sense that this is necessary work.  We recently put out a survey to poll people on the ‘why’ behind the work – why is this important and why do we need to make some changes?  Team members responded on a 1-4 scale: 1 = “I have no idea.” And 4 = “I am fully on board and believe this work is essential”.  100% of the group scored themselves a 3 or a 4.  We are unified in this belief:  there is a need for a change.  Our group really is made up of a wide-range of perspectives from across the district, not unified in beliefs or in relationship to the work.  So to be unified in recognizing that what we’re doing for kids is not equitable is a really substantial belief to share.

KL:  Accepting the challenges we will face as a district trying to move forward.  First, we have to expand the mindset and beliefs of many of our colleagues.  Also, the logistics of making what feels like a drastic change in everything from classroom practices to the support systems in place to make it all work.  A lot of concern has been voiced about how are we going to do this in a way that makes sense for all.  

MW: There have been a couple of times during meetings where the perspective has been voiced: “This district already knows what it wants to do here.”  I’m pleased to say that is not the case. I find that the admin we’re working with are very much open to hearing all perspectives from the different schools. Nothing has been decided yet.  We are looking at everything.  The voice of teachers and the voices of the schools is important and is going to be listened to.  I don’t foresee an outcome where one decision is made for every site.

What are the big ideas the group is currently working on?

SD:  Grading is a big beast.  A thousand things go into it. As a group, we’ve identified four pillars for our decision-making process. We’ve looked at a number of folks out there, and everybody has some differences about their beliefs around what grading practices should be.  We looked at those, and then narrowed down to the four that would be most impactful for our decision-making and selected those four. All of our research and recommendation needs to go through these four.  As a group, we’ve decided that grading practices for our district need to be accurate, motivational, transparent, and bias-resistant.  

From there, we’ve identified the buckets we need to examine as a group:  homework, behavior’s role in the gradebook, retakes/redos; assessment methods and calculation methods; the process of identifying/using standards, scales, rubrics, and multiple methods of assessments; and systems – the structures and technologies in our buildings that will allow these changes to happen. 

What will the final product of the group be?

MW: At first, we were thinking our group would be a one-year process, but we’ve since realized that may not be realistic.  It may take two years – we don’t want to rush.  We want to do this well.  We may spend this year figuring our all the big ideas and then next year developing the PD plan.

SD:  We are exploring each one of these buckets on a monthly basis.  And then finding resources as well as people on our team that have been trying some of these practices.  And then our goal will be to come up with a few key recommendations around best practices for that bucket.  Our task is to make recommendations, not to make policy decisions.

Our second task is to make professional development recommendations around what training is needed to support a shift. No decisions have been made yet.  After we make our recommendations, Lora and Steve will evaluate which recommendations will remain recommendations, and which might shift towards policy.  However, no one is interested in making “thou shalt” changes as much as looking at what training and information can we provide to support staff members in moving towards more equitable grading practices.

If you were to look at neighboring large districts who have undertaken this work, it is a multi-year process.  The great thing about this work is that there are some things that are easy, small shifts that can happen via small shifts in classroom practices.  And then there are much bigger lifts that would require a lot more time and infrastructural investment.  District teachers can know this work is being done thoughtfully and methodically over a large span of time.  No one will be required to make huge changes quickly.

Can you give me an example of a topic and process you’re following to explore it?

SD: We are working with the topic of homework as a whole by looking at a wide variety of articles and videos; we also have some team members trying out a variety of strategies that will share their observations with us. 

MW: With homework, what do we see? What is it that’s equitable?  What is it that’s not?  How can we communicate all that in such a way that people are going to understand and acknowledge our own inequitable practice, but then tweak it and make it a better thing?  Instead of giving homework because we always have, how can we assign it in such a way that it benefits all students instead of hindering those without the home situations to support it?

SD:  After looking at our research and hearing about the experiences of our colleagues as they’ve been trying certain things, we’re going to make a few bullet points of best practice recommendations.  And then those will go to Lora and Steve who can take it from there.

Is there anything you especially want teachers to know, or to ask you about?

MW: Anything that people want to ask me about helps clarify for things for me too.  It’s helpful to have to talk through ideas or explain reasons behind certain thinking.  But we’re also early in the process – so my answers may still be evolving.

KL: Teachers are coming to their own reckoning.  I’m hearing a lot of conversations around teachers wanting to do this work.  My advice would be: absolutely!  Absolutely delve in the waters and do your own research; but also know there is a team going about this in the most evidence-based and methodical way to ensure there is consistency moving forward and to ensure – for anything we want to do – we do it in a supported way.  

We’re all so eager and I’m hearing lots of people wanting to hurry and make big changes.  Part of me wants to tell them to slow down because this is such hard work.  Good teachers that realize something is unfair want to fix it immediately, but we have to do it right.  The power of doing this work together is exactly why we can do this work successfully.

Who is in the group, in case I have follow-up questions or want to look at some of the resources?