Will Bay Area schools' switch to equity grading help or harm students?
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
> "The goal is to lower the impact of things that “fluff” grades – extra credit, class participation and homework – while also making it easier for lower-performing students to bounce back from failing."
The other change is
> "remove the practice of awarding zero points for assignments as long as they were “reasonably attempted.”"
Unless this leads to many more kids passing when they should be failing, or kids who would've gotten an A slack off, it seems like a tempest in a teacup
I.e., when challenged, defenders of concept assert the safer, easy to defend definition
In reality the actual meaning of the concept is practiced
A lot of the time though, people are pretty innocent and just don't know that there is literature behind these things. They just think equity always means some ideal they hold in their heads. And they'll see egregious examples of it being exercised and think "that's not real equity!" when in reality, it is, and "real equity" is not defined by their understanding of it, but by some academic literature that ultimately guides the implementation/practice at the high levels.
I support the removal of the "fluff" for the high end.
But to the extent that solving for the low end negatively impacts students on the high end, why not adopt a parallel system where students' grades are calculated under both systems and provide the grade that benefits the student most?
PS: End NCLBA. It was an abject failure mandated by know-nothing, arrogant neocons who went on an ideological crusade to squander resources and harm education with their "help".