Grading for Equity Backlash: Why Schools Cling to Broken Systems

Headlines yesterday dominated my feed with news that San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) had scrapped their proposal for grading for equity program. The reactions were dominated by sensational proclamations about "the end of education" or isolated click-bait on students getting As who never attend class.

I scrolled through LinkedIn, watching yesterday's quick posts. Quotes like "this policy changes a B to an A" ricocheted across the feed.

But do you know what the articles didn't do?

They didn't provide the rationale or architecture of the Grading for Equity approach. Instead, they grabbed onto the idea that equity is inherently unfair (oh, the irony), bad and weak. If a program has that word in its title, people stop working to understand the design, intent and impact. It becomes something you don't have to think about anymore.

We've developed a reflexive resistance to equity work in education that shuts down critical thinking before it even begins.

The moment that word appears in a policy title, nuanced discussion evaporates, replaced by inflammatory reactions that miss the actual substance entirely.

I've grappled with grades since I started teaching.

Do you know how most teacher preparation programs teach the impact of grading?

They don't.

Honestly, it's just assumed that you will pick up grading from the site that you teach and then grading scales, distributions and day to day practices are merely inherited when you join the (history, science, world language) department. You'll find most high school grading policies are striking similar to when you were in school. And the dynamic ones that aren't are the rare exception, not the rule.

And grading is NEVER revisited. It's controversial, on most campuses, to dig into what goes into a grade.

We're defending grading as it stands, not because it's right, but because it's what's known.

Joe Feldman, who designed the Grading for Equity framework, captured this reality perfectly in his quote to the Chronicle: "Most teachers receive no training in grading. Everyone recognizes that current grading is neither accurate nor fair and it's also widely variable." (Newsweek, May 29, 2025) was the only outlet I found that included substantial quotes from Feldman rather than just inflammatory reactions.

Twenty-plus years of research supports everything Feldman describes. People in their thirties navigated the same esoteric, inconsistent grading policies across their 24 high school classes that teenagers face today. Ask any high school principal to define what grades mean—concretely, specifically related to learning—across their campus. The response typically amounts to: "Each teacher establishes their own scale" or "Teachers have discretion within departments."

Professional standards? Interpreted at an individual level.

As a 24-year-old teacher, I assigned grades that would permanently mark student transcripts without any understanding of their impact. I copied department colleagues, rewarded compliance through homework points, entered zeros until ERIC research from 1999 showed me their mathematical devastation. The knowledge about zero's outsized impact has existed for decades. Yet we continue treating grading design as if it's inconsequential.

During my decade as a site administrator, I witnessed the chaos up close. Grading practices varied wildly, even within departments. And even to this day, I regularly encounter teachers who are unwilling to accept late work for full credit even when the student had a federally protected plan to accommodate a disability.

Grades are to assess learning. Not who is well organized. Not who has a parent diligently tracking assignments and due dates. Not who has means to get to school on time daily. Not who can knuckle through poorly designed or outdated content for the sake of compliance. 

Do you know why people propose not grading homework?

Studies show that most homework is basic recall and is not developing long-term retention of information. It is a measure of organization and compliance.

Many teachers will tell you that homework is what they do when they "run out of time" to cover content in class and/or "it's what my school does, so I assign something". Grading for Equity training has teachers look carefully at what is assigned for homework and why. When homework is used, it's a support to the student and a form of formative assessment --meaning a snapshot that the teacher can scan to see that a student is on track or not. Getting 9/10 doesn't do that. It just gives the teacher a task to do (grade) but not one that drives learning forward.

Do you know why students could earn an A with absences and missed assignments?

It's because they would have to show that they have mastered the content for that course through the final assessments. That means those assessments are designed to capture verification that students know and can use the information. Here's the difference: you cram for a test and stack the information in your working memory through tricks and associations and then take a test only testing recall. You do well, but three weeks later, you don't remember any of it.

If a test (or assessment) is designed to include recall, synthesis, and application of content, then cramming won't result in a passing grade. You'll have to know the information and be able to use it in different ways on the test. The results will show you deeply grasp the material and can use it.

The Case Against Zero Grading (Edutopia 2021) reinforces what practitioners have observed for decades: traditional grading systems often undermine the very learning they claim to measure.

The SFUSD reversal reveals something deeper than policy disagreement. It exposes our reflexive defense of familiar systems, regardless of their effectiveness. We're protecting grading practices not because they serve learning, but because questioning them feels destabilizing.

Schools remain whirling, complex places where humanity collides with systems daily. Behind every grade sits a student whose future opportunities hang in the balance. We owe them assessment practices grounded in learning rather than inherited tradition.

The conversation about grading equity isn't going away because the inequities aren't going away. The question becomes: 

Will we engage with the actual research and design, or will we continue responding to headlines and soundbites?

What would our schools look like if we dug in deeper and ditched what we all know for something that works?