The Ongoing Grading Crisis

(A. Solano)

Grading Crisis Overview

Grading is a touchy subject. It’s intertwined with academic freedom, yet it’s the 800-Ibs gorilla that hardly anyone wants to meaningfully talk about, let alone do something about. Many of us have known since the existence of grades that broad variations in grading practices have a significant impact on whether students can reach their academic goals, especially for our disproportionately impacted students. It’s a lottery for students. I’ll explain.

A small group of math faculty surveyed their colleagues on their grading practices. The findings revealed that a student in the same course, but in two different sections (two different faculty), is given very different course grades. The example below shows the difference between a “B” and “C” final grade, but there are more examples that can mean the difference between passing and failing. This variation occurs in all subjects, not only in math, and not just at this campus.

Academic Freedom & Dismissing Faculty with High Success Rates

Depending on the campus, dismal completion rates in transfer and/or graduation can range from the single digits to roughly fifty percent. Let's think about this for a moment. At its root, what constitutes a completion rate? The ability for students to pass courses (i.e., success rates) and persist to the next set of courses. How do students persist? Grading. Also known as assessing student learning. But when presented with grading variation data that demonstrates it’s a lottery for students when choosing what section to enroll in, here’s the unfortunate and oft response by faculty with low success rates: "The faculty with high success rates are easy." Other comments include “dumbing down the curriculum” and “coddling students.” Institutional conservatives—a term I coined to describe college personnel who fight to maintain the status quo—like to remind people of their academic freedom to justify their abysmal student success rates and equity gaps. Never mind that so many of the faculty with high success rates use their academic freedom to continually improve their craft to better equitable outcomes. Yet, the data is clear. There are consequences for students in the way institutional conservatives choose to use their academic freedom vis-à-vis grading practices.

Academic freedom is currently a highly charged subject. To be clear, it's under attack. No doubt about it. However, it's important to make a distinction that the WHAT of academic freedom is being relentlessly attacked and not necessarily the HOW. The WHAT is the content (e.g., critical race theory, Black history, etc.), but the HOW—faculty pedagogical and grading practices--have been largely ignored by the forces that attack the WHAT. For the HOW, there's a difference between academic freedom and academic responsibility, especially given the equity work that countless institutions of higher education have embarked on.

When Suggestions Are Offered By Faculty with High Success Rates

I’d like to offer an example of when an alternative, student-centered method for assessing student learning is offered by faculty with high success rates but is immediately disregarded by faculty with low success rates. (It’s worth noting that some of the most innovative, student-centered ideas I’ve heard have come from Black faculty.)

A small group of science faculty found that allowing students to retake a key high-stakes exam guarantees in most cases that students will pass the course. In many cases, the “F” in this key topic exam turns into a “B or C” grade when students are allowed to go through what is in effect a productive struggle process. But the institutional conservative response is, "That's unfair to the students who took it once and passed, and it requires more work for me to find more test bank questions."

Here's the response from faculty who use their academic freedom (or responsibility) to foster a continuous improvement mindset: "It takes some students to fail a key test in order to learn. If they learn from their mistakes, why does it matter that some students take them one attempt and others it takes two tries? It's about learning. Yes, it takes more work. So what? My job is help as many students as possible learn and be successful."

So, what should colleges do when a student’s success is essentially a lottery, and when faculty with high success rates are sometimes diminished by institutional conservatives as "coddling students"?

Suggestions to Help Change Mindsets

As I mentioned, grading is a touchy subject. Emotions can run high for some educators. Therefore, here are three suggestions to help institutional conservatives begin to understand that antiquated grading practices hurt students:

1. Treat them with kindness. Remember, as students, they were most likely treated poorly in their higher education experience. They're simply passing down what they know and experienced: practices that lead to inequitable outcomes and toxic terminology such as "weed out" and "rigor." It can be difficult to show kindness when a lack of it is shown toward the faculty with high success rates, but it's much more productive than pointing fingers.

2. Be relentless that the purpose of students in the classroom is to learn; not to earn points. Grading is a points game. Unfortunately, students know this all too well and find ways to play the points system, which doesn’t mean they learned the course content. This messaging needs to be pointed out in every conversation about teaching and learning.

3. There's no better professional development than a faculty with low success rates observing another faculty with high success rates teach and sharing grading practices. Lecturing to institutional conservatives rarely works. Invite them to observe and learn. It may take multiple attempts, but it's worth it. Encourage them to change ONE thing about their practice and support them as they try it. Like students, they should be allowed to fail, learn, and try again. They can build on the ONE practice they changed (e.g., no high stakes exams the first 3 weeks of class) and build on one more practice the next time (e.g., allow for one key high-stakes test retake), and so on. Not all institutional conservatives will agree to observe and learn, but if the college can get even one, that’s a win! Think about the number of students one faculty member impacts in a year alone!

Until colleges intentionally address institutional conservatives who relish in their low success rates, horrific equity gaps, and toxic rigor language, our disproportionately impacted students will continue to suffer the most. The faculty with high success rates and low (or zero) equity gaps are the key to addressing this old and ongoing grading crisis. I’m starting to see some campuses finally have courageous conversations about grading, but not enough. We need to move beyond conversations and into action. Community colleges and open access universities serve the most vulnerable students in our society. It’s a privilege to serve them, not a burden. Let’s finally take this crisis seriously.

If institutions fail to act, don’t be surprised when we find students at board meetings and at state legislatures, supported by student advocacy and legal services groups, request that all faculty success rate and equity data be publicly made available. Interestingly, there’s one group of faculty I’ve encountered who tend to support this highly transparent idea: Black faculty.

***

Also visit: Foundational Ingredient for Successful Equity Work | Transformational Change: Challenges & Opportunities | Creating a Culture of Dignity in the Classroom

I often ask faculty to read my articles ahead of time for input.

Thank you for identifying that what matters is that students learn, rather than the way in which they dance for their instructor to get there. Some faculty are like old school parents who spank their kids; we now know that it’s a terrible way to parent, but “goddammit that’s how I was raised so that’s how I roll.” Wonderful delineation of how some faculty justify and/or assign blame for a hot potato of their own making.

I also appreciate your stating that the content itself (i.e., seemingly anything that threatens white supremacy), and not faculty practices, is what’s under attack. And thank you for pointing out more than once that it’s the institutional conservatives who are pulling up hard on society’s emergency brake.

Lastly, I love your three points of summary: human kindness, genuine learning, and faculty growth. And I especially applaud your statement that it’s a privilege to serve community college and open access university students, and not a burden.

Dr. John Bartelt, University of La Verne professor of education and top 10 of the highest ranked professors (per RateMyProfessors.com) from colleges and universities across the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom. He has also taught at community colleges and provided teaching and learning faculty professional development.