The Time is Now for Equitable Grading in Higher Education

The cornerstone of fostering student retention and completion lies in a critical aspect often overlooked—the concept of equitable grading practice and policy. While the allure of discovering the answer to retention and completion may initially capture attention, fostering student success through more equitable grading warrants deeper exploration. This transformative shift in the manner used in assessment of students’ knowledge and skill attainment is pivotal in reconstructing the foundations of trust between students and faculty—an essential component in fostering sustained commitment to learning and personal growth.

Though there are other factors in student retention and completion, one of the most troubling impacts could be identified as the use of traditional grading practices—practices that are holdovers from the biggest revolutionary change made in academia, “assembly line education.”^[1]

The trajectory of education in America in the mid-20^th century shifted with the nation’s burgeoning population and the transition from an agrarian to an industrial society in the pervious century. This shift ushered in significant changes in teaching methodologies, learning approaches, and the assessment of learning. It was against this backdrop of societal evolution that the concept of assignment of grades and grading was conceived.

There are two prominent opinions on the origin of student assessment, i.e., grading in higher education. The first attributed to Ezra Stiles of Yale, when Stiles defined four ranks of attainment in examinations back in 1785. The second, and perhaps most detrimental, was formed by  William Farish at Cambridge University through the creation of the concept of “grades” in 1792.^[2] Farish, portrayed as somewhat of a villain, is credited with creation of a process that allowed for more students to be educated in a shorter period of time and mimicked a grading system used in factories that identified products being “up to grade” or of lesser or unacceptable quality. Each of these stems from educational leaders’ need to respond to the fast-paced changes in their societies due in part to increased population growth, innovation, and modernization.

Current traditional grading practices still retain antiquated elements of an era marked by the 1st Industrial Revolution and wield a significant negative impact on student outcomes for students across the entire span of our educational settings. Examples of concepts and structures still in use are as follows: 100-point scales; over reliance on mathematical averaging; the assignment or use of “0” for missing or failed work; and the use of omnibus grading schemes defined by point accumulation. All are practices that lead to grade distortion and misrepresentation of true student ability. One example of the issues with omnibus grading is having all points carry the same weight. If a student struggles at the beginning of the term she usually cannot make up for the loss of early points and her final grade will not reflect a true picture of ability, but simply a picture of her processing speed. Her final grade then is more likely to reflect where she was nearer the beginning of the course rather than at completion of the course. Penalizing students early in the learning process challenges the nurturing, trusted relationships needed for learners to thrive.

The most ironic characteristic of these outdated practices is that the origin of their use did not stem from pedagogical necessity but rather as mechanisms for sorting and ranking students. Using a norm-referenced approach, these grading protocols are predicated on the three central assembly line concepts: schools are factories, students are products, and standardized testing is quality control. Without transformative innovation of current practice toward more student-centered assessment, i.e., methods structured in more of a feedback-looping manner of continual dialogue with the student, there is a palpable fear that certain institutions or even entire systems of higher education may become obsolete. By fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability, institutions can position themselves to meet the evolving needs and expectations of students and society at large.

In its earliest form, reaching back to the origin of the Socratic method and mentorship depicted by logical argumentation, education operated within a paradigm of personalized guidance, where teachers not only facilitated student growth but also nurtured the evolution of the field of study itself. This holistic dynamic saw teachers intimately acquainted with each student, working tirelessly until they were confident in the student’s comprehension, thus signaling the completion of their course of study or learning.

The depth and breadth of student learning, communicated in formal recommendation and letter of support issued by the mentor faculty, stands in stark opposition to the ranking and letter grades used in today’s educational settings. Instead of reducing student achievement to numerical scores or standardized assessments, early educational practices emphasized the holistic development of students, thus nurturing their intellectual curiosity and fostering a genuine passion for learning.

Rather than advocating for the ending of grading systems altogether, it is necessary for educational leaders to embark on a journey of inquiry and reform. In 2010, Alfie Kohnan American author and lecturer in the areas of education, parenting, and human behavior, published a short but impactful blog post, Getting Rid of Grades^[3].  The posting was a summary of case studies of several authors referencing the negative impacts of assigning grades in the traditional manner we are accustomed to using since the inception of the A-F grading scale developed in the industrial revolution. The research he compiled on the topic clearly identified three common and disturbing differences between graded and ungraded students. Graded students lost interest in actual learning, were more likely to prefer the easiest task, and were also more likely to think in a superficial manner and forget what was taught.

A potential solution to use of outdated and seemingly unequitable practices and protocols could lie within Feldman’s three essential pillars of equitable grading practice – accurate, bias-resistance, and motivational^[4],  Bringing this theory into practice would allow institutions and faculty to cultivate assessment structures that are not only more humane but also genuinely reflective of student achievement.

Along with the structure of equitable grading practice, Feldman spends time exploring trust and the structure of the teacher-student relationships.  It is essential for purposeful examination of course design, along with transparent and supportive practices from faculty, to foster trusted relationships to create more inclusive environments where learning and curiosity can thrive. The reinforcement of these commitments by academic leaders and institutions to build back trust are central to nurturing the unwavering dedication students require for success in their academic pursuits. Without this bedrock of commitment and trust, the hurdles posed by both academic cognitive load and real-life responsibilities of our current students become insurmountable.

Accurate Depiction of Student Knowledge and Skills

Also identified in Feldman’s work is Quine’s theory of rational belief, in which Quine likens our belief structures to a web, hence the term “web of beliefs.” Feldman proposes these individual webs is one reason discussions and the subsequent work on changes to grading practices is so difficult. In the Web of Belief^[5] theory everyone holds a complex system of beliefs based on their experiences. Those beliefs nearer the “center” of the web are more “fundamental” than those nearer the periphery in the sense that it would take more powerful evidence or logic to change our most fundamental beliefs. As we learn new things, we change our beliefs that are no longer tenable and adjust other beliefs that depend on the most fundamentals for support. If academic leaders are going to explore the intricate “web of beliefs” of academia and grading practices, it becomes evident to identify what institutions and individual faculty define as essential beliefs related to grading and equitable practice. The assumption of grades and any grading scheme should accurately define or reflect a student’s depth of content knowledge, which can be replicated on a consistent basis appears to be valid and a fundamental belief. Unfortunately, at the periphery of most faculty’s webs of belief lie practices and protocols in need of review and revision. Examples of questionable practices include but are not limited to late work point-reduction policies; point replacement through extra credit policies; use of zero-point accumulation in the event of work that is missing. Each of these practices can indeed hinder the inclusivity and distort effectiveness of the learning environment. For example, a widespread practice which distorts the learning and mastery level achieved is point reduction due to work submitted post deadline. If a student’s submitted work is of high quality and worthy of an “A” rating, yet due to timing of submission the instructor records a rating of “B”, the grade of record does not represent the content level the student has attained, thus distorting the understanding of level of content mastery.

As educational leaders, we must acknowledge the distortion that current grading calculations can lead to, thus masking the student’s true academic proficiency. One practice that warrants further exploration due to widespread use is the automatic recourse to the mean or average when combining grades within criterion categories and in final grade computation. Consider the following scenarios:

• The solid “B” student who misses one assessment in a series of equally rated assessments. Are they ever able to redeem themselves back to the true level of grade that represents their cognitive abilities if a zero is included in the array of marks used to average the series into a final grade?
• The solid “B” student who failed one assessment in a series of equally weighted assessments. At the very point we are introducing and scaffolding new information we allow for a student’s early errors in thinking and learning, to negatively impact their final grade.

Many in academia will quickly retort on traditional practices, i.e., grading hacks are used to adjust grades that do not seem to fit a student’s ability. Feldman’s work identifies several commonly used practices or grading hacks such as “extra credit” or “drop the lowest score” as practices that distort the true ability of the student they are attempting to help.  Perhaps the easiest way to help students overcome the quirkiness of our grading systems would be to look at the use of an alternative measure of central tendency. While the average is a commonly employed measure of central tendency, there is a compelling argument to consider alternative measures such as the median (middle value) or mode (most frequent value) for a more accurate representation of a student’s academic or content understanding. Delving deeper into alternate methodologies could offer insights into refining grading practices to better align with the objective of faithfully capturing students’ true levels of achievement.

Bias-Resistance to Foster Belonging

Educational settings, large and small and from primary school to the most prestigious institutions of higher education, use the terms belonging and student success as buzzwords.   One may wonder how or perhaps if institutions have lost focus on what students need to know and be able to do. Be assured, that is not the case, but since inception of Assembly line education and industrialized grading, the students the faculty focused on came from a homogeneous group, so challenges of inclusion were non-existent. In the earliest days of higher education in Europe and then North America, the students present in most hallowed halls were of a remarkably similar demographic: white, male, often of European descent, and of high social standing. The grading structures created to assess students in the late 1780’s included systematic grading and sorting of knowledge, skills, and behaviors. In 1935, historical grading structures or schematics of early American Universities was examined by Smallwood[6] and re-examined in 2014 by Schinske & Tanner[7]. Behaviors like punctuality, work ethic, and respect for authority became actual values assessed and included within students’ final grades. This grade schematic and these grades were associated with the level of success necessary to produce productive members of the workforce and in society of the day.

Unfortunately, modern day educators continue to have those same student behaviors embedded within their grading schematics, and these values are now applied to a different and more heterogeneous population. What might be more alarming is the level of freedom each instructor has on course policy related to late work, participation, absences, resubmission, or redemptive attempts. The following scenario will highlight both the inaccuracy but also the bias with the use of extra credit for student grade augmentation:

• The student who requests additional work to “boost” his current grade to maintain or seek an academic scholarship. Does completion of an extra task show increased mastery, or merely point accumulation? Is the new grade a true measure of the student’s ability in the curriculum? If other students do not have the time and in some instances the resources needed to also engage in extra credit tasks, is it fair or is the playing field now uneven?

In today’s academy educators must cultivate bias-resistant practices that extend beyond merely recognizing differences in color, gender, and ethnicity. Being a leader in today’s educational settings involves critically examining how traditional grading methodologies perpetuate a system originally designed to categorize and rank students, benefiting privileged demographics. As discussed in the podcast by Asao Inoue[8], as he examines the purpose of grading you will see we have much to overcome due to the origins of grading practices which no longer fit and negatively impact those needing to be served. To address this problem, it is essential to refrain from including assessments of expected behaviors and age-old societal structure which at the time intentional and now unintentionally bias our grading frameworks.

Each of us, shaped by our individual webs of belief regarding students, grading, and our profession, must diligently strive to minimize subjectivity in our grading practices. This ambition necessitates a concerted effort to scrutinize and challenge our own biases. Institutions must play a pivotal role by allocating resources and prioritizing professional development initiatives aimed at equipping faculty—both full-time and part-time—with the principles and tools necessary for implementing equitable grading practices. This investment is not merely beneficial but crucial for fostering a culture of inclusivity and fairness in assessment, thereby promoting academic excellence and equity for all students.

Intrinsic Motivation to Drive Student Success

To embark on this transformation in higher education, faculty need to explore and embrace practices that are feed-back centric, allow for curiosity and creativity focused on mastery, not only the journey to mastery. One final scenario to support institution of a growth mindset:

• The lagging student who demonstrates slower processing time on fundamental concepts, but in the end demonstrates command of 85-95% of the course objectives. Will the low or “no’ scores over the course of the term allow for reward of this accomplishment and individualism in learning? Having received zeros for missing or incomplete work, what is the likelihood the student will drop the course and potentially change his educational plans after being told he knows “zero” about this subject matter?

Rebuilding the reputation of higher education as trusted centers of student success necessitates a collective commitment from all stakeholders to bolster students’ internal motivation and foster trusted relationships, thereby producing the next generation of innovative leaders poised to drive personal, community, and global economic prosperity. 

Transformation for Student and Institutional Success

The landscape of higher education is rapidly changing. A recent data summary on college enrollment by Welding, 2024[9] notes that undergraduate college enrollment declined and continues to accelerate since the pandemic began, resulting in a loss of over 900,000 students, or almost 6% of total enrollment, between fall 2019 and fall 2023.  Also noted was the fact the decline has been trending downward for the past decade or more. Without transformational changes in more equitable practices and holistic student success measures, traditional status quo practices will continue to contribute to lower enrollments and completion for institutions unwilling to transform.

Educational leaders must commit to the eradication of any practices, whether formal or informal, that undermine the success of each student. To begin the discussion and reflective practices which support more inclusive and equitable assessment, educational leaders should design open forums and professional learning communities at institutions and across the education ecosystem. In addition to professional development workshops to increase exposure to equity-consciousness practices, leaders should also engage the student voice to understand the impacts of inequitable practices on student outcomes and retention. Over the past year, several instructors at a small public technical college in Wisconsin engaged in action-research projects to explore changes in their assessment and grading practices. Included here is a direct quote from a student on the changes his instructor made in a Business and Supply Change Management course. The instructor recreated a universal rubric with a simple format using a Define, Explain and Apply[10] model of assessment and communication response.

Beyond the student’s confidence and content attainment, the instructor shared that this change allowed his assessment to be less subjective and more student-centered and has strengthened the student-faculty trust relationship in his courses.

Assuming control of our destiny through the adoption of more equitable grading practices offers institutions a pathway to innovation. This change has the potential to catalyze the transformation necessary to enhance student retention and completion rates in higher education—a change that is both desired and urgently needed.

^[1] A History of Assembly Line Education, Feb. 23, 2012. Features, Policy Issues, National Institute for Student-Centered Education

^[2] Hartmann, T. (2000). Thom Hartmann’s Complete Guide to ADHD: Help for Your Family at Home, School & Work. Nevada City, CA: Underwood Books.

^[3] Kohn, A. Getting Rid of Grades, Case Studies, Jan. 2010. alfiekohn.org

^[4] Feldman, J. (2018). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms, Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin.

^[5] Quine, W.V. and J. S. Ullian, J. S., (1978) The Web of Belief, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill.

[6] Smallwood, M.L. (1935). An historical study of examinations and grading systems in early American Universities: a critical study of the original records of Harvard, William and Mary, Yale, Mount Holyoke, and Michigan from their founding to 1900, Elementary School Journal (36)10.

[7] Schinske J, Tanner K. Teaching More by Grading Less (or differently). CBE Life Sci Educ. 2014 Summer;13(2):159-66. doi: 10.1187/cbe.cbe-14-03-0054. PMID: 26086649; PMCID: PMC4041495.

[8] Inoue, Asao B., May 31, 2021, Where Does Grading Come From, https://asaobinoue.blogspot.com/2021/05/where-does-grading-come-from.html

[9] U.S. College Enrollment Decline: Facts and Figures, By Lyss Welding Updated on February 15, 2024, Best Colleges bestcolleges.com.

[10] Hinkle, S. 2024, Lesson Learn in First Attempts of Un-Grading Fall 2024, Southwest Technical College.