Asset-based Assessment is Equitable Assessment
When I first started my journey towards a gradeless classroom, equitable practices weren’t the motivating factor. And if I’m being completely honest, they weren’t even a thought. This shift started in a selfish place. I was more concerned with how the grades were impacting the conversations I was having with students and impeding the progress that I knew students were capable of. However, once you start analyzing grading practices and their true impacts, it’s hard to ignore how these practices lead to further marginalization of already vulnerable students. While many of these negative impacts require systemic changes, I wasn’t willing to perpetuate them any longer in my own classroom.
The gatekeeper of opportunity
To oversimplify things, learning is the result of opportunity and support. The courses that a student takes shape the opportunities they will encounter. I have observed that the various levels of a course are typically vastly different experiences. That is the whole purpose of leveling: to provide an “appropriate challenge” based on previously demonstrated performance. This appropriate challenge is often viewed as differentiated opportunity. “Higher-level” students are exposed to content and projects that might not be available to other students. Access to this opportunity is commonly determined by the grade a student earned in previous courses. In a points- or percentage-based system, this grade usually includes things that have nothing to do with a student’s academic ability, such as participation, completion, behavior, or attendance. Including these non-academic factors disproportionately impact certain groups of students that would otherwise be willing and able to challenge themselves in advanced courses. By shifting away from traditional grades, these compliance-based metrics are eliminated from the grade translation, enabling more students the opportunity to access these courses if they choose.
Providing students with an appropriate challenge
Going beyond the opportunity provided by access to courses that had previously been restricted, we need to provide similar opportunities to all students, regardless of leveling. Every student is different. They have different needs and require different supports. However, if we limit student exposure to complex concepts and projects, we rob them of the opportunity for appropriate challenge—a chance to take on difficult tasks, push past their comfort zone, and grow as learners. We really don’t know what students can do until we allow them to try.
This was something that I had a difficult time doing when I was using traditional grades, and even as I started transitioning away from grading. I always valued development of skills and improvement over time, but the way that I was assessing didn’t support those values. It was contradictory for me to tell students to work on this particular skill and not worry about the results, just to turn around and put a poor grade on their work. It was demotivating to say the least. Adding to the inequity, the students that had access to tutors or parents at home that could help them catch up weren’t impacted as severely as those who didn’t. Students that had learning challenges were also at a disadvantage. I wasn’t okay with this, so I would make deals with students. “If you do everything I ask of you, regardless of the outcome, I won’t give you any lower than a C.” In hindsight, there is so much that is wrong with that statement and approach, but it was my way of trying to soften the blow of what I knew was a stacked deck. Even worse than that transactional approach, I started to examine what I thought students would be capable of doing. The thought of differentiating all of the assignments for the varied experiences and abilities in my class seemed daunting and insurmountable. I began to make assignments that I “knew” everyone in the class could do. This was unfair to every student in that room. Although I said I valued process, I was actually focused on product, which limited the opportunities I presented to students.
Shifting to a strengths perspective
Moving away from grades forced me to think about how I was discussing learning with students. A traditional grading mindset is rooted in deficit thinking. It describes all the things that students didn’t do or didn’t do well enough to compare and rank against an arbitrary standard. (I go more in depth in my post The Strength of Strengths Perspective.) For students who typically perform well in school, the list of improvements is relatively short. This list gets significantly longer for students that have not historically done well in school. As we got further into the school year, I would notice some students start to give up. When they knocked off one item, two more would pop up. It didn’t matter that I didn’t frame it that way, the points did. This framing had a negative impact on their self-esteem, stress level, and ultimately their effort. After a few iterations of our approach, we developed the Learning Progression Method. It provided an entry point into a conversation for every student, regardless of where they were in their individual learning journey. Each step of the progression has specific, strengths-based language that identifies what a student can do, and I can provide specific feedback to move them along this progression one step at a time. This framework is built around the NGSS science practices and uses content as the vehicle for learning, not the goal.
Differentiating support
Because these practices apply universally, the particular assignment used to assess them no longer mattered. I could provide the same opportunity for all students and meet them where they are. By providing opportunities that had a low floor (any student could engage with it regardless of ability or understanding) and a high ceiling (students that had acquired more skills and knowledge could expand), all students could now use the same prompts. The only thing that changes is how each student is supported. Students that benefit from leading or guiding questions and other supports get them. Other students that are ready to dive deeper are met with extension questions. Wherever they’re at, I respond by identifying all the things they can do and provide a couple of suggestions on how to make the work even stronger. The only comparison ever made in the class is to the student’s previous submissions to show them how much they’ve improved.
Changing the conversation
Prior to making this adjustment, I would regularly hear students refer to themselves as the “dumb class” or using the title of the course as a label of shame. We’re the “conceptual” students, you know we can’t do that. (Conceptual Physics is one of the courses I teach.) These are comments that I thankfully haven’t heard in years. As I afforded students the space to try, seek support, and try again, they began to grow in areas where they previously struggled. And these were authentic wins, not engineered situations to boost their confidence. It was no longer about the things they couldn’t do or why they weren’t doing well. Their questions were more targeted, and their focus was on continued growth. The feedback they previously avoided, they now sought out. They were no longer beaten down by a mountain of issues to address. The idea of incremental improvement over time had resonated with them, and, for some students, this was the first time they saw a pathway to success.
Students started to view me differently as well. I had transitioned from their adversary to their coach. We were working towards a shared goal, as opposed to them trying to figure out what they had to do for me to get the best possible grade.
Changing mindsets
As students began to trust that I wasn’t lying to them—and that took a while—they started taking risks. They were no longer paralyzed by the idea that their work had to be perfect. They understood that we learn more from imperfect practice than we do from correct answers. The class became a place where they could take a breath and learn, knowing that if things didn’t go perfectly, it didn’t have a lasting negative impact and I was there to support them. Conversations switched from “I can’t” and “none of this makes sense” to “show me how to create a mathematical model again” and other specific requests to deepen understanding of the concepts and skills. They tackled more challenging questions and rarely was anything left blank. There were things they wanted to know and be able to do, so they started to seek out feedback in those areas.
While this approach has benefited students that have previously been marginalized or underserved, it did not come at the cost of any other students. Too often people push the false narrative that in order to lift one group you must take something from another. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Even students who had been successful in a traditional model saw benefits from this shift, or at least saw no negative impacts. For the students that saw anything less than an A as a failure, they were relieved of much unneeded stress. This opened them up to taking more risks as well instead of just collecting points for a grade. Overall, the focus for the vast majority shifted to learning.
David Frangiosa is a high school science teacher from Northern NJ and the co-author of Going Gradeless: Shifting the Focus to Student Learning, Corwin Press. Over the past six years, he has been performing action research on grade reform and the impact of various instructional approaches. He is a contributor to SchoolRubric.com and TeachBetter.com. You can find more of his work at www.reimaginedschools.com.
Also, check out the curated #TG2Chat where we discuss how teachers can move from a focus on deficits and toward one that values student strengths!