Stacking the Deck at Memphis-Shelby County Schools
Grading for equity means everyone loses when everyone wins
First off, everything to be discussed here comes from a public presentation created and broadcast by the Memphis-Shelby County Schools on their YouTube page; a link to which will be provided at the end of the article. That being said…
The Memphis-Shelby County Schools (MSCS) is the largest public school district in the state of Tennessee, and the 25th largest school district in the United States. Comprised of 214 individual schools, as of the 2021-2022 school year it serves over 110,000 students annually.
In the lead-up to the 2022-2023 school year, MSCS revised the grading scale used by the district in order to address “Access, Equity, and Students Grades”.
The shift in grading expectations are somewhat dramatic, in that the relatively high standards the district held have now been generously softened in certain areas, but the shifts in and of themselves are not all that radical as compared to what might normally be expected in many public schools.
The reason given for the change is quite curious, however, as the officials state that higher grades are a better predictor of eventual collegiate success than SAT or ACT standardized test results. This reasoning implies that the district is lowering its standards simply for the aesthetics of higher grades, rather than their being a reflection of subject competency.
Soon after this, we are presented statistics showing student success rates assessed first by race, and then by geographical location. The reason for presenting these statistics in relation to grading practices is not explicitly stated, but the implication is that differentials between racial academic outcomes is something meant to be mitigated by these changes.
Other red flags really begin to arise when the teachers and administrators start describing their philosophy on how these grading scales should be employed, and what the ultimate goal of what student success looks like.
Let us first try to define some of the key terms as used by the teachers and administrators:
“Access” - In this instance, the term refers to the number of opportunities given to a student to acquire a high grade.
As quoted in the above slide (green portion) from one of the video’s two key presenters, DeAngelo Pegues, a teacher at Balmoral Ridgeway Elementary school:
“One of the best practices when it comes to grading is equity and access. It is vitally important that you give students as many opportunities as possible to ensure that they have access to a high grade in that subject.”
“Access to a high grade” is interesting phrasing, as all students conceivably have access to a high grade if they earn a high grade through a demonstration of competency. But given the theme of the presentation, earning seems less the procedure than does manufacturing.
“As many opportunites as possible” as detailed throughout the presentation include things that sound reasonable enough on the surface: make-up assignments; make-up tests and assessments; etc. But then you have methods such as the one (again from the slide above, gray portion) from Lindsey W. Omil of Peabody Elementary School:
“My best grading tip would be giving grades in a variety of areas, as well as a chance to “earn bonus points” to a low score by participating in a specific class activity or assignment.”
Earn “bonus points” for taking part in something students would have already been participating in as a classroom activity, in order to bump up a low score elsewhere? Literally a participation award. Sounds a lot like an artificial elevation of a student’s grade that has nothing to do with whatever subject(s) they are actually struggling with.
From the presentation, one gets the impression that there is a push to provide as many point-scoring opportunities to students as possible, yet absent any real focus on the improvement of subject competency in order to mitigate any chance of ending up with a low or failing grade.
Which brings us to our next key term.
“Equity” - In modern sociological parlance, ‘equity’ mean ‘equality of outcome’, wherein there is no fail state, and everyone is a winner. At least on paper. Indicators of this philosophy being present in MSCS are reflected in several places during the presentation, but perhaps most blatantly here:
“Grading that is differentiated for diverse learners provides equity and access for student achievement across all demographics.”
Deciphering that jargon reveals to this author a dramatically cynical and ultimately self-defeatist proposition: ‘adjusting grading standards student-to-student based on whatever racial demographic they fall within will lead to an equality of outcome in their grades.’
From their own statements, MSCS has apparently decided that grades as a standardized measurement of student achievement and subject competency is too much to ask for. The academic outcomes between racial demographics are so disparate that, apparently, the solution is not to improve the actual education being provided in those areas where students are struggling, but to instead erect an academic Potemkin Village, where the veneer of scholastic advancement is tacked-on in order to improve the district’s numbers, and not student outcomes.
Giving any student a glorified pat on the back for merely showing-up, and not holding all students to a standard while challenging them to work to achieve greatness, only produces a coddled and ultimately under-educated individual. They will possess a false sense of security in their own abilities, set-up for failure when they inevitably encounter a teacher, a class, a school, or real life situation that will not be so very generous in providing multiple opportunities to supplement a wrong answer with bonus points.
MSCS does not, in fact, have a grading problem. They have a teaching problem.
~Scribe Light