Why do instructors have the grading policies they do (e.g., rigid assignment deadlines, curved grading, exams with no “clobber” where a high performance on a later exam overwrites an earlier poor score, etc.)? Chances are, it’s because that was the way (a) they were graded as a student, (b) the department expected, or (c) the previous instructor did it before they took over.

Joe Feldman, in his outstanding book Grading for Equity, clearly articulates that the grading policies we employ have significant equity implications. Students whose pace of learning differs from the norm, or who are juggling a part-time job, family commitments, or a long commute sometimes need flexibility in their assignment deadlines to handle what life throws at them. Grading on a curve in introductory classes means that privileged students with prior preparation have a significant advantage. A clobber policy proudly declares that it’s what you know at the end of the term that matters, not how you were able to perform at the early exam checkpoints, which favor students of privilege who may have seen some of the material before. There are other great suggestions—start thinking of “units of learning” instead of fungible “points”, don’t use grades to drive behavior, eliminate extra credit opportunities, etc.

This panel brings together four educators who have restructured their classes through activities and grading policies in an attempt to achieve equitable outcomes. This forum will allow them to share their best practices, and encourage the audience to do the same.