Joe Feldman’s Grading for Equity (2018; 2nd ed. 2023) is a timely, compelling treatise on rethinking grading through an equity lens. Feldman—an educator with experience as teacher, principal, and district leader—presents a persuasive argument that traditional grading systems can unintentionally widen achievement gaps and obscure real student learning.

📘 Core Concepts

1. The Three Pillars Feldman frames equitable grading around accuracy, bias-resistance, and student motivation. Grades should precisely reflect mastery of content (not attendance or effort), be calculated with mathematically sound scales (e.g., 0–4 vs. 0–100), and support intrinsic motivation—rewarding learning, not penalizing mistakes.

2. Common Pitfalls He critiques practices like zeroes, late penalties, homework points, and subjective factors (participation, behavior), pointing out these often distort the true picture of learning and disproportionately harm disadvantaged students.

3. Practical Strategies To counter inequities, Feldman proposes:

• Minimum grading (e.g., no zeros beneath a 50–60% floor),

• Focus on summative assessments (mastery evidence),

• Unlimited or generous retakes allowing students to demonstrate learning after initial struggle.

4. Transparency & Ownership Transparent rubrics and criteria empower students to understand expectations and self-improve. This reflects a shift from grades as punitive marks to tools for fostering self-directed learning .

👍 Strengths

• Research‑grounded: Feldman bolsters his ideas with educational studies and examples of district‑wide uptake .

• Practical and concrete: The second edition includes updated data, pandemic and cultural‑moment context, updated proficiency scale tools, and guidance for scaling district‑wide.

• Impactful endorsements: Educators like Zaretta Hammond and Denise Pope praise the clarity, motivational power, and equity-centered approach of the book.

👎 Criticisms

• Implementation challenges: Critics argue unlimited retakes may reduce student effort and burden teachers with logistical complexity .

• Academic rigor concerns: Some claim widespread grade inflation could dilute meaning and fail to cultivate responsibility .

• Lack of definitive proof: Despite anecdotal district success, critics and researchers note the empirical evidence remains limited, cautioning against sweeping mandates .

🗂️ Real‑World Impact

• Dozens of districts—including NYC, LA, Boston, and several state education departments—have piloted Feldman’s model, with mixed outcomes. Some embraced its clarity and fairness, others scaled back retake policies amid backlash.

• The Wall Street Journal and other media report both success stories and pushback, highlighting tension between equity aims and traditional notions of academic discipline .

🔍 Final Assessment 

Feldman’s premise is powerful: if student grades are to truly reflect learning, they must be accurate, objective, and motivational. Traditional grading practices—like zeroes, late penalties, and homework-based points—often skew results, entrench bias, and demotivate learners . His structured approach offers educators concrete steps: adopt minimum grades, permit retakes, streamline grading into summative assessments, and articulate transparent standards.

The author’s background and weaving of educational research create a credible foundation, and endorsements highlight the potential of the model to revitalize classrooms. The updated second edition wisely integrates learnings from the pandemic and social justice movements, reinforcing grading’s role in a culturally responsive pedagogy .

Yet, the model isn’t flawless. Critics reveal potential pitfalls: decreased student responsibility, teacher workload pressure, and grade inflation that may confuse stakeholders about actual achievement . Moreover, the evidence base, while hopeful, lacks strong large-scale quantitative validation—a gap policy‑makers must weigh against the ethical imperative of equity .

Ultimately, Grading for Equity shines as a thoughtful, well‑argued call to recalibrate grading for justice. Educators, administrators, and districts should consider it not as a rigid program, but as a framework to adapt—piloting reforms thoughtfully, collecting data, and customizing its principles to context. For anyone committed to fairness and authentic assessment, Feldman’s vision is essential reading and a valuable starting point toward more equitable, meaningful evaluation.

------------------------------

Prepared with the assistance of AI software

OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (4) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com