Navigating the Teacher Lottery: Addressing Grading Disparities in High School Education
By Tommy Kruecker-Green
STAFF WRITER
Since time immemorial students have braced themselves at the beginning of each new school year for the latest round of academic roulette as they are handed their class schedules. AHS students are no different. Will I get Professor Sprout for biology? Or Professor Snape for chemistry? Is Professor Lupin the new calculus teacher now that AP “Defense Against the Dark Arts” is no longer offered at AHS?
I have noticed a broad spectrum of opinions regarding teacher expectations. For many students, the coursework in a given class is more challenging compared to other classes at the same level. Conversely, there are those who report a significantly lighter workload compared to their peers taking equivalent classes. This is largely due to differences in teachers expectations. Inevitably, teachers have varying teaching styles, and to some extent, differing content. This is a good thing. However, to have considerable disparity in grading styles for the same course level feels problematic to many. One teacher’s idea of “exceeds expectations” is another’s “needs improvement”.
When teachers enforce much higher standards, obtaining a certain letter grade requires significantly more time and effort. With two students taking the same class and course level, but with different teachers, one may have to work twice as hard to get the same final grade. This is a concerning disparity.
Although some may argue that academic resilience requires some degree of inconsistency—or in other words, variety —course levels at AHS should already account for most differences in rigor.
The emphasis should be, indisputably, on learning rather than grades. Unfortunately, because of how the system is set up, the letter grade matters tremendously to students and families at the end of the day.
These grading differences have further negative impacts beyond just student stress and equity concerns. Students receiving “inflated” grades in classes with less rigorous expectations may struggle when they are later held to higher standards in college or the workplace. On the other hand, students in equivalent classes, facing heavier workloads and/or more stringent grading, have less time for extracurriculars, family, sleep, and other important aspects of adolescent development like contemplating existential angst and formulating a skin-care plan.
Moreover, with college admissions becoming increasingly selective, GPA carries greater weight than ever before. Class rank also plays a major role in academic scholarships and other opportunities. Two students with equal skills and work ethics should not have markedly different GPAs simply due to a “teacher lottery”.
Moving forward, teachers can do more to align grading expectations across sections of the same courses. Teaching styles can and should vary, in the interest of piquing students’ curiosity and engagement. Variety is the spice of life; if teachers taught the same way, school would be quite bland. However, the standard of assessment should be more consistent.
Still, this can be difficult, so the solution lies in transparently accounting for differences in idiosyncratic teacher expectations rather than getting teachers to grade the same way. This solution is used in countries with strong education systems like Canada: it entails publishing class averages on report cards. According to high school student parents Anna Chang of Ottawa, Ontario and Paul Cisek of Montreal, Quebec, Canadian high school report cards show percentage grades rather than letter grades. More importantly, they also list the class average for comparison. This context allows parents, teachers, counselors, and even college admissions officers to better interpret the meaning of students’ grades. For example, an 84% grade appears very competitive alongside a class average of 61%, whereas getting an excellent grade in a class with a 95% class average suggests that it was not difficult to meet the expectations in that class.
Showing class averages provides a helpful perspective when assessing academic rigor. An “easy A” class can skew perceptions of students’ abilities and undermine those taking equivalent courses with more rigorous grading schemes. Admissions officers reviewing transcripts can gain insight into ability and/or work ethic beyond simply the grades earned or the class level. Furthermore, by comparing class averages over time, teachers and administrators can track grading trends to identify issues like shifting rigor or grade inflation.
Of course, there may be drawbacks to disclosing class averages. Students struggling in a course may feel embarrassed or demotivated if their grades fall far below the average. Publishing averages could potentially create unhealthy comparisons and competition. (In extreme cases, it could lead to rampant sabotage, as students try to lower the class average by spiking fellow students’ Stanley Cups with sleep-inducing drugs before exams.) And teachers may also hesitate to share statistics that could invite questions about their grading tendencies being too lenient (“Ah, Mr. Dingleberry, the one who hands out A’s like Oprah giving away cars”) or too harsh (“Behold, the feared Professor Umbridge, with her blood-quill red pen”).
These risks deserve consideration. Still, used judiciously, class averages could provide more academic transparency and be used to benefit students and parents alike.
