Under intense public pressure, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) recently walked back from a controversial “Grading for Equity” plan that would have significantly lowered academic standards. The plan has already been implemented in some other California districts and includes provisions such as:
- Homework and weekly tests would no longer count toward students’ final semester grades.
- Semester grades would depend entirely on a final exam, which students could retake multiple times.
- Tardiness and absences would have no impact on grades.
- Cheating or copying would carry only non-grade-based consequences.
- The threshold for earning an A would fall to 80 percent.
- The threshold for a D would fall to 21 percent.
My first reaction was to laugh out loud. I suspect many others feel the same. Still, it’s worth pausing to consider where these ideas come from and why they resonate with some educators. Like many flawed policies, these changes are rooted in good intentions. Proponents of “Grading for Equity” see grade gaps between students from different backgrounds—by race, poverty status, etc.—and are trying to reduce those gaps. I see the same gaps, and I want them reduced, too.
But here’s the reality: grade gaps reflect real gaps in skills and knowledge. And when school ends, it’s not the letter grades that shape students’ futures—it’s the underlying skills and competencies those grades are supposed to reflect. “Grading for Equity” is just wishful thinking. It is a refusal to grapple with the truth.
Fortunately, I’m not aware of any Missouri school districts as extreme as SFUSD, and I haven’t heard of any “Grading for Equity” initiatives here. But this episode is a useful reminder that some educators seem to misunderstand what it takes to prepare students for success. Lowering expectations to conceal skill gaps will not help anyone in the long run.
This is also a powerful example of why we need high-quality, comprehensive tests in our public schools. Standardized tests compel schools and districts to confront the reality of student performance. They offer families and the public reliable, externally benchmarked data about what students have—and have not—learned. In an ideal world where we all prioritized student learning, such tests might not be necessary. But in the world we live in, they’re a vital safeguard.
