"For some time, traditional (A - F) grading practices have been under fire from a wide range of stakeholder. Grading policies are wildly inconsistent from classroom to classroom, frequently misguided, uninformed, and frequently based on subjective judgments. Of even more concern, our grading practices exacerbate the achievement gap. It is well-documented that African-American and Latino students, boys, as well as special education students, are disproportionately suspended and expelled, influenced by teachers' unconscious but biased judgments of student behavior. Virtually ignored is how teachers' incorporate subjective and non-academic criteria into their grades (through criteria such as student attitude, "participation", and "effort"), and how approach to grading contributes to these same students' disproportionately high course failure rates and disproportionately low placement in advanced academic tracks"-- Provided by publisher.

Foundations. --What makes grading so difficult to talk about (and even harder to change)? -- A brief history of grading -- The case for change : how traditional grading thwarts effective and equitable teaching and learning. -- How traditional grading stifles risk-taking and supports the "commodity of grades" -- Traditional grading hides information, invites biases, and provides misleading information -- Traditional grading demotivates and disempowers -- A new vision of grading -- Equitable grading practices. -- Practices that are mathmatically accurate -- Practices that are mathmatically accurate (continued) -- Practices that value knowledge, not environment or behavior -- Practices that value knowledge, not environment or behavior (continued) -- Practices that support hope and a growth mindset -- Practices that "lift the veil" -- Practices that build "soft skills" without including them in the grade -- Putting it all together: Nick and Cathy.