Equity or Advantage? Thoughts on Grading for Students with Learning Differences
by: Chris Ouellette, M.Ed., NEALS’ President
There are only a handful of professional books that have fundamentally changed the way I think about education. I know exactly where I was when I encountered one of them. In the fall of 2020 I was on a Southwest plane with my partner Jennifer heading to Denver, CO for the start of our Leadership + Design Fellowship when I had one of the most affirmatory experiences of educational enlightenment. At 6’6”, plane travel can be less than comfortable for me. As such, one of my favorite activities to engage with on a plane is reading. It was on this flight for the next four hours that I spent interrupting Jennifer’s experience every two minutes to have her read a couple of lines or a paragraph that I had excitedly just read myself. It was during this flight where I had the pleasure of reading Grading for Equity by Joe Feldman. Reading Feldman was affirming because it gave language to mistakes I had already made as an educator, and to the lessons I was still learning.
As a Learning Specialist, bringing up your school's grading practices can feel like touching the third rail of school culture. One of the quickest ways to reveal a school's beliefs about grading is to ask a simple question: How should academic dishonesty be reflected in a student's grade? These conversations often create genuine tension for classroom teachers, who are balancing numerous grading expectations while also navigating institutional pressures and deeply held beliefs about fairness. Faculty discussions can quickly become defensive as educators wrestle with two persistent tensions in grading: grade inflation and academic dishonesty. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that Joe Feldman reminds us that "cheating elicits some of the strongest reactions from teachers" (p. 117). Many educators understandably experience academic dishonesty as a breach of trust. Because teachers invest so deeply in both learning and relationships, cheating can feel intensely personal. As Feldman notes, the response often becomes similar to the student harmed the learning environment, so in response, their grade is harmed. Before we can meaningfully reconsider our grading practices, we must first acknowledge the emotions and beliefs that make these conversations so challenging.
Earlier in my career, while leading an initiative to move our school toward more inclusive and equitable assessment practices, I made the mistake of overlooking the very emotions and beliefs I have just described. One of our longest-serving teachers raised a question at the end of the session: "What about the other students in the class when they say it isn't fair?" After spending nearly an hour discussing equity, I responded into the microphone, "I don't care." No amount of explanation afterward repaired the harm I had created in that moment. Anyone who knows me knows those words were completely inconsistent with both my values and my commitment to unconditional positive regard. Applying a principle from Will Guidara's Unreasonable Hospitality, I realized that "leaders say sorry" (p. 230). While the apology couldn't erase the moment, it acknowledged my mistake and modeled the kind of accountability I hope to cultivate in others. More importantly, it gave me the opportunity to return to the real conversation: that in an inclusive school, students receive what they need, and communities grow when we are willing to discuss equity openly, honestly, and with empathy. Looking back, I realize the question wasn't resistance1, it was an invitation. The teacher wasn't rejecting equity; they were asking for help navigating a conversation they knew they would eventually have with students. In that moment, I answered the question I thought they should have asked instead of the one they actually needed answered.
Throughout my conversations with school leaders, I have found that one of the most challenging tensions is determining where accommodations end and modifications begin. Schools are often working to balance access for individual students with their broader academic mission and institutional identity. While many schools thoughtfully establish limits around modifications, I have found it helpful to explore how those decisions are made rather than simply where the line is drawn. One question I often pose involves students recovering from concussions or navigating extended medical leaves. Almost without exception, school leaders quickly describe the many ways they adapt expectations to support those students, often including modified assignments or adjusted graduation requirements. After celebrating that commitment to student care, I ask a follow-up question: What is different about the way we think about these students compared to students with long-term learning differences?
That question almost always shifts the conversation. Rather than debating policy, we begin examining the beliefs that inform our decisions. The discussion becomes less about whether schools should have boundaries and more about how institutional identity, equity, and student dignity can coexist. I firmly believe that a school's mission and academic standards matter deeply. At the same time, if we are willing to thoughtfully modify expectations in response to temporary medical needs, it is worth asking what that might teach us about how we support students whose learning needs are equally real, though often less visible.
I have yet to meet an educator who was not deeply invested in the success and well-being of their students. At the same time, we know that our influence as educators is profound. The decisions we make each day have the potential to expand opportunities for students or unintentionally create barriers to their success. Against a backdrop of political debate surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion, and articles such as The Atlantic's "Accommodation Nation”, it is understandable that conversations about equitable grading practices can feel especially charged. In Grading with Integrity, Guskey, Frey, and Fisher highlight that educators "aspire to be recognized as individuals who uphold high standards of integrity in all our interactions with students, parents and families" (p. 4). Keeping that aspiration in mind has changed the way I approach these conversations. Rather than assuming resistance to new ideas, I try to remember that many educators hear questions about grading not simply as questions about policy, but as questions about their professional judgment and integrity. Have you ever offered what you thought was a helpful suggestion, only to realize your colleague heard it as a challenge to the very values they work so hard to uphold?
When working with students, we often reflect on potential speedbumps and roadblocks. Together, we consider what is coming up in their lives that might create tension between competing priorities. You have a three-day field hockey tournament at the end of the month, just before your World Cultures research paper is due. Have you looked at your calendar to identify opportunities to make progress before you leave? I believe we should approach conversations about grading in much the same way. Given the traffic jam of emotions, beliefs, institutional identity, and professional integrity that often accompany these discussions, we should expect roadblocks rather than be surprised by them. Planning for those moments allows us to approach conversations with greater empathy, curiosity, and intention. Rather than becoming obstacles, those speedbumps can become opportunities to deepen understanding, strengthen relationships, and move our institutions toward grading practices that better reflect both our values and our commitment to students. Perhaps that's why one lyric has stayed with me throughout this work, DJ Kno tells us that “if life’s a road then I’m swervin’ through the potholes”.
Cheers,
Chris
Footnote:
1- If you are looking for a shift to traditional thoughts on resistance, check out the video from our NEALS’ Panel Discussion from 4/1/26 on Unlocking Strategy. Ryan Burke from Leadership + Design leads us through a Meditation on Resistance beginning at 26:19.
Works Cited:
Feldman, J. (2023). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it
can transform schools and classrooms (2nd ed.). Corwin.
Guidara, W. (2022). Unreasonable hospitality: The remarkable power of giving
people more than they expect. Optimism Press.
Guskey, T. R., Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2024). Grading with Integrity: A
research-based approach grounded in honesty, transparency, accuracy,
and equity. Corwin.
