Ethan Rauch

I grew up going to school in a somewhat well-adjusted area, and the form of language that I obtained from the media I consumed, and from what I observed from those around me (both loved ones and mere friends alike) was not far off from the typical “standardized” academic English that many collegiate institutions and academic enterprises encourage people to utilize. 

Often in the realm of academics, as current and former students who have grown up in these institutions learning a very distinct, pointed manner of language may know, we often overlook the small things that students who haven’t shared these same privileges find hardship in. From a certain point of view, the manner in which people like myself who have grown up only knowing one way, the so-called American way, is itself a form of privilege.

Of course, I would like to think that the level of language I speak with today is of a higher eloquence than that of the language I incorporated when I was a mere child. But I can acknowledge all the same that the more nuanced aspects of my writing capabilities have never been so obviously different from the language usage I now comprehend in academic texts, and what’s been expected of me in this still relatively low level of collegiate academia. And yet, even with this so-called privilege that’s been hoisted upon me by the circumstances of my birth and the communal area I grew up in, there have been times where I still find myself struggling with even some basic principles of language and grammar usage in the writing I produce.

So this presents the conundrum: if someone like myself who has grown up knowing only this one very specific means of language can still struggle with some aspects of it, how can we reasonably expect a person who comes from a completely different set of circumstances, a different way of life, to adapt to these standards of Academia in an absolute swift and successful manner? 

The short answer is that expecting such a thing to happen is not reasonable. The longer answer is that addressing this issue head-on would almost certainly require reforming the institutions that create these environments where people who speak or write differently from the unspoken “standard” of English academia are inadvertently made to believe their means of expression is inadequate compared to others. Of course, this is something that could potentially be done–but it would be a process that takes years, potentially decades, to re-construct because of how ingrained some of these unspoken prejudices and discriminatory mandates are.

As a common college student, I don’t intend to speak here on how I believe the system of academia can be restructured into something more inclusive and welcoming for people of all kinds of backgrounds. Considering my status in life and the limitations of my knowledge and experiences, I frankly don’t think I can reasonably speak on this topic without it being blatantly obvious just how deep out of my element I am.

What I can speak to with reasonable depth, however, is that something like Asao B. Inoue’s labor-based grading system achieves this expansive goal of inclusivity on a smaller scale. While it is not a perfect system of grading, it is one that Professor Inoue crafted with the intention of making an environment of learning where people of all kinds of backgrounds can feel welcomed, and awarded the same opportunity as others to progress in a classroom environment. In his book, Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom, the way Inoue describes his labor-based grading system is that it is a structure of grading that rewards students for whether they put in the genuine work and effort within and without the classroom environment for all their assignments. This combats the typical grading system that rewards students for whether they conform to the unspoken standards of academic language in their writing.

In his own words, it is “essentially a set of social agreements with the entire class about how final course grades will be determined for everyone.” Inoue designs his grading system not based on an absolute structure, but he builds it through genuine discourse with his students each semester. Students are assigned a certain number of assignments each semester, and for them to achieve the standard, base-level grade, all they typically have to do is just actively take part and show that they are putting in the effort to help foster a productive educational environment. Those who want to achieve the highest grade possible are given the opportunities to go above and beyond to do so in the form of additional assignments.

Marc C. Santos has been a teacher for over twenty years, and as of 2022 he implemented a form of a labor-based grading system into some classes he taught. The conclusions he came to in his journal article, “How I implemented Asao B. Inoue’s labor-based grading and other Antiracist Assessment Strategies,” were made evident in one particular passage:

“I have come to realize that if we want to dismantle those [racially linguistic] hierarchies then we need to ensure that every student          who enters a writing classroom has a path to earning an A regardless of their race or past educational experiences…those are conditions beyond our control, but the grades they can earn in our classes are not. We can redress past structural racism by ensuring the grade earned in a writing course focuses on a student’s investment and growth in that course alone.”

Santos went on to further say that, “If we grade only what we teach, we help to ensure that the grades we award students reflect the work and learning they did in our classes and are not reflections of their cultural backgrounds or previous experiences with writing.”

This kind of academic philosophy directly challenges the idea of grades and the essential significance of them in the first place. As a college student myself I’ve thought to have understood the idea of letter-based grades, but my perspective has changed after reading the discourse that Inoue and Santos encourage. I’ve begun to fully realize how grades can essentially function as an indirect limitation on a student’s capabilities and means of achieving what they deem an adequate level of success in their academic life.

As I just mentioned, I am a college-level student. This is part of why I feel I’m somewhat qualified to discuss this method of grading, because I have personally lived under it–if only for very brief periods of time. I feel the need to preface that I don’t classify myself as an expert by any means, but I had the experience of taking two courses during my time at Penn State Abington that incorporated a version of a labor-based grading system. Professor Stephen Cohen, the instructor of both of these courses, was gracious enough to take some time out of his day to speak with me about the nuanced points that come up in support and opposition to labor-based grading systems. 

The topic of grades came up in our dialogue, and Professor Cohen illustrated to me why he philosophically does not agree with the concept of them.

“I don’t love grades at all. Most people come from the belief that grades are an extrinsic help with motivation, how we train people to be intrinsically motivated to do good work. And so, I think most people think grades can help with that,” he said. “I’m less sure that that’s the way to do that, but we live in a system where I literally have to assign you a grade. And I’m not sure it’s unhelpful, either; part of my struggle with whether to use a contract or not, it’s my struggle with every course I design, is how best to create an environment where you feel like you’re learning something, and your work is meaningful.”

Some of the questions he propelled forward also help to demonstrate why the standardized system of grading, from his perspective as a Professor of English at a collegiate level, may not be the most functional in what it’s trying to accomplish. He also signified to me that in actuality, there may not be one way to even frame what a grade’s weight means.

“What are grades for? What do they do? What are they measuring? Are they measuring effort, measuring product or output, are they signifiers to other institutions, are they signifiers to students? If they are signifiers to either institutions or students, what are they signifying? Are they signifying you in relation to the other people in this class,” he said. “So if you get an ‘A’ on an essay, does that mean you are better than other people in the class? Does that mean you are better than other people at writing? Better than other people at the institution? Grades are a really fraught, unspecific, inscrutable measurement of something we’re not quite clear on.”

The situational context of academia and the limitations it may induce can play an instrumental role in how those from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds may struggle as they progress in their fields of study. I asked Professor Cohen about his perspective regarding how a labor-based grading system can work to deconstruct some of the limitations of academia, and he highlighted how he philosophically views it.

“Academia is a more tight context, where you can think about what the rules are in a more productive way. But even then, there’s different environments. No, I can’t quantify [the impact a labor-based grading system can have on creating a more inclusive environment]. But I’m deeply ambivalent about this, in ways that I think about a lot,” he said. “The impulse always is to create an environment where students are supported in learning. And the question this raises for me is ‘learning what’ and ‘for what reasons.’ So there is a way in which a grading contract can help students not be overly concerned, help students think more about expressing themselves and thinking about a complex idea and how to convey it, than about where a semicolon goes. I think there’s value to that.”

I have discussed the many positives to be ascertained from labor-based grading systems, but it is by no means a perfect solution to the problem rooted so deep into the institutions of academia and various levels of education. I know some of the limitations of this kind of system myself, from experience. For instance, there were times where I knew that what I had already done was satisfactory enough to get the grade I’d strived for, and so I didn’t push myself to put forward my best work. Another critique expressed to me by Professor Cohen that I was previously unfamiliar with is that this labor-based grading system can be limiting for students who aren’t as academically or economically prepared for higher-level education.

“My belief is the way we use language is how we move around socially, or how we signal socially where we belong often. And so, my goal, especially at an institution like Abington, where we’re trying to give you an affordable education so that you can move in economic classes,” he said.” So I worry that not paying attention to those kinds of things [like writing quality] can be a detriment to that, but I don’t want to worry about those things to the point that students feel excluded. Or that the languages they bring are not an advantage and value. So there’s tension there. I think that one of the drawbacks to the contract, one of the reasons I don’t use it in some courses, is that I think the contract works really well for students who are academically and economically prepared for university, in a way that some students who are less academically and economically prepared suffer.”

Professor Cohen made it clear to me that the baseline for structuring his labor-based grading system comes directly from Professor Asao B. Inoue’s own labor-based grading foundations. It’s a kind of foundational system that can create a more welcoming and inclusive environment for people from all different kinds of backgrounds, but it cannot be seen as a complete solution to the institutional problems in Academia and education itself. For where we are as a society, though, the good it can do may very well outweigh the bad. And that’s a nice place to start, I’d reckon.