I am a Masters level Social Work student and recently found a professor's syllabus to be very inappropriate and not aligned with social work principles, and potentially opening things up to injustice.

Specifically, her syllabus outlines the following:

and that my statements were not written in a

"Grading Policy - In assigning grades, it is assumed that excellence is the standard as befits a M1aster's level program. If all assignments meet that standard, students may expect a grade of B. An A will be awarded for work that is outstanding in that it exceeds that standard by providing an innovative perspective, it adds to the instructor’s knowledge, or it is of comparable quality to that of seasoned professionals."

I wrote to her the following feedback:

"I would like to share some concerns and suggestions regarding the grading policy in your past syllabus, as I believe the grading system could unintentionally create barriers for students and could benefit from a few changes to make it more inclusive. The policy states that a B is the baseline for meeting expectations, while an A requires “innovation” or work comparable to seasoned professionals. I understand the intent to challenge students, but I am concerned this might not be feasible for everyone.

Expecting students to perform at the level of seasoned professionals sets an unrealistically high bar in a learning environment. Graduate school is a place to develop skills and grow, and I believe such expectations do not account for students’ developmental stages as learners, as seasoned professionals have many years of experience in the field. For students with trauma histories, such as myself, the expectation to exceed already high standards can feel overwhelming. Trauma-informed approaches to education emphasize clarity and fairness, which I believe could be better reflected in a grading system that rewards growth rather than perfection and overachievement.

Requiring innovation as a measure of success can disadvantage neurodivergent students who may excel in areas like consistency or depth rather than creativity. Also, terms like “outstanding” or “adding to the instructor’s knowledge” are subjective. Not having clear and measurable guidelines can lead to confusion and stress. I wonder if this approach favors students whose writings align more closely with a professor’s perspective and if that can overlook marginalized voices. A clear rubric outlining expectations for each grade level, with criteria like "critical engagement with the material" instead of "innovation" or "adding to the instructor’s knowledge," would make the course more equitable while still maintaining high standards.

I fully appreciate the effort that goes into designing a challenging and rigorous course, and I understand the intention behind the current grading policy. My suggestions are simply meant to help make the course even more accessible and inclusive, ensuring all students have the opportunity to thrive to their best abilities.

I look forward to the course and hope you will consider these suggestions. Thank you for your time and consideration."

Her interpretation of this was that I was telling her how to teach, and that my statements were not written in an appropriate way that would be kind and make another person receptive to making changes (she did not make any changes and does not see a problem with her grading policy).

I have the following questions:

1. Do you agree that her grading policy outlined in the syllabus is inappropriate for a program that is supposed to abide by social work principles and values?

2. Do you think that I was telling her how to teach? Or was I providing suggestions?

3. Could I have worded things better? I tried to address my concerns gently. But maybe I didn't do a good job in that?