Reflection #8: Grading

 

                       The subject of grading is indeed a complicated one.  There are all sorts of considerations implicit to this topic:  What method should I use, an absolute or curve system?” “What symbols should I use?” “Should letter grades be assigned?” “Should citizenship have a bearing on the grade?”  The questions could go on and on.
           First and foremost, a new teacher must make some decisions about what grades should represent.   Attitudes range from the extreme “left”, no grades should be given; learning should be purely for satisfaction of personal development; to the extreme “right”, grades should absolutely, without exception represent the academic achievement of the student, who lives in a highly competitive and merit-conscious world. Most teachers hold views somewhere along that continuum, visions complicated by parental expectations, tradition, administrative dicta, other teachers’ opinions, “institutions of higher learning”, etc.
         The views of the extreme “Left” are generally possible only in certain private institutions and in certain research school dedicated to pedagogical research.  Ungraded learning environments are not popular in the various public school systems in the United States.  Such attitudes, though Edenic in nature, are not generally responsive to the public will.  Therefore, we can, for all intents and purposes rule out such practices.
          On the other hand, the Draconian strictures of  the “Right”, total absolute grades based entirely on performance, are equally difficult in a public system devoted to a comprehensive education for all:  What does one do to and for the student who is “mainstreamed”* and unable to compete in the absolutist world of achievement?  This absolutist view seems equally untenable to most classroom teachers.

 

GET A PHILOSOPHY

 

        First of all, you must determine (within the parameters of the institution for which you work)

 

         As with most human situations, probably no absolutist solution is appropriate.  Institutions of higher learning, both academic and technical, are rightly concerned with the ability of its applicants to perform at a pre-determined level of academic achievement.  Since it is the goal of post secondary education to offer special training and degrees in advanced academic and technical subjects, students enrolled in courses which are pre-requisite to that kind of education probably justifiably ought to be measured in absolute terms.  It is important to report students’ performances in those classes in terms which are standard and consistently apparent to the institutions evaluating them.
      On the other hand, since public education is dedicated to the idea of a comprehensive education for all of its citizens, we must recognize that not all course work is or should be designed for those planning to apply for post secondary education.  How then should grading standards be formulated and what should they mean?  Probably it is reasonable to posit that students in “general education” classes (those not required for admission to post-secondary schooling), might be appropriately graded with “effort” and “application” to be considered as part of the ultimate grade. Many job-choices and social circumstances require those gifts in large measure for success, perhaps even more so than academic prowess.  If the course work is non-academic, students’ performances may well be measured in more behavioral terms than absolute achievement.
        In summary, it is probably accurate to say that grading practice and philosophy is a highly developed art form, rather than an exact science; therefore the best one can hope for is an on-going aspiration of fairness, evenhandedness, and explicit statement of grading practice available to all concerned individuals.