What is the purpose of grades anyway (i.e. an "A", a "B" etc.)? What is the goal of education? Do grades advance or hinder that goal?
"Grades do not advance the goal of education which is to gain knowledge and grow in wisdom. In fact, grades often hinder learning. Therefore, we ought to do away with grades and class rankings and go a pass fail system."
Grades are stupid when you think about it. They promote pride in some kids, and depression in others. They encourage cheating. They distract students away from learning towards figuring out how to master the art of getting a high grade from a particular teacher. Grades tend to be subjective and often do not reflect true intelligence ... they simply reward those who are good at taking tests.
The most compelling argument I have heard for grades are that they keep a student from being lazy. Without grades to work for, a student is likely to totally slack off. A second weaker argument is that grades offer a reward for hard work.
Both of these arguments fail. If grades are simply a carrot on a stick to get a lazy kid to do something, then the question still remains ... does the behavior you are motivating really align with the goal of education? The obvious answer is no. The goal is knowledge and wisdom ... not mastering the art of acing a class.
As far as rewards go, it should not take too much effort to figure out how to reward kids that put out good effort besides resorting to grades. Give out awards, for example.
I don't know who invented grades, but in my opinion, all they do is promote pride and cause kids to hone their skills at figuring out how to get high marks from a given teacher. Grades promote an unhealthy competitiveness. Grades promote cheating. Grades hinder learning. We need to rethink the entire philosophy of grading and come up with something better.
I think you're on to something with the idea of giving out awards. I guess you could do it at a macro level ("We give this award to John Smith for being an accomplished person"), but I suspect it might work better if it was at a lower level, say covering a particular subject, or perhaps even particular sections of a subject.
Better still, rather than just a single 'this person is accomplished' award, which in a good school would be largely meaningless (one of the main goals of good schools is to make sure that everyone is *at least* accomplished), we could introduce several levels of accomplishment. That would recognize those who have done very well, while still encouraging those who are doing well but may never excel, and of course spurring on those who don't yet live up to expectation. We'd have to come up with some system for labeling these levels, of course. Perhaps we could get inspiration from the alphabet...
;)
Posted by: Paul | January 19, 2008 at 12:47
Unless, of course, your letter based award scheme actually hinders the real purpose of school ... which I believe your idea would.
Since the purpose of school is to gain knowledge and wisdom of what to do with that knowledge, I think the proposal to do away with letter based awards is still a better idea.
Now, if you want to award something like strong moral character, then I think you are on to something! :)
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 19, 2008 at 16:06
"Therefore, we ought to do away with grades and class rankings and go a pass fail system."
The problem that I see with a pass/fail system is that it probably would not motivate many students. They would still figure out how they could just pass. Many students already do this, but I feel that a pass/fail system would take away the challenge to many students. It would probably just promote more laziness in those students who are not naturally motivated to work.
"I don't know who invented grades, but in my opinion, all they do is promote pride and cause kids to hone their skills at figuring out how to get high marks from a given teacher. "
Grades do promote pride, which can be a good thing, to some extent. A student who has had a C for an entire semester, will be proud of their accomplishment of pulling off a B or an A the next semester. This isn't true in all cases, and I know that too much pride of this sort can be a bad thing, but pride in one's accomplishments isn't bad to an extent. In a system that is less about grades and more about simply passing, a student would take less pride in their work. There would be no distinguishing between the students who worked hard to make good grades and the students who did the least they had to do to get by and still pass.
Also, passing by learning how to get high marks from a teacher isn't always viable. It depends on the kind of class and the teacher him/herself.
Posted by: Rachael | January 19, 2008 at 17:42
"Many students already do this, but I feel that a pass/fail system would take away the challenge to many students. It would probably just promote more laziness in those students who are not naturally motivated to work."
So grades challenge and motivate students to do what? Get A's or learn?
What I hear you saying is that grades motivate lazy students to be less lazy.
However, the goal of education is not to be less lazy ... it is to learn.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 19, 2008 at 18:03
"In a system that is less about grades and more about simply passing, a student would take less pride in their work."
True, but the system isn't simply about passing. The system is about learning. That is the big difference here. If someone doesn't learn the material, then they repeat until they learn. Once they learn it, they move on to learn new and other things. The idea is to cultivate a love of learning ... rather than a love of grades.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 19, 2008 at 21:52
One major point has been left out of this discussion so far: How do colleges evaluate students for admissions?
I empathize with the pass/fail and "love of learning" points, having homeschooled both of our children where grades were just a formality. Colleges already have quite a chore trying to compare GPA's from various public and private schools. What should they do... put more emphasis on SAT scores? Many think that the College Board has too much influence on student admissions as it is. So how do admission committees make their decisions if all they have to go on is a collection of students who have achieved the minimum requirements? I don't know, really.
For myself, I did not get the "love" until later in life and even then it was in specific subject areas. I have heard that regarding grades and diplomas, sometimes you just have to show others that you can achieve something, even if it is onerous and somewhat meaningless.
Posted by: SteveC | January 20, 2008 at 17:22
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Mark Twain
The goal of primary education should be to teach you how to teach yourself, not just dump facts on you. Homeschooling works so well because it operates on this principle. Once you "get" this as a student, the grades come easy. If you are a public school refugee like me, it comes late- if at all- and everything is more difficult. This idea- learning how to learn- is most important, not grades.
Posted by: SteveC | January 21, 2008 at 09:39
Good points, Steve.
There is a growing movement in this country that shows that grades are not required to learn. It is called home schooling.
Teach a child how to learn and cultivate a love of learning and you have given a child a priceless gift for the rest of their lives.
No one has been able to argue how grades either cause learning or cultivate a love of learning. Therefore, why not get rid of them and get education back on track.
"What should they do... put more emphasis on SAT scores? Many think that the College Board has too much influence on student admissions as it is. So how do admission committees make their decisions if all they have to go on is a collection of students who have achieved the minimum requirements?"
In my opinion, several things should go into the equation. Moral character. Maturity. Responsibility. Ability to communicate. Ability to think. Ability to process information. Basic level of attained knowledge. You should want to discriminate against enrolling kids who are there for the wrong reasons and will simply pull down the rest of the kids. SAT scores aren't enough, in my opinion. Bottom line, you have to meet with the kids, interview them, and do some due diligence.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 21, 2008 at 10:23
"So grades challenge and motivate students to do what? Get A's or learn?"
This is not an either/or situation. In ten years of teaching, I have noticed a very high correlation between grades and learning. The students who make A's in my classes are not only better at taking objective tests, they express themselves better verbally and in writing and evince a much deeper understanding of the material than their lower-achieving counterparts. Their work shows an attention to detail and a mental effort that is lacking in most students, who are satisfied with merely passing.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 21, 2008 at 22:04
No one has been able to argue how grades either cause learning or cultivate a love of learning. Therefore, why not get rid of them and get education back on track.
I guess I've been out of school too long, because when I was a student, no one claimed that grades caused learning or a love of learning. Rather, they were a mechanism for communicating to the student and to parents the degree to which the student was learning what he/she was expected to learn. Evaluation of knowledge was performed through exams, essays, oral presentations, problem sets, etc. The grades were merely a method of summarizing the results of those evaluations.
I think this conversation is needlessly complicated by equivocating the methods by which knowledge is achieved, the methods by which that achievement is evaluated, and the methods by which those evaluations are communicated.
Posted by: Nick | January 22, 2008 at 08:43
Ah yes, Rob... you are begging the question with a circular argument (grades=smart, because smart=grades). My point still stands.
My point is that you are actually observing what I am describing: those who learn the technique of teaching themselves (usually unconsciously), get high grades and also show the outward signs of intelligence. It all comes much easier for them. If you just say to a student, "get high grades" without teaching them how to learn, they will just resent the whole process and likely lose confidence. Case in point, myself: I did not know that I was intelligent (because I only received average grades) until I started working in a lab after college (figuring I’d stay in that kind of position forever). Learning became fun, I took the GRE's because my employer told me I should go to graduate school (really?), and voila... amazing scores (grades?!). It often happens that a kid will be a year behind in public school, behaving badly and of course performing poorly. They are then homeschooled (which has a heavy focus on how to learn) and accelerate past their grade level and graduate before their peers with a much higher proficiency. For example, my son did exactly that and by his “junior” year we had run out of teaching materials. We sent him to community college where he received excellent grades. The effect is high grades on standardized tests, high grades are not the cause.
Grades unimportant until high school, where they are then needed for comparison purposes in college admissions. Get the basic “Three R’s” down and the kid will run with it once they discover the art of learning. Benchmark tests are useful along the way for self monitoring and helping the teacher to coach the student in finding his/her style.
Another problem new students face is that their previous low grade point averages just prejudice the teachers against them. They make the same conclusion you do, Rob: grades=smart. In our current system, grades are often inflated anyway. Rob I think your observation just proves our point. You can see the high performer without looking at their GPA.
Posted by: SteveC | January 22, 2008 at 10:42
Steve,
Home run.
Nick,
You are making my point, in a way. Grades have very little to do with learning. All they do is offer one way to measure how much someone knows. The problem is that the grades then become the focus. They become harmful for the really smart student who is lazy because he or she is taught to do as little as possible to get the "A". For a second class of student, they get in the way because the student is actually learning to the best of their ability but getting labeled as slow and stupid because they get overly stressed out over the grades and end up blowing tests. I think grades work fine for the smart student who is highly motivated to begin with ... but then again, their problem could be pride over their report cards. That is a problematic moral issue.
It seems like grades don't really help.
I imagine Socrates did not hand out grades to Plato, yet Plato learned. Annie Sullivan did not hand out grades to Helen Keller, but Helen Keller learned. Timothy Edwards did not hand out grades to Jonathan Edwards, but Edwards went on to become the leading American scholar thinker of his generation (and many argue, any generation).
Grades, who needs 'em ?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 22, 2008 at 11:00
"They make the same conclusion you do, Rob: grades=smart."
I never reached this conclusion, Steve; you seem to have done so for me. I merely shared my observation of a high correlation between the two. I know of many very intelligent students who receive low marks and less gifted students who do well by comparison. These students are not typical, but they are always there in small numbers. By the way, I don't know what my students' GPAs are when they come to my class, and I have more important things to do than find out, like assessing their performance in my class. I don't know any teachers who look up GPAs and form prejudices based on that data.
I didn't present an argument at all, circular or otherwise; I related my experience. But now I will come out in favor of grades. I think grades motivate students. I know I was motivated by grades as a student, even into my thirties. My own children are motivated by grades. I think many students who receive high grades are in fact motivated by grades. I really don't care where the motivation comes from, but it has to come from somewhere.
Suggesting that motivation should come from "love of learning" is all fluffy and nice, but how will we make that happen? How will we measure our success? Maybe instead of laws against murder we should just impart a "love of mankind" to our children. Until that is perfected, though, I think we'd better keep the law on the books.
I don't particularly like grading kids as if they were so many eggs. I take great pains to make sure a student's grade in my class reflects both effort and ability, since that is also the way the real world works. If a kid feels bad about his or her grades, he/she should work to address that issue. True self-esteem comes from achievement. Grades are one way to measure achievement. I think they are useful.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2008 at 11:51
Without grades to work for, a student is likely to totally slack off.
Heck, I slacked off, even with grades to work for! ;)
The system is about learning.
Yes, but you haven't proposed a viable method of determining whether or not a student actually has learned. Testing and grading aren't perfect, but they're actually not a bad way to measure, in the macro sense. Yes, the system can be gamed, but you have yet to suggest a better alternative.
My point is that you are actually observing what I am describing: those who learn the technique of teaching themselves (usually unconsciously), get high grades and also show the outward signs of intelligence.
Then what do you do with someone like me? I got mediocre grades, but was widely considered to be one of the most intelligent students in my classes. According to what you've just posited, I should have gotten among the best grades; yet I didn't.
This is because grades at their heart don't measure a student's intelligence; they measure a student's performance in the classroom, and on examinations. There may be a high correlation between the two, but that doesn't imply a causal relationship.
But again, I throw the question back at the questioners: If you're not going to use letter grades, then how do you propose we actually measure learning and achievement? You've spoken in vague, nebulous terms, but haven't actually proposed an alternative. How, then, shall we determine who's learning and who's not, and adjust accordingly?
Posted by: tgirsch | January 22, 2008 at 15:29
This is turning into quite a thread... too bad for the pigfest.
Rob,
I apologize if I assumed an incorrect conclusion from what you were relating; and if you would like to disagree with that conclusion... well, thanks! :)
I'm puzzled why teachers in your system do not familiarize themselves with new students enough to know their past performance, but it is good that you are confident that prejudice is rare. It WAS a problem when I was a kid.
I agree that measures of excellence are motivating, but motivation for what (hence Mr. D's objections to pride). Is “learning to a test” really learning? I would reiterate that there are other ways to motivate than teaching to a test (I like your egg analogy), because there are very successful models which do not use grades (i.e. home schools).
Surprisingly, however, I would personally agree with you that there is simply no other way to gauge student progress in a compulsory public school system. This is a whole other discussion, but I would ask Mr. D why he would expect the public school system to be able to change in a way that only private institutions can; namely, driven primarily by its customers (parents and students). Like it or not, the fundamental difference between private (usually driven by the “market”) schools and government (usually driven by politics) schools will always leave most students at a disadvantage.
Therefore, I believe the debate should not be on grades within a flawed system, but rather on the system itself.
Posted by: SteveC | January 22, 2008 at 16:38
"I'm puzzled why teachers in your system do not familiarize themselves with new students enough to know their past performance.."
The information does not come with our rolls. Finding it for each of 80+ students would consume time better spent in other ways. Such raw data would be less useful for the instructor than classroom observation. If a student has failed a "Gateway" test, we are aware of that. It figures into placement and instructional decisions.
"Is “learning to a test” really learning?"
Yes, it is learning, but it is not the only kind of learning. Few if any teachers base grades solely on tests. In college, however, this is more common.
"...there are very successful models which do not use grades (i.e. home schools)."
Home schooling differs in other ways as well. I would attribute much of the success of that model to caring parents and individualized instruction. Good parents know their children better than I ever could. If the parent has good subject area knowledge and knows the rudiments of pedagogy, it should surprise no one that the child learns better under that model.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | January 22, 2008 at 17:13
tgirsch,
As for what to do with you...:)
I think that anyone familiar with this blog would say that you are pretty exceptional (in a good way). I would also say that you "slacked off" because grades were not motivating for you. It was the same for me, but it was NOT generally known that I was one of the smartest students- though now I know that I was.
This is because grades at their heart don't measure a student's intelligence;
yep
I also agree that it is pointless to talk of changing something where there is no viable alternative (my response to Rob addresses this- if it made it okay) within the current system. However, a discussion of changing the system should not be on this thread.
Posted by: SteveC | January 22, 2008 at 17:14
As I understand it, the way learning used to be assessed was primarily via recitation before a teacher. The teacher then determined who would move forward and when. I don't see why that couldn't be done in today's primary and secondary classrooms as well.
Anyone here ever read Understood Betsy? :)
As an aside, this is one explanation for the effectiveness of homeschooling, especially in homeschools that use the "narration" method of learning. Re-telling allows the student to become intimately familiar with the material.
My children have never been assigned a letter grade in their lives. I don't grade their math tests, for instance; I just circle the mistakes and have them come back and correct. Letter grades are useful only to assess how one stands in relation to a bunch of other people. They serve no purpose at all in a homeschool, except maybe to create a high school transcript that speaks the language of college admissions officers.
Here at "the homeschoolers college," SAT scores, life experience and writing samples play a big part in the admissions process, from what I understand. But letter grades are given in classes, of course.
Posted by: Susannah | January 23, 2008 at 00:28
Thanks Susannah.
Rob,
I would attribute much of the success of that model to caring parents and individualized instruction.
Well yes and no. That statement is often made by public school teachers. However, we hear many stories of how "dunce" parents end up with amazing successes. We also hear the opposite: parents who are intelligent, but "over-feed" the student until he/she is begging to go back to public schools.
What is the difference? The point I am trying to make. Whether it is organized schools or home instruction, learning how to learn (rather than just dumping facts) makes all the difference. You can write-off all of elementary school (except for the basic 3R's) and even middle school, but if the student gets "it", then they can surpass their peers in middle school and high school. Don't ask me how it can be systematically done in government schools. I have no clue there. Grades are all they can do I guess, while looking to the successes of students who find their own way or are inspired by one or two great teachers.
Rob, I am sure that you are one of them- and I respect that, really.
Posted by: SteveC | January 23, 2008 at 12:26
I think that letter grades should be done away with.It applies to much preasure to students to think that one grade can fail you.
Posted by: fan4lt | January 24, 2008 at 10:32
I think that it is wrong to do away with letter. If someone gets low grades such as d's and f's they might be affended. So I think that you should actually study and try hard so you wont think about all the low grades you got. I mean what else would you do. Would you do animals or planets or what.
Posted by: angelboy | January 24, 2008 at 10:36
SteveC:
I would also say that you "slacked off" because grades were not motivating for you.
I was lazy. Nothing more, nothing less. :)
Don't ask me how it can be systematically done in government schools.
Lost in the discussion is the fact that on the whole, government schools actually do a pretty good job. Where the public schools are bad, there are usually external factors in play that account for this, that aren't necessarily failings of the concept of public education (although they often are failings of how we fund said education...).
Susannah:
Letter grades are useful only to assess how one stands in relation to a bunch of other people.
I think that's only true if you grade on a curve. Otherwise, it's possible that all students could get A's, or all could get F's. Further, a letter grade could be meaningful even if you have only one student. It's simply a way of assessing one's performance against an objective standard (perhaps less "objective" in subjects like English), rather than against other students.
Posted by: tgirsch | January 24, 2008 at 17:03
Steve:
"This is a whole other discussion, but I would ask Mr. D why he would expect the public school system to be able to change in a way that only private institutions can; namely, driven primarily by its customers (parents and students)."
Part of this proposition was to get people thinking about the philosophy of grades and whether they help or hinder the purpose of education. Your question is more of a pragmatic one. I don't think I could change the government approach to school ... at least not over night ;) However, little by little I can help change opinion by getting people to think and reach the same conclusion. Over time, who knows? Maybe someone can come up with a system that actually motivates learning instead of motivating pride or causing distress.
"I also agree that it is pointless to talk of changing something where there is no viable alternative (my response to Rob addresses this- if it made it okay) within the current system. However, a discussion of changing the system should not be on this thread."
No harm in pointing out that grades hinder learning though. I agree that we can open a new thread with a proposition to the affirmative suggesting an alternative. For now, I am satisfied that my proposition stands. I haven't seen a satisfactory argument advanced that grades advance learning. Just look at how smart tgirsch is and how lousy his GPA was :) Case closed.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | January 24, 2008 at 19:04
Mr. D, can we have some evidence where dumb kids have gotten good grades? Certainly it is easy for smart folks to get poor grades by not trying. But can dumb people get good grades and not learn anything?
I think even if you study to a test you will learn things about your subject matter. I also think that grades are a good motivational factor, even for people who enjoy learning. I enjoy learning, but there are some subjects I have no interest in so I would not try as hard to learn in those subjects were it not for the grade motivating me to do well by learning the material...
tgirsch said he was lazy, grades didn't motivate him to put forth the effort. What would motivate such a student?
Posted by: Matt | January 25, 2008 at 12:28
Shhaaaahhhh! Total agreement! Maybe Parents should be the only ones to see grades, litteraly!
Posted by: Wario clone 1 | January 27, 2008 at 12:35
Matt:
What would motivate such a student?
About the only thing that motivated me was when I actually enjoyed the subject matter. If I liked it, I paid attention and did well; if I didn't, I did just enough to get by.
Unfortunately, there's not a lot you can do with that. There's nothing anyone can do to make me enjoy reading The Scarlet Letter. :)
Posted by: tgirsch | January 28, 2008 at 12:27