Get rid of grades!
Reading this post on Dr. Free-Ride's blog about grade inflation had me cheering. Not because of what Janet says (because I think she makes a lot of excellent points). No, I think the thing I liked best was the second comment:
How about getting rid of grades altogether?
I know this horrifies some people. Heavens, what would we do without grades???? How would we assess people? How would people learn?
After all my adventures in school and now my children's, I am coming to the quite firm conclusion that grades are a distraction, waste of time and, worse yet, a misdirection about the purpose of school and learning.
I think that there are two factors affecting this perception. First, my experience tells me that getting a good grade may not be necessarily due to mastery of material. It can be due to a lot of things, not the least of which may have to do with the fact that some people may have a lot of prior knowledge of a course which may enable them to get a very high grade. If one takes a high grade as indicator of ability and potential, it doesn't seem fair to compare someone who knew some or much of the material and didn't have to work terribly hard with someone who made huge strides in knowledge and ability, comparatively speaking but may not have come out with such a good grade. We can use grades to assess mastery of material, but usually they may be measuring a lot of unknown factors. And they may not really have anything to do with a person's actual potential for various tasks (which they are often assumed to be, implicitly).
The second factor is my son's experience with math. Last year, the older boy started at a program for gifted children. It's dramatically different than most of the gifted programs you encounter in, well, anywhere. One thing they pointed out is that gifted children shouldn't have to be gifted in everything, but that they should be allowed to work to their full potential. So what do you do when you have a lot of bright kids who may be all over the place academically? Do as much as you can to enable independent learning.
The kids in this program do not, for the most part, attend classes. The reason these kids are in this program is because they often are bored (and sometimes misbehave) when they are forced to sit in a class (and more often than not, suffer from boredom). For math, in particular, they use a computer program. The program breaks a 'year-long' course in math down into individual topics (bite-size, if you will). It allows them to choose the topics they want to work on (as long as they have the previous knowledge). It keeps track of what they've learned, but will frequently provide assessments to see what they have retained. If they forget topics, they have to go back and relearn them.
I won't say the system is perfect. Very often, the older boy will get stuck until he can talk to me and ask me questions. The result, however, is that he has progressed through nearly a year of math in six months. And this is a kid who doesn't like math.
I know that, following this method, he will not suffer from deficiencies which may plague him later on. I know that he's learning the material. I know that he's taking it in at a rate that is appropriate for him. He is not being held up by other kids who learn more slowly nor is he being pushed at a pace that is too fast for him. He is getting enough practice with the concepts to learn and progress, but not so much that he gets bored.
Most importantly, I think it removes what is often, in my opinion, a subjective assessment of knowledge mastery with an objective evaluation. It also removes the issue the advantage/disadvantage of getting certain teachers who may or may not be able to enhance a child's learning. Most importantly, it teaches them that they can learn independent of a teacher, which is probably the biggest problem with the school system, IMO.
So how do you assess 'mastery' when people learn this way? In a sense, you don't need to. You know that they cannot progress until they have mastered concepts. Students who have a knack and/or interest will likely progress faster. Some students may progress to a point beyond which they don't seem to be able to learn (or at least, not in that fashion).
Honestly, I think that if you could stick a teacher in a room with 30 kids and let them work their way through many of their courses in this way using the teacher as a facilitator, you'd be far more confident that the students were actually mastering the material than if they sat in a classroom with a teacher who lectured at them. I know that I'd heard about this sort of thing when I was younger. I often wondered what it would be like to work at my own pace in school rather than sitting through some rather mind-numbing courses pretty much until I graduated high school. Now that I'm seeing it in action, I'm an even bigger fan. I wish every kid had the opportunity to learn this way. If every kid did, I think a lot more of them would enjoy learning, and the rest of us wouldn't have to worry about grades all the time.
How about getting rid of grades altogether?
I know this horrifies some people. Heavens, what would we do without grades???? How would we assess people? How would people learn?
After all my adventures in school and now my children's, I am coming to the quite firm conclusion that grades are a distraction, waste of time and, worse yet, a misdirection about the purpose of school and learning.
I think that there are two factors affecting this perception. First, my experience tells me that getting a good grade may not be necessarily due to mastery of material. It can be due to a lot of things, not the least of which may have to do with the fact that some people may have a lot of prior knowledge of a course which may enable them to get a very high grade. If one takes a high grade as indicator of ability and potential, it doesn't seem fair to compare someone who knew some or much of the material and didn't have to work terribly hard with someone who made huge strides in knowledge and ability, comparatively speaking but may not have come out with such a good grade. We can use grades to assess mastery of material, but usually they may be measuring a lot of unknown factors. And they may not really have anything to do with a person's actual potential for various tasks (which they are often assumed to be, implicitly).
The second factor is my son's experience with math. Last year, the older boy started at a program for gifted children. It's dramatically different than most of the gifted programs you encounter in, well, anywhere. One thing they pointed out is that gifted children shouldn't have to be gifted in everything, but that they should be allowed to work to their full potential. So what do you do when you have a lot of bright kids who may be all over the place academically? Do as much as you can to enable independent learning.
The kids in this program do not, for the most part, attend classes. The reason these kids are in this program is because they often are bored (and sometimes misbehave) when they are forced to sit in a class (and more often than not, suffer from boredom). For math, in particular, they use a computer program. The program breaks a 'year-long' course in math down into individual topics (bite-size, if you will). It allows them to choose the topics they want to work on (as long as they have the previous knowledge). It keeps track of what they've learned, but will frequently provide assessments to see what they have retained. If they forget topics, they have to go back and relearn them.
I won't say the system is perfect. Very often, the older boy will get stuck until he can talk to me and ask me questions. The result, however, is that he has progressed through nearly a year of math in six months. And this is a kid who doesn't like math.
I know that, following this method, he will not suffer from deficiencies which may plague him later on. I know that he's learning the material. I know that he's taking it in at a rate that is appropriate for him. He is not being held up by other kids who learn more slowly nor is he being pushed at a pace that is too fast for him. He is getting enough practice with the concepts to learn and progress, but not so much that he gets bored.
Most importantly, I think it removes what is often, in my opinion, a subjective assessment of knowledge mastery with an objective evaluation. It also removes the issue the advantage/disadvantage of getting certain teachers who may or may not be able to enhance a child's learning. Most importantly, it teaches them that they can learn independent of a teacher, which is probably the biggest problem with the school system, IMO.
So how do you assess 'mastery' when people learn this way? In a sense, you don't need to. You know that they cannot progress until they have mastered concepts. Students who have a knack and/or interest will likely progress faster. Some students may progress to a point beyond which they don't seem to be able to learn (or at least, not in that fashion).
Honestly, I think that if you could stick a teacher in a room with 30 kids and let them work their way through many of their courses in this way using the teacher as a facilitator, you'd be far more confident that the students were actually mastering the material than if they sat in a classroom with a teacher who lectured at them. I know that I'd heard about this sort of thing when I was younger. I often wondered what it would be like to work at my own pace in school rather than sitting through some rather mind-numbing courses pretty much until I graduated high school. Now that I'm seeing it in action, I'm an even bigger fan. I wish every kid had the opportunity to learn this way. If every kid did, I think a lot more of them would enjoy learning, and the rest of us wouldn't have to worry about grades all the time.