HIS WORK AND HIS GLORY

One of the interesting byproducts of having spent my life in the educational arena is that I gained a personal prejudice against the well accepted process of grading by comparing one person’s progress against that of another.

When I was involved in the degree seeking part of my life there were those who tried to indoctrinate me into the cult of grading on the curve; a system which took statistical comparisons and made them absolutes in grading small and large groups of people. Instructors would thereby be bound to give no more than 7% of their students the highest grade and then were mandated to give another 7 % the lowest possible grade.

There was a minor representation of educators who believed the instructor should set up levels of knowledge which should be achieved in order to be rewarded with a corresponding grade. I personally found this to be a much more equitable way of grading the accomplishments of students. Those who answered more than 90% of the questions received the highest grade and then lesser grades were assigned as the percentage of correct answers diminished.

There was an even smaller group who advocated contract grading where each student outlined their expectations for the class and then at the end of the session they gave themselves a grade based on how well they completed their expectations. I think that the reason so few in the profession accepted this type of grading was that it required more maturity than most students had acquired.

Even a casual investigation of the educational systems of various societies quickly reveals that attempts to make everyone ‘all that they can be’ have rarely if ever met the needs of all who have been the students in those systems, resulting in the majority of the earth’s population being content to end their formal and informal learning process well below their capabilities.

Some of the contributors to the collective failures of those systems are:

Many students have left the systems early, feeling inadequate because of consistent negative reinforcement.

Students oft time would find themselves over their heads, having been moved beyond their capabilities, because of the ‘everyone should win a trophy’ philosophy which has invaded many of our ivied walls.

Putting student expectations at the lowest common denominator, leaving some students watching the hands of clocks move with eyes clouded with boredom.

I know I am still in the process of coming to a conclusion on the matter; but for now, I have concluded that it is beyond the grasp of mortals to devise a system of grading one another which will achieve a correct balance between negative and positive reinforcement and thereby help all to become ‘all they can be.’

All Teachers are hampered by their limited knowledge of:

The foundation upon which each student is building.

The speed with which each student is capable of grasping various concepts in various fields.

The realistic potential level at which each student can master a subject.

I feel it was an act of providence which aligned the stars so that there were only a few years during my professional career when I was compelled to place judgment upon the student who filled the chairs of my classrooms. I will count it as a blessing that for most of my life I didn’t have to put a star, a smiley face, a percent or a letter of the alphabet on a student’s paper or report card.

Now that I have retired from standing behind a lectern and controlling the chalk or magic marker in a classroom I have had time to ponder upon the stimulus’ which might most effectively help us all to be more constant in our progression and thereby come closer to achieving our personal potentials.

TO BE CONTINUED: