It's grading season, and teachers across the land are scoring, adding, averaging, and listening to an urgent cacophony of voices. "I need an A!" students inform us, as if the syllabus stipulates: "All grades will be based on need." We wonder inevitably if there is a better way, especially with the likely advent of outcomes-based funding.
A recent article in Slate by Michael Thomsen offers up "The Case Against Grades." He believes they lower self-esteem, discourage creativity, and reinforce the class divide. The last point is interesting, since grading was designed to insure that there were no favorites or prejudice in the evaluation of students. The same goes for the SAT, strangely enough. Mr. Thomsen provides an interesting summary of the history of grading, and believes it's time to move on to something else.
But what?
John Taylor Gatto, a one-time New York State Teacher of the Year turned fierce education critic proposed an education system built around "independent study, community service, adventures in experience, large doses of privacy and solitude, [and] a thousand different apprenticeships." Schools built on these values have flourished in the margins of state-funded, graded education throughout the 20th century. The most famous example are Montessori schools, noted for their lack of grades, multiage classes, and extended periods where students can chose their own projects from a selected range of materials. The schools have educated many of today's wealthiest entrepreneurs, including Google's Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales, business management legend Peter Drucker, and video game icon Will Wright.
Much of what the author says relates to K-12 education, but any shift in approach would certainly percolate upward. We've all had wonderful students who came out of the Montessori tradition and many more who were home schooled. But keep in mind that these students, almost by definition, have caring, engaged parents who are, most likely, highly educated themselves (and perhaps able to stay home during the day as well). It's a classic exercise in cherry-picking to tout their success. Most of the accomplished individuals listed above came from privileged backgrounds, at least in terms of parental engagement and education if not great wealth.
Now let's presume the stated approaches of "independent study, community service, adventures in experience, large
doses of privacy and solitude, [and] a thousand different
apprenticeships," were attempted with everyone instead of grades. What do we do with students who don't show up or perform poorly? "No more adventures for you!"
The author cites the Socratic ideal, too, as if such a paradigm can be applied universally to millions of diverse students. (Not to mention the fact that Socrates was executed. They always leave that part out.)
We use grading, not because it's perfect, but because it beats the alternatives—at least so far.