Grading - Part 2
Previously, the notion of 'grades' as a process of assessment that was a function of sampling techniques (tests, exercises, homework, etc.) was briefly examined. This was the first of four perspectives concerning the issue of grading that were to be explored through the current article.
A second perspective, noted in the installment from last week, involved grading as an expression of an interpersonal dynamic between teacher and student This is a dynamic which is rooted in a variety of beliefs, values, expectations, attitudes, priorities, goals, commitments, pressures, judgments, and emotions that often are subjective in nature both with respect to the student, as well as the teacher.
From the point of view of the school system, the teacher serves as an interface between society and the student. As such, schooling is a process of socialization or acculturation into which students are being initiated at the hands of a set of teachers who have been hired for this purpose.
The school system tends to presuppose that the process of socialization through which it engages students is one which is in the best interests of the latter. In other words, the school system believes that the information, ideas, methods, skills, orientation, values, and so on which it dispenses via its educational program provide students with the ingredients necessary for leading relatively successful, productive, and well-adapted lives within society.
Correlatively, the school system assumes that while its educational program may not be perfect, nonetheless, the curriculum gives expression to various dimensions of truth in a relatively objective fashion. Consequently, the school system tends to suppose that its students are being appropriately equipped to deal with reality - or, at least, deal with the way things are in a given community or social milieu.
In general, every school system works along the foregoing lines. This is so whether one is looking at the educational process in Russia, China, India, or the United States.
Teachers have the responsibility for implementing the foregoing game plan. However, teachers do not necessarily understand or interpret the program in the same way as do educational administrators, school boards, and state Departments of Education. Moreover, sometimes, teachers may not even agree with the principles, values, goals, and purposes which constitute the 'official' version of the educational process.
When real, live students are added to the above mix, a very complex, problematic, often volatile set of dynamics is generated which has the potential for many kinds of learning, among which is the 'master' game plan of the school system that may, or may not, be - and to varying degrees - put into practice by different teachers. Students, like teachers, may develop their own understanding and interpretation of the schooling process, as well as the part which teachers play in that activity.
Both teachers and students are under considerable pressure to perform in certain ways. Teachers, of course, are operating within the confines of the expectations of the school system's 'master' plan, but they also have to deal with the demands and needs of students, as well as their own (i.e., that of the teachers) sense of educational propriety and what they believe to be in the best interests of the students - which may, or may not, reflect the 'official' game plan.
Students, on the other hand, must deal not only with the expectations of the school system, but with a variety of considerations, influences, demands, and values arising from parents, teachers, other students, and themselves. At stake here are issues of truth, justice, objectivity, reality, identity, purpose, priorities, practicality, commitment, belonging, and self-esteem.
As much as the educational administrators, teachers, students, parents, and politicians would all like to believe that they, as individual groups, are the guardians of all that is 'good and true', the situation tends to be a lot more nuanced, textured, ambiguous, and problematic. A constantly changing mixture of subjectivity and objectivity shapes the educational context, and it is not always clear whether the interests of truth, equity, and/or objectivity are being served through the educational process - and if these interests are not being served, then, the needs, interests, and rights of students are not being served.
However, one thing which does seem to be clear is that the presence of grading tends to compromise the position of both teachers and students. More specifically, irrespective of whether, or not, one agrees with the educational game plan of a given school system, asking teachers to grade students interferes with the lines of communication and trust which are necessary for learning to move forward as expeditiously, effectively, and harmoniously as possible.
Where there is suspicion, resentment, feelings of unfairness and arbitrariness, attacks upon self- esteem, mistrust, threats, manipulation, anxiety, hostility, public humiliation, and force, one is reducing the likelihood of significant learning taking place - unless one wishes the subject of the lesson to be the negativity itself. And, the presence of grading generates all of the foregoing.
Not only does the presence of grading adversely affect a student's capacity to learn, but grading also affects a teacher's capacity to create the conditions which are conducive to learning. Rather than just having to worry about structuring a class so that students will be open to the facts, methods, ideas, principles, and possibilities inherent in a given lesson, a teacher also has to fight through the negative atmosphere which the presence of grading tends to generate within, and among, students.
Teachers grade students, and students grade teachers. Just as the grades that teachers assign to students have real, long-term impact on the lives of the kids being labeled, so too, the grades which students assign to teachers have real, long-term impact on the amount of learning which takes place in relation to that teacher - an impact which, frequently, is counter-productive to the functions of a teacher.
Furthermore, just as many young people develop 'attitudes' toward teachers that are directly tied to the issue of grades, so, too, many teachers develop 'attitudes' toward students that are directly tied to the issue of grading. Judgments are made about the 'worth' of students as a function of how the latter respond to the imposition of grades and whether - or too what extent - students resist, create problems for, or acquiesce to the lessons being taught - lessons which are haunted by the specter of grading which is always present on the horizon of everything that takes place in the classroom.
Such judgments are communicated to students in facial expressions, body language, vocal tone, deeds, and in numerous other ways during the dynamics of teacher-student interaction. Naturally, many students reciprocate in kind.
In the presence of grading, young people have great difficulty viewing the teacher as someone who is a constructive resource having no interest but to help students learn what needs to be learned. The presence of grading skews the relationship along lines of authority, discipline, punishment, fear, judgment - none of which is the least bit helpful to enhancing the conditions of learning.
Many teachers understand the foregoing dynamics. Some of them appreciate the way in which these dynamics compromise teaching and learning but maintain that it is the responsibility of the student to do whatever is necessary to adapt to the presence of grading and not permit the latter to get in the way of learning. The manner in which such teachers arrive at this conclusion is an interesting exercise in self-serving logic.
Other teachers try to take steps to 'soften' the way in which grading intrudes into, and undermines, learning. Many of these teachers seem to miss the irony of how taking steps to lessen the negative impact of grading within their classes may assist them to do their jobs better, yet, simultaneously, helps to perpetuate the practice - by permitting it at all - and, thereby, allows it to not only continue to undermine the conditions needed for learning in other classes, but, as well, raises even more questions about the meaning of grades in a system which has teachers using different strategies to deal with the presence of grading and its negative impact on the classroom, and, in the process, raising further questions about the fairness, validity, and reliability of the grading process.
The foregoing discussion has put aside the issue of whether, or not, the 'game plan' of the educational system - that is, the manner in which it wishes to initiate children to a program of socialization or acculturation - is defensible, either in totality or in part. Under the best of circumstances (namely, when there is a certain degree of truth present), for a school system to suppose it has a right to tell someone else either how to live his or her life, or what that person must know, or believe, or value, or what an individual's goals should be, is extremely arrogant and presumptuous, but for a school system to presume, in addition, that it has the right to grade students according to how well, or poorly, they accept such an imposition is fundamentally immoral as well as inconsistent with the principles on which any democracy that values individual freedoms and rights is founded.
One can agree that individuals need to acquire certain qualities of civility, fairness, productiveness, and cooperation in order to be able, in some minimally acceptable fashion, to constructively participate in society and, thereby, not to be an undue burden on, or source of problems for, others. One also can agree that a schooling system has an obligation to help young people work toward acquiring such qualities.
Notwithstanding the foregoing concessions, none of this provides a justifiable basis for claiming that this gives school systems the right to not only grade students but to do so in a way that puts an indelible, public mark on the lives of those students, and in the process, interferes with the rights of a person to pursue life, liberty and happiness in a fashion that will assist such a person to struggle toward maximizing her or his inherent potential (and, from a purely practical point of view, what other notion of 'life, liberty, and happiness' is there?) - something which will be advantageous to both individual and society. The way to enhance the likelihood of collective tranquility, safety, and happiness is by honoring the integrity of individual potential for constructive good through establishing conditions which are conducive to the realization of that potential, rather than by establishing conditions which nurture and agitate our individual potential for destructiveness - toward ourselves and others.
Grading is a very effective way in which to establish conditions that, for the most part, are not in the interests of anyone except those who use grading for non-pedagogical purposes that are intended to oppress, discriminate against, control, threaten, and punish anyone who does not go about life in a certain way. At best, grading is irrelevant to the process of learning, and at worst, it completely undermines the ability of teachers to teach and students to learn because it destroys the fabric of trust, communication, honesty, and compassion which are needed to bring student and teacher together in a constructive social dynamic that involves the bi-directional probing, questioning, critiquing, and reflection necessary for significant learning to take place - both with respect to students as well as teachers.
The goal of acculturation or socialization within a democracy should not be to produce automatons, parrots, and sycophants. Students need degrees of freedom through which to question, challenge, analyze, doubt, critique, and struggle with the great issues of life - truth, purpose, identity, justice, morality, duty, commitment, love, freedom, community, family, character, democracy, and so on.
As long as grades are held over the head of a student, none of the foregoing can be pursued effectively. As long as teachers are the dispensers or grades, they are not free to assist, or to be accepted by, students to do what is necessary to really engage learning about the great issues of life.
As long as students and teachers are oppressed by the presence of grading, the essential democratic interests of society will not be served. If those people who believe that competition is necessary to bring out the best in everyone, then, they should be prepared to permit education to be deregulated so that students and teachers are free to busy themselves with the issues of real learning rather than become bogged down by matters such as grading which unnecessarily constrict the real source of competition - the dynamics of diversity coming together to explore the common questions of life.
The quality of competition is not enhanced by every one thinking the same way, or knowing the same things, or using the same methods, or pursuing the same goals, or being assessed by arbitrary, irrelevant and unreliable grading systems. The quality of competition is enhanced by helping people - students and teachers - to explore and develop their potential so that synergistic feed-back loops can be established that permit the learning context to be constantly enriched and challenged by differences of perspective, approach, understanding, techniques, methodology, and so on.
Not only can the truth withstand these assaults, but the very rigor of such explorations tends to be of benefit to everyone who is actively involved in the process. Only people who profess to know the truth but who, secretly harbor doubts and do not trust the conditions of learning, try to constrain the free flow of ideas, and, unfortunately, grading is one of the systems used by such people to inhibit, constrain, oppress, and undermine the dynamics that are necessary to bind student and teacher together in a common cause of real learning.
| Part 1 | Next | Part 4 |
| Return to Education Menu |
|
