Blurts

I often find myself disagreeing with some of the newer arguments for K12 education. Specific examples that occur to me at this moment would include the “no homework” and the “no grades” movements.

This Chronicle post from Jeff Gentry considers the need for grades. Among the arguments Gentry identifies are what I would describe as the “student is not the only consumer of summative evaluations” and “everyone does not really achieve at the same level” positions. These are both arguments that make sense to me. At some point in education, all performances are simply not equal. Assuming you are ready for the next level when you are not is not a position to be supported. Assuming anyone who is interested will “get into med school” is not warranted. When I discussed the issue of dealing with feedback, I liked to describe the negative consequences that grades sometimes provide as possibly indicate one should consider a different area of emphasis. It is important to understand that this perspective was my position as a college prof understanding certain realities such as the competitive element involved in entrance to programs that must be selective (med school, grad school) and careers. Employers want to know who are the best prepared employees. They may not always think that academics are actually identifying these individuals, but this is a different issue from whether they want to see some form of differentiation.

In taking these positions, I have long been a supporter of mastery systems. These instructional approaches evaluate individuals based on level of accomplishment. This seems logical, but it does involve the actual reality that many students are not willing to put in the effort that is actually required to achieve mastery. When required, mastery tends to result in courses with a much higher proportion of students who do not complete. The issue then comes down to whether it is better to have courses with 50% completion or with 50% of students with C or lower grades (my way of explaining).