Questioning Grades

Grades can suck the joy out of learning. When I first started teaching, I said I didn’t want to use grades. I was told I had to give grades. Fine, I said, then I’ll give everyone A’s. No, that wasn’t an option either. Since that time, I have asked a lot of questions about grades’ effects on learning. Like a strong spice, you cannot have grades nearby and not be flavored by them. They change the nature of the learning and the relationship between the student and teacher. They shift the focus from the good deed to the gold star.

So if grades are a necessary evil, how do we put them in their proper place? The way we approach grades is a snapshot of the way we see school and learning. To change my metaphor: if grades are like a powerful medicine, when used carefully and in proper proportion, they can be healthy. However, they can also be addictive drugs that do great harm.

As a teacher, I know what I want students to learn. Grades should be a measurement of that learning. However, this isn’t always the case. It is easier to count grammar errors than evaluate analytic thinking. It is easier to have a scantron test than an essay. Rather than grading the real learning, it is easier to grade what I can easily measure.

Some classes focus more on learning information, the content. Some classes focus more on skills: learning to do things. Most classes are a mixture of the two. In my discipline, I see the content as a means to learn the skills. I teach annotating as a means to learn how to read. I teach grammar as a way to become a better communicator. For me, the real learning will always be centered on skills much more than content. We live in the information revolution. We will never be able to hold all the facts in our heads. How we interact with that information, our information management skills, is what is really important.

If the skills are what are important, then mastering them is the focus of class. Grades should be a measure of students’ mastery of these skills: in English, how well they can communicate and analyze. But it isn’t that simple. What if George can master the skill in two tries and Lennie takes ten attempts. They both landed in the same place. They have both mastered the skill. Should George be rewarded for getting there quicker? If Lennie is a hard worker and does all his homework, should his grade reflect that? Is hard work a trait we want to encourage? What about errors? Lennie might make more mistakes than George. Should he be penalized for that?

It is easy to create tests and assignments that are worth a set of points and add them up and divide for a grade. Students and parents are used to that. The averaged point grade system may not in the best interest of learning. An averaged point system is simply the average of all the things we have counted over the term. If a student makes a mistake and then learns from it, that is not part of the average. If a student takes a risk and it doesn't pay off, the average goes down. If a student really learns and starts off doing poorly and gets better with each assignment, then the grade will be the average of where she started and where she finished. Does that make sense?

Despite my issues with the Boy Scouts, I think the merit badge system may provide a model for grading. Scouts get a merit badge when they have mastered a specific set of skills or activities. The criterion for each merit badge is clear and the same for all scouts. It doesn’t matter (that much) how long you took to get the badge or how many times you fell down along the way. What matters is that, after two or twenty attempts, you mastered the skills. Could we learn to be that specific and clear in the classroom? Could grades look like that?

What should our students learn? How do we know they have learned it? What habits, skills, and behaviors do we want them to master? If we must have grades, they should be the answers to these key questions.

Plan B

My favorite game is chess. I am not fond of games where the players’ success is dependent on chance: the roll of a dice, the deal of the cards, or random selection of tiles. While those games are certainly interesting and have their challenges, the player’s success is integrally connected to random chance. Not in chess. In chess, both players have the same “hand” and the only difference between them is who goes first. In chess, success or failure is the result of the skill of the player.

In my experience, the key to a successful chess game is the ability to think beyond the immediate move. Good chess players have many contingency plans. They think beyond the next move, the move after that and the move after that. They anticipate the moves of their opponents and create multiple versions of those plans.

This skill is critically important, not only in chess, but in life. Of course we want to, “live in the moment.” But how many of our own and our society’s problems are the result of short-term thinking? While all consequences cannot be predicted, many can. I would argue that a person with a plan B (and a plan C and D) is better equipped to deal with surprises than a person without.

Recently, the Chicago Tribune published an article providing drivers with winter safety tips. One of the those tips was to look head and see what was coming up, “Drivers should anticipate difficult situations by looking down the road far enough to identify potential problems. They also should be aware of drivers coming from other lanes and cross streets. ‘Across the board, that's the No. 1 mistake people make in driving, period: Not looking far enough ahead,’ said Mark Cox, director of the Bridgestone Winter Driving School in Steamboat Springs, Colo.”

A good driver is always looking ahead and asking, “what if.” What if that truck pulls out? What if the door to that car should suddenly open? What if that child runs into the street? What if the light changes now? Like a chess player, a good driver must have multiple plans to fit many possibilities.

It goes beyond chess and driving; it could be a philosophy of life. Whether it is with financial or personal choices, at home, school, or work, how much more successful would we be if we thought a few moves ahead?

This doesn’t mean that we save all our money because the pleasure we buy today would prevent us from purchasing food tomorrow. Not at all. Rather, it means that we consider the possibilities. It is prudent to anticipate needs. Americans are notorious for spending money they do not have. They are terrible savers. Buying a fun toy today is even more satisfying knowing that it will not jeopardize tomorrow’s necessities.

But it goes even further than these simplistic examples. Considering the options while making choices could help us with our relationships, the environment, and bring us more success. When I purchase a product, who is getting the money and what will they do with it? If I support this candidate, what is she likely to do in office? How will my words and actions affect my family, friends, and co-workers?

Thinking a few moves ahead will slow us down. It will help us have fewer of those impulsive mistakes. It will make us safer drivers and more successful chess players and human beings.