Finally, a topic to restart “On Second Thoughts” that has
nothing to do with the recent presidential election: Grade Inflation.” (You see, I
promised myself I would not fall into the trap of trying to figure out why
Trump won and Clinton lost, or what a future run by the demons and devils that
will get swept into power along with Mr. unpredictable, and it took a while
since announcing I’d relaunch to come up with something other. Especially since
I have been so assaulted with regime change prediction and analysis that it is
hard, really hard, to notice anything other. And here I am writing about that
very thing. Segue!)
Grade inflation this the award of a higher gradation than
has been earned, and is usually caused by one of three things:
1. Probably
the only excusable reason is awarding a student who did not come into a graded
course with requisite skills but who worked hard, diligently, and above
expectation, but who just missed the mark. Bump him or her up? Okay.
2. A
wholly unacceptable reason is a teacher giving a favorite student a far better
grade than earned, and one certainly not deserved. This is ego gratification by
the teacher, something that deflates and/or dilutes the efforts of better,
hardworking students.
3. Ugly
— but sometimes necessary — grade change arises because a teacher’s success
depends on the success of others, namely her students. An administration,
perhaps only an administrator, has an expectation that all students must do
well in a course to justify allowing the course at all. This is the “Keeping
Your Numbers Up” requirement.
Now why, when I have been on record for years been vocally
anti-grading, am I talking about this? Same reason I can be anti-snow and still
drive through it. It exists, and must be dealt with.
Here’s the specific reason: Lately (like, two weeks ago) I ended a long term temporary teaching
assignment for a teacher out on maternity leave. She interviewed me, and subsequently
hired me because of my experience in classrooms, my familiarity with the
subject, and my history in the profession. I was, in her words, far further in
qualification than every other candidate. No brag, just fact. It supports a
conclusion: in her classroom I knew what I was doing, and did my best.
Problem was, even when I gave softball assignments (their own form of grade inflation) a
larger than expected students simply did not do them. As a consequence, a gross
number of students failed, and some failed inalterably. Curiously, those who
failed in the highest numbers were the upper lever students, those who had
taken and passed levels 1&2. These were, also, the favorites of the teacher
(Again, her words.) In all likelihood
they resented my being there at all, preferring her romper room style to my
much more strict and regulated style of teaching. They say on their hands, and
failed.
I grade simply, based on first my dislike of grading, and
from a belief that work is its own reward: do the work, get the credit. I am
rarely interested in content, which can only be judged using my preferences,
and therefore prejudices. I am, however, interested in construction, craft,
intent, technique. These can be counted, and being counted they fit into a
system that awards points based on Quantity, not Quality. (I think a course whose grades depend on Quality is already prejudiced
against those who want to learn. Those who already learned or mastered float
naturally to the top, skewing all reasonable grading.) It is easy as pie to
get good grades in my classes: just do the work.
Okay, enough background. What prompted my second thought is
I recently uncovered that the returning teacher deflated all assignments I had
the students do. Her technique for doing so is irrelevant. It is the
consequence of her doing so that is relevant. The first consequence is most
obvious: those who were her do-nothing and failing favorites now have A grades.
Not so obvious, but just as consequential, is that those students who struggle,
have little prior learning, but who try darn hard will now be degraded, and
will become subject to what amounts to a whimsical evaluative system. They will
suffer.
Most consequential, however, is what she has just taught the
students: Work has no meaning, only approval and alliance have meaning. This
will become quite evident to the students who did more work than necessary,
because I award for more than required effort, and who will now go from nearly
a 110% grade in a 100%=A course, to less than that 100%. (in all likelihood.)
In business there’s a saying: Those who do get into trouble. Those who don’t do get promoted. If
schools are supposed to prepared students to be good citizens, she failed them
all, A to F. If schools are supposed to prepare students good entry into a
workforce, she succeeded, because of the truth in that aforementioned saying.
From my perspective, however, a student prepared to be a good citizen is also
prepared to be a good employee or, better, a good employer. But a student only
prepared to get ahead by doing nothing is neither prepared to get ahead as an
employee or as a good citizen.
Which, unfortunately brings me back to the election, and the
promotional politics that got us here. The campaign and election of Donald
Trump will flavor everything that can be valued as American. Everything is not an overly stated absolute. He ran on a campaign that
said, essentially, “American Workers, you don’t have to do a thing. Like me,
want me, stick by me, and I’ll make sure you get what I think that you think
you deserve.” (Which, assuredly, is a lie.)
Those who worked hard, and worked hard over the past forty,
fifty years, who scrambled, sacrificed, fought, got denied again and again, who
were vilified and who had their dignity assaulted, suffering all in order to
get what they knew that all deserved, will see all of what had been hard won get
washed away, deflated, or diluted to valueless. Just like the lazy ass who now
has an A in her romper room class for doing nothing.
Nobody gets what they deserve by doing nothing.