Eliminating Honour Rolls in Schools

[TimG]

Grades 1-6? I don't think that grades are necessary for parents to know how their child is doing compared to the average. A parent-teacher talk should do the trick. I think that grading/ranking/awarding at this age does more harm than good. What do you think?

When you have a new baby the doctor is constantly checking growth and development against the average to identify problems (e.g. not talking by x months - better get a hearing test). I don't see why this type of evaluation should end when the child reaches the age of 3.

The other aspect is the evaluation against the average forces teachers to be more scientific in their evaluations. Simply saying your child is doing fine only works if the parents accept the teacher's definition of fine. Providing specific rankings against the average (which presumably follow guidelines laid down by the school board) gives the parents a more objective picture of how their child is doing.

That said, letter grades are not necessary or useful for elementary school. All that is needed are percentiles (below average, average, above average). Grades 7-9 should be the same as high school because that is when most students start getting different teachers for every subject (meaning objective rankings are even more important because there are many different teachers involved).

Edited November 4, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

When you have a new baby the doctor is constantly checking growth and development against the average to identify problems (e.g. not talking by x months - better get a hearing test). I don't see why this type of evaluation should end when the child reaches the age of 3.

The other aspect is the evaluation against the average forces teachers to be more scientific in their evaluations. Simply saying your child is doing fine only works if the parents accept the teacher's definition of fine. Providing specific rankings against the average (which presumably follow guidelines laid down by the school board) gives the parents a more objective picture of how their child is doing.

That said, letter grades are not necessary or useful for elementary school. All that is needed are percentiles (below average, average, above average). Grades 7-9 should be the same as high school because that is when most students start getting different teachers for every subject (meaning objective rankings are even more important because there are many different teachers involved).

Of course we always want to evaluate progress and my point was that we do this for babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers without report cards or grades. And we evaluate a child's progress (hopefully) without the child knowing about it or comparing herself to others. Grades, percentiles and rankings are not the only way to evaluate progress and in some many cases are not the best way.

Once a child becomes aware of their rankings, I think that there are dangers to labelling children as "below average" in any subject or skill - especially if the child is just taking longer to develop.

I also do not see how elementary teachers can be "more scientific in their evaluations" - can you give an example.

[TimG]

Of course we always want to evaluate progress and my point was that we do this for babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers without report cards or grades.

You seemed to have missed my point: doctors DO give babies grades based on their development. You are saying we should stop giving kids grades at a certain age because providing the information to parents is bad for kids? Your logic does not compute.

And we evaluate a child's progress (hopefully) without the child knowing about it or comparing herself to others. Grades, percentiles and rankings are not the only way to evaluate progress and in some many cases are not the best way.

As I said, the only meaningful information for parents is a comparison to the average and a comparison to the average is a grade or a ranking. My argument is based on what the parents need to know - not based on what helps kids learn. The latter is important but not relevant when it comes to providing parents with useful information.

As for comparing children to others: that is life. It is a statistical fact that pro-sports players tend to be born in particular months based on when the cut off is for little league age groups. Students that are older than their peers have a biological advantage in sports and this early advantage helps motivate a child to become a high performing athlete. I don't see why kids who excel at academics should be denied this knowledge if it could help them excel later in life.

As for labeling - there is nothing wrong with telling a student that they are behind - provided they are given positive support. It only becomes demotivating if kids are told that they cannot improve themselves.

Edited November 5, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

You seemed to have missed my point: doctors DO give babies grades based on their development. You are saying we should stop giving kids grades at a certain age because providing the information to parents is bad for kids? Your logic does not compute.

No, I wouldn't call doctors' tracking development milestones "grading". If anything, this model is more like what Migthy AC was suggesting: you either get a concept / acquire a skill or you don't. There is no grade given for ability to sit up, stand up, walk, realize that hidden objects have not disapeared from existence, talk, walk, toilet train, conservation, etc... Sure it is important to know signs that something may be wrong - but this is not grading.

Again, my logic is that we can (and do) assess a child's development without assigning grades.

[TimG]

There is no grade given for ability to sit up, stand up, walk, realize that hidden objects have not disapeared from existence, talk, walk, toilet train, conservation, etc...

The grade is based on when the milestones are achieved. Babies that take longer than average are monitored more carefully - and parents are told their baby is taking longer than average or (more often) they are told that their baby is average and there is nothing to worry about. If all the doctors did was check off milestones without connecting those milestones to the average then those milestones would represent useless information.

Like I said - there are different ways to assign grades and some are better than others. The ways of assigning grades are a useful discussion point but I don't think there is any way to get away from them unless you take the position that parents have no business getting involved in their child's education (i.e. parents are expected to blindly trust educators). As long as parents are involved they need a ranking relative to average to understand how their child is doing.

Edited November 5, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

some don't apply themselves until they get older.

...and some don't realize their natural academic talents until they start posting on a web board, late in adulthood

[Mighty AC]

You seemed to have missed my point: doctors DO give babies grades based on their development. You are saying we should stop giving kids grades at a certain age because providing the information to parents is bad for kids? Your logic does not compute.

Grades themselves aren't the problem, the model is. Currently, we allow students incompletely learn concepts and then assign a grade to approximate their level of comprehension. It would be more beneficial to allow students who have mastered a concept to proceed while we remediate students who have not yet mastered it.

Assessment and feedback during this process is vital. However, if we are now teaching concepts to the point of mastery assigning a grade has no value. In the end every student that completes a concept would fully understand it.

As you mentioned before, advanced students are still discernible by the number of concepts completed...and that's a good thing. Students should be able to display their achievements.

[carepov]

The grade is based on when the milestones are achieved. Babies that take longer than average are monitored more carefully - and parents are told their baby is taking longer than average or (more often) they are told that their baby is average and there is nothing to worry about. If all the doctors did was check off milestones without connecting those milestones to the average then those milestones would represent useless information.

I understand what you are saying, and mostly agree, except that you are using some terms that I do not think are correct:

average: a better term would be "normal range". For example "Most babies take their first steps sometime between 9 and 12 months and are walking well by the time they're 14 or 15 months old. Don't worry if your child takes a little longer, though. Some perfectly normal children don't walk until they're 16 or 17 months old."

http://www.babycenter.com/0_developmental-milestone-walking_6507.bc

assigning a grade: I still never heard of babies/toddlers getting graded

Like I said - there are different ways to assign grades and some are better than others. The ways of assigning grades are a useful discussion point but I don't think there is any way to get away from them unless you take the position that parents have no business getting involved in their child's education (i.e. parents are expected to blindly trust educators). As long as parents are involved they need a ranking relative to average to understand how their child is doing.

I strongly disagree that parents need a ranking to understand how their child is doing. Yes, parents need to know what concepts and skills their child need to work on. This is way more useful than a grade. For example, a child can be "above average" in math, but can be weak in their understanding of shapes. This could lead to problems in geometry later on. The more I think about it the more that I like Mighty AC's suggestions about "mastery of concepts".

It's like riding a bike. You either get it or you don't. Who cares if you learn at 4 or 9 years old? Who cares how fast you can ride? Most importantly (notwithstanding safety of course), does the child want to learn and is the child having fun learning?

Learning is fun and natural (not as you claim "hard work" that lazy humans try to avoid). For some reason, over time, adults make it not fun through their threats, bribes, stress and other roadblocks. Helping kids learn when they are having fun makes education way easier and more effective. Some competition is good but when it is over-done then school/sports /life becomes less fun. It's not fun knowing that you are "below average" year after year. It's also no fun getting told that you are on the "honour roll" your whole life and then realizing that it means jack-shit in the real world.

Edited November 5, 2013 by carepov

[TimG]

assigning a grade: I still never heard of babies/toddlers getting graded

That term is not used by doctors but I used to make the parallel to what I think grades need to be (i.e. a reference to average).

I strongly disagree that parents need a ranking to understandhow their child is doing. Yes, parents need to know what concepts and skills their child need to work on. This is way more useful than a grade.

Again such information without a reference to the average is of limited use. If you want to break subjects into smaller groupings then that could be helpful but for each groupings a reference to the average is required. i.e. a kid may need to work on his shapes because that is his weakest point but if he is above average in everything else then no further parental intervention is required. If he is below average in everything then parents need to think about how to provide the kid with more support beyond what the school provides. These kinds of important decisions cannot be made without 'grades'.

It's like riding a bike. You either get it or you don't. Who cares if you learn at 4 or 9 years old? Who cares how fast you can ride? Most importantly (notwithstanding safety of course), does the child want to learn and is the child having fun learning?

First, kids have a finite amount of time to get through the material. If they cannot learn it in the allotted time then they are in trouble. IOW - with academics its matters a lot whether a kids learns at 4 or 9 and parents need to know if their kids are falling behind. A reference to the average (a.k.a. grades) does this.

Second, quality of work matters. It is not enough to reward students simply because they complete the task - students that complete the task with higher quality work should be recognized and rewarded. Grades do this. Task mastery systems treat shoddy work as equal to high quality work which is unacceptable from the perspective of teaching kids what they need to know.

Learning is fun and natural (not as you claim "hard work" that lazy humans try to avoid).

Learning is "fun" only when kids are free to learn only what they want to learn. i.e. kids will spend extraordinary amount of time learning video games but what we need kids to do is practice writing even if they have no interest in it. There is no magic that can make a kid intrinsically want to do things that he does not have an interest in. Rewards and punishments are the only plausible motivator in these situations. Edited November 5, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Again such information without a reference to the average is of limited use. If you want to break subjects into smaller groupings then that could be helpful but for each groupings a reference to the average is required. i.e. a kid may need to work on his shapes because that is his weakest point but if he is above average in everything else then no further parental intervention is required. If he is below average in everything then parents need to think about how to provide the kid with more support beyond what the school provides. These kinds of important decisions cannot be made without 'grades'.

Well since you seem to be defining all assessment and feedback as a "grade" then you are right - we need "grades".

First, kids have a finite amount of time to get through the material. If they cannot learn it in the allotted time then they are in trouble. IOW - with academics its matters a lot whether a kids learns at 4 or 9 and parents need to know if their kids are falling behind. A reference to the average (a.k.a. grades) does this.

Second, quality of work matters. It is not enough to reward students simply because they complete the task - students that complete the task with higher quality work should be recognized and rewarded. Grades do this. Task mastery systems treat shoddy work as equal to high quality work which is unacceptable.

Learning is "fun" only when kids are free to learn only what they want to learn. i.e. kids will spend extraordinary amount of time learning video games but what we need kids to do is practice writing even if they have no interest in it. There is no magic that can make a kid intrinsically want to do things that he does not have an interest in. Rewards and punishments are the only plausible motivator in these situations.

You make some very good points, thank you.

The ideas that "learning should be fun" and "kids should learn at their own pace/in their own way", "motivation should come from within" are admittedly idealistic and cannot apply to all situations. However, IMO, when educating kids we should keep them in mind and try to stick to these ideals first before jumping into the "carrot and stick" approach.

For example, my understanding is that there are a lot of kids, especially young boys, that have trouble reading. Instead of firing off some bribes or threats, I heard of a class that ordered rocking chairs for the boys (they had trouble sitting still) and more interesting content.

If a child is interested in bugs but not math (who can blame them!) well there are countless ways to sneak in math into entomology and "trick" them into learning math.

Like you said, there are no magic bullets to get kids interested, but we should be firing off a few rounds before pulling out the bribes/threats.

[TimG]

Well since you seem to be defining all assessment and feedback as a "grade" then you are right - we need "grades".

Not quite. I am defining a grade as any assessment that places a kids on a scale relative to the average. Assessments without a reference to the average are not "grades".

The ideas that "learning should be fun" and "kids should learn at their own pace/in their own way", "motivation should come from within" are admittedly idealistic and cannot apply to all situations. However, IMO, when educating kids we should keep them in mind and try to stick to these ideals first before jumping into the "carrot and stick" approach.

Nothing I say precludes this. I am just saying that at the end of the process parents need an assessment relative to average so they can decide how much of their time needs to diverted to looking after their child's learning needs.

If a child is interested in bugs but not math (who can blame them!) well there are countless ways to sneak in math into entomology and "trick" them into learning math.

Such individualized learning is best done by parents - most likely after they get feedback that johnny is falling behind because they got assessments from his teacher that told them that johnny is "below average". Edited November 5, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

Not quite. I am defining a grade as any assessment that places a kids on a scale relative to the average. Assessments without a reference to the average are not "grades".

...

Such individualized learning is best done by parents - most likely after they get feedback that johnny is falling behind because they got assessments from his teacher that told them that johnny is "below average".

You seem to be stuck on this "reference to the average". When a teacher tells a parent that Johny should work on "x" - then isn't it implied that his "x" is below average?

Nothing I say precludes this.

OK, I must have misunderstood you earlier when you wrote:

...Rewards and punishments are the only plausible motivator in these situations.

[cybercoma]

Assessments without a reference to the average are not "grades".

Grades are not relative to averages either. I don't know any school or class anywhere that gives students their grades relative to where they stand against the class average.

[TimG]

You seem to be stuck on this "reference to the average". When a teacher tells a parent that Johny should work on "x" - then isn't it implied that his "x" is below average?

Ah no. A student could be above average in everything else and only average in "x". That requires a different parental response than if the student is below average in everything else but completely failing with "x".

When I say "rewards and punishments are the only plausible motivators" what I mean is teachers need to use these - not that they need to be used exclusively.

[TimG]

Grades are not relative to averages either. I don't know any school or class anywhere that gives students their grades relative to where they stand against the class average.

Grades are relative to average by definition. Well designed tests should result in a bell curve with B marks going to the majority of students. Those above and below the average will score higher or lower. Of course not every test is a well designed test but most of the tests/courses I took in school followed this pattern.

[carepov]

When I say "rewards and punishments are the only plausible motivators" what I mean is teachers need to use these - not that they need to be used exclusively.

You make many excellent points and I respect your ideas (B.), but sometimes your choice in words is below average (C-): the word "only" means "exclusive". Perhaps you should work on your writting.

Edited November 5, 2013 by carepov

[TimG]

the word "only" means "exclusive". Perhaps you should work on your writting.

Cute (C- for spelling of "writing"). But "only" in the original context referred to the situation where students need to learn material that they had no interest in. Edited November 5, 2013 by TimG

[socialist]

I also find it very difficult to give a kid a grade for knowledge of social justice and environmental awareness.

[bleeding heart]

Oy.