Critical Reflection by K. Stamboulian

August 27, 2007. I scribble on the back of my name card, “goal = inspire inner-confidence in students.” I remember that day, New Teacher Orientation, so vividly---my eagerness and my simple conviction. Fast-forward several months later to Superbowl Sunday. Hearing the tenants above me stomping and cheering, I run to the living room to turn the T.V.…only to turn it off a few moments later. What are you doing? You cannot put this off any longer. I return to my room and reclaim my position at my desk--- now buried under a sea of bubble sheets, attempting to sort out this report card mess. Glance in my grade book, the disparity between my idealism of universal high achievement and the harsh reality of collective low markings confronts me. How did this happen? Where did I go wrong? How is it that the one thing, above all else, I said I would ensure for students, academic success, is so far from reach?

My mind eventually wonders outside of my classroom to the greater debate in contemporary education: how do we create a system of grading that is challenging for students yet also ensures their success and the promotion of self-esteem? How do we ensure success for students without lowering expectations? How do we create an approach to grading that accurately measures academic performance but also accommodates the unique needs of every student? While the process of grading may be guided by the personal philosophy of an individual educator, reflecting his/her understanding of teaching and learning, it is clear that any system that promotes student success, respects student differences, and recognizes individual growth, is crucial to the development and well-being of students.

In assessing students’ progress and distributing grades, educators traditionally utilize various approaches that include: tests, papers, projects, discussions, and several other informative tools. Yet, the recent trend in education presents some challenges to this methodology as the classroom moves toward a more student-centered atmosphere that emphasizes differentiation (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 93). Charting and recognizing such academic growth of individual students, many teachers who operate under a traditional grading system have begun to question old practices: are these established grading methods still meaningful? A contentious debate rages over whether this traditional grading system should be modified, whether accepted methods, or other, more unconventional approaches, may in fact increase student learning. Furthermore, while the public expects “normed” report cards, discussion emerges surrounding research that indicates that traditional grades may not communicate or motivate students as we believe they do (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 93).

While the debate continues, some researched-based practices may inform educators on grading. Despite often incongruous results, Guskey (1994) offers that researchers agree on a few points: (1) grading is not essential to instruction; teachers do not need grades or report cards to teach well just as students do not need them to learn. (2) No one method of grading serves all purposes. (3) Regardless of the method used, grading remains subjective. (4) Grades have some value as a reward but none as a punishment. (5) And, finally, research suggests that grading should always be done in reference to learning criteria and not a curve. Moreover, in developing grading practices, that seek to be fair and equitable, educators may rely on two guiding principles: provide accurate descriptions of learning while also utilizing grading methods that enhance, rather than impede, teaching and learning (Guskey, 1994, p. 15).

Tomlinson (2001) contends that several alternative grading systems may be implemented to meet such guidelines and encourage personal growth in every student. One method includes grading based on individual goal-setting and progress meeting those goals, an approach where students are graded “against themselves” rather than against fellow students (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 93). Portfolio and progress reports demonstrating growth work effectively under this system. Another alternative method highlighted by Tomlinson combines a traditional letter grade with either a numeric subscript to indicate if a student is working on grade level or a second letter grade to represent the degree of personal growth (Tomlinson, 2001, p. 94).

Despite such recommended grading systems, there is no evidence to indicate that one grading method works best under all conditions (Guskey, 1994, p. 16). It is clear that the personal philosophy of the teacher must dictate the grading and reporting system adopted. As a first year teacher in Bushwick, Brooklyn, I often felt sick as the day to turn in grades approached. I struggled considerably to find the right balance between structured rigor and flexible exploration--- evaluation based on group-norm and individual progress, challenging students without discouraging them. With a year of teaching behind me, and a revised framework in mind, I may still not have the answer to a fair and equitable grading system, but I have gained some understanding.

I believe that the main principle to establish in a grading system is the idea of grading for success. Students require the prospect of success to validate themselves as learners and feel motivated to work. While I struggled to ensure such confidence within students this year, I failed to do so under a rigid, group-norm, traditional grading system. Ensuring more positive results necessarily involves an individualized assessment approach---one that evaluates a student based on his/her degree of growth centered in portfolio work. Following from this, if differentiation assumes a formidable role in my instruction, a flexible grading system must follow to account for individualized content, process, and product. I would then look to provide consistent and meaningful feedback in order to recognize student success and direct next learning steps (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 15). Finally, communication between parents, students, and myself would similarly assume an essential role in my grading system. Elaborating grading, establishing goals for future learning outcomes, and mutual goal setting during student-teacher conferencing, may serve to inform assessment as well (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 16).

It is evident that an unconventional approach to grading is imperative---one that extends a view of education that maximizes individual growth (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 15). Perhaps it may be easy to dismiss a student’s poor performance as failure, but this answer does a disservice to our students and the education that they deserve. A grading system that highlights personal growth will motivate students even after experiencing some sense of “failure.” Moreover, while it is necessary to instill rigor with assessments that challenge students, it is also essential to develop within students a sense of self-confidence in their abilities. Yet, the answer to the contentious debate on grading depends ultimately on an educator’s personal beliefs and educational philosophy. How he/she establishes his/her classroom philosophy will determine the value or emphasis on a student’s academic performance (Johnson et al, 2008, p. 336). Nonetheless, grading must be part of a unified effort by educators to ensure that all students are provided with the opportunity to succeed as learners.


References

Guskey, Thomas R. Making the grade: what benefits students? Educational leadership, Oct 1994, 52, 2, 14-20.

Johnson et al. (2008). Foundations of american education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Tomlinson (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tomlinson (2002). Grading for success. Educational leadership, March 2001, 12-15.