Jim Stinger mentioned working with me in his blog today which helped me reflect about my strengths and weaknesses. Ron Algeo commented on my post yesterday asking me to compress my argument. I am going to try to emulate Jim Stinger and meet Ron's challenge at the same time:
McTigh and O'Conner (2005, p. 13) said that "although good grades and positive remarks may feel good, they do not advance learning." I couldn't agree more. Grades serve as a label, and little more. In the post industrial revolution model of education its easy to see why the habit stuck. However, its strange to think that parents and educators are complacent in labeling students the same way we label beef at the super market.
Bogdan (2011) says that an educator's role is changing from the traditional role of 'imparter of knowledge to that of coach and consultant.'" While I can see someone who's business is transferring a commodity to measure their success rate in percentages, I can't think of a coach or consultant that provides anything except qualitative feedback aimed at growth, rather than evaluation.
I am inclined to think Augustine would agree with me. After all, it was he who said "that you have done what you were able to do, although you may have failed to achieve what you wanted, counts in your favour; that you tried to do something and you were not able to, counts as if you had done so." (Sermon 18, 5) This is far from "Well you didn't meet the standard so you only get a 'B', but you worked hard so you should be satisfied!"
We are educators, not evaluators. We should measure growth for no other reason than to help promote more growth. Grades are more of an inhibitor than an enabler and as such are out of date. Our homes no longer have crank telephones and our schools should no longer have grades.
No comments:
Post a Comment