“The fundamental purpose of school is
learning, not teaching.”
Richard Dufour
By Tommie Saylor
Kennedy High School Principal
I hate being away from Kennedy High School attending meetings. For the most part, going to meetings away from the
building results in little being accomplished while work piles up on my desk.
But
once in a while, inspiration can strike.
At this last week’s School Improvement
Meeting held at the Board Annex, a conversation was struck up between the
members of the committee. This conversation revolved around grading procedures
and the averaging of grades versus mastery of the content. This is not a
new debate and has been discussed many times over the years, but lately many key
figures in the educational world have joined the fight. Names such as
Richard and Rebecca Dufour, Robert Eaker and others are now saying that the old
“factory model” of averaging grades is no longer a valid measure of what
students have learned.
The concept is easy. As educators we
have been taught to take student’s efforts on assignments, homework, quizes,
tests and the such and record their efforts in a grade book that averages all the
efforts into a final score. With this, we have something to “evaluate” the
student by, a method of recording their progress (the traditional method).
The problem is that the method does
not just measure how much the student has learned, or if the student has
mastered the concept, it also measures in a dramatic sense how quickly the student
has learned. With the old, traditional, factory model of education this was an
important tool to measure student abilities. In the factory, employers
did not want to wait any longer than they needed for an employee to learn a new
job, task or concept. So, evaluating how quickly a student learns in
conjunction with the student gaining mastery of the concept was not only
appropriate for the times, it was preferred.
Thus, those who came out of school
with “A’s” received jobs
quicker, and better paying than those
who graduated with “C’s” and “D’s.”
What most educators have yet to
recognize, is that times have changed. In today’s technological society, the
speed in which students learn a concept is no longer important; it is
the depth of understanding, the mastery of the material and the
ability to use what has been learned in “real world” situations that has become
the “holy grail” for modern education.
Let’s look at an example: You
introduce a new concept and have planned 10 different assignments to reinforce it.
Those who grasp the concept early do well on nine or maybe even all 10 of
the assignments earning an excellent grade for this unit. Those who may
struggle a little with the new concept at first do poorly on the first few
assignments, but have mastered the concept by the third or fourth assignment,
doing well from then on.
Still others struggle even more at
first, taking longer to learn the concept and struggle with the first five or
six assignments before “getting it” and doing well on, and proving themselves through,
the final four assignments.
In the end, all the students have
mastered the concept, but the first group of students earns an A, the second
group of students earns a B, and the third group of students earns a C for this
unit.
Now, what did the three grades really
measure? In the end all the students have mastered the concept (which is the
ultimate goal), so the only variable left is how fast each group of students
learned the concept. Simply, the difference is grades has nothing to do with
what has been learned and/or mastered, it measures the speed in which the students
learned the concepts.
The question then becomes, do we really
want to “evaluate” students based on how fast they learn?
I don’t know about you, but the first
time I have ever done anything, I was always bad at it. I have no natural
talents: I’m not athletic, I’m not even as intelligent as most would
think, but what I do have is the drive to outwork the average person. I find
success through persistence, vigilance, through pure force of
will.
As a result, I must practice, practice,
and then practice some more before I am able to master a concept or task. With
this being said, why should I or anyone else be evaluated on our practice? On
how long it takes us to master a concept?
Let’s put this in a real world
setting. We should be mimicking real world situations in our classrooms to
better prepare students for life after High School. In football, do our teams
earn points for how well they perform in practice, how quickly they
learn/master a new play weeks before the first game?
In the Olympics do we judge the 5-year-old
the first time they step on the balance beam as part of the overall score years
later when they are performing before the international community and going for
the gold?
Professionally, do we take a first-year
teacher’s first attempt at teaching a lesson and average this with their latest
attempt as a measure of their teaching ability? I know these are extreme
cases, but I think you get the idea.
Imagine the message we are
sending to students when we tell them, “Yes, I know you have mastered the
concept, scored a 100 percent on the last few assignments proving that you
understand the concept, but because you did poorly on the first few attempts/assignments
you only get a C for this unit.”
What are we measuring? Certainly not
if they have mastered the concept.
Each of us should ponder upon this
practice and think about giving students the opportunity to practice
(without harm) before they perform (before it counts). Give students the
opportunity to “make up” for past errors (redo assignments they did poorly on) or
simply evaluate students solely on their mastery of the concept (objective-based
grading).
If a student has achieved all the
objectives, have truly shown that they have mastered the concept, regardless of
how long it took the student to reach this level or how much practice it took
they should receive the same grade as those who mastered the concept early.
Personally, it took me 11 years from
high school graduation to college gradation to earn a Bachelor’s degree, but
when I finally had my degree it was worth exactly the same as those who did it
in four years. Time and attempts should not be a factor and achievement/mastery
should be our only measuring tool.
Was the concept learned? Was the goal
achieved?
Remember, their future is in our
hands. Making Kennedy the school of Choice. Excellence by design.
No comments:
Post a Comment