Tough Graders Make Children Learn More

[Anonymous]

In my experience (FWIW), I think there is a distinction between "tough" graders versus just reasonably strict and, as PP phrased it, no-nonsense graders. Even as a teacher's pet type, I hated classes graded on a curve and found it demoralizing and just confusing when e.g. half the class got a 55% or something before the curve. Or teachers that were nitpicky even when you had demonstrated mastery of a subject/skill. I would call this needlessly "tough." I do think that clear expectations, clear grading standards with limited exceptions, and regular feedback (e.g. quizzes, short essays/projects throughout the class), made me perform to a higher standard, so yes, the research comports with my experience.

Hasn't there also been research showing that actually a more structured class with regular assignments/grading is better for the vast majority of students--over the kinder, gentler, "turn in the project whenever you're done" style--because again, unless you are very internally motivated, the latter just means kids delay and procrastinate and do not master the material or schedule their time well enough to succeed.

[Anonymous]

How will parents react if their kids start coming home with Bs and Cs? A lot of parents I know would absolutely freak out. They don’t really care how much their kids have actually learned, they want all As.

Anecdotally, I will say that the class I learned the most in and remember much of the material to this day, was the class I got Cs in when I was in high school. That teacher was known as a tough grader, and I worked really, really hard only to end up with Cs. I was mad at him at the time, but in college and then in my adult life, I am amazed at how much I learned and retained from that class.

So, just one story, but it makes me think this study has a very interesting outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.

I don’t think much of teacher education is grounded in reality these days. That’s depressing. And explains how we got the Lucy Caulkins crap spread around the country.

You are conflating 2 things.

People learn better when it’s not for grades, more creative.

People learn rote information better when grades are hard.

It’s the different between knowing it and understanding it.

I have to laugh when I read these kind of comments. Children in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and part of the 70s were in large classes, practicing rote memorization in their younger years, "wasting" time on things like spelling and penmanship, etc. and being graded with bell curves, etc. but managed to propel the United States into the tech age and had plenty of creativity. No, you can't "understand it" if you don't first "know it."

Try having a political debate with kids in college now. They have little factual knowledge/context to back up their "critical thinking."

This is just false. I think you underestimate how much content knowledge people have. It's just different now that we have access to a ton of information on the web--it's more distributed knowledge. There's also a lot less assurance that what were "facts" are true--the textbooks of the earlier days were riddled with misinformation and bias but it wasn't known. Now kids are taught to assess the quality of information sources. I have found my kid in a basic public school education has acquired a lot of content knowledge.

Would it be better if kids were all internally motivated to learn as much as possible? Sure, but you are in dreamland if you think that will motivate the bulk of the population.

[Anonymous]

Failing grades send parents a message that their child needs help. Not all parents can help or hire tutors- but none will if they don’t even know there is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will parents react if their kids start coming home with Bs and Cs? A lot of parents I know would absolutely freak out. They don’t really care how much their kids have actually learned, they want all As.

In my experience parents are usually ok with Cs if their kids understand why they earned the C and have a plan for improving- and if the C is not a surprise.

[Anonymous]

They also have to stand up to administrative bullying and harassment bc the status quo is to artificially manipulate and inflate the grades at all cost to make admin look good. It's an open secret that the union will never protect a teacher for performance and fair grading. They only pick and choose who gets protection. It's great that we can opt out of paying these basturds dues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.

This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.

I don’t think much of teacher education is grounded in reality these days. That’s depressing. And explains how we got the Lucy Caulkins crap spread around the country.

You are conflating 2 things.

People learn better when it’s not for grades, more creative.

People learn rote information better when grades are hard.

It’s the different between knowing it and understanding it.

Even if what you wrong is true, it's important that kids learn "rote information." Just because it is "rote" (by which I assume you mean facts?) doesn't mean it's bad.

Also there's a lot of ground between "rote" and "creative." I can believe that for something truly creative like art, grading doesn't help. (Although art is still very much held up to external standards, of course.) But for something like, say, learning to write a good research paper, there is a lot that needs to be learned that is not "rote." It takes a lot of practice though. And the best way to guide students through practice is to establish standards that they need to meet, ie, grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.

You learned kids shouldn’t be graded hard?

You would be shocked at how many teachers think grades should be eliminated all together...

If there was adequate time to write narratives for every student then eliminating grades would be very worthy of exploration.

But that's a fantasy! So grades are needed, for better or worse.

-teacher

Narratives to replace an overall class grade might be nice. But grades are absolutely necessary on individual assignments. How else can kids know if they are learning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will parents react if their kids start coming home with Bs and Cs? A lot of parents I know would absolutely freak out. They don’t really care how much their kids have actually learned, they want all As.

Anecdotally, I will say that the class I learned the most in and remember much of the material to this day, was the class I got Cs in when I was in high school. That teacher was known as a tough grader, and I worked really, really hard only to end up with Cs. I was mad at him at the time, but in college and then in my adult life, I am amazed at how much I learned and retained from that class.

So, just one story, but it makes me think this study has a very interesting outcome.

It’s about time public schools went back to what grades used to represent. An A should be outstanding work and mastery as shown as assessments/projects. These days an A means a student met the standard which is why everyone has As.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.

This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?

I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.

This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?

I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.

Yes, plus this is the correct approach when we view education through the lens of racial equity.

Grading is unfair and has a disparate impact on URMs. Obviously the solution is to try an other-than-grading approach to education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the complete opposite of what I learned while getting my MEd.

I don’t think much of teacher education is grounded in reality these days. That’s depressing. And explains how we got the Lucy Caulkins crap spread around the country.

You are conflating 2 things.

People learn better when it’s not for grades, more creative.

People learn rote information better when grades are hard.

It’s the different between knowing it and understanding it.

I have to laugh when I read these kind of comments. Children in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and part of the 70s were in large classes, practicing rote memorization in their younger years, "wasting" time on things like spelling and penmanship, etc. and being graded with bell curves, etc. but managed to propel the United States into the tech age and had plenty of creativity. No, you can't "understand it" if you don't first "know it."

Try having a political debate with kids in college now. They have little factual knowledge/context to back up their "critical thinking."

This is just false. I think you underestimate how much content knowledge people have. It's just different now that we have access to a ton of information on the web--it's more distributed knowledge. There's also a lot less assurance that what were "facts" are true--the textbooks of the earlier days were riddled with misinformation and bias but it wasn't known. Now kids are taught to assess the quality of information sources. I have found my kid in a basic public school education has acquired a lot of content knowledge.

Would it be better if kids were all internally motivated to learn as much as possible? Sure, but you are in dreamland if you think that will motivate the bulk of the population.

I teach high school AP courses, so I am pretty familiar with the level of content knowledge that teenagers have. And I have three kids in college so I am pretty plugged into the level of discourse there, and the types of books and assignments being given. Since I am in education, I also closely follow polling and survey data about content knowledge on history, civics and science. I think you are giving our education system way too much credit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.

This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?

I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.

Yes, plus this is the correct approach when we view education through the lens of racial equity.

Grading is unfair and has a disparate impact on URMs. Obviously the solution is to try an other-than-grading approach to education.

I bet you could count the number of teachers in this country who are straight-up racist in their grading on one hand. Teachers WANT kids to succeed and learn content. No one is taking a student who learns content and grading them down on purpose. And administrators really don't like low grades. I'm sorry if this bursts your bubble, but if anything the grades are likely higher for URMs than their mastery would indicate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP who posted about having learned the opposite while in grad school. I actually do not believe in grading at all, and much prefer students and families having an awareness of what they know and what they’re ready to learn next. My program was not a traditional education program, and I’m very happy with the philosophy I learned, I also agree that in order to be a good teacher, you need actual in classroom experience. I didn’t get my masters until I had been teaching for many years, and it only helped solidify my understanding of what I already suspected.

This is a nightmare approach to teaching. How do you assess what the kids have learned? How do you ensure that they work to the standards they need to learn?

I’m confused by your confusion. You observe, you ask questions, you have students work on assignments, projects, etc. just like they regularly would. You compare their work and answers to what the standard says to see if they are proficient. It’s really simple. You just don’t need to give a participation grade, homework grade, or give things a letter or percentage grade. Standards-based/proficiency/narrative grading is quite common.

so you still grade them but it’s just pass-fail?