The last Unconstrained Discourse was about Benedict College’s new grading policy that bases course grades for freshmen and sophomores on effort in addition to subject mastery. Their intent (supposedly) was to “reward” students for effort and/or not punish students for having poor work habits.
Unfortunately, ill-conceived grading plans are not the sole province of liberal, post-secondary education establishments.
The private, Christian, conservative school that my children attend has a similar policy. While it was implemented with what I believe to be the best of intentions (and we all know where that road goes), it is just as wrong as Benedict College’s policy – for many of the same reasons.
Their school established a “work ethic grade” in each class. The way it works is a little convoluted, but in general each student starts with 100 points. Points are then deducted for various non-subject-matter-related items such as not turning in homework, not coming to class prepared (i.e. all necessary books, pencils, etc.), or an infraction of the class rules. At the end of the grading period, the work ethic grade is counted as a “test” grade and is averaged in with the rest of the student’s subject-matter-related work. Unlike other test scores, where the lowest grade will be dropped, the work ethic grade cannot be dropped.
It’s a matter of semantics whether you say the intent is to punish bad habits or promote good habits, but the way it’s implemented (start with a perfect score and subtract) screams punish instead of promote. Either way, the idea of a work ethic grade is not a bad idea if it’s implemented properly. This one is not.
Just in case you didn’t get this from the piece I wrote about Benedict College, let me state one more time A COURSE GRADE SHOULD REFLECT THE STUDENT'S MASTERY (OR LACK THEREOF) OF THE SUBJECT MATERIAL.
If little Johnny is a savant when it comes to math, his math grade should reflect that regardless of whether or not Johnny is a lazy, unorganized, heck-raiser. Likewise, little Sally, who can’t add 2 and 2 shouldn’t have her math grade artificially increased by a 100 on a test score just because she works hard, is obsessively organized, and never says a word.
Even if you assume that the negative reinforcement implementation of the work ethic grade has a positive impact on the students, I believe it is more than offset by the negative message sent by the dishonesty in the grading system.
This policy of mixing non-academic criteria into an academic grade is particularly onerous considering the intense competition for scholarships and other academic awards (particularly at small private schools). A brilliant, unorganized student could easily “fall below” a somewhat less gifted but highly organized student based solely on the work ethic grades. Which would a university rather have? I don’t really know but the problem is that the universities don’t get to make that decision because the difference between the two is hidden by merging the academic and the non-academic.
Much like the Benedict College policy, this policy does a disservice to students by promoting a dishonest grading policy that dilutes academic performance without rewarding non-academic traits. It does a disservice to anyone that uses the grades for decision purposes (universities, scholarship committees) by not providing a true picture of a student’s capabilities.
A much better solution would be to continue to score students on work-ethic criteria (even using the current negative reinforcement formula), but combine these work ethic scores from each class into a single work ethic grade that stands apart from the academic subject grades. This would provide a truer picture of each student’s abilities and allow the consumers of these grades to determine for themselves which was most important.
Wayne