Abolish Grades in Schools!

Testing, grading and ranking of students are nearly universal and accepted practices.  Grades are unnecessary and far more harmful than useful, yet teachers and administrators will just continue as usual because “That’s the way we’ve always done it.”

I recall a very unpleasant encounter with a parent, many years ago, early in my tenure as head of school at the Calhoun School in NYC.  The parent, not surprisingly a father, confronted me at an evening school event, arguing strenuously against our no-grades policy in Lower and Middle School. His son was in 3rd grade. He was still on the safe side of apoplectic when I asked him why he thought letter grades were so important. “I want to know how my boy is doing! What’s wrong with that?”

“Nothing,” I responded. “But how could you not know how he is doing? We provide several very comprehensive narrative reports each year. Each teacher writes extensively about his progress, his areas of slower growth – much more detail than I ever got about my kids when they were that age. We have several teacher-parent conferences during the year, when you can explore in depth the progress and growth of your son. And, as you are aware, we are very open and relaxed about communication and I hope you feel free to meet with any of his teachers if you are concerned.”

Rather than being mollified by my reassurances, he apparently found them wanting, as his skin tone was quickly moving through pink toward livid.  “But that’s not the same! I want to know what his grades are!”

I responded, gently enough, “Why?”

“Because I want to know how he’s doing compared to the other kids!!!”

Still gently, I asked, “Why is that so important to you?”

End of conversation and, not too long after, the end of enrollment for his son.

I don’t find arranging students in a hierarchy of grades a useful way of looking at children. Education is not a competitive sport. Education is about learning and growing, not about winning and losing.

Many seem to believe that competition is an important, indispensable ingredient in school, but good education is a cooperative enterprise, not a competitive one.   The extrinsic motivation structure in a highly competitive environment is less effective, and certainly less enjoyable, than the intrinsic motivation that starts with innate curiosity and grows into passion.  Competition breeds attitudes and behavior in school that do not lead to rich intellectual development or healthy emotional growth.   Research is abundantly  clear:  Rewards and punishments extinguish curiosity and creativity. So why do schools insist on such systems?   “Because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”  

Grades and grading also degrade relationships between teachers and students. Warm, supportive relationships are the medium in which learning best flourishes.

Imagine a couples exercise between spouses, partners or good friends. The purpose is to deepen and improve the relationship through honest communication, a mutual assessment for growth. Each prepares an inventory of the things most loved, respected and admired about the other. That's the easy part. Then, with requisite tact, a second list – the things that might improve the partnership.  If done well, such a process might be both affirming and challenging – dynamics of value in any relationship. 

Now imagine that a facilitator requires that assessments have a letter grade, distilling the complex matrix of assets and liabilities to an A, B or C.,  (If  D or F, perhaps the process is too little, too late!) Furthermore, the letter grade should be assigned on a bell curve of desirable human traits as they occur in the population.   "I love you dearly, but I'm afraid you're a B-.”  The grade adds nothing of value and anything productive in the process is quickly negated.

In a discussion several years ago about grades and grading, a thoughtful Upper School teacher offered the following characterization: After having reflected on and written a narrative about the progress, breakthroughs, stalls and frustrations of a particular student he would – and I love the phrase – "Slap a grade on it."

Assigning (slapping) grades, particularly when exacerbated by GPAs and class ranks, does several things. As renowned cognitive psychologist Jerome Bruner argued, it conditions children to view learning as a process to determine what the teacher wants. This conditioning leads to risk-aversion and a phenomenon I call “learning to the test.”  The phrase “teaching to the test” is now common vernacular and properly identifies a powerful negative influence on education. But “learning to the test” is equally limiting and pervasive. “Will it be on the test?” is a way most students determine how they will spend time and intellectual energy.  Is that good education?

This alone should prompt reconsideration of letter grades, but my concerns are more about the relationships between teachers and students.

I taught journalism each year. Some students’ work was technically fastidious but unimaginative. Does fastidious work deserve an “A” in the absence of imagination or originality?  Does eccentric brilliance deserve an “A” if it’s riddled with punctuation errors? 

I wanted to affirm and challenge both the fastidious student and the creative student. Does a nearly arbitrary choice of a letter grade interfere with both the affirmation and the challenge? I think so. Why is it not sufficient to have an honest conversation with each student about these things without “slapping a grade on it?”

Take the example of a particularly interesting student several years ago whose originality was in rarified "A+" territory. Her prose was tortured and wandering. Grammar was not her strength, but her writing had shards of brilliance in every paragraph. It felt impossible to give her an "A," given the deep flaws in her technique. But it seemed a betrayal of our relationship to give her anything less. I'd have preferred to simply tell her both things honestly and supportively without having to characterize her as a "B."

The idea of grading and ranking is deeply embedded in our cultural understanding of school. That doesn't make it right. Letter grades do more to inhibit real learning than to inspire it.  Testing and grading are also flawed by virtue of their standard expectations. Standard, grade-level expectations simply don’t align with children’s actual development. This renders any test or grade, particularly of a younger child, irrelevant in terms  of her unique abilities or potential.  So why do it?   “Because that’s the way we’ve always done it.”

Whether letter grades within a classroom or standardized test grades on a local, state, federal, or international exam, the results for any individual are relatively meaningless and possibly damaging. This is exacerbated by the test process itself, which can produce stress, punish kids who are naturally and delightfully distractible, and make it more about their ability to perform under pressure than any demonstration of knowledge or skill.

Grades can extinguish curiosity and creativity.

Grades are not an accurate characterization of a student’s ability.

Grades erode relationships.

Grades create stress, which inhibits learning.

So why use them?  Because that’s the way we’ve always done it.

This is a complex and controversial topic.  I welcome discussion or dissent in comments.  Or just give me a grade.