greetings from DPI


Beyond Measure: Grades Are Outdated Technology


Chris Gleason, Arts & Creativity Consultant, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction


“OK class, today is practice chart turn-in day.” Au- dible groans and murmurs came from the band. As I began collecting the monthly prac- tice charts I noticed Spencer writing “20


minutes” in every box on the chart. I moved in on his position like a stealthy cougar, ready to pounce. With a triumphant “A- Ha!” I snatched his paper and told him to follow me into my office. I immediately picked up the phone and called his father. “Mr. Williams, I just witnessed your son filling out his practice chart and forging your signature.” With little hesitation, Mr. Williams responded, “No, I filled it out and signed it this morning.”


WAIT! WHAT? How could this be pos- sible? The child was lying, and so was the father! My first instinct was to dock Spen- cer and his father 10 points for committing a crime against musicianship. Instead, I took a long, hard look at what I was doing to create an environment where kids lied about practicing, and parents covered it up. I did research on the history of grading and learned how this biased, ineffective system of coercion, manipulation and labeling has hurt our students and often prevented more authentic forms of assessment from taking root. Grading is a form of technology and it is my belief that this outdated system needs a major overhaul.


The Origins of a Failed System


The story of grading really begins with a gentleman named Adolphe Quetelet in Belgium in the 1800s. As a young math- ematician, Quetelet was smart and hungry for recognition; he wanted to make a name for himself like one of his heroes, Sir Isaac Newton. Quetelet marveled at the way Newton uncovered hidden laws govern- ing the operation of the universe. Quetelet


10


found himself longing for a stable govern- ment that passed sensible laws and policies. However, modern society seemed utterly unpredictable. Human behavior did not appear to follow discernible rules, just like the universe had seemed so indecipherable before Isaac Newton.


To solve this problem Quetelet used a sys- tem of averages often used by astronomers to chart a planet’s movements. A number of observers would take turns keeping track of the same celestial body, and afterward, the average of their measurements would be used to get an accurate calculation. Quetelet then applied this system to human beings. He measured thousands of people, both psychologically and physically, and averaged out the results in order to find what he considered the perfect “Average Man.” By his logic, they would be average if everyone were optimally fed and lived under the same environmental conditions. And this is what society should strive for: the continual improvement of the group’s average.


This logic could be seen as recent as the 1950s when the U.S. Air Force measured 140 dimensions of over 4,000 differ- ent pilots and used the average of these measurements to design their first-ever standard airplane cockpit. Amazingly, not one pilot fit the dimensions of the cockpit. Research showed that when they used just three dimensions – neck, thighs and wrists – only 3.5% of pilots fit these averages. So, by using 140 dimensions, they essentially ensured their cockpit would fit no one.


Now enter Frances Galton who viewed Quetelet as “The greatest authority on vital and social statistics.” Galton agreed with almost all of Quetelet’s ideas save one, the idea that the Average man represented Nature’s ideal. Galton believed that it was the imperative of humankind to attempt to improve on the average as much as possible, and he cited his cousin Charles


Darwin’s research to support his claim, writing, “What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly and kindly.”


In 1883, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics. With the introduction of genetics, eugenics became associated with genetic determinism, the belief that human char- acter is entirely or in the majority caused by genes, unaffected by education or living conditions.


This destructive, racist, biased view of people was carried forward by scholars such as Carl Brigham (SAT creator), Lewis Terman (IQ Tests), Edward Thorndike and Frederick Winslow Taylor (Scientific Management). We can see these principles live on today when we use the average to make correlations that don’t exist, to stereotype learners, and when we fail to consider the unique potential and capacity that is within us all.


Ten Reasons Why This “Technology” Doesn’t Work:


1. It diminishes students’ interest in whatever they’re learning.


2. It creates a preference for the easiest possible task.


3. It reduces the quality of students’ thinking.


4. It traps learners into concentrating on “how” they are doing rather than on “what” they are doing.


5. It tends to crush creativity.


6. It crowds out good behavior and encourages unethical behavior.


7. It fosters short-term thinking.


8. One letter or number is incapable of representing the complexities that it is meant to summarize.


9. It creates competition and comparisons.


10. It continues and potentially grows April 2024


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62