Re: Grading Alternative

["John E. Purchase, Ed. D." <jopur@muskoka.com>]

Del Nelson offers pp149 to 157 in TNE as Deming arguing for getting rid
of "grades".  I read the text as getting rid of the "abuse" of grades.

Perhaps the difference in interpretation is in the meaning of
"grades".   A grade, mark, or score is basically an indicator of
demonstrated proficiency (in a curriculum, a skill).   Perhaps "grade"
has too many and too broad implications.   Most appropriately determined
grades are summative and tend to average out the extremes but hopefully
any assessment of performance should also be formative, giving the
individual and those assisting with improvement useful data on strengths
and weaknesses.

Abuses of grades include: limiting the number specific grades available
as though they must fit a prespecified distribution (e.g., making top
and bottom grades rare or scarce);   arbitrarily assigning grades
(ratings) based on criteria (usually unstated) other than implied by the
purpose of the assessment;   ranking individuals for various competetive
purposes when the "luck of the draw" variability is the major
contributor to the apparent differences;  and predicting (on the basis
of a single assessment, perhaps) that the individual will continue to
perform at the same level (labelling) and thereby restricting access to
opportunities based on insufficient data.

Deming's willingness (p. 147, TNE) to wait for a student to turn in a
piece of assigned work a year late might have been acceptable to him
(although I wonder if he stated that as part of his curriculum).   In my
experience, an "on time" criterion is part of the stated criteria of
performance assessments with most instructors.

John E. Purchase
=======================================================================