FW: Grading Alternative

[WMack <WMack@PEC.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John E. Purchase, Ed. D. [SMTP:jopur@muskoka.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, August 28, 1999 12:30 AM
> 
> What can be the objection to informing individuals of their proficiency
> in some area in which they have chosen to seek skill and knowledge or,
> as in the case of minors,  prescribed skills they are expected to learn
> and their accomplishments reported authentic stake holders?
> 
> ==================================================================
> 
What is the aim of informing people of their proficiency
(or more truthfully their deficiency) in a skill or knowledge
set?  Lack of objections is not a sufficient justification for
a proposed action, regardless how entrenched that action
may be.

What good does it do to inform people that they have only
acquired 90%, 80%, 70%, etc. of the knowledge they need?
What good does it do to business or society to have 
people with significant gaps in the knowledge they require?
Individual businesses may attempt to weed out those 
without a specific grade level, but what do we as society
do with the 'weeded out' people?  We need to focus
efforts on teaching instead of evaluating.

Grading can only be evaluated in terms of its aim, not
in terms of its objections.  Once you look at the aim of
grading and determine whether it is accomplishing its aim,
then the rationale for an alternative to grading becomes
much clearer.

Wayne Mack
wmack@pec.com

Moderator's reminder:  Let us not forget "Learn, Apply, and Extend..." in the 
discussion here.
=========================================================================