Re: Grading Alternatives

["Lyle, Dan B." <DBL@cdrh.fda.gov>]

Hi Jim.  I sent this to the DEN 9/14/99.  If it got lost in the hurricane,
here it is again.

Thanks.

Dan.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

There's always a deeper and a wider; and polarity is often two aspects of
the same continuum.

Dr. Purchase has made a very good case, from my perspective, for not being
able to draw a clear, sharp distinction between "grading" and "evaluation."


Even when there's pass or no-pass, someone looking at my college record
might find 97 passes out of 100 classes, and not allow me into grad-school
because the last slot was filled by someone who had the same qualifications
as me except for 98 passes out of 100.  Or, where my "B" in a class was only
myself being evaluated vs my own potential (i.e. my letter was not dependent
on what anyone else in the class got), it could still in the end be summed
up with my other evaluations to compare me to the record of others.

Dr. Tribus and others on this list have made a very good case also for the
many negative effects of overtly-competitive grading (i.e. where your
getting an "A" may deprive me of getting the top grade myself.)  I heartily
and completely agree.  Yet any evaluation is subjective, even when student
and teacher think they've agreed on set criteria.

Underlying the grading/evaluation question is an even deeper divide, as
pointed out to me in Myron's excellent article "Fulfilling the Proper Aim of
Education" (on the DEN website) which he kindly steered me to in his recent
post:  the school of thought where the teacher assists the student's
spontaneous explorations vs. the traditional school of thought where the
student masters formal, accepted sets of knowledge/skills.

The extremes are some of the traditionalist-ridiculed schools where kids
wonder about charting their own nebulous courses vs. the medical school type
environment where rigid mountains of facts are pumped into semi-conscious
brains.  

And it all really does come back to the AIM---as to where you'd most like to
see your kids at in the continuum from one extreme to the other.  

The AIM I proposed for the American Education System as most desirable (in
particular for grade school and high school, though also applying to the
higher levels; also assuming it applies to other countries as well) was one
I honestly didn't imagine anyone would argue with:  giving kids the
fundamental knowledge/skill sets to be productive citizens in our society.  

John Purchase very clearly stated key information from the
measurement/accountability literature which places "my" AIM on one of the
extremes ( d---Maximum Productivity Aim): reflecting hard-headed,
traditional economic success (productivity of society.)  Here I thought I
was a raging liberal, and I'm exposed as a closet conservative!  Ah, wrong
again even when I was convinced I was right...sigh...

On the other hand, the "Deming Philosophy" as espoused by Myron Tribus for
schools in his above-cited article seems to fall on the other extreme:  John
Purchase's AIM "a"---the "Maximum Potential Aim," in which "each learner is
helped to develop to his/her maximum potential."

And yet Myron's stated preferred AIM for the educational system is:  "To
prepare our children to live in the future" which seems to suggest being
able to survive and be productive economically as well as idealistically
being free and capable to pursue one's fancies.

So what's my point today?  (which may change as I keep learning deeper and
wider tomorrow...)

Just this:  with good facilitation and dialogue (asking "how so?" and "why?"
numbers of times, back and forth), plus good wordsmithing, I suspect most of
us folks of good intentions and flexible thought would come pretty close to
agreeing on a common AIM for our kids in school.

We'd like as far as feasible (as John said, not bankrupting society to have
it happen) that each kid have an opportunity to learn how to develop his/her
individual talents;  that there be a minimum level of opportunity provided
at each level for all students; that there be a minimum level of achievement
expected at each stage; and that the training have practical and measurable
results for the students and society....i.e. a healthy balance  between
creativity/opportunity/achievement/tangible-results.

So the key thing, from my view, is not so much the exact words of the AIM:
it's 1) everyone knowing and mostly-agreeing on the AIM; and  2) ARE THE
METHODS APPROPRIATE TO MEETING THE AIM (which melts into point three: what
are the appropriate evaluations IN REGARDS AGAIN TO THE AIM, whether or not
we're really getting to where we really, consciously, clearly, deliberately
want to go.)  

So, back to WED:  what's your AIM, by what means, and how do you know if you
succeed?

I think if we keep coming back to WED, repeatedly, we will be in good shape.
Why?  Not because he spoke the Word of God, not because we on this list
think of it as Dogma.  Rather, because WED was imminently logical.  "What
are you trying to achieve?  How you gonna do it?  How will you know if you
are successful?"  It strikes to the very heart of the company, the
organization, the agency, the group, the school.

Dr. Tribus has done a beautiful job of giving a crisp, bulleted summary of
his vision for the future of our schools.  If anyone (such as myself) hasn't
read the above-cited article, I highly recommend it.  (I only seem to have
time to go to things where there's a specific and pressing need, so I
appreciate Dr. Tribus' pointing me thereto.)

I would also like to briefly describe in a subsequent post my own vision of
a Deming-based National Standard for schools, for those more expert than I
on the list in the field of education to deepen and widen my perspective
thereto.  This will be in the category of  "If only it could be! (massive,
mandated transformation)"  vs. the opportunity-by-opportunity (realistic)
strategy proposed by Myron.

Moving from AIM to MEANS...

Thank you for your indulgence and massaging of my musings on a subject
that's irritated and nagged me for many years.

Dan.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dan Lyle, Ph.D.
Research Biologist
FDA/CDRH
301-443-4049
dbl@cdrh.fda.gov <mailto:dbl@cdrh.fda.gov> 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
=========================================================================