All "A's" Are Not Equal

Suppose we were able to assign universal values to grades ...

Are poor youngsters being victimized by grade inflation? That's what a recent U.S. Department of Education study says. It finds that a large percentage of students in high-poverty schools receive much better grades than the low achievement levels in these schools would lead us to expect. Some people have taken this as yet another instance of how poor children are shortchanged by our education system. But is that the case?

According to the study, "What Do Student Grades Mean? Differences Across Schools," the C has fallen into general disuse. More than two-thirds of all eighth graders report getting mostly A's and B's in the previous two years. Eighth graders in high-poverty schools (where over 75 percent of students are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch) are less likely to get mostly A's but a high percentage report getting mostly B's -- 38 percent in English and 3 2 percent in math.

But all A's ( and B's) are not equal. Researchers found that these grades represent a lower level of achievement in high-poverty schools than elsewhere: Youngsters "who received mostly A's in English got about the same reading score [on external tests] as did the C and D students in the most affiuent schools." Results were similar when math scores on external tests and math grades given by the students' teachers were compared.

In other words, an A does not mean the same thing in a school in South L.A. as it does in a wealthy school district like Scarsdale, New York. But is this news? And would it be desirable if the grades students took
home matched perfectly with their standardized test scores?

People already know that the same grade can signify different levels of effort and achievement. That's what they mean when they describe a teacher as a "hard marker" or talk about a school with a "tough" grading policy. An A always represents superior achievement and an F, failure, but the superiority and failure are relative to the school and the classroom and perhaps even a student's own past achievement. And whatever the Department of Education study suggests, this is not a bad thing.

Suppose we were able to assign universal values to grades and make sure that teachers went along with them. There would be schools where all students would get failing grades - perhaps in every subject -- and other schools where they'd all get mostly A's. Undoubtedly, the first result of standardized grades would be the threat of litigation. The people who now say that giving high grades to students in high-poverty schools is a sign of low expectations -- and evidence of racism -- would say the same thing about a disproportionate number of failing grades. But even leaving this threat aside, would making sure that A always meant the same thing be fair -- or useful?

Grades are important as incentives. What would happen in the schools where students are so far behind that they would probably flunk no matter what they did? Would a kid be likely to work if failure were guaranteed? And what about the schools where most of the students could expect to get A's? When I was a student at Stuyvesant High School, I could have gotten 100 percent on my Regents exams and still gotten a 75 from my classroom teachers because I failed to live up to Stuyvesant standards in other respects. If grades had followed a universal standard, my incentive to work would have disappeared.

Under the current system, a grade takes a lot into account that you can't measure with a standardized test. It shows where the teacher thinks a kid stands in relation to other kids in the class and the school. It reflects certain things that the teacher considers important over and above the mastery of the material -- like how hard the youngster tried, how much he improved and how much he added to the class by the questions he asked and the discussions he sparked. And because a grade has more behind it than a standardized test score, it can be a richer and more discriminating measure of what a student has achieved.

Am I saying that external measures are not important? No -just that they are not the only way of measuring student achievement. As the Department of Education study points out, you need them so parents and colleges and employers know where a youngster stands in terms of the whole universe of students. That's the kind of thing standardized tests -- like the ACT or the Advanced Placement exams -- are suited for. But it doesn't' destroy the need for the relative standards.

If the Department of Education believes that the only fair grades are standardized ones, they should say so and we can start determining students' grades by standardized test scores. I doubt that they -- or anybody else -- would be ready to live with that.