The school board in Clark County, Nevada, has decided that its students deserve a new grading system. Now there will be no more hurt feelings--or damaged self-esteem--because somebody got a D or an F and no more swelled heads because of a straight-A report card. Here's how the system goes, according to the most recent issue of The Quarterly Review of Doublespeak:
[S]tudents who earn D's or below will be characterized not as borderline passing or failing but as emerging. Those earning will no longer be commended for excellent work but will be told merely that they are extending, and those in between will not be described as doing adequate or mediocre work but [that] they are developing.
The people who invented the traditional grading system undoubtedly thought it was a way of providing information. The Clark County innovation is more likely to produce headaches as those concerned try to figure out what the various "grades" mean. Emerging from what? (What if a student is not emerging but is still stuck?) And how is emerging different from developing or extending?
If you switched the grades around, would anybody notice? Probably not, and that is probably the point. Grades used to tell a ninth grader and his parents how successful the student was in mastering algebra. They also distinguished between levels of performance, showing who was doing well and who was not cutting it. The nearly indistinguishable present participles that the Clark County board plans to substitute for A's, B's, and the rest, imply that, if there is any difference, it's not important. The new "grades" are the educational equivalent of the familiar smiley face. Their message: "You are all terrific!"
What will students make of them? First graders were always smart enough to see that the Bluebird reading group was for kids who were having a tough time and the Cardinal group was for those who learned to read in the first two weeks, so Clark County students will probably be able to crack this code. But they'll get another message, too: If the difference between failing and outstanding work is not significant enough to be put in words that are plain and clear, why should they make a big effort to do well? Parents who want only good news about their children will be big fans of the new system. But those who are used to discussing their children's grades with the kids will be in trouble. You can say to a child who has just gotten a C, "This shows you are not trying. You have to do better next time." (Or "That B in science is great; your hard work really paid off!") What can you say about developing? That it won't do?
Of course the Clark County board could solve these problems by collapsing the three grades into one (called breathing). And we could sit back and enjoy a laugh--if the foolishness in Clark County were an anomaly. Unfortunately, it isn't. And until we take it on--until we have schools, families, and communities sending consistent signals that achievement counts--all our "reforms" will fail.
For example, officials in many school districts have become uneasy with the practice of honoring the two top-ranking students in senior classes by naming them valedictorian and salutatorian. Some have stopped the practice altogether. Others, even more mysteriously, have decided that seniors should elect classmates to those honors. It's as though a basketball team decided that the high scorer for the year should be elected. Officials in a large number of school districts have also gotten rid of class ranking--even though a majority of colleges say they would like this information for the admissions process. There are some good reasons for the change. For example, a student whose grades would put him in the top 10 percent in most schools might not make the top quarter or even the top half in a high-achieving school. However, problems like this could obviously be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The real reason school officials insist on blurring the distinctions between students is that they think it is somehow unfair to acknowledge that some students have achieved more academically than others. (This is seldom a problem when it comes to sports.)
If this is our attitude towards academic achievement, we will never convince students that working hard in school is worthwhile. Fortunately, a countermovement is developing. One sign is the recent "education summit" where governors and business leaders endorsed high academic standards and agreed to cooperate in working for them. Another is President Clinton's proposal to recognize hard work and good grades by giving $1000 scholarships to the top 5 percent of high school graduates and a tax credit for a second year of college to students who get a B average the first year.
But these initiatives are not enough. They will work only if we get rid of the smiley-face approach to academic achievement and attach real stakes to what students do in school when it comes to graduating from high school and getting a job or getting into college.