Alright, so I've read the book. How to Grade for Learning by Ken O'Connor. Now, I find that I'm talking to everyone asking, or maybe arguing O'Connor's point, about what grades are.

I am on an ongoing quest to develop my philosophy of what a grade is and how to assess my students. I am working hard to make my grade book reflect the learning that is taking place and separate from it the behaviors that are occurring in my classroom. But that's for another posting...

What I am learning in these conversations with other education professionals is that a) grading schemes are an incredibly broken system, and b) there are a lot of teachers out there (not all, though) who are incredibly content with the status quo. Teachers are okay with just doing things because "it's the way they have always been done." But that doesn't make them right.

Grades are a perfect example. They're based on a long-ago philosophy... long before 500 standards that must be taught... long before differentiating instruction to the needs of the student... long before a laundry list of other things. And they inevitably include things like behavior: late work penalties, missing work zeros, extra credit. With these factors, a grade doesn't tell you anything. It says that a child may or may not know what was taught and a child may or may not understand the expectations of the class. It's misleading, and I have questions about it.

Why don't more teachers have questions? Why are so many teachers okay with it? Does it really make things easier? Wouldn't it be easier to say that my grade is not a motivational tool? Wouldn't it be easier to say that my grade book only tells me what has been learned?

I hope that if I'm in this profession for the long run, I'm going to be able to adapt and ask questions and challenge my beliefs and change my ways of thinking. I'm not trying to rock any boats, but I am trying to figure out what I believe and be able to stick up for those beliefs. Here's hoping.