There were a lot of reactions to my recent article, where I suggested putting less emphasis on grades in education. I wrote that piece with the intent of starting a conversation around the validity, or at least adequacy, of traditional grading — a question which came into full view during the pandemic when disruptions forced us away from those practices, albeit temporarily.
There were more than a few people who seemed confused by the concept of ungrading. It’s impossible to cover all the nuances of this idea in a short article. I’m grateful to have been given this opportunity to address some of the questions that arose and to clarify some issues in the hope of continuing meaningful conversation on this topic. I thank those who gave their qualitative feedback and input.
As a system of measurement, grades are simply inadequate. A valid system of measurement must be standardized and universal — not words we can use to describe grades. As I mentioned in the first article, not all 95’s or 75’s are equal. Even if a teacher uses a rubric, the numerical values for each criterion are arbitrarily assigned based on what the teacher or their superiors value most. This means grades aren’t actually exact or objective.
So if grades are indeed a system of measurement, they would lie somewhere between what we refer to as nominal or ordinal. That is, they are merely labels and rankings. Teaching should mean more than sorting our students into the pyramid of life.
One of the comments raised this question: “Would you have someone perform surgery on you if that person did not pass a qualifying exam?”
First, let me clarify, I did not say there should be no exams, I said there should be no grades. Jesse Stommel responds to this question thusly, “I want the system to assure my doctor has read all the books of Jane Austen, because critical thinking is what will help them save my life when they encounter a situation they’ve never encountered before.” That is, there is more to developing critical thinking than ensuring one’s ability to pass a test. The fundamental question is: Is it even possible to measure and summarize a process as complex and messy as learning into a single number (or letter)?
Let me address a concern that many people had: yes, education must have standards, and those standards must definitely be high.
What we’re trying to say is, redirecting students’ focus away from grades towards meaningful learning raises the quality of one’s education and, hence, brings them closer to the standards. The goal should be to learn, not just pass. And if the goal is to learn, students need to know not just that their work is not enough, but why and what can be done about it.
Grades are very uninformative and devoid of nuance. The only thing they tell a student is their place in the pyramid; whether they are near the top or at the bottom. They do not communicate what a student has actually done well, what areas they can improve, and what steps they can take forward. These things need to be communicated with sentences, not numbers. Qualitative feedback requires teachers to be detailed and concrete, and, thus, cogently guiding their students through meaningful progress toward the goal of learning. Taking away grades actually requires everyone to work harder.
And the wonderful thing about learning is that when someone is really learning, their motivation, and their performance, and hence their grades tend to trend up. The reverse is not true. A high grade does not guarantee that someone has learned.
The long-term goal should be to figure out ways to not just improve, but remove grading from education systems. But when I say long term, I mean looooooooooong term.
Since removing something so entrenched in education is not something that can be accomplished easily, those who have been practicing ungrading have figured out ways to simply mitigate the distractions that grades may cause by making grades invisible for as long as possible in their classrooms.
When we say we need to think about getting rid of grading, we don’t mean getting rid of tests, assessments, or standards. We simply want to remove the part that reduces them to merely earning points. Ungrading is really, first and foremost, about changing the message. It is reorienting the emphasis of our language on meaningful learning rather than a meaningless pursuit of grades. It is about redirecting our students’ efforts towards developing thinking skills and attaining real understanding, rather than mindlessly preparing for exams and accomplishing requirements.
Students know that you don’t really have to learn to get good grades. You just have to remember enough for long enough to answer questions on an exam, and do what your teacher wants to keep them satisfied. If grades are the main goal, any means to obtain them — including cheating — are valid. This is why we say, “Don’t study to pass; study to learn.”
A crucial change in the ungrading process is involving the student in deciding their final grade. Conversations will be far more revealing than any test can hope to be. This gives students a chance to assess their own progress, communicate their struggles, and show how they may have learned in ways we have not thought to ask. This is the part of the process that makes ungrading more just and equitable than traditional grading.
It is futile to wait for the DepEd to act on this. That is why the call is to teachers and school administrators to act on this themselves. First, change your message; and, if you are able to, change your practices.
The real issue with implementing ungrading here is how do we ask teachers who have to cater to 6-8 classes of 40-60 students each to write meaningful feedback on every student output and then take the time to sit down with each of their students to really find out what they’re learning? That is obviously a gargantuan task.
This is why calls for meaningful evaluation of learning cannot be isolated from the larger call to change our education system to better serve everyone involved.
Consider the following:
And since an education system is only as good as the quality of its teachers, we must also ensure that our teachers are properly supported and cared for. That means:
Bayani po ang ating mga guro. Huwag natin silang gawing martir. (Our teachers are heroes. Let’s not turn them into martyrs.)
So, in case the EDCOM 2 is paying attention, I implore all involved to not just listen to the experts. Listen also to the rank-and-file teachers who serve in the trenches. They know what is really going on. They know what we need.
I believe that we have reached the point where it is necessary to reconsider our assumptions about what we hold sacred in education, and ask whether they are truly untouchable. We have made a lot of changes over the years, but really nothing more than rearranging the furniture in the living room. It’s time to tear down the house and build a new one upon a stronger foundation. To borrow the words of Sir Ken Robinson, it’s past time for reform, we need a revolution. – Rappler.com
The author is currently a tutor/trainer at StemLab Inc in BGC, Taguig. He has previously taught at UP Manila and FEU Institute of Technology. His views on education are largely influenced by Alfie Kohn, John Holt, and Ken Robinson. He covers this and other topics on the Meaningful Education Alliance page on Facebook and channel on YouTube.
