The effectiveness of grade systems in measuring students’ efforts has become a popular topic in education in the last few years. Thus, even though grade systems present a reliable way of monitoring students’ academic progress tested by several generations, experts have long called for finding alternative ways to assess students’ efforts. Ross Gay, an American poet who teaches writing, recently suggested that grades are more helpful in teaching obedience or compliance (Nezhukumatathil, 2022). This essay will explore the arguments for and against using grades in schools to define how grade systems can be changed or improved to overcome their adverse effects on students.
Firstly, exploring the arguments from both sides requires outlining the theoretical foundation of grading systems. One of the approaches that can bring more clarity to understanding the meaning of grading systems is the economic theory. From the viewpoint of neoclassical or traditional economics theory, grades are an important factor that motivates the individual to maximize their efforts to achieve the best result (Parikh-Briggs & Nair, 2022). Thus, associating the amount of effort with specific indicators should encourage the students to improve their results in most cases by traditional economic theory. On the other hand, behavioral economics prioritizes the role of irrational behavior in decision-making, suggesting that people do not always act rationally. Behavioral economics explains how in some cases, evaluation of academic progress can result in decreased motivation or unhealthy competition between students.
Next, a powerful argument favoring grading systems is their effect on students’ responsibility and self-discipline. Educational outcomes effectively convey to students that getting a high grade is possible through consistency and self-discipline. Therefore, students with high grades often have self-discipline and a strong sense of responsibility. The widespread character of grading systems increases the opportunity to develop more responsible and self-disciplined students with high academic achievements. The connection between high grades and discipline in students was explored by Hagger and Hamilton (2019) in their research on perseverance traits’ influence on educational outcomes. The research defined that the skill of self-discipline indirectly and directly influences students’ academic progress by contributing to the development of their ability to set short-term objectives for long-term goals. Moreover, self-discipline allows students to concentrate on in-class activities and ignore possible distractions. Therefore, grading systems can significantly positively influence students’ personal and professional development.
Furthermore, the following significant advantage of the grading system is the simplification of organizational elements in the learning processes. An adequately organized grading system can reduce educators’ workload and convey the idea of the teacher’s expectations from students. In this sense, discussing what tasks the student must complete in order to pass allows for establishing a trustful relationship between students and teachers. The research conducted by Reynolds et al. (2020) focuses on the workload challenges educators faced in the conditions of remote learning during the pandemic. The authors define that the increased amount of work teachers faced required choosing a type of assessment that would support testing the students’ knowledge without using additional time resources. Thus, the article proposed using writing assignments and grading students’ works based on their degree of involvement in the writing process and their ability to meet deadlines (Reynolds et al., 2020). Therefore, in conditions of emergency circumstances, grading systems can be easily adapted to changes in the educational process.
On the other hand, the use of grading systems in modern society does not reflect the values of equity and supports the manifestations of implicit biases. Thus, the use of grading systems provides teachers an opportunity to underestimate students whose behavior they consider inappropriate or disrespectful. Such negative outcomes of grading systems create many difficulties for students from ethnic minorities. For example, the research conducted by Feldman (2019) defined that Black and Brown students are more likely to be graded on their behavior than their White peers. Furthermore, an unfair grading from one biased teacher can demotivate the student to improve his grades, staggering his progress in several disciplines. Moreover, the influence of implicit biases on grading systems can completely deprive students of career opportunities in the future, contributing to the development of institutional biases. Therefore, grading systems should only be allowed in educators with high professional ethics and moral values. On the contrary, grading systems can be revised by equitable grading practices that encourage academic progress in students from low-income families.
Lastly, the division of students into academically successful and unsuccessful groups implied by grading systems negatively affects students’ confidence and motivation. Innovative grading systems, such as standards-based grading (SBG), avoid dividing students into groups of high achievers and underachievers, focusing on their proficiency in mastering different skills. SBG can be perceived as an improved version of the traditional grading system that includes its strengths while neutralizing its weaknesses. For example, similarly to traditional grading systems, SBG can support students’ self-discipline. However, SBG provides students more time to familiarize themselves with the learning materials and important concepts before assessing their progress, which reduces the pressure on students (Knight & Cooper, 2019). Furthermore, according to Knight and Cooper (2019), SBG has a positive effect on teachers’ activities: the implementation of SBG improved the efficiency of teachers’ planning and provided them with more opportunities to meet students’ needs. Therefore, while grading systems have difficulties meeting ethics and equity standards, with the introduction of appropriate changes, grading systems can be effectively used in the conditions of the modern education system.
In conclusion, this essay explored the arguments for and against the use of grades in modern education systems. The essay defined that even though grading systems can be perceived as a reliable tool for monitoring students’ academic progress, they affect students’ confidence and motivation in changing the goal of the education process. Moreover, grading systems do not meet the modern standards of ethics and equity in indirectly supporting institutional biases. On the other hand, grading systems support students’ self-discipline and help teachers manage increased workloads. Therefore, comparing the arguments for and against the use of grades in education defined that with specific changes, grades can be effectively used in the conditions of the modern education system.
References
Feldman, J. (2019). Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 52-55. Web.
Hagger, M. S., & Hamilton, K. (2019). Grit and self-discipline as predictors of effort and academic attainment. Brinish Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 324-342. Web.
Knight, M., & Cooper, R. (2019). Taking on a new grading system: The interconnected effects of standards-based grading on teaching, learning, assessment, and student behavior. NASSP Bulletin, 103(1), 65-92. Web.
Nezhukumatathil, N. (2022). Seeds to share: A Q&A with Ross Gay. Poets & Writers, 1-10.
Parikh-Briggs, A., & Nair, S. (2022). The impact of behavioral nudging in economic theory on high school grading policies and student achievement. Journal of Student Research, 11(2), 1-11. Web.
Reynolds, J. A., Cai, V., Faller, S., Hu, M., Kozhumam, A., Schwartzman, J., & Vohra, A. (2020). Teaching during a pandemic: Using high-impact writing assignments to balance rigor, engagement, flexibility, and workload. Ecology and Evolution, 10(22), 12573-12580. Web.