Right now, today, I'm living in a nightmare. My own personal trial by fire. It's an ordeal. A struggle. I agonize over it every time I am faced with it. It never gets any easier. I think it becomes more difficult. Maybe it's character-building. I don't know. But it's unquestionably one of the most challenging tasks I ever have to face.
I'm grading my students. I genuinely like my students. As I grow to know them, more and more. My job is to help them succeed. I tell them that. Again and again. Grading them seems counterproductive to me.
I do not like assigning "final grades" to people. Period. Isn't that what a eulogy is for? Or an obituary?
How can you put a final grade on a work in progress – a student. I can't pin them down with a final grade and I don't want to. What if I'm wrong? It's possible. I'm human.
My mostly young college students are very vulnerable. They take their marks terribly seriously. They do not yet have the life experience to realize that it's not the mark that really counts, but what they've learned. What they take away with them. What they can apply in their lives – at work, at play, in their personal relationships with the people they know and meet.
"You know, in 20 years you probably won't remember the mark you receive in this course," I always tell my new classes of students in an attempt to defuse their initial concerns about a new course and a new teacher. "But I bet you'll remember what you've learned."
(I can attest to this. I have no idea what my transcript looked like when I graduated from Seneca in 1971, but I have full recall of what I learned. I can visualize my most outstanding professors and the important lessons they taught are still with me.)
My students look at me incredulously. They don't buy it.
Sadly, for too many of them, marks determine their future. And they're so arbitrary.
A single mark never seems entirely right. It never seems to say enough. It seems unfair.
Do we assign a letter or numerical grades to our sisters, brothers, parents, friends, colleagues, employers and acquaintances?
"I have an A++++ boss. What about you?"
"Oh, mine only rates a C+/B-. But she's improving. Maybe next term. We'll see."
Take our politicians. Voting is grading I suppose. Winning or losing is a mark of success or failure. But what does a winning number of votes say about an individual? Other than more people voted for him/her than the other person in the race? I'm a little naive when it comes to politics, I know. But I'm very nervous when I have to apply either a number or a letter grade to a human being. I can't help it.
I don't like competition. Never have. Not when it comes to human beings. (I'm not a sports-buff, so I'm not referring here to games people play. That's different. That can be character-building, depending on the sport. Boxing doesn't fly with me, though. I prefer team sports. But not violent ones. Or golf. Or tennis. I like baseball, too.)
Grading what students learn when they've just finished a course seems rather premature. They should be graded when they've been able to put what they've learned into practice in the real world. A year or two or three later. After they've graduated. And worked for a while. A job is the acid test. A profession.
It would be nice if students could receive a grade of "complete" or "incomplete." But that wouldn't help them in the big picture of their lives – if they want to continue with their education. The post-secondary education system simply doesn't work that way. Too bad. Ultimately grades are for administrators.
So I'm left with my trial by fire every term. I agonize over my eternal conundrum. Is it possible to appropriately and accurately grade or categorize or classify or place a value on a person you see only three hours a week for 14 weeks? Especially the students I teach. Often they're 17 years old and from other countries. International Students. This past term 99% of my Women in Canada students spoke English as a second language. Only one other person besides me in my classroom spoke English as a First Language.
Bear with me for a minute and imagine this. You're going to study at Peking Community College. It doesn't exist, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it does.
You walk in on your first day and everything is printed in Chinese. Every sign. Everyone speaks Chinese. You are automatically enrolled in a 14-week term of "Chinese as a Second Language" and for 12-hours a week, that's all you do. Study Chinese.
Then, Bingo. You begin classes where Chinese is spoken and written and everyone around you either speaks Chinese as a First Language, or another language that you don't speak as a First Language – a language other than English.
That's how my students from China, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, Iraq, India and many other countries feel. My heart goes out to them. You wouldn't believe how hard most of them work and how well they manage to do.
Grading students who are just forming and developing and learning about life seems almost immoral. Unfair. Meaningless. It's a form of pigeonholing that can really be damaging, depending on the individual student.
Isn't that one of the major issues around mental health and psychiatric labels?
Bipolar Disorder. Anxiety Disorder. Schizophrenia. Hypomania. Depression.
If I tell you my psychiatric diagnosis is Hypomania, and that's all I tell you about me, what do you really know? About me? Other than the fact that I have no trouble telling you about my psychiatric diagnosis.
A grade is a rating, a classification. A pigeonhole of sorts. Can't the same be said for a psychiatric label or disorder? Yet with psychiatry, where so much is still unknown, the label can be very damaging.
And in psychiatry, once you're pigeonholed or labeled, that's it. Labels stick. You're in the system. Someone may give you another label, too. You'll believe it. You'll internalize it. And that can be very damaging, especially if you begin taking medication. Too often, even the medication may not work for you, because you are unique. Special. An individual with your own experiences, your own body chemistry, your own uniquenesses.
And ultimately, psychiatric labels are for insurance companies, I suppose. Administrators.
By definition, a label or classification is restrictive. But labels are often inaccurate, and in psychiatry, this is all too commonplace. How many of us have had multiple diagnoses? After all, you're dealing with diagnostics in an imprecise science. They're far more imprecise than a grade in college which sums up a student's classroom performances and behaviour over more than three months. Their assignments, class activities, interactions, attendance and punctuality, questions, concern, tests, exams.
As well as, you can learn a great deal about a student's individual complexities, their extraordinarily diverse cultural and personal perspectives and their backgrounds in the learning laboratory of a classroom.
Why, compared to giving a human being a psychiatric diagnosis, grading a college student seems like a walk in the park.
In school, you can at least change your Grade Point Average or your letter grade with hard work, if you really apply yourself. You can raise it. Improve your prospects. Often there's lots of help available to you.
"I've got a 3.5," one of my former students told me the other day. "Not very good," he said, sounding dejected. Confused. Lost.
Like someone who says, "I have bipolar disorder."
Whether it's a grade or B+ or C+ or a label like bipolar disorder or depression. What does it tell you about an individual? I ask you.
Does that tell you what this person has learned about life or a particular subject? What this person loves to read? Does it reveal their personal ethics and morals? Does it tell you who this person loves and cares about and cherishes? What this person likes to do in his or her spare time? What she or he wants to accomplish in life? What his dreams are? What her hopes are?
If you have a GPA of 3.9 it means you're a good student in a specific course. You write exams well and know all about how to do academic research papers. You have a set of skills at which you can perform in a classroom.
But what about meeting deadlines in the real world? About respecting your co-workers and their concerns? About being a good citizen?
Does a 3.9 GPA indicate you'll be successful in life? Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for an intriguing perspective on that question.
The same goes for a psychiatric label. It's a pinpoint on the course of life, a judgment made by an individual psychiatrist based on a collection of criteria – the DSM-IV and soon the DSM-V. People write the DSM criteria. Psychiatrists may have their own agendas.
We are all human. We make mistakes. We're always changing. Evolving. Growing. Learning. And surprising ourselves and others. I'm always curious about people, waiting hopefully to be pleasantly surprised. Often I am.
Our outside appearances may not change all that much. But our minds are constantly in flux. Like kaleidoscopes. Beautiful fleeting refracted images of coloured glass that are never, ever repeated. Never the same. Unique. Like us.
That's why grading is so painful for me.
Good One Sandy! This should be on the front page of the Star in bold large print! Can you imagine the wake up to teachers and bosses and family members? Everyone can relate to your insight of the grading of human beings. A form of judgment all too often
with negative harmful and hurtful consequences.
You know it's funny, when I was a small girl of about 9 years old I saw a budgie bird for sale at a department store. He cost $8.99
and I remembering wondering how someone could put a price on such a beautiful living creature! Yes I know about supply and demand. BUT It is the same principal. As a innocent child I didn't think it was right to put somebody that flies in a cage and insult if with a monetary price!
Posted by: Melodie Burkett | August 21, 2009 at 06:03 PM
Hi Sandy,
Great post! I've never considered grading from a teacher's perspective, despite being the daughter of two retired teachers, both of whom lived and died by their careers and their students. They were true-blue teachers who had a passion for their students, and worked ridiculous hours for the sake of learning and education, not because they wanted security and a way to get the summers off to go to the cottage (not that we had a cottage, we were campers through and through).
I found your comment about judgement and what it means when someone says "I have bipolar disorder" absolutely fascinating, and it made me think long and hard about what that would mean to me if someone told me they had bipolar disorder. I don't think I've ever randomly met someone who told me they had bipolar disorder, nor has anyone that I've known for some time "come out of the mad closet" to me. I've only met fellow "bipolars" while in the CAMH system myself or through the various therapies I've been engaging in over the past few years.
But you made me think about this. And I thought to myself, wouldn't be it be interesting if I had a friend, or a colleague, or even a family member, someone who I had known for a relatively substantial period of time, but up until now, they had never shared that they had bipolar disorder with me. And I wondered what I'd think, if anything, after they shared with me they had this illness.
After some reflection, I figure if this was someone who I knew quite well, who I respected, who I thought was a good person and did good things in their life, and if this person subsequently shared with me that they had bipolar, I would expect that my opinion of them would change, and change for the positive. I think it'd go way up!! Because if I had respected them before knowing of the challenges they face in life living with bipolar, then I can only imagine how much more I would respect them for being such a great person in the face of such adversity and despite having bipolar.
Wow, that would be an amazing day were that to happen I figure! In fact I think I did once experience something along these lines. It wasn't with someone I knew personally, rather it was when I went to see Margaret Trudeau speak out at Whitby about her life with bipolar. This was 2 or 3 years back and it was definitely one of the most inspirational speeches I had heard and seen in person, second only to when I had the good fortune to see the Dalai Lama speak in Ottawa quite a few years back now. I had always respected Margaret Trudeau, but once I found out that she had lived with bipolar for years, my respect for her increased. She was so real in this speech. It was emotional, it was wrought with both extreme sadness and pain, but ultimately, it was a story of unending hope. I was truly blessed to be there to witness it.
Anyway, my point is, I think there is also the concept of "good judgement" when speaking of someone you know. You can judge them in a negative way based on the labels that they keep, or you might be lucky enough to take said labels and turn them into something positive, something that in fact gives you even more reason to respect someone, admire someone, or simply just feel happier that you know this person and that they're a part of your life and world.
I know this doesn't totally relate to the overarching idea behind this post, I just thought your comment on labeling was fascinating. Thanks for a great post once again Sandy!
-cravinlife
Posted by: cravinglife | August 22, 2009 at 01:46 PM
There is a new theory in education. Grading based not on set criteria but based on growth. Students complete a series of base activities, then every grade after that measures growth not competition with other class members. i.e if on the first essay you wrote the arguments were weak and poorly argued, but on the next essay the arguments were a bit stronger and were worded better. Your mark could be an A, even if it compared with other students it was a fail. You mark the progress, not the work itself. It is more based on comments and letter grades, than numbers. It rewards hard work, not natural talent.
I hope it catches on because it propels students to work hard not to do just enough. It is easier to grade that way.
Posted by: Carolyn | August 22, 2009 at 09:22 PM