One of the conversations I've had an interest in with regards to the educational system is that of scores and positions. Apparently, I wasn't concerned about that as a kid, much like any kid I believe. While growing, I began to consider and see the imbalance in that system. Students should be encouraged to learn and become better than they were, not to fight over positions. Well, I won't argue how such competitions can help them become better. But to what end, ultimately?
I say so because I've seen students who cheat successfully and make it among the top students. I've also seen those who crammed and passed, yet they can't explain the concept or knowledge of what they just poured out. What's worse? Some teachers prefer the “cram and pour” some students do, compared to those who understand and explain. But in the end, it's about the positions and who tops, right?
However, the student who did better than their previous term result isn't appreciated, not at school or at home, since they didn't make the first position or the top three at least. Well, this is somewhat out of context. The prompt suggests; will it be better to scrap the use of the letter grading system to show how students performed in their academics and replace it with a pass/fail system? And what would the effect of that be on students' morale?
While I'd like to say that it doesn't seem to me like a good idea to scrap the use of letter grades and replace them with just pass/fail, I'd like to recognise that this is a system already employed in some health courses or fields. They use a pass/fail system; you either pass or you fail. No grades to define your performance. But we have to understand why it is so in this field. It would be kind of absurd to have students with “Es” and “Ds” handed a human life to work on.
So, I understand the position there. It's either you know it enough to reach the cut-off mark and pass or you fail. But when it comes to the general state of things, especially as it pertains to lower levels of education like the high schools, letter grades should be maintained and used for the assessment of students. Why? It reflects to them how they did in relation to their previous grade in the same subject.
As I explained earlier, it should be about growth for students; that they do better than their previous performance. We also have to understand that some students are not as fast and sharp as others academically, while they could be excellent in other things. The letter grades track their growth and performance, and emphasise where much work could be done, compared to a pass/fail system that says nothing much other than they passed or failed.
The rigid language of success and failure can be destructive, especially for students who might not yet understand failure as a stepping stone and a process not a destination. Otherwise, the inevitable happens－their morale dies down at some point of some trying, only to be good enough to just fail. And for those who barely manage to pass, the level to which they did as the grade would have informed is blank, thereby leaving no room for intentional growth and improvement.
