Charles Ungerleider, Professor
Emeritus, The University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce
granted if authorship is acknowledged]
Traditional letter grading systems have been ingrained in our thinking about education. But when subjected to closer examination, their limitations become glaringly apparent. For example, an A in Social Studies might give an impression of overall mastery, but it may mask specific areas of struggle, like the interpretation of primary sources. The focus on letter grades has led us to assign tremendous value to a system that falls short in providing comprehensive insights about students’ academic performance or about the curriculum they are trying to master.
Letter grading systems are appealing. Their simplicity, familiarity, and directness have made the “A” a universally accepted symbol of achievement. There's a certain comfort in being able to categorize performance into neat compartments from A to F. However, the core of performance assessment lies in the interpretation of the letter grades.
A significant portion of our society tends to view these grades as an indicator of a student's standing relative to their peers. We've invested so much meaning into the symbol of an A, for instance, that it's taken as a benchmark for excellence, even outside of academia; corporations strive for AAA bond ratings and consumers purchase Grade A beef. Yet, what these grades fail to communicate is the extent of a student's learning and areas that require further improvement.
The transition to proficiency scales has been met with skepticism, often born from the fear that the scales might dilute academic competitiveness and the standards we are accustomed to. Yet, these scales present a nuanced picture of a student's abilities, growth, and areas for improvement. By breaking down performance into categories of 'emerging,' 'developing,' 'proficient,' and 'extending,' teachers can communicate more information about student progress.
In this system, 'emerging' isn't synonymous with failure but signifies the early stages of understanding. 'Developing' means the student is applying their learning more consistently. The aim is for every student is to be 'proficient,' where they can reliably demonstrate their learned skills. 'Extending' students go beyond, showing a deeper understanding than is typically expected.
This framework differentiates between a student who is "just starting to demonstrate learning" and one who is "showing an initial understanding". These phrases might seem similar, but they capture crucial differences in a learner's progress. Proficiency scales that are properly aligned with well-defined competencies enable parents, educators, and students to identify specific areas requiring further focus, a feature traditional letter grades do not offer.
Proficiency scales are a departure from the punitive notions of 'passing' or 'failing,' signaling that learning is a continuum. The purpose of the proficiency scale is to facilitate progression, to help students navigate from 'emerging' to 'developing,' and eventually to 'proficient' or 'extending.'
Skepticism and
resistance are inevitable results of systemic changes. But I would counsel
those who are skeptical to approach proficiency scales with an open mind. It's
crucial to look beyond the symbol of a grade and focus more on the depth of learning
and areas for growth. Proficiency scales promise a broader, more comprehensive
understanding of a student's educational progress that letter grades cannot
convey.