" I can't do quality work."
"Can I do this again if I improve it?"
"My son has never done above average work in school and never will."
"I wish I were always allowed to do quality work."
"It would be great if it were A, B, C, Incomplete."
"No one else expects me to do quality work."
These are just a few of the many comments I have heard from students and parents over the past four years as I have instituted an A, B, Incomplete grading policy.
The most apprehension from students is that I will use the policy to club them into control. Students worried about this are greatly relieved when they realize that the grading policy is only the tip of the quality school iceberg and that it is meant to be only temporary.
Quality School Theory says that students should learn to do quality work in school. Our courses, our grouping practices, our schedule and our methodology should all be focused on quality work. Grades as we know them should ultimately be replaced with levels of quality achievement. If a student needs 3 weeks to achieve quality, fine. If she needs 6 weeks, she should get that six weeks, or as long as she needs to do quality work.
Our time-based school does not require quality or even demand it. In fact, we complain that our standards for quality are continually eroding as our students fall farther from it. Yet we continue on with a grading policy that was built upon assumptions that no longer are true.
As teachers we use time as the arbitrator of quality: papers must be done in a week, or a day, or an hour. Those that can attain some level of quality within those time limits are rewarded with a quality grade. Those who need longer receive a non-quality grade. I learned that I couldn't institute the Quality Grading Policy without making significant adjustments to the way I taught and to what I expected from students.
The biggest adjustment was to how I viewed time and quality. The quality school theory states that students should be given as much time and help as they need to attain quality. If I wasn't going to individualize each course, as I would not because of the group work I do, then I had to allow for a way for students to get more time if they needed it.
I created a Deadline Extension Form which students could fill out up to the day before a paper or project was due. They have to identify the assignment, describe the need for more time, and set a new due date. If they miss the second due date, the paper or project is late and they lose points.
This demands student responsibility and foresight. They appreciate it, and their project gets the time they feel it needs. I also rely less on timed tests and more on application essays, papers and projects. These types of evaluation are easier to rework for quality than a standardized test. When I do need to test specific content, I use a five part test or quiz. Each part counts for 20 points, and students must do research essays of 180 words for each section. I allow only an 80 as a passing grade on such make-ups, however.
Another adjustment I had to make was to develop clear quality standards for each activity. For students to attain quality, it has to be discussed before and after each learning experience. Ultimately, they should learn to set their own quality standards. Once internalized, quality standards are a driving force for achievement and success. The higher the quality standard, the better the chance for success.
From what I have seen in my classroom, I am convinced that education should become more oriented towards quality and less towards time. Schools are no longer certification agencies. We are now charged with instilling habits and skills which will allow our students to do quality work, in the classroom and in the workplace.
The best of my students over the last four years, the students who care about their work, who want to achieve quality and excel in school and work, enthusiastically endorse this grading policy. They argue that if they want and need more time for quality they should get it, that they should grade themselves by the amount of work, effort and quality they can produce, and that they must learn habitually to achieve quality.
Students who dislike this policy also are a good reason we should endorse it. The more they argue that they cannot do quality work or should not be required to do quality work, the stronger they make the case for it.
My attempt to encourage quality work has been difficult at times, not the least because few other teachers have tried to implement the quality school program here at Conval. Jason Lambert did last year, but he left. Ned Ide has implemented this policy this semester with an elective class. Until more teachers try it, students will sense that it is not accepted and that perhaps they don't have to buy into it.
It also has been difficult to convince students that they should not accept less than quality work from themselves. Many students expect very little of themselves, and our grading system requires us to accept inferior and failing work.
We all encourage quality work from our students, but every time we put anything less than a "B" in our rank books, we accept mediocrity, we accept unsatisfactory work and we even accept failure. Students see it as allowing them to fail.
I don't think this grading policy is the only answer, but we need to talk about requiring our students to do quality work, and not pretend that it is someone else's problem.
American businesses have learned that they have to demand quality from workers.
Someday, American schools will too.