Well, we're just thinking about grades in a different way, then.
When I was teaching, which I admit is years ago, before grade inflation hit, when a student did the level of work sufficient to learn the material and do all the homework satisfactorily, but nothing beyond that, the grade they received was a C. That was the assumed grade for success. If they fell short, they dropped to a D, or if they fell so far short that they couldn't receive credit for the class, they got an F. If they went above and beyond the standard of learning for the class, they would move up to a B or, if they did truly excellent work, and A.
The definition of excellence was such that there was a clear expectation that not every student -- indeed not most students -- could achieve that level of work, either because they lacked the native ability, or because they weren't willing to put in time above and beyond the time necessary to master the basic material.
Today, as I look at the gradiing in my childrens' schools, your approach seems much more prevalent.
Whether that is good or bad for our society is a question it would be interesting to get into at some point. But first, I want to make sure we are in agreement on our basic differences of approach. |
