Classes composed of students from a narrow range of ability (at the top
end) are relatively rare in most schools, and generally exist due to
factors such as selection/admission criteria for the class or, perhaps,
the school. (Even AP classes at top college-prep institutions have a
considerable range of student abilities represented.) In such cases, it is
certainly reasonable that the grades should be quite high. My point would
be that it does not matter, in terms of "fairness" whether the higher
grades are the result of a straight percentage grading scale or a curve of
some sort. Depending on how the other factors are tweaked, the
results can be the same.
It is important to rember that teachers and students use the word
"curve" in a much more liberal manner than do statiticians. Not all
grading curves are centered on a "C," nor are they necessarily symmetric
about the mode (highest frequency score). "Curving" is generally used to
mean any grading system in which the cutoffs are determined by considering
the distribution of scores. Since the ranking that grades should
communicate includes where the students stand relative to other classes
(see below), giving all "A"s to a small class of the top students in a
given subject is reasonable--regardless of whether or not the grading is
proported to be on a straight percentage. The point is that this still
involves making a decision to grant the highest grades to the students who
have the most talent (mitigated by diligence).
I certainly do not criticize students for FEELING that a straight
percentage grading system is "more fair." I do not even criticize teachers
who make students feel this way as a part of their attempts to address the
need for a positive affective environment in the class. But I do recognize
that this appeal to emotion is a STRATEGY for establishing class
atmosphere. We should be honest enough to acknowledge a strategy as such.
In an open forum between teachers, I feel that it is disingenuous for a
teacher to claim that there is a moral or ethical superiority to not using
a curve--especially if that teacher participates in ANY process that
ultimately affects grades in response to variation in student ability
and/or diligence (including teaching courses for which student ability
levels are pre-selected).
As far as ranking is concerned, the reality, whether we like it or not, is
that in a college prep school or college prep program within a
comprehensive school, ranking via grades is one factor that colleges use
for admission purposes, so we have a responsibility to engage in it
conscientiously. Even in a small school, colleges need to be able to rank
students in several ways: relative to classmates in the course; reltive to
other courses in the subject (AP vs. Honors vs. Conceptual, etc.); and by
the school relative to other schools. My love of intellectual endeavor for
its own sake is strong enough that I would be happy not to participate in
this system, but as long as it remains the reality, I shall not shirk my
responsibility to be dilligent and conscientious in my ranking duties,
both through my grading and in the way I fill out college recommendation
forms.
Respectfully,
Mike Ugawa
St. Ignatius College Prep, San Francisco
mugawa@siprep.org
--
**********************************************************************
* *
* MICHAEL B. UGAWA *
* *
* PHYSICS * CHEMISTRY * COMPUTER SCIENCE *
* *
* EDUCATING THE YOUTH OF TODAY *
* TO FACE THE CHALLENGES OF THE NEXT MILLENIUM *
* *
* mugawa@quark.sfsu.edu *
* *
**********************************************************************