Testing and Grading, a Response

Melanie E. Woldt
May 16, 2007

After reading Paul Goodman’s A Proposal to Abolish Grading, Howard Gardner’s Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed, and Diane Ravitch’s In Defense of Testing, I have come to the conclusion that all three of these essays have some very good points to them. The three essays all agree that the current method of determining a student’s position in school is flawed.

Paul Goodman proposes abolishing grading with the assumption that students will be ‘down-graded and punished’ due to their weaknesses. Goodman assumes that students will not study without the threat of grades. While abolishing grading has its merits, one cannot abolish grading at the university level first. In order to fully understand the effects of grading on an individual, grading has to be completely abolished as a child first enters into schooling. After thirteen years of schooling, fourteen or fifteen if you count preschool, a person is predisposed to the grading system and will not be as efficient if the grading were to be abolished at the university level.

Howard Gardner proposes abolishing time limits and adding other sources, such as the internet, to an exam. The purpose of an exam is to test a person on what he or she does or does not know. By allowing an individual a chance to use a dictionary or the internet, who is to say that the individual knows the work? A person needs to be able to finish an exam on his or her own. Many tests require a student to be done at a certain time. Testing should have a much longer time restriction. While having a time requirement forces an individual to learn to get things done in a timely manner, just as projects for work have a due date, it is important to give the individual the time to strategize and come up with a plan. The forty minutes a person has to finish the forty questions during the math ACT is NOT adequate time for an individual to fully solve the problems. Many people need to take the time to actually study the problem. Time restrictions do not allow a person to do that.

Diane Ravitch states that testing is a necessary evil. While no one enjoys taking the tests, the tests are there in order to assure that the person actually knows what they are doing. She also states that testing should not determine how much schooling a person is qualified for. People are tested then graded on the potential he or she presents based on the test results. The current method of testing an individual needs to be redone. All persons are entitled to the same degree of education. All children are entitled to equal opportunities.

Goodman, Gardner, and Ravitch present great ideas. There needs to be a middle ground. Testing and grading (if any) should be based on an individual’s efforts, not a group standard. Testing should have less time restrictions. Testing should be in place as a means to check that an individual knows what he or she is doing. There needs to be a collective effort that can effectively determine a student’s knowledge.