Interesting as always, Jordan—but I find it frustrating that we continue to treat grades as if they’re the best or only tool we can use to assess learning. The truth is, as long as a final grade remains the marker of performance, we’re not escaping the “Grading Triangle.” You can adjust who determines the grade and how, but the structure remains intact. Even assuming the best intentions—teachers committed to learning, students eager to grow—the grade system still defines the boundaries of what “counts.”
Let’s not forget that grades themselves were an innovation of the Industrial Age, created alongside other systems designed to sort, rank, and standardize. Ever wonder why we don’t see references to the “grades” given to Einstein, Douglass, Austen, or Curie? Because the concept is modern, mechanical—and deeply embedded in a worldview that prizes efficiency over depth.
If we can collectively acknowledge that grades are not the only—or even the best—way to assess learning, only then can we begin exploring true alternatives. One example: in the world language field, learning is increasingly assessed through proficiency levels, not averages. Some programs are already basing grades (when required) on demonstrated levels of communication, not points collected.
Grades may have served a purpose in a past era, but we’ve outgrown that model. If we’re serious about growth, we need to let go of Industrial Age tools that no longer serve 21st-century learners.
“To live in an evolutionary spirit means to engage with full ambition and without any reserve in the structure of the present, and yet to let go and flow into a new structure when the right time has come.” – Erich Jantsch
Interesting as always, Jordan—but I find it frustrating that we continue to treat grades as if they’re the best or only tool we can use to assess learning. The truth is, as long as a final grade remains the marker of performance, we’re not escaping the “Grading Triangle.” You can adjust who determines the grade and how, but the structure remains intact. Even assuming the best intentions—teachers committed to learning, students eager to grow—the grade system still defines the boundaries of what “counts.”
Let’s not forget that grades themselves were an innovation of the Industrial Age, created alongside other systems designed to sort, rank, and standardize. Ever wonder why we don’t see references to the “grades” given to Einstein, Douglass, Austen, or Curie? Because the concept is modern, mechanical—and deeply embedded in a worldview that prizes efficiency over depth.
If we can collectively acknowledge that grades are not the only—or even the best—way to assess learning, only then can we begin exploring true alternatives. One example: in the world language field, learning is increasingly assessed through proficiency levels, not averages. Some programs are already basing grades (when required) on demonstrated levels of communication, not points collected.
Grades may have served a purpose in a past era, but we’ve outgrown that model. If we’re serious about growth, we need to let go of Industrial Age tools that no longer serve 21st-century learners.
“To live in an evolutionary spirit means to engage with full ambition and without any reserve in the structure of the present, and yet to let go and flow into a new structure when the right time has come.” – Erich Jantsch