Opinion

As university professors and parents, we were pleased to hear that Manitoba Education has reinstated percentage reporting when assessing high school students rather than vague terms, such as “emerging.” And consequently, we were disappointed, but not surprised, to read John Wiens’ Think Tank op-ed — Grading by percentage is failing our students, May 7 — critiquing the use of percentage grades.

The primary purpose of assessment is not to rank individual students, measure their worth, shame teachers, or reflect a relationship between a student and their teacher. That view of assessment is the problem, rather than assessment itself.

The primary purpose of student assessment is to determine to what extent they are meeting predetermined learning objectives when they have completed a course or unit. The secondary purpose is to inform pedagogical practice, direct resources to students who need support, and inform parents so they can advocate for their children.

File Students — and their parents — need a clear idea about how successful they are at understanding work in their courses. And percentage grades are part of that.

Without meaningful assessment, how can teachers know to adjust? How can struggling students be better supported? If specific classes or teachers consistently have students who do not meet learning outcomes, how do we know those teachers need support? If entire schools are not meeting learning outcomes, how is funding equitably deployed to ensure they have the resources to meet students’ learning needs? How can parents advocate for their children if they aren’t given transparent and clear information about how they are faring in school?

Many educators subscribe to the former view of assessment rather than the latter, which in the long run is far worse than any disappointment a student may feel from receiving a 75 per cent on an exam.

When grades are viewed as a measure of worth, well-meaning educators contribute to “grade inflation” as an attempt to artificially inflate students’ self-esteem. This is why many students’ grades do not predict their success in university, as Wiens suggested. However, the data from Manitoba does not support Wiens’ assertion that some students are more successful in university than high school.

Dr. Darja Barr’s research on the transition from high school to university indicates that student grades drop significantly in first year university. Her research further revealed that students manage the transition best when course content and assessment in their high schools aligns with those in university, which includes the use of exams and percentage grades.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of consultation and communication from Faculties of Education and K-12 curriculum and assessment developers with content specialists at the post-secondary level.

Student self-esteem is boosted through learning, not inflated grades. Children with learning disabilities struggle with self-esteem because they aren’t getting adequate support and quality instruction, not because of what’s written on their report card. And parents are kept in the dark because of a lack of clear, valid, and reliable assessments. We can’t imagine anything less clear than assessment terms like “emerging.”

The most serious outcome of the failure to meaningfully assess learning and communicate results clearly to parents is that students in need of support are overlooked. Inflated assessments are used to justify withholding support from struggling students, particularly those with learning disabilities, and promoting them to subsequent grades without prerequisite knowledge or skills. Social and health inequities are widened, students are left without employable skills, and families are devastated trying to make up for a failed education system.

Our public education system regularly moves students into middle school and high school who have not been taught to read because reading is never assessed — it’s not even a learning outcome! The same goes for math. Yet strangely, these students are reported as meeting “grade level outcomes.”

It’s not just a few students who are falling through the cracks — an alarming number of Manitoba students are struggling in reading and math. The lack of assessment and accountability built into the system is deliberate and systematic. This hurts at-risk students the most.

It’s perplexing that Wiens claims to care about the consequences of assessments for struggling students when University of Manitoba Faculty of Education is being investigated by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission for failing to prepare teachers to provide evidence-based instruction and assessments for struggling children. To rub salt in the wound, the University of Manitoba faculty of education refuses to meet with stakeholders, like parents and learning disability communities.

Lastly, Wiens writes about the importance of trusting relationships but fails to recognize that accountability goes hand in hand with trust. Parents reaching out to the Free Press with concerns about the removal of percentages is indicative of this lack of trust and accountability.

We hope the minister of education can continue the work of integrating accountability and quality assessment into our public education system. Our children deserve better public education than what they are currently receiving.

Natalie Riediger is an associate professor in the faculty of agricultural and food sciences, University of Manitoba; Darja Barr is a senior instructor in mathematics, University of Manitoba; Anna Stokke is a professor of mathematics at the University of Winnipeg.