Current Events

      I read an article about a program in Surrey in which 39 schools are removing letter grades completely and replacing them with an explanation of what the student is doing good in and what the student is doing bad in. They believe that giving them in depth feedback is better than a plain old A or B. It may also be easier to change your work habits by seeing what you have done wrong, or right.
     Some people think this may be a good idea. They think this because the student gets a better idea of what they are doing right or wrong. If they just get a B, that tells them nothing. It doesn't tell you if it was on time, what parts need improvement, etc. They cant see a B and instantly know what they are doing wrong. Telling them, "you could've handed it in a bit earlier, and made it a little bit more detailed" for example, is better, so they can fix what they have done wrong.
     The other remaining people think this is bad. Getting to see an A or B is convenient. You instantly know that you're doing good, or bad. If you are doing bad, then it is probably obvious what you are doing wrong. They think an explanation isn't needed, because the student can figure it out on their own.
     In my opinion, I don't see why they cant just keep both. If you see an A, then you know you're doing good, but then you can read and see which areas you're strong in. If you do bad, you can instantly see that you're doing bad and then you can see what you're doing wrong, and then change it. Having both is just a win-win situation, and doesn't get anyone mad.
     In conclusion, I think it is a great idea, but I don't see why they can keep both.