What is not being said is the teacher's ability to get across the instructions. In my high school algebra class the 6 smartest students in the class, myself included, made D for the semester. The other 30 students in the class made F. The teacher used a curve to adjust up 2 grades. He was a nice teacher, but he could work a problem on the blackboard, explaining in detail, then give the class an identical equation with different numbers and nobody could get the correct answer to the new problem. Not only that, but usually everybody's answer matched. Something was getting lost in translation.

Forward to college. My trigonometry class professor seemed to be able to explain trig adequately. However, out of 19 students only 2 got an A, the rest got D and F. He used a curve to past everybody.

Adjusting grades on a curve is wrong. In both my real-life examples it was readily apparent that it was the teaching methods of the professors that were inadequate and at fault. In both cases, if a curve had not been used, then maybe after a couple of failed classes someone in administration would have noticed the problem and taken corrective action. As it stood, the problem was not recognized and persisted in graduating students who essentially failed those classes.

I believe that grading on a curve persists because the teachers/professors are protecting their jobs by showing that they are getting good results when, in fact, they are not.

Consider the other side of grade inflation (which I think is what you are getting at) - grade deflation - associated with grading on a curve: a few years ago I was involved with teaching a course in which one of the students was repeating the course. From talking with the student and even performance on individual exams the student demonstrated substantial improvement in knowledge of the course material. However, he also happened to wind up in a section with lots of "high performing" students. When it came time to do final grades, because of a curve, this student received an even lower grade than the first they took the course.

There was no choice in this instance, but when I have that flexibility there is no curve, its an absolute grade scale. And this case is one of the reasons why I don't curve.

Not only does grading on a curve relieve the students of accountability, but more so instructors - whether I do a good job or a poor job, my grade distribution is still the same.

On a personal note, the practice of grading on a curve should have been stopped decades ago. Students deserve grades that are based on predetermined and agreed upon criteria and not on predetermined distribution of grades.

Gentlemen: thank you.  I agree.  Why do you think it is still prevalent?

What is not being said is the teacher's ability to get across the instructions. In my high school algebra class the 6 smartest students in the class, myself included, made D for the semester. The other 30 students in the class made F. The teacher used a curve to adjust up 2 grades. He was a nice teacher, but he could work a problem on the blackboard, explaining in detail, then give the class an identical equation with different numbers and nobody could get the correct answer to the new problem. Not only that, but usually everybody's answer matched. Something was getting lost in translation.

Forward to college. My trigonometry class professor seemed to be able to explain trig adequately. However, out of 19 students only 2 got an A, the rest got D and F. He used a curve to past everybody.

Adjusting grades on a curve is wrong. In both my real-life examples it was readily apparent that it was the teaching methods of the professors that were inadequate and at fault. In both cases, if a curve had not been used, then maybe after a couple of failed classes someone in administration would have noticed the problem and taken corrective action. As it stood, the problem was not recognized and persisted in graduating students who essentially failed those classes.

I believe that grading on a curve persists because the teachers/professors are protecting their jobs by showing that they are getting good results when, in fact, they are not.

Grading on a curve does not respond to "reality of life". To solve the problems we need "absolute knowledge" (to the extent possible), not "relative inclusion".

Well said gentlemen.  There is another point I wanted to bring up.  That is, some kids simply do not have the cognitive ability to do higher level math.  I always tested into advanced math classes. But, I had to work and work and work just to get some understanding.  It was exhausting.  Now, I have no problem using, interpreting, and expanding upon SEM (unthinkable even in my early undergraduate days).  However, when I got into college and retook some of the fundamental algebra (despite testing directly into calculus), the continuity of math came alive.  I think that the biggest problem is that students forget about math properties and don't learn to apply them when they move up a notch.  They do not see the continuity of properties established in earlier math or common rules that explain many aspects of deciphering a problem. Thus, they cannot apply them to subsequently higher levels of math.  In youth, we want the students to learn calculus and beyond to place them into engineering or other positions.  But what if we focused on all of the fundamentals again and again so that by the time the brain was fully or at least more developed, we could teach higher levels of math with greater understanding and significantly less stress to the student and teacher population?

Yes, math is a a sore point about everywhere.

In my field (electronics) can not do without it.

But it is true today in practically all fields.

Many students have not "algebraic thinking."

Then, they are unable to absorb knowledge requiring algebraic notation.

It is not possible for a teacher (specialized subjects) to tutor (at a given time) algebra.

Gee, I was required 5 maths: Algebra II, Trigonometry, Trig II, Business Statistics, and Probability!

Back to the original question, I apologize to Beth for kind of side-tracking the topic. But, my impression is that grading curves are more prevalent among mathematics teachers. It seems that most everybody that has commented has agreed with this.

What other education disciplines commonly use grade curves? Language classes? Spelling and grammar? Psychology? Biological sciences? Sociology? History?

Mr. Green, that is a good question.  In my opinion, Math classes are the greatest users of grading curves.  However, I do not have any statistical facts to back that up, only many years of observation.  I wonder if studying several years of grades and to the extent that they have been curved can only be compared against college entrance exams and annual testing.  I think that this study would have merit for the 'advisors' who indicate that a curve should be used. GEORGE: I agree that the current is moving away from a math requirement which I think is quite insane!  So we have to come up with more logical ways to present math.  In the US, there is this push for common core math.  It is equally insane because it requires students to be logical and learn math using techniques that they can only understand if they knew the math in the first place.  (Yeah, really off the wall.)  Instead, focus on laws from math, physics, geometry and trig and I bet the fear of math will be replaced with students who are no longer afraid to take a math class. BA

The war in Vietnam is over!

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=VIETNAM+WAR+GRADE+CURVING

http://tinyurl.com/c2qflpc

Grade inflation continues.

http://tinyurl.com/gvrfrw9

Why: http://tinyurl.com/4uvj2v

So what does a grade mean?

In-the-day there were standards.  There was given amount of material to master, and how well you mastered it determined the grade.   Somehow it worked.

Perhaps students master the material they are expected to better today than in the past?

Interesting Jack!  I was not aware that the process of grade inflation was in any way tied to the Vietnam War.  Learn something new every day!

On Grades:

One way is to put the mean Grade of the class as a number with standard deviation along with the students grade for relative rank of the student in the claa. Let us break the letter grades to numbers, 40 for A, 30 for B and 20 for C and 10 for D and 00 for F ; when averaged for all the students of the class then this number becomes a measure of the students rank. If everyone gets an A, or 40 with zero std dev, then A for a student would be a worthless grade. On the other hand B with 30 and a standard deviation of 5 shows that this average student has some students better and some worse than him.

There are other ways too, but the fact remains, professors attract grade hungry students to the course by giving easy grades;  alternatively, the hard course will be dropped by student together the professor getting dropped by the University.

Without such a standardization, professors with easier grades and easy courses would be popular and the students who attend easy courses whereby they learn less and will show a more attractive grade sheet. What a disaster!

-Yogesh

Well put Yogesh....

Hi Beth Ann,

Please clarify what test scores are being referred to in:: "Test scores have gone down in the US even as money allocated per child for education has massively increased.."  Any references?

What do you mean by properly holding students accountable in: "Are we properly holding students accountable for their education by grading on a curve?  And, who is the we?

Best regards,

Jack

Thanks Beth: In sixties, when I taught Applied Sciences in an Institute, I would tell the class  two things:

1. I would not ask you to repeat the principles I teach; only their application.

2. I will decide, what is the overall level of the class. I won't downgrade anyone but I could upgrade the best scoring student to a higher level, e.g., 75% score raised to 90 or even 100 percent and multiply every ones score by the same factor. However, a student scoring zero would not benefit. In fact he or she would fail even more miserably (a comical comment but conveyed well).

Once a senior professor asked me, why your grades do not follow the normal distribution. I told him because, we can not expect it in a small sample. The goal is to grade the learning: that includes mastery of principles, and ability to apply them and eventually respond to exam question on application with increasing difficulty. That requires at least a three hour final exam with many questions and today no one has the time to give or take such exams! .

In short, testing and grading students is a complex issue and is well reflected in the  poor correlation between student's grades and achievement in life. One often comes across students who understood the principles, but found the knowledge worthless till they get a project where they need to apply the understanding to real situations.

Hi Beth Ann, George, James, David, Romer, Joseph, Yogesh, and all,

It used to be that going school was part one’s education.   School was only part of a continuing educational process as opposed to job training.  A grade was a communication from teacher-to-student as to how well the student mastered the material being taught.

As I recall:  in college and for most of graduate school, there were class exams and for the most part three hour final exams; there too were reading courses. In high school there were two hour local finals and three hour uniform exams.  In all, there were classroom discussions with professors and other students.

“Education” has really become a business… As for any business the customers must be satisfied. Does a student pay through his nose for an education and not received a “good” grade.  Standard- or ad hoc curving of grades, to me, seems to have increased as the business of education has grown.  Professors have little if any contact with the students and since no one really knows how well a student has mastered the material why not curve.  Professors are employees and must follow their institutional guide lines, or be out-on-the-street. Some guidelines are more bendable than others! 

Though the dream of schools and colleges of the past exits it’s not today’s paradigm.  Today the “businesses of education” would appear to offer training and not an education.  How did this occur?

Would you like your meat to be graded on a curve?  Has government moved that way? Check-it-out

Best regards,

Jack

Hi All,

Apologies for inadvertently leaving your name out (please see above).

Best regards,

Jack

Jack,

I think I know what you mean, but most primary school teachers that I know are in the profession because a) they have a passion for teaching, or b) they like working with children. None of them are getting rich, especially in the South.

Generally, many schools and school systems have the same tax base they did 20 years ago because voters have rejected increases in education taxes.  Thus the schools are seeing higher student enrollments, but have less per student moneys to employee. This has caused many of these school districts to implement cost saving and/or cutting methods in order to maximize their limited funds. Thus they do, in a way, behave like large corporations by taking the same steps to trim the fat, or perceived fat. This is done by placing the maximum number of students in classrooms, requiring parents to furnish supplies like toilet paper and chalk that used to be the schools responsibility, curtail class times by 5 minutes, use more low-salary or volunteer teacher's aides, etc.

One thing I have mixed feelings about is the training. Our schools had Industrial Arts and Agriculture class, being that the area consisted of farming and supplying the oil refineries with workers. However, many of the schools now offer classes for pre-qualifying for certain jobs and also advanced college placement classes. If we are having a difficult time giving our children basic education, then why are we doing this other stuff?

Hi James,

The concerns you voiced above are valid.  Kindergarten to high school (K-12) has been asked to take on too much.

Students have been propagandize to believe they need college to find employment; while parents have been led to believe that everyone should go to college of course, to find a job. School administrators listen.   Chalk-and-talk advanced-placement classes are far less costly than Industrial Arts and Agriculture, and a way of saving money.  Has the athletic budget changed?  Communities set their priorities, whatever.

The-bottom-line, if a  community is not willing to pay for their children’s education, that is their problem. 

Best regards,

Jack

James: Excellent point.  When I was in high school they offered a career center where students could spend some hours/day learning brick laying, cosmetology, etc  Not everyone is going to college!  Some people need skills to get into the labor force.  When NAFTA occurred in the US, many of those skilled labor jobs went out the door.  Also, the movement from permanent to temporary placement drastically changed the job market.  Together, they have ruined middle class America. People cannot get loans to buy homes on a temporary job situation, either. This, of course, impacts other areas like education.  Less people owning homes and paying taxes, less money to educate.  It is a vicious circle. 

Beth,

Both you and Jack are correct. I firmly believe in the call to arms put forth by Mike Rowe concerning America's dwindling numbers going into the trades. The entire country is degree crazy and parents are telling their teens that they can do better than being a plummer or electrician or air conditioner repairman, regardless of how much money those people make annually. But it is more ridiculous than that. I recently saw an advertisement for a electrician for a local refinery that required a Masters degree! Not an electrical engineer, just a plain electrician. A friend who was an AutoCAD specialist for 15 years was told she didn't qualify for a job because she did not have a degree in geography or a related field!

Getting back to the curve, I do think it is more to boost student grades and therefore making the teacher look good. I think one could probably see this in student performance evaluations where test results do not coincide with grades.

Some resources re: student spending and scores. I did not do a systematic literature search but a general information search.  Though we have discussed that education has become a business, it has also been infiltrated by government policy much to the detriment of the education system.

RE: 

What do you mean by properly holding students accountable in: "Are we properly holding students accountable for their education by grading on a curve? And, who is the we?

This was my speculation Jack.  We spend a lot of time trying to be politically correct and telling everyone that they are great that we have created an overly sensitive education system that ill prepares students for the realities of life.  By not holding them accountable and making them understand that not everyone should get an A if they did not earn it, we are teaching them to be lazy and to still expect to be rewarded.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/does-spending-more-on-education-improve-academic-achievement

http://www.bubblechartpro.com/test-scores-vs-annual-education-spending-bubble-chart/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/355271/education-spending-soars-test-scores-stagnate-deroy-murdock

http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-education-spending-literacy-test-scores-vs-other-countries/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2003-09-16-education-comparison_x.htm

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

http://supportingevidence.com/Education/PISA_Test_scores_vs_cum_edu_spend_by_country.html

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf

http://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/impact-federal-involvement-americas-classrooms

Beth,

While I realize that the federal government has stuck its nose into what traditionally has been the purview of the states, there still has to be some nationwide standard for K-12 education. And personally, I am not a fan of common core as per examples that I have seen. Whether it is a curriculum standard or a national test that all students have to pass, we need to know that students in one state have the same level of education and same basic facts as the next state. We now have and always have had a fractured system. I was required to have United States history, Louisiana history, and civics in high school. My wife, from another state, was only required to have her state history and civics. Thus she had little knowledge of U.S. history until she entered college and then had to take a remedial course in history to catch up. Today, however, it is more about whether State's Rights are being stepped on than if our children have the same level of education from state to state.

Hi James: Yes. I believe in curriculum standards for K-12.  But I do not think the solution is Common Core.  In my opinion, CC requires that you already know math logic.  You will only get CC Math if you already understand math. Therefore it is relatively useless as a teaching tool.

Decisions, all things being the same . . . .

Is it better-to-spend-money on a better football coach or is it  better-to-spend-money on a better football field?

Is it better-to-have only one type of defense (offense) or is it better-to-have more than one type of defense (offense)?

Everyone does play on the football team or everyone does not  play on the football team?