Grading systems in middle school should be abolished.

Before I begin, I would like to provide a brief roadmap of what I'll be talking about. First, I'll be defending my own case, then move on to refute my opponent's arguments. In response to my contention about kids being more focused on getting grades, my opponent claims that whether we have grades or not, the extra amount of extra learning won't change, and that grades have other benefits, which we should be focusing on, like the fact that they are a "simple way of looking at how much they understand what's being taught". I admit that the kids that are slackers and the kids that are overachievers will continue being slackers and overachievers, and the presence or absence of a grade isn't necessarily going to change that. However, the point is that, grades are a barrier for the kids are indifferent about learning. Because there's a simple wall up saying "This is exactly what you can do to get the best grade.", and there's no incentive for doing more, the kids that are indifferent don't. However, if there wasn't a specific grading system, kids wouldn't have that barrier. The incentive for doing more would simply be the fun of not knowing how well you can do. This in itself would not only help kids learn, but make it more fun. To my second contention, my opponent stated that because of the long term effects of grades, they are better. He also said that the grade will help them learn what they don't know, and be less stressed. But let's face it, if a kid gets an F on a paper, how likely is it that they're going to want to tell their parents, let alone ask for help? The odds aren't high. Some students might even be too embarrassed to take an extra few minutes to go talk to their teacher. This is even more stressful, and by eliminating grades, we are eliminating this stress. Middle school age kids don't need a standardized way of looking at their achievements, or lack thereof. If a student is truly struggling, a teacher will recognize it, and most likely talk to them personally. Therefor, the same result is accomplished in a less stressful way. To my third contention, my opponent said that we can have written evaluations, and grades at the same time, and there's no reason to pick one over the other. My point is that, for middle-schoolers, which this debate is focused on, written evaluations are better, because they offer the specialized feedback without the stress of an overall mark. We need to get rid of grades and start just giving out something like a written evaluation, because it will be better stress-wise, and will give kids a more accurate description of their strengths and weaknesses, something middle-school kids need to focus on. I would now like to respond to my opponent's arguments. For his first contention, he claims that we could have the written evaluation and the grading system, and that the "point of middle school" is to be a transition period, where adjusting to what's to come is important. I would like to point out that adjusting to high school-type grading system isn't hard, and that once again, it is more important to focus on kids' individual strengths and weaknesses, instead of just handing out generic grades. While it's true we could have both written evaluations and grades, that would be kind of pointless, especially in middle school. Also, going off what my opponent said about middle school being a transitional period, I would like to point out that my focusing purely on their strengths and weaknesses during this time, they are making the transition from elementary school (where it doesn't matter as much) to high school (where they really matter). For his second contention, he claims that my logic is flawed when it comes to my examples about written evaluation and feedback. I would like to point out that all my examples about written evaluations are just that: examples. I'm not saying that this is exactly what would happen, I was just pointing it out as a suggestion. My point was simply that they would be a good way of getting motivational feedback to the students at a reasonable rate. Thirdly, he claims that written evaluations and grades do not accomplish the exact same thing. I agree, that's not what I meant when I made that statement. My point was that everything that grades can do, written evaluations can also do. Students can compare notes on what the teacher said if they want an average, and teachers will often write what they expect from the students in this written evaluation. Therefor, students will know exactly how they're doing, what they need to be doing, and what they're doing well, in addition to providing a more in-depth way of showing a student where they are and what they need to do to get to where they want to be. Written evaluations can accomplish the same things as grades, as well as providing more explanations, so they are a better form of feedback, especially for middle-schoolers. Finally, for his fourth contention he claims that since teachers have so many students, it's difficult for them to determine how many people understand. However, teachers still grade all of those papers, so yes, there may be a lot of them, but the sheer amount is not going to stop a teacher from paying attention to the quality of the work. Because of that, teachers don't need a grading system to "see exactly what students understand, don't understand, how much they know, and how their progress has changed over a period of time", all the things my opponent said a grading system was necessary for. And for these reasons, the grading system should be abolished.