Success for All: The Median Is the Key. (1994)

Grading by the median provides more opportunities for success by diminishing the impact of a few stumbles and by rewarding hard work, Mr. Wright maintains. YOU ARE probably good at what you do. Most of us gravitate to jobs and careers that closely match our likes and strengths. Once in those jobs, we make choices that reflect our desire to emphasize our strengths and hide our weaknesses. We are human, after all. In the best secondary classrooms in America, students are asked to perform a wide variety of tasks. Some students are good at all these tasks, most are good at some of them, and some are good at none. When students are good at all school-related tasks, we reward them with good grades. Those who are good at only some tasks receive mediocre grades that result from averaging the good with the bad. And, of course, the students who are good at nothing -- or who long ago quit trying -- receive failing grades. Did you notice the difference between the adult work experience and the child's school experience? In science -- I speak as a science teacher, but my message is for all -- we have students who measure accurately, make careful observations, and are meticulous in following laboratory procedures but receive a C or D on their report cards because they can't or won't memorize the vocabulary, formulas, and metabolic pathways common to science courses. These students may like doing science, but they understandably refuse to take more than the minimum number of science courses needed for graduation. By not recognizing the strengths of our students, we are turning them away. We are telling them that they don't belong -- that science, mathematics, foreign languages, English, physical education, art, music, and so on are only for those who can do it all. How can we make the classroom experience more like the work experience? How can we expose our students to the variety of tasks and activities that make up the disciplines we know and love and still allow them to succeed even if they are not good at everything? The answer lies in the way we student grades and determine report card grades; after all, the word average does not require the use of the arithmetic mean. The mean is only one of three common measures of central tendency. In addition, there are the median and mode, and each has a specific application in statistical analysis that should be considered for use in grade averaging. In determining a median grade, one arranges all of a student's grades in descending order. The median grade is the grade in the center, with an equal number of grades (or proportion of grades) above and below it. If there are an even number of grades with no central grade, the two grades that straddle the central position are added together and divided by two. The median in this case is the mean of the two central grades. Using the median, a student with grades of A, A, B, B, B, C, F, F would receive a B rather than the C that results from calculating the mean. The median is actually the statistically correct measure of central tendency for ordinal data. Ordinal data consist of numbers on a scale whose intervals are uncertain or inconsistent. The numbers on such a scale carry information only about order. That is, we know that an A is better than a B, but is it always the same amount better? We also know that an 85 is better than an 80. But does an 85 on one test mean the same thing as an 85 on another? Are your tests so precise that a five-point difference at one end of the scale means the same thing as a five-point difference at the other end? Because of the imprecision of grading and the absence of uniform intervals between grades, grades are not interval data. Grades are ordinal! And, since grades are ordinal, the best summary of grades -- and therefore the grade that should appear on the report card -- is the median, not the mean. How do students react when their report card grades are calculated in this way? …