Grade Normalization - Arguments in Opposition

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0 height="100%"><tr> <td valign="top" width=110 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Valpo Law SBA"><U><B>HOME</B></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id2.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="People"><U><IMG SRC="01341140.png" border=0 width="65" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id8.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Minutes"><U><IMG SRC="0144d140.png" border=0 width="77" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id3.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Laws"><U><IMG SRC="21726140.png" border=0 width="38" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id4.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Events"><U><IMG SRC="01641140.png" border=0 width="65" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id7.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Groups"><U><IMG SRC="01745140.png" border=0 width="69" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id9.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Info"><U><IMG SRC="2181d140.png" border=0 width="29" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id5.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Press"><U><IMG SRC="2192c140.png" border=0 width="44" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="http://www.valpo.edu/law/calendar/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.valpo.edu/law/calendar/"><U><IMG SRC="01b52140.png" border=0 width="82" height="20" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id15.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Atrium"><U><B>The </B></U></A><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#CC6600" FACE="Bradley Hand ITC" ><A HREF="id15.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Atrium"><U><B>Atrium</B></U></A></FONT></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="http://valposba.blogspot.com/" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://valposba.blogspot.com/"><U><B>Bulletin Board</B></U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B><IMG SRC="020791e0.png" border=0 width="377" height="30" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></B><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="id9.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Info"><U><IMG SRC="00f43260.png" border=0 width="67" height="38" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0"></U></A></FONT></div> <div> <FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Tahoma" ><B>Professor Arguments Against Grade Normalization</B><B> </B></FONT>• <A HREF="id44.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Grade Normalization Student Arguments i"><U>Student Arguments Against Normalization</U></A> • <A HREF="id42.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Grade Normalization Arguments in Favor"><U>Arguments in Favor of Normalization</U></A> • <A HREF="id40.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Grade Normalization"><U>Normalization Home</U></A></div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B><U> <A NAME="m_e_m_o_r_a_n_d_u_m"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A></U></B><B><U>M E M O R A N D U M</U></B></div> <bR> <div> <B>TO:          </B>General Faculty Meeting Attendees</div> <bR> <div> <B>FROM:     </B>Professor Robert F. Blomquist</div> <bR> <div> <B>DATE:     </B>August 22, 2005</div> <bR> <div> <B>RE:          </B><I>Against Grade Norming</I></div> <div> ______________________</div> <bR> <div> As a prelude to our discussion about grade norming at the first general faculty meeting of the new academic year, I want to provide the fruits of my research over the summer.  I sincerely hope that we will take the time to go through each of the following fourteen objections to grade norming which are reflected in the academic literature.  </div> <bR> <div> In my judgment, the “Draft Proposal Rationale, Terms and Trial Period for Grade Normalization”, dated May 5, 2005, whitewashes and glosses over the negative attributes of law school grade norming.</div> <bR> <div> Before we plunge (even on a so-called “volunteer” basis) into the realm of grade norming we should go into this with our eyes wide open.  That is why, I hope that the proponents of this “trial” grade norming proposal will agree to extend full and complete faculty discussion over two regular meetings (August and September).  I have provided citations to the literature for your convenience.  The following four reasons against law school grade norming are not ranked in any particular order.</div> <bR> <div> <B>1.       </B><I><B>Grade-Norming Communicates Mediocre Expectations.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <I>     See </I>B. Glesner Fines, <I>The Impact of Expectations on Teaching and Learning, </I>38 Gonz. L. Rev. 89, 122 (2003): </div> <bR> <div> Teachers expect-even require-only a small percentage of the class to excel.  Comparative grading also communicates mediocre expectations for the teacher, as it excuses faculty from defining the knowledge and skills representing competent or outstanding learning.  Teachers cannot, therefore, use grades as a measure of their teaching.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>2.     </B><I><B>Grade-Norming is Simply a Ranking Device for the Convenience of Employers and is a Cop-Out from the Standpoint of Law Teaching.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>     </B></I><I>See </I>Morrison Torrey, <I>You Call That Education?, </I>19 Wis. Women's L. J. 93, 111 (2004).  Accord Deborah L. Rhode, <I>Missing Questions: Feminist Perspectives on Legal Education, </I>45 Stan. L. Rev. 1547, 1557 (1993) (grading, and especially grade normalization, currently as simply a ranking device for employers).</div> <bR> <div> <B>3.     </B><I><B>Grade Norming Undercuts “Mastery Learning”.</B></I></div> <bR> <div>      <I>See </I>Pamela Lysaght & Cristina D. Lockwood, <I>Writing-Across-the-Law-School-Curriculum: Theoretical Justifications, Curricular Implications, </I>2 J. Ass'n. Legal Writing Directors 73, 81-82 (2004):</div> <bR> <div> [Master learning] theory provides that while students may learn with different styles and at different paces, students have the potential to master any subject when instruction is “individualized to each student's needs”.  Mastery learning focuses on ensuring that students have the instruction and the time needed to meet the teacher's educational goals.  Under this theory, teachers should focus on having the students achieve the course educational goals, as opposed to categorizing student with a normal grade distribution.  </div> <bR> <div> Underlying mastery learning is the idea that students enter a curriculum with a pre-existing knowledge base, and the adequacy or inadequacy of that knowledge base will greatly influence a student's success in learning new information.  Students should be given the time and instruction needed to make the connection between their pre-existing knowledge base and the new information.  </div> <bR> <div> <B>4.     </B><I><B>Grade Norming Creates Negative Rampant Competition.</B></I></div> <bR> <div>      <I>See </I>Robert P. Schuwerk, <I>The Law Professor as Fiduciary: What Duties Do We Owe to Our Students, </I>45 S. Tex. L. Rev. 753, 776 (2004):</div> <bR> <div> [When students are graded on a grade-norm curve] [t]his is tremendously important because it severely undercuts the only method that most students have ever known for surviving in troubled educational waters: banding together and pooling their knowledge.  With a curve in place, it is inevitable that one person's success is another's failure, so the gamesmanship response is to pretend to be cooperating with others while secretly withholding critical information.  Deceit and dissembling are set loose among our students, and elevated by many to an artform.  </div> <bR> <div> <B>5.     </B><I><B>Grade Norming Causes Loss of Autonomy, Freedom and Privacy by      Faculty.</B></I></div> <bR> <div>      <I>See </I>Deborah Waire Post, <I>The Power and the Morality of Grading-A Case Study and a Few Critical Thoughts on Grade Normalization, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 777, 780 (1997):</div> <bR> <div> [One serious cost of grade normalization in law schools] may be the loss of autonomy, freedom and privacy by faculty.  Reform could involve limitations on the absolute discretion faculty have in deciding course content, methods of instruction and grading.</div> <bR> <div> <B>6.     </B><I><B>Grade Norming Limits Professorial Flexibility.</B></I></div> <bR> <div>      <I>See </I>Jay M. Feinman, <I>Law School Grading, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 647, 652 (1997):</div> <bR> <div> [Grade norming] limits the teacher's ability to pursue their own teaching methods and objectives and to experiment with alternative approaches; many progressive measures will be undercut by the need to grade students on a mandated curve despite their successful learning.</div> <bR> <div> <B>7.     </B><I><B>Grade Norming Masks Real Differences in Student Learning</B></I><B>.</B></div> <bR> <div> <B>     </B><I>See </I>Feinman, <I>supra, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 647, 652 (1997):</div> <bR> <div> [Grade] normalization … may mask real differences in student learning.  For many reasons, students in one section of a course may achieve at higher levels than students in another.  Sections also may vary in their achievement from year to year.  Normalization does not permit the recognition of these differences.</div> <bR> <bR> <div> <B>8.     </B><I><B>Grade norming (because it forcibly undermines the idea that all students have high potential and should be supported in the effort to achieve their potential) is another form of coercive politics on the law school community.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>     </B><I>See </I>Feinman, <I>supra, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 647, 655 (1997).</div> <bR> <div> <B>9.     </B><I><B>Grade norming is not a symbol of rigor.  It is a symbol of failure to teach well, to test well and to have an influence on the intellectual lives of students.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>     </B></I><I>See </I>Barbara Glesner Fines, <I>Competition and the Curve, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 879, 891-92 (1997).  </div> <bR> <div> <B>10.     </B><I><B>Grade norming, by creating a highly competitive learning environment undermines student motivation while increasing student anxiety and alienation.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>     </B>Fines, <I>supra, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 879, 902 (1997).</div> <bR> <div> <B>11.     </B><I><B>Grade norming's fostering of rampant competition will be especially alienating to African-American students.  </B></I></div> <bR> <div> <I><B>     </B></I><I>See </I>Fines, <I>supra, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 879, 904 (1997).</div> <bR> <div> <B>12.     </B><I><B>Grade norming teaches the lesson to students of “do-it-alone” and      undercuts the lesson of collegial work.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>     </B>Fines, <I>supra, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 879, 905 (1997).</div> <bR> <div> <B>13.     </B><I><B>Grade norming is unpragmatic because it rejects the inherent wisdom of custom and usage by law professors over years of experience who know an A or B or C or D or F when they see it.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>     </B>Robert C. Downs & Nancy Levit, <I>If It Can't Be Lake Woebegone … A Nationwide Survey of Law School Grading and Grade Normalization Practices, </I>65 UMKC L. Rev. 819, 852 (1997).</div> <bR> <div> <B>14.     </B><I><B>Grade norming will undercut recruitment of a considerable number of diverse students who will fear negative competition.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <B>     </B><I>See </I>Douglas A. Henderson, <I>Uncivil Procedure: Ranking Law Students Among Their Peers, </I>27 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 399, 435-36 (1994).</div> <bR> <div> <B>15.     </B><I><B>Grade Norming (for an up or down vote at VU) will be unfairly coercive for untenured faculty, even if it is so-called “voluntary”.</B></I></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="#m_e_m_o_r_a_n_d_u_m" TITLE="Grade Normalization Arguments in Opposi"><U>back to to</U></A><A HREF="#m_e_m_o_r_a_n_d_u_m" TITLE="Grade Normalization Arguments in Opposi"><U>p</U></A></div> </td> </tr></table></body>