Reply to Katherine Hillerich's post: Admittedly, it is very difficult to get assessments to match up to the individual challenges of each student. And, teachers are not trained in psychoanalysis. Moreover, it can be a slippery slope into subjective grading vs objective grading when accommodations are made for every student. My main nightmare, however, is the student whose grade arbitrarily slips just 6 points from a C- (70) to an F (64.5) because of bad questions or poorly designed assessment structure. Imagine how that plays out, particularly in colleges where that one course prevents one from taking the next course, cost an extra semester in school, extra tuition, extra living expense. Its hard to not lose hope under those circumstances.
That said, I am starting to agree with Sal Kahn of Kahn Academy. Test only the fundamentals of a course, but demand 100% mastery on those items that are required for success at the next level. We should not set students up for failure. This is accomplished mainly by not prescripting the time for accomplishing 100% mastery. Providing for independence in timing of assessments allows faster students to move on, and students who need more time can take some pressure off.
Of course, such an idea is upsetting to the traditional notion of a 'semester' and also of the concept of mass education. But, in truth, there is no 'mass education'. It is a myth we invent to reduce cost. The truth is that we all learn individually. Put 30 students in class and teach them the same thing. Ask what they learned and we get 30 different impressions of it. And some learned nothing due to thinking about other things in their life. All of which suggests that 'mass education' may not be very cost effective all. Sometimes, the main thing students learn is how to obtain answers on the Internet, to get a grade, to pretend they are learning. That sounds awful I know, but fortunately, a good number of students do in fact, learn, at least enough to make it a rewarding profession.
