Mr. Minister, the initiative to write to you and, in the same breath, to reach out to you, follows your declaration of last January 16 that “the encrypted ballots were here to stay”, justifying their maintenance by the argument following: “Parents need it to situate their child in the group. ” That’s all ?
I did not know that the needs of parents took precedence over those of students and staff who spend 180 and 200 days respectively a year in a school. Moreover, you are not unaware that your position collides with a report on the state and needs of education written by the Superior Council of Education entitled “Evaluate so that it really matters” ( 2019).
Indeed, in this report designed by experts from the school environment, the objective is precisely to eliminate this report card with no group average, at the primary level and possibly up to the first cycle of secondary school, in favor of an evaluation with criteria which testifies to the achievements “pulling all the pupils upwards”.
You will therefore better understand my premise: through its archaic practices in evaluation, dating back to the 16e century among the Jesuits, our school system is one of the main causes of the high number of children in difficulty, of students who “drop out” and of teachers who abandon one of the noblest of professions. Are you skeptical?
So how can we explain that we can assign a grade of 45% in reading to a first-year student on his first report card in November because his fluidity is shaky? How can we then tell the parents of this student that he is in difficulty when we know that he could reach the expected level if we had the sensitivity to respect his rhythm? The encrypted fixed-date bulletin is an obstacle to this opportunity.
It is therefore from the start of primary school that a culture of competition sets in and contributes to performance anxiety and the malaise of a large number of children and teachers.
Besides, how many of us would continue to practice a sport or a musical instrument if, from the age of 6, we were granted a 45% after only a few months of initiation?
In the same spirit, if a student obtains a grade of 80% in reading when the group average is 85%, a parent should therefore be less satisfied than if he had obtained this same 80% in a group where the average is at 70%. It is however the same result. Does this mark inform the parent about the achievements of his child and especially about the missing 20%? How is the group average useful in a student’s academic progress?
We have to admit, despite this example, that if this myth anchored in the popular mind that parents are satisfied with grades in percentages is partially true, it is because at present, society does not imagine not evaluation outside of this rating system. It is a code that she understands, like a necessary evil, but which is nevertheless devastating for our youth.
A climate conducive to learning
During the consultations on educational success conducted by the Ministry of Education in 2016, the federation of parents’ committees expressed the desire for communication that is intended to be constant, understandable and useful. I insist on these last two qualifiers because a question therefore arises, Minister. Do you sincerely believe that a grade delivered as a percentage is understandable and useful?
Don’t you think it would be more beneficial to use assessments for the purpose of providing learning support that demonstrates student achievement, rather than for selection or grading a program or a school?
As long as the action of evaluating consists in situating the note in relation to an average, the evaluation of learning will be synonymous with classification and will involve losers, as the Superior Council of Education warns us. Worse still, it will contribute, according to numerous works, to counter-productive effects on motivation, self-esteem, school perseverance and to “brain stuffing that encourages cramming”, therefore to surface learning that do not last over time.
Consequently, do we still want a model that punishes the child with so many evaluations and that penalizes errors, or will we choose a model offering evaluation practices that rhyme with feedback, contributing to structuring learning and sustainable?
Do we still want a model that generates undue pressure on our youth, or a model that promotes a climate conducive to learning and that values useful skills in the face of the challenges of the 21ste century ?
Today, we are at a turning point which offers us two directions in terms of societal values. The American model, which is based on a culture of competition and which refers to winners and the inevitable left behind, or the Scandinavian model, which offers measures promoting equal opportunity and inclusion. Stigmatize the student or elevate him in the noble sense of the term. What should we choose, Minister?