Some explanation: Education Proper is what most people think of first when we think about the value of education: learning skills and facts, acquiring the collection of knowledge and skills which culture and government have decided make up a sort of lowest common denominator for active engagement in our society. There are, of course, many many legitimate critiques which can be and have been made of the particular set. Ours in the US is messy and has evolved only slightly from something designed to shape people into straight white cis male factory workers or (if they are more successful) businessmen. Despite that, there is a sort of general agreement that certain skills (reading, writing, arithmetic, a modicum of critical thinking, a basic history of the nation and even more basic history of the world, a rough understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics, exposure to music, and an assortment of fine arts etc...) will help a young person to live a more rewarding/flourishing life. In fact the whole justification for the idea of public education—as I understand it the real motivation may have been more sinister—lies in the understanding that the attainment of this body of knowledge and these skill represent a basic human good and should therefore be guaranteed to everyone regardless of income.
So far so good. I got into teaching because I believe in the value of Education Proper. I genuinely believe that in teaching students to engage in historical thinking and analysis and in ushering them into the story of humanity (flawed and incomplete as all tellings of that story are) I am benefiting both my students and society as a whole. The tension comes with the introduction of the second theory of what education is, one which I like far less but which I cannot deny the reality of. Education as Certification is something which I think developed out of a practical recognition of the accuracy of EP. Because attaining an education situates a person to be more successful in many of the jobs our society happens to value (and thus more likely to be able to support themselves) education has taken on a particular social and monetary value. And because we use grades and grade point averages to represent the quality of a person's education as assessed by the school that educated them, a student who fails to earn a high school diploma is at a significant disadvantage in society. Thus EC has resulted in teachers finding ourselves in the position of gatekeepers to opportunity. As a world history teacher, students in my state are not eligible for a high school diploma unless they pass my class.
Here, then, is the core tension: According the the EP model I am doing a student a disservice by assigning them a grade which does not reflect their actual achievement in my subject. If the grade I assign is too high then the student will be judged unfairly and will be put in situations for which they are unprepared. If the grade I assign is too low then the student will not have an appropriately high estimation of their abilities and may not attempt challenges which they are actually able to handle. A student who receives a passing grade from me without sufficient proficiency in world history will be caught flat footed in society. And this is far more stark an issue for elementary and middle school students. A 4th grader who graduates to 5th grade without having a sufficient grasp of 4th grade material will be at a severe disadvantage in a 5th grade class and curriculum built on the expectation that all students in the class have already acquired a certain degree of proficiency. This means that 5th grade will be more difficult for the already-struggling student who needs more help. To promote a student before they are ready is to set them up for failure.
But according to the EC model, I am doing a student a disservice when I do not assign them a passing grade. In the Covid-lockdown world of education, students with less access to technology are at a severe disadvantage relative to their peers. As a result of this economic and material inequity, these students often lack access to educational help and content which is available to their wealthier peers. According to the EC model, I would be perpetuating and magnifying exiting social inequities if I denied these students a passing grade in my class. Certainly it is not their fault that they have failed to attain (or at least to demonstrate) the necessary proficiency in my subject—the circumstances simply did not allow them the opportunity. But that does not change the fact that they have not acquired the proficiency which a passing grade is thought to represent.
All of this puts educators in what seems to me to be an impossible double-bind regarding any student who fails to demonstrate proficiency in our subjects. I want to repeat that this double-bind is always present as a result of societal racism, classism, and sexim (traditional, hetero, and cis) but that it is magnified significantly under required distance-learning conditions. Both the EC and EP models are accurate representations of the world of education, and yet in the case of this student, injustice is magnified by the truth of the EP model if they receive a passing grade which their proficiency does not merit (instead of being required to repeat and pass the course in order to receive a passing grade), and injustice is magnified by the truth of the EC model if they are denied a passing grade (and the social/material advantages which come with that certification) despite the fact that their failure to become sufficiently proficient is not their fault.
I don't really have answers this time, but I think this question is important. Feel free to leave your thoughts in comments.
