Over the past couple of days, ASU has been dealing with raging emotions regarding the new grade point system. Much of the dismay comes from borderline students, who are fearful that the plus-minus system will affect their GPAs negatively and not allow them to slide by in classes anymore.
While the grade point debate has been the focus of our attention on campus, there is another grading issue that has gained attention nationwide, namely that of peer grading. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that instructor initiated peer grading does not constitute a violation of the 1974 Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.
The court case examined by the Supreme Court was that of Falvo v. the Owasso Independent School District. In this case, Kristja Falvo sued the school district after her three children were forced to engage in peer grading, and were subsequently humiliated by the process when their performance was revealed.
Falvo argued that having her children's performance shared with other classmates constituted a violation of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. This act dictates that any school district that releases the education records of a student without parental permission can be threatened with a withdrawal of federal funding.
However, despite the validity of Falvo's argument, the court did not view peer grading as a violation of the Privacy Act, since the type of education materials in question, namely homework assignments, do not represent the same type of material held by a registrar's office.
Was the Supreme Court right in their decision? Legally, yes, but morally, no.
As the justices on the Supreme Court were deciding this issue, many of them were struck by the nostalgia of the situation and recalled fond memories from their childhood school days. For example, Justice Stephen G. Breyer described the teacher who "taught him a valuable lesson" by chastising him in front of the class for talking and by threatening to "put a negative mark on his report card."
Breyer's point is interesting, but unfortunately today's schools are not the Norman Rockwell vision of childhood and innocence that they once were. Today's schools don't house little red apples and shiny wooden desks. Instead, they have become microcosms of society where issues ranging from sexual harassment to drug abuse are part of the daily stresses students face.
For many students, it takes courage merely to get on the big yellow bus. These are children who may not have the support and resources at home needed to succeed academically, and sometimes, school may be the only place where these children are validated.
So my question is: Why, at a time when drop out rates are higher than ever, does the Supreme Court back a grading system like this? It merely allows lethargic teachers the potential to humiliate children who do not have the self-esteem to spare. Why does the Supreme Court back a system that clearly violates a child's academic privacy in favor of potential ridicule by classmates and instructors?
So while Justice Breyer and others recall their happy childhood days when "tough lessons" were learned in school, I'll think about the other schoolchildren in this country.
I'll think about the children similar to those that I counseled in the inner city — children who were ridiculed by their peers and made spectacles of by their teachers. Children who are fighting every day to make it through school but are further pushed down by archaic grading practices and outdated classroom procedures.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court had the moral opportunity to make a statement on the unfair practice of peer grading, but instead they used their own nostalgia to wimp out.
As a result, teachers across the country will continue this practice, much to the humiliation and privacy violation of their students. Norman Rockwell, eat your heart out.
Karen Engler is an English literature graduate student. Reach her
at karen.engler@asu.edu.
