[By the by, I would want to very much to split your number 4 into the first half (which I agree with) and the second half (which I disagree with strongly).]
I think a big problem in this debate is that the side Grose is arguing with is not really willing to say what they thing straightforwardly, and thus ends up proffering the kind of unsatisfying claims about evidence you are taking issue with. In particular, I think there are many people in the "ed biz" who think
1. The primary thing provided by educational institutions is credentials that are then relied upon by other actors in the economy and society (including subsequent educational institutions).
2. Actually mastering the skills/practices that are currently required for those credentials is much less valuable for marginal students than getting those credentials.
3. Therefore, we should simply provide those credentials to many currently-struggling students, which would benefit them substantially, regardless of their success at mastering the associated skills etc.
(I don't think this is true but I certainly understand why people think it's plausible.)
But, for I think understandable reasons, those people think saying 1-3 publicly will be received very badly. Their solution is, unfortunately, to try to just do 3 without persuading anyone, really.
In contrast, I think the values Grose's side espouses (success in graded school settings is reflective of valuable qualities and useful learning, the kinds of measurable outcomes she cites and that social scientists like to measure are uncomplicately good indicators of a successful life) are, while certainly contestable, at least explicitly or implicitly stated by their advocates, as you see in that column.
Also on splitting #4, here I think you gotta deal with your own baggage. The "grades are a compulsory mechanism" view is intricately tied to "a mechanism for forcibly distributing a student population into a bell curve that's 'natural'" historically. I get that many people in the present who believe in the former don't believe in the latter, but most of the evidence they might point to for the first part is pretty seriously contaminated by its entanglement in the latter.
I agree that much of the literature on this is driven by views that combine both elements, on the model of my wife's physics professor, who said on the first day that his job was to save lives by flunking people before they could go to med school. But I don't think this is why the "students need enforced requirements otherwise they will make bad decisions" view is widespread among teachers, including the vast majority that grade instead on a 90=A- approach. Instead, like almost all other views teachers have about teaching, it's driven by people's own experiences in the classroom, rather than by engagement with the sort of generalized evidence that either you or Grose discuss.
I think this is right, except that the Grose side is lacking any reflection about what they think the substantively valuable properties of the skills and information they really believe ought to be learned in part because when they probe at the soft underbelly of their own advocacy, they find there's a lot of disagreement--there are people who think "butts in seats" are good not because it combats absenteeism which disables learning but because what you're learning by being made to have your butt in the seat is obedience; there are people who believe in the value of math or literacy or all the other things that can be learnt because they perceive them as beautiful and good in and of themselves and thus good for a society that values beauty (which is not the one we presently live in, mostly); there are people who believe math and literacy etc are empowering who are actually pretty close to the credentials-first, everything-else-later crowd; there are people who are just preaching "for the jobs! skills gap!". And those aren't actually easy to reconcile, so they'd rather not poke and prod.
But yes, I think you're right that the credentials-first folks ultimately don't really believe we ARE doing anything worth doing substantively, and that's a huge own goal for any educational institution to harbor. (By no means the only one we're harboring these days, but a big one.)
[By the by, I would want to very much to split your number 4 into the first half (which I agree with) and the second half (which I disagree with strongly).]
I think a big problem in this debate is that the side Grose is arguing with is not really willing to say what they thing straightforwardly, and thus ends up proffering the kind of unsatisfying claims about evidence you are taking issue with. In particular, I think there are many people in the "ed biz" who think
1. The primary thing provided by educational institutions is credentials that are then relied upon by other actors in the economy and society (including subsequent educational institutions).
2. Actually mastering the skills/practices that are currently required for those credentials is much less valuable for marginal students than getting those credentials.
3. Therefore, we should simply provide those credentials to many currently-struggling students, which would benefit them substantially, regardless of their success at mastering the associated skills etc.
(I don't think this is true but I certainly understand why people think it's plausible.)
But, for I think understandable reasons, those people think saying 1-3 publicly will be received very badly. Their solution is, unfortunately, to try to just do 3 without persuading anyone, really.
In contrast, I think the values Grose's side espouses (success in graded school settings is reflective of valuable qualities and useful learning, the kinds of measurable outcomes she cites and that social scientists like to measure are uncomplicately good indicators of a successful life) are, while certainly contestable, at least explicitly or implicitly stated by their advocates, as you see in that column.
Also on splitting #4, here I think you gotta deal with your own baggage. The "grades are a compulsory mechanism" view is intricately tied to "a mechanism for forcibly distributing a student population into a bell curve that's 'natural'" historically. I get that many people in the present who believe in the former don't believe in the latter, but most of the evidence they might point to for the first part is pretty seriously contaminated by its entanglement in the latter.
I agree that much of the literature on this is driven by views that combine both elements, on the model of my wife's physics professor, who said on the first day that his job was to save lives by flunking people before they could go to med school. But I don't think this is why the "students need enforced requirements otherwise they will make bad decisions" view is widespread among teachers, including the vast majority that grade instead on a 90=A- approach. Instead, like almost all other views teachers have about teaching, it's driven by people's own experiences in the classroom, rather than by engagement with the sort of generalized evidence that either you or Grose discuss.
I think this is right, except that the Grose side is lacking any reflection about what they think the substantively valuable properties of the skills and information they really believe ought to be learned in part because when they probe at the soft underbelly of their own advocacy, they find there's a lot of disagreement--there are people who think "butts in seats" are good not because it combats absenteeism which disables learning but because what you're learning by being made to have your butt in the seat is obedience; there are people who believe in the value of math or literacy or all the other things that can be learnt because they perceive them as beautiful and good in and of themselves and thus good for a society that values beauty (which is not the one we presently live in, mostly); there are people who believe math and literacy etc are empowering who are actually pretty close to the credentials-first, everything-else-later crowd; there are people who are just preaching "for the jobs! skills gap!". And those aren't actually easy to reconcile, so they'd rather not poke and prod.
But yes, I think you're right that the credentials-first folks ultimately don't really believe we ARE doing anything worth doing substantively, and that's a huge own goal for any educational institution to harbor. (By no means the only one we're harboring these days, but a big one.)