In top suburban schools across the country, the valedictorian, a beloved tradition, is rapidly losing its singular meaning as administrators dispense the title to every straight-A student rather than try to choose the best among them.
Principals say that recognizing multiple valedictorians reduces pressure and competition among students, and is a more equitable way to honor achievement, particularly when No. 1 and No. 5 may be separated by only the smallest fraction of a grade from sophomore science.
…Stratford High School (Houston): 30 valedictorians…eight High Schools in St. Vrain Valley (Colorado): combined total of 94 valedictorians…
The dean of admissions at Harvard, said he had heard of schools with more than 100 valedictorians.
[How Many Graduates Does It Take to Be No. 1? New York Times, 6/26/10.]
While recognition of ‘most improved’ is sometimes awarded in competitions, it is generally seen as a kind of also-ran award…a way of boosting the self esteem of someone who wasn’t good enough to win the appellation, ‘best.’
But in light of the recent trend among high schools of naming multiple valedictorians, perhaps our focus as educators truly needs to shift from who is best to who improved the most. While the category best is comfortable and one with which we’re culturally familiar (sporting events, talent shows, beauty contests, any forum where ratings matter, etc.), how useful is it as a gauge of growth or even potential? Sure, when we know what the ‘best’ looks like, we have an exemplar and model to strive toward. And that’s important. But once we know what realistic or even theoretical ‘best’ looks like, isn’t it the process of getting there that matters? Which tells you more about the learning that occurred:
I got an A in my math class.
or
I failed the first exam but eventually earned a B in my math class.
If we’re interested in teaching students how to improve and how to make failure a stepping stone to success (including showing grit, determination, and persistence), shouldn’t the reward and recognition be for doing those things?? Isn’t that indicative of the kind of learning that consists of far more than mere content, and that is likely to extend beyond an exam, a course, or even college? If education really does mean ‘leading forth,’ presumably from one condition or state to another (Latin, ex + ducere, ‘to lead from’), then the amount of ground covered matters, doesn’t it? The distance between where you started and where you finished?
If so, why do we focus so intently upon only the final level of performance? And, more importantly, how do we begin to shift that focus? What ideas do YOU have?
