I think we need to find a way to teach without grades. That is, we do know how to teach without grades at younger levels, and many schools do it successfully.
The problem is that eventually you need to measure for placement, and Goodhart’s Law kicks in and destroys the enjoyment of learning. It’s very hard to be intrinsically motivated when the external pressure dominates.
The fact that “study for the test” is basically synonymous with “study” for most people is indicative that we’re doing something extremely wrong in education.
> The problem is that eventually you need to measure for placement
Why do you need to be "placed"? I know the answer - resources.
But why can't each individual have sort of their own bespoke governess tutoring them all through school? Pay Gilbert Strang a million dollars to do a 32 week course in LinAlg. Yes I know a normal course is shorter, expand it to cover everything in exquisite detail, so even I can keep up. Alan Kay, Donald Knuth, and John Carmack can teach computer science. Continue on for each subject.
Then let students go as fast as they want. I'd have finished some subjects of HS by the time I was in 9th grade, and others I might still be trying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Where you'd still need to be "placed" is social development. Which I think should actually be a subject.
The problem is that eventually you need to measure for placement, and Goodhart’s Law kicks in and destroys the enjoyment of learning. It’s very hard to be intrinsically motivated when the external pressure dominates.
The fact that “study for the test” is basically synonymous with “study” for most people is indicative that we’re doing something extremely wrong in education.