Group Grading: A Spewing of Anger

The grading system for First Year Comp proves especially problematic for the following reasons (Disclaimer if the three people in my grading group and this class read this---it's not directed at you):

1) Lunsford discusses in our teaching handbook how instructors should monitor progress and grade according to this progress as the semester continues. I can monitor my student's progress and teach in a way that tries to cover 71 learning abilities, but their papers are subject to random grading procedures not a learning scale like Lunsford describes. I think this isolated-random grading eliminates those students who might become better writers and those who suck at writing, and benefits only those students who excel in the art of writing.

2) In grading I must depend on a group. The whole collective learning/working theory rears its ugly head when group members do not comply-meet the individual quotas, or the system does not monitor--keep their activity in line (like a real job--that's what it is, right?). Grading in groups also proves frustrating, because I grade other students papers while my students whose papers have yet to be graded ask about their grades and want to monitor their improvement. I think if individual instructors graded their own students' papers (make them blind submissions) then the dynamics of communication and trajectory of learning would level on the instructor/student sphere.

3) In light of point 1 and 2, my work hours would decrease if I graded my own papers, because no longer do I have to run between the middle man checking on my student's progress and adjusting my teaching as the grades slowly drop from the sky.

I realize that my opinion as a first-year newbie doesn't weigh in on the larger theoretical debate. However, for this week and the week before, this topic puzzles me and makes me struggle with the system at large.