The Federal State Department of Education in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany introduced a policy in 2006 that entered into force in 2007 which prescribed a report-card grading of students work habits and social behaviour. Grading students’ social behaviour and work habits has a long tradition in Germany and was implemented and abolished in the different Federal States of the Republic in wavelike forms (Thomas, 2001, 2004). This paper outlines the aims and implementation of this grading - gives a critical overview on aspects which are graded and, reports results of two surveys conducted in 2008. In the fields of judging students’ work habits (1) willingness to perform (2) creditableness/elaborateness and (3) autonomy are the observed aspects. Social behaviour is divided into (1) readiness to take on responsibility (2) conflict-behaviour (3) willingness to cooperate. Following the argumentation of the Federal State Department of Education this grading supposedly offers companies an additional judgment for employment of graduates. Also it is supposed to be a supplementary instrument for teachers to grade students and to motivate lower performing students’ by offering new fields of ‘performance’ (Ministerium für Schule und Weiterbildung, 2008). The question on this policy and grading of students’ is: To what extend are the work-habits and social behaviour the actual judged and graded aspects? Regarding Rosenthal (2002) (c.f Ingenkamp, 1989; Jussim, 1986; Lombardo & Tocci, 1979; Eison, Millton & Pollio, 1986; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Thiel & Valtin, 2002) student performances within the subjects and classes are not grading the actual competences of the students. Furthermore, how can teacher observe, judge and grade competences that are not taught as a part of the curriculum and for which there is no additional time provided. There is an increase on teachers’ work but no teacher-training is offered. Besides the increase of teachers work and teachers competence the value of this innovation is questioned as well. Further, considering the perspective of the principals and companies subsequent question is raised: How do school principals and companies - who offer vocational training to students after graduation - rate this policy?

This paper presents analysis’ using data of two surveys. One study focuses on teachers’ and students’ attitude towards grades for work habit and social behaviour the other one conducts the opinion of principals and employers to the aforementioned student grading. In the first survey 212 principals and 145 employers were asked to rate the value and effectiveness of grading students work habits and social behaviour grading. The results of this study were provided to the Federal State Department of Education and offered valuation of the effectiveness of this policy. In second study 365 students and 60 teachers answered the survey to rate the grading of students social behaviour and work habits concerning the exposure and effectiveness. Beginning with descriptive results the goal of this paper is to show correlations between constructs of teacher behaviour and ratings as well as correlations of constructs of students’ behaviour and rating.

Teachers and students rating show that this policy leads to a heterogenic judgment by the relevant people. Even though the exposure of the students can be identified some of the students believe that this additional grading may lead to higher chances of getting into employment and vocational training following graduation. Principals do see the issue this policy brings in. Employers mostly rate professional competences higher than social behaviour and work habits. Considering the arbitrariness of grades for work habits and social behaviour the question must be raised whether the cons outweigh the pros so that the assessment of soft skills with grades should be dismissed.