Part of the new grading scale at District 150 this year includes this directive:
If a student puts forth the effort and completes an assignment but receives less than 50%, the grade shall be recorded as 50%.
This means that when a student earns a low score, he receives a higher score. It means that if a student takes a quiz with ten questions on it, and he only gets two questions right, he’ll essentially be credited with getting five questions right. He didn’t really get five questions right, but we’re going to put it on the books that he did. We’re going to lie about his achievement. Call it what you want, justify it as you will, the bottom line is the district has now made it a policy that teachers must lie about their students’ achievement if that student earns a grade less than 50%.
It’s hard to fathom how a group of educational experts could come up with such a system — a system that gives credit where credit isn’t due — and defend it. The justifications I’ve heard for this policy seem to indicate that the most important thing in education is not actually learning (or, God-forbid, mastering) the material. Instead, the most important thing is to maintain a child’s self-esteem and motivation to learn. Getting low scores reduces the child’s self-esteem and lessens their motivation to learn. Hence, the solution is to artificially eliminate the lowest scores.
Did you see that? The blame is placed on the scoring, not on the performance. If we can just fix the scores, then we’ve solved the problem! That’s like seeing the check engine light go on in your car, taking the bulb out so it doesn’t light up anymore, and thinking you’ve fixed your engine.
One of the things that lowers a student’s motivation, they say, is if he somehow misses a big assignment (earning a “0”) or really blows it on a test (earning a very low score), and discovers that it will be mathematically challenging to bring his semester average up as a result. Now, back in the educational dark ages when I was a child, that student could dig himself out of that hole by doing extra-credit assignments to bring up his overall grade. That is, he could do extra work to earn that higher grade. But in our more enlightened era, educational experts have determined that it’s better to just give the student credit he didn’t earn instead — and you’re just an old fuddy-duddy who probably favors nuns rapping students’ knuckles with a ruler if you believe in those old, hackneyed values of earning the grade.
I’m surprised the district didn’t just decide that 60% would be the lowest grade attainable — 60 being the new passing-grade cutoff. After all, under the new grading system, it’s still possible (albeit difficult) for a child to fail. Why not remove the possibility completely? Instead of giving out failing grades for failing work (and risk demotivating the students), why not just declare that all work (or even no work) is passable? Imagine how happy (and presumably motivated) our school kids will be then!
I probably shouldn’t have suggested it. The district just might do it.
This is absurd. The last thing D150 should be doing is boosting self esteem. In this age of “every kid gets a trophy” all we seem to be reinforcing with this type of behavior is the goodie complex whereby children seem to think they’re entitled to various treatments or things they didn’t earn. The concept of working for something goes out the window which will set these students up for some true hard knocks later in life when they realize that everyone doesn’t get a trophy unless they really do earn it. How could this possibly be good for the education of any child, and how then does this policy impact those who actually want to learn, it doesn’t seem to be a good motivational policy because those students that try to learn don’t get a free boost from a B to an A if they don’t make the mark they wanted.
When my son was a freshman in high school (not 150) he was given a project to do in Algebra. My son worked on this, asking me for advise. The day it was due, he was eating breakfast just before leaving for the bus(yes, he rode a school bus) and I reminded him not to forget the big poster (leaning against the wall, next to the door) as I was leaving for school (yes I am a D.150 teacher). Well, guess what? This 14 year old left his project and remembered as the bus was pulling up to the stop. He didn’t know what to do so he went to school and explained this to his teacher. She said, I’m sorry, its a responsibility factor. He turned it in the next day (with a note from me, explaining that it had been done, just overlooked) and got a ZERO. This was worth 40% of his semester grade. This was an enriched class worth more than a regular class and his semester grade was a 59%–F. His report card came to our home via the mail on the day before Christmas. Now remember, my son did all of his homework, took every test and quiz, but because he turned in a project a day late, he ended up failing this class. BUT, let me say, this was the best thing that EVER happened to him. From then on, he NEVER missed another assignment, never put off doing school work, and NEVER failed another class. Yes, a difficult life lesson, but if our children NEVER get the “short” straw, how can we expect them to compete in a “global” market? By the way, my son is very successful today in his field and tells me that he will never forget the teacher who expended “tough love”.
If utilized properly, I can understand how this grading system could work at least as well as the previous.
Certainly a teacher can feel justified in creating more difficult and challenging tests and assignments without fearing this would adversely affect a fair distribution of grades. In this way the students are challenged to better master the material.
I would argue that those students who were going to fail in the previous grading methodology are unlikely to do any better upon being confronted with more arduous tasks despite the bonus of the new grading system.
Just based on my assumptions since I haven’t taught in a classroom nearly 40 years.
“The justifications I’ve heard for this policy seem to indicate that the most important thing in education is not actually learning (or, God-forbid, mastering) the material. Instead, the most important thing is to maintain a child’s self-esteem and motivation to learn. Getting low scores reduces the child’s self-esteem and lessens their motivation to learn.”
From what I have learned so far, this is a nationwide movement — I’ve talked to teachers at other schools using the same system — and that’s pretty much exactly the justification, especially at the junior high level. There seems to be some research justification for it. I still think it’s stupid.
Spikeless: If the teacher makes harder assignments, the only group that will benefit from this policy are those who get a grade up to 50. If the assignment or test is hard, the students who earn about 51 will get no help at all from this policy.
Eyebrows: Of course, I am with you–it is stupid. Also, I have come to believe that self-esteem is built in a child’s early years–high school is a little late to start building self-esteem. So many teen-agers are in trouble because their self-esteem was destroyed early on–probably before they ever entered a classroom.
God forbid anyone should have to suffer negative consequences for poor performance. That is just so passe’.
All this does is push the problem off to colleges and junior colleges, who will increasingly feel pressured to offer remedial education courses to make up for what the student didn’t learn in high school.
I couldn’t help but notice and be startled by the following statistics from the Journal Star. In 2008-09, Peoria High had a graduation rate of 80% and Woodruff had a graduation rate of 92%. Both are pretty respectable averages and would suggest that things might be alright. But…. then you see only 25% of students at Peoria High meet (or exceed) minimum English & math performance standards…. Woodruff 21%…. I’m like WTF. How do you have a 92% graduation rate and only 21% know what they are expected to know? There is a serious disconnect there.
What is even sadder is that District 150 quite some time ago decided that children, especially teen-agers, can’t live up to expected standards of behavior, so 150 did away with almost all meaningful consequences for bad behavior. District 150 seems to believe that lowering standards will motivate young people to achieve higher standards. Surprise! They have lived down to 150’s expectations.
Mahkno – You hit the nail on the head. How can the graduation rate increase when the scores go down? District 150’s motiviation for making 50% passing is not to build esteem–it is to raise the graduation rate to make 150 look good on paper. Sure it will! However, I would disagree with you on one point. The ACT portion of the NCLB test does not test for minimum standards.
Looking at this new grading system, there will be less of a need for summer school and perhaps less children will qualify for Special Ed services. hmmmm???
Jenny, smart thinking!!! Is this how they are going to solve the problem of “too many in Special Ed?”
Sharon-
Why should the students be expected to live up to the “expected standards of behavior” when there are adminstrators that have not had to do so???? Our teachers and administrators should be the role models for the students. What happens when some of the role models don’t follow rules, engage in unethical behavior and commit crimes?
Sharon – you suggested “If the teacher makes harder assignments, the only group that will benefit from this policy are those who get a grade up to 50. If the assignment or test is hard, the students who earn about 51 will get no help at all from this policy.”
I agree that the failing student or marginal student would receive no benefit from the new system, nor do I think that they necessarily should. That was part of the point of my comment. The students who excel will have the opportunity to further push their learning envelope by being confronted with a more challenging system while there is no inherent grade reward for non-performers.
Spikeless: I do get your point–the students who strive to excel will benefit inspite of 150’s efforts to lower expectations. The students who are given a grade will not benefit. I firmly believe that this new grade policy says to students, “You are too dumb to get above a 50 on your own, so we’ll at least give you that much.” Talk about building self-esteem! How does giving undeserved credit build self-esteem? Kids will get that message and they will be embarrassed by this gift–and the other students will see to it that they are embarrassed.
Ladies and Gentleman, welcome to SOCIAL PROMOTION.
Sharon – I’m just not clear that the system will give undeserving people a grade in the absence of teachers simply opting to choose to do so.
Let’s make the following 6 assumptions for discussion purposes:
1- There are 100 questions on a test.
2- Under the previous grading system I needed 70 correct for a passing grade.
3- I could only correctly answer 60 questions on the previous test .
4- Under the new system I need answer only 50 correct to achieve a passing grade.
5- The teacher has now removed the 20 easiest questions from the old test.
6- The teacher has added 20 questions that are more difficult than any that previously existed on the test.
How am I better off in this setting than I was previously? I still am unable to correctly answer the 40 questions that I missed under the old system, I now am capable of only answering 40 questions correctly since now only 40 of 60 that I previously had correct remain on the test and I am confronted with an additional 20 questions that render me clueless. I still fail, do I not?
Spikeless: First of all if you get only 50 of 59 out of 100 correct, your grade is 50 or 59–still failing. However, if you get only 10 right, your grade isn’t 10, it’s 50. And that 50 averaged with an 80 and a 70 will be 67 and that’s a D. That’s not really part of your argument. Yes, of course, teachers can outfox this system by seeing to it that the homework and tests are harder than before. The district might not be smart enough to figure that out. However, C.J. has pointed out what is really wrong with the system. It sends the wrong message to students–that they can get credit for work they didn’t do.
Vonster: At the high school level, it’s social graduation.
Isn’t it ultimately the teachers’ responsibility, rather than the District, to develop the method ensuring that the students are making satisfactory progress?
Spikeless: Wouldn’t you think so? I guess that’s the new buzz word micro-management. Clearly, the district doesn’t trust its teachers to make judgments aboiut student progress, etc.
Spikeless says:
So what you’re saying is that the teacher is modifying the test to get the grade(s) he/she wants from the students. If the grading scale gets easier, the teacher makes the test harder. If the grading scale is harder, the teacher makes the test easier.
To put it another way: The teacher is manipulating the test to produce a predetermined range of scores instead of measuring the learning of the students against objective benchmarks. That would make such tests utterly meaningless. All they do is lend an illusion of objectivity to grades that are, in reality, contrived.
You’re not making me feel better about this system.
CJ–I believe kcdad was hinting around that grading was subjective, not objective.
“Grading is arbitrary. I don’t care how tough your tests are, how specific your rubrix, or how good a teacher you are. When push come to shove, grading reflects the teacher’s much more than the student’s abilities. I always love when one teacher gives 5 points for attendance and another 5 for class participation, 5 more for this and that and the student ends up with a 150 out of 100. Another student ends up with a 100 because of all the extra points when they “earned” a 50. SO is the grading now based on 150 or 100? It is all BS.
Student athletes are often getting 4.3 GPAs or 5.25 GPAs out of 4 and 5 point scales… it is just ludicrous.
Why don’t we just stop grading kids and go back to the notes the teachers wrote on the report cards… they, at least, had meaning to them.”
As a teacher, I realize that the grades/numbers students receive on a test don’t necessarily reflect what they have learned but how well I have taught them to regurgitate/memorize. I hate giving grades based on numbers. I would much rather give grades based on content knowledge shown through other mediums. It allows students to showcase both their knowledge of the material and their creativity.
Keith said, “Our teachers and administrators should be the role models for the students. ” You are wrong. A childs role models should be in the home and the church, not in school teachers.. Teachers can’t teach children that have no support at home. Parents need to take responsibility of raising their children, not push it off onto the schools.
I don’t think many teachers will change their course material in response to the change in grading. I think once teachers get their curriculum and lectures figured out the first time, they are loath to change them. I never knew many established teachers who ‘followed’ the book. They always seemed to adapt the new textbook material to their own ‘notes’ not the other way around.
I could be wrong tho….
Ben, one thing you have to appreciate about the POWER of teachers is that they are the first real “objective” evaluation of the child. Before schools, children get subjective evaluations all the time from friends, siblings, parents and other relatives and neighbors… teachers are important socially because here for the first time, often, children find out there are objective rules, objective standards and there are other people who do things differently than mom and dad.
Mommy and Daddy may think you are all sunshine and sugar candy, but the real shock comes when the teacher doesn’t think your antics are quite so… cute.
Parents are NOT (unfortunately) the best role models for kids.
“YOUR Mom and Dad, may have been, but “THEIR’S weren’t.
kcdad, I will agree with you to a point. My concern is the that parents that never spend time with their kids, helping them with their homework, making sure they eat right and go to bed at a reasonable time. They then send them off to school and when the kids get failing grades, the parents blame the school.
Many parents nowadays don’t parent their children, they co-exist with them.
Some of the discussions about how teachers grade seem to assume that all assignments and tests are True-False and/or Multiple Choice. Objectivity is easier on such assignments. However, many assignments and tests require essay answers–hence, the problem with teacher subjectivity. Personally, I went to great lengths to insure that I graded all students’ answers, using the same criteria. Before grading any papers, I would decide what information I expected to find in a student’s answer. If an assignment or test consisted of ten essay answers, I would grade everyone’s number one answer, then number two, etc. I did that so that my criteria for that particular question was fresh in my mind. In response to C.J.’s questions about grading. I do think it’s fair (especially, on an essay test) to add one or two more difficult questions that probably only the better students will answer correctly.