Get ready for student achievement to improve this year — not because the kids are actually performing any better, but because District 150 has decided to lower the grading standards. For decades, the school has employed the traditional scale:
A = 93 – 100
B = 86 – 92
C = 77 – 85
D = 70 – 76
F = 0 – 69
Starting this fall, they switched to this scale:
A = 90 – 100
B = 80 – 89
C = 70 – 79
D = 60 – 69
F = 50* – 59
*Note: The student handbook says an “F” is 40-59, but a handout I recently received from the teachers said 50-59. Either way, it’s unclear to me why it wouldn’t be 0-59. What grade is it if the student earns something less than 40 or 50? Is it not still an “F”?
Obviously, this new scale makes it significantly easier to get higher letter grades, which are the only ones that go on the student’s permanent record and make up his or her grade-point average. It means that students who do work in the 60-69 range will now receive passing grades instead of failing grades. And it also means that District 150 scores will look inflated when compared to other area school districts. Here are elementary school grading scales for some surrounding communities (based on grading scales published on their school websites):
| Grade | Dunlap | Morton | G’town Hills |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 92-100 | 93-100 | 94-100 |
| B | 84-91 | 85-92 | 86-93 |
| C | 74-83 | 77-84 | 76-85 |
| D | 66-73 | 70-76 | 70-75 |
| F | 0-65 | 0-69 | 0-69 |
I’ve searched the school board minutes for some mention of this change to the grading scale and have yet to find it. I’m not the only one who was surprised. The teachers I talked to said they found out about it the first day of school via memo. Furthermore, the teachers I spoke with said they are not in favor of the easier grading scale, nor were they consulted.
So, the question is, when was this decision made, and why?
D150 has had that scale for decades, really? I am not more than a decade removed from high school (not D150) and I never attended any school at any grade level that had anything other than a 10 point range for their grading scale. I would be surprised if D150 had been using a stricter grading scale for decades.
While I understand the urge to impose higher standards, when other students from other schools are applying to the same college they’re going to be at a disadvantage when comparing gpa’s. The letter grade is a really arbitrary system to use anyway.
The tragedy of making a grading scale easier is that it deludes students and their parents into believing they are more qualified for advanced educational opportunities than they really are.
School grades represent a myriad of things, generous grading scales (see your article), grade inflation, political clout, lucky breaks (get the easy teacher for calculus), and sometimes honest effort and subject matter mastery. For admission, top colleges and universities rely on college board subject matter tests, AP tests, and IB exam scores more than grades, because these demonstrate what a student knows vs. what he or she claims to know as presented by a high school transcript. ACT and SAT scores also strongly correlate to college performance and are used as a filter for admission.
Since the State still determines the fate of a school by ISAT test results, the revision of the grading scale seems to be all “smoke and mirrors” because in the end the District appears no better in having more students passing in theory, but still not achieving “meets standards” on the ISAT.
11bravo: Let’s try a little thought experiment. Suppose we make the grading scale 85-100=A, 70-84=B, 55-69=C, 40-54=D, and 0-39=F. Would this also be advantageous for students? Why or why not?
Without getting into another argument over the minimum grade issue (I have further investigated the development of that issue and my thoughts on that part have changed…. but since it is now a district level administrative policy issue I will not discuss that component) I have to address the absolute incorrect notion that a 10 point grading scale lowers standards.
The main reason that the district had to get a unified grading system is because this is the first semester for family access to online grading and they want parents to have a consistent system. Even though there was a district policy, it was not being enforced and teachers throughout the district were using many systems (93 = 4 100 = A a 4 point system in which a 4 = A and 3 = B …. this was the system that started the 50 = 0 minimum talk).
CJ, I have had this discussion about grading scales in 2 other districts. Let’s take your logic to the extreme… let’s have a 1 point grading scale:
100 = A
99 = B
98 = C
97 = D
96 = F
Any argument that a 10 point scale reduces standards must mean that, theoretically, a 1 point scale has the HIGHEST standards. But we all know in the real world that if we used a 1 point scale the academic expectations would have to extremely low or the vast majority of students would fail.
I have successfully taught AP and honors (enriched) physics in different schools with different scales. I was able to include more challenging questions on my tests with a 10 point scale. My scores on AP exams and on state WYSE finals results went up with the 10 point scale.
In many 93-100 systems higher course teachers include 3-5 points of bonus on tests. With a 10 point system this bonus can be eliminated.
I know other TOP rated Illinois and Florida High Schools use a 10 point scale.
The key is that teachers need to increase their expectations with the 10 point system and in doing so we will increase results. I am happy that we have this new 10 point system at RHS. I am speaking with my teachers today at our SIP meeting and discussing these increased expectations.
Once again, if you go to TOP University programs such as U of I engineering they have tremendous curves in the crucial science and math subject areas. They want to find the student’s maximum potential (find the “ceiling”) and you can not find this maximum when many students are scoring 95+.
I understand the concerns that the community has with the district. I have not been on the forums much because I am involved in making change within the organization. But this part of the grading policy is not an issue.
I have a list of things that I feel need to be changed to maximize the education at RHS. Changing the grading scale was not on the list because it is so subjective and our old system can be adapted with bonus points, etc. But I welcome this system. It empowers many teachers to become more challenging. The argument that the 10 point system creates lower standards is only valid if the teacher in the classroom doesn’t change expectations. I have confidence that our teachers can adapt.
Now about the 50% minimum… well let’s just say that I wish I wouldn’t have commented on that one the last time. I have spoken with Jeff and if Sharon is at our game tonight I will speak with her about it.
Hope to see you Sharon!
There is a problem, as 11bravo alludes to, in assuming that the district wide scale matters. Most of my education K-Graduate school has used the 90/80/70… scale, and that includes a wide variety of districts/schools in a couple different states. Including high schooll at Peoria High (in D150). It all comes down to what the teacher thinks is fair as they report grades. If they think you deserve an A and you get 89.2 most teachers will find a way to give that bump (though most won’t dock you beyond what the numbers bear out. I think this news is likely 2 things – one it matches the official policy with what is likely happening AND it does allow the borderline kids look a bit better (those who get a lot of 90-92 type scores).
“The argument that the 10 point system creates lower standards is only valid if the teacher in the classroom doesn’t change expectations.”
Exactly… which the teachers could have done under the old system. What you are suggesting is changing the tests to allow a 94 student to miss more (tougher) questions on the 90 scale.
If learning were a ladder, a student who gets a 95 has successfully negotiated 19 out of 20 steps… a 90 student has successfully negotiated 18. You are suggesting putting the steps or rungs further apart so that student who does 18 rungs actually has gotten as far as the one who did 19 before.
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.
St Marks uses:
A = 94-100; B = 86-93; C = 76-85; D = 68-75; F = below 68
I don’t know if this is true at all the parochial schools.
I would also point out that most Chicago suburban high schools use the 90-100 scale (and had long before I arrived in them nearly 20 years ago now) … so JUST looking at the grades on the report card, as colleges do, our students are at a competitive disadvantage in college applications if they’re taught, say, honors math out of the same textbook using the same publisher-generated tests. (I don’t know if teachers use them, I’m just creating a stable basis for comparison.) I hadn’t seen the 93-100 scale since I was a kid, except in a few very old-fashioned Catholic schools. Didn’t use it in college, didn’t use it in grad school, and personally I wouldn’t like it. I was frankly surprised to discover it was in use in 150 and surprised parents hadn’t revolted over it long ago.
The minimum grade is a horse of a different color for me.
I am still tracking down information on the policy change; recent administrative changes have made it a little difficult to get what I need. (Is that a polite enough way to put it?) However, I’m not positive this is the sort of change the Board has input into. But I do know people have questions and I’d like to get answers for them. 🙂
My kids’ school uses the same scale as Germantown Hlls (94-100 A, etc). It does make it pretty difficult, especially since their AP classes are not weighted. My daughter is currently in AP Biology and will likely get a B. She could drop down to the lower Bio class, get an A, learn less, but have a higher GPA.
I think the grading scale really comes down to standards, should one be able to miss 10% and get an A? 20% and still get a B? To me, missing 20% on a test/assignment, etc, seems like pretty mediocre performance and should not warrant a “B” grade.
C.J. – Thanks for the post.
11Bravo’s – I would be surprised if D150 had been using a stricter grading scale for decades. For the 4+ decades that I taught 150 had the same grade scale (not the 10 pt spread).
I have some major complaints about this grade policy and how it came about.
#1 – The administration was/is trying to pass it off as a teacher decision. It was not. While it may appeal to some teachers who were on the committee in 2007-2008, I believe most were opposed. It doesn’t matter because no vote was ever taken.
#2 – As usual, the district doesn’t plan ahead, so they waited for 3 weeks into the school year to notify teachers that about the new grading policy. This spells CHAOS to students and parents and the community (and the district undoubtedly hoped that the community wouldn’t find out about it–they forgot about blogs).
#3 – I still haven’t figured out how the administration avoided the school board vote on the policy. I believe board members were completely out of the loop on this one.
#4 – As I’ve said before, the 50 being the new zero only helps students who earn a grade between 0 and 50. How fair is that?
#5 – I wouldn’t object so much to the ten-point spread if F was still from 0 – 69 instead of from 51-59. Doesn’t everyone understand how many 50s averaged with a few higher grades will end up as a passing grade?
#6 – I disagree with the part of the policy that states that students with unexcused absences (and I assume suspensions) can make up work at 100% credit.
#7 – I don’t believe that primary, middle, and high schools should necessarily have the same policies with regards to the F spread or making up work for unexcused absences. I understand some of the rationale for giving primary kids some slack–first of all 1st graders aren’t going to understand percentage grades at all–so A B C D F is more appropriate, and I understand the self-esteem argument for little kids.
High school students can and do cut individual classes–and their homework grades should be zero. I have never believed that students should get zero on tests that they missed for unexcused absences–I think they should be allowed to make up the tests even though there is a good possibility that they can find out from other students what was on the test, etc. I know that not all teachers would agree with me–I certainly see their point.
#8 – The policy specifies that homework can count only 25% of the grade–the administration may live to regret that one because sometimes homework grades are higher than tests grades (yes, cheating plays a big role in that). The policy doesn’t live much up to teacher discretion–which more often than not is in the student’s favor.
Steve, glad to see that you are once again communicating on C.J.’s blog and look forward to seeing you.
Peoria Academy, not exactly your “old-fashioned Catholic school” uses the 94-100 A scale and still maintains very high standards. I know many parents who are happy to see their children earn B grades there because of the high standards.
Whoa! C.J. says “The student handbook says an “F” is 40-59). That’s amazing! These handbooks had to be printed ahead of time. This means the decision was already “in cement” before the teachers were informed of the decision–the decision did take the teachers by surprise. Doesn’t that speak volumes about the communication between the administration and its teachers? I suppose there is a chance that the handbooks were printed late–a good possibility of that.
Its 50-59 because teachers can’t give lower than 50 no matter what the actual score is.
Mouse: Teachers were first told that 40 would be the lowest grade (that was the news for a week or more). Then suddenly the number was changed to 50. I believe the “final” policy–the blue sheet states that students who don’t do the work at all, do get 0. The earlier policy stated that even work that wasn’t done couldn’t get lower than a 50. Thank goodness for small favors! I know of one case when a student wrote only his name on the final exam. The teacher turned in the student’s name as a failure because not taking the final constitutes an F for the semester even if all other grades are A. The teacher was told that the student put his name on the final–therefore, he took it. Does anyone see how that can work with homework, too. Or that a student could just do one math problem out of 50 and still get a 50.
Michael, regardless of whether a student gets a 93 at D150 or a 93 at Peoria Academy (all things being equal) but one student gets an A and one get a B. The point is, the lettered grading system is arbitrary and by instituting a stricter scale all Peoria Academy does is disadvantage its students in comparison to those on the traditional 10 point scale. If a parent personally feels better for a child getting a B of 93% I guess that is their right but it doesn’t help their student at all.
One question that I haven’t heard discussed (and I don’t think is specified in the new policy). Does the 50 gift grade apply to tests, also? If so, there is really something wrong with this system.
I’m curious about other school district’s policy for figuring semester average. Do any of them use numerical averages? District 150 uses percentage grades for grading period grades but for many years has used A4, B3, C2, D1, F0 for semester averages. In the old days (I think even during my tenure) percentage grades were used.
With the more lenient system a 93 Average counts the same as a 99 average (now a 90, 91, 92 will count the same). This lenient system is the reason schools now have more than one valedictory. One person joked to me that Manual (because of highly inflated grades) will probably have 75 valedictorians.
With percentage averages a student who gets 0 0 70 70 will fail.
With the letter system the student who gets F F D D passes because in 150 the higher letter grade always wins out (teachers can override the grade but has to write a detailed reason for giving the student the lower of the two grades).
So an A A B B is always A (with percentages the grade could be B).
Grade inflation is nothing new and it has been going on for decades. Maybe 150 is just late for the party. Let’s keep beating the ol’ dead horse.
“Grades A and B are sometimes given too readily — Grade A for work of no very high merit, and Grade B for work not far above mediocrity. … One of the chief obstacles to raising the standards of the degree is the readiness with which insincere students gain passable grades by sham work.”
–Report of the Committee on Raising the Standard, Harvard University, 1894
Teachers don’t give number grades at all… those scores are used to determine a LETTER grade. Teachers can give 0s if they want to. They just can’t (apparently) determine a student who has a 51 average score deserves an F.
Unless I misunderstand this directive… If a student gets 0 correct answers out of 100 questions, that student scored a 0 on the exam. However, That 0 counts as a 50 for figuring the students grade. A 0 or a 50 is not a grade, it is a score. The grade is an A-F determination of what that score means in relation to the course requirements… at least that is how it theoretically works.
Please feel free to straighten me out if I am wrong on this.
The point 11Bravo is that if a student is getting a 93 at Peoria Academy they are going to study harder so as to get / keep an A. At D150 the child can slide a bit because they have an A with points to spare. It amazes me that anyone would argue that giving a child a tough solid education would be disadvantaging to the child.
Move down the scale and the problems grow. At D150 a child can now fail to grasp a huge portion of the class material and still pass the class.
As a side point I have not heard of the higher standards at Peoria Academy causing problems for students when they are ready to apply to university. The students that I have known all seem to get into top tier schools.
Yep, Micheal has it.
When our kid first brought home a paper that said 92/100=B, I thought there was an error. I grew up on the 10 point grading scale and it just seems to make sense. From an annual evalution standpoint of student progress, it would seem logical that they would take the new grading scale into consideration…. although this IS D150, so all bets are off…
Michael, no matter what a teacher still is the one deciding what they need to know. The tests are not the same at Peoria Academy as they are at ND or even within the school itself. Most assessments are TEACHER created, so why should the scale matter in the end. Mr. P has it right when he says that the scale is what you make of it. Our point is that the scale should not matter unless the teachers give all the same tests and breaks that they were giving last year. If over 90% of colleges use this scale, then why would it be too easy for a large Urban district?
Michael, my main point is that letter grades are arbitrary. If the PA student has to work harder to get an A, well thats great but its still only an A so it doesn’t matter without doing an exhaustive study of the coursework done by each student the D150 student and the PA student appear to have performed equally. So the student and the parent can feel better if they want to, but to anyone else observing the students are comparable.
11Bravo is on the money….
It is not logical to state that a 93 percent at one school is a higher standard than a 90 percent at another school without knowing what measures of assessment are being used.
Many of the top Chicago suburb and Metro East schools use a 90 scale.
The logic being used here is simply flawed. So if I want to say that my school has higher standards than New Trier I simply have to set my grading scale one point higher to get an A?
Even with a 93 scale a school can’t even state that one teacher has the same standards as another across the hall without clearly defined objectives and common assessments.
We will increase our expectations at RHS with the new scale. Combined with clearly defined objectives and assessments the reality of student learning can be measured… NOT by some arbitrary scale.
Sharon and Jeff…
Sorry I missed you at the game tonight. It was SOOOO packed and I had my kids with me. I didn’t get around much tonight.
(It was fun to watch)
What Michael seems to be describing at PA is an academically competitive environment in which students are expected to perform and are striving hard to do so. Regardless of grading scale, that is the environment the District needs to be working towards, which is a challenge with its demographics. It sounds like Mr. Ptacek is raising the bar at Richwoods which is great!
If it doesn’t make any difference what the grading scale is, then why was it necessary for the district to change it? I’m not buying the “consistency” argument — the scale has consistently been 93-100, etc., for decades. If consistency in how each individual teacher graded was an issue, that could have been addressed without changing the established grading scale.
I can see you point CJ… and I don’t have an answer. I was not involved with the district level decision and I can’t speak for other’s motivations.
I am only talking about the grading scale issue from a general educational stance that could be applied in any district.
I can only say that at RHS this will not result in lowered expectations. I also believe that we will be able to ask more challenging questions.
What parents and students really need to be able to access is whether a school’s curriculum is rigorous enough to prepare them for the challenges of higher education. I think this is very difficult for families to determine. Not a student’s individual grades, the cumulative class average, or a school’s grading scale provide the answer to this question.
Frustrated—
From my experience (both personal and educational), the curriculum difficulty is dependent on the teacher. The district provides the basic guideline for the teacher to use, but it is up to each individual teacher how they would like to teach it. I strongly believe that students get different educational opportunities in different classrooms. Some of this is due to teachers that have been around for a long while, which is why I went back to school to get my teaching degree–my oldest son had a teacher that was re-using her lesson plans from 20 years ago because she didn’t see the need to adapt them for the students she was currently teaching.
All of this just to say, I wish the district provided more guidance as to what they expect the students to be taught from the provided curriculum. When I asked about it several years ago, I was told that the curriculum is the same at every school. That is true, it is–it is just taught differently at each one as well.
Steve: Sorry we missed you last night. We had been to the swim meet to watch Mahliyah dive (got her first 5), so we left the football game at half-time–tired kids and tired adults. I agree with C.J.–except that I know why the change. 150 wants to change its graduation rate and they see inflated grades as the answer. I don’t really object to the 10-pt spread scale. I do object to 50 being zero. 50 is only 10 points from passing now that 60 is D–that will result in inflated grades. The real problem in 150 is literacy. How would any of you prepare lessons for a high school classroom where the students’ reading levels range from third grade to grade level. I know that is the case at Manual because I FOIAd the reading grades–and because I tried to teach under those conditions. There is absolutely no way to maintain standards in such a classroom. If you teach over the heads of half the class, the discipline problems will prevent you from teaching at all–and that is exactly what is happening. At last night’s game I spoke to someone who is on the advisory board for the restructured Manual. He said “Things weren’t working the old way, so something new had to be tried.” The old way meant the “old” teachers that were ousted to bring in mostly non-tenured teachers (although some did have experience). Guess what it isn’t working with the new teachers either–and it isn’t their fault either–it’s literacy. There is another factor at play, also. Many students in District 150 do not go to college (some will go later but not right out of high school). That’s the way it’s always been. But the district gives them only watered-down academics. Maybe the Johns Hopkins courses were meant to solve that problem–but 90-minute academic courses are turning everyone off. These kids do not have a 90-minute attention span and one year’s work cannot be taught (or learned) in one semester. If 150 goes through with closing a high school, I predict that next year will be total chaos–especially if there is no alternative school in place from the “get go.” Manual should be the school to close and it should be turned into the vocational/alternative school. Only 500 to 600 students would have to be moved and the non-tenured teachers would make up most of the positions that 150 wants to eliminate to save money.
Sharon – just how are you so certain “there is absolutely no way…….”? Are you in the rooms now? Do you not think it at all capable for leaders like Dr. Kherat to positively impact the culture, expectations, and discipline @MHS? I think more of her and her staffs capabilities. I understand the new science teacher has a series 75. Might not younger teachers have fresher ideas on how to connect with students from urban environments? Why weren’t we blessed with your answers to everything when you actually worked there?
“The real problem in 150 is literacy. How would any of you prepare lessons for a high school classroom where the students’ reading levels range from third grade to grade level.”
Yes, and the inability to think critically. These , of course, are skills essential for success in any later endeavor and they are not being taught in the schools.
So I guess it really doesn’t matter what grade criteria you create, or what scores = what grades. The bureaucracy is going to keep pretending to do something.. feeding into other bureaucracies children that are lost in a system they do not understand.
I can’t even begin to explain my horror at the fact that the vast majority of my students think education is about getting a better job and making more money… no wonder all they care about is grades, no wonder teachers are always looking for ways to “trick” their students into learning something.
Friend of Emerge–I don’t want anyone to mistake what I’ve said as criticism of the new teachers–they are well-qualified, etc. I don’t really want to fault Sharon either–but I would like her to be honest about the problems that she and the teachers face at Manual. Trying to cover them up was what didn’t work when I was there either. I am saying and will continue to say that literacy and discipline are the two major problems at Manual (when I was there and now) and that the district has done little to address either of those problems for the past 15 to 20 years. I personally begged for help in both areas during those years at Manual. Many, many teachers in the district have a series 75 certificate.
Kcdad: I forgot to say that I agree. Your contention that kids are programmed to think about the monetary value of what they learn is proven by the question often asked, “Why do we have to learn this stuff?” Learning for learning sake is often a foreign concept. Unfortunately, some administrators ask the same questions–they often see value in only the “practical.”
Well, first I agree with most of what kcdad said (yes thats right I actually said that). Although I don’t completely agree with Sharon’s point (and if I am taking it out of context please tell me) because learning for “learning’s sake” isn’t very beneficial at any level either. Now learning, comprehending, and then applying knowledge is a worthy goal, but that doesn’t mean that the application has to be for monetary benefit (or at last not solely).
Learning is also the training of the brain to think. Math teachers a logical progression that is beneficial to every occupation.
11Bravo: I think I was saying the same thing as Steve is saying. Also, education through high school could truly be considered learning for learning sake in that young people usually haven’t decided on a career yet–they are just being exposed to many different areas of learning. After all, the study of literature is not directly beneficial in any career except for English teachers; however, I would contend that literature adds an important dimension to life and to understanding each other, etc. Teaching is one career in which all that we have learned in every field becomes useful.
Sorry, Steve–just reread my previous post–slamming administrators again–I keep forgetting that all don’t fit the mold that I’ve put them (you) in.
I am getting to know you enough to not take offense 😉
You also bring up the second reason for students taking courses across all disciplines…
Education is also a buffet… taste a bit of everything… you never know what you are really going to like until you try it.
I just received the FOIAd information about the new grade policy that I requested. The cover letter states, “Please note the board policy was not changed. However, I responded to the request based on the assumption you were referring to the administrative procedure change that was implemented at the beginning of the school year.” I asked for the names of the person(s) who actually decided on the new policy–no such information was given, the implication being that such information is not available.
I am making the assumption that the board does have a grading policy and that it has not been changed–so what does that say about the new policy? I received the agenda and notes from each of the meetings of the committee that discussed the grading policy–and the committee’s recommendation. No where does it suggest or state that zero should become 40 or 50.
Of the 20 people on the committee (which has been called a committee of teachers that met in 2007-2008, never in 2008-2009) 4 administrators were on the committee (Taunya Jenkins, Mary Davis, Valda Shipp, Terri Dunn–maybe others whose names I didn’t recognize as principals). There were only six high school teachers on the committee–and I contend that high school teachers would have a different perspective about grading than would the primary and middle school teachers. In fact, I don’t believe all three groups should have to follow the same policy.
Clarification of my comments about grade policy: The agenda for April 2, 2008, provided a review of the preceding meeting. It states “Discussed grades for students with suspensions and unexcused absences. One possiility would be to give a foundation grade (40 or 50), allow them to make-up the work/test within a time limit and average the grade with the 40 or 50.” So the 40 or 50 in place of 0 was just discussed as a possibility. This “possibility” was not in the teachers’ final recommendations.