Do these grades seem high? (college, counselors, county, middle school)

[AusParent]

In our child's middle school grade, 28% (out of 250) of the students are on the honor roll, which is 3.875 (94.5%) and higher. Does this seem high? Is it an indication that the course work is too easy?

[city_data91]

Yes. Something seems off when 28% of students have a 94.5 or higher. Do they weight grades for honors classes? If so, then maybe I could understand.

[AusParent]

That's a great question that I hadn't asked and I will. I did some further analysis. According to the data, 53% of the students have a GPA of 88% or higher. That's a lot.

[CaliTerp07]

Educational statistics make me scratch my head sometimes.

If a factory set metrics, and met them...would you say that the metrics were too low, or that the business did a good job meeting them?

Why then, when a school sets standards and metrics, do we freak out when students actually meet them? I once observed a teacher who said that her test was too easy--the whole class got A's and B's. Shouldn't metrics be set before a unit is taught? Write your tests, then teach the unit, then assess the kids to make sure they know everything you want them to know. We see this all the time on standardized tests too (though the opposite). 50% of kids didn't pass the test? Crap, obviously the test was too hard.

Without knowing anything about the school or the teachers or policy, I don't know that you can make a blanket statement about whether the grades are too high or not. I know here, there are county wide unit assessments (so all algebra 1 students take the same chapter 1 exam, regardless of their teacher). If that's the case, the standards are set--and kids are meeting them. That's great! If on the other hand, there are a lot of fluffy assignments without quantitative grades attached, there may be grade inflation going on. Hard to say.

The real question seems to be whether honor roll should be honoring the top x% of students, or whether it should be a set GPA, and anyone who reaches it is on the roll (even if it's 1% or half the school)

[greenvillebuckeye]

Originally Posted by CaliTerp07

Educational statistics make me scratch my head sometimes.

If a factory set metrics, and met them...would you say that the metrics were too low, or that the business did a good job meeting them?

Why then, when a school sets standards and metrics, do we freak out when students actually meet them? I once observed a teacher who said that her test was too easy--the whole class got A's and B's. Shouldn't metrics be set before a unit is taught? Write your tests, then teach the unit, then assess the kids to make sure they know everything you want them to know. We see this all the time on standardized tests too (though the opposite). 50% of kids didn't pass the test? Crap, obviously the test was too hard.

Without knowing anything about the school or the teachers or policy, I don't know that you can make a blanket statement about whether the grades are too high or not. I know here, there are county wide unit assessments (so all algebra 1 students take the same chapter 1 exam, regardless of their teacher). If that's the case, the standards are set--and kids are meeting them. That's great! If on the other hand, there are a lot of fluffy assignments without quantitative grades attached, there may be grade inflation going on. Hard to say.

The real question seems to be whether honor roll should be honoring the top x% of students, or whether it should be a set GPA, and anyone who reaches it is on the roll (even if it's 1% or half the school)

thats kind of what we're required to do at the school i teach at. we're required to administer what is a called a diagnostic exam (basically the final exam) sometimes called a pre-test to kids at the beginning of the year. we record the data and then when we give them the final exam at the end which is 99.9% similar to the pre - test, we collect that data and see if the kid really improved. mind you its not perfect. our school also uses this method to compare teachers because teachers who teach the same subject use the exact same tests. now the pre test has no bearing on the kids grade mind you. the final exam definitely does.

i know at my school kids who get AP and IB courses are weighted as are honors course. college prep courses (the lowest level) are not weighted. i know a kid who has a 5.5 GPA but thats b/c he takes nothing but IB courses. keep in mind that when it comes to college admissions guidance counselors have to use a GPA converter to adjust the weighted GPA to a "normal" 4.0 gpa scale.

[lkb0714]

Compare the grades to the state standardized testing results. If the scores are inline with grades (i.e. 53% or more of the students are advanced proficient) than it is not grade inflation.

Some schools do not have a normal distribution of students so you would not expect them to have a normal distribution (bell curve) for grades.

[Ivorytickler]

It depends. What is the aim of the school? A normal distribution curve or mastery learning. I think we're getting away from the idea that half our kids should be below average (WRT grades that is) and moving towards the idea that an A represents not a place on a curve but having mastered the material.

I am struggling to get anywhere near a normal curve with my students. The harder I make tests, the harder the top 60% of my kids work to attain the goal. Unfortunately, the kids at the bottom feel defeated. I am teaching what I should. My students are learning what they should. I just have 70% of my students at a B- or better. What, if anything, should I do about that? What is the goal? To rank students or to give a grade that reflects what they learned? My students are very competitive for grades. Many of my B students would have been A students in the charter school I worked at. I teach more and deeper than I did there and still have too many A's...or is there really a such thing as too many A's when you're teaching the content?

[sll3454]

Originally Posted by Ivorytickler

It depends. What is the aim of the school? A normal distribution curve or mastery learning. I think we're getting away from the idea that half our kids should be below average (WRT grades that is) and moving towards the idea that an A represents not a place on a curve but having mastered the material.

I am struggling to get anywhere near a normal curve with my students. The harder I make tests, the harder the top 60% of my kids work to attain the goal. Unfortunately, the kids at the bottom feel defeated. I am teaching what I should. My students are learning what they should. I just have 70% of my students at a B- or better. What, if anything, should I do about that? What is the goal? To rank students or to give a grade that reflects what they learned? My students are very competitive for grades. Many of my B students would have been A students in the charter school I worked at. I teach more and deeper than I did there and still have too many A's...or is there really a such thing as too many A's when you're teaching the content?

In a horse race, horses give all they can. Sometimes they give more than they can, and they break down.

It sounds like you've already made the necessary adjustments. I wouldn't go any farther. If you do, you'll cause a new problem for yourself. I've been there. Or, if you do make it harder to get an A, just make sure it doesn't get any harder to get a B.

[sskkc]

To the OP - is that just for the first quarter, or is it a cumulative GPA? Here at my son's intermediate school, they have a Merit Society, for well behaved kids who get straight A's. There are always more kids in it the first quarter - and then they start dropping after second quarter grades pop up or after they've gotten into trouble for this or that.

[golfgal]

Are you sure that is just an "A" honor roll? For first quarter, it might not be all that high, see how many are left by 4th quarter and that will be more telling.