Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that a teacher should have a standard baseline set. If you can demonstrate that you are capable of doing x, y, and z, that will get you an A. If everyone in the class that year can do it, I would be THRILLED to give out 100 A's. If no one does it, there won't be any A's.
I have no issue with making material more challenging or pushing kids further when they're smart, but I don't think it's appropriate to curve grades in high school (and definitely not in elementary or jr. high). I also don't think it's fair to set the standard, see your kids are beating it, and then penalize them. "I know that solving equations in 1 variable is what I said you needed to do to earn an A, but since you guys all rocked that out of the water, I'm only going to consider that a C now. You have to be able to solve equations in 2 variables to get an A now."
The standards are set--meet them. I love rubrics for this reason. Tell the kids what they need to do to achieve an A, and then set them loose. Find ways to encourage them to go above and beyond and do more, but I don't think it's fair to penalize them for not doing it.
If everyone gets 100% on everything the material isn't challenging enough. Colleges look at these things too. If they have 40 kids that graduate as "valedictorian" colleges are going to know that the school wasn't challenging and they are not going to admit these kids. Their standardized tests will also attest to this because it won't be consistent with their GPA. You are going to end up with a lot of 4.0's scoring 26 on an ACT, for example.
Yep. My wife's best friend has a daughter who was a straight A student in school. Her mother bragged a great deal about her perfect grades, blah blah blah. Yet, in normal conversations with this girl, I never saw shining intelligence. She didn't like to read, had no curiosity about the outside world, and generally expected her parents to do everything for her. In fact, I suspect the daughter made perfect grades because her mother pretty much pushed, prodded, and helped the poor girl every step of the way.
She made a 21 on her ACT. She took it again and made something like a 22. Evidently, never was able to get her score above a 23. What's more, we know other kids who attend non-demanding schools who, if you look at their report cards, you'd think were luminaries. But the standardized tests show that they're just average.
I work for an affluent district and one of the arguments parents give me for pushing their child's grade up is that this is (insert district name here)!! A As if that means there should be more A's given. My thoughts are that A's should be harder to get in a better district. I'm trying to come up with a good argument for the parents. I think giving more A's because we're a better district means we're watering down what it means to get an A. To me, our being a better district means that a B+ in our district stands equal to an A in the next district over not that we give more A's. Parents, however, seem to think we should give more A's.
What are your thoughts and how would you argue this one with the parents? Out of 146 students, I gave 17 A's. I think that's plenty but I have several parents complaining that their child got an A- or B+ and should have gotten an A because "This is (insert district name here)". IMO, an A in our district should be better than an A in the next district over because our students are more capable. How do I win this one with the parents?
I would've just replied with, "The State of ____ sets the standards for your student's curriculum, not the individual school district or even the teacher. Your child's grade is a reflection of whether or not those standards were met."
What would happen if everyone does poorly on a test lets say. Saying that, still some kids would do better than others. Lets say that a single child answered 50% of the questions correctly and the remainder of the class answered from 0% on up to 50% correct. Do you still give out an A? Or if a spelling test is given and all the students answer correctly how does the bell curve work then? In as much as this is acedemic and only for our knowledge and is not meant to cause too large of stir, could you explain how the bell curve is benefitial towards my two examples?
What would happen if everyone does poorly on a test lets say. Saying that, still some kids would do better than others. Lets say that a single child answered 50% of the questions correctly and the remainder of the class answered from 0% on up to 50% correct. Do you still give out an A? Or if a spelling test is given and all the students answer correctly how does the bell curve work then? In as much as this is acedemic and only for our knowledge and is not meant to cause too large of stir, could you explain how the bell curve is benefitial towards my two examples?
If I've done my job and those were the results, then I'd say the test was flawed and adjust the grades accordingly. Teachers still have a little bit of autonomy to be able to make those type of judgement calls.
If I've done my job and those were the results, then I'd say the test was flawed and adjust the grades accordingly. Teachers still have a little bit of autonomy to be able to make those type of judgement calls.
Agreed. When I was teaching I had a few times where the kids just didn't get it (as a group). In those few cases, I re-taught and re-tested the material.
Agreed. When I was teaching I had a few times where the kids just didn't get it (as a group). In those few cases, I re-taught and re-tested the material.
There's probably no hotter topic in education than grades. But here's my two cents:
I think grades should measure mastery.
A perfect teacher would get all kids to mastery.
So, if grades measured mastery then all "A's" would be a good goal.
Unfortunately, grades don't measure mastery. They measure whatever an individual teacher decides to measure. Covering your textbook get you points toward a grade in some classes. Showing up with a pencil gets you points in some classes. And then there's the issue of zeros. If a teacher doesn't let a student make up missed work, and gives them a zero, they're really telling the student that "What you missed was important and I'm going to make sure you never learn it." Or, they might be sending the message that "What you missed was so unimportant that it's not worth having you do it."
Each time another score (or another zero) is entered into an average, it dilutes the meaning of the average. Picture trying to get an average temperature during a five day period of time in your city. Let's say you forget to take the temp. one day and just record a zero. When you get an average for the five days would it be an accurate measure of reality? No. Averaging scores and then using one letter to represent a range of those averaged scores is not an accurate way to measure mastery of anything. The whole system of letter grades needs to be overhauled and we need to look at better ways to report degrees of mastery on specific outcomes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.