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.
The problem has always been that we've been wishy-washy about what the 0-100 % score is measuring. Is it measuring the percent of the content that the student has learned? Or is it measuring the percent of tasks completed? We have been using it for both, and this means this scrambled percentage is often not reflective of what we want to know - if we even know what we want to know.
If a student learned 100% of the math in the unit but did 0% of the homework or classwork assignments, then what percentage to we want to assign him/her? If the student went through the motions of completing 100% of the assignments but learned only 20% of the math content, then what percentage?
This change is designed to measure content knowledge, separate from behaviors.
Also, a 50 is 20 points below failing. It's an F. But a percentage scale that gives a 0% for something not completed (regardless of what has been learned in the unit) can destroy the average of a student who actually has learned the material. It skews grading percentages so that the behavior of not completing something is MORE important than the learning of material. A student can end up repeating courses (costing additional money) where they will learn nothing new.
I would be all for continuing zeros if we eliminted the 100-point scale in favor of a 5-point one. Essentially, bottoming scores at 50 does this.
Again, I know and agree that the end goal is knowledge and being able to apply that knowledge, but in the real world the only way we have to make sure that kids are doing that in a reliable manner that can be compared and analyzed elsewhere is grades and testing. For anyone other than WCPSS to be able to figure out if the kid knows this or that, how else are we going to do it? What colleges will be interested in looking at a teacher-written essay extolling the virtues of the kid who knows all of the material but somehow couldn't turn in assignments on time or do well on tests that are designed to prove the knowledge?
That's where the separate conduct grade comes from. Kid made X for their final grade, but please note that kid has trouble turning in assignments on time.
Colleges can decide from there. They get to read transcripts. Not all colleges are full of professors that are hardcore about due dates. Maybe the kid is going to art school. Who knows?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
The problem has always been that we've been wishy-washy about what the 0-100 % score is measuring. Is it measuring the percent of the content that the student has learned? Or is it measuring the percent of tasks completed? We have been using it for both, and this means this scrambled percentage is often not reflective of what we want to know - if we even know what we want to know.
If a student learned 100% of the math in the unit but did 0% of the homework or classwork assignments, then what percentage to we want to assign him/her? If the student went through the motions of completing 100% of the assignments but learned only 20% of the math content, then what percentage?
This change is designed to measure content knowledge, separate from behaviors.
Also, a 50 is 20 points below failing. It's an F. But a percentage scale that gives a 0% for something not completed (regardless of what has been learned in the unit) can destroy the average of a student who actually has learned the material. It skews grading percentages so that the behavior of not completing something is MORE important than the learning of material. A student can end up repeating courses (costing additional money) where they will learn nothing new.
I would be all for continuing zeros if we eliminted the 100-point scale in favor of a 5-point one. Essentially, bottoming scores at 50 does this.
I think generally you get a zero if you simply don't do something assigned or turn in a test, or if you do, but the work is worth nothing (i.e. shows no knowledge). If someone knows 20% of the math content, and turns in 100% of the assignments, great effort, but still knowledge is what's important, and a score of 20% overall would still be accurate and tell everyone that this student needs to repeat this subject.
Just because someone works hard and turns in all the assignments doesn't mean they should pass the class. Similarly, just because someone knows EVERYTHING but turns in nothing and does poorly on tests also does not mean s/he should pass. I knew all the subject matter in HS, but was lazy and often did minimal work and this system encouraged me to do more of the work and prove that I knew it, else I would have had a poor GPA.
That's where the separate conduct grade comes from. Kid made X for their final grade, but please note that kid has trouble turning in assignments on time.
Colleges can decide from there. They get to read transcripts. Not all colleges are full of professors that are hardcore about due dates. Maybe the kid is going to art school. Who knows?
LOL, okay, art school excepted. I still think the current system is legit and encourages both hard work and on time work and should not be changed. But of course we are having a debate and that's just my personal opinion. It's good to hear the other sides too.
The problem has always been that we've been wishy-washy about what the 0-100 % score is measuring. Is it measuring the percent of the content that the student has learned? Or is it measuring the percent of tasks completed? We have been using it for both, and this means this scrambled percentage is often not reflective of what we want to know - if we even know what we want to know.
If a student learned 100% of the math in the unit but did 0% of the homework or classwork assignments, then what percentage to we want to assign him/her? If the student went through the motions of completing 100% of the assignments but learned only 20% of the math content, then what percentage?
This change is designed to measure content knowledge, separate from behaviors.
Also, a 50 is 20 points below failing. It's an F. But a percentage scale that gives a 0% for something not completed (regardless of what has been learned in the unit) can destroy the average of a student who actually has learned the material. It skews grading percentages so that the behavior of not completing something is MORE important than the learning of material. A student can end up repeating courses (costing additional money) where they will learn nothing new.
I would be all for continuing zeros if we eliminted the 100-point scale in favor of a 5-point one. Essentially, bottoming scores at 50 does this.
Yeah... that was where I was going with a smaller scale, roscomac. I've had college professors who were more flexible in their grading than the ones I had in high school.
Also, once a kid gets a couple of zeros, where's the motivation to do much more than perhaps the minimum anymore? Making an A or a B may be totally out... what then? What if that kid understands the concepts thoroughly, but just has trouble remembering assignment due dates? I don't know... I realize that part of school is preparing for the real world, but maybe this system does make sense. In the working world, you don't just have your boss tell you that since you missed a deadline you can give up and do something new now. You still have to complete your assigned projects, and the missed deadline is instead reflected in your yearly review. Maybe your raise is less (or nonexistent) that year. Maybe you are assigned to some sort of coursework or mentoring to improve elements of your work that aren't up to snuff... if this continues, maybe it costs you a job... but, companies invest a lot in people and if they generally do good work, they're not apt to toss someone out for any deadline missed.
In other words, in the world of work, you can fail and you can turn it all around the same year if you try. It's not like that in high school. A zero on a big project will likely result in an F for the entire course.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
LOL, okay, art school excepted. I still think the current system is legit and encourages both hard work and on time work and should not be changed. But of course we are having a debate and that's just my personal opinion. It's good to hear the other sides too.
It's good to think about all sides. It's also possible that maybe this type of grading should be considered for some types of courses (like required courses) and not for elective courses. I do think that the conduct of the child does have to factor in somehow, as they need to learn good habits.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
I understand that this is a "redefinition" of what a zero or lack of doing something means, but I still think there is a valuable lesson to be learned when you simply don't do something and get a zero for it.
The problem has been that a zero on a given item can have a devastating - sometimes insurmountable - impact on an overall grade, with the result that the full course score doesn't accurately reflect overall student performance.
As someone who has had a student who struggled, I can personally attest to how difficult it sometimes be for these students to offest the zero. If you have a student who is struggling to stay above the passing grade water level - a score of zero on an item or two will sink the average score in a way that these students can't possibly offset it.
Have to agree with Meh on this one. Having taught for 15 years AND having kids of my own ages 6-26, I can say that the strict grading is the answer or an end-all. For example, my oldest had a teacher in elementary school that wouldnt take a late assignemtn-I mean, my daughter was slow getting all of her things out of her backpack and into the classroom (YES, we did work on organization, ... but she's still that way) Anyhow, if her paper wasnt in the basket when the bell rang, it was a 0-NO exceptions. When she didnt understand a math concept and I taught it to her at home, teacher re-gave her the test where she went from a 0 to a 90-something-demonstrating what she actually learned. teacher refused to change the grade because that was what she 'earned" first and there were no re-takes allowed as grades. There are too many teachers that do not take any circumstances into consideration-not every kid can do everything in the same amount of time. Some take a day to master the content, some a week, some longer, but the end goal is for the child to learn, not to give a 0 because it wasnt turned in by the teacher's deadline.
We had a function to go to last night-a great time for kids w/ special needs and their families. We were gone from 4:30-8:30. My DD had homework that was assigned yesterday and due today. her bedtime is 9:00. She doesnt do well when overtired and by 10:00 I sent her to bed, crying because her teacher has a "No excuses" policy and if it's no turned in complete on the due date, it's an automatic 0-no exceptions. That is absurd. We do very little on school nights,but I am not going to cancel an annual outing because some teacher want to be "IT".
Some kids do nothing and still deserve a 0, but there are also many reasons for that. Where I taught before, our policy changed to standards based grading. They had to be graded on what they could do-NO more averages. Only base grades on what they have demonstrated they can do. It certainly gives more of an accurate representation of the child's abilities.
Take for example a course (such as math) that builds upon prior knowledge as you go. In a semester, say there are 15 essential objectives. As the students begins the course, s/he cannot grasp objectives 1 - 3 beyond a 60% level (test score). But as the course progresses, s/he really begins to get objectives 1-3 while they are being used in objectives 5 - 8. At the midterm, s/he scores a, 85% on an exam measuring mastery of objectives 1 - 8. Should the 60% on the first test still count in an average? What does it mean once the student has mastered the concepts?
There seems to be a reaction that students will beat the system and be lazy. That may be true for some, but their grades still won't be passing. Instead I see that students will be encouraged to keep trying, keep working to learn the material because it's never to late for that success to be recognized.
Last edited by roscomac; 10-31-2013 at 11:11 AM..
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.
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.
