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.
That would be school administration's job to solve. Analyzing grade data and making decisions based on it is literally their job.
At most schools I've worked for, a teacher who never assigned As would eventually be scrutinized. Most teachers are expected to have a generally normal bell curve grade distribution. Administrators respond more quickly to high failure rates. But no As would also show up on an administrators radar after several terms of continually happening, and that instructor would have to answer for why.
As a retired principal...yes (at least that's the way I've seen it happen).
I agree with both these statements when I was in school as well. Teachers could pretty much grade however they wanted and the administration could do nothing about it. Likewise, few parents would challenge teachers because at the time teachers were held up as the most educated in the community. Which is probably why there is so much pushback against teachers today. We grew up, became educated ourselves, and remember all the garbage teachers got away with when we were in school. And we simply don't put up with it the way our parents did.
There's a difference between principals who chose to do nothing about it, and not being able to do anything about it.
There was always something magic about the phrase: "If this happens again, I'm going to have to put a letter in your personnel file". I didn't have to use it often, but it never failed. Never. Not once.
Why would you expect a Normal distribution? That would only apply if the students were randomly picked from a population that was itself Normal. Yet we know, as discussed elsewhere, parents who are top performers tend to raise kids to be top performers. And those same parents tend to settle into similar communities. So the population of kids is far from Normal. There would be more reason to assume going in the student grades would not follow a Normal (bell) curve than to assume they would.
In my case I've worked for community colleges and state universities that have either open enrollment or practically open enrollment where they accept about 60-70% of applicants, so the population is pretty close to random.
What I've seen is that admissions process of the "typical" state universities basically does result in a pretty good bell curve if reasonable rigor and grading standards are applied, since they recruit from the top 3/5ths of high schools across their state. Admissions only eliminates the hopeless applicants who are in the bottom 2/5ths.
At open enrollment institutions, what I've seen is a hollowing out of the middle - more of a U-curve. Lots of failures which are overwhelmingly people who give up or drop, relatively few low Cs, and the majority of grades C+ to A-.
Given the admissions process at elite universities, I would expect almost the whole population capable of at least B level work, and C is essentially failing. I'm not surprised there's been grade inflation since the applicant pools are so much larger than they used to be; they are essentially choosing only the best students from high school. We take for granted that only 50-70 years ago, earning a high school diploma was a relatively big deal that only 50-60% of those who started, accomplished.
So an instructor who assigns no As or mostly Fs is probably doing something weird.
What I think standardized tests are useful is identifying students who, on the surface, look to be on the margin toward the bottom of that 3rd or top of the 4th quintiles, but actually do possess the skills to get through if they apply themselves. High school is kind of a prison atmosphere with different social pressures, while college is a much more liberated social dynamic. Some students respond better to the latter once they exit the high school atmosphere.
The issue is about educational access and equity. ... Or maybe I'm asking the wrong person here?
"Equity" is morally wrong. "Equity" is a mandate to discriminate - to treat people differently based on their race, religion, gender, sexual identity, and the like.
"Equity" means looking at the outcome and saying, "we have too many Asians and not enough Blacks, so let's go back and change the admissions formula."
Equality is about equal treatment: unbiased competition and impartially judged outcomes.
Equity is the opposite. Equity means equal outcomes, achieved by any means necessary, including unequal treatment, biased competition, and preferential judging. Equity is putting the thumb on the scale to achieve an outcome you want.
That's why equity is awful and reprehensible.
“Quotas†were restyled as “affirmative action.†The goal was still to give special benefits to some groups to achieve desired outcomes. Now “affirmative action†has been renamed “equity.â€
Maybe what is needed is to require teachers to give a certain percentage of each class an A, a certain percentage a B, etc.
That's called "grading on a curve." I always liked it - probably because I always "set the curve."
As a freshman in college, I recall Econ 101. Perhaps 350 in the lecture hall. The professor's grading wasn't on the curve; it was absolute. There were 100 points available in the class; 90 & above earned you an A, 80 and above earned you a B, etc.
The exams were all multiple choice. The first midterm was 15 questions (15 points.) The second was 20 questions (20 points.) The final exam was 65 questions (65 points.) And, they were all multiple choice. But - and a BIG but - if you answered the question correctly you got a point. If you left it blank, you got zero. If you answered it incorrectly you got negative 1.5 points.
If you plot the ACT percentiles, it's only linear along the middle range of grades. So you can reasonable predict there is a difference between a student who scores 28 and a student who scores 18. But above 30 or thereabout (depending on year) and at the lower end as well, there is essentially no difference between ACT scores. That to me is were some of the more egregious decisions occur. 34? You get a full ride. And a special dorm. And admission to a special program with tutors. And special events/trips/etc for just your group. 33? You get a bill. But there is objectively no difference between a 31 and a 33 and a 34.
4.0 you get a full ride and a special dorm. 3.99 you ge ta bill. But there is objectively no difference between a 3.99 and a 4.0, especially when the only difference is who gets an easy teacher vs who gets a hard teacher for a single class.
Quote:
Most scholarships, at least significant ones, aren't limited to the top 5% or 6%. I checked the college my oldest attended. They have such a program for in state students. It's really meant to ensure public institutions take students from all schools so that students aren't disadvantaged by which school they attend. The amounts awarded however, while helpful, won't cover the cost. Roughly 1/3. They also have a lower scholarship for the top 30%, but it only covers about 1/4 the cost. And these scholarships have a standardized test component -- top 6% AND 27 ACT; OR 32 ACT
I guess your experience is different from mine. Maybe things changed since when I was in school.
Quote:
This is essentially the same as stacked ranking like Welch's GE used. The problem here is a class with a lot of top students gets punished for being top students because you're forcing some to get lower grades to meet a force distribution.
There would have to be some type of adjustment to avoid that situation.
Quote:
A forced version of what happened to you across a large number of students.
No, it is not a forced version of what happened to me. It would avoid that, since it would not allow a teacher to not give any A's at all. Even if I didn't get one of the A's, it would also avoid the scenario where the other teacher gave everybody an A, so at least everybody would be playing the game under the same rules.
Quote:
I agree with both these statements when I was in school as well. Teachers could pretty much grade however they wanted and the administration could do nothing about it. Likewise, few parents would challenge teachers because at the time teachers were held up as the most educated in the community. Which is probably why there is so much pushback against teachers today. We grew up, became educated ourselves, and remember all the garbage teachers got away with when we were in school. And we simply don't put up with it the way our parents did.
Exactly! And the only way to limit the amount of damage teachers can do is by having standardized tests, or, at the very least, a standardized set of rules that teachers should have to follow when grading, but you seem to oppose both of those for whatever reason.
There's a difference between principals who chose to do nothing about it, and not being able to do anything about it.
From the point of view of a student who gets an unfair grade, there is effectively no difference between a principal who chooses to do nothing about it vs a principal who can't do anything about it.
Quote:
There was always something magic about the phrase: "If this happens again, I'm going to have to put a letter in your personnel file". I didn't have to use it often, but it never failed. Never. Not once.
But the teachers that I had made it very clear that they had tenure and that they could not be fired, so they didn't care. I had only one teacher explicitly tell us students about his personnel file, and how he had several comments in his file, but he didn't care because he had tenure.
So an instructor who assigns no As or mostly Fs is probably doing something weird.
That scenario rarely comes up since the teachers who refuse to give A's tend to give a B to almost every student, not an F.
Quote:
What I think standardized tests are useful is identifying students who, on the surface, look to be on the margin toward the bottom of that 3rd or top of the 4th quintiles, but actually do possess the skills to get through if they apply themselves. High school is kind of a prison atmosphere with different social pressures, while college is a much more liberated social dynamic. Some students respond better to the latter once they exit the high school atmosphere.
Such students should just be told that life isn't fair, just like the students who get stuck with hard teachers are told.
There's a difference between principals who chose to do nothing about it, and not being able to do anything about it.
There was always something magic about the phrase: "If this happens again, I'm going to have to put a letter in your personnel file". I didn't have to use it often, but it never failed. Never. Not once.
How does that help the students that have already been screwed over? Damage is already done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations
That's called "grading on a curve." I always liked it - probably because I always "set the curve."
As a freshman in college, I recall Econ 101. Perhaps 350 in the lecture hall. The professor's grading wasn't on the curve; it was absolute. There were 100 points available in the class; 90 & above earned you an A, 80 and above earned you a B, etc.
The exams were all multiple choice. The first midterm was 15 questions (15 points.) The second was 20 questions (20 points.) The final exam was 65 questions (65 points.) And, they were all multiple choice. But - and a BIG but - if you answered the question correctly you got a point. If you left it blank, you got zero. If you answered it incorrectly you got negative 1.5 points.
I think 3 of us earned an A.
I prefer an absolute scale, if the scale is made known in advance and the professor actually grades on it. That way I at least know what to study and what is expected of me. Grading on a curve puts students at risk of what others do on that particular test, not what is actually learned. For example, how would a professor curve this: 96 72 27 14 12 8. (Actual class scores from one of my exams in Mech 301). Is that a bad test, bad teaching or bad students?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
4.0 you get a full ride and a special dorm. 3.99 you ge ta bill. But there is objectively no difference between a 3.99 and a 4.0, especially when the only difference is who gets an easy teacher vs who gets a hard teacher for a single class.
.
To be specific, the full ride scholarships at that college should be just what you're looking for -- they're awarded on standardized test scores, interview, and essay.
For the other two I mentioned, the min GPA is 3.5 and 3.0 respectively.
And yes, things have changed greatly since I was in college. These types of scholarships didn't exist at all. Back then you competed with all other students on academic merit. There was no leveling for the quality of high school in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
No, it is not a forced version of what happened to me. It would avoid that, since it would not allow a teacher to not give any A's at all. Even if I didn't get one of the A's, it would also avoid the scenario where the other teacher gave everybody an A, so at least everybody would be playing the game under the same rules.
.
That's how forced ranking works. Doesn't matter the actual mix of abilities in the room only so many get an A. So how do you choose which of the A students get the B when you have more A students than A slots?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
Exactly! And the only way to limit the amount of damage teachers can do is by having standardized tests, or, at the very least, a standardized set of rules that teachers should have to follow when grading, but you seem to oppose both of those for whatever reason.
I think most people who oppose standardized tests see it as standardized tests do more damage to more people that's harder to overcome than an individual teacher can.
How does that help the students that have already been screwed over? Damage is already done.
...
First of all, I didn't claim that it did.
However, in my school system, the ultimate arbitrator of a questioned grade was the principal. And I occasionally used that power.
However, it was like many injustices -- fewer actual cases of unprofessional grading than claimed. And I was always quite sensitive to it because of my own experience back in high school.
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.
