When you were a kid was 93% an A grade, A-, or a B grade? (tuition, degree)

[history nerd]

Originally Posted by tnff

Something I find fascinating is how teachers believe there is enough accuracy in their testing methods to make such fine distinctions. That's like saying "accurate to 1%, plus or minus 5%."

As a teacher I certainly don't feel that way... And the teachers I know who think they can are generally *******s (in and out of class).

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

I would prefer standards at the District level. Parents have the most input at the local level. The higher you get, the less influence parents have.

How would you deal with the fact that students from districts with stricter policies would be at a disadvantage in college admissions?

Today however those SAT and ACT scores count at the top level. If having a tutor for test taking techniques improves the score by just 3-4 points on the ACT, while it may not mean much around the average, that's huge when you get above 28 or so. A difference between a 28 and a 32 can be the difference between a scholarship or not.

I guess things have changed, since in my day, most scholarships were determined solely by rank in class, which, at my high school, was determined by which teacher you had for AP Bio in 10th grade.

One of the things I've learned in a large bureaucracy is that the more rules, policies, and standards you create, the easier it is for someone who want to be a poor performer to hide behind the rules. More rules do not fix poor performance. If someone is already breaking the rules, why would another rule make any difference? If management doesn't enforce the rules that exist, why would they enforce another?

What I would want is that any teacher who blatantly violates the grading policies be fired on the spot, even if they have tenure. But the teachers' union would never accept that. More realistically, a student would be able to show an administrator that the teacher did not follow the proper grading policies, and the administrator would change the student's grade to follow the policies, even if the teacher is not punished. It would be an improvement over my high school which gave teacher's unlimited power to determine grades, and gave students no recourse. Note that this was not a case of administrators not properly policing teachers. This was a case of there not being any rules at all.

I'm not arguing they don't. But in a governmental organization, the intent of tenure is to prevent political pressure from influencing work performance. For a teacher that would mean being able to discuss facts, appropriate to the maturity of the students being taught, without fear of being fired for teaching said facts. Nowhere inhere does this mean the teaching of opinion, or half truths, or wrong information, or poor grading or poor teaching. Tenure is not intended to protect poor performance.

Then there needs to be some reforms to tenure.

You are referring to the Pendleton Act.

That sounds right.

But your understanding is incorrect. There is no law that says Civil Servants cannot be fired for any reason. Civil Servants can be fired any just cause reason, typically poor performance, but there are others. They cannot be fired for political reasons. IE Republicans can't fire someone for being a Democrat and Democrats can't fire someone for being a Republican. And before someone heads down that path, both parties are equally guilty of trying.

A new Federal employee must first serve a probationary period and can be fired for any reason other than political, racial, or discriminatory reasons. You can't fire someone for being black or white or male or female and so on. But you can fire them for poor performance.

After they complete probation and receive tenure, they are NOT protected from poor performance. Management just has to do the proper paperwork. Like I said, I've done it. Failure to do so is a management failure, not because of policy or law.

Then why does the New York City school district have a room that they said "bad" teachers to, where they collect their full salary for doing nothing, because they can't be fired? I know of a civil servant who openly refused to work, and sat at his desk all day and did nothing, but there was nothing that could be done about it. I know of a civil servant who sexually harassed women, and all they did was reassign him to a different position where he wouldn't be in contact with as many women.

Having served a military career before civil service, the person in charge, the Administrator in your list, is always to blame. If they have someone who is a poor performer, they should correct it early and often. If correction doesn't work, remove the person from employment in that role. If you fail to correct, it's your fault. If correction doesn't work and you allow it continue, it's your fault. If it becomes so bad it impacts someone else, it's still your fault. It's the administrator's job. Failure to do it means failure throughout the school in this example.

Then what should students and parents do when they are given the line "he/she has tenure, so there is nothing I can do about it"?

[phetaroi]

I'll tell you what I thought was always "interesting". How a teacher could give a 87% on an essay.

[tnff]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

How would you deal with the fact that students from districts with stricter policies would be at a disadvantage in college admissions?
I guess things have changed, since in my day, most scholarships were determined solely by rank in class, which, at my high school, was determined by which teacher you had for AP Bio in 10th grade.

What I would want is that any teacher who blatantly violates the grading policies be fired on the spot, even if they have tenure. But the teachers' union would never accept that. More realistically, a student would be able to show an administrator that the teacher did not follow the proper grading policies, and the administrator would change the student's grade to follow the policies, even if the teacher is not punished. It would be an improvement over my high school which gave teacher's unlimited power to determine grades, and gave students no recourse. Note that this was not a case of administrators not properly policing teachers. This was a case of there not being any rules at all.

Then why does the New York City school district have a room that they said "bad" teachers to, where they collect their full salary for doing nothing, because they can't be fired? I know of a civil servant who openly refused to work, and sat at his desk all day and did nothing, but there was nothing that could be done about it. I know of a civil servant who sexually harassed women, and all they did was reassign him to a different position where he wouldn't be in contact with as many women.

Then what should students and parents do when they are given the line "he/she has tenure, so there is nothing I can do about it"?

I'm not sure there would be that much impact on the top students just because one district graded stricter than another. There are so many factors that go into college acceptance that anyone who had a good college selection, will get into one of their top choices. And there seriously isn't that much difference in education quality among a similar group of colleges. Whether Ivy League, top non Ivy privates, or state flagships, the education is about even. Sure, there's a difference between a top school and a non ranked Podunk State Tech Community College & Truck Driving School, but a top student wouldn't be competing those schools either.

Even in those cases you mentioned, or the lack of any rules at all for your school, those are still management failures. So yes, I would still blame management.

For what students and parents should do, they can raise holy heck in board meetings, even hire an attorney if they like. The question they have to ask themselves before venturing down that path is what is the ROI? Is this the hill I want to die on? It simply comes down to the fact that you can be 100% right, and yet time moves on. Fighting it out takes a lot of time and effort. A student would have long graduated from high school and college by the time it was finally decided. It's a choice about where to put your time and energy -- into a drawn out fight that could sap your energy for other classes, or put the energy into burying the bad grade.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by tnff

I'm not sure there would be that much impact on the top students just because one district graded stricter than another.

You may have a valid point, since colleges are more focused on rank in class rather than GPA. At a school with stricter grading policies, every student will have a lower GPA, so the rank in class won't be affected. Where rank in class is problematic is when different teachers at the same school have very different grading policies. Having at least school-wide policies would avoid that problem.

There are so many factors that go into college acceptance that anyone who had a good college selection, will get into one of their top choices. And there seriously isn't that much difference in education quality among a similar group of colleges. Whether Ivy League, top non Ivy privates, or state flagships, the education is about even. Sure, there's a difference between a top school and a non ranked Podunk State Tech Community College & Truck Driving School, but a top student wouldn't be competing those schools either.

All valid points. But my question, which nobody ever answered, is, why is it that students who underperformed on standardized tests never given that same line, and, instead, it's treated like a national crisis?

Even in those cases you mentioned, or the lack of any rules at all for your school, those are still management failures. So yes, I would still blame management.

I think that is a valid point, that it was the failure of my school's administration to have standards when it came to grading, and also it was failure by administration to give teachers so much power as to allow grade overrides. One can't really fault teachers for not following a non-existent grading system, nor can you really fault teachers for exercising their power to override grades when the rules allow them to do so. Nor can you really blame students or teachers for not complaining about teachers who are not breaking any rules. Maybe students and parents should have been fighting for a more uniform grading system and to abolish teacher grade overrides, or at least have strict rules as to when they can be used.

For what students and parents should do, they can raise holy heck in board meetings, even hire an attorney if they like.

Hiring an attorney seems very extreme for a grade dispute, and I doubt that courts would want to get involved. I can only see that happening if a student is being discriminated against based on a protected class, or maybe a situation such as a student getting a 0 on an exam missed due to a religious obligation or due to Covid, but even then, you'd probably have to prove a financial loss due to the grade.

The question they have to ask themselves before venturing down that path is what is the ROI? Is this the hill I want to die on? It simply comes down to the fact that you can be 100% right, and yet time moves on. Fighting it out takes a lot of time and effort. A student would have long graduated from high school and college by the time it was finally decided. It's a choice about where to put your time and energy -- into a drawn out fight that could sap your energy for other classes, or put the energy into burying the bad grade.

That's the thing. If you try to fight something, you will likely make a lot of enemies, and any changes won't benefit you or your child, but may benefit younger students. But it takes somebody to be that first person to complain. A valid question is, how does a parent balance their responsibility to their own children with their responsibilities to society as a whole?

[Thoreau424]

I only remember:

90-100 = A
80-89 = B
70-79 = C
60-69 = D
Below 60% is an F

Simple, straightforward. A decade of numbers per grade letter.

[SkyDog77]

I seem to remember 92 as A- and 91 as B+. That was over two decades ago.

My graduate school was on a true curve for every class, so numbers didn’t matter. The class could not average over a B+.

[redguard57]

Originally Posted by mitsguy2001

But what stops a teacher from, for example, giving a student that they don’t like a C when their average is 97? Or what stops a teacher from, for example, giving the teacher’s pet, cheerleading captain, football quarterback, or PTA president’s child an A when their average is 68?

Keep in mind that my high school specifically allowed teachers to give whatever grade they wanted. It was called a teacher grade override. I mentioned several times my AP Chemistry teacher. For the 2nd quarter, I had an A on every exam and assignment, but he gave me a C+. When I asked him why, he said “because I don’t like you”. And there was nothing I could do about it. Yet posters on this forum keep defending this teacher, saying that my soft skills were likely bad, and that I needed to learn to adapt to different teachers.

In any case, I was asking, if a school actually requires that teachers follow a certain grading system (such as 90 - 100 is an A), how does the school enforce the policy for tenured teachers, who basically cannot be disciplined for breaking the rules? Remember, I had plenty of teachers (mostly in college) who openly broke the rules and reminded us that they have tenure, so they can do whatever they want and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

School policy. This kind of oversight is literally the principals' jobs. Or in college the jobs of the chairs and deans.

Tenure is not a rule breaking get out of jail free card. Willfully break the rules however many times, you get an HR flag, you can get terminated. Tenure is not license to break policy. Tenure only means there has to be documentation and a process followed. I have seen tenured faculty fired for breaking rules brazenly and repeatedly. Tenure is mainly freedom of speech protection.

Again, that is a principal's job.

[mitsguy2001]

Originally Posted by redguard57

School policy. This kind of oversight is literally the principals' jobs. Or in college the jobs of the chairs and deans.

Tenure is not a rule breaking get out of jail free card. Willfully break the rules however many times, you get an HR flag, you can get terminated. Tenure is not license to break policy. Tenure only means there has to be documentation and a process followed. I have seen tenured faculty fired for breaking rules brazenly and repeatedly. Tenure is mainly freedom of speech protection.

Again, that is a principal's job.

Then why did I have so many teachers and professors who frequently reminded us that they have tenure so they can break the rules with no consequence?

[personone]

I don’t fully remember. I believe 93 was an A-
90-93: A-
94-97: A
98-100: A+