Baltimore to ban grades lower than 50%?

[Emily's Cat]

The method by which actuarial exams are graded were interesting to me. Grades were assigned on a 0 to 10 basis, although it was only possible to achieve a 0 grade if you filled out nothing at all on your exam.

A grade of 6 was the minimum passing grade.

Multiple choice and True/False questions obtained a pass/fail mark, which was applied to the pre-set point value of the question. Some questions might be worth 1 point, others might be worth 5 points. There was a broad variety of values assigned.

Essay and List questions, as well as detailed calculation-based questions could achieve partial credit. In most cases, the grader has a list of items that are being looked for in the answers, with each item worth a pre-determined number of points... the point value of all of the items on the list exceeded the point value of the question in almost all cases. This meant that it was possible to get full points on a question even if you didn't answer exhaustively every item the test-designers considered allowable. There was some degree of judgment involved in interpreting the written answers.

Each test is graded by two people. If their grades are within a point of each other AND both grades fall into the pass or the fail ranges, then the higher grade is assigned and the test is considered complete. If the grades were further apart than that, or spanned the pass/fail mark, then the test was reviewed by a third party.

An overall review of the exam is performed after each test. Any questions where nearly everyone got it wrong are reviewed and a determination is made as to whether the test is potentially misleading, contains an error, or was attributed an inappropriate point value (i.e. a 10 point question based on a footnote of an optional reading - yes, that has happened). If a question is determined to be problematic, that question and it's associated point value is removed from the total, and the grades are recalculated on the new point basis.

It seemed like a pretty fair way to handle grading on a complex topic... Even though the pass rate when I went through hovered at about 35% for the first try, and about 60% for a second try. The wash-out rate was pretty spectacular at a few key tests, and at the highest level tests the pass rate was usually a bit higher than that.

Anyway, just figured this might be interesting to a handful of people, with respect to how things might be graded.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But you wouldn't need a massive top heavy bureaucracy if it was kept simple.

More seriously, no grading system is ideal. Some systems have disadvantages and some are pure lunacy. Giving somebody 50% for nothing is an example of the latter.

Why?

I'm not trying to be a pain here, just questioing your reasoning. If a student consistently does nothing, they end the year with a score of 50%... but that is still an F. It's still a fail.

If, on the other hand, a student goes through a rough patch (let's say their parents get divorced or someone dies), they have some chance to end the year with a grade that's more representative of their knowledge and ability.

Consider a simple scenario of 5 grades. On the first two, you get a B, which translates to an 80%. Then your mom dies in a car crash and you fall apart. You miss two assignments.

What grade do you have to get on your last assignment in order to pass the class with a 60% minimum, if you receive score of 0% for the two that you missed?

What grade do you have to get on your last assignment in order to pass if you received a score of 50% (which is still an F) on those two that you missed?

 

[psionl0]

When you're not grading on a curve, 60% rarely fail. But if you look at the mathematics involved in the grading, you see that a grade of 60% or less is an F. The weight for an F is significantly larger in the aggregation of final grade than the weight for any other grade.

The pass mark in Australia was always 50% (although when I took piano lessons as a child, the pass mark was set at 65%). Of course, the difficulty of the exams was set so that somebody who could achieve 50% was demonstrating that they had acquired sufficient skills in the subject at hand.

If you are simply going to delete 0% or 10% or 49% and call the mark 50% then all you do is deny a student the knowledge that they either need to improve slightly or that they are completely hopeless.

 

[Klimax]

But you wouldn't need a massive top heavy bureaucracy if it was kept simple.

More seriously, no grading system is ideal. Some systems have disadvantages and some are pure lunacy. Giving somebody 50% for nothing is an example of the latter.

Well, most schools here can't afford much of overhead anyway...

Sorry, but second part is wrong. There is only one system of grading and it is the only way to sanely determine how said student does on study material. There are no real or virtual or made up disadvantages.- Every other system is idiotic and causes far more problems then they supposedly solve. If they solve actually anything...

There is total number of points for given exam. Students achieved particular number of points. he gets grade based on that number of points. End of story.

 

[psionl0]

Consider a simple scenario of 5 grades. On the first two, you get a B, which translates to an 80%. Then your mom dies in a car crash and you fall apart. You miss two assignments.

What grade do you have to get on your last assignment in order to pass the class with a 60% minimum, if you receive score of 0% for the two that you missed?

I have addressed this issue earlier. Having everything hinge on a handful of tests or assignments is an example of a system that has some "disadvantages".

No student should be disadvantaged just because they went through a rough patch. There should be opportunities to defer tests or sit for make-up tests if the circumstances warrant it. Giving students marks for nothing doesn't do them any favours. That's not how the real world works.

 

[psionl0]

Well, most schools here can't afford much of overhead anyway...

Little public money for education goes to schools. The front line is irrelevant. Most of the money goes to bureaucratic fat cats sitting in plush offices where they can dream up ways to micro manage every aspect of education.

 

[Modified]

There is total number of points for given exam. Students achieved particular number of points. he gets grade based on that number of points. End of story.

It will never happen that way. If everyone in a class fails the first exam, most likely the instructor is going to back off on the second. If the whole class gets As one semester, the next semester the course is going to be more difficult. The extent to which such adjustments are made will vary greatly, but they will always be made. Of course if an exam has been developed through testing or over the years, such adjustments may not be necessary for a long time or may be done during the exam development phase.

Also, if grades are clustered bimodally or anti-normally, then the difficulty range on questions probably needs to be adjusted. Of course, if it is a class of fifteen students or something, then skill distribution of the students may be far from normal, but for a thousand students or so you should expect something resembling a normal distribution.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have addressed this issue earlier. Having everything hinge on a handful of tests or assignments is an example of a system that has some "disadvantages".

No student should be disadvantaged just because they went through a rough patch. There should be opportunities to defer tests or sit for make-up tests if the circumstances warrant it. Giving students marks for nothing doesn't do them any favours. That's not how the real world works.

From my perspective, it doesn't matter. It's principle.

Look - a kid that does nothing, and does no work, get's a score of 50%. So what? They still get an F. They still FAIL. If they put in no effort at all during the year, they suffer the consequences.

But a kid that slips up here and there, a kid that can be helped, has a chance to come back from it. Mathematically, it's easier to bring a grade up from a 50 to a 60 than it is to bring it up from a 0 to a 60.

What's your objective? I sit your objective to punish kids who do no work by giving them a score that is incredibly difficult to recover from? Or is your objective to allow a child (not an adult) to learn from their mistakes and still come out ahead? How much value is "the real world" to a middle-schooler? Because I don't know about you, but in the real world, I don't get to have an average 5 hour work day, with no bills or obligations outside of doing a couple hours of homework. If you're worried about "the real world" then we should be talking about 9 hour work days where most kids have to do things they hate and have little to no choice in the classes they take or the projects they do, where their teachers can simply kick them out of school if their performance isn't up to snuff.

Seriously, this is probably not the ideal way to solve this problem. But aside from standing on principle, it's not an all bad idea, and it does provide a functional solution to a problem in the educational system.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Little public money for education goes to schools. The front line is irrelevant. Most of the money goes to bureaucratic fat cats sitting in plush offices where they can dream up ways to micro manage every aspect of education.

... where they get waaaaay more than 50% for doing next to nothing?

 

[fuelair]

"Resale" should read "rescale". From what I understand about how classes are graded and what I remember from being in school myself, the passing grade is usually above 50% by a significant amount. Therefore, raising the lowest grade that can be given to 50% does not change the level one has to achieve to pass the class. It does, however, make it easier for one to pass the class because 50% of the points are already given. However, for people who are struggling with the course material, it is probably not going to help all that much.

The other thing that setting 50% as a floor does not do necessarily is change the intervals over which certain grades are assigned. For instance, a C may still be between 70% and 72.5%.

Passing is (most systems) 60%. but, for the most accurate results only the %correct is used and averaged (and each type: test/homework/labs (or projects) gets a weight per the school/system rules/policies) . Thus all tests are averaged to get the 9 week's test average, all homeworks are averaged for the homework average, all labs/projects are averaged for the l/p average and the three are weighted and averaged together for the students overall average and thus grade for the time period covered ( pretty much all of this is done by a program in the teacher's school computer)- which can then put them on a report card as percentages and/or letter grades.


Oh, one of the problems in OC was that in our school we had idiot councilors who would put C and D level students in Chem or Physics classes who had barely passed Gen. Sci., flunked Bio or Eco, and squeaked out of Algebra 1. You guess what the problem there might be!!!!!(subtle hint, related to the manipulation of numbers and number substitutes!!!!)

 

[fuelair]

I have addressed this issue earlier. Having everything hinge on a handful of tests or assignments is an example of a system that has some "disadvantages".

No student should be disadvantaged just because they went through a rough patch. There should be opportunities to defer tests or sit for make-up tests if the circumstances warrant it. Giving students marks for nothing doesn't do them any favours. That's not how the real world works.

In our school, and moving to all in the county, one of the requirements was all students in a specific course were required to take the same test and teachers could not modify the grade in any way from what the computer gave it - unless they could show that no correct answer choice was given. To the best of my knowledge that never occurred at our school. Since the admins had full access to all the data there was no way to do such - and repeating the test was not possible since every student had seen all the questions the first time.

 

[psionl0]

From my perspective, it doesn't matter. It's principle.

Look - a kid that does nothing, and does no work, get's a score of 50%. So what? They still get an F. They still FAIL. If they put in no effort at all during the year, they suffer the consequences.

But a kid that slips up here and there, a kid that can be helped, has a chance to come back from it. Mathematically, it's easier to bring a grade up from a 50 to a 60 than it is to bring it up from a 0 to a 60.

What's your objective? <- remainder of post respectfully snipped as irrelevant and addressing a strawman argument ->

You haven't addressed why you think it is superior to give students marks for nothing instead of a second chance. At the end of the day, a student has to be able to demonstrate that they have met the course objectives.

... where they get waaaaay more than 50% for doing next to nothing?

Yes, it's not what you know, it's who you know. And some teachers have been known to have been induced to give a student marks that they didn't earn. But corruption is a different topic altogether.

 

[psionl0]

In our school, and moving to all in the county, one of the requirements was all students in a specific course were required to take the same test and teachers could not modify the grade in any way from what the computer gave it - unless they could show that no correct answer choice was given. To the best of my knowledge that never occurred at our school. Since the admins had full access to all the data there was no way to do such - and repeating the test was not possible since every student had seen all the questions the first time.

That doesn't sound like a very good system.

 

[fuelair]

That doesn't sound like a very good system.

It was based on the twin ideas that teachers can't be trusted and will up the kids grades to make themselves look better and/or different teachers of the same specific class type could affect student averages assuming one or more gave easy tests and the others gave hard ones for the same specific class : say Chem 1 or Physical Science.

 

[psionl0]

It was based on the twin ideas of bureaucrats that teachers can't be trusted .....

ftfy.

The Australian government has addressed the problem of variability between schools by subjecting students to independent national NAPLAN tests every two years. NAPLAN results are not part of a student's final assessment. (See http://www.nap.edu.au/naplan). Results for each school are published so that parents can compare the schools.

This system brings the usual criticisms that it encourages teachers to "teach to the test" and (poor little) children who don't do well will have their self esteem harmed. However, there are no plans to do away with it.

 

[JohnnyG]

Isn't that how it works in the real world? Fail a driving test and you simply sit for it again.

Driving tests, yes. Driving in the real world, no. You do not get a redo if you hit and kill a child crossing the street for the school bus...even if you missed the question about both directions of traffic having to stop for school buses.

Driving tests are way too easy to retake until you pass...I think you should have to wait 6 months before you can take it again. That would make people a lot more motivated to fully learn the rules of the road.

 

[psionl0]

Driving tests are way too easy to retake until you pass...I think you should have to wait 6 months before you can take it again. That would make people a lot more motivated to fully learn the rules of the road.

Heh I remember my parents telling me stories in my childhood about how slack driving tests were in the 1950s. One relative got his motorcycle licence by riding around the block while the cop sat by the fan in his office!

Over the decades since, the driving tests have gotten progressively harder and harder but the standard of drivers never improved.

 

[Klimax]

Note: "here" refers to Czech Republic

Little public money for education goes to schools. The front line is irrelevant. Most of the money goes to bureaucratic fat cats sitting in plush offices where they can dream up ways to micro manage every aspect of education.

We avoided this particular pitfall in this sector. (Somehow...)

It will never happen that way. If everyone in a class fails the first exam, most likely the instructor is going to back off on the second. If the whole class gets As one semester, the next semester the course is going to be more difficult. The extent to which such adjustments are made will vary greatly, but they will always be made. Of course if an exam has been developed through testing or over the years, such adjustments may not be necessary for a long time or may be done during the exam development phase.

Also, if grades are clustered bimodally or anti-normally, then the difficulty range on questions probably needs to be adjusted. Of course, if it is a class of fifteen students or something, then skill distribution of the students may be far from normal, but for a thousand students or so you should expect something resembling a normal distribution.

Almost no teacher keeps records of results of previous classes and new teachers are generally supervised by experienced teacher. Also exams don't tend to be reused. Almost always fresh one is made.

Sometimes classes get compared but only to encourage them to work harder. No scoring adjustments.

As for clustering, It is mostly taken as sign how well we prepared for exam. If vast majority scores well, it usually doesn't lead to any changes. (I still remember: "See? it wasn't that hard, was it?", coming from teacher who had reputation for being hard on students and giving quite hard exams - and no such thing as multioptions either, they were rare case anyway) Results had to be really bad to get some action from teacher.

And what do thousands of students have anything to do? You can uses statistics to see how this particular selection of population does, but altering anything just because their results don't fit some distribution is wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You haven't addressed why you think it is superior to give students marks for nothing instead of a second chance. At the end of the day, a student has to be able to demonstrate that they have met the course objectives.

That rationale has been given several times, you merely keep ignoring it. The part that you snipped as being "irrelevant" touches, yet again, on the rationale for a 50%. It was also, btw, a direct response to you claiming that we shouldn't give kids leeway because "the real world". You snipped the part of my post that challenges your "real world" assumption, as well as challenging the appropriateness of imposing "real world" consequences that can have lasting and nearly irrevocable impacts on a child.

You keep ignoring the mathematics of grade scoring:

Consider a simple scenario of 5 grades. On the first two, you get a B, which translates to an 80%. Then your mom dies in a car crash and you fall apart. You miss two assignments.

What grade do you have to get on your last assignment in order to pass the class with a 60% minimum, if you receive score of 0% for the two that you missed?

What grade do you have to get on your last assignment in order to pass if you received a score of 50% (which is still an F) on those two that you missed?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been thinking about this, and I think there's a reasonable compromise. If a student does not do the work, they can get a 0. But if they make an attempt (even if it results in no points), they would get a minimum of 50.