Baltimore to ban grades lower than 50%?

[fuelair]

I'm tempted to do this now, but it bugs me to bail on the kids. They'd be sad because sometimes I give them Jolly Ranchers.

Have you ever been reading Marzano and see him cite as a reference ... Marzano?? It seems to me there is a lot of bloviating in education "research" but relatively few quantitative studies on best teaching practices. John Dewey decided the Soviet system of education was better that the U.S. system. Only problem was school was not in session when Dewey visited.

No, though he may well have. My wife (very good at this) figured out quickly what he had "borrowed" and from who (making the AP I mentioned very unhappy) and I did other research verification related. Leave some Jolly Ranchers for them to remember you by and let them know you will miss them!!!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Here's another way to look at it: The school receives funding just for the kid showing up. Showing up is important in life, so maybe that should be part of the grade.

I agree. They should at least get points for time served.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It's simple: Either students knows or not.

That depends on what the goal is. In the real world you need to know your stuff, so a test that determines whether or not you know your stuff is appropriate.

But the purpose of school isn't to train people for jobs, it's to sort out the wheat from the chaff. So it's no good having a test that everybody passes. You need a test that fails everyone but the best and brightest - a test that nobody gets 100% on because if that happens you don't know how good they really are.

 

[psionl0]

Here's another way to look at it: The school receives funding just for the kid showing up. Showing up is important in life, so maybe that should be part of the grade. It probably should not be a full 50 percent, but it were, the student would still have do do some work to get a D. Once they figure out they can't possibly pass they give up and/or become behavioral challenges, which can sometimes become detrimental to the class as a whole.

This is just a typical "can't discipline them - can't fail them" mentality that is doing kids a grave disservice.

Students should not be in a course that they can't possibly pass. Those that can should be afforded every opportunity to do so but they still need to do the work. Grades for nothing penalizes those who are prepared to make the effort.

 

[Klimax]

That depends on what the goal is. In the real world you need to know your stuff, so a test that determines whether or not you know your stuff is appropriate.

But the purpose of school isn't to train people for jobs, it's to sort out the wheat from the chaff. So it's no good having a test that everybody passes. You need a test that fails everyone but the best and brightest - a test that nobody gets 100% on because if that happens you don't know how good they really are.

What school system (or whose) are you talking about?

ETA: Goal should be knowing what and how. That's goal here.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Letting them retake the test also teaches the wrong thing - that you get a second chance if you screw up.

Yeah. We wouldn't want any of 'em to get the idea they should keep trying if they couldn't do it the first time they tried.

That's no way to prepare them for going out on their own.

 

[Modified]

What school system (or whose) are you talking about?

ETA: Goal should be knowing what and how. That's goal here.

You seem to think that the purpose of school is to acquire facts.

In Math, Physics, CS, etc. you can "know" and understand all the concepts and equations, and still not be able to apply them or to apply them mistake-free at some level of difficulty or in a reasonable amount of time. Knowing how to write and having a good vocabulary doesn't mean you can sit down and equal the works of a great writer. Grades are an incentive to improve your abilities, not just meet a minimum standard. If there is no reasonable distribution of grades, that purpose is hindered.

 

[Klimax]

You seem to think that the purpose of school is to acquire facts.

In Math, Physics, CS, etc. you can "know" and understand all the concepts and equations, and still not be able to apply them or to apply them mistake-free at some level of difficulty or in a reasonable amount of time. Knowing how to write and having a good vocabulary doesn't mean you can sit down and equal the works of a great writer. Grades are an incentive to improve your abilities, not just meet a minimum standard. If there is no reasonable distribution of grades, that purpose is hindered.

What the hell is still with bloody distribution. It should not be goal. It shouldn't be informing decisions about education process. (With few exceptions, obviously - there are few cases where it can alert to problems)

(Anyway, maybe I was too terse with "what and how"...)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Students should not be in a course that they can't possibly pass. Those that can should be afforded every opportunity to do so but they still need to do the work. Grades for nothing penalizes those who are prepared to make the effort.

You make it sound like they've got a choice in the matter.

 

[psionl0]

You make it sound like they've got a choice in the matter.

Only somebody who is completely insane would compel students to take a course that they couldn't possibly pass.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Only somebody who is completely insane would compel students to take a course that they couldn't possibly pass.

I'm not tracking you here. Pretty much all of elementary school is compulsory, and there are only a handful of elective classes through middle and high school in the US. 4th graders don't get much choice about what classes they take.

 

[Minoosh]

Only somebody who is completely insane would compel students to take a course that they couldn't possibly pass.

Freshman algebra is required by law in my state.

I had a longer answer but my phone ate it.

I was wondering today if it would make more sense to have freshman geometry followed by Algebra 1 and 2.

In my state, kids have to be in school until age 16; schools have to at least try to educate them up to age 22. However things "should be," it's not current law; certain courses are mandated for certain age groups.

 

[fuelair]

You make it sound like they've got a choice in the matter.

And in some cases their parents have the choice - as in they use their influence with "the board" to get their little loves into classes like AP, Advanced. and popular for the college/university they WILL be going to! Because the board tells the principal (unprincipled of course) and he/she tells the counsellors and suddenly their little loves are in a class or 2 or 3 they do not have any background or skill set for and, well............... We ( OC Fl) saw a lot of that - made upper level sciences really slow when a lot of the students had barely passed Algebra. Makes Chem and Physics much fun!!!!

It should be no surprise that it also has effects on the students who did do well when they are identified as coming from a school found to be sending into colleges students who were not actually ready for college level work.


Another problem was that students who were known to not be able to read at above fourth/fifth grade and or do math well (very low test scores on tests done annually) were still moved on to middle/high school and put into basically regular classes. Doesn't work real well. And they could not read the texts (science which I taught) to any real degree. And we knew the admins and all the way up to the board knew the same thing - but on it went. Bad for those students and worse for the students who could have moved through the material better and faster. Yes, we had all sorts of special materials , methods and programs, but for reading the problem (known and show is that if they cannot read for learning by fourth grade it is near certain they never will be able to).

 

[fuelair]

More precisely, if the child cannot read reasonably well (grade level) by 4th grade, they will likely never be able to read well enough to read for learning. You can easily Google or Dogpile that if you think I am making it up!!!!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

if the child cannot read reasonably well (grade level) by 4th grade, they will likely never be able to read well enough to read for learning.

Perhaps not 'never', but if they fail this essential skill they won't be able to advance while at school.

My brother and I went to the same schools, but since he is 18 months younger than me we attended different classes. I was at top of the school, he was at the bottom - a complete failure that all the teachers gave up on as he could barely write his own name. At 15 he quit school to work on the farm, taught himself to read and write, worked hard and advanced to the point where he is now earning 5 times more than me.

School didn't just fail my brother, by forcing him to attend when he didn't have the skills to learn it actively held him back from advancing. For my brother, school was little more than a prison - perhaps in some respects even worse (at least in prison you don't get called a lazy little **** for not understanding algebra).

 

[psionl0]

I'm not tracking you here. Pretty much all of elementary school is compulsory, and there are only a handful of elective classes through middle and high school in the US. 4th graders don't get much choice about what classes they take.

You make the mistake of assuming that bureaucrats are sane.

In ancient times, students who failed to meet the requirements of a course would have been expected to repeat it - even repeat an entire year if necessary.

In later times, students were streamed according to ability so that everybody did lessons at a level that they could reasonably have expected to pass.

Education has become a lot more complicated since then. There seems to be a presumption that everybody could master the General theory of relativity if taught the "right way".

 

[Emily's Cat]

You make the mistake of assuming that bureaucrats are sane.

I don't really see how I'm making that mistake; I'm pretty sure I think most bureaucrats are idiots, pretty much all the time. Mostly, I don't see how that's relevant to this particular exchange. What am I missing?

In ancient times, students who failed to meet the requirements of a course would have been expected to repeat it - even repeat an entire year if necessary.

In later times, students were streamed according to ability so that everybody did lessons at a level that they could reasonably have expected to pass.

Education has become a lot more complicated since then. There seems to be a presumption that everybody could master the General theory of relativity if taught the "right way".

Are you suggesting that we roll back the clock to the early 1800s or whatever? Sorry psion, I'm just not really grokking where this comes in to play. We have a curriculum that the broad range of humans are expected to be able to do. If a child has reduced ability, they are hypothetically identified and their specific needs are addressed... but the vast majority of "normal" kids should be able to do these things. There's no choice given to them in that respect and most children have little to no control over their curriculum.

Honestly, I think the number of children who cannot possibly pass primary and secondary school is incredibly small.

But it's also somewhat irrelevant. A kid who screws up and doesn't do a few assignments doesn't necessarily fall into the incapable category. But the zero associated with those assignments may very well make it mathematically impossible for them to pass the class, regardless of whether they are mentally capable or not. That's the crux of the problem in this discussion. It's not a matter of the child's capability; it's a matter of the math being stacked against them in a pretty substantial fashion.

 

[psionl0]

Are you suggesting that we roll back the clock to the early 1800s or whatever? Sorry psion, I'm just not really grokking where this comes in to play. We have a curriculum that the broad range of humans are expected to be able to do. If a child has reduced ability, they are hypothetically identified and their specific needs are addressed... but the vast majority of "normal" kids should be able to do these things. There's no choice given to them in that respect and most children have little to no control over their curriculum.

Honestly, I think the number of children who cannot possibly pass primary and secondary school is incredibly small.

I was thinking more of the 1950s or 1960s but the exact time period doesn't matter since 15 year olds can't just leave school and get a job anymore so the education system needs to cater for students of lower ability as well.

Regardless, you have shifted the goal posts. From saying that students don't have a choice about taking courses they can't pass you are now saying that they all can pass.

But it's also somewhat irrelevant. A kid who screws up and doesn't do a few assignments doesn't necessarily fall into the incapable category. But the zero associated with those assignments may very well make it mathematically impossible for them to pass the class, regardless of whether they are mentally capable or not. That's the crux of the problem in this discussion. It's not a matter of the child's capability; it's a matter of the math being stacked against them in a pretty substantial fashion.

As long as you refuse to explain why you think that marks for nothing are better than giving a student a second chance all you are doing is repeating yourself.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I was thinking more of the 1950s or 1960s but the exact time period doesn't matter since 15 year olds can't just leave school and get a job anymore so the education system needs to cater for students of lower ability as well.

Regardless, you have shifted the goal posts. From saying that students don't have a choice about taking courses they can't pass you are now saying that they all can pass.

I said neither of those thing, please stop exaggerating.

Furthermore, you're conflating the scenarios.

Kids have little choice in which classes they take: the curriculum is set without their knowledge or opinion. Older kids have somewhat more choice, in the form of electives, but a substantial portion of their curriculum is compulsory.

The majority of kids should be able to pass primary and secondary curricula. The material is general knowledge and unless there is a disability invovled, very few kids lack the capability to pass those classes.

Those are both true positions, and neither contradicts the other. The goal posts haven't shifted at all.

As long as you refuse to explain why you think that marks for nothing are better than giving a student a second chance all you are doing is repeating yourself.

Ooooh, excellent use of some weasely framing there! Kudos! Nicely done! You're only half a step away from fully realizing a "when did you stop beating your wife" scenario! Keep it up, you'll get there soon!

I haven't refused to explain anything. You not receiving an explanation that you can easily poke holes in doesn't equate to me refusing anything at all.

 

[Klimax]

I don't really see how I'm making that mistake; I'm pretty sure I think most bureaucrats are idiots, pretty much all the time. Mostly, I don't see how that's relevant to this particular exchange. What am I missing?


Are you suggesting that we roll back the clock to the early 1800s or whatever? Sorry psion, I'm just not really grokking where this comes in to play. We have a curriculum that the broad range of humans are expected to be able to do. If a child has reduced ability, they are hypothetically identified and their specific needs are addressed... but the vast majority of "normal" kids should be able to do these things. There's no choice given to them in that respect and most children have little to no control over their curriculum.

Honestly, I think the number of children who cannot possibly pass primary and secondary school is incredibly small.

But it's also somewhat irrelevant. A kid who screws up and doesn't do a few assignments doesn't necessarily fall into the incapable category. But the zero associated with those assignments may very well make it mathematically impossible for them to pass the class, regardless of whether they are mentally capable or not. That's the crux of the problem in this discussion. It's not a matter of the child's capability; it's a matter of the math being stacked against them in a pretty substantial fashion.

Why so late?
John Amos Comenius still have some things to say today...