• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Baltimore to ban grades lower than 50%?

You most certainly did not make it clear that you were only considering examples of courses where there were only two equally weighted assessment items. It is just too unusual.

OTOH it is not so unusual for a course to have a final exam that is worth up to 50% of the course total. Of course, if you are going to give that much weight to a final exam then you can't complain that it has a disproportionate influence on a student's final marks. The solution is to not give so much weight to just one assessment item.


:confused: Is the concept of "ordinal data" too complicated for you to grasp? If the "points" are not being added together then if makes no difference what numerical value you attach to each grade provided that A > B > C > D > F. All such scoring systems are equally valid and a fail is a fail is a fail.

Let me try this and wonder if you were teaching high school: in all of the systems I worked in and all that I have discussed with other non-local teachers, the grades, their values and (where the computer is god) etc.are weighted (tests, quizzes, homework, projects - being different weights with tests usually the heaviest weight) and those are required of all teachers of the subject(s) to follow.

The systems tend to have requirements also re: make-up work, attendance effects and related matters. While it may not be to our or your liking, them are be the rules if one likes to stay in the education game. College tends some differently, so, if you are teaching college these rules may well not apply, but in public school they very much do. If this is insufficient please let me know which points you take umbrage at or think we/I are/am making up to cause you distress. I do assure you that nothing I have posted is untrue in the systems I worked in more recently (now retired)
 
Oh, the highest test weights in my last two systems (which covers app. 22 years) were required Semester Exams which counted 20% of the students semester grade in any course.
 
More harm is done to the average student by the policy of allowing bad students to continue their mission to cause as much disruption in every class room as possible than anything else.

Their lack of motivation might not be my fault, but it is my responsibility to try everything I can to motivate them. Setting the baseline at 50 percent is potentially more motivating because the student is in sight of a D. They do want to pass, most of them.

I'm wondering, what would you do with these children? Whose responsibility are they, if not the teacher's?

The difficulty of a test is (or should be) set such that a satisfactory student will easily pass it.
"Should" has nothing to do with it. Standardized test are specifically not graded on a curve.
I have had university lecturers who's policy was to make a test as difficult as possible so that they could sort out the brainy students. The pass mark on those tests necessarily had to be less than 50%.
Universities are a whole different story. Those students are adults. I'm talking about children, though. What would you do with them?
 
Last edited:
Let me try this and wonder if you were teaching high school: .....
You are the second person to accuse me of making things up.

The last incarnation of high school education that I was involved in was "Outcomes Based Education". Scoring had been abolished entirely in favour of "leveling" (from 1 to 8) students on a variety of "outcomes". The problem was that the outcomes and the methods of leveling were so poorly described and incomprehensible that no two teachers could agree on what level a student was at. It was a complete farce! A lot of teachers quit in disgust at this bureaucratically imposed nonsense.

Prior to that we had a "Unit Curriculum". Each student was graded according to a weighted mean of the scores they achieved in the assessment tasks they were given in the unit. However, the scoring was not done at state level. Each school did its own individual assessments. (Tertiary entrance exams continued to be administered at the state level).

Since students had to pass a stage before continuing to the next stage, it was much more sensible. Students who were not capable or willing to do the standard units were put in special "Maths for living", "Science for living" etc units instead.

I do assure you that nothing I have posted is untrue in the systems I worked in more recently (now retired)
I believe you.
 
Last edited:
Their lack of motivation might not be my fault, but it is my responsibility to try everything I can to motivate them. Setting the baseline at 50 percent is potentially more motivating because the student is in sight of a D. They do want to pass, most of them.

I'm wondering, what would you do with these children? Whose responsibility are they, if not the teacher's?
In one of the schools that I taught at, a student (fortunately not one of mine) was so disruptive that he managed to prevent the entire class from progressing for a whole year. After much bureaucratic wrangling, the principal finally managed to get approval to remove the student from the class room and assign him his own individual teachers. The rest of the class improved in leaps and bounds after the student was removed. This is a common story throughout the state.

Mainstreaming sounds fine in theory but in practice, it is a disaster.
 
Last edited:
Yeah no. You decided they were ordinal. You also decided that ordinal data can never be aggregated (even though this is exactly what is done with GPA).
I didn't make up this stuff about ordinal data. This is standard mathematical teaching. A GPA may be a popular method of measuring student achievement but it doesn't make it mathematically valid. The only valid averages with ordinal data are median and mode.

Under a GPA calculation, it doesn't matter if a student "just" fails or scores an absolute zero. an F is always a zero and that zero forms part of the student's overall GPA. So, no matter what merits you see in granting a student 50% in a failed test, any defence of the GPA nullifies it.
 
You are the second person to accuse me of making things up.

The last incarnation of high school education that I was involved in was "Outcomes Based Education". Scoring had been abolished entirely in favour of "leveling" (from 1 to 8) students on a variety of "outcomes". The problem was that the outcomes and the methods of leveling were so poorly described and incomprehensible that no two teachers could agree on what level a student was at. It was a complete farce! A lot of teachers quit in disgust at this bureaucratically imposed nonsense.

Prior to that we had a "Unit Curriculum". Each student was graded according to a weighted mean of the scores they achieved in the assessment tasks they were given in the unit. However, the scoring was not done at state level. Each school did its own individual assessments. (Tertiary entrance exams continued to be administered at the state level).











Since students had to pass a stage before continuing to the next stage, it was much more sensible. Students who were not capable or willing to do the standard units were put in special "Maths for living", "Science for living" etc units instead.


I believe you.

If you assume I do not believe you, you are incorrect. I do assume you were using your own experience to draw from/respond with and, given mine and many others, I assumed it was not in public high schools since it does not match what I have read, heard in national and semi-local meetings and experienced personally. Given my experiences and the reports of others I asked if you were teaching college rather than public high school as your experiences as presented do not match those of my experience. Thus, the questioning.
I have heard of Outcome based education programs but we did not use anything like you have described during the short time it passed through here and fairly quickly disappeared. Since what we did of that passed quickly I assume we were late to that game or were already headed to the next perfect
(heh, heh, heh) way that would make all students great learners!!!!! But somehow never did.

A quick ask of my wife says it went through two cycles sometime in the last 20-30 years. Since she does not remember details (and she is great on these which is why our AP did not like her/us as we - especially she- remember the different recycling with new names and companies promoting them, and, more importantly, why and how they did not work as promised) the program did not last long enough here to make much of an impression.
 
I didn't make up this stuff about ordinal data. This is standard mathematical teaching. A GPA may be a popular method of measuring student achievement but it doesn't make it mathematically valid. The only valid averages with ordinal data are median and mode.

Under a GPA calculation, it doesn't matter if a student "just" fails or scores an absolute zero. an F is always a zero and that zero forms part of the student's overall GPA. So, no matter what merits you see in granting a student 50% in a failed test, any defence of the GPA nullifies it.

And, again, most of us do not get to choose our own grading system - it and any later adjustments are presented to us and we are required to grade in that way, average by the computer and otherwise try to teach all the students under those rules and procedures and get them through the required material.
 
In my experience as a student in the Pacific Northwest, F has always been 60-67%.

Really? Everywhere I went to school (Kansas), that would be a "D." F was anything below 60. Basically, ten percentage points per letter grade, no variation. Of course, I can't speak for recent history, because it's been a while. I graduated HS in 1990, to be specific, and I have no kids to help keep me current. I've heard of systems that did differently, but I always thought they were rare.
 
Last edited:
And, again, most of us do not get to choose our own grading system - it and any later adjustments are presented to us and we are required to grade in that way, average by the computer and otherwise try to teach all the students under those rules and procedures and get them through the required material.
You're not trying to tell me that water is wet are you? ;) Education has always been subject to the whims of politicians and bureaucrats and they are constantly on the lookout for some new "innovation" that they can use to make a name for themselves.

In one mutation, it was decided that "right" and "wrong" were dirty words and scoring was outlawed. Instead, teachers were forced to use a complicated and time consuming rating system based on the letters "N", "S", "G" and "V". I won't go into the nuts and bolts of this system here but suffice to say, what ended up on a student's report card was a work of pure fiction.
 
In one of the schools that I taught at, a student (fortunately not one of mine) was so disruptive ...
Your anecdote leaves me with at least 4 questions, all of which are off-topic.

Mainstreaming sounds fine in theory but in practice, it is a disaster.
Those are our only choices? "Fine" and "disaster"?

Since you speak of mainstreaming I take it the kid you were writing about was a special-ed student. But I wasn't talking about disruptive students; I was talking about unmotivated students. Conflating the two doesn't really help. Do I want the quiet kid who shows up but doesn't turn anything in for the first half of the semester to have a fighting chance at a D? Yeah, I do. That's why I don't dismiss the 50 percent policy. Fifty percent might be too high, though. I don't want to make things too convenient.

This would be a good topic for a math or English lesson.
 
Do I want the quiet kid who shows up but doesn't turn anything in for the first half of the semester to have a fighting chance at a D? Yeah, I do.
Who are you really rewarding? The kid who did nothing for half a semester or the teacher who allowed the kid to do nothing for half a semester?
 
Who are you really rewarding? The kid who did nothing for half a semester or the teacher who allowed the kid to do nothing for half a semester?

Why are you so focused on the idea that we are rewarding student who do no work?

Those students still receive a failing grade on the assignment, and will receive failing grades in the course if they do no work consistently.
 
Who are you really rewarding? The kid who did nothing for half a semester or the teacher who allowed the kid to do nothing for half a semester?

You seem not to have met certain hard core ones of these and I and others have. Done everything up to and including having parental units, Many were annoyed at being called re: the problem, many tried to help. Most failed. And, then, I was one of those kids. If it wasn't interesting to me, I tended to not do it or do as little as possible of it . As I have noted priorly, one year I sneak read in class (5th grade iirc.) while boring stuff was going on, all of World Book encyclopedia plus assorted.
 
You can't have an honest discussion if you have to suppress the truth.

Is it your honest assessment of the situation that the implementation of a floor of 50% grated course materials benefits students who do little work over all other categories of possible students?
 
First prove that it does harm to "other categories of students." I'm not talking about what you think anybody deserves. Demonstrate actual harm. It's generally said that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but sometimes providing for the needs of the few doesn't even affect the satisfaction of the needs of the many.

Define harm.

Within the context of the discussion of grades, lowering a grade is doing harm to the student and raising a grade is doing a benefit to the student. There may be no other effects on the student then the effect that raising or lowering a grade, but I am giving you the scope of the discussion.
 
Define harm.

Within the context of the discussion of grades, lowering a grade is doing harm to the student and raising a grade is doing a benefit to the student. There may be no other effects on the student then the effect that raising or lowering a grade, but I am giving you the scope of the discussion.

Ah, okay... you're actually here. :D

I deleted because I wasn't sure my quote of you was meant the way I interpreted it. I have been skimming and lacked context. I think that's the key issue in this, anyway. If the system is fully adaptable to for students that it does not directly benefit, that's different than saying that it harms them.
 
Last edited:
You seem not to have met certain hard core ones of these and I and others have. Done everything up to and including having parental units, Many were annoyed at being called re: the problem, many tried to help. Most failed. And, then, I was one of those kids. If it wasn't interesting to me, I tended to not do it or do as little as possible of it . As I have noted priorly, one year I sneak read in class (5th grade iirc.) while boring stuff was going on, all of World Book encyclopedia plus assorted.
If you re-read that exchange again you will find that I was responding to Minoosh's argument about the "quiet" kid - not the disruptive one.
 
My first post in this thread was a response to the assertion that 50% would become the new 0%. This is mathematically untrue since the grading scheme described in the original post apparently only sets the floor at 50% and doesn't rescale the other grade categories. From a mathematical standpoint, this is fair to all students in the sense that all students have the same 50% floor for all their grades.

However, if one chooses to use grades as a way of evaluating the student on other things then the performance on the course material, the situation becomes more complex, because the system only evaluates the student based upon how the student on factors internal to the course material, such as how much of the assignment course material the student completed and the quality of the completed work. The method of evaluation most often does not include assessment of the student's motivation in completing the assignment. It doesn't matter weather the assignment was only 20% complete or that only 20% of the assignment was correct, the student still gets a 20% on the assignment. Moreover, it doesn't matter if the student didn't care to complete the assignment or failed to complete it for reasons beyond their control. psionl0 seems to be worried that the grading schema doesn't allow the teacher to grant a lower grade than 50% for the former case.
 
This is an ongoing controversy. The point being that a kid getting 17 percent for totally slacking off the first quarter will figure out that there is no way to work his/her way up to a passing grade for the semester and will continue to slack off. (Many can do the math when it's about them.)

I see both sides. Zero for no work seems fair, but when dealing with children (which includes many/most high school students) you want to give them an incentive to keep trying.

If he absolutely can't work his way up to a passing grade in a certain subject, then he should slack off. He should put his energy into activities that he does better.

Better yet, he should go into an academic program that avoids or waters down that certain subject. He should be advised against working toward a career where that skill could be useful. He should be offered alternative careers where he has the necessary skills and temperament.

Hopefully, there could be a high paying career which can use his skills. A plumber or welder doesn't need trigonometry or Euclidean geometry. They could use spelling and grammar, however.

The problem isn't just minorities. I am a scientist working in a government laboratory. I have noted that many of my managers have no knowledge of science or mathematics. Many of them had an obvious deficiency in formal logic. Many of them don't have reading comprehension. They made twice as much as I do. However, most of them are white.

So I suspect that the some of the grades these managers in their schoolyard got had been purposely boosted out of prejudice. These managers will say straight out that they don't think much of scientists and academics. So I can see how an administrator would be tempted to ignore grades completely.

Grades could still be useful. Please don't remove grades. What should be changed is the way grades are used to channel students. Maybe there should be more vocational tracks through school. People who have manual skills could benefit people more if they don't waste energy trying to learn the most abstract subjects.



A student who is discouraged by one zero probably isn't a good student. The best students in a subject are those that can recover from a few bad experiences. So I am NOT suggesting all students with bad math grades become plumbers.

A student who knows he is interested in math shouldn't be thrown out of an academic curriculum because of one bad grade. So I believe in forgiveness with grades. However, I can't see raising the baseline.

Anyway, isn't the baseline arbitrary anyway?

If grades below 50 are no longer permitted, then 50 becomes the new 0. So what would be the upside, or even downside, of eliminating grades below 50?
 
If grades below 50 are no longer permitted, then 50 becomes the new 0. So what would be the upside, or even downside, of eliminating grades below 50?

Because the math is different? A blown test with a 50 and a missed test with a 0 both have an F as a letter for that particular grade, but the impact on the record as a whole is different.

I mean, the difference is the core of the argument. Shouldn't this have been the first question, not a tacked on afterthought?
 
Because the math is different? A blown test with a 50 and a missed test with a 0 both have an F as a letter for that particular grade, but the impact on the record as a whole is different.

I mean, the difference is the core of the argument. Shouldn't this have been the first question, not a tacked on afterthought?

One more reminder: if that(whatever) is the standard required by the governing authority over the school district(s), that is how it will be done. Addressing dislike of it to teachers has no effect. And addressing those who are working with the teachers/blaming them or arguing the required grading methods accomplishes nothing. All complaints should be going to Bs of E and political representatives as well as the Education Department of the state!!
 
Who are you really rewarding? The kid who did nothing for half a semester or the teacher who allowed the kid to do nothing for half a semester?

I would hope to be rewarding the kid who found motivation in the second half of the semester. At any rate I'm not intent on punishing that kid either, for being depressed or distracted or hungry or horny or any of the other afflictions that human adolescents are prone to. Nor am I interested in punishing teachers who are generally nice people who work their behinds off.
 
If he absolutely can't work his way up to a passing grade in a certain subject, then he should slack off. He should put his energy into activities that he does better.

Better yet, he should go into an academic program that avoids or waters down that certain subject. He should be advised against working toward a career where that skill could be useful. He should be offered alternative careers where he has the necessary skills and temperament.
People's propensities aren't carved in stone at 14, IMO. That might be a little early to write them off an academic track.

Hopefully, there could be a high paying career which can use his skills. A plumber or welder doesn't need trigonometry or Euclidean geometry.
IMO, geometry and even trig are maybe less of a reach than algebra for many students. Maybe because they're older when they take them, I don't know.


Grades could still be useful. Please don't remove grades. What should be changed is the way grades are used to channel students. Maybe there should be more vocational tracks through school. People who have manual skills could benefit people more if they don't waste energy trying to learn the most abstract subjects.
This proposal is subject to prevailing whims of fashion. There was a voc track, then that was seen as discriminatory, then there was an academic track for all students, then people realized maybe that had been taken too far. And so it goes.

A student who is discouraged by one zero probably isn't a good student. The best students in a subject are those that can recover from a few bad experiences. So I am NOT suggesting all students with bad math grades become plumbers.
Lots of 14-year-olds are terrible students. We try to sequester the acutely pubescent in "middle school"; however sometimes they still arrive at high school with less than a burning desire to master algebra.

A student who knows he is interested in math shouldn't be thrown out of an academic curriculum because of one bad grade. So I believe in forgiveness with grades. However, I can't see raising the baseline.

Anyway, isn't the baseline arbitrary anyway?

If grades below 50 are no longer permitted, then 50 becomes the new 0. So what would be the upside, or even downside, of eliminating grades below 50?
A not-so-deep hole to work one's way out of. Note, I am not aggressively advocating such a move; I just don't write it off as a completely worthless idea.
 
One more reminder: if that(whatever) is the standard required by the governing authority over the school district(s), that is how it will be done. Addressing dislike of it to teachers has no effect. And addressing those who are working with the teachers/blaming them or arguing the required grading methods accomplishes nothing. All complaints should be going to Bs of E and political representatives as well as the Education Department of the state!!
This reminder is probably not necessary. AFAIK, nobody in this thread is blaming teachers for this latest "new innovation" in education.
 
I would hope to be rewarding the kid who found motivation in the second half of the semester.
It might prove harmful for the student anyway. A struggling student risks deciding that they don't have to try since they are getting marks anyhow thus depriving themselves of the chance that they might improve. Class mates may also decided that it is unfair that they have to work while the non-achiever gets their marks for free and also quit trying.

I know that this sort of reasoning is not entirely sensible but sensible reasoning is not necessarily a strong suit for teenagers.
 
They get a free F. They'd still have to work to pass.

I don't really get the unfair part, if all students start out at 50 percent. Once again I'm not wedded to the 50 percent figure.

Also IIRC from my community college math courses, we were allowed up to a page of notes for tests and were allowed to drop the lowest test score from the average.

The first school I first worked at had a freshman-algebra flunk rate of over 50 percent. The grade was 90 percent tests and quizzes. My current school flunks far fewer students, partly because someone like me will hunt down kids with D's and F's and hold them after school until they complete missing assignments. It's a generous policy but one that does have consequences for the student: staying after school.

I don't believe in eliminating F's, but would like to see them as a last resort. Students do need to know they can fail, I agree.
 
Last edited:
someone like me will hunt down kids with D's and F's and hold them after school until they complete missing assignments.
But does it help them to know and understand the subject matter, or just a chore they have to do?

Silly me, of course it's just a chore. The main purpose of school is to instill a strong work ethic!
 
But does it help them to know and understand the subject matter, or just a chore they have to do?

Silly me, of course it's just a chore. The main purpose of school is to instill a strong work ethic!

It is obviously a chore, but ones that does help them them understand the material for a while. Many will soon forget but will get reinforcement in subsequent years.
 
Because the math is different? A blown test with a 50 and a missed test with a 0 both have an F as a letter for that particular grade, but the impact on the record as a whole is different.

I mean, the difference is the core of the argument. Shouldn't this have been the first question, not a tacked on afterthought?
One more reminder: if that(whatever) is the standard required by the governing authority over the school district(s), that is how it will be done. Addressing dislike of it to teachers has no effect. And addressing those who are working with the teachers/blaming them or arguing the required grading methods accomplishes nothing. All complaints should be going to Bs of E and political representatives as well as the Education Department of the state!!

I don't understand why I was quoted here.
 
We could do that with 60, but I don't think anyone is proposing that just yet.
Maybe not the actual numbers but there is a popular view within the bureaucracy that all forms of testing and assessment should be banned because it might be traumatic for the little darlings.
 
Maybe not the actual numbers but there is a popular view within the bureaucracy that all forms of testing and assessment should be banned because it might be traumatic for the little darlings.

:rolleyes: Pretty sure it's not a "popular view within the bureaucracy". Maybe a "popular view with a very small handful of people, some of whom have a voice in bureaucracy".
 
:rolleyes: Pretty sure it's not a "popular view within the bureaucracy". Maybe a "popular view with a very small handful of people, some of whom have a voice in bureaucracy".
Are you kidding? That was the entire concept behind "Outcomes Based Education". Teachers were expected to assess students on various "outcomes" (not knowledge or skills) on an individual basis without letting the student know so that they would not be placed under any sort of pressure.
 
Back
Top Bottom