Horrible new grading policy being tested in schools

[cubby1223]

Damn! I wish they had this policy when I went through school!

By my senior year of high school, I would calculate precisely how little work I had to do to get the grade I would be satisfied with. I was already locked in to the college I wanted to be in, grades were not that important at the tail end. I would have had so much fun with this "no grade lower than 59%" rule. Even I finished high school ranked #4 out of 330 students, I wasn't exactly one of them students falling behind.

But *sigh* we're turning into a culture where there is no downside to failure. I truly believe all people are inherently lazy, most of us strive to do the least amount of work for the greatest amount of gain. Now when the authorities implement policies that essentially say doing nothing is decent enough to live...

 

[darkxshade]

No way man, I say if people fail, let them fail. We need a population of people who can't do anything else but manual labor. Everyone is so "educated" now it makes a BS the new high school diploma.

I say, let people fail so that this country has a steady population of manual laborers--at some point it'll be just as cheap to employ those here than overseas for manufacturing jobs.

By the way, what school did you go to where 65 was passing?

1. whoosh

2. <65 = F, >65 = D and above (nothing to be proud of but it's passing regardless)
This was a little more than decade ago(when I was in HS) for the regents exam as far as I can tell so it has nothing to do with the HS. Looks like it'g 60+ now to pass per wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_%28education%29


edit: actually it's still 65 for regents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_Examinations

 

[MrMatt]

My wife just told me that the other highschool in her district is testing a policy where no child can be given lower than a 59%....ever. You can turn in an assignment or test, get every answer wrong and still get a 59%. They still give Incompletes but that just means it no longer counts towards your total grade......

And they aren't the only ones! She went to a staff meeting where they were told that this new program is being tested all over the country. They are afraid that children feel like they get too far behind if they get too many low grade assignments/tests. Then they just give up because they think they have no chance. Now - by only being able to get a 59% as the lowest grade the student will not be overwhelmed by past failures in class

I just can't believe it.....

so 2/100 = 59%?!

Come on!

so let me get this straight. Let's say I blow off half my assignments, and get 59's on them, try on like a couple tests and get B's...I could still get a C in a course that I blew off half my work?

 

[nick1985]

Why does it matter, a fail is a fail. Not like we need to know who extra failed.

Because if a kid gets ten 59's and one 80, he will pass the course when he otherwise wouldnt have.

Get it?

 

[Bibble]

I certainly see the plus of wanting to keep kids motivated to work, but is there any proof that kids who previously obtained below a 59 or whatever can be motivated by such a policy? I would think most kids would quickly acquire the mentality of "Ok I only need X minimum grade to pass" instead of "Damn, I have to work a lot harder."

My high school had this policy not for individual assessment grades but for marking period/quarter grades. In other words, you could get an average grade of 45 on all of your assignments for the marking period but then a 50 would appear on your report card. Granted, such a grade would mandate all kinds of meetings with the teacher, guidance counselor, parents, etc, but your grade was raised such that it would still be possible to pass the class.

I remember during my sophomore year Film class a kid obtained a marking period average of 6. This grade was so low it was a joke. 10&#37; of the grade in the class was participation, which meant all you had to do was stay awake and watch the movies. He couldn't even do that, as he tended to nap frequently. Of course, he received a grade of 50. I'm not sure what the rest of his grades were like as the year went on, but I do know he was asked to leave the school and did not return for junior year. The strange thing is that he was fairly intelligent and possibly even a genius at math, but he was incredibly lazy and simply did not do the work. Nothing motivated him.

I, on the other hand, received my first F in kindergarten. We had a "quiz" which was comprised of four questions: name the four shapes that were drawn on the paper. There was a circle, a triangle, a square, and a rectangle. I confused the latter two, thus giving me a 50% on the "quiz." (Unfortunately, I didn't know at the time that technically a square is a rectangle, which would have given me a 75% but whatever.) I don't think I completely comprehended what failing was at 5 years old, but I was motivated to do better next time nevertheless.

 

[ShawnD1]

By the way, what school did you go to where 65 was passing?

In every grade school I've ever seen, 50% was the pass mark. When you get to university, the bar actually drops a lot lower than this. On engineering exams, the class average will be a low value like 43%. The marks are then scaled and everyone lower than -1 standard deviation fails.

 

[911paramedic]

With this policy, this kid will graduate with honors.

 

[Cheeseplug]

Who cares about the grading scale when the curriculum is so flawed? Everyone is told from a young age that they have to go to college to be successful (not true), but when they get there they are in no way prepared whatsoever. They can't write clearly, they can't read and comprehend complex prose, they have a very narrow/warped view of history, it is basically a bad thing to be multilingual for some reason. And don't forget they struggle to do math and science that the rest of the world has already done at a younger age. They stupid up university for the rest of us!

True story: a so-called political science major once was talking to me about dictators and I referenced Mao, they had no idea who that was. Another person once tried to tell me Napoleon was English, and that Britain invaded Russia. This is at a university.

 

[shortylickens]

Who cares about the grading scale when the curriculum is so flawed? Everyone is told from a young age that they have to go to college to be successful (not true), but when they get there they are in no way prepared whatsoever. They can't write clearly, they can't read and comprehend complex prose, they have a very narrow/warped view of history, it is basically a bad thing to be multilingual for some reason. And don't forget they struggle to do math and science that the rest of the world has already done at a younger age. They stupid up university for the rest of us!

True story: a so-called political science major once was talking to me about dictators and I referenced Mao, they had no idea who that was. Another person once tried to tell me Napoleon was English, and that Britain invaded Russia. This is at a university.

This is true. The current manner of teaching is not going to make successful people in the future. Our system is based something the Germans invented in the 1500's. Most of europe, asia, and south america have moved on to something better already. We are way, WAY behind.

And not to be a peckerhead, but this recent change of saying "university" instead of "the university" or "a university" is bugging the shit out of me.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

And not to be a peckerhead, but this recent change of saying "university" instead of "the university" or "a university" is bugging the shit out of me.

This how it's always been used where I'm from.

 

[Homerboy]

This is true. The current manner of teaching is not going to make successful people in the future. Our system is based something the Germans invented in the 1500's. Most of europe, asia, and south america have moved on to something better already. We are way, WAY behind.

And not to be a peckerhead, but this recent change of saying "university" instead of "the university" or "a university" is bugging the shit out of me.

This is precisely why my wife and I are sending our kids to a Charter school within the public school system. The kids (grades 1-5) are literally sections, if not grades ahead of the traditional system. Independent reading is not only encouraged its more or less required.

Sadly nearly every educational system in America is broke or near broke at this point, and in turn broken. We keep cutting educational funding at every turn and nobody seems to give a crap.

 

[mugs]

And not to be a peckerhead, but this recent change of saying "university" instead of "the university" or "a university" is bugging the shit out of me.

It's not a change, it's what people say in other countries. We use "college" in the same way here (even if the institution is actually a university).

 

[Zenmervolt]

I disagree about only math being substantially additive. Really, half of the "hard" sciences are applied math in some form or another. For example, in Physics, especially E&M, so much builds upon a foundation. We started with point charges, then line charges, then spherical/cylindrical/infinite plane charges. Then you make things even more fun when charges start moving and you get magnetic fields. Ideally by the end of the class you'll be covering Maxwell's Equations. I doubt someone would be able to really understand and apply them without having a grasp on the material that came before.
I cant give other examples, but I assume other subjects like chemistry and biology build upon themselves in a similar manner.

This is HS we're talking about, not college courses. A HS physics class is half Newtonian and half E&M. If you fail the Newtonian portion and ace the E&M portion, that doesn't mean you somehow miraculously understand Newtonian physics and deserve to pass the course as a whole.

HS level Chemistry and Biology courses are similar. They are overviews of very broad fields, not the specifically-targeted courses on very narrow sub-fields that are taught in colleges. A HS Biology course will cover cell theory, genetics, as well as basic physiology all in one course. As with HS Physics, it's quite possible to fail cell theory and genetics and ace physiology, but that doesn't mean you have the broad understanding expected by the course. Chemistry in HS is similarly broad.

The bottom line here is that your counter-example simply doesn't apply to HS-level coursework. You are talking about a highly-specialized course on a small subset of the entire field and HS courses are just too broad for your example to apply.

ZV

 

[ShawnD1]

Sadly nearly every educational system in America is broke or near broke at this point, and in turn broken. We keep cutting educational funding at every turn and nobody seems to give a crap.

According to the Cato Institute (lolbertarians), public school funding has been increasing nonstop for half a century.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html

Nation Master implicitly agrees with this because it lists US schools as being the #3 most well-funded schools in the world.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student

# 1 Switzerland: $9,348.00 per student
# 2 Austria: $8,163.00 per student
# 3 United States: $7,764.00 per student
# 4 Norway: $7,343.00 per student
# 5 Denmark: $7,200.00 per student
# 6 France: $6,605.00 per student
# 7 Italy: $6,458.00 per student
# 8 Germany: $6,209.00 per student
# 9 Japan: $5,890.00 per student
# 10 Australia: $5,830.00 per student

For comparison, Canada's spending is about the same ballpark, possibly less, and the results are much better.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923110.html

Math
Canada - #5 upper rank
USA - #25 upper rank

Reading
Canada - #2 upper rank
USA - #12 upper rank

Science
Canada - #8 upper rank
USA - #20 upper rank

 

[Chaotic42]

Who cares about the grading scale when the curriculum is so flawed? Everyone is told from a young age that they have to go to college to be successful (not true), but when they get there they are in no way prepared whatsoever. They can't write clearly, they can't read and comprehend complex prose, they have a very narrow/warped view of history, it is basically a bad thing to be multilingual for some reason. And don't forget they struggle to do math and science that the rest of the world has already done at a younger age. They stupid up university for the rest of us!

True story: a so-called political science major once was talking to me about dictators and I referenced Mao, they had no idea who that was. Another person once tried to tell me Napoleon was English, and that Britain invaded Russia. This is at a university.

The college thing is self-fulfilling though. You now have to have a college degree to get hired on for my position. There is absolutely no way that this is a realistic requirement to actually do the work, it's just that the upper managers give the bachelor's degree prestige that it doesn't have. If I applied for my job now I wouldn't get it.

There should be some sort of logic test or something instead.

 

[F1N3ST]

I want this policy... Even though it's made for retards :hmm:

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

I have a sister in law that teaches geometry at junior high, and apparently in her school district all 8th grades are REQUIRED to take geometry, and all 7th graders are required to take algebra 1. If the 8th grader failed algebra 1 in 7th grade, then they are required to take Algebra 1 again in 8th grade PLUS they are still required to take geometry in 8th grade. To me this seems like it setting up students who are unprepared for Algebra and Geometry at such a young age to fail.

 

[Chaotic42]

I have a sister in law that teaches geometry at junior high, and apparently in her school district all 8th grades are REQUIRED to take geometry, and all 7th graders are required to take algebra 1. If the 8th grader failed algebra 1 in 7th grade, then they are required to take Algebra 1 again in 8th grade PLUS they are still required to take geometry in 8th grade. To me this seems like it setting up students who are unprepared for Algebra and Geometry at such a young age to fail.

Or to try harder. Of course, their parents would have to actually be involved in their education rather than fighting, sleeping with the pool boy, or watching NASCAR on the plasma.

I'm only 27 and I feel like I was really lucky to be raised by parents who wanted me to not only learn material, but learn how to think. I also got to run around outside. I don't think many kids get either of those these days.

 

[Terzo]

This is HS we're talking about, not college courses. A HS physics class is half Newtonian and half E&M. If you fail the Newtonian portion and ace the E&M portion, that doesn't mean you somehow miraculously understand Newtonian physics and deserve to pass the course as a whole.

HS level Chemistry and Biology courses are similar. They are overviews of very broad fields, not the specifically-targeted courses on very narrow sub-fields that are taught in colleges. A HS Biology course will cover cell theory, genetics, as well as basic physiology all in one course. As with HS Physics, it's quite possible to fail cell theory and genetics and ace physiology, but that doesn't mean you have the broad understanding expected by the course. Chemistry in HS is similarly broad.

The bottom line here is that your counter-example simply doesn't apply to HS-level coursework. You are talking about a highly-specialized course on a small subset of the entire field and HS courses are just too broad for your example to apply.

ZV

I suppose that they want to give us a broad education which means they can't really specialize. You're right, I'm thinking more about college.

Although, what about foreign language? I'd think that would be similar to math in that you are continually building upon previous lessons.

 

[ShawnD1]

I also got to run around outside. I don't think many kids get either of those these days.

Don't kid yourself. Uneducated parents have never cared about education. The reason your dad or his dad were able to drop out of school in grade 10 is because their parents just didn't care.

edit
Luckily my parents knew how to motivate my brother and I. "You can live in this house without paying rent as long as you are a student. If you're not a student, you can't live here."
He said this when my brother wanted to drop out of high school. My brother is now an engineer

 

[zinfamous]

No Child Left Behind.

Wonderful.

 

[Jeff7181]

Or to try harder. Of course, their parents would have to actually be involved in their education rather than fighting, sleeping with the pool boy, or watching NASCAR on the plasma.

I'm only 27 and I feel like I was really lucky to be raised by parents who wanted me to not only learn material, but learn how to think. I also got to run around outside. I don't think many kids get either of those these days.

This. A million times this.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm a teacher & that's what I've always done during the 1st quarter of the school year - although I usually won't raise a grade above about a 50&#37; & will make a note of the fact that it was raised.

Then, for the remaining 3 quarters, I look to see what can be put into place to help make the kid successful. A 0 in the first quarter pretty much guarantees they fail - and I have to have that kid in the class the rest of the year & that kids classmates have to sit next to that kid the rest of the year.

Some of you apparently don't realize that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances which lead to a horrendously low score - parents going through a divorce or some other horrible home situation. (Spare me the "but my parents got divorced and my grades weren't affected" comments.)

The final exam is comprehensive - it's not just based on material from the last couple of weeks. If the kid can turn it around & do well enough during the rest of the year to pass, then good for them. Oh, and you taxpayers get to pay for that kid to be in school for the extra year, if that's what it takes.

 

[Jeff7181]

I'm a teacher & that's what I've always done during the 1st quarter of the school year - although I usually won't raise a grade above about a 50% & will make a note of the fact that it was raised.

Then, for the remaining 3 quarters, I look to see what can be put into place to help make the kid successful. A 0 in the first quarter pretty much guarantees they fail - and I have to have that kid in the class the rest of the year & that kids classmates have to sit next to that kid the rest of the year.

Some of you apparently don't realize that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances which lead to a horrendously low score - parents going through a divorce or some other horrible home situation. (Spare me the "but my parents got divorced and my grades weren't affected" comments.)

The final exam is comprehensive - it's not just based on material from the last couple of weeks. If the kid can turn it around & do well enough during the rest of the year to pass, then good for them. Oh, and you taxpayers get to pay for that kid to be in school for the extra year, if that's what it takes.

I feel bad from kids from broken homes, I really do. However, coming from a broken home doesn't excuse them from learning. If they need to be held back a year, hold them back. You're doing them a disservice by excusing them from learning.

 

[Matthiasa]

Damn you guys went to easy High schools where I went anything lower then a 70 was a fail. In college though, it is below 60% for a fail after whatever minimum curve is applied.