Always interested in what others have to say about education policy, I clicked on a little link taking me to a blog entitled Thoughts on Education Policy, where I was promptly horrified by the very first post.
In this post, the author argues against a grading policy in Pittsburgh that states no teacher shall record a grade lower than 50% in the gradebook. The author goes on to state that the policy is unfair because a student who receives a 10% on one test and an 80% on another test will receive the same average as a student receiving a 50% and an 80% because the teacher was forced to record both the 10% and 50% the same – 50%.
How true! you cry because you, like most of us, were educated in a school system that had no understanding of standards, standards-based grading, or what they mean. Please, allow me to explain why this bloggers argument is short-sighted and definitely not “fair”.
A standard is a threshold that all students should be able to reach. When a child does not reach that threshold, it is the responsibility of the teacher to do whatever is possible to help that child. Unfortunately, some teachers hold on to the old idea that all they need do is record the grade and admonish the student to study harder next time. Pittsburgh is changing that mindset by telling teachers they may not record a grade lower than 50%. That does not mean they should falsify grades. It simply means that when a student receives a lower grade, the teacher does not record it, and then works harder with that child until the child can meet the minimum requirement of the standard at 50%. This encourages good teaching – providing children with the instruction they need until they meet success!
All of that leads to the second reason our poor blogger is missing the point. Grades should not be averaged. In standards-based education, we are looking for growth over time. We expect children to receive lower grades at first because the concept is new. As they receive more practice and, hopefully, more instruction, their skills improve. The final grade should be a reflection of the child’s ability to meet the standard after an appropriate amount of time and instruction. Averaging grades is really silly if you think about it. After 20 years at your job, do you want to be paid the average of your salary over those twenty years? Aren’t you worth more than that because all that you have learned about your particular trade? Students are also worth more.
It saddens me to see education advocates and teachers railing against policies that are designed for the improvement of student learning. After all, isn’t that why schools were built?
-Ted Murcray
You have a point, but you’ve completely misrepresented both the policy and why I disagree with it.
Dallas has a policy more similar to what you think this one is — where students who complete a task below standards continue to re-do the task until they get it. Pittsburgh’s policy is nothing of the sort. It is plain and simple: you receive a grade of 50 whenever you score 50 or below on something. If you get a 10 on a test you receive a 50 in the gradebook. If you decide not do your homework, you receive a 50 in the gradebook. There’s absolutely no mandate that you must try and try again until you’ve worked your way toward earning a 50. If anything, the policy provides a disincentive for teachers who want to work with students and give them a chance to do better b/c they’ve already earned their 50.
Secondly, I’ve never argued that the usual system is ideal. In my initial post on the policy I posited that this simply proved how ridiculous the usual system is.
But, yes, being graded on what how much you’ve learned at the end of a semester makes more sense than simply averaging grades throughout the semester — one of many reasons why the usual system is ridiculous.
Perhaps, but you might want to re-work your memo before sending it out. After all, your argument about students being able to walk into a room and declare they are not doing any work until the end of the semester, etc., seems to defend the position of the traditional grading method. As Nancy Flanagan asked in a comment to a previous post of yours, what exactly are we measuring by putting out grades? It seems to me that you are advocating the use of grades as an incentive for students to work hard on a daily basis instead of a measurement of their knowledge levels. You must agree that those are vastly different. You should probably also agree that what you argue for IS the traditional method of grading, whether you intended for it to be or not.
Again, I re-read your post as I was unable to find the actual memo myself. At no point in the memo does it directly state that teachers should not be working with students to improve grades. As I explained in my post, the purpose of a policy mandate such as the one issued in Pittsburgh, is to break the cycle of failure and the habit of teachers to simply record failure instead of acting on it. What Pittsburgh’s teachers should be doing instead of complaining is working hard to insure that students feel so successful in class that they choose to work and find themselves doing better than 50% in class.
Using a grade as a means to control students and encourage them to work hard can only do one thing – bring to mind very quickly the image of slaves being whipped into obedience. Not exactly the utopia public education was to bring about.
There’s a link to the memo in the post: http://www.edpolicythoughts.com/2008/09/pittsburghs-explanation.html (I copied and pasted it). It says absolutely nothing about requiring that students work on an assignment before receiving a grade, yet alone anything about re-doing their original work.
Dallas, however, has something to that effect (including a rule that students must be allowed to re-take a test and keep the higher grade): http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081608dnmetdisdgrading.4627fe2.html
I think you missed my first post on the topic where I posited that this policy proves that grades are stupid.
In Utopia, grades wouldn’t be used, students would all be polite and motivated, and everything would be peachy keen. Unfortunately, we don’t live in Utopia. It wasn’t an “argument” about students being able to declare that they’re not doing anything but they want their 50 — it was a factual account of what is happening in Pittsburgh.
No, we don’t live in Utopia – hardly a reason to continue poor education.
If indeed this is a factual account of what is happening in Pittsburgh, as the memo states (thank you for the link), it hardly matters. 50% is still failing. At some point, the child has to try i order to succeed. The 50% rule helps children avoid failing forever, but it does not support laziness as some might suggest.
Which seems to almost bring us back full circle. As you continue to explain what you did not mean in your post, I am not sure exactly what you did mean.
I am a teacher in the Pittsburgh School District and I can tell you that the policy to date is having a very negative affect on student performance. Each and every quiz or task that is assigned a grade is to be given the minimum 50% grade. I have personally had students refuse to do daily tasks, seat work, or labs and their response is,” You have to give me at least 50% whether I do it or not. ” It creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to learning anything other than another way to beat the system.