The LEA where I work has proposed a new policy for all teachers/classes that 0's can no longer be given to students for any assignment or assessment (turned in or not). Instead, a 60% will become the new 0. I have very mixed feelings about this proposed policy. I've read various things the past few years on this new trend, and right now, my PLC is doing a study on Rick Wormeli's book Fair Isn't Always Equal. I've heard the mathematical arguments for giving a 60% instead of a 0% but when I get down to it, I'm still not convinced 100% that this is a good policy. I think what's bothering me the most is what is driving the policy or rather, what's not being said that may be driving the policy. We know that many students spiral out of control, ending up in failure. That being said, it makes sense that in order to get out of that place, students will have to spiral up and that's easier said than done. That requires among other things teachers helping to scaffold and support the student as he/she tries to come up from an F. It requires first and foremost intrinsic motivation on the part of the student. I like to think I can do many things as a teacher, and I'm pretty willing to do most things (whatever it takes) in order to motivate and help a student achieve success. But, that in and of itself is not enough. The student has to want to succeed. This leads me back to the policy. Will giving a 60% create that motivation for that student to succeed? Is the policy really trying to address teachers who do not scaffold and help the student spiral back to success? If that is what this policy is aiming to do, then is making a mandatory "60% instead of 0%" the answer? Aren't we just treating the symptom instead of the root? And that is what bothers me the most. I feel like it's another move of taking the power and control out of an individual teacher's hands. Why do we have these mandated, everyone follows policies instead of dealing with the individual problems? I know from 15 years of personal experience that when a student makes up his/her mind that he/she wants to be successful and is going to work for that success, motivation is strong. From the first year I taught, I pulled students aside after the first grading period who did not pass and offered to raise their grades to a 65% for the first grading period if they made a C or higher the next grading period. I've had a lot of success with that method and have felt good about my decision-making in those matters. Interestingly enough, the two years I decided to go ahead and report the failing grade as a 65% for those who did not make it the first grading period, I had noticeably fewer students who really changed things around and worked hard to raise their grades. Instead, giving the 65% seemed to create a sense of entitlement for many of the students in that category. It's actually easier on me to go ahead and give the 65% so that I don't have to deal with the paperwork at a later date of raising the grade, but after seeing the results for those two years, I went back to my original system. And it's worked. And it's been ME making that decision as a qualified and reflective practitioner; not a 'one size fits all' policy mandated by an lea, state or nation.
Now, if this policy is passed, I will no longer have that individual authority (or the satisfaction of using that authority to help students be successful). And the policy won't address the underlying issue (at least as far as I can tell since there's not a dialogue going on about it) of what do we do to help students turn things around when they are not being successful. Already some teachers are talking about how they can compensate for the 'new 0's' by grading harder or giving fewer assignments or giving more, and so on. And once again, it looks like we're headed for another policy that's being passed in an effort to address all, but it turns out the choir only is once again getting the sermon. As one of those in the choir, I'm tired and discouraged. When will the messages start targeting those not in church?
On Memory, Meaning, and Making Sense: Straight From the Classroom
-
One of the things I value most about young children's writing is what it
reveals about them: how are they learning to make sense of their world?
Here I sha...
18 hours ago
Posts
3 comments:
The policy is almost representative of criminal behavior. So much for raising standards. We need to make sure that we send out a memo telling our students that when they leave school and don't show up for work they won't get 60% of their pay check!
I'll preface the comment with the fact I've never been convinced with our current grading standards as implement (How did we come to decide that getting 2/3s of something constitutes failing anyway?)
Regardless, on this specific issue, I must disagree with the policy change. I do not feel that if someone does not do any work they should automatically gain a 60. Or for that matter turning something in. (On a side note, I am undecided on the debate over one central grading system as opposed to leeway and individual desecration. I'd have to say I lean towards the latter, just as am I opposed to mandatory sentencing standards for Judges). If they did not bother to do something, we should be bother to save them and pass them along? Clearly, they are not qualified to move on, and don't have the work ethic to handle anything higher; indeed this is likely to turn out and bite the teacher back when said student is unable to have success at a future date, and could then blame others for sliding them along in the first place. Regardless, I have always viewed the zero tolerance policy as harsh. Therefore, if an assignment is turned in late, I would not give a zero, but I would not reward them either (no high grades for late work). Conversely, I have always felt it unfair to those of us who do our work not never been helped ever. The help and the bonuses always go to those with don't do what they are supposed to in the first place.
So, without too much more writing, and in regards to the actual policy change, I object to the automatic sixty policy, and I object to an automatic zero (if turned in) policy. I'd go for something in between, but I do not know what. It all depends, I suppose on various factors (assignment, amount done, reason late, etc). This will show kids that work needs to be done, but that it can be done, and also doesn't undermine the thoughts of those who do work (for example, if I spent an hour on something to get a 100, and the other did nothing and go a 60, the opportunity cost would not always be worth it to spend the hour for the 100).
I agree with the work analogy. If I you don't show up for work, you don't get paid. If a student doesn't do his/her work, they shouldn't get a grade. This policy seems to place more of a burden on teachers than it does the student. I will have to contact a parent if a student doesn't do the work and tell them that little Johnny needs to get it done? I mean come on. How many phone calls will I have to make everyday? I already have a problem with students turning in work that was assigned during class and they were given class time to complete. So you mean to tell me that these students should be given even more time to complete something simply because they didn't feel like doing it at that particular moment? Give me a break!! I have children of my own at home that I have to make sure that they do their homework. I am not the mother of 90 more children. They have parents, let the parents of those children have to be parents and maybe these students will learn that you have to earn something. Handing students something for nothing is not teaching them anything. Are we really preparing these students for the "real world". Are we teaching them 21st Century skills? What is a 21st Century skill then? Responsibility most not fall into that category!
Post a Comment