No More F's?

[Annie]

Interestingly, you knew exactly what I meant....

Curving the grade is a great way to allow everyone to pass, including Ravi.

I never curved grades, if too many cannot score above 75%, something was wrong with the test or the presentation of material-need to start over. Actually even with subbing in high school, haven't seen tests that were curved. Perhaps it's falling out of practice?

Well, in either case:

1. Something was wrong with the test
2. Something was wrong with the presentation (which, I might add, is NOT necessarily the fault of the teacher)

Who is penalized?

A. If you count the grade, then all the kids with scores below 75%.

B. If you don't count the grade, then all the kids with scores above 75%.

Or, you could allow anyone to retake the test. When? Afterschool? Before School?

Then, in addition to measuring whatever the students learned, you also measure how dedicated they are to spending time after or before school (which has nothing to do with the purpose of public schooling).

First figure out if it was the test questions or their understanding. If test, I'd give it to anyone that wanted to retake, regardless of grade. For those with A's, either let them use the period to go to library, read, or work silently on homework if they didn't have a project to work on.

If presentation, I'd reteach. Then retest. Could there be A's even though the 'teacher' messed up in the lesson? Certainly, they have a large enough base of knowledge, they are good readers of the text and can make inferences that rest of class couldn't. I'd never make a kid retake a test that they are happy with their grade. Either case, it would be in class, since too many didn't fair well.

I can only think of two times that I allowed a 'retake' of a test that wasn't group based, as a compromise between parents, principal, and myself. I think it's inherently unfair to those that are ready. If a student 'fails' because they 'didn't feel well,' they should state such before the test. Both times I averaged their two grades. Since one was a D or F, they weren't going to jump over those who were prepared.

 

[Samson]

I never curved grades, if too many cannot score above 75%, something was wrong with the test or the presentation of material-need to start over. Actually even with subbing in high school, haven't seen tests that were curved. Perhaps it's falling out of practice?

Well, in either case:

1. Something was wrong with the test
2. Something was wrong with the presentation (which, I might add, is NOT necessarily the fault of the teacher)

Who is penalized?

A. If you count the grade, then all the kids with scores below 75%.

B. If you don't count the grade, then all the kids with scores above 75%.

Or, you could allow anyone to retake the test. When? Afterschool? Before School?

Then, in addition to measuring whatever the students learned, you also measure how dedicated they are to spending time after or before school (which has nothing to do with the purpose of public schooling).

First figure out if it was the test questions or their understanding.

How?

By giving a test?

 

[Annie]

Well, in either case:

1. Something was wrong with the test
2. Something was wrong with the presentation (which, I might add, is NOT necessarily the fault of the teacher)

Who is penalized?

A. If you count the grade, then all the kids with scores below 75%.

B. If you don't count the grade, then all the kids with scores above 75%.

Or, you could allow anyone to retake the test. When? Afterschool? Before School?

Then, in addition to measuring whatever the students learned, you also measure how dedicated they are to spending time after or before school (which has nothing to do with the purpose of public schooling).

First figure out if it was the test questions or their understanding.

How?

By giving a test?

By reviewing the objectives. Since the test should be centered on those, if the students understand what was to be taught, the test is at fault. If instead they are not clear on the concepts, giving an assessment was wrong and needs to be retaught, with clarity. Seriously, I can't think of a time with a test it happened. Quiz? Yes, but often that is to give the teacher the feedback on whether or not they are learning what one is trying to teach. As you know, assessments aren't only for measuring the children.

 

[Samson]

First figure out if it was the test questions or their understanding.

How?

By giving a test?

By reviewing the objectives.

Basically, I'm seeing that the only way to achieve the mechanics of what you propose, is to teach in "small bites."

IOW, you cannot spend, say a month teaching, and then give a test for which the average score is below 75, and then "review the objectives," which took a month to teach the first time.

On the other hand, you can teach for an hour, give a test that covers the objective (or more likely a sub-objective) of the lesson, grade the test before the next class, and if the average score was below 75, review the test in class, teach something new, and then RETEST, regrade, etc. etc.

Either way, you've severely slowed the process of pipelining students toward the all-important State Test of Knowledge and Skills.

 

[Annie]

How?

By giving a test?

By reviewing the objectives.

Basically, I'm seeing that the only way to achieve the mechanics of what you propose, is to teach in "small bites."

IOW, you cannot spend, say a month teaching, and then give a test for which the average score is below 75, and then "review the objectives," which took a month to teach the first time.

On the other hand, you can teach for an hour, give a test that covers the objective (or more likely a sub-objective) of the lesson, grade the test before the next class, and if the average score was below 75, review the test in class, teach something new, and then RETEST, regrade, etc. etc.

Either way, you've severely slowed the process of pipelining students toward the all-important State Test of Knowledge and Skills.

I don't teach to tests, I teach to the standards. My students have not had a problem with standardized tests. I wouldn't go a month between tests. I believe it's important for both myself and the student to keep regular track of how they are doing regarding objectives.

Each Unit is broken into sections. Each section is read in 2-3 days. Each day there's some assessment of mastery of the day's objective(s). At the end of each section there's either a quiz or a project-no more than 1 or 2 days, depending on subject matter. If the Unit is 'big' such as Civil War, there will be several 'comprehensive up to that point' quizzes or reports to ensure that the students are integrating the topics.

 

[Samson]

By reviewing the objectives.

Basically, I'm seeing that the only way to achieve the mechanics of what you propose, is to teach in "small bites."

IOW, you cannot spend, say a month teaching, and then give a test for which the average score is below 75, and then "review the objectives," which took a month to teach the first time.

On the other hand, you can teach for an hour, give a test that covers the objective (or more likely a sub-objective) of the lesson, grade the test before the next class, and if the average score was below 75, review the test in class, teach something new, and then RETEST, regrade, etc. etc.

Either way, you've severely slowed the process of pipelining students toward the all-important State Test of Knowledge and Skills.

I don't teach to tests, I teach to the standards. My students have not had a problem with standardized tests. I wouldn't go a month between tests. I believe it's important for both myself and the student to keep regular track of how they are doing regarding objectives.

Each Unit is broken into sections. Each section is read in 2-3 days. Each day there's some assessment of mastery of the day's objective(s). At the end of each section there's either a quiz or a project-no more than 1 or 2 days, depending on subject matter. If the Unit is 'big' such as Civil War, there will be several 'comprehensive up to that point' quizzes or reports to ensure that the students are integrating the topics.

Then it makes sense.

However, I submit that with this regime, how could anyone with a heartbeat receive an "F?"

My theory is that the propensity for students to receive an "F" is directly proportional to the number of grades they receive (how often learning is measured).

This theory is supported by research.

 

[Annie]

Basically, I'm seeing that the only way to achieve the mechanics of what you propose, is to teach in "small bites."

IOW, you cannot spend, say a month teaching, and then give a test for which the average score is below 75, and then "review the objectives," which took a month to teach the first time.

On the other hand, you can teach for an hour, give a test that covers the objective (or more likely a sub-objective) of the lesson, grade the test before the next class, and if the average score was below 75, review the test in class, teach something new, and then RETEST, regrade, etc. etc.

Either way, you've severely slowed the process of pipelining students toward the all-important State Test of Knowledge and Skills.

I don't teach to tests, I teach to the standards. My students have not had a problem with standardized tests. I wouldn't go a month between tests. I believe it's important for both myself and the student to keep regular track of how they are doing regarding objectives.

Each Unit is broken into sections. Each section is read in 2-3 days. Each day there's some assessment of mastery of the day's objective(s). At the end of each section there's either a quiz or a project-no more than 1 or 2 days, depending on subject matter. If the Unit is 'big' such as Civil War, there will be several 'comprehensive up to that point' quizzes or reports to ensure that the students are integrating the topics.

Then it makes sense.

However, I submit that with this regime, how could anyone with a heartbeat receive an "F?"

My theory is that the propensity for students to receive an "F" is directly proportional to the number of grades they receive (how often learning is measured).

This theory is supported by research.

I don't disagree and never did. However, a student that doesn't turn in their assignments, fails to respond to test questions? Yeah, they'll fail. It's their choice, unless they do not belong in a regular classroom.

 

[Samson]

I don't teach to tests, I teach to the standards. My students have not had a problem with standardized tests. I wouldn't go a month between tests. I believe it's important for both myself and the student to keep regular track of how they are doing regarding objectives.

Each Unit is broken into sections. Each section is read in 2-3 days. Each day there's some assessment of mastery of the day's objective(s). At the end of each section there's either a quiz or a project-no more than 1 or 2 days, depending on subject matter. If the Unit is 'big' such as Civil War, there will be several 'comprehensive up to that point' quizzes or reports to ensure that the students are integrating the topics.

Then it makes sense.

However, I submit that with this regime, how could anyone with a heartbeat receive an "F?"

My theory is that the propensity for students to receive an "F" is directly proportional to the number of grades they receive (how often learning is measured).

This theory is supported by research.

I don't disagree and never did. However, a student that doesn't turn in their assignments, fails to respond to test questions? Yeah, they'll fail. It's their choice, unless they do not belong in a regular classroom.

Then I submit that this seems to be a very large % of students?

Why else would the state (or district) resort to a draconian "No More F's" policy?

Furthermore, I would submit that it is the TEACHER that has not motivated their students, that is responsible for the F's.

 

[Unkotare]

There is renewed talk of this nonsense lately in Ed circles.

 

[alexa]

I'm also curious about what this teaches young people. Are they going to assume that their employer will be a flexible with work deadlines.

I wonder how long I'd last in my work if I didn't bother to stick to an agreed timescale for work.

Seriously, schools need to prepare kids for the real world, not pander to their lazy asses.

You're assuming the reason they haven't passed is because they are lazy. I would think that unlikely. Most kids want to succeed.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Public schools today are a waste of money.
They need to all be closed down.