next »

[gwydion]

I read this in my local paper today.

http://valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1669710237/Lowndes-grading-guide-stirs-controversy

[notaprof]

I read this in my local paper today.

http://valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1669710237/Lowndes-grading-guide-stirs-controversy

Did The Onion buy out the Valdosta Times?

[dr_know]

Please don't let the superintendent of the school board in Know-ville read this.  He'd implement it right away.

[punchnpie]

Whoa. How many times are teachers supposed to re-test the little darlings until the student gets an 'A'? If nothing else, what a lot of work for teachers - and what about students who understand the work and will now be slowed down by students who are constantly redoing the work?

[fancypants]

If someone argued that they pay the teachers in accord with their earnings potential rather than whatever the current system allows for, I think their tune would change.

In fact, I wouldn't mind being paid according to my earnings potential! With all this education and experience, I have the potential to earn millions!

[theritas]

I don't think this is dramatically different than the case by case treatment in most areas now; it's just spelled out more specifically.  Most k-12 teachers chase students around for work on a regular basis, even if there is a policy that it is up to the student.  They genuinely want students to pass if at all possible, and when parents contact administrators, teachers tend to be the ones under pressure to jump through hoops.  However, removing the ability to enter a zero seems to benefit the student who has no intention of cooperating.  With so many districts having online gradebooks, the zero is a great way to communicate to parents and get attention to the missing grade.  An incomplete doesn't drop the overall score, so it's more likely to be ignored.

[polly_mer]

I think for elementary school, this

“In education, the goal is to truly learn the material rather than simply earn a grade,” said Davis.

is the appropriate guiding principle.  As Theritas wrote, many elementary school teachers already do this.  I don't agree with never entering a zero, but I do agree with a test-to-mastery model for elementary students.

Yes, that's more work for the teachers, but a teacher can structure classes with groupings so that what students will complete to get an A is not the same set of materials that students will complete for a C.  The more proficient students are not greatly slowed by that model and the students who need more help can get targeted assignments.

[lucero]

I think for elementary school, this

“In education, the goal is to truly learn the material rather than simply earn a grade,” said Davis.

is the appropriate guiding principle.  As Theritas wrote, many elementary school teachers already do this.  I don't agree with never entering a zero, but I do agree with a test-to-mastery model for elementary students.

Yes, that's more work for the teachers, but a teacher can structure classes with groupings so that what students will complete to get an A is not the same set of materials that students will complete for a C.  The more proficient students are not greatly slowed by that model and the students who need more help can get targeted assignments.

To me this is very problematic. Again, the smart ones who do their work will get shafted. They will be stuck having to be held back by the students who are not doing their work or who are not that bright. Why should these two groups of students even be in the same class? Although tracking early on can sometimes be inaccurate I believe that we will further empty the public schools of any students who are gifted or bright if they have the money to go elsewhere. This just makes no pedagogical sense to me. I think students should have be able to work towards mastery but if you have special ed kid in the class with gifted student that is just going to pull the teacher in two different directions. Gifted kid may master the work in a week, and have to wait for the slowest student to mastery it a year later.

[glenwood]

Think of what this system teaches: everything can be "re-done" later. Measure once, cut twice.

[theritas]

Think of what this system teaches: everything can be "re-done" later. Measure once, cut twice.

This, in so many ways.  There is such resistance to administering any real consequences, that is seems the first times that many of our student encounter them, they are so surprised that they could ever be held accountable.  To me, that encourages risky behavior right at a time when the potential consequences are SO VERY DRAMATIC. 

[polly_mer]

Lucero, I am not an elementary-school teacher, but what you describe was not my experience as the insanely bright student in a very small rural public school system.

Instead, teachers had about three groups for most things.  The groups worked at different rates.  I did sometimes have to wait for the rest of the top group to catch up, but at no point was I held back by the mainstreamed special ed kid, despite being physically present in the same classroom.  The system just didn't work that way and from speaking with my colleagues in this region, the system still doesn't work the way you describe, even with test-to-mastery models.

A concern is people who fool around instead of doing their best on the first go, but few people are worried that the very bright are being shafted because that's not how the medium-to-good elementary classrooms function.

[dochalladay]

I think there's some validity to this idea of "teaching to mastery" in lower-level elementary education. It helps to ensure that students are acquiring the basic skills they will need to do work in later years. It's the "no zeros" policy that just offends me. If someone is trying but struggling to comprehend, teaching to mastery makes a lot of sense to me. If someone's a lazy lump I have no tolerance for stuff like this.

[mountainguy]

My inner assessment geek immediately wonders what the desired outcome of such policies would be. I can see the argument that at the primary level, such policies would force students to learn foundational material. But elementary school is not the same thing as college.  As students advance through the educational system, they need increasingly to be able to self-regulate their own learning and perform tasks autonomously. I don't see how this approach encourages that outcome. Training wheels are appropriate for a 6 or 7-year old, but at some point, you have to ride the bike on your own.

FWIW, I do know of one mastery learning system that's been used at the college level with some success. But it has a very different grading scale than what gets used in most classes, and it still produces D-W-F grades from students who think they can game the system.

[ejb_123]

I think there's some validity to this idea of "teaching to mastery" in lower-level elementary education. It helps to ensure that students are acquiring the basic skills they will need to do work in later years. It's the "no zeros" policy that just offends me. If someone is trying but struggling to comprehend, teaching to mastery makes a lot of sense to me. If someone's a lazy lump I have no tolerance for stuff like this.

A "no zeros" policy implies that students must do the work and complete an assignment; they just can't decide that they will not do an assignment and take a zero for doing no work.

[oldfullprof]

I taught statistics several times using "teaching to mastery."  It worked out.