I'm not going to spend to much time focusing on the negatives, and I'm sure there are exceptions for the absence or refusal to turn in assignments, but the gist of the new system is as follows. The grading scale is failing from 50-69, and passing from 70 and above (with a "D" average falling from 70-76, "C"s from 77-84; "B"s from 85-93, and "A"s from 94-100). The thought process is that if a student fails one test and improves over time, the increasing results have a more realistic possibility of having a final average in the "pass" range.
For example, under the old scale, if a student got a 35 on the first test, a 60 on the second, a 68 on the third, a 72 on the fourth, a 74 on the fifth, and a 76 on the last one, and there was no weighted averages for any, the student would have cumulative average of a 64, which would be failing. Under the new system, the score on the first test would automatically become a 50, and the average would be increased to a 67. It's still failing, but it makes it a little easier for the teacher to objectively demonstrate a progressive increase and possibly justify giving a little more weight to the later tests. Certainly if you play around with the numbers a bit, you can show an average that increases from below failing to barely passing.
In the grand scheme, it's not that much of a change from the system already in place and the discretion given to teachers in grading. Nevertheless, the idea that it's "trying to ensure we don't give kids 69 ways to fail and 31 ways to pass" is a novel one that warrants further consideration, perhaps by the rest of the districts in a similar fashion. Certainly credit can be given to the Capital School District board for trying something new.
And if it works well for Delaware schools, maybe other states would give it some consideration as well.
Tags:
2 comments:
This is the most ridiculous argument for a flawed policy I have ever read. The process is designed to help pore students while penalizing the ones achieving beeter results. I have a student that regulary scores in the 80's and 90's she just recieved a b after achieving a 92 percent in english. This in most other scool districts in the country would be an A. He sister also earned a 75% and recieved a D again most otehr school districts in the US and many schools in Delaware this would have been a solid C. Yes, if she would have recieved a 10% on a test and was unfairly given a 50% she would have benefitted. Instead her lowest score was a 70% and is now unfairly saddled with a grade that does not reflect the national norm. How is this a good thing? How is this fair? How is this benifiting anyone other than the student who is failing.
Thank you for your comment.
Post a Comment