Discussion in 'General Education' started by blazer, Sep 26, 2018.
Sep 27, 2018
Either way, the district implied the school does give zeros and the school clearly does not.
I worked at a school once that let us enter grades as zero or the actual score, but anything lower than 20% was calculated as 20% in the average. I didn't mind that. It did keep students from becoming hopeless, but still a 20% is not near a passing grade, so it wasn't giving them an advantage over those who tried, but couldn't do it. It also didn't discourage kids from trying and doing all of their work.
50% of 0 is u. or C.
(Which then, does that mean that you get a C if you get 50% of a 0?)
*walks away slowly*
This seems to be getting to "fancy math" territory.
Very funny. Har har, lol!
Well, Rick Wormeli has something to say on this matter:
Sep 28, 2018
Ugh...he's the worst. We had to sit through an 8 hour presentation from this guy last year. It was quite bad.
Hey, if the district wants to spend some $$ why not implement Saturday school where the kids can sit there all day and do all the work they refused to do in the first place so they don't earn a 0. Yes, they EARN 0s by not doing the work. The teacher doesn't GIVE them a 0.
Anyone want to work on Saturdays with these angels?
You are a breath of fresh air, do you know that?
I would have to revamp my entire grading if my school adopted a policy like this. It wouldn't be too difficult to do, just time consuming. I'd make every assignment have a 50 point base. You write your name at the top - 50%. But the actual assessment would look radically different. There wouldn't be any more "easy" points available since they were just given 50 for their names. I wouldn't allow the policy to make my LETTER grades inflated.
I would expect to have more failing students, though. Because the kids would know they didn't have to do their classwork or practice so they wouldn't be as skilled when it came test time.
Well, if the lowest a student can ever get is a 50%, then it is inflating grades. Any time points are allocated for non-merit, grades are being inflated. Kind of like when every student get an additional 10% from say, a 62% to a 72%, to raise the average 10% to make the distribution of test scores a standard normal bell curve.
And I think getting an automatic 50% for writing your name is the easiest number of points you can ever get. Imagine if you got an automatic 800/1,600 on the SAT just for putting your name.
Hate to break it to you, but the lowest possible score is 200/600 for each section. (I know, different situation, and essentially it just makes 200 a '0', but still had to point it out )
I already knew that. That isn’t new to me, lol.
My point is that you get half of ALL possible points just for writing your name, which is ludicrous.
He says such nonsense. "In the real world you are able to be late more than not." Really? We had a great teacher whose contract wasn't renewed after being late less than 1/3 of the days that year. I had an important transaction I had to get done at a bank one time and I showed up one minute after closing time. I wasn't let into the bank. Try showing up late for an interview or turning your taxes in late. Will there be a penalty? You bet! I know I am preaching to the choir here, but this guy is just wrong.
Yeah after 8 hours of listening to him talk down to us in a hot crowded auditorium, it really left a bad taste in my mouth. A couple of staff members tried some of his ideas last year (regarding redos and retakes and so on), and they all stopped this year because it was too much of a headache and students were just taking advantage of it. You don't even want to know how much they paid him to come.....
Yes, that argument makes no sense. If I pay my bills late, I get a late fee. Work turned in late should receive a "late fee" as well.
To the above three respondents, now you all be careful with that logic stuff. You’re making too much sense and it might confuse some people, lol!
Sep 30, 2018
This used to make sense, when there was a guessing "penalty". You would get 200 points for your name and a blank paper, but if you put your name and got all the questions WRONG, you'd get (theoretically) a zero. They've eliminated the guessing "penalty", however.
* it was never actually a penalty in reality, though. It was always designed simply to not reward pure guessing by subtracting a quarter point for a wrong answer on a four-choice multiple choice question.
Honestly, to a lot of people this is a pretty pedantic discussion which makes teachers look petty. If a kid gets a zero they flunk. If a kid gets a fifty they flunk. Why don't you argue for allowing negative scores -- if they do badly enough, it takes away from their NEXT test?
I don't agree with you that it's pedantic, regardless of which viewpoint one has.
Overall, a student with a 0 at the end of the year flunks, and a student with a 50 at the end of the year flunks. But think of it more in the mindset of individual assignments. Randomly, take 10 assignments equally weighted (simply for ease), where one kid gets a 0 for two assignments and gets an 80% average on the others, vs. the 50 for two assignments and an 80% average on others. One student ends up with a 64% overall. The other ends up with a 74% overall. Obviously an "out there" example, but decisions like this do affect overall grades, not to mention the mindset that kids have. As educators, that's exactly the discussion we need to be (respectfully) having.
(And if you were referring at all with the pedantic-ness to the SAT scores - I was just having a little bit of fun messing with mathprof in the moment, nothing more.)
I must admit, it was pretty funny and almost a counterexample. I thought it was clever.
Separate names with a comma.