Andy replied:
No, it’s not. It’s recognizing that there’s no point in distinguishing 25 from 45.

Why am I not surprised to see a “principles of educational psychology” argument from someone who doesn’t understand the difference between measure and meaning?

– I understand the difference, thank you. I know these ideas are challenging for certain people, and so I’ll forgive your insult, and instead ask why you’re gung-ho to argue for a system that dedicates half of its scale to a difference that is not worth distinguishing. If it’s not worth distinguishing, but the effect of it is to inhibit student motivation and diminish the potential impact of any change in their progress, it actual decreases learning. I hope that ideas like “motivation” and “learning” aren’t too psychological or too “edu-jargon” for your taste.

Ragnorak writes:
>The point is still that we should distinguish between a student who blows it and a student who barely fails. Using a flat 50% for both defeats that purpose.

– Every time you use “%” you miss my point. Most of the time in grading it’s not really measuring an actual percentage of anything.

>As for your argument that one could get 14 85s and 1 zero and wind up with a C, so what? If there are extenuating circumstances, take them into consideration. If not, perhaps one deserves the C+ (the actual score would be 79.33, btw).

– So you’re not really disagreeing with me, just saying that you think one slip in 14 tries – for a student – should result in a particularly harsh consequence. You believe in harsher consequences than I do, that’s all. I think a grade should reflect skills and learning more than (but NOT to the exclusion of) work habits.

>Verbiage is not a substitute for content.
– I’ve been accused of many things, but not for lack of content. I think I’ve gone into more detail and careful explanation and support than you, at least.

>And BTW, if you must use Latin phrases, try to spell correctly. You’re a teacher, aren’t you? So we’re entitled to expect that much.
– You caught me. A typographical error. Good one! Score for Ragnorak! We’re entitled to expect perfect typography on blogs. You’re absolutely right.

Or, if you’re looking to use discretion to grade accurately, instead of throwing together a bunch of scores without considering progress, strengths and weaknesses, and performance relative to class learning goals, you don’t have a problem because you recorded all the information you need to make such an assessment along the way. It’s a case of work up front saving time and effort later on.

And yes, I would be classified as a radical because my ideas of assessment come from software project management, not ed school.

“Quincy, David, have you considered throwing out the, say, two lowest scores or maybe the lowest and highest scores, before generating the grade average? That would solve the problem of an outlier score unduly affecting the grade.”

Yes – I used to drop the lowest score from the items that were most frequent and least “valuable.” If we had twelve quizzes in the semester, the top 11 scores are sufficient to reach a grade.

The beauty of the new system is you don’t have to throw anything out. Throwing one out was a compensation for a flaw or bias in averaging. When you’re not averaging, you don’t need to throw things out.

I am very interested to know (the article and this post did not address it) if the students MUST do the work that IS assigned and no zeros mean that the student must come in for tutoring/d-hall to get it done.

We have instituted a similar policy at our high school and I am very proud to say, it worked for me! Hard to believe, huh? The theory behind assessing for learning is that the students must do all the work. There are no more “Give me a zero, dude!” attitudes. It makes a difference.

To reassess a test or paper, the student must come in for tutoring, have all homework finished and can only score as high as an 85 for the reassessment 2nd exam at our school.

We also do the “Comp 50″ as it is called. This eliminates the student who scores a 30 the first six week’s period of the semester and has already flunked. What a discipline problem those kids are!

Just 2 cents worth from a teacher who is lucky enough to have read up on the theory, sat in classrooms and had it instructed to me, and has been able to put it into place and watch it work.

For more information search google for Ken O’Connor “Grading for Learning” (a great book) or Rick Stiggins “Assessment for Learning.”

Seriously, it’s a good idea at least during the year to help students with the areas they need strengthening. At the end of the year, though, you have to come up with a judgement whether a student passes or not. You have to combine those scores again into one and compare that one score to some measure of pass/fail or A/B/C/D/F. You don’t really get around the problem you so cogently describe. You just delay it.

And that’s not even counting the number of times that the response to such a phone call is “¡No inglés!” Not being facetious here; what I just said was pointed out by a teacher who called in to a local radio station on Monday (I’m in the Dallas area myself, but, thankfully, not part of DISD).

I hope that Dallas teachers work against it as vehemently as they work for pay raises.

They were already working 60 hour work weeks, underpaid, without support, and with customers (students and parents) that use them for scapegoats as much as their bosses do (administrators).

Now their workload has been doubled, their only remaining disciplinary tool taken away (deadlines and grades), and they can look forward to making tens of thousands of phone calls and getting hung up on or cursed at thousands of times.

And you thought your non-teaching job was bad.

What does a 50% percent in a single grade tell you? The kid failed. Nothing more. What does a 70% on content, 25% on presentation, and a 0% on assignment timeliness tell you? Well, the kid’s got a general grasp of the content, but is severly lacking in organizational skills. Moreover, in a single score system, a 20% in the book might mean the assignment was hideously late, but well done, or it might mean that it was on time and incredibly off the mark. Break that same assignment out into a 20% for content and a 100% for timeliness and presentation, and you catch an outlier you may have missed otherwise.

It’s about information, and using it to assess the state of students’ education. It’s not about masking failure through numbers, which *is* what the Dallas proposal is about.