US School Districts: Changing Grading System - Is It A Good Idea?

[YoshiMoshi]

Wait I don't understand this at all? Can someone sum it up for me?

Basically they want to take race into consideration when determining grades?

-Modified

Sorry for my rant...

 

[phinds]

Sorry for my rant...

So are we

 

[YoshiMoshi]

It would be nice to have conversations on topics like this were we can rationalize our opinions in a calm collect manner. But people tend to loose their cool and scream and yell at each other on controversial topics. God forbid two people sit down like two grown adults and rationalize their views to each other.

 

[Rive]

God forbid two people sit down like two grown adults and rationalize their views to each other.

It's not forbidden. Just requires some good... spirit

 

[Evo]

The title of this thread is misleading. The OP cites an article titled "San Diego Schools Are Changing Their Grading System. Is It A Good Idea?" and somehow PF expands the headline to encompass to all US schools.

The title was changed, because phinds' article included links to articles discussing the change being implemented around the US, not just San Diego.

 

[symbolipoint]

Well, I had the opposite experience.
In high school homework wouldn't be turned in, the teacher would ask a few students to present their work. No direct grade for it. Teachers would grade your overall contribution to the lessons (sort of) each half year, it could influence that grade a bit.
At university homework was graded, it was nice to get feedback, but formally you only used that to be admitted to the exam and the threshold was really low (you could easily stop handing in anything after half of the time if you wanted). The grade for the class was 100% the exam. That grade was largely irrelevant, too - because the final grade of the degree was purely based on oral exams and the thesis. In addition there were only a few classes that you had to attend: You still needed to know what was covered in others, but you didn't need to get a grade in them. That means homework and exams in them were purely optional.

Was that ONLY for graduate school, or did you mean that was your experience for undergraduate and for high school?

 

[YoshiMoshi]

So can i express my views on this in a polite manner to articulate my view point, and then if people disagree with me, they are free to articulate why they disagree with my view point, and rationalize theirs. This would be beneficial because not only do I get to rationalize my view point, but I get to understand the opposing sides view more and why they they think the way they do. This will allow me to further rationalize my view point. Or who knows if people who disagree with me do a good job at rationalizing their viewpoint, they might even be able to change my mind. Can this be done without being considered political?

 

[phinds]

Can this be done without being considered political?

Only if you leave politics out of it.

 

[phinds]

God forbid two people sit down like two grown adults and rationalize their views to each other.

Yeah, sigh. That seems to downright un-American these days.

 

[HAYAO]

As I said, if particular employers need to assess people, they are the ones in the best position to know what assessment they need. If a scientific organization, such as a university doing research, needs to do an academic assessment, they can do it. For instance, you might be required to take a standardized test to check your subject matter knowledge in order to get into, say, a Ph.D. program. But most people are not going to try to be scientists so there would be no reason for them to take any such assessment. And a Ph.D. program, while it would probably look at grades from previous academic work if they were available, could probably get along just fine without them as long as it had the ability to require its own assessment test.

Similar remarks would apply to other areas of employment that need "brainier" people as workers: a specific assessment of a person's aptitude for that particular area of employment would be much more useful to them than a general assessment of "braininess", and provided they were allowed to use the former, they could get along quite well without the latter.

I don't think you understand the point I was making.

Most jobs in developed nations require "more brain" than it ever used to. Even bricklayers (I'm not saying they are stupid) have more to learn compared to 100 years ago due to better technology and techniques. You can also look at the welfare system. Again, we have so many types of welfare that people can take advantage of. However, not many people are knowledgeable enough to even research them since welfare is something that drastically changed over recent years, perhaps recent 20 years. People have no idea where to start. Education in these area has not caught up to the sudden changes in the social system. Laws are also good example. Transportation law has made a lot of new refinement over the past 20 years, and is probably going to be a lot more complicated with the advent of automatic driving cars. Now if you were one of those drivers, you have enough experience that changes in laws are merely an incremental refinement. But if you start from absolute scratch, you have a lot to learn than the people, say 4 decades ago.

Some psychologists points out that one of the reason why modern people have higher average IQ than people 50 years ago is because high IQ has become a prerequisite to make a base living in modern world.

Now, you can make an argument that we don't necessarily need to learn calculus to learn how to lay bricks. But the point is that, modern education is (ideally) no longer about learning what is already available, but to prepare for the diverse and increasingly unpredictable future. That requires tremendous amount of training, including base knowledge in wide range of area, hence why modern children spend almost 22 years before they go into the workforce. It was inevitable.

 

[Astronuc]

improve our instruction

That would seem to be an entirely separate, perhaps not entirely independent, worthwhile discussion. I've wondered about that since high school.

When I was in 10th grade, I tutored a kid (senior in high school) in the neighborhood in chemistry, since I had taken a course in chemistry during a summer program between 9th and 10th grade.

the stories she told were horrible about kids with no self-discipline at all and a system with no way to motivate them.

I known a lot of bad situations of peers from when I went to school, or learned about later, and my wife has told me about situations at the school where she taught. Some kids come from unstable and sometimes violent homes. I knew a kid in 4th grade who lived with his grandparents because his parents couldn't take care of him. I knew a girl in 9th grade who claimed she had an abortion (I certainly couldn't verify, but it was a weird story to make up); she also stabbed me (with a sharpened pencil) in the leg in class (she had issues).

My wife told me of a boy, who was a problem at school; he had witnessed his father beat and choke his mother. More recently, I've known an adolescent who lives with his grandparents; his mother died of a drug overdose, and the father is dysfunctional.

My wife told me of a bright young boy who would go to the school library, and just look through atlases. He knew about many countries. He had no books at home. We bought him a nice atlas as a gift. We felt he deserved some encouragement.

 

[mfb]

Was that ONLY for graduate school, or did you mean that was your experience for undergraduate and for high school?

Germany, these names don't translate 1:1 because the system is different. What I called high school was up to class 13, i.e. school up to the typical age of 18-19. What I called university was university - what would now be BSc and MSc. For my PhD I didn't have any classes or homework.

 

[PeterDonis]

Most jobs in developed nations require "more brain" than it ever used to.

I'm not disputing that at all. Nor am I disputing that education needs to take that into account. (Although "education" does not necessarily mean "publicly funded education"; whether the government is really the best entity to be providing education is, IMO, a valid question, but it would be a topic for a separate thread.)

But those aren't the questions we're discussing in this thread. We're discussing assessments, how they should be done, and who should do them. We're not discussing what things people need to learn. That's what I was discussing in my post, and your response didn't actually address anything I said.

 

[HAYAO]

@Astronuc
I completely agree with the implications of your post.

Kids who have zero self-discipline usually come from rather dysfunctional family, or has been abused emotionally or physically. As a matter of fact, children being "too disciplined" may also come from toxic parents. It is rare that kids have some sort of learning disabilities (such as ADHD and autism) so lack of self-discipline comes from other factors.

I had peers who were selling drugs (confirmed), some with neglecting parents (confirmed), some with physically abusive parents (confirmed), some with single-parent "by choice" (confirmed), a girl that aborted numerous times (it could just be a rumor), a girl with eating disorders (confirmed). They all had problems with behavior and they all came from family environment. Arguing self-discipline to these children is only fighting the symptoms and not the cause. These people really need proper help, and the earlier, the better.

Throughout my teacher's training course, we actually had psychiatrist (with a degree in clinical psychology as well) to explain abuses and their relationship with school behavior. I've watched some actual videos of abuse that was just horrible. Some girls in the class were throwing up, some were crying, and some just left. I remember clearly that the lecturer said "people can get really evil but even such 'evil' has a cause. We can never solve evil without solving the cause."

Psychology states that parents merely fighting with each other constantly have a lot of negative impact on their children. That's why when children behaves poorly and have bad behavior at school, in many cases, therapists suggest repairing the relationship between the parents.

 

[HAYAO]

I'm not disputing that at all. Nor am I disputing that education needs to take that into account. (Although "education" does not necessarily mean "publicly funded education"; whether the government is really the best entity to be providing education is, IMO, a valid question, but it would be a topic for a separate thread.)

But those aren't the questions we're discussing in this thread. We're discussing assessments, how they should be done, and who should do them. We're not discussing what things people need to learn. That's what I was discussing in my post, and your response didn't actually address anything I said.

We're talking about schools assessing students and using the results of those assessments to make decisions about the students.

It's completely relevant to what you asked. But let's try to make that clear for you.

Basically, how would third-party know the specifics of the student and the content of the class they're interested in making assessment, whether that may be job interviewers or some government making funds? For example, if you are looking for a bricklayer, what are you going to assess your children with? Obviously, most educational system don't have "bricklaying" as a subject. Bricklayers will have to look at other potentially relevant subjects. The question is then, would the bricklayers know how to assess those potentially relevant subjects, and if so then to what extent? And another conflicting question is, let's say for example would metal molders have the same assessment for the same subjects?

My answer to that is, it wouldn't really be any different from teachers assessing their own children. The reason is because that's what learning "base knowledge" means. Like I said, our world is so complicated and that we need "base knowledge" of the world in order to live in it. If we are talking about "base knowledge" then bricklayers or metal molders are no better in assessing the student than the teachers (or possibly worse). Regional standardized test correlates well with the grades children have in their class. It doesn't make much difference. If you have problem with the "assessments" then you will have to start arguing the legitimacy of the actual content that school teaches, which is why I posted what I posted above.

If you "truly" want to assess the bricklaying potential or metal molding potential of students, then you would have to have to have those students actually go through internships. But that has nothing to do with subjects that are taught in school in most countries.

 

[hmmm27]

Knee-jerk reaction to the leftism of The Week (or maybe that's just California) aside, it sounds - at least potentially - like a good idea.

Somebody might want to check me on this, but it looks like they're going back to a performance-based system ; the major difference between that and say 50 years ago is that "class participation", etc. is now a separate grade, collated from all the student's courses. Yes ?

 

[symbolipoint]

Found here is a possible source of some of the mismatch of experiences:

Germany, these names don't translate 1:1 because the system is different. What I called high school was up to class 13, i.e. school up to the typical age of 18-19. What I called university was university - what would now be BSc and MSc. For my PhD I didn't have any classes or homework.

In there can be inferred many reasons why experiences and opinions among people may not match-up.

 

[PeterDonis]

how would third-party know the specifics of the student and the content of the class they're interested in making assessment, whether that may be job interviewers or some government making funds?

By assessing the prospective employee themselves, using whatever specific assessment was most relevant to what they were looking for.

if you are looking for a bricklayer, what are you going to assess your children with?

If I'm looking for a bricklayer to do some work around my house, how is that even relevant to assessing my children?

If I think my child might want to be a bricklayer, I don't want to give them some canned assessment, I want to encourage them to try things that will show them whether they are interested in bricklaying and whether they think they can get good at it. The time for a standardized assessment is when they are considering applying for a bricklaying job, but that will come much later.

most educational system don't have "bricklaying" as a subject.

Then it would seem, if bricklayers are going to be needed, that that first priority ought to be remedying this defect of the educational system. The most obvious way to do that would be for companies that want to hire bricklayers and are concerned about a shortage of applicants to start apprenticeship programs, using whatever aptitude assessments they think are relevant. You mention internships later in your post, but you comment that that is irrelevant to what most school systems teach, as though that were a problem that would need to be fixed. I think it's just the natural course of events in a free society, if central planners don't mess with it.

The question is then, would the bricklayers know how to assess those potentially relevant subjects, and if so then to what extent? And another conflicting question is, let's say for example would metal molders have the same assessment for the same subjects?

These are all questions that you and I are not the right people to answer. The right people to answer these questions are the people that want to either be metal molders or bricklayers, or hire metal molders or bricklayers. Or the parents of children that might be interested in learning how to be metal molders or bricklayers. Or entrepreneurs that might want to try selling education and assessment services to any or all of those categories of people.

Your underlying assumption seems to be that one centralized entity needs to come up with answers to all these questions. I don't see why that's necessary at all, and furthermore, I think doing it that way is likely to give suboptimal results.

our world is so complicated and that we need "base knowledge" of the world in order to live in it

I agree. But again, that's about content, not assessment. I thought we were talking about assessment in this thread. How does the fact that the world is complicated translate into some centralized entity needing to assess every student and have the results of those assessments drive decisions about that student's future?

 

[HAYAO]

By assessing the prospective employee themselves, using whatever specific assessment was most relevant to what they were looking for.

Yeah, but what do you think they actually do? Do you think all of the student undergo some sort of internship? What do you think they actually do in the interview? Well, I know because I have a friend (more like a boxing gym mate) that is a bricklayer (with his father owning the company) and I asked him how people become a bricklayer. But it's basically just an interview, and certification as a bricklayer comes AFTER being accepted. That assessment did take into account grades during one's high-school days, but they ADMITTED that grades are not as relevant, so it was okay as long as the grades weren't bad. That's the kind of assessment these people do.

If I'm looking for a bricklayer to do some work around my house, how is that even relevant to assessing my children?

If I think my child might want to be a bricklayer, I don't want to give them some canned assessment, I want to encourage them to try things that will show them whether they are interested in bricklaying and whether they think they can get good at it. The time for a standardized assessment is when they are considering applying for a bricklaying job, but that will come much later.

I miswrote that. I didn't mean to say "your" children. I meant to say just students in general. My bad. So please replace what I wrote above.

Then it would seem, if bricklayers are going to be needed, that that first priority ought to be remedying this defect of the educational system. The most obvious way to do that would be for companies that want to hire bricklayers and are concerned about a shortage of applicants to start apprenticeship programs, using whatever aptitude assessments they think are relevant. You mention internships later in your post, but you comment that that is irrelevant to what most school systems teach, as though that were a problem that would need to be fixed. I think it's just the natural course of events in a free society, if central planners don't mess with it.

In most cases at least in Japan, internship is worth 1 or 2 optional credits in high-school and I believe it doesn't have a grade. It's pass or no pass. Same goes with teachers license where I was obliged 3 weeks (2 weeks in some cases) of internship at an actual school, but there is no grade for that. It's pass or no pass, and the accommodating school decides that. If there is a grading, then who ever in charge of internship should have the right to grade that particular credit, but we don't have that system yet if my knowledge is up to date. But that's definitely a possibility.

But other grades have nothing to do with that, nor should it do anything with internship. And bricklayers and metal molders should have nothing to do with the grading and assessment of, for example, math, in which bricklayers and metal molders are not necessarily a better assessment party of such subject, EVEN IF that is what they are interested in.

These are all questions that you and I are not the right people to answer. The right people to answer these questions are the people that want to either be metal molders or bricklayers, or hire metal molders or bricklayers. Or the parents of children that might be interested in learning how to be metal molders or bricklayers. Or entrepreneurs that might want to try selling education and assessment services to any or all of those categories of people.

That's far from the point. Bricklayers and metal molders are merely examples.

Your underlying assumption seems to be that one centralized entity needs to come up with answers to all these questions. I don't see why that's necessary at all, and furthermore, I think doing it that way is likely to give suboptimal results.

Well, your assumption is that your assumption about me is always right. You have been doing that for quite numerous time in this conversation. It might be an effective technique in discussion to illegitimize and attack the opponent but it doesn't do any good for the discussion itself.

I have no such assumption. So your point there is completely illegitimate.

I agree. But again, that's about content, not assessment. I thought we were talking about assessment in this thread. How does the fact that the world is complicated translate into some centralized entity needing to assess every student and have the results of those assessments drive decisions about that student's future?

The content and assessment comes together. I don't know how you think they are unrelated. If you bring a new content then you also have to bring an assessment method. If you bring a new type of assessment, then you also have to think about how much that applies to the contents. As such, every time you bring up "assessment", you also have to think about the content.

World is complicated and you going to just let everyone decide freely about how to assess them? Teachers aren't allowed to grade their students based on certain criteria? What kind of turmoil are you looking for?

 

[PeterDonis]

@HAYAO at this point I think we're just talking past each other. You don't seem to me to be responding to what I'm actually saying, and I don't seem to you to be responding to what you're actually saying. So I'll just bow out of this subthread.

 

[HAYAO]

@ PeterDonis
Okay, sorry we weren't able to have a on-point discussion.

 

[kyphysics]

Such as with affirmative action (btw, I am referencing a social policy - not politics), the question I have is whether we are making sure people can do their jobs and have the skills that are associated with a major/degree?

Personal development matters, but mixing that up with skills-based development metrics seems illogical. A grade in calculus should measure a student's calculus understanding and skill - it should not at all be based on their personal character, their hard work, their personal background, etc. Those things matter in other ways, but we still need a separate, strictly skills-based way of grading people.