By Mark
In the last two weeks, a few things have me thinking about the age old debate over how schools "grade" students. First, in Nevada, there was this discussion about the merits of allowing students in public high schools take exams to earn state-required graduation credit (as opposed to putting in the seat time).
Second, there were the 28 letters I sent home to students' parents this past Monday updating them that their students were earning a D or F in my English class.
When I look at those 28 letters, there are really only probably seven kids getting the low grades who I think genuinely have not yet exhibited the minimum language arts expectations which I have at this point in the semester and thus "deserve" the F. The other 21? Missing assignments. I'd bet dollars to donuts that those 21 would pass an on-demand-test of minimum language arts skills and content, and I have few concerns about next spring's state tests for those kids, even though they are presently earning Ds and Fs in my class. They've been able to show me that they have the skills through classroom work and other assessments, some of them far exceeding the standards from the very first assessment–yet their grade is an F.
I know that this discussion is almost as old as the model of education present in most public schools today, but how do you as a teacher reconcile the necessity of "grades" and the reality that grades do not necessarily reflect actual skill in a content area?
Are these kids earning failing grades due to a lack of content knowledge and skill or due to a lack of ability to submit complete work on time...which incidentally is not one of my content area standards? Is the idea of a mastery test (in lieu of seat time) really out of line? We put so much stock in those one-time snapshot tests to assess school and teacher effectiveness, so why not a one-time snapshot test for a kid who has the skills but doesn't want to spend 90 hours this semester in a class which will penalize him for poor organization, not a lack of skill?