Eliminating Honour Rolls in Schools

[TimG]

There are still deadlines and evaluations.

You are contradicting yourself - there can be no "deadlines" if students "move at their own pace" because deadlines imply the teacher sets the pace. Sounds like you are making stuff up that sounds good but has no relevance to practical teaching. Edited October 31, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

Charter Schools seem to have "studies" that refute the notions that grades and expectations are bad for learning:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/31/charter-schools-benefits-extend-beyond-the-classroom/

The school highlighted in that piece has a charter here:

http://www.hcz.org/programs/promise-academy-charter-schools

Seems like the formula is a longer school day and engaged teachers.

They also create a culture where it is "cool" to be smart which implies they are rewarding students that do well in front of their peers - the exact opposite of the tripe proposed by the school in Calgary.

Edited October 31, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

You are contradicting yourself - there can be no "deadlines" if students "move at their own pace" because deadlines imply the teacher sets the pace. Sounds like you are making stuff up that sounds good but has no relevance to practical teaching.

Oh Tim, it seems that you are resorting to semantics when your position collapses, as usual. I think I have been clear that forcing a class to progress as a group is detrimental to both the weak and the advanced. I have also been clear that students must still achieve the basics to obtain a credit.

What is the downside of forcing students to achieve minimum acceptable standards for a class while acknowledging the extended or extracurricular work of advanced?

[TimG]

I think I have been clear that forcing a class to progress as a group is detrimental to both the weak and the advanced. I have also been clear that students must still achieve the basics to obtain a credit.

And my argument is without deadlines and objective measures of progress then most kids will never get around to learning because there are so many more entertaining outlets available to them. You try to talk out both sides of your mouth by claiming that deadlines are there but contradict yourself by saying people should progress on their own schedule. It is one or the other. Not both.

What is the downside of forcing students to achieve minimum acceptable standards for a class while acknowledging the extended or extracurricular work of advanced?

Expecting minimum standards is what we have today and grades are the objective measure which tells us who is meeting those minimum standards and who is exceeding them. Now you may be simply advocating what we already have but that seems odd since you want to claim you are advocating something different. Edited October 31, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Charter Schools seem to have "studies" that refute the notions that grades and expectations are bad for learning:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/31/charter-schools-benefits-extend-beyond-the-classroom/

No one said anything about reduced expectations. In fact, the argument has been that the expectation should not be focused on grades, but learning. That likely means higher expectations.

[TimG]

No one said anything about reduced expectations. In fact, the argument has been that the expectation should not be focused on grades, but learning. That likely means higher expectations.

Again - expectations require objective measures of how people are meeting those expectations because you need to know which students are greatly exceeding expectations vs those that are barely meeting them.

Grades are an objective measure. You can use percentages, letter grades, GPAs or whatever but any objective measure will be a scale and students are placed on it.

Frankly, more you talk the most it sounds like you are obsessed with word "grade" and just want to replace it with something else that sounds more politically correct. IOW: a big waste of time.

Edited October 31, 2013 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Grades aren't objective at all. It's actually pretty funny that you think they are. They're affected by everything from teachers' abilities to school resources and more. That's hardly an objective accounting of the students themselves.

[TimG]

Grades aren't objective at all. It's actually pretty funny that you think they are. They're affected by everything from teachers' abilities to school resources and more. That's hardly an objective accounting of the students themselves.

There are issues comparing grades across teachers and schools (which is why standardized tests are required) but given the same teacher and the same group of students grades are an objective measure of how students are learning the material.

In any case, you have not addressed my main point: you are still claiming there will be grades - you just want a more politically correct name for them. That is unless you are saying it is only pass/fail in which case your system has absolutely no way to determine which students need more help and which students need additional challenges (which makes it useless).

Edited October 31, 2013 by TimG

[socialist]

As it turns out your gut feeling on this doesn't hold up. In short external motivators like grades and test are the worst carrots to dangle in front of students. Better systems and teachers work with students to find internal or intrinsic motivation.

There are many classes already using the student centered, formative approach I've been describing and the results are positive. To make this approach work teachers must spend less time delivering information and more time working directly with students. A stepping stone to a full student centered system is the Flipped Classroom, which was discussed in another education thread created by Socialist.

I love the flipped classroom method. Learners watch instructional videos at home, bring their questions from the video back to school, and the teacher facilitates learning. It's time to put more of the onus of education on the parents. Parents who aren't interested have kids who aren't interested.

[socialist]

There are still deadlines and evaluations. All of the required concepts for a class must be covered in order to earn the credit. The difference is we don't force the entire class to move at the same pace, which only properly serves a narrow band of students in the middle.

What should be the goal of the education system, actually teaching the concepts deemed important by the curriculum or assigning a number to student performance? If actual learning is the goal then we shouldn't allow students to proceed until a topic has been mastered. With the aid of technology, better teachers spend less time lecturing and more time facilitating individual student needs. There is no actual need for an entire class to work at the same pace anymore.

If we do start teaching curriculum requirements to the point of mastery, grades become irrelevant because everyone now thoroughly understands a completed concept. This opens the door for new and more useful forms of distinction. More advanced or harder working students would then have the opportunity to go beyond the basic class requirements and learn additional topics. Eventually, student portfolios will replace transcripts and will read like a resume. Advanced students will be able to proudly display the fact that they've extended their learning far beyond the basics. And of course, weak to average students will now at least have a solid understanding of the basic concepts; a huge improvement over what occurs today.

You may have to give me some tips on how to get all students to master all 100 or so outcomes we are responsible for.

[Mighty AC]

You may have to give me some tips on how to get all students to master all 100 or so outcomes we are responsible for.

Currently there is a movement at the elementary level to make the curriculum deeper instead of wider. This would have to take place before we could truly teach all required concepts to the point of mastery. However, even within the current curriculum and a traditional classroom there are ways to teach in a more student centered fashion. I've posted this video before, but it is a good example of using team teaching to provide both remedial and enrichment opportunities within every unit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8DQugVxHv0#t=0

[Mighty AC]

And my argument is without deadlines and objective measures of progress then most kids will never get around to learning because there are so many more entertaining outlets available to them. You try to talk out both sides of your mouth by claiming that deadlines are there but contradict yourself by saying people should progress on their own schedule. It is one or the other. Not both.

Expecting minimum standards is what we have today and grades are the objective measure which tells us who is meeting those minimum standards and who is exceeding them. Now you may be simply advocating what we already have but that seems odd since you want to claim you are advocating something different.

Right now we do not ensure minimum standards are met. Not even close. The curriculum, especially at the secondary level, tends to be very broad but not very deep. Meaning we are required to cover many topics but don't have the time to explore them in greater detail.

Currently, the average teacher throws a large number of facts and concepts at students, tests to see what sticks, and then they move on. Students achieving a grade of 50% or more receive a credit. No minimum standards are ensured.

I am proposing that the curriculum expectations should be organized into 3 categories: essential concepts, important concepts and enrichment concepts. To gain a credit students must master or achieve a grade of 85% or more on all of the essential concepts. Students who master the essential concepts, move on to the important concepts and once mastered can cover the enrichment topics. In this method all students master the basics, while advanced students come away with a much deeper and wider range of skills.

We would be able to grant weaker students the time they need to master the essential concepts without holding back more capable learners.

Grades are not needed to motivate students; even advanced students. All we need is a way to measure achievement. The method I have described measures achievement not with grades but instead by the number and variety of concepts mastered. Think of mastered units, like boy scout badges. Those who master more concepts have a much more impressive student portfolio to display.

[TimG]

Grades are not needed to motivate students; even advanced students. All we need is a way to measure achievement.

Like cyber you seem to be worried about meaningless semantics. Grades/merit badges/whatever/they are all the same. What is necessary are rewards for achievement. I fail to see why you worry so much about the word "grades".

[Mighty AC]

Grades are meaningless if we teach concepts to the point of mastery. The system I have described ensures minimum standards are met and measures distinction by the number of concepts learned, while allowing students to complete concepts are varying rates.

Final grades or transcripts provide very little information about student performance. We may know that a student achieved a 72% in grade 11 bio, but we have no idea what concepts the student has learned or mastered and what they've missed. Maybe the student bombed Cellular Genetics, but aced everything else.

In grade 12, that student is going to cover evolution which requires a solid understanding of genetics. Are we doing this student any favours by allowing him to proceed without mastering the basics first?

[TimG]

Grades are meaningless if we teach concepts to the point of mastery. The system I have described ensures minimum standards are met and measures distinction by the number of concepts learned, while allowing students to complete concepts are varying rates.

The system you describe simply formalizes a method of calculating grades because implicit in the design would be the expectation that students would complete a minimum number of units over the course of the year. The A students would complete more, the D students would complete less. Parents would have to be given progress reports that compare their child to the average in order to understand how their child is doing (i.e. report cards with percentile "grades").

The one flaw in your approach is the vagueness over minimum requirements. If an exercise in reading comprehension requires the student write a paragraph summary of the of material then would the minimum requirements be any text that included the relevant points or would the minimum requirements be a well written paragraph with no grammar or spelling errors? If the former then your system fails to promote excellence by treating shoddy work as equal to good work. Promoting and rewarding excellence is an essential part of an educational system.

Edited November 1, 2013 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

The system you describe simply formalizes a method of calculating grades...

The A students would complete more, the D students would complete less....

No it ensures that required concepts are taught to the point of understanding and allows for a more flexible learning pace. In the past A students probably mastered the content. While a D student would get almost nothing from their time in the course but still walk away with a credit. Under the system I have described an advanced student would have the opportunity to learn well beyond the old boundaries of a course. The weaker student would still master the basic requirements for the course, thus comming away with useful skills or knowledge.

Parents would have to be given progress reports that compare their child to the average in order to understand how their child is doing (i.e. report cards with percentile "grades").

Students and parents should be aware of a students progress through the course at all times, not just 3 times per semester. A simple indication of where they are and where they should be is far more useful than percentage grades.

The one flaw in your approach is the vagueness over minimum requirements. If an exercise in reading comprehension requires the student write a paragraph summary of the of material then would the minimum requirements be any text that included the relevant points or would the minimum requirements be a well written paragraph with no grammar or spelling errors? If the former then your system fails to promote excellence by treating shoddy work as equal to good work. Promoting and rewarding excellence is an essential part of an educational system.

So far I've only been discussing macro level ideas, not details of specific assignments. Students should be made aware of the requirements and parameters for each form of evaluation.

In your written paragraph example there would likely be requirements for content as well as grammar and spelling laid out in something like a rubric. All assignments would be marked and include descriptive feedback on what has been done well and what can be improved. Assignments not meeting the requirements for mastery would have to be improved and resubmitted.

[TimG]

Students and parents should be aware of a students progress through the course at all times, not just 3 times per semester. A simple indication of where they are and where they should be is far more useful than percentage grades.

Telling a parent that johnny has completed 8 units is useless information - they need a comparison to the average (i.e. percentile rankings a.k.a. a grade). IOW - you are not getting rid of grades at all. You simply trying very hard to obscure how the grades are produced.

Assignments not meeting the requirements for mastery would have to be improved and resubmitted.

The devil is in the detail - if the standards are high then it could work as is. But it is unlikely that high standards would survive the real world so there would be a need to distinguish between shoddy work that barely passes and high quality work that exceeds the minimum requirements. Teaching kids that there is no benefit for exceeding expectations in quality of work is a very bad system. Edited November 1, 2013 by TimG

[carepov]

I came accross this guy. He seems to have some very good ideas about education and parenting.

"Grades don’t prepare children for the “real world” -- unless one has in mind a world where interest in learning and quality of thinking are unimportant. Nor are grades a necessary part of schooling, any more than paddling or taking extended dictation could be described that way."

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/tcag.htm

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm

[TimG]

"Grades don’t prepare children for the “real world” -- unless one has in mind a world where interest in learning and quality of thinking are unimportant. Nor are grades a necessary part of schooling, any more than paddling or taking extended dictation could be described that way."

The fundamental point that these philosophers are missing is that any involved parent needs to know how their child is doing when compared to the average. Reports filled with feel good indicators of learning simply do not provide that information - what they want to know whether their child is ahead/equal or behind their peers because that information tells them if intervention is required. As soon as you provide a ranking of children relative to the average you have a grade which renders most of the rants about grades irrelevant.

That said, there are good ways and bad ways of assigning grades so there is room for discussing how material is taught. My fear this misguided obsession with the word "grade" distracts people from the issues that really need discussion.

Edited November 3, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

I disagree with the whole premise of the OP, that Honor rolls make other kids feel inferior or excluded. When I was in highschool it was the exact opposite. Honor roll kids were made fun of as nerds/geeks and for being goofy looking and socially awkward. It was about as cool as being in the chess club. Everyone laughed at them.

The last laugh was on everyong else though! The nerds all making 6 or 7 figures, and the jocks, heads, punks, and skateboarders that used to laugh at them are doing manual labor.... for the most part.

Let the nerds have their little club if they want it!

[ReeferMadness]

I disagree with the whole premise of the OP, that Honor rolls make other kids feel inferior or excluded. When I was in highschool it was the exact opposite. Honor roll kids were made fun of as nerds/geeks and for being goofy looking and socially awkward. It was about as cool as being in the chess club. Everyone laughed at them.

The last laugh was on everyong else though! The nerds all making 6 or 7 figures, and the jocks, heads, punks, and skateboarders that used to laugh at them are doing manual labor.... for the most part.

Let the nerds have their little club if they want it!

Nothing like a few random stereotypes to make the thread complete.

Lots of people who do well in school don't fare so well in the real world.

[bush_cheney2004]

Lots of people who do well in school don't fare so well in the real world.

I guess someone has to cheer for the potheads who were losers in school and in real life.

[Guest American Woman]

I disagree with the whole premise of the OP, that Honor rolls make other kids feel inferior or excluded. When I was in highschool it was the exact opposite. Honor roll kids were made fun of as nerds/geeks and for being goofy looking and socially awkward. It was about as cool as being in the chess club. Everyone laughed at them.

The last laugh was on everyong else though! The nerds all making 6 or 7 figures, and the jocks, heads, punks, and skateboarders that used to laugh at them are doing manual labor.... for the most part.

Let the nerds have their little club if they want it!

Only the nerds were on the honor roll in your school? Seriously? You either had a lot of nerds in your school - or a whole lot of not-so-bright students.

I don't think there is anything wrong with honor rolls - just as there is nothing wrong with awards for sports, drama, art, etc. This idea that kids shouldn't get recognition for their achievements likely wouldn't go over so well with adults if it were imposed on them. In the real world, our achievements, strengths, determination, and effort are all noted and have an effect on our lives,

At any rate, there are a lot of reasons to grade students, but they have already been mentioned, so I won't go there again.

[Guest American Woman]

Nothing like a few random stereotypes to make the thread complete.

Lots of people who do well in school don't fare so well in the real world.

True. And lots of people who don't do well in school do well in the real world. For one thing, there are all kinds of 'intelligence;' for another, some don't apply themselves until they get older.

[carepov]

The fundamental point that these philosophers are missing is that any involved parent needs to know how their child is doing when compared to the average. Reports filled with feel good indicators of learning simply do not provide that information - what they want to know whether their child is ahead/equal or behind their peers because that information tells them if intervention is required. As soon as you provide a ranking of children relative to the average you have a grade which renders most of the rants about grades irrelevant.

That said, there are good ways and bad ways of assigning grades so there is room for discussing how material is taught. My fear this misguided obsession with the word "grade" distracts people from the issues that really need discussion.

Grading, ranking, rewarding, awarding, labelling. I am not arguing that these should be done away with but we should definately think about reducing the time and effort dedicated to these activities and thinking about the potentially harmful side-effects.

At the one end of the spectrum, high school, I probably agree with you that grades are necessary for parental involvement and for university entrance.

At the other end, surely you agree that toddlers and pre-schoolers should not be graded/ranked on their education/development. (Is it true that half of life's learning is done before the age of 5?)

Grades 1-6? I don't think that grades are necessary for parents to know how their child is doing compared to the average. A parent-teacher talk should do the trick. I think that grading/ranking/awarding at this age does more harm than good. What do you think?

Junior high? hmmm... I don't know.