When I went to school, we used a traditional grading 10 point grading scale (A = 90-100, B=80-89, etc). Somewhere along the way, this changed in some schools. For instance, in my school an A =92-100, B=86-92 and so on. I'm not quite sure what the basis is for a grade scale such as this. I am thinking that the original thought was that it would push students to reach for those A's and B's, thus raising overall grade point averages.
However, I'm not quite sure that is what has happened. I am guilty of it myself, but many times I grade by student. Meaning a lot of teachers know the A students after a few weeks. If they struggle a bit, but are hard workers, we are more likely to give them those extra points for the A. This essentially negates the scale, since we are grading by letter, not really number. If an A started at 88, then we would grade to that number.
In addition, our school has a policy that no student can receive lower than a 50. I believe this is done so that failures don't look as bad. So theoretically a student can do virtually nothing in class and get a 50. It reminds me of when there was rumor that you get X number of points for just filling in your name on the SAT test.
To me, using points to grade is irrelevant. What should be used is similar to state testing. A scale such as Advanced Proficient, Proficient, Below Proficient and Failing is much better. That would emphasize skill based learning and reduce the pressure of grade point averages. I doubt we will see such a grading scale in my teaching career, but one never knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment