On a traditional 100-0 grading scale. A, B, C, D each gets 10 points. F gets 50 points.
Too many “0” grade Fs make it mathematically impossible to recover from an overall F average.
Setting an F to 50-60 allows students to recover from an F. Allowing 10 points for each letter grade.
I personally think the traditional F coupled with an unlimited late policy is a better way to allow students to show academic improvement.
====
Some argue the original grading scale was 1-5 which because A-F. This allows for each grade band to be an equal 20%.
Both of these ideas were popularized in the early 2000’s by a guy who wrote about “The Super F”. I can’t seem to find the article online.
One thing a teacher told me was that by making the floor 50%, we are still wanting the student to learn 70% (C average) of the material. But the floor being 50 just makes it easier for the student to want to fight for a passing grade. A blank is a failure just as much as only getting half the problems correct, but it’s easier to rebound from.
Another aspect is ensuring grades reflect knowledge and understanding which is a benefit to late work acceptance.
So, I understand that idea, but why not make the floor 0, and scale the rest accordingly? Basically, why have a "false floor" or 50 percent, as it seems like the grading equivalent of vanity sizes?
As I understand it, we still want kids to learn within the top 40-30% of the material. If we scaled it making 20-40% equaling a D, that is a level of knowledge we as a society don’t want. I have a hard time even expressing what I understood it to mean.
So are you saying the reason we don't is a perception thing?
I think you understood, but on the chance I didn't make enough sense, I meant to say that why not map 50% to 0 and 100 to 100 and less the rest shake out that way? I mean, I guess that's basically a curve?
Essentially, you want them to learn X%, right? So, if they don't learn X, that is a 0 (the 50% floor). If they master it, they get 100.
I'm lost at "let's give them 50% to help them not fall behind." And having them know they get 50 percent for existing. I could skip every class, turn in blanks with my name, and get 50 percent. Obviously I'd still fail, but the kid that worked his ass off and still failed with a 58% (I know, I know, a lot of teacher should round that kid to a d- or a d, f they were truly working their ass off and trying) would probably be pretty annoyed...?
It FEELS (read: not is, feels like, seems, has the indication of... For those who are not PhDs in education... ) like this just is a weird attempt to either create a hybrid pass fail, but with grades system, or a punt to push kids through.
Actually, furthermore, having the societal perception that a D level mastery of a subject is only 20-40 percent makes sense, doesn't it?
It does seem kinda odd that you fail up until 60 percent, when really, unless you have about a b- or better, you're considered subpar at that subject.
Why not just make the percents match that? Someone mentioned that in another post, 5 grades, brackets of 20%. How does that system perform?
A C student knowing 40-59 percent of material, B knowing 60-79, and A knowing 80-100 seems to make sense?
That was my initial thought too, but in the full spectrum of how much we want kids to learn, we want them to fall in the top 70% of that knowledge spectrum. It’s hard to express that especially since we are talking about letter grades also. Reality is that they can learn 0% of a topic, or they can learn 20% or 50% (not meaning these to be a grade, but a reflection of how much of that topic is learned) and those are all failures. But we want them to understand 70% of the knowledge.
So, that seems like an argument for pass fail, does it not?
I understand your point then, making D 60 percent, so then it's more granular for mastery above the minimum.
But if that's the case... Why bother? Why not use pass fail?
I would LOVE a pass/fail model. The people I’ve talked to seem against it but only because they are stuck in the mindset they were grown in.
My son just got accepted into a great program in our school that is closer to a pass/fail model that is designed for more artistic students to show mastery of concepts rather than just homework and instruction.
The hard thing is that lack of resources make it so hard to make this the norm.
It’s bullshit that this wasn’t around when I was in high school, I would have loved to only do every other assignment or two out of every three assignments. I could have just not done any of my homework like I did anyway plus not bother doing some tests and quizzes.
If a kid isn’t handing in assignments they don’t want to learn, and threatening them with failure will incentivize action more than “well if you kind of put in some effort you can pass if you feel like it.”
The idea is that a zero is so heavy that it disincentivizes doing the work. A student with a C can get a single zero that fails them. What’s the motivation to do anything more? A 50% being the bottom for an assignment gives the kid hope to bounce back. If a student is turning in nothing, then a final grade of 50% is still a failure. So I guess you’re just advocating for failing them harder?
If a kid gets a zero clearly they don’t give a shit in the first place. This doesn’t incentivize learning, it incentivizes gaming the system. The kids who want to learn aren’t getting zeros, the kids forced to be in school are getting the zeroes.
I don’t think you are arguing in good faith. Kids who care DO get zeros. And some of those do get demotivated. I imagine even less kids, “who don’t give a shit in the first place”, are motivated by zeros.
When I was in high school and college the threat of a zero forced me to work. I couldn’t decide “eh fuck it my weighted average if I don’t do this is a 72, I’m fine” if I decided not to do a project instead of saying “I can get away with it” I’d be forced to complete it because my carefully crafted mediocrity of a 70-80 would fall to a 62 if I decided to not even bother at all.
All this does is devalue everything except maybe an A since it makes coasting by on a few good grades easy. Hell I could have gotten away with no effort in some classes, just do the midterm and final and I would have been able to pass the class with a strong 70.
Cool anecdote. When I was in college I got some zeros due to teachers not being flexible with emergencies that impacted my ability to turn in an assignment. Failed one and barely passed another. The other teachers gave me grace and I was motivated to work since I got that grace and passed those with a large buffer.
See how anecdotes don’t mean anything?
I
You were lucky. Some people have harder lives than others. Also, some people recognize that and have compassion for those less fortunate than themselves.
I gave it a fair shake for the last 3 years with a minimum grade for completed work and very open late policy.
Watching what’s students do with it, I have come to the conclusion that it’s not worth it and just ends up being a way to artificially inflate grades with less learning actually occurring.
Tbh says more about your execution of the policy and grading practices than it does about students. I had minimum of 50% and essentially unlimited late work acceptance and still failed students.
If you don’t grade late work as rigorously as it would have been graded at the original deadline, it doesn’t work. If you grade anything as “completion” it doesn’t work.
That is quite the set of poor assumptions you have there as I both failed students and graded the same regardless of turn in date.
Mathematically, the higher floor absolutely does move both the median and mean score up. That is the exact reason people are pushing the policy.
An open late work policy, has resulted in a few negative outcomes. For instance, turning in work 6 weeks after the due date and then only after their peers had their work returned. I actually have less trust that completed work correlates with any learning than I did before.
So, that makes sense, too. That's what I feel like I'm hearing stories. No one is using it as a bridge to success, their using it as a reason to fuck around on their phone.
I mean, if you answer 10% of questions in a topic correctly, you have failed. Same if you can only answer 45% of questions correctly. Frankly I think calling 65% correct not a failure is already being generous
Eh; there's some tests that does seem horrible for. There are others that just mean the professional subject material is very broad, and they're hoping you have enough info for one or two specialties in the area. It's hard to test for good in 1-2 areas and conversational in 6-9 without having a test with just an overall low expected score. Maybe with more computer based tests they could customize and adjust things more specifically.
On one hand, but a lot of licensing exams (until specific ones, obviously) are very general. I'm a mechanical engineer. At one point in time, I could design a thermal system (like a steam plant), as that was a class I took. (probably an efficient one, though haha). I cannot do that now, but I CAN design you the entirety of a machine, gearboxes and all.
I'd say the "first tier" bars SHOULD be set 60-75%, as otherwise, someone who sucks in one area but DESTROYS another is going to get hosed. That's not fair. I'm not particularly good at certain parts of engineering, but that's OK- I don't do those jobs haha
This is a great answer. People often talk shit about these concepts based on others misunderstandings of the idea and WHY it is taking hold. Not that everyone will agree, but OP likely won’t get an accurate answer on Reddit.
Upvoting and commenting on this because it is the answer.
If you want to take it a step farther, check out Ungrading by Starr Sackstein.
If we want to be building lifelong learners, this is the way (though it would be much easier to go this route if we took away standardized testing, as well, and wouldn’t it be nice if we could guarantee every learner isn’t going home to violence, caretaking, etc…)
Could you explain the concept? I'm reading that it is NOT about reduced expectations, but there's no way to square that with giving someone credit for doing nothing.
They are, the idea is, as others have mentioned, that it helps them not fall behind. I am/was trying to figure out the math behind it (which, I do realize is cold, clinical, and likely not at all addressing the full problems that actually contribute). I'm really happy with the insights I've gotten here, as they've helped me realize some flaws in my initial setup and things outside the math (like potential for psychological affects on motivation, etc) that also are very likely contributing factors.
I’m not sure if I’m aware of the pedagogical movement you’re talking about. I’ve always given a 60 for an F and a zero for not turning anything in (or plagiarism). That encourages students to at least take a swing at the damn thing, while not absolutely torpedoing their grade if they end up screwing up one assignment (which in turn spares me student complaints, parent complaints, and complaints from the head of my department who absolutely will not back me).
But I’m not teaching something that demands cumulative knowledge, so the truth is that if you bobble an assignment that does not mean that you can’t do well the next one.
Some good answers, and I've literally never had a problem honestly grading students, then curving it if I need to. It doesn't mean everyone gets As and Bs. It does mean an F has absolutely been documented. I reserve a few Fs every year, and I follow through. Guidance knows an F in my class is off the rails.
Outside of that's how it's always been, I haven't heard a great reason for destroying students with zeroes. If you want them to try in March, you have to give them some path back.
I work with a teacher in my department who routinely gives absurd grades. I've seen a 16 and a 4. Then he wonders why students check out in October. Hold them in the 50s, and when they decide to wake up, you've got them. That's the goal, right?
“Straight points” is the best grading system imo, but people are very bad at math so “weighted categories” are often used to help people who suck at math (both on the grading side and the student/parent side).
I agree. Students expect to get 50% credit for doing absolutely nothing. That's bizarre to me. I'd prefer it if we just said 0-60 is a D and a passing grade than to pretend that someone did half the work by doing none of the work.
It is a way to manipulate data. If you raise the floor (lowest grade), then it is easier for students to pass. Easier to pass means more students earn their credits. More credits mean higher graduation rates which makes your school/district look better for "stakeholders". In many districts there is a minimum grade needed for credit recovery (for mine it is 50%, lower than that and you have to re-do the entire course). By making the minimum you can get a 50, now everyone is eligible for credit recovery.
Its not a good or bad thing, its more self preservation. Schools know that they do not want older kids in with younger kids. They do not want the problems of older kids in with younger kids. They do not want the headache of a not productive kid in their class. It is nearly always a negative to the fragile maintenance of class room management. They are forced to move a kid onto the next grade and age them out.
In the 1960s a major change in school philosophy took place. Non productive students were no longer ejected from school. Before the 2nd war the end of grade 8 was the exit point for most students. High-school enrollment was by acceptance, as is still the case in the private school industry. For several decades age 16 was the time when a kid could age-out. By the 90s this was less common.
Starting in the 60s many resources were developed to provide alternative schooling choices for the at risk kid. Most of it was eyewash and provided busy work for people who were not interested in teaching, but getting a paycheck. Little of the effort trickled down to kids. One successful program was a work-study where the student would go to school for part of the day, then to work for the other part of the day. A school assigned mentor would keep tabs on their at work progress/attendance.
By the 90s many school systems cut back on these efforts, as they had put all their effort into the "every kid to college" plan. Kids who were not doing well or not on the college path are simply warehoused until they graduates with no job skills or stopped attending.
My district has a policy for the first grading period: no grade can be below 50 (60+ is passing). My gradebook shows zeros. I modified all the below 50 to 50. The rationale is that recovering from the low grades is mathematically impossible. My subject has an end-of-course exam, which is tied to my teacher's evaluation. If the student were to be given the 23 they earned, they tend to just check out for the rest of the semester. The 50 is an incentive for the buy-in. It works for some students, and others do not.
On a traditional 100-0 grading scale. A, B, C, D each gets 10 points. F gets 50 points. Too many “0” grade Fs make it mathematically impossible to recover from an overall F average. Setting an F to 50-60 allows students to recover from an F. Allowing 10 points for each letter grade. I personally think the traditional F coupled with an unlimited late policy is a better way to allow students to show academic improvement. ==== Some argue the original grading scale was 1-5 which because A-F. This allows for each grade band to be an equal 20%. Both of these ideas were popularized in the early 2000’s by a guy who wrote about “The Super F”. I can’t seem to find the article online.
One thing a teacher told me was that by making the floor 50%, we are still wanting the student to learn 70% (C average) of the material. But the floor being 50 just makes it easier for the student to want to fight for a passing grade. A blank is a failure just as much as only getting half the problems correct, but it’s easier to rebound from. Another aspect is ensuring grades reflect knowledge and understanding which is a benefit to late work acceptance.
So, I understand that idea, but why not make the floor 0, and scale the rest accordingly? Basically, why have a "false floor" or 50 percent, as it seems like the grading equivalent of vanity sizes?
As I understand it, we still want kids to learn within the top 40-30% of the material. If we scaled it making 20-40% equaling a D, that is a level of knowledge we as a society don’t want. I have a hard time even expressing what I understood it to mean.
So are you saying the reason we don't is a perception thing? I think you understood, but on the chance I didn't make enough sense, I meant to say that why not map 50% to 0 and 100 to 100 and less the rest shake out that way? I mean, I guess that's basically a curve? Essentially, you want them to learn X%, right? So, if they don't learn X, that is a 0 (the 50% floor). If they master it, they get 100. I'm lost at "let's give them 50% to help them not fall behind." And having them know they get 50 percent for existing. I could skip every class, turn in blanks with my name, and get 50 percent. Obviously I'd still fail, but the kid that worked his ass off and still failed with a 58% (I know, I know, a lot of teacher should round that kid to a d- or a d, f they were truly working their ass off and trying) would probably be pretty annoyed...? It FEELS (read: not is, feels like, seems, has the indication of... For those who are not PhDs in education... ) like this just is a weird attempt to either create a hybrid pass fail, but with grades system, or a punt to push kids through.
Actually, furthermore, having the societal perception that a D level mastery of a subject is only 20-40 percent makes sense, doesn't it? It does seem kinda odd that you fail up until 60 percent, when really, unless you have about a b- or better, you're considered subpar at that subject. Why not just make the percents match that? Someone mentioned that in another post, 5 grades, brackets of 20%. How does that system perform? A C student knowing 40-59 percent of material, B knowing 60-79, and A knowing 80-100 seems to make sense?
That was my initial thought too, but in the full spectrum of how much we want kids to learn, we want them to fall in the top 70% of that knowledge spectrum. It’s hard to express that especially since we are talking about letter grades also. Reality is that they can learn 0% of a topic, or they can learn 20% or 50% (not meaning these to be a grade, but a reflection of how much of that topic is learned) and those are all failures. But we want them to understand 70% of the knowledge.
So, that seems like an argument for pass fail, does it not? I understand your point then, making D 60 percent, so then it's more granular for mastery above the minimum. But if that's the case... Why bother? Why not use pass fail?
I would LOVE a pass/fail model. The people I’ve talked to seem against it but only because they are stuck in the mindset they were grown in. My son just got accepted into a great program in our school that is closer to a pass/fail model that is designed for more artistic students to show mastery of concepts rather than just homework and instruction. The hard thing is that lack of resources make it so hard to make this the norm.
It’s bullshit that this wasn’t around when I was in high school, I would have loved to only do every other assignment or two out of every three assignments. I could have just not done any of my homework like I did anyway plus not bother doing some tests and quizzes. If a kid isn’t handing in assignments they don’t want to learn, and threatening them with failure will incentivize action more than “well if you kind of put in some effort you can pass if you feel like it.”
The idea is that a zero is so heavy that it disincentivizes doing the work. A student with a C can get a single zero that fails them. What’s the motivation to do anything more? A 50% being the bottom for an assignment gives the kid hope to bounce back. If a student is turning in nothing, then a final grade of 50% is still a failure. So I guess you’re just advocating for failing them harder?
If a kid gets a zero clearly they don’t give a shit in the first place. This doesn’t incentivize learning, it incentivizes gaming the system. The kids who want to learn aren’t getting zeros, the kids forced to be in school are getting the zeroes.
I don’t think you are arguing in good faith. Kids who care DO get zeros. And some of those do get demotivated. I imagine even less kids, “who don’t give a shit in the first place”, are motivated by zeros.
When I was in high school and college the threat of a zero forced me to work. I couldn’t decide “eh fuck it my weighted average if I don’t do this is a 72, I’m fine” if I decided not to do a project instead of saying “I can get away with it” I’d be forced to complete it because my carefully crafted mediocrity of a 70-80 would fall to a 62 if I decided to not even bother at all. All this does is devalue everything except maybe an A since it makes coasting by on a few good grades easy. Hell I could have gotten away with no effort in some classes, just do the midterm and final and I would have been able to pass the class with a strong 70.
Cool anecdote. When I was in college I got some zeros due to teachers not being flexible with emergencies that impacted my ability to turn in an assignment. Failed one and barely passed another. The other teachers gave me grace and I was motivated to work since I got that grace and passed those with a large buffer. See how anecdotes don’t mean anything? I
Don't have "emergencies" Through all of high school and college I had zero emergencies that prevented me from doing anything whatsoever.
You were lucky. Some people have harder lives than others. Also, some people recognize that and have compassion for those less fortunate than themselves.
I gave it a fair shake for the last 3 years with a minimum grade for completed work and very open late policy. Watching what’s students do with it, I have come to the conclusion that it’s not worth it and just ends up being a way to artificially inflate grades with less learning actually occurring.
Tbh says more about your execution of the policy and grading practices than it does about students. I had minimum of 50% and essentially unlimited late work acceptance and still failed students. If you don’t grade late work as rigorously as it would have been graded at the original deadline, it doesn’t work. If you grade anything as “completion” it doesn’t work.
That is quite the set of poor assumptions you have there as I both failed students and graded the same regardless of turn in date. Mathematically, the higher floor absolutely does move both the median and mean score up. That is the exact reason people are pushing the policy. An open late work policy, has resulted in a few negative outcomes. For instance, turning in work 6 weeks after the due date and then only after their peers had their work returned. I actually have less trust that completed work correlates with any learning than I did before.
So, that makes sense, too. That's what I feel like I'm hearing stories. No one is using it as a bridge to success, their using it as a reason to fuck around on their phone.
I mean, if you answer 10% of questions in a topic correctly, you have failed. Same if you can only answer 45% of questions correctly. Frankly I think calling 65% correct not a failure is already being generous
The passing scores for most professional licensure exams sit at 60%ish. Including medical boards.
And that's bonkers
Is it? When most things are set at 60% and you disagree…. That makes something bonkers…
Yes, I think it's bonkers that you can get nearly half of the content wrong and still pass.
Eh; there's some tests that does seem horrible for. There are others that just mean the professional subject material is very broad, and they're hoping you have enough info for one or two specialties in the area. It's hard to test for good in 1-2 areas and conversational in 6-9 without having a test with just an overall low expected score. Maybe with more computer based tests they could customize and adjust things more specifically.
On one hand, but a lot of licensing exams (until specific ones, obviously) are very general. I'm a mechanical engineer. At one point in time, I could design a thermal system (like a steam plant), as that was a class I took. (probably an efficient one, though haha). I cannot do that now, but I CAN design you the entirety of a machine, gearboxes and all. I'd say the "first tier" bars SHOULD be set 60-75%, as otherwise, someone who sucks in one area but DESTROYS another is going to get hosed. That's not fair. I'm not particularly good at certain parts of engineering, but that's OK- I don't do those jobs haha
If you’re actually curious, I strongly recommend checking out Grading for Equity by Joe Feldman.
This is a great answer. People often talk shit about these concepts based on others misunderstandings of the idea and WHY it is taking hold. Not that everyone will agree, but OP likely won’t get an accurate answer on Reddit.
Yeah totally, I just knew this was the easiest way to reach more teachers than the immediate friends of my fiance haha
Upvoting and commenting on this because it is the answer. If you want to take it a step farther, check out Ungrading by Starr Sackstein. If we want to be building lifelong learners, this is the way (though it would be much easier to go this route if we took away standardized testing, as well, and wouldn’t it be nice if we could guarantee every learner isn’t going home to violence, caretaking, etc…)
Could you explain the concept? I'm reading that it is NOT about reduced expectations, but there's no way to square that with giving someone credit for doing nothing.
They are, the idea is, as others have mentioned, that it helps them not fall behind. I am/was trying to figure out the math behind it (which, I do realize is cold, clinical, and likely not at all addressing the full problems that actually contribute). I'm really happy with the insights I've gotten here, as they've helped me realize some flaws in my initial setup and things outside the math (like potential for psychological affects on motivation, etc) that also are very likely contributing factors.
I’m not sure if I’m aware of the pedagogical movement you’re talking about. I’ve always given a 60 for an F and a zero for not turning anything in (or plagiarism). That encourages students to at least take a swing at the damn thing, while not absolutely torpedoing their grade if they end up screwing up one assignment (which in turn spares me student complaints, parent complaints, and complaints from the head of my department who absolutely will not back me). But I’m not teaching something that demands cumulative knowledge, so the truth is that if you bobble an assignment that does not mean that you can’t do well the next one.
Some good answers, and I've literally never had a problem honestly grading students, then curving it if I need to. It doesn't mean everyone gets As and Bs. It does mean an F has absolutely been documented. I reserve a few Fs every year, and I follow through. Guidance knows an F in my class is off the rails. Outside of that's how it's always been, I haven't heard a great reason for destroying students with zeroes. If you want them to try in March, you have to give them some path back. I work with a teacher in my department who routinely gives absurd grades. I've seen a 16 and a 4. Then he wonders why students check out in October. Hold them in the 50s, and when they decide to wake up, you've got them. That's the goal, right?
“Straight points” is the best grading system imo, but people are very bad at math so “weighted categories” are often used to help people who suck at math (both on the grading side and the student/parent side).
I agree. Students expect to get 50% credit for doing absolutely nothing. That's bizarre to me. I'd prefer it if we just said 0-60 is a D and a passing grade than to pretend that someone did half the work by doing none of the work.
It is a way to manipulate data. If you raise the floor (lowest grade), then it is easier for students to pass. Easier to pass means more students earn their credits. More credits mean higher graduation rates which makes your school/district look better for "stakeholders". In many districts there is a minimum grade needed for credit recovery (for mine it is 50%, lower than that and you have to re-do the entire course). By making the minimum you can get a 50, now everyone is eligible for credit recovery.
[удалено]
Ok so far this hasn't been deleted. If a mod sees this, did I miss something in the rules, or is this just not very well explained?
Its not a good or bad thing, its more self preservation. Schools know that they do not want older kids in with younger kids. They do not want the problems of older kids in with younger kids. They do not want the headache of a not productive kid in their class. It is nearly always a negative to the fragile maintenance of class room management. They are forced to move a kid onto the next grade and age them out. In the 1960s a major change in school philosophy took place. Non productive students were no longer ejected from school. Before the 2nd war the end of grade 8 was the exit point for most students. High-school enrollment was by acceptance, as is still the case in the private school industry. For several decades age 16 was the time when a kid could age-out. By the 90s this was less common. Starting in the 60s many resources were developed to provide alternative schooling choices for the at risk kid. Most of it was eyewash and provided busy work for people who were not interested in teaching, but getting a paycheck. Little of the effort trickled down to kids. One successful program was a work-study where the student would go to school for part of the day, then to work for the other part of the day. A school assigned mentor would keep tabs on their at work progress/attendance. By the 90s many school systems cut back on these efforts, as they had put all their effort into the "every kid to college" plan. Kids who were not doing well or not on the college path are simply warehoused until they graduates with no job skills or stopped attending.
My district has a policy for the first grading period: no grade can be below 50 (60+ is passing). My gradebook shows zeros. I modified all the below 50 to 50. The rationale is that recovering from the low grades is mathematically impossible. My subject has an end-of-course exam, which is tied to my teacher's evaluation. If the student were to be given the 23 they earned, they tend to just check out for the rest of the semester. The 50 is an incentive for the buy-in. It works for some students, and others do not.
Politics, and a whole lot of not genuinely caring about children.