Re: Concerned About Grades

[Lisa Gardner <iamlisa@TAMPABAY.RR.COM>]

In reply to  what Mr. MICHAEL B. UGAWA had to say:

> 2) In response to Lisa Gardner's statement that grading on
> a straight
> percentage is FAIRER than using a curve, because everybody
> can get an "A":
>
> Careful examinination reveals that this kind of statement is really
> nothing more than an appeal to emotion--Most people would
> FEEL that it is
> more fair.  I find this claim to be disingenuous in that,
> in practice,
> teachers who use what is proported to be a fixed percentage
> scale tweak
> some other factor in response to student ability and
> performance in order
> to get an acceptable distribution of grades.  There are
> many things that
> can be tweaked:  the difficulty of the tests,
> prerequisites/admission
> standards for the class, course objectives/content, not to
> mention the
> blatent practice of changing the number of "possible"
> points used in the
> percent calculation to be less than the actual number of
> points on the
> test.

It would seem that if a teacher wishes to have a certain number of
students at each grade level it could be achieved by making the tests
harder and harder, if you have a regular range of abilities in the
class. What if you have a class of kids that are fairly evenly adept
at the course being taught. Why should they be graded to a bell curve
instead of a straight percent for their grade? This may fall under the
'> prerequisites/admission<' category. So do you think that if your '>
fellow physics and engineering majors found [who found] their general
ed courses in the humanities, history, etc.[not] very difficult at
all. <'   if they were all in one class, should they be graded
according to a mandatory bell curve? If their scores all fell within 5
points of 100% each ( max student score was 99% so that maybe you
won't come back with the test should have been harder) do you think
that the class should be graded on a bell curve?  Doesn't seem logical
to me.


> Good teachers do--and should--be responsive to what
> students are capable
> of.  If we really consistently gave tests on which we
> really believed that
> everyone (or even the vast majority) could get, say, 90% or
> better, we
> would be depriving the better students in the class of
> being exposed to a
> sufficiently challenging CURRICULUM. (Note the reference to
> a challenging
> curriculum, as opposed to challenging test). Such an
> approach also means
> we would be negleting our duty to provide grades that allow
> a RANKING of
> students' abilities (mitigated by diligence). Ranking is a
> major part of
> what grading is about, even though some may philosophically
> disagree with
> the the concept.

Ranking against such a small number of students is really meaningless
and silly. Woppie I may be the number one ranked student in my class
and school, but that is out of just 1100 students. Now I'm realistic
enough to know that there are many kids out there that are a lot
smarter, or more interested in a topic, or willing to put out more
effort than I am.  Good for them, but I want to know at each step in
the course that I have learned the subject to a certain level of
ability, not in comparison to what someone else did.



> Seen in the light of these arguments, there is little
> validity to the
> claim that using a curve as one of the ways in which grades
> are tweaked in
> response to student ability and performance is somehow
> "less fair" than
> the other methods. Such claims are clearly an attempt to appeal to
> emotion, much like the appeals to emotion used by
> politicians who claim
> that an opposing point of view is "mean spirited" or
> "uncaring," in order
> to side step a non-emotioal, LOGICAL discussion of an issue.


What I have said is not from emotion but logic and fairness to myself
and fellow students.


> Respectfully,
>
> Mike Ugawa
> St. Ignatius College Prep, San Francisco
> mugawa@quark.sfsu.edu
>
> --
>
> ************************************************************
> **********

 Respectfully,

Lisa Gardner (age 10)