No Zero policy-deux

Caissa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I liked the fourth letter the best.

D ?

Unionist, I'm sure, was saying that with an ironic voice, Caissa.  It's one of the reasons I love reading Unionist's posts!

@ kropotkin - Okay, sorry if I misread.  But my point stands, I don't think we're talking about giving an absolute zero on the report card, but about the ability of the teacher to use what they think will motivate the student to get in there and do the work.  To my mind, the difference between a zero or failing grade and an incomplete is purely semantic - there is no practical or functional difference to the student, they still have to go to summer school.  So why don't we give the teacher the flexibility to use what tools they feel are effective to manage their classrooms?  (Barring verbal or physical abuse, obviously.) 

Ultimately I agree with you on the point that it doesn't matter if there's a zero or no zero policy if the student is in the hands of a good teacher. 

While I don't support a no-zeros policy, I support the student being able to hand in an assignment and get a grade for it, up to the point where the teacher needs to have the assignment in order to be able to grade it. That way the student is given the maximum opportunity to complete the assignment, and get the learning that comes from the completion of the assignment and the teacher's assessment of it.

There needs to be a penalty for not handing in an assignment on time, so that students are motivated to be punctual with their assignments. I think 10% is a good penalty. Much more than this, and students will decide that the've lost too many marks on the assignment and not bother to complete it.

After that, no more loss of marks until something like one week before the teacher has to hand in the marks to the office to go on the report cards, one week being a reasonable ammount of time for the teacher to mark the assignments handed in last minute. This ensures that the penalty for lateness doesn't become a deciding factor in the sutdent's decision whether or not to complete a late assignment.

Giving a zero on assignments not handed in one week before the teacher has to hand in marks is to ensure that the student's assessment in the course is based on the total number of marks handed out. So that if there are 300 marks are available to get in a course, an assignment with 30 marks is worth 10% of the course for all students.

This avoids having different students assignments weighted differently for the grade in the course. It also avoids giving a final grade of Incomplete, and thus having to take summer school, simply because the student failed to hand in one or more assignments, even when they got more than 50% of the marks handed out in the course.

Caissa wrote:

The Atlantic premiers seem to agree with you Unionist based on the following CBC story title:

Atlantic premiers expanding joint buying

LOL!

Thanks for cheering me up, Caissa. I'm still in shock at having to explain one of my jokes. All my life, my demure subtlety has got me into trouble.

Quote:

Timebandit wrote:To my mind, the difference between a zero or failing grade and an incomplete is purely semantic - there is no practical or functional difference to the student, they still have to go to summer school.

Quote:

Caissa wrote:  I beg to differ. If a student receives a 0 on a piece of work that has not been don s/he has received an assessment and is not required to complete the work. If s/he receives an "incomplete" the work has not been assessed and it is still required to be completed for assessment.

Not necessarily.  My daughter's school allows teachers to accept assignments previously given a zero for non-completion if arrangements are made to submit the work later, or to redo the work.  It's up to the teacher's discretion.  Normally, it only remains a zero if the student refuses to do the work, which doesn't seem unfair to me.  So again, you are imagining this situation to be something far more rigid and draconian than it actually is. 

Where the work isn't submitted, though, I maintain that the difference between an incomplete and a zero and a failing grade is purely semantic. 

The other thing I keep thinking of is that the teacher's work load is going to be pretty unweildy if students aren't given deadlines that aren't just end of semester or midterm.  Most of the teachers in high schools here have between 20 and 30 students in 4 or 5 different classes per day.  So that comes to around at least a hundred students, probably more.  If a portion of those students are backloading overdue assignments, that's not a fair expectation on the teacher.  If they have to set drop-dead dates to manage their work loads effectively, I think it's unreasonable to allow them to do so.

My youngest was recently suspended for a day because she intervened when another child, with documented behaviour and agression issues, was assaulting her best friend.  After intervening in a non-violent way, my daughter got punched in the head by this child, and then hit back.  Both my daughter and the aggressive child received the same treatment. There was no consideration that my daughter and her friend were being assaulted and were protecting themselves.

The only reason the incident came to the attention of the school administration was because my daughter and her friend went to a teacher to get help/protection against this aggressive child. They would've, otherwise, turned a blind eye.  I don't blame the child -- she apparently has had a really rough childhood and her aggressive behaviour is indicative of that. She displays symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome.

The zero tolerance policy is, to say the least, a knee-jerk reaction for school boards who have lawyered up.  Serious butt-covering, and I don't think the behavioural child is getting any benefit from the school's approach  She's clearly vulnerable and and needs a supportive and safe environment.  Muzzling and punishing children who are at the receiving end of this child's behaviour isn't the way to go.

I don't think the fact that one mentions the extra pressures on the school system means that one necessarily thinks they are a bad thing, in fact, I got the opposite impression. 

It is a fact, though, that our schools nowawadays have far more students with special needs - behavioural, disability - as well as ESL students. 

I think this is a good thing - a VERY good thing. But it involves greater and more specialized work. When I was a kid parents never came to school - now we are regularly there pitching in as helpers to do the work that teachers cannot manage. 

I consider myself lucky having our kids in a school where I think behavioural problems and bullying are dealt with quickly and in a good way. 

"Maybe you'd like to see all the FAS children bussed to some out-of-the-way industrial setting in order to protect your little precious..."

It is very difficult not to take commentary like that personally.  It is nasty.  And I an in the most excellent position to know that Rebecca West does not favour bussing FAS children to some out of the way industrial setting.  No where in her post did she indicate this. 

The point is that this child and many others present challenges to adult professionals.  That's just the facts of it.  And that will continue and that's a good thing.  I would surmise from your snide comment that you-- like myself and Rebecca West, are in favour of, as much as possible, keeping kids like this in school like everyone else.  I remember the old days when kids with 'behavioral problems' or deemed 'slow' were streamed into special schools.  I didn't like the idea when I saw it as a student-- saw it happen to some friends-- and I don't like it now.

But if children like this present challenges to adult profesionals trained in this area should we be demanding perfection from 11 year olds in situations like this?  That's what zero tollerance demands.  Perfection.  From kids.

The thing about "zero tollerance" is that it absolves the administrators from having to do any decision making.  With zero tollerance, you don't need a vice Principal or Principal-- you just need a chart.  And while I am not one to complain about teacher's wages etc., if we are removing the responsibility for decision making from a job description, then there should be some consideration to cutting the salary at the same time.  After all, an inanimate chart can do this aspect of the job.

I remember back a few years to an incident at the Catholic High School just up the road from me, John Paul II. A grade 12 student fired a water balloon at a teacher from the top of some stairs.  The kid got charged and convicted of 'assault with a weapon'.  I'll grant you that the kid was out of line, that it was some kind of assault.  But to put a water balloon in the same catagory as a baseball bat or a knife?

Nonesence.

My youngest is the smallest in her class, and has epilepsy.  Being punched in the head is a big deal.  She also has no history of being "in trouble" or being sent to the principal's office.  In fact, the only issue she has, by and large, is the fact that she has a hard time remembering things (petit mal seizures and an associated learning disability) and kids sometimes make fun of her (though not often -- she has good friends and gets along with kids very well).

My eldest daughter was  bullied in grades 5 and 6, and spent a great deal of time in the principal's office, being repremanded for her behaviour while defending herself (she was no saint, and mostly gave back as good as she got, but she didn't deserve that kind of treatment).  She's 27 now and is still somewhat traumatized by the experience, even though she has great friends, a job she loves, a cool apartment in Toronto, etc. 

There is something deeply wrong in our public school system, and I'm damned if I can figure out how to change it, to make the school experience more equitable for all kids.

Thank you Sven, I appreciate the support more than I can express.

Rebecca West wrote:

There is something deeply wrong in our public school system, and I'm damned if I can figure out how to change it, to make the school experience more equitable for all kids.

Indeed. It might never be equitable but we need to think outside the box and not treat education as a cookie-cutter template factory.

To the topic, it's not binary and neither are we. It's complex, like how DNA was quite complex. So many different strands.

Rebecca West wrote:

There is something deeply wrong in our public school system, and I'm damned if I can figure out how to change it, to make the school experience more equitable for all kids.

It doesn't help that the climate and the problems vary from school to school and division to division. 

From what I've seen of schools, classes, and school boards, I put at least part of it down to a combination of a process that is stressful to begin with, thinly-stretched resources, and that action often comes down to reacting to the squeakiest wheel, or going with the flow of what dominates the community.

I am happy where ours are now, but am still holding it in the back of my mind that I will pull either or both of them rather than have them in an unbearable situation. There are enough kids killing themselves over shit like that.

Just so you know, I wasn't trying to cast any blame. I know it is not always possible - and especially not if someone lives out in the country in a place where there is nowhere to run to. 

Also, I had a bit of an eyeopener a few years ago, while I was doing playground supervision - one kid seriously acting out, and playing like he was shooting a longgun. He was starting to get in the faces of some other kids, and then I saw from how they were smirking that they were the ones teasing him into a frenzy. A teacher who obviously was familiar with the situation gave them a talking to, and took him inside to cool off. 

He seems a lot better this year, and from what I can see is a nice, if overy-sensitive kid, but it was still a blood-chilling moment I will not forget.

I agree with Halq. its rude to not ask "why did they say what they did?" oh they're crazy lets censure them

its hardly out of line to follow your own feelings in good faith; its very unlikely an individual is responsible for offending themselves and it is the offended party's feelings that matter on the books our own legislation rather than the intent of the offender(s)

it seems exceeding ironic that the followup posts deal with situations where the 'acting out' child is the victim, I can imagine the 'behavioral' classmate is in survival mode all the time and could easily mistake intent or feel alienation and shame afterwards when they made that mistake in the heat of the moment

@ ryanw

Sorry, but I don't see how your comments relate at all to what either Rebecca or Halq'emeleyem said. It's not just that you are spinning it differently; I think you will have to explain it again so that I even get what you are refering to. I actually scrolled up the whole page to make sure there wasn't another comment I had missed.

H made an accusation that was not based on anything she said at all, and amped it up with a very offensive, very personal insult, It was unnecessary, and no, I don't agree with it. 

and @ Slumberjack

Well yes, but there is a proactive, supportive (to all concerned) way of doing that, and there is a boneheaded, self-interested, and unfair way to do it. 

Yes, ministries  boards and administration and principals sometimes do things in a bubble, not thinking or caring about the impact. 

And no, zero tolerance doesn't always work, and not just in the classroom. When our neighbour was hauled off by the cops on the word of her violent and abusive husband because she slammed a door, and unable to make any sort of charge because he called the cops first, I think there was some cause to question whether zero tolerance is always applied in a sensible way, despite the good intentions of those who made the rule.

Sven, the standardized testing is more an issue in the US.  I don't think we really use them the same way up here.  Really, it's more about completion rates for high school.

About zero tolerance policies and bullying - One of the things that came up for us in the bullying situation was that acting in self-defense is something adults are allowed to do and is actually permissable under criminal law, but under a zero tolerance policy on the playground, no such allowance is made.  It's a policy that expects children to show more restraint than we would from any adult.  It's a peculiar idea.  I can see it working in a situation where you have two students equally matched in size and strength and social power and it's just a "takes two to tango" situation, but when applied to bullying or difference in size, power differential, etc, is simply unworkable and unreasonable.  It also means that you don't have to bring in any supports for kids at risk for worse behaviours and troubles later on when they start bullying. 

Is the issue really about "zeros" or about a failing grade?  And is it about individual assignments or the grade for the whole course?

I assume it is about failure for the entire course,  Otherwise you just give the kid, I don't know, a 37 or something and get on with your other dozens of assignments. But the cited research talks specifically about "zeros". Weird.

In my university program, a zero (or F) guarantees an automatic rewrite, where a D does not.  Every year I struggle with the choice.

Our public schools have to few resources and they keep diminishing in BC.  My oldest son needed a SEA to be able to attend at regular schools.  He is still non verbal but he is a fairly happy 32 year old man living in a small group home.  I have too many stories to relate about teachers and others allowing and sometimes perpetrating violence towards him.  Restraints were the least of it. In past generations in Canada most developmentally different children were subject to residential schools where they were subjected to various forms of violent assault.  Like all places with large numbers of marginalized children those schools were a magnet for pedophiles. It makes me seriously sad to contemplate the abuses that those kids suffered given what I know about the abuse heaped on my son. Being non verbal is a trait that increases human vulnerability exponentially.  While many people will not talk for fear of reprisal it has always seemed to me that the fact he couldn't say anything empowered some of the SEA's and teachers to take their frustrations out on him.

All children deserve to go to the same schools but in an atmosphere where they are treated as member of the school community.  The more children get to interact with others who in the past would have been relegated to our Special Schools the more that our society has a chance to get beyond the differences to the similarities that we all share but that takes resources.

My youngest son, who is at UBC now, came to me at the end of Grade 4 and asked to go into the late French immersion program at another school.  At the time he was in the neighbourhood community based school that I thought was a great school.  Since he has grown up and we talk as adults he has told me that he was being bullied at the school and that was the reason he wanted to go into French Immersion. I would have rated the school as excellent including its in-place anti-bullying programs and could never figure out why my seemingly slacker son wanted to jump into a more difficult program.  Turns out he just wanted to change schools rather than get involved with the process of complaining about being picked on.

We have major problems in our schools and the no zero policy, one way or the other, is not one of them.

Halq did nothing personal to anyone. It's not as if there was a direct quote at an individual member; promoting a discussion from all angles is hard to do when theres a sudden circling of the wagons which ignores Halq's concern entirely.

 It was perhaps a general accusation that the tone of the discussion was heading in a NIMBY direction, what relevance does a student having "documented behavioral problems" have to the subject of bullying as a whole? Fear? ignorance? labels are a very powerful tool for control in society

 as if to say I'd much prefer my kids be bullied by someone without documented behavioral problems thank you very much

and "not seeing how something relates" is pretty much what prompted Halq to address the group in the manner they did

@ Smith:  Heard about the auditor's report, but the link where the Minister of Education is quoted confirms some thinking I've had for a couple of months.  You're aware of the cuts to incentives for film and tv, so we'll be losing the major part of an industry of skilled and educated cultural industry workers.  A lot of the back and forth between industry reps and the government have had a kind of scary theme - they know they're making us unable to compete on the national scene, but they seem to think most of us will just shunt into jobs in the resource sector.  Greg Fingas wrote an opinion piece for the Leader Post that sort of encapsulated it for me:  http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Film+credit+part+bigger+story/6377058/story.html

We've had another couple of proposals in front of them and things haven't really changed.  In a year I will be leaving Saskatchewan, unfortunately.

There seems to be a concerted effort to not only stream current labour into a narrow sector of the economy, but future labour.  We are training up kids to fill those roles, but not investing in other roles that foster diversity (economic and cultural) that gives a place a better quality of life.  Really, the interest here doesn't seem to be educating anyone beyond the point of being able to work the rigs or potash mines or in the service industries.  They certainly don't want educated voices complicating their conservative, resource-based utopia.

Timebandit wrote:

My thinking is that there is a curriculum, and there are standards and you have to give the teachers the supports they need to reach those standards.

With respect to this particular point, I think the question is: How does one know whether or not those standards are being met?  How is performance against those standards measured or assessed?  And, how is that assessment then communicated to parents and other interested people in the community?

Timebandit wrote:

Sven, I don't have a short answer to those questions.  However, with the US's use of standardized tests to address those issues and the current abysmal state of public education in the US, I'm pretty sure we can rule out standardized testing as a solution.

Diane Ravitch wrote an excellent book (2010) focused, in part, on standardized testing ("The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education").  After reading her book, I was still left with the unanswered question: How are schools best assessed?

I think the problem with standardized tests is that some people want to use them as the only measure of excellence.  I think they can be very useful tools but an assessment of a school should not be solely based on standardized test (some significant amount of weight should be assigned to such tests but other factors should be assessed as well).  The unanswered question (for me, at least) is what are those other factors and how would they be assessed?

I can digest that there's feelings on both sides

do you see it the same way? or is everything crap?

certainly tough talk by marginalized groups are framed as extreme, as the rawness of the demands are exceedingly uncomfortable to consider

for First Nations in particular I remember they had a prominent political leader in David Ahenakew who made alot of honest, feeling-charged statements concerning history in Canada and abroad. And he was destroyed for saying if he had the power; he would reverse the fortunes of his people and wiped out those that had inflicted so much suffering, for so long. The immigrants.

we can rewind a bit and go back to talking about persons being in survival mode and debate whether or not those persons should be bound by the expectations of others for maintaining polite decorum when appealing for understanding in some manner.