I've got Stop Homework in my Google Reader and there was a link in the post today to this article about why teachers shouldn't give a zero for an F in the 100 point system. And I have to say, ummmm, you missed the point a bit.
The authors agree that a 0 for an F in a typical 4-point GPA scale makes sense and I agree. But then they say that because it is ten points from A to B, B to C, and C to D in the 10 point/100 point scale often used in schools*, that it should be 10 points from D to F. The reason being that A is to B as 90 is to 80. I disagree.
The 4-point GPA scale is an attempt at a proportional scale. The 100 point scale isn't. I've always understood that the idea behind the 100 point scale is the "grade" represents the percentage of the information the student learned. If you answer 90% of the questions right on a test than you get a "90" and and "A"; if you earn 85% of the points, you get an "85" and a "B". (There is debate about whether mastering 70-79% of the material is truly "average" and deserving of a "C" but that's another question all together.) If you master only 50% of the information on a test then you are, or have been, considered failing with respect to that material. So is correctly answering 40%, or 22.5%, or 5% of the questions. It is very possible to earn less than 50% of the points on a given assignment.
There are problems with this system. A very low grade on one test can make it harder to pull one's grade up with later test scores (20, 70, and 90 give an average of 60, while 50, 70, and 90 give an average of 70) but if the goal is for the final grade to somehow represent the amount of information learned (particularly versus the amount instructed) than the 20 shouldn't become a 50 to maintain the proportionality of the letter grades. There is also a problem when an assignment is given a letter grade and not a numerical grade; in that case 100, 90, 80,70, 60, 50, and 0 may be the only appropriate numerical grades. 100 would be for an assignment that far exceeds standards, 90 exceeds, etc. with the 50 for the assignments that completely fail to meet standards and a 0 for failure to do a the assignment. I don't have much problem giving zeros for failure to do an assignment.
When I taught, as best I can recall, never gave a zero except in the case of no assignment turned in or cheating. If a student attempted to do an in class or homework assignment (and by "attempted" I mean they turned something in that had more than just their name on it) than that student got some points.) With one class I would vary the grading from simply a completion grade, number correct, and half-and-half on classwork/homework assignments to actually get them to do the work rather than just write down random things and turn it in. (They didn't care about their grades as long as they didn't, at report card time, get an "F". Very frustrating.) With the other classes their classwork/homework grades were based on the number of correct answers. I gave partial credit. I worked hard to get my kids points but sometimes there just weren't any to be had.
The long and short of it is, IMHO, the GPA scale and the 100 point scale are trying to measure or represent two different things. One is reasonably proportional the other a percentage.
A little on my grading philosophy: I used a modified "point pot" system in that each classwork/homework assignment, test, lab, and quiz was assigned a point value, usually one or two points per question except labs which were 10 or 20 points each. I calculated averages for each category (classwork, tests, quizzes, labs) by dividing points earned by points possible, and then used those averages to calculate their grade by weighting tests and classwork equally (30% each) and quizzes and labs equally (20% each). If a student had a passing test or classwork grade they would not get an F, even if mathematically that was the grade calculated. I believe that if a kid tries, (i.e. does the classwork) he shouldn't get a failing grade and if a kid knows the material whether he does any classwork/homework at all, he should not get a failing grade. I might not have given the student exactly the same grade as the classwork or test grade but he was guaranteed not to fail (i.e. 90% test, 10% classwork, 90% quiz, 10% lab scores might get a 85/B instead of a 51. Never happened, so, moot point.) I also tried to make sure my tests were fair and while I usually didn't do a rigorous item analysis (hard to do with only 12 students, max, per subject) I did throw out questions and/or give points back for bad questions.
*Just a little aside- The school district I grew up in had a "hard" grading scale. 100-94 A/4, 93-90 B+/3.5, 90-84 B/3,...,63 and below F. When I moved to Alabama my two C+s became Bs and my numerous B+s became As, and did that ever help my GPA. But to this day a 63 is failing to me.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
07 January 2008
05 October 2007
Democracy or Republic?
A red herring in a comment made by Shadowhelm a while back, started me thinking about the different ways in which we can define our government. He said our government was not a democracy but a republic. My initial response was to think, "damn, everybody calls themselves a republic. What does that tell you?"
So it has been in the back of my brain to look up the definitions of 'republic' and 'democracy' as well as the different types that could apply to the United States of America. Since I don't feel like doing actual work this morning, I decided I'd look them up (using wikipedia and a couple of online dictionaries).
The word "republic" comes directly the French and its most basic meaning is a state in which supreme power rests in the people. There are some modification to this definition in modern usage making the best definition I've found to be: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Additionally, the head of state can not be a monarch, although the United Kingdom can, as a constitutional monarchy, be considered one type of republic. As you can already see, definitions of political systems can be complex and confusing.
The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek meaning rule of the common people. Key parts of the modern definitions include majority rule, free elections, and the power of the people. Most modern democracies are representational, where the power of the people is exercised by their representatives and not the individuals personally. Most people think of Athens as the first democracy but the Athenian government would probably not fit the description of a democracy by those same people. The number of "citizens" was relatively small (between 10-15% of all residents) and not all had the same vote. Additionally, Athens would be a direct democracy (if one at all) and most modern democracies are representational.
From my (not vast) reading the USA is a federal and constitutional republic. We can also be said to have a mixed government/constitution. Some other would say we are a capitalist republic (Marx's "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"), but those would be people who aren't fond of our economic system. In terms of democracies, we are a representative, or more specifically a liberal democracy. (Please note that almost all of the world's government's refer to them selves as republics and/or democracies, whether anyone else would define them as one or not.)
That brings an end to my lesson on types of governments. Regardless of how one names the government, a representational government requires an educated electorate or it will become an oligarchy, ruled by the those already in power and their hand picked successors.
So it has been in the back of my brain to look up the definitions of 'republic' and 'democracy' as well as the different types that could apply to the United States of America. Since I don't feel like doing actual work this morning, I decided I'd look them up (using wikipedia and a couple of online dictionaries).
The word "republic" comes directly the French and its most basic meaning is a state in which supreme power rests in the people. There are some modification to this definition in modern usage making the best definition I've found to be: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. Additionally, the head of state can not be a monarch, although the United Kingdom can, as a constitutional monarchy, be considered one type of republic. As you can already see, definitions of political systems can be complex and confusing.
The word "democracy" is derived from the Greek meaning rule of the common people. Key parts of the modern definitions include majority rule, free elections, and the power of the people. Most modern democracies are representational, where the power of the people is exercised by their representatives and not the individuals personally. Most people think of Athens as the first democracy but the Athenian government would probably not fit the description of a democracy by those same people. The number of "citizens" was relatively small (between 10-15% of all residents) and not all had the same vote. Additionally, Athens would be a direct democracy (if one at all) and most modern democracies are representational.
From my (not vast) reading the USA is a federal and constitutional republic. We can also be said to have a mixed government/constitution. Some other would say we are a capitalist republic (Marx's "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"), but those would be people who aren't fond of our economic system. In terms of democracies, we are a representative, or more specifically a liberal democracy. (Please note that almost all of the world's government's refer to them selves as republics and/or democracies, whether anyone else would define them as one or not.)
That brings an end to my lesson on types of governments. Regardless of how one names the government, a representational government requires an educated electorate or it will become an oligarchy, ruled by the those already in power and their hand picked successors.
30 August 2007
Safe Drinking Water is a Human Right.
There are a number of important things that need to be said about about Project M's latest project. Sarah and Honu-Girl have written about two of them; I'm going to talk a little about safe drinking water.
As you can see above, the United Nations realized in 1948 that clean water was a basic human right. It falls under "standard of living adequate for the health." It's right up there with being equal in dignity and under the law (OK, 24 and 17 articles later). Not only is everyone entitled to clean water but children are entitled to special care.
In 2005, some celebrities got together and had Live8 and amongst the concerts there were short speeches and PSAs. The ones I remember involved the statistic that every 8 seconds someone dies due to poverty. I went to a talk a few years ago about the mission Living Waters for the World and the speaker said every 22 minutes someone dies due to lack of clean water. Every 22 minutes - while on your lunch-hour, 3 preventable deaths will occur due to lack of safe drinking water. I've read about the UN and WHO pushing breast feeding because in areas without clean water or where aid is sparse babies die because of their formula is tainted or diluted. These are scary and depressing things. They should also be a rallying cry.
The average American has the one of the highest standard of living in the world and yet there are people without drinking water. Here, a few miles from where I sit now. There are programs to make sure a person's power (and, in some areas, gas) isn't cut off in mid-winter, but I've never heard of one for water. The manager of the water system I'm on has been known to go out and fix a leaky faucet after hours so a family will have a manageable water bill but he's one person at a small water rural water system. Does anyone do this for residents in the City? I don't know.
So many people pay through the nose for bottled water to avoid the "chemicals" in city water. They are avoiding primarily the chlorine-taste and fluoride for their teeth; there are a handful of other chemicals add in extremely small amounts, which are to the best of our knowledge safe. Many more have filters on their taps (a much more cost effective option). The lead, if it is there at all, that the filters remove is almost always from the pipes in the house. (Still a problem but not with the city's water.) Yes, some places have very funky tasting water (Houston), and I can understand wanting to filter it but it is safe to drink. Millions of Americans would love to have funky tasting water, as long as it was always there when they turned on the tap and wouldn't make them sick.
I live about 3 miles north of Hale County, Alabama. I have known children who live in abject poverty in Tuscaloosa, Hale, and Greene counties (Hale and Greene are among the poorest in the nation). I have seen communities like Mason's Bend and felt helpless to effect change and embarrassed by my wealth. I have done some to help raise children from these depths of poverty, but not enough. To be honest, I've never thought about ways to help people in Hale Co. get on city water.
It is easy to get caught up in keeping up with the Joneses. Easy to measure one's own wealth and standard of living against others like oneself. It is hard to remember we pass people everyday who would love to have much of what we take for granted.
I once heard an educated, generally well-meaning Tuscaloosan ask "Am I'm rich because I had steak this month?" and I didn't respond. Allow me to respond, now.
If you are reading this on your own computer, then you are rich. If you had steak this month and didn't have to butcher your own cow to get it, you are rich. If you didn't worry about the water you rinsed your mouth out with after brushing your teeth this morning, you are rich.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
As you can see above, the United Nations realized in 1948 that clean water was a basic human right. It falls under "standard of living adequate for the health." It's right up there with being equal in dignity and under the law (OK, 24 and 17 articles later). Not only is everyone entitled to clean water but children are entitled to special care.
In 2005, some celebrities got together and had Live8 and amongst the concerts there were short speeches and PSAs. The ones I remember involved the statistic that every 8 seconds someone dies due to poverty. I went to a talk a few years ago about the mission Living Waters for the World and the speaker said every 22 minutes someone dies due to lack of clean water. Every 22 minutes - while on your lunch-hour, 3 preventable deaths will occur due to lack of safe drinking water. I've read about the UN and WHO pushing breast feeding because in areas without clean water or where aid is sparse babies die because of their formula is tainted or diluted. These are scary and depressing things. They should also be a rallying cry.
The average American has the one of the highest standard of living in the world and yet there are people without drinking water. Here, a few miles from where I sit now. There are programs to make sure a person's power (and, in some areas, gas) isn't cut off in mid-winter, but I've never heard of one for water. The manager of the water system I'm on has been known to go out and fix a leaky faucet after hours so a family will have a manageable water bill but he's one person at a small water rural water system. Does anyone do this for residents in the City? I don't know.
So many people pay through the nose for bottled water to avoid the "chemicals" in city water. They are avoiding primarily the chlorine-taste and fluoride for their teeth; there are a handful of other chemicals add in extremely small amounts, which are to the best of our knowledge safe. Many more have filters on their taps (a much more cost effective option). The lead, if it is there at all, that the filters remove is almost always from the pipes in the house. (Still a problem but not with the city's water.) Yes, some places have very funky tasting water (Houston), and I can understand wanting to filter it but it is safe to drink. Millions of Americans would love to have funky tasting water, as long as it was always there when they turned on the tap and wouldn't make them sick.
I live about 3 miles north of Hale County, Alabama. I have known children who live in abject poverty in Tuscaloosa, Hale, and Greene counties (Hale and Greene are among the poorest in the nation). I have seen communities like Mason's Bend and felt helpless to effect change and embarrassed by my wealth. I have done some to help raise children from these depths of poverty, but not enough. To be honest, I've never thought about ways to help people in Hale Co. get on city water.
It is easy to get caught up in keeping up with the Joneses. Easy to measure one's own wealth and standard of living against others like oneself. It is hard to remember we pass people everyday who would love to have much of what we take for granted.
I once heard an educated, generally well-meaning Tuscaloosan ask "Am I'm rich because I had steak this month?" and I didn't respond. Allow me to respond, now.
If you are reading this on your own computer, then you are rich. If you had steak this month and didn't have to butcher your own cow to get it, you are rich. If you didn't worry about the water you rinsed your mouth out with after brushing your teeth this morning, you are rich.
09 August 2007
Public, Private, or Home?
Often I read a blog and I want to comment but my thoughts are too scattered and/or too many to put in a comment. This is one of those times.
Shadowhelm and his wife are considering homeschooling their child. I think this is a mistake. Not because I know better for their child; they know her best and are the only ones competent to decide. I just think homeschooling is a mistake, in general. I'm not a fan of private schools either. (I am also having trouble with the part of me that completely understands not wanting to put a child into a public school system in Alabama** arguing with the part of me that thinks public schools are the only way to go.)
My primary problem with homeschooling is, "is the parent staying home a certified teacher in the appropriate grade(s)?" If not, then why the hell do you think you can teach your child? Homeschoolers must now be enrolled in a recognized program, many of which are internet based, that procribes the cirriculum and provides tests. The actual teaching of the material falls to the parent. I have a Master's degree in a physical science and I'm pretty darn sure I don't know enough to teach anything but science above the 3rd grade. (For example knowing grammar and using it appropriately does mean I can explain it.)
A related question to the above is, "Is the parent (usually the mother, but not always) prepared to spend all day everyday at home with said child/children?" There is no shame is admitting that one was not cut out to be a stay-at-home mom. It doesn't mean one doesn't love one's children or loves work more; it just means that one is not cut out to be with one's children 24 hours a day. There is also a difference between being a mom and being a teacher (yes, parents are constantly teaching thier children but it isn't quite the same as being a teacher.); for some I'm sure the two roles are completely intertwined for others the roles won't be. Just because one works with kids all day, or is even a teacher, does not mean that one is the best teacher for one's own kids. I know several mothers who teach at a daycare but can not teach in their childrens' rooms, the dynamic is just not right.
Another big problem with homeschooling is the social isolation of the student. School offers social situations encountered in few other settings. Learning to interact with other people, whether one likes them or not, is an important skill. Homeschooling groups, who organize fieldtrips, sports teams, and other extra-curricular activities, can help with the socialzation skills but since many of the other homeschoolers are coming from similar backgrounds there is little diversity. An added problem is that if the homeschool groups are made up of primarialy one subset of homeschoolers (i.e. people who homeschool for religous reasons) then other homeschoolers may not feel welcome, further reducing the diversity. And diversity is important for its own sake. Children need to learn how to get along with anyone they meet; they don't have to be best freinds with everyone but they do have to get along.
Private schools are better. There is the social interaction, trained and (hopefully) qualified teachers, extra-curricular activities, and a break for Mom and Dad. Private schools, however, usually don't offer much in the way of diversity. Most private schools are filled with middle-middle class to upper-middle class. The really expensice ones have the upper-class kids. Private school kids never have a classmate who only has three outfits to wear to school or whose parents can never make the PTA meeting because they have to work. Most private schools have scholarships for very bright students and good atheletes. Some private schools offer a cirriculum only slightly more challenging than the public schools (this varies greatly with location) and have less qualified teachers. (Please note that I do not think lack of state certification automatically means unqualified.) If public school teachers teach because they love it, private school teachers are simply insane. In Alabama at least, private schools pay less and offer little if no benefits (other than great unpaid vacations!). This can make it difficult to retain top-notch teachers that often have the choice to go to the public schools.
A couple of comments directly to Shadowhelm: No one strives for adequecy; that is a term developed for a law that mandates all kinds of stupid measurements of schools and students and has little to do with actual learning. I'm sorry your 12th grade History teacher wasn't creative enough to have assignments to challenge all the students. No one who goes into education wants to hold students back; not everyone will have the ability to help every student but they all have (or possibly had, before burnout) the desire to help. Last but not least, I find it hard to take your interest in your daughter's education too seriously since you admit your wife does the investigating and you just say 'sounds good'.
Where to send one's child to school is a complicated decision for people who can afford options. One's local public schools may not be very good but they provide a level of diversity (SES and racially) not found in most private schools. Private schools MAY provide a better education but are expensive, often require parental volunteering, and usually don't provide transportation to and from school. By homeschooling one can insure that one's values are taught to one's child and no others but then the child is isolated from peers and other adults and is denied the presence of a qualified teacher (with rare exceptions).
I'd like to comment breifly on a topic Shadowhelm touched on in another post with a link to Neal Boortz - communal school supplies. To me, it sounds like Boortz is saying that public schools are a communist plot. BULLSHIT. Democracies require an informed electorate and therefore must have some level of public education. The issue of having indivual parents purchase supplies (this can run from a box of crayons for the class' art supplies to paper towels and surface cleaner) is an issue of funding. When I went to school (and this is probably still true there) students didn't have to buy the school's supplies. There was a supply room that contained supplys. Today in many underfunded school system there isn't a supply room. Not only is every student expected to have his own glue stick but to bring a large bottle of glue to share with the class because the school can't buy these things. This is not, as Boortz asserts, a war on the idea of private property but a consequence of the poor funding of schools. The light bill has to be paid so money for the teachers to buy construction paper doesn't exist. I also suspect that most of the time the list is clear as to what the student needs for herself and what is being bought for the class. If there isn't a distinction, there should be. Because who can forget the joy that was a brand new pencil, eraser, and your own box of 16 perfect crayons?
*Sorry, Sarah, education trumps smut. I may still get around to putting down my thoughts on that. Thanks for the tag.;)
**baby Sis started 4th grade last week at a Tuscaloosa Co. school. Mom says "YEA!"
Shadowhelm and his wife are considering homeschooling their child. I think this is a mistake. Not because I know better for their child; they know her best and are the only ones competent to decide. I just think homeschooling is a mistake, in general. I'm not a fan of private schools either. (I am also having trouble with the part of me that completely understands not wanting to put a child into a public school system in Alabama** arguing with the part of me that thinks public schools are the only way to go.)
My primary problem with homeschooling is, "is the parent staying home a certified teacher in the appropriate grade(s)?" If not, then why the hell do you think you can teach your child? Homeschoolers must now be enrolled in a recognized program, many of which are internet based, that procribes the cirriculum and provides tests. The actual teaching of the material falls to the parent. I have a Master's degree in a physical science and I'm pretty darn sure I don't know enough to teach anything but science above the 3rd grade. (For example knowing grammar and using it appropriately does mean I can explain it.)
A related question to the above is, "Is the parent (usually the mother, but not always) prepared to spend all day everyday at home with said child/children?" There is no shame is admitting that one was not cut out to be a stay-at-home mom. It doesn't mean one doesn't love one's children or loves work more; it just means that one is not cut out to be with one's children 24 hours a day. There is also a difference between being a mom and being a teacher (yes, parents are constantly teaching thier children but it isn't quite the same as being a teacher.); for some I'm sure the two roles are completely intertwined for others the roles won't be. Just because one works with kids all day, or is even a teacher, does not mean that one is the best teacher for one's own kids. I know several mothers who teach at a daycare but can not teach in their childrens' rooms, the dynamic is just not right.
Another big problem with homeschooling is the social isolation of the student. School offers social situations encountered in few other settings. Learning to interact with other people, whether one likes them or not, is an important skill. Homeschooling groups, who organize fieldtrips, sports teams, and other extra-curricular activities, can help with the socialzation skills but since many of the other homeschoolers are coming from similar backgrounds there is little diversity. An added problem is that if the homeschool groups are made up of primarialy one subset of homeschoolers (i.e. people who homeschool for religous reasons) then other homeschoolers may not feel welcome, further reducing the diversity. And diversity is important for its own sake. Children need to learn how to get along with anyone they meet; they don't have to be best freinds with everyone but they do have to get along.
Private schools are better. There is the social interaction, trained and (hopefully) qualified teachers, extra-curricular activities, and a break for Mom and Dad. Private schools, however, usually don't offer much in the way of diversity. Most private schools are filled with middle-middle class to upper-middle class. The really expensice ones have the upper-class kids. Private school kids never have a classmate who only has three outfits to wear to school or whose parents can never make the PTA meeting because they have to work. Most private schools have scholarships for very bright students and good atheletes. Some private schools offer a cirriculum only slightly more challenging than the public schools (this varies greatly with location) and have less qualified teachers. (Please note that I do not think lack of state certification automatically means unqualified.) If public school teachers teach because they love it, private school teachers are simply insane. In Alabama at least, private schools pay less and offer little if no benefits (other than great unpaid vacations!). This can make it difficult to retain top-notch teachers that often have the choice to go to the public schools.
A couple of comments directly to Shadowhelm: No one strives for adequecy; that is a term developed for a law that mandates all kinds of stupid measurements of schools and students and has little to do with actual learning. I'm sorry your 12th grade History teacher wasn't creative enough to have assignments to challenge all the students. No one who goes into education wants to hold students back; not everyone will have the ability to help every student but they all have (or possibly had, before burnout) the desire to help. Last but not least, I find it hard to take your interest in your daughter's education too seriously since you admit your wife does the investigating and you just say 'sounds good'.
Where to send one's child to school is a complicated decision for people who can afford options. One's local public schools may not be very good but they provide a level of diversity (SES and racially) not found in most private schools. Private schools MAY provide a better education but are expensive, often require parental volunteering, and usually don't provide transportation to and from school. By homeschooling one can insure that one's values are taught to one's child and no others but then the child is isolated from peers and other adults and is denied the presence of a qualified teacher (with rare exceptions).
I'd like to comment breifly on a topic Shadowhelm touched on in another post with a link to Neal Boortz - communal school supplies. To me, it sounds like Boortz is saying that public schools are a communist plot. BULLSHIT. Democracies require an informed electorate and therefore must have some level of public education. The issue of having indivual parents purchase supplies (this can run from a box of crayons for the class' art supplies to paper towels and surface cleaner) is an issue of funding. When I went to school (and this is probably still true there) students didn't have to buy the school's supplies. There was a supply room that contained supplys. Today in many underfunded school system there isn't a supply room. Not only is every student expected to have his own glue stick but to bring a large bottle of glue to share with the class because the school can't buy these things. This is not, as Boortz asserts, a war on the idea of private property but a consequence of the poor funding of schools. The light bill has to be paid so money for the teachers to buy construction paper doesn't exist. I also suspect that most of the time the list is clear as to what the student needs for herself and what is being bought for the class. If there isn't a distinction, there should be. Because who can forget the joy that was a brand new pencil, eraser, and your own box of 16 perfect crayons?
*Sorry, Sarah, education trumps smut. I may still get around to putting down my thoughts on that. Thanks for the tag.;)
**baby Sis started 4th grade last week at a Tuscaloosa Co. school. Mom says "YEA!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
